Homestar: you're getting less respect from me because you've earned less. You consistently misunderstand basic terminology. "Proof" and "evidence" are different, and you've clearly demonstrated you don't understand scientific procedure at all. In any case, you admit that you have no evidence for me. I think we're done here.
Cypher: (first addressing your most recent post, then going backward - I think there's still a post from way back I need to get to later. This is enough of a wall of text as it is, sorry...)
I am not aware of any actual evidence of a worldwide flood. There is no reason why a flood would alter the decay rate of carbon isotopes. There is no worldwide sediment layer at the correct age, let alone one containing the remains of entire human civilizations. What evidence do you have for this (aside from the Bible, which still seems circular on the subject of God, and is generally considered to be describing a more local flood)? That said, if the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East a local flood might have eliminated it, so I retract that point.
I'm not sure what you mean by "vertical attachment between the head and torso". Is it related to the curvature of the spine? If so, ours is different because we normally walk upright. If you mean something else, one of my friends has studied anatomy; I could ask for clarification if you explain or link to what you mean.
Once again, you are not realizing that you have to begin with an A PRIORI belief in a God or no God, and derive your views from there.
...
You demonstrate this below by saying you would find other evidence. So you are accusing me of the same fault that you display next.
...
You would believe that no God exists no
er what I say or show or prove.
...
(Deep down, you would really reject Creationism no
er what evidence I threw at you because you reject the concept of a God. Therefore, you accept evolution because it is the competing theory.)
I disagree completely with the contents of the above quote. I think part of it is my fault - the red highlights on that line seemed to have the opposite effect of what I intended (could we get a "strikethrough" tag on these forums?). As I said below that, that line does not model my worldview or actions. If the evidence for evolution was outweighed, I would stop believing in it and believing whatever the new evidence pointed to. If that evidence indicated we were created by a deity, I and others would try to find out about that deity (we wouldn't immediately accept that it was the Christian god unless that was also implied by the evidence, obviously). If I continued to believe in evolution after it was disproved, I'd just be hurting myself and making inaccurate predictions.
I do
not arbitrarily decide that a deity does or does not exist, then bend the evidence I observe to fit. I do not begin with any preconceived view on that at all (or if I do, it's in favor of a deity, given my Christian upbringing). I look at what humanity knows about the world, and judge that it is consistent with a world where there is no deity. From that, it follows that if a deity does exist they have had no measurable impact, and thus can be treated as nonexistent. If you could show me some proper evidence for your god's existence (I can think of plenty of fair tests - for example, statistically significant precognition under lab conditions, or blind trials showing that prayer improves recovery chance), I
would believe he existed.
Also, note that plenty of Christians believe in evolution. Most of the scientists (aside from Darwin himself) involved in forming our understanding of history were Christians. They might have come into things believing much the same as you, but they didn't let their faith get in the way of judging based on evidence.
Cypher wrote:The question of the very beginning is one that both big bang theorists and creationists take on "faith", since no one was there to see it and there is no way to directly test it. You just take your respective theory and assume that what it says about the beginning is true, because the rest of it matches up to what you believe.
Mostly true. Any beliefs about things prior to the Big Bang, or causing it, cannot currently be backed by evidence. However, bacause of this, you don't
have to choose a theory - it's perfectly valid to say "I don't know". For anything at or after the Big Bang, we have evidence (in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background, for example) which gives us some idea of how old the universe is and what it was like.
Cypher wrote:Both the Big Bang theory/evolution and creationist are lenses through which the natural evidence is viewed. Any changes in the evidence will cause corresponding changes in the theory. It is impossible to "kill" either theory on technical points because they will simply alter themselves to fit the new evidence. You also cannot really attack the core views, since they are mostly philosophical (i.e. I believe the universe arose naturally vs. I believe God created it). There is intense competition between the theories as to which better explains the evidence, but both sides will claim this.
I think you're still misunderstanding things - modeling me as having "belief in lack of God" as centrally as you have "belief in God". I apologize if I'm wrong about this, but I suspect our cognitive models are fundamentally different here. I don't
have a single, overarching belief that "evolution is true" or "God does not exist" on which I base everything else. If I do have such a belief, it's something like "My beliefs should be based on evidence", which as I said before is demonstrably superior to other systems. It just happens that, given the available body of evidence, those two beliefs are favored. If I encounter good evidence stating the opposite, as I've been trying unsuccessfully to do, I will reconsider.
By the way, we're talking about three separate things here. The Big Bang theory is the commonly accepted model of the time after the universe began. It's relatively new, is still being studied, and I would only be moderately surprised if it was overturned in the next century. Abiogenesis is the origin of life. The processes here are mostly understood, and the biggest upset I could see for this would be if we found life on other planets - that would favor panspermia instead, with life's origin being on a different planet. Natural selection describes the gradual change of species, and is the most well-understood - it's almost closer to a law of statistics. Under a situation such as the one on Earth, with individual organisms breeding and mutating, natural selection
will occur, period.
You don't have to believe all of these - none of them is contingent on the others at all. None of them make any claims about deities, beyond not requiring one for the processes in question to occur. "Evolution", which is the common name for the latter two, is not in opposition to most of Christianity, and it is not a unified force like the Church. You don't have to see it as an enemy.
Cypher wrote:So basically, you are stating that "wrong" is a societal consensus on how people feel (am I correct?). You have traced it from society, but permit me to dig a little deeper and ask you how you personally define "wrong." Is it something that makes you feel bad? Or is it something deeper.
Personal views of "wrong" aren't exactly equal to society's consensus. The consensus is based on the majority of members, at least ideally. Anyone who doesn't agree can advocate for change, or leave for a society they find more suitable. As for where "wrong" comes from on a personal level? For me, it's:
-ingrained survival pressure, such as not killing members of your own species, except where overridden by logic.
-learned behavior, from growing up in a society. Most of what we learn has solid logical founding that can be traced to one of the other three sources. Note that "illegal" is not always "wrong", though.
-wanting people to be happy. This basically comes from empathy, which follows from that survival pressure - unwillingness to hurt other members of your species. It's more consciously considered, though - I've decided that all else equal, I prefer a world where a person is alive and happy to one where they are dead or sad.This implies that causing pain or death is wrong.
-the "Golden Rule" - if in doubt, assume the other party thinks like you. Behave to maximize both your happiness, and so will they. This makes sense when considered logically - if you live in a society of people like you, everyone will be attempting to maximize everyone's happiness. (As an interesting side note, this philosophy lets you do better than Game Theory against the Prisoner's Dilemma under some conditions. Specifically, when the other player thinks like you, and thus will make the same decision you do.)
Cypher wrote:What is inherently different about being human in an evolutionary scheme? Isn't man just an ascended ape? Just recently, a male chimpanzee killed a baby chimpanzee in front of zoo-goers, why was everyone horrified (this is normal in the wild)?
Nothing is different, really. "Human" is a subset of "sapient", and killing sapient things is bad. As I said, ideally (if not pragmatically, for now - I like meat, and couldn't make a dent in production if I
did go vegetarian) I'd like to extend it beyond humans. We don't solely feel empathy toward other humans, which is why people reacted to that particular scene. Given the power, I would stop that happening, in zoos or in the wild.
And don't worry - I haven't taken any insult from this. The only thing that can come out of discussing my beliefs or ideals is an improvement to them. I've already gained something by putting it into words here. Hopefully you feel the same.
Classic Crater
So far, I've seen nothing in this post that should be taken seriously, You can't make a serious argument so you make snide remarks and lame jokes.