Theists truly bother me

[VertexSquared]

EDIT: Well technically I think you could use some pretty whacked bases, one sec.

 

Technically you could write it as a terminating expansion using a countable infinity number of bases.

 

It depends on how you define "Rational" numbers. In base 10, a number is irrational when you cannot express it as a ratio a/b where a and b are both integers. In base pi, for instance, we can represent pi as 10:

 

1*(pi^1) + 0*(pi^0) = 10 base pi

 

But in the ratio sense, we'd need 10 base pi = a/b base pi, but then this means we'd need to use irrational numbers under base 10 for this ratio.

 

Again though, at any rate, it all depends on the system you use. If we used base pi, for instance, we'd get some ugly representations for our standard system (0-3 would be the same in base pi, but then 4 would be an infinite expansion, etc).

Edited June 29, 2010 by VertexSquared

[Ronni_W]

Technically you could write it as a terminating expansion using a countable infinity number of bases, but they're all technically irrational by nature.

Yeah...that's the thing, see? And what I love about it. The source insists, "Pi expressed in base-12 is NOT an irrational number."

 

To me, it has something to do with the limitations of the human brain, to the point to which it has evolved. I think we're due for some more evolution; evolutionary improvements or adjustments or fine-tuning. Whatever...but something. I honestly don't think we're done yet. I think there is more to be perceived but the human brain is just not evolved enough yet.

 

I think most humans would absolutely reject that notion but, personally, I am perfectly fine being a "work in progress" on that level. Still doesn't change anything important about me (or, the 'me' that my consciousness is aware of and my currently-evolved brain can perceive, at any rate.)

Edited June 29, 2010 by Ronni_W

[VertexSquared]

I was actually incorrect when I wrote that and had to edit it out. It depends on how we define a number to be irrational. It doesn't change the actual "quantity" that the number represents. It's just a different way of writing it. The problem is that making one number more convenient to write makes almost everything else incredibly difficult to re-adjust to.

 

If we write pi in a base that makes it terminating, we have to consider the definition of what a rational number is. It isn't as simple as "terminating." It's just that terminating numbers in base 10 can be represented by a/b in base 10. If we make pi a terminating number in another base, we're changing other numbers, too.

 

Consider the hypotenuse of a 45-45-90 triangle. The hypot. has a coefficient of rad 2, but we could re-write the base to make it terminating. It's still the same length. We're just writing it differently. It's a natural and unavoidable limitation of using ANY base system.

[VertexSquared]

Yeah...that's the thing, see? And what I love about it. The source insists, "Pi expressed in base-12 is NOT an irrational number."

 

To me, it has something to do with the limitations of the human brain, to the point to which it has evolved. I think we're due for some more evolution; evolutionary improvements or adjustments or fine-tuning. Whatever...but something. I honestly don't think we're done yet. I think there is more to be perceived but the human brain is just not evolved enough yet.

 

I think most humans would absolutely reject that notion but, personally, I am perfectly fine being a "work in progress" on that level. Still doesn't change anything important about me (or, the 'me' that my consciousness is aware of and my currently-evolved brain can perceive, at any rate.)

 

Of, of course -- as long as we continue reproducing, we'll always be evolving and adapting to our environment. But the number base issue is not a good example to use in this context because it's all a matter of definition and terminology. "Irrational numbers" are written with respect to its base. It doesn't change what quantity those numbers refer to. I can write any number however I want using any base I choose. It just means all the corresponding math/systems/etc need to be adjusted to fit the language. It has nothing to do with the limitations of the human brain.

[Ronni_W]

You're right, of course. The source is clear about that, as well -- the 'quantity' stays the same. It calls pi "one of the most profound equations that" humans have, and I think the article is intended to help us (scientists and physicists) question the usefulness and value to us (humanity), of that equation, in the form in which we're currently and commonly choosing to express it.

 

Of, of course -- as long as we continue reproducing, we'll always be evolving and adapting to our environment. But the number base issue is not a good example to use in this context

And yes, again -- how pi is or is not expressed is not related to evolution. I was more saying that we can't (yet) 'see/perceive' pi as a rational number (even in base 12) because of evolution. Rather, because of a lack of evolution.

 

And I totally get if that statement doesn't make all that much sense, either. One might need to believe in "God the Scientist"

[VertexSquared]

You're right, of course. The source is clear about that, as well -- the 'quantity' stays the same. It calls pi "one of the most profound equations that" humans have, and I think the article is intended to help us (scientists and physicists) question the usefulness and value to us (humanity), of that equation, in the form in which we're currently and commonly choosing to express it.

 

 

And yes, again -- how pi is or is not expressed is not related to evolution. I was more saying that we can't (yet) 'see/perceive' pi as a rational number (even in base 12) because of evolution. Rather, because of a lack of evolution.

