Dog disproves God?

Originally posted by Jenyar
I try to use my brain whenever the opportunity presents itself ;) But as you know, "filling gaps" are only fine as long as they do not make any claim to evidence that are not theirs. If I find a tire in the grass and tracks in the dirt - I might conclude that the tire belonged to a car, but won't have evidence to support it. Conjecture is useful but not factual. As long as you realize this. Otherwise you are just saying "evolution did it" where others might say "God did it", with the same amount of faith.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that there is abundant evidence for evolution, but none for God.

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Except for the fact that there is abundant evidence for evolution, but none for God.
Click to expand...
There is abundant dead evidence pointing towards the kind of evolution you have in mind, but there is a Bible full of living evidence pointing towards God. The scientific documents point to dead animals and extinct species out of the past, the Biblical documents point to a living God and a different future than evolution suggests. The evidence is different because they point to different realities. The conclusion is still made in your mind.
 
There is plenty of evidence in live animals too, however, how is text in a 2000 years old book more alive than a fossil?

Point to two different realities? In my version of the universe, there is only one reality.

But based on your post above, I take it that you acknowledge that PHYSICAL evidence do indeed point to evolution, but are contradicted by the religious statements in the Bible. In this case I agree that the conclusion is made in your mind.

This does leave one question, though: Have you got any guess at God's purpose in creating a world that falsely gives the impression of being of great age, and with evolution?

Edited to add: I should point out that in my opinion, evolution does not disprove or even contradict a belief in God. It is, however, contradictory to a literal interpretation of the Bible.


Hans
 
I agree. If evolution happened, it happened. That first week there was nobody to take the time - my personal subjective opinion is that we know too little about the characteristics of time and space from our vantage point. A curvature in time might give an impression of greater age the further back you "conjecture" - but that's our bad, not God's. Just as an optical illusion is not a dishonesty of the image itself, but the result of our perception of it. The Bible is also a perception of God, which is often coloured by our own beliefs. With both the Bible and Evolution, our observation are highly dependent on the accuracy and dependability of our measuring equipment, but even more on the assumptions we make either way.

The "realities" I referred to was meant as the difference between a scientifically observable "reality" (the territory of science), and something like history, emotions, values, which are equally real, and equally valid observations of reality, but objectively unrepeatable, untestable and "invisible". When there is conclusive evidence that evolutions can create, I will have to accept its inherent power. At the moment, such power is only assumed (without scientific evidence) because people are being brainwashed into thinking belief in God is somehow unacceptable.
 
people are being brainwashed into thinking belief in God is somehow unacceptable.
Click to expand...
might i ask who you think is doing this? the only people i see being brainwashed are those young children being taken to church so as to capture them from a young age. the church doesn't have faith in itself that if people weren't indoctrined from a young age, they wouldn't become religious. i was never told by anyone god is unacceptable, the mayority of this world (a large majority at that) believe in god. why do you assume this?
 
This is where you can see English isn't my native language :(

(people are being brainwashed) into thinking (belief in God) -> is somehow unacceptable.

Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.

I know that religion has the same status in your eyes, but faith is something that you start incorporating into your life at a very early age. You may have wondered why so many people believe in God even when they don't really know who or what He is. In my experience faith depends more on the credibility of the parents themselves than on the actual content. When you grow up knowing love, and being able to trust your parents, and very quickly you become aware if those qualities have a source in their faith, and the correlation becomes an incredibly powerful testimony to what they believe. Your then also measure what you hear in church against what you experience at home and from those who believe what is taught there. Discrepancies usually throw doubt on the faith rather than the parents (although it says something about them as well) - and children become disenfranchised.

The theory of General evolution has no such build-up of credibility - in fact, it becomes harder to explain the further you go with it. An authentic life stays authentic, but teaching children to believe as a fact something that isn't a fact is just as dishonest as teaching your children about a God you have no reason to believe in yourself.
 
Last edited:
I have said before, that I think you are the most intelligent theist I have come across so far.
I think we agree on may things, but there is this ethereal line where we split off and you veer towards God and I veer away.
I do completely agree with this statement:
Originally posted by Jenyar
Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.
Click to expand...

We are being completely irresponsible in this regards of teaching our children.
Scientists often do make leaps and bounds (although they may often be warranted) and the bridges between the gaps are often incorrectly taught as proven fact.
Not just with matters of evolution, either.
This happens in many areas of science and history, and, as I said, it is an irresponsible way to teach our children.
If the educators feel that young minds aren't developed anough to discern fact from conjecture, then they should spend more time on developing those minds' capabilities to reason for themselves before filling them with information that they are not yet ready to process, and simply confusing them further in an attempt to take advantage of that time when they are most prone to learning and growth.
They take advantage of that time to fill their open minds with junk information and trivial bullshit rather than developing the mind properly to learn rather than memorize.
So every 3rd grader can name all the president's names, but can't tell you what the logic behind the differing parties each of these president belonged to.
When we chose to teach children to memorize rather then to learn and reason, they become machines that process rather than individuals that create and grow.