 

And I totally get if that statement doesn't make all that much sense, either. One might need to believe in "God the Scientist"

 

Do you mean "envisioning" discrete versus continuous numbers? Like we can envision what 1, 2, 3 "represent" or even down to halves, eights, sixteenths, etc, but not necessarily to the precision of "pi"?

[donnamaybe]

The thing that really bothers me about many folks is how they'll "use" bible scripture for their reasoning behind their hateful attitude towards, for example, gays, but then they'll COMPLETELY ignore other scriptures - for their convenience.

[VertexSquared]

The thing that really bothers me about many folks is how they'll "use" bible scripture for their reasoning behind their hateful attitude towards, for example, gays, but then they'll COMPLETELY ignore other scriptures - for their convenience.

 

This is another massive fallacy for those who use the Bible as their moral foundation. People will pick and choose the verses that apply to them and ignore the rest... without realizing that by doing this, they are evaluating those versus with a separate system of morality that is secular in nature.

[JamesM]

While this thread is getting way off topic and the posts are now on a different path than I am, I find I must make a few comments on some previous posts. Forgive my delinquency.

 

 

 

That is such a common mistake that it's making me angry just replying to this. Evolution IS a theory, but people misinterpret what that means.

 

True. On the other hand, we also need to realize that a theory is simply an explanation of a law or "fact" AS WE BEST DESCRIBE IT TODAY. And that is important. I know that as a young 20ish year old guy and being fresh out of grad school, you have alot of new education accumulated. But understand that twenty years ago, many of the ideas you have been indoctrinated with were not in existence or are contradicting what was taught back then.

 

Evolution is the same way. We *know* evolution took place, but we don't necessarily know *how* it took place at every point in time.

 

"We" have concluded based on the latest interpretation of the evidence that since evolution (or rather adaptation) within species takes place, "we" then can surmise how it might take place between families. "We" then use supporting evidences to uphold that conclusion.

 

Because we can see evolution and adaptation happening among bird beaks and bacteria, many extrapolate that to mean it must have happened to get the species we have. Because we see (or think we see) a new frog or butterfly, we extrapolate that to mean that this may be how new families evolved. True or not, this is not the same as the theory of gravity being tested and used as an explanation for the law of gravity.

 

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address the evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better.

 

Correct. Or you must show that the evidence was incorrectly interpreted.

 

Most Creationists will simply disregard the evidence, stick their fingers in their ears, and say "I don't care what evidence you have.

 

Or perhaps they (and by they we include many PhD scientists who also had your eduction and yet reached a different conclusion even when shown the evidences and theories that you were shown) objectively look at evolutionism and say,"This evidence needs to be interpreted differently." And they have done that.

 

BTW, you jumped from theists to creationists. Not all theists are creationists by far. Many are evolutionists.

 

Of course, if you're always going to just assume that God is outside of science, then there's no point in us discussing this.

 

Actually, since evolution by definition does NOT explain how life began, then it does not address that issue. And if it is assumed that God created everything, then God created science. And someone who makes/creates something is outside of its creation.

 

Might as well address this, too, while I'm at it.

 

Gravity is not only a fact for Earth. It's a law.

 

Ironically, we rarely hear physicists saying that the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution. Why? Because they really don't see that as a good benchmark for comparison.

 

The theory of gravity has been tested and tested and tested and tested and....well, you get the picture. Has the theory of evolution been tested? Can we show from tests that a "lower order species" will evolve into a "higher order species" and from one family into another family?

 

While there may be evidences that seem to support the theory of evolution, it is not really a good thing to compare it to the theory of gravity.

 

 

Creationism and evolution don't mix well together at all, because evolution is basically a theory that describes NATURAL changes without the need for a creator.

 

First of all, a creator by definition creates something. And most creationists do not say that once created, every creature, etc. remains the same. Adaptation to environment within a species is seen. Creationists would argue that this by itself cannot be used as a way to explain how an amoeba became a man.

 

I have been told over and over by reputable evolutionists and atheists that evolution does not explain how life began. Abiogenesis does. And I have read numerous books by theists who explain how evolution is part of how God made the world.

 

Important to note....evolution by itself does not take away the need for a creator because the evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain how life began. (Even if you read Charles Darwin, you will see that he makes this point.)

 

Separating these two issues is important to the discussion.

 

If macroevolution is untrue, for instance, then Creationism would imply that everything wasn't created in one sitting since we've been getting new species all the time for billions of years.

 

You are saying as fact what has only been interpreted as theory. Not saying one way or the other, but two assumptions are made in this paragraph....(1) we have been getting new species...and not changes within species (ie. a different kind of frog) and (2) there have been billions of years.

 

Many creationists would say that God created and then adaptation occurred. Many also do not say that the world is billions of years old. And many do. But getting new species does not mean getting new families, orders, classes, or phylum. Most creationists would agree that new species occur. They would only disagree in that God created the original creatures that have adapted and "evolved" over time.

 

Evolution does not eliminate the need for a god.

 

Oh, and another assumption is made. Creationists do not say that all creatures are now as created. However, they would say that all kinds/species were created. In other words, all changes since creation were within species and not between species. And again by that, I mean that we have not seen a change that resulted in a frog being anything other than a frog.

 

Except that we know how these new species arise from generation to generation,

 

No, even if true, we have not seen this happen between families. We may have seen adaptation within species and extrapolated it to also mean that it happens between families, but we do not know.

 

Creationism is just so absurd that it literally doesn't hold any intellectual merit. Most people who believe in Creationism simply don't have all the facts/evidence that evolution has given us.

 

Read some intelligent books on the subject and you may at least get a better perspective. But even if you do not, I would like to point out that "most people who believe in" evolutionism not only do not have all of the facts and evidences, but they simply believe what is told to them in college without actually sitting back and saying, "What if this is completely wrong?"

 

Most simply accept it as "fact" without realizing that the theory of evolution canNOT be compared to the theory of gravity.

 

If you're going to deny evolution, you should also be equally willing, intellectually, to accept the Stork and Flatland theories. We don't need those theories to explain anything because we have systems that do it for us that are full of support and are consistent. Evolution is, again, no different.

 

Yes it is. As you mention, it has been seen that the earth is round. It has been seen and tested that Storks do not deliver babies. However, it has not been seen or tested that men and monkeys evolved from the same ape like creature. In fact, we have not even found the fossils of that creature...who may or may not exist.

 

 

 

 

Atheists will use words like "nonsense", and "idiocy" for the simple reason that the vast majority of the creationists who they encounter haven't the foggiest idea of the difference between the word theory as it is used in lay terms, and scientific theory, as it is used when coupled with terms like Gravitational Theory, the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Evolution.

 

 

Sadly, most evolutionists do not understand the creationist explanation nor do they understand the evidences that are used to explain evolutionism.

 

Most simply accept what they have been told in college and carry it throughout life. This indoctrination causes them to forsake the idea of a God and hence it limits them...as much as they say a theist is limited.

 

My point is....and hopefully, some have made it this far... , while the theory of evolution is the best natural explanation given thus far (and because no theory is even considered which considers a Creator as this is not a natural explanation), it still may not be the actual explanation. To adamantly hold to this and scorn all others is an intellectual mistake IMO.

 

Personally, I do enjoy looking at all possibilities. While I believe that their is substantial reasons to believe that a Creator began this world, I also cannot say which is the best explanation as to HOW the world was created and then continued. To what extent did it evolve over how long of a period of time?

 

 

What I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the academic and scientific communities change constantly. What is held up today as fact is many times put down with scorn tomorrow. For me to bet my life and future on that which may be shown to be completely false after I am dead and gone would be utter foolishness. For me to scorn that which may be shown to be respectable after I am dead and gone may be my personal downfall.

[JamesM]

The thing that really bothers me about many folks is how they'll "use" bible scripture for their reasoning behind their hateful attitude towards, for example, gays, but then they'll COMPLETELY ignore other scriptures - for their convenience.

 

I agree.

 

It is one thing to use the Bible as a grounds for beliefs. It is another thing to use the Bible to condone personal hatreds and attitudes.

[Ronni_W]

Do you mean "envisioning" discrete versus continuous numbers? Like we can envision what 1, 2, 3 "represent" or even down to halves, eights, sixteenths, etc, but not necessarily to the precision of "pi"?

To be honest, half (or 90%) of the stuff from this source is more scientific/technical than I can wrap my tiny brain around. In this case, though, it was about actually working with pi, as a rational number, in science/physics formulae and experiments. Essentially that expressing pi in base-10 is a mathematically under-developed thing to do, and doing it limits our discoveries and advancements -- we will make the same discoveries and progress (of course) but it will just take eons longer.

 

Of course, though, we're still stuck at the point where "base-12 pi" is an irrational number -- we first need to make some discovery or advancement about that

[TheLoneSock]

Perhaps the fact that they are "leaving" has nothing to do with your alleged "ironclad" arguments but instead with your ironclad attitude that doesn't respectfully consider their view points.

 

Having debated numerous atheists, I can say that there is a big different between an atheist who can respectfully consider viewpoints differing from his or her own and an atheist who simply considers any theist ignorant and blind.

 

As was said by Ronni, you may be leaving the same impression with the theists and they decide that rather than get into an all out fight/debate which is counterproductive, they instead simply walk away. It is not because you are "dismantling" their beliefs, but it is because they recognize that any discussion will be futile.

 

This ^^^

 

To me, "respectfully acknowledging other viewpoints" is like trying to entertain the notion that 1+1=3. It's just full of contradiction and error. It's usually always due to dismantling (usually in the form of unveiling the fact that the theist is not familiar with evolution, the implications with respect to events like abiogenesis, quantum mechanics, and so forth).