(sorry for that little rant of a tangent)
 
to jenyar,

This is where you can see English isn't my native language
Click to expand...
wow :) i'm impressed, you could have fooled me otherwise. don't be sorry, most of the time you are very clear in what you say, i also agree with one_raven.

Of course no kind of brainwashing is acceptable, but the truth is that great parts of evolution being taught children today has very little scientific backing, but they aren't taught what is conjecture and what isn't. Because they aren't old enough to verify the facts for themselves, they have to believe it.
Click to expand...
i'd just like to say (this may not be the case everywhere, but it was for me), i only learn't about evolution in my last year of college. my teacher detailed to the class that this was only theory, and while it was also her personal belief, she said she wanted to in no way impose her beliefs on any of the students. and she also understood people who's personal belief wasn't in that of evolution. in this way we were taught from both sides of the coin, on evidence that was plausible and that human knowledge is infantile to our own existence, that evolution also has it's points of pure theory.

i agree with you when you say evolution shouldn't be taught as the truth, but in the same way we were only taught about it at a fairly old age, one where we could accept or dicline this theory on our own beliefs- evolution in the depth we were taught just fitted with me, i've ran with it ever since. this i believe should also be the case with things like religion, i will never be able to thank my parents enough for not imposing any belief on me. for so many reasons it should be this way for everyone, i was about 10 before i heard about god, even knew anything of him, but because of my parents neutral stance i could've become religious (may have if some stupid christian people hadn't introduced me to their beliefs in such a rancid way) if i wanted to. i didn't because it just wasn't me. i'm not sure how many can attest to this sort of faith or freedom from their parents but to them i am eternally greatful for letting choose my own way.
 
Originally posted by atheroy
i'd just like to say (this may not be the case everywhere, but it was for me), i only learn't about evolution in my last year of college.
Click to expand...

Either things have changed, or it is different where you are from where I was.
I was told that it was the "theory" of evolution, but it was basically presented as irrefuted scientific knowledge.
And, this happened in the third grade (8 - 9 years old).
 
Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
The theory of General evolution has no such build-up of credibility - in fact, it becomes harder to explain the further you go with it.
Click to expand...
In fact? Whose? What, precisely, becomes harder to explain for anyone other than a subset of Jude-Christian literalists?
 
Either things have changed, or it is different where you are from where I was.
I was told that it was the "theory" of evolution, but it was basically presented as irrefuted scientific knowledge.
And, this happened in the third grade (8 - 9 years old).
Click to expand...
holy crap. 8-9!! i first truly learn't about evolution when i was 17-18, 7th form. i take it you live in the USA? i live in new zealand, i would say we are more liberal than the USA, but sometimes we are more sensible :D

i'm truly surprised. i'm not sure i could've even dealt with the concept of evolution when i was that young, perhaps schooling goes along a slower process here?
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What refutations did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

I didn't have any specific refutations in mind.
That is not the point.
The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory.
A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law.

Yes, there is a good deal of evidence for it.
I am not saying that I don't believe it is true (I don;t think that Darwin was 100% correct) but there is ample evidence that there is evolution and natural selection taking place on at least some level (See Daphne Island Finches).
However, the simple fact of the matter is that the theories regarding evolution are incomplete at best and to present it as otherwise is irresponsible.
 
Jenyar has not evolved into full human form yet.

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
There is abundant dead evidence pointing towards the kind of evolution you have in mind...
----------
(Let's see here, Jenyar-in-tap-shoes, "dead evidence" of evolution. Hmmm, it seems that there is the entire human race out there, and I wouldn't exactly call them "dead!" They are very much alive and filled with the One Spirit of God! So you are actually saying that "God is Dead." Okay, that's your perogative.)
----------
but there is a Bible full of living evidence pointing towards God.
----------
(Okay, the Bible, an inanimate object, tells a story of the people who may have lived up to some 5,000 years ago. Now, as far as I can tell, these people would seem to be no longer alive. But, it is very likely that the stories of these people were made up myths taken from earlier stories of creations in and around the Middle Eastern area. You seem to be confused. Do you know the actual difference between being dead or being alive? The Bible has NO LIVING EVIDENCE of God! You cannot even prove there is a God!)
----------
The scientific documents point to dead animals and extinct species out of the past, the Biblical documents point to a living God and a different future than evolution suggests.
----------
(The scientific documents point to growth, change and survival in the species. Most of those species are still alive! Some may have gone the way of the fossil, but the One Spirit of God STILL resides in those who have survived--including humans!)
----------
The evidence is different because they point to different realities.
----------
(This statement doesn't make a lick of sense! What evidence is different? You need to explain more clearly the point you're trying to make instead of dancing around the subject! There is only one reality, so the evidence isn't different. Reality is that the One Spirit of God resides in all creation. Since you cannot understand this concept, you are rejecting God.)
----------
The conclusion is still made in your mind.
----------
(What conclusion are you referring to? The conclusion to reject God? Evolution is not something that can reasoned in one's mind. It is science and it is fact. Who's to say that Adam and Eve weren't hairy apes? After all, apes are vegetarians. They would've had a field day in the Garden of Eden. I'll spell this out for your lower mental capacity--maybe it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve Ape ate that made them become more human (as in "bigger brains)!) Jenyar, this is what you should strive for. I know you're limited, but please try to get on the evolutionary train and evolve a little bit! Your posts suggest a lowered mental capacity which probably had something to do with your not evolving with the rest of the human race.)
 