 

Lol well aren't you just a shining beacon of logic and understanding. Those ridiculous, ignorant believers should never cross words with you, else you'll crush them in debate and 'dismantle' their entire belief system! You are that powerful!

 

[Ronni_W]

While this thread is getting way off topic

I'm actually very much ON topic, James.

It depends on one's beliefs, philosophies and understandings, perhaps? But I am still very much aware of the topic, and I am still very much engaged in conversation about how theists come across to atheists, and atheists come across to theists.

 

That is, for me, science, physics and mathematics are part of such discussions. I get that it's my personal thing, and I get that I may well be the only one on the planet. Which, I'm not...but I hope you know what I mean.

[JamesM]

I'm actually very much ON topic, James.

It depends on one's beliefs, philosophies and understandings, perhaps? But I am still very much aware of the topic, and I am still very much engaged in conversation about how theists come across to atheists, and atheists come across to theists.

 

My apologies if you took that personal. It was just a general statement.

[Ronni_W]

My apologies if you took that personal. It was just a general statement.

No worries at all, James -- I totally didn't take it personally.

Just thought that I would clarify. I mean, I get that it's a stretch to figure out what the heck, if anything, "pi expressed in base-12" has to do with how theists and atheists express themselves to each other. The thing is that, in my brain, they are related. Weird as I get that will sound, to many/most.

[VertexSquared]

True. On the other hand, we also need to realize that a theory is simply an explanation of a law or "fact" AS WE BEST DESCRIBE IT TODAY. And that is important. I know that as a young 20ish year old guy and being fresh out of grad school, you have alot of new education accumulated. But understand that twenty years ago, many of the ideas you have been indoctrinated with were not in existence or are contradicting what was taught back then.

 

I didn't go to school for science -- I went to school for business education. Evolution/religion/mathematics/computer science/languages/etc are all just hobbies that I've learned through reading for years and years. I take very, very slight offense to being discredited as a "20 something grad," as this, to me, implies that I don't understand what I know. It's not like I've just memorized raw facts blindly. I'm very intellectually curious and I've done a lot of proactive learning, reading, observing, talking, and exploring.

 

Yes, a theory is a way to describe something, and yes, it is the best way we can describe something today, and yes, evolution is a relatively new concept, and yes, it may be ultimately not as good as a new theory we may come across -- but that new theory would need to be consistent with all the evidence we already have. The fact that a theory is new doesn't discredit its own merits.

 

 

"We" have concluded based on the latest interpretation of the evidence that since evolution (or rather adaptation) within species takes place, "we" then can surmise how it might take place between families. "We" then use supporting evidences to uphold that conclusion.

 

Because we can see evolution and adaptation happening among bird beaks and bacteria, many extrapolate that to mean it must have happened to get the species we have. Because we see (or think we see) a new frog or butterfly, we extrapolate that to mean that this may be how new families evolved. True or not, this is not the same as the theory of gravity being tested and used as an explanation for the law of gravity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_with_gravity

 

I would argue that they are very much both "theories" describing "factual" occurrences that we see in nature. We can experimentally show evolution at work. We can describe everything we've seen in nature, biologically -- through genetics -- using the same theory, and it is consistent with the fossils we've recovered as well (which are also consistent with various dating methods and the rates with which evolution occurs and what we'd expect to find). We can see how every creature and plant in this world fits together in the genetic trees, and we know what kind of genetic variations occur from generation to generation, all of which are consistent with what we've observed in various species over time.

 

Saying "because we're seeing the result of something that has happened from the past, we can't extrapolate anything to it" is like saying you are intentionally disregarding any theory that attempts to explain it with evidence because it's in the past. Invoking God (a concept without evidence) is an arbitrary way to explain phenomena out of an infinite number of possible explanations. When it comes to science, evidence wins. When it comes to statistics, science wins by a landslide. You may as well say that the Theory of Gravitation doesn't mean anything because God was in control of gravity up until what we see today.

 

 

 

Correct. Or you must show that the evidence was incorrectly interpreted.

 

Sure -- either way, the new theory must make sense with the evidence. Technically speaking, having an omnipotent designer *could* explain *everything*, but only to the extent that we could say that the Stork theory could explain everything about reproduction. It is *possible* that human reproduction does nothing by itself and that God-derived Storks fly through walls and plant babies in our women that are identical to what would occur naturally based on what we know about sperm and eggs and how they combine information genetically. We can explain anything we want with any arbitrary explanation we want. But the chances of any one arbitrary explanation are extremely low -- where "extremely" isn't even extreme enough. Creationism falls into this same category.

 

 

 

Or perhaps they (and by they we include many PhD scientists who also had your eduction and yet reached a different conclusion even when shown the evidences and theories that you were shown) objectively look at evolutionism and say,"This evidence needs to be interpreted differently." And they have done that.

 

BTW, you jumped from theists to creationists. Not all theists are creationists by far. Many are evolutionists.

 

I have yet to meet a single person who has looked at all the evidence and has reached a different conclusion that is consistent without invoking an arbitrary and empirically illogical God. If you are aware of such a person, please link me to one so I can take a look. Most rebuttals against evolution that I've read have made many incorrect assumptions and interpretations (and by incorrect, I do mean incorrect -- not simply "a view different from evolution," but rather assumptions that are NOT consistent with the evidence and phenomena).

 

And, my mistake about the theist/Creationist linkage. It is true that there are theists who are not Creationist. In my experience, most of these theistic types tend to refer to God in a more nebulous sense, as if "something" may be "out there" even if it has no direct influence over our universe directly. Or, you may have people who take an atheistic approach to our world but a theistic approach to quantum cosmology. Many different flavors.

 

 

Actually, since evolution by definition does NOT explain how life began, then it does not address that issue. And if it is assumed that God created everything, then God created science. And someone who makes/creates something is outside of its creation.

 

Right, evolution makes the assumption that life is present. When we speak about the origin of life we might refer to a concept called "Abiogenesis," or the arising of the first self-replicating molecule from inorganic matter. We've experimentally shown, though, how amino acids can form naturally. Abiogenesis is a trickier subject, but it's still based on evidence and is more likely to be true, is consistent with what we know, and does not require invoking a God. Such an occurrence is rare and difficult because it requires necessary conditions, but of course we only need such an occurrence to happen once in the history of the cosmos -- and here we are.

 

Life arose very quickly on Earth after it was formed. RNA is only component that can self replicate by it's RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase, and the conditions of early Earth would be conducive to such an event (and, as predicted, very quickly at that) -- but again, it's an event that only needs to happen once.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html for some more information on abiogenesis.

 

Also, in a VERY, VERY recent scientific breakthrough: http://io9.com/5543843/scientists-create-artificial-life-+-synthetic-dna-that-can-self+replicate

 

All with just a few chemicals. While a computer WAS used to design this cell from these chemicals, this is actually also supporting proof in favor of abiogenesis because it shows that the origins of life require very, very simple, natural things -- it's just that in this case, the computer catalyzed what would take many years to see naturally. Getting those simple things in the right place at the right time depends on chemical determinism and the surrounding environment. Again, it only needs to happen once.

 

We can make a man-made waterfall... or we can let the forces of the universe make one for us with no need for a Creator.

 

 

Ironically, we rarely hear physicists saying that the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution. Why? Because they really don't see that as a good benchmark for comparison.

 

The theory of gravity has been tested and tested and tested and tested and....well, you get the picture. Has the theory of evolution been tested? Can we show from tests that a "lower order species" will evolve into a "higher order species" and from one family into another family?

 

While there may be evidences that seem to support the theory of evolution, it is not really a good thing to compare it to the theory of gravity.

 

Of course it's been tested! We've shown how evolution works not only artificially and naturally, but also on micro and macro levels. Where do you think our modern-day banana came from? What about all our cattle/cows/etc that we eat? We "artificially" select, but on a basic level, we're still "the environment" with respect to the things that are evolving. An environment affecting a changing entity is really just another deterministic relationship -- something affecting something else (which is also why evolution is a very NON-random process, contrary to the popular misconception). "Natural" selection just means that the Earth/environment/atmosphere/conditions are filtering out what survives and what doesn't based on whatever the feedback is for that entity trying to survive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution and read the part about misuse.

 

We have evidence and confirmed experiments on any flavor of evolution you can bring to light. These widely-spread misconceptions that the evidence doesn't exist derive from Creationist propaganda.

 

 

First of all, a creator by definition creates something. And most creationists do not say that once created, every creature, etc. remains the same. Adaptation to environment within a species is seen. Creationists would argue that this by itself cannot be used as a way to explain how an amoeba became a man.

 

Sure -- but I ask you, what is an adaptation? It's a slight change from one thing to another thing. Macroevolution is obviously a much more dramatic form of microevolution. I ask you to consider things like whales/dolphins/etc. We can see that their skeletons have "finger" bones in their fins, and we can see the presence hip bones and lungs, even. All these things are equipped for land usage. We see evidence in the intermediates as well. A lot of small changes result in large changes if you view start and finish as discrete stages. I can bring up countless, countless examples of this.

 

 

I have been told over and over by reputable evolutionists and atheists that evolution does not explain how life began. Abiogenesis does. And I have read numerous books by theists who explain how evolution is part of how God made the world.

 

Right, abiogenesis does. But there is a problem, logically, with using God for this. We used to say "God made man the way he is." There are people in this thread in the PRESENT DAY who do not believe evolution exists. But if you can get someone to accept evolution, then they say "Alright, well God probably put evolution into motion when he made the Earth." Show this theist how the Earth was formed, and they'll say "Okay, well maybe God put the universe into motion so that the Earth could be made." And then show that theist quantum mechanics/quantum cosmology and (assuming he understands it), that theist might say "Well then what put the quantum interactions into place?"