Originally posted by one_raven
The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory.
A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law.
Click to expand...
A couple of points here.

1. Evolution refers to both theory and observed fact. The fact is that evolution as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) has been observed. There is nothing to contest here, no debate at all.

2. The various theories of how evolution progressed historically and what factors contributed towards the evolution of particular species is indeed theoretical and sometimes even only hypothetical. Modern theories are also dramatically more precise and complex than simple "Darwinism". To take into account only Darwin's original theory is akin to arguing against the Copernican model of the Solar System. It is quite outdated and is no longer the preeminent model within the field.

Any alternative theory must therefore take into account the fact of evolution (what creationists mislabel as 'micro-evolution'). And find some alternative genetic mechanism as well as evidence to support their theory. To date, none have.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by one_raven
... ... The point is that it has not been accepted as a "law", it is still just a theory. A theory that is hotly contested and lacking enough empirical evidence to be considered a law... ... ...
Click to expand...
1) I'm curious about your views on A) electromagnetism B) atomic orbital theory C) molecular orbital theory etc.. .. .. Should we just drop chemistry from the curriculum because we don’t fully understand how two atoms bond? Of course not.
2) Evolution in and of itself is not contested by anyone anywhere in science that I have ever read in any reputable scientific journal. The nuances regarding the processes of evolution can be hotly debated.
(Of course so is every areaof scientific enquiry. Just yesterday I listened to two scientists debate the effects of human growth hormone on stem cell neurogenesis in the CNS. It’s actually quite a common phenomenon in science.)
 
Originally posted by Michael
1) I'm curious about your views on A) electromagnetism B) atomic orbital theory C) molecular orbital theory etc.. .. .. Should we just drop chemistry from the curriculum because we don’t fully understand how two atoms bond? Of course not.
2) Evolution in and of itself is not contested by anyone anywhere in science that I have ever read in any reputable scientific journal. The nuances regarding the processes of evolution can be hotly debated.
(Of course so is every areaof scientific enquiry. Just yesterday I listened to two scientists debate the effects of human growth hormone on stem cell neurogenesis in the CNS. It’s actually quite a common phenomenon in science.)
Click to expand...
That's all fine and scientific, but when people start stating that humans evolved from non-humans, or that life itself is a product of evolution of matter, without proof, it ceases to become factual. Theories are the building blocks of science, true, but facts are the cement.

I think the house built on the theory of evolution becomes very unstable when your last facts were left far below.
 
I won’t go into evolution other than to say what I need to make my point. Evolution is a fact. However, the nuances of this phenomenon are not fully established. Similarly, chemical bonding is a fact, however each year new bonding theories are proposed to explain this "bonding" phenomenon. Two of these are atomic and molecular orbital theories - as they are the easiest to understand. They are taught in school (oh mygosh ) these two particular theories are completely different explanation for the known phenomenon – that atoms bond. Yet it's still taught?!?!? Why aren't these same people protesting against evolution protesting against chemistry??!!?? Could it be they have an agenda? Hmmm.. maybe?

Let me state that again:
1) There may be different theories of atomic bonding – however atoms do bond to one another (its a fact). When taking a chemistry class a student should be exposed to scientific theories of chemistry. ((Would you agree? Of course you would!))
2) There may be different theories of evolution – living things do evolve (its a fact). When taking a Biology class a student should be exposed to scientific theories of evolution.

So, my point is that using the same (it’s only a theory) argument we could say that these subjects shouldn’t be taught either: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Some Maths, etcetera… Even Language has theory – better cancel that out too :)
 
I think the house built on the theory of evolution becomes very unstable when your last facts were left far below.
Click to expand...
can't you see this about your own religion (this here seems to be a reoccuring theme)? where evolution actually has plenty of factual evidence, from which sound theory can be derived,
your own belief lies in a antiquated book (which has no relevance to our natural universe) and nothing else (except some chemical reactions in your brain, which you ascribe to god).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top