 

It's an infinite regress where we can continually unveil something with science only to push this idea of "God" back. To quote Carl Sagan,

 

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

 

The point here is that invoking God gets us no closer to the answers. He is without evidence. On a pragmatic/humanist level, simply accepting God makes it harder for people to question our universe and to pursue scientific inquiry if they are satisfied with an arbitrary explanation that basically says "God did this or that, and that's all we need to know."

 

 

Important to note....evolution by itself does not take away the need for a creator because the evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain how life began. (Even if you read Charles Darwin, you will see that he makes this point.)

 

Separating these two issues is important to the discussion.

 

Sure thing -- I don't think either of us have disagreed with this at all, nor would any scientist.

 

 

You are saying as fact what has only been interpreted as theory. Not saying one way or the other, but two assumptions are made in this paragraph....(1) we have been getting new species...and not changes within species (ie. a different kind of frog) and (2) there have been billions of years.

 

Many creationists would say that God created and then adaptation occurred. Many also do not say that the world is billions of years old. And many do. But getting new species does not mean getting new families, orders, classes, or phylum. Most creationists would agree that new species occur. They would only disagree in that God created the original creatures that have adapted and "evolved" over time.

 

Regarding (1): Yes, we have been getting new species. Again, we have evidence for any flavor you can think of, and it's all consistent with historical evidence and fossil findings.

 

Regarding (2): Yes, there have been billions of years. We know the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old, and we know roughly when life began after its formation. We have various methods of deriving the date of the earth that are all COMPLETELY separate and yield the same answers:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

Regarding your second paragraph, again, new "families" are just the result of many, many gradual changes. It's why we see so much genetic variation (which is a key engine behind evolution).

 

Evolution does not eliminate the need for a god.

 

Evolution eliminates the need for a God for describing the effects that we see REGARDING evolution. What, in your mind, needs God to explain it?

 

 

Oh, and another assumption is made. Creationists do not say that all creatures are now as created. However, they would say that all kinds/species were created. In other words, all changes since creation were within species and not between species. And again by that, I mean that we have not seen a change that resulted in a frog being anything other than a frog.

 

Except that we have plenty of evidence showing that frogs used to be other creatures and how land-dwelling creatures used to live in the water and all sorts of things. There's evidence for all sorts of intermediates between one "family" and another. The common Creationist rebuttal is that "well, there are gaps." Divide ANY linkage in two and you get two gaps -- but these gaps are smaller! It'd be like saying that we start out with a house and end with a charred house as a result of fire. A Creationist would say "But there's a gap -- we don't have evidence of the semi-charred house."

 

Except where evolution is concerned, we actually do have overwhelmingly staggering amounts of evidence that DO show these intermediates between "families."

 

 

No, even if true, we have not seen this happen between families. We may have seen adaptation within species and extrapolated it to also mean that it happens between families, but we do not know.

 

We have, we have, we have.

 

 

Read some intelligent books on the subject and you may at least get a better perspective. But even if you do not, I would like to point out that "most people who believe in" evolutionism not only do not have all of the facts and evidences, but they simply believe what is told to them in college without actually sitting back and saying, "What if this is completely wrong?"

 

Most simply accept it as "fact" without realizing that the theory of evolution canNOT be compared to the theory of gravity.

 

Again, I refer to my earlier points about what a Theory means. Also, while I did not go to college to learn this, I would argue that going to college to learn more about these subjects is at least getting closer to the answers than someone who is simply content with invoking an arbitrary God. We wouldn't invoke an arbitrary explanation for thunderstorms -- we seek an explanation for it. The more we find, the further we push God back.

 

Of course, again, if a theist is going to assume God is always outside of science, then there's no use in debating since that sort of God is scientifically unfalsifiable, which grinds against the very definition of a valid hypothesis.

 

 

 

Yes it is. As you mention, it has been seen that the earth is round. It has been seen and tested that Storks do not deliver babies. However, it has not been seen or tested that men and monkeys evolved from the same ape like creature. In fact, we have not even found the fossils of that creature...who may or may not exist.

 

And it has been seen that evolution is very much true, and we *do* have the evidence, just as much evidence as we would need to put the Stork theory to rest.

 

 

Sadly, most evolutionists do not understand the creationist explanation nor do they understand the evidences that are used to explain evolutionism.

 

Most simply accept what they have been told in college and carry it throughout life. This indoctrination causes them to forsake the idea of a God and hence it limits them...as much as they say a theist is limited.

 

I think anyone who is mindlessly indoctrinated with ANY sort of explanation is being put at an abusive disadvantage. This is especially true with children. But I'd hardly say it's "indoctrinating" to learn about things in college unless the material is suspect. Science does not "limit" oneself. God is limiting. Science changes its views based on new evidence. The concept of God does not. Instead of fitting a conclusion to the evidence, you are fitting the evidence to a conclusion. Atheists have to be completely open to the fact that anything is possible... but to show that that "something" is possible, you need to show evidence for it, and it needs to make sense with everything else. This basic concept is what science is all about.

 

 

My point is....and hopefully, some have made it this far... , while the theory of evolution is the best natural explanation given thus far (and because no theory is even considered which considers a Creator as this is not a natural explanation), it still may not be the actual explanation. To adamantly hold to this and scorn all others is an intellectual mistake IMO.

 

Again this is a slight misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is and why evolution is a "fact," but again, science is always open to better theories. But it is valid to "scorn" or at least "show inconsistency" with theories and facts that are falsifiable. There are times when we can clearly show that something is "wrong" or "uninformed/ignorant." The problem arises when people define God to be outside of science. This isn't testable and never will be -- but even then, for all intents and purposes, why assume it exists, then?

 

 

Personally, I do enjoy looking at all possibilities. While I believe that their is substantial reasons to believe that a Creator began this world, I also cannot say which is the best explanation as to HOW the world was created and then continued. To what extent did it evolve over how long of a period of time?

 

I would say, in response to this, to check out the fields of cosmology, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics.

 

 

What I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the academic and scientific communities change constantly. What is held up today as fact is many times put down with scorn tomorrow. For me to bet my life and future on that which may be shown to be completely false after I am dead and gone would be utter foolishness. For me to scorn that which may be shown to be respectable after I am dead and gone may be my personal downfall.

 

Yep, agreed here except for your point on facts. Facts are facts. Theories are different from facts. They are not different marks on a spectrum of certainty. Theories change to support the facts.

[VertexSquared]

To be honest, half (or 90%) of the stuff from this source is more scientific/technical than I can wrap my tiny brain around. In this case, though, it was about actually working with pi, as a rational number, in science/physics formulae and experiments. Essentially that expressing pi in base-10 is a mathematically under-developed thing to do, and doing it limits our discoveries and advancements -- we will make the same discoveries and progress (of course) but it will just take eons longer.

 

Of course, though, we're still stuck at the point where "base-12 pi" is an irrational number -- we first need to make some discovery or advancement about that

 

Well, I would say that showing a number as rational or irrational doesn't really get us anywhere. It's just another way to define a number based on what base we use (pardon the pun). Again, we can describe pi in whatever base we want -- but then we have to reconcile this with other systems using other bases. We use different bases when we find a need for them (such as binary in computers to represent on/off statuses of logic gates). I would disagree that writing anything in a base is "under-developed mathematically," as that makes no sense. Mathematics IS the language with which we describe numbers. What you refer to delves into number theory and real-analysis.

 

Pi is a useful number no matter how we apply it. But it's the same number no matter what base we use. A rose is a rose... doesn't matter if it's French or Chinese or ASL -- the words still apply to the same thing.

 

I invite you to read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_notation

Also take a look at the applications of base-12.

[VertexSquared]

No worries at all, James -- I totally didn't take it personally.

Just thought that I would clarify. I mean, I get that it's a stretch to figure out what the heck, if anything, "pi expressed in base-12" has to do with how theists and atheists express themselves to each other. The thing is that, in my brain, they are related. Weird as I get that will sound, to many/most.

 

Well, mathematics is oftentimes a difficult subject to relate to atheism and theism because we have the luxury of defining all our mathematical rules and lexicon. Our universe is something we do not have the luxury of defining, so we can't claim to know all the rules with certainty like we can with math.

 

But to use your example, I think referring to pi in base 10 versus 12 is a way to say "We're describing the same concept but with different means" -- and atheism/theism may do this to some extent. But I don't think atheism and theism are simply using different means to describe the same phenomena in our universe to the extent that the systems are completely different. One requires evidence and the other one does not. Faith and science are diametrically opposed concepts. Science would never make a claim without backing it up. Faith, by definition, requires no evidence.

 

We may both see the same thing, but one person says God did it, while the other says "Let's wait for the facts," to which a theist might argue "Facts aren't really ever facts." I argue that the difference arises as a result of being unaware of the evidence or not having a firm understanding of logic/statistics/mathematics/chemistry/physics/whatever.

 

An extreme example that contradicts this, however: http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_2.php

 

"Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon."

Edited June 29, 2010 by VertexSquared

[aerogurl87]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

That is such a common mistake that it's making me angry just replying to this. Evolution IS a theory, but people misinterpret what that means.

 

For instance, the Law of Gravity is a law because gravity EXISTS, but Newton's Theory of Gravitation is a theory because it is a way to describe how that law behaves.

 

Evolution is the same way. We *know* evolution took place, but we don't necessarily know *how* it took place at every point in time. If you go by its specific definition, evolution is "a change in allele frequencies over time" in which case evolution is an indisputable fact. The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining *how* life evolved.

 

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address the evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better.

 

Most Creationists will simply disregard the evidence, stick their fingers in their ears, and say "I don't care what evidence you have. I don't need to understand the statistical implications of genetic variation and why that concept is important. I don't need to look at the genetic evidence. God did it."

 

If you're the type of person to do this, then you're beyond arguing with. It's no different from the people who are willing to argue that the Law of Gravity is actually just God's Invisible Hands pulling on everything even though we have amazing theories of relativity that are not only consistent with everything we know in COUNTLESS other situations, but make groundbreaking predictions accurately. People will twist and turn any evidence they can to get it to fit God rather than changing the conclusions to fit the evidence. It's come to a point where it's absolutely silly -- a Creationist has to support a mammoth explanation if he wishes to be correct. God would basically have to be an amazingly devious God for creating a universe that didn't need him at all in the first place.

 

Of course, if you're always going to just assume that God is outside of science, then there's no point in us discussing this.

 

No, no, I was just using simple common sense in that a theory can't be a fact. The two are contradictions. This has nothing to do with someone's belief system, this is just simple logic.

[VertexSquared]

No, no, I was just using simple common sense in that a theory can't be a fact. The two are contradictions. This has nothing to do with someone's belief system, this is just simple logic.

 

Alright, but evolution, for all intents and purposes, is fact.

[VertexSquared]

 

Lol well aren't you just a shining beacon of logic and understanding. Those ridiculous, ignorant believers should never cross words with you, else you'll crush them in debate and 'dismantle' their entire belief system! You are that powerful!

 

 

You're free to join the debate if you'd like.

[Hop_prophet]

This issue used to frustrate me to no end, but I've now come to the conclusion that it is just pointless to debate this. I read an article a few weeks ago that made more sense than anything else I have come across. It talked about the psychological factors relating to religion and even cults.

 

Essentially it stated that some of the smartest people in the world are fervent believers which is very true in my experience. You can even extend this to belief systems that most people feel are outrageous. Most people hit very low points in their lives and when the chips are down these groups provide much needed support. Hence that person develops a very strong loyalty or allegiance to this group. Logic and reason go out the window and it doesn't matter if the philosophy is flawed. It boils down to supporting the people you love. It is more about the sense of community than about rationality. We are social creatures after all.

 

Look at someone who was raised in a very religious environment. Many times it is all the know as a child. The people they love and spend all their time with are tied closely to the institution. It becomes part of their life and part of their identity. It defines them and is all pervasive. You think these people are going to throw their entire way of life out the window because someone comes along and logically argues the fallacies of their belief system? No way, they are gonna say f*** your science and continue on their merry way. It is easy for someone outside of this circle to find fault, but those within will not be swayed no matter what evidence is thrown in their face.

[aerogurl87]

This isn't even a debate, this is just people belittling other people's ideologies to boost their ego. Some atheists do it just as much as religious extremists, which makes the two no better than each other in my eyes. Acceptance is the key.

[VertexSquared]

This isn't even a debate, this is just people belittling other people's ideologies to boost their ego. Some atheists do it just as much as religious extremists, which makes the two no better than each other in my eyes. Acceptance is the key.

 

Untrue -- the last page or so is full of debate. This has nothing to do with "ego boosting."

[Shakz]

This issue used to frustrate me to no end, but I've now come to the conclusion that it is just pointless to debate this. I read an article a few weeks ago that made more sense than anything else I have come across. It talked about the psychological factors relating to religion and even cults.

 

Essentially it stated that some of the smartest people in the world are fervent believers which is very true in my experience. You can even extend this to belief systems that most people feel are outrageous. Most people hit very low points in their lives and when the chips are down these groups provide much needed support. Hence that person develops a very strong loyalty or allegiance to this group. Logic and reason go out the window and it doesn't matter if the philosophy is flawed. It boils down to supporting the people you love. It is more about the sense of community than about rationality. We are social creatures after all.

 

Look at someone who was raised in a very religious environment. Many times it is all the know as a child. The people they love and spend all their time with are tied closely to the institution. It becomes part of their life and part of their identity. It defines them and is all pervasive. You think these people are going to throw their entire way of life out the window because someone comes along and logically argues the fallacies of their belief system? No way, they are gonna say f*** your science and continue on their merry way. It is easy for someone outside of this circle to find fault, but those within will not be swayed no matter what evidence is thrown in their face.

 

True enough, and remember that atheist have their own set of issue for not believing. I think, however, that a distinction should be made between religion and faith. Religion is a social institution. Faith is a deeply personal experience. A person can have religion without faith, and a person can have faith without religion. The problem, it seems to me, for atheists, is that they don't understand that once faith is aquired it is no longer a conviction than can be swayed. I'm talking about real faith, not doubt hedged by hope. It becomes a proof in itself, in the mind of the believer, that is as rational to them as any empirically acquired evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue. As an aside, I can't understand why an atheist, if that is what they truly are, would give two sh*ts what a theist believes. Are they atheists, or simply anti-religionists?

Edited June 29, 2010 by Shakz