[Apparently I never evolved the ability to code properly or the patience to check.]
But how did the soup get there? Where did the ingredients for it originate from? And with what degree of certainty can a scientist (or the combined weight of all the world’s scientists) hold any answer they come up with?
Pithy and possibly true. But faith typifies all members of the species.
Beliefs, which, of course, have no means of being verified or not. In fact, it’s safe to say that the “God of the Gaps” is, synonymous with “undefined”. Those who feel good about ascribing “meaning” to such a vacuous concept are welcome to their phantoms. The debate here isn’t so much about philosophical pinheads and how many angels dance upon them, it’s wheter creationists is are or are not impervious to data. The evidence, I daresay, supports the latter hypothesis.
Well, the soup part we are pretty certain of: simulations of what we know of the conditions of the early earth routinely and almost immediately create organic compounds from just basic organic chemical elements which would have been present in primeval seas, UV, and electrical sparks. We even get simple amino acids: again, all within a matter of weeks of running the experiment in a very teensy tiny setup (rather than across the whole planet). It’s what happened (or rather, what COULD potentially happen) from there that’s the question of questions.
Oops. Meant the former hypothesis.
But how did the early earth get there? How did its constituent parts come to be?
For me, that is the question of questions?
It’s not what kept the ball rolling that’s of supreme interest. It’s how the ball started to roll, and, above all else, how the ball got there (and going back a further step, how its constituent parts got there) that matters most to open and enquiring minds.
I prefer to account for it as a Darwinian slip.
Big Bang. And before that: we haven’t a clue. As Loopydude notes, we haven’t yet even determined if there is a clue to be had.
Oh, so open, so inquiring! Well, I’ll just go tell those crazy scientists to found astronomy and physics then, so they can get right on correcting this oversight!
Right. Just like you can’t verify “there’s nothing north of the north pole” or “nothing came before time” (given the ‘right’ definitions of the north pole or time).
No, it’s not. The “God of the Gaps” label is applied to people who state that only what isn’t understood is of God; saying that God is everything or that God is such that it doesn’t make sense to ask whether he is/created/caused something or that God is undefineable are entirely different things.
I certainly don’t think questions of “What, ultimately, make sense to ask?” are angels dancing on pins. But I guess we are digressing. My mistake. I thought I’d heard broader assertions being made somewhere back there.
Then why do so many creationists attempt to use data to explain their reasoning? I mean, one often hears that the Grand Canyon dates to Noah’s Flood, that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, etc. The arguments against evolution put forth by creationists frequently involve data. I think the reasons why YEC’s believe what they do are a great deal more complex then being “impervious to data.”
Can you elaborate? I know not what you mean.
Ah, but I think you know exactly what I mean. You have experience of my posts from the past to draw on, and you are an intelligent and rational person.
You wrote: “Faith not only has the power to move mountains, but to ignore them, as well.”
to which I responded: “Pithy and possibly true. But faith typifies all members of the species.”
First, you assume that faith exists - you presuppose its existence and its reality. So do I.
Second, you assert that faith has power. I agree.
Third, you assert that faith can have positive effects. I agree.
Fourth, you assert that faith can have negative effects. I agree.
Fifth, I assert that faith is a double-edged sword for all who have it, both you and me, for example.
Do you agree?
I really have no clue why creationists resort to pseudoscience to disprove science. It’s always such a self-defeating effort. A bad habit? What else can you call it, really. Sure, the arguments involve “data”, but that doesn’t mean all the data. I suppose, again, if we are not to endlessly split hairs here in true philosophical fashion, you might consider that what I mean is “They ignore all data that contradicts their assertions, and, at best, misuse data that supports them.” This isn’t a statement made out of prejudice. The creationists themselves have provided all the evidence that is necessary to justifiably characterize their behavior thusly.
I really don’t think the issue is complex at all. Start with an immutable assumtion: God did it. Filter all data or twist it as needed so that it fits that assumption. Ignore all contradictory evidence, except when such evidence proves irrefutable and unavoidable, in which case change the position ever-so-slightly so as to claim the contradictory evidence is irrelevant to the original assumption. Reapeat ad absurdum. The only thing complex about the creationists’ position is the rhetorical dishonesty they utilize to maintain it.
Geez! THANK YOU someone for concurring, finally! The reality is, most creationists just aren’t overly INTERESTED enough in science to delve too deeply into the debates over the data, but that doesn’t mean they don’t appeciate or desire the power of data. Instead, they accept common creationist arguments because they, in fact, are convincing ENOUGH to someone that doesn’t look deeper, for them to be convinced that the data supports their beliefs. This isn’t the same as being totally immune to all reason. I would guess that the vast number of atheists out there who glibly reference the theory of evolution as to why religion is bunk are actually the same way: they couldn’t REALLY tell you how evolution works or what the evidence for common descent is: they found just enough to feel that it’s plausible, and were happy with where they were.
Again, as I stated, you can actually see the fundamentalist movement as a REACTION to modernity, and in specific, scientific precision and accuracy. When little in the natural world and society was measured and compared with exacting mathematical precision and judged on that basis, sloppy poetic vagueness in the Bible was no big deal. But when that became a prevailing standard in society, some very conservative believers felt the Bible had to measure up, since by definition it should be the best there is. Given that conviction, their stance is actually motivated BY their recognition of the importance of data and evidence: and the threat that might pose to their particular theology.
I do now. I honestly didn’t before. Sometimes, I’m a little slow…
I agree that blind faith is a double-edged sword for all who have it.
You do? Really? I’d have thought you’d believe that blind faith was a single-edged sword. Always harmful - both to those who wielded it and to those who came into contact with it.
I think you still aren’t quite getting my point.
If abiogenesis is proven we have evidence that life can be created from non-life, or rather life can be created from completely non-living matter.
Now, I have no idea if this is ever going to be proven. What I do know is never going to proven is that God did it.
Why? Because I’d bet a hefty amount of my wealth that God’s direct hand can never be found by the eyes of man, simple as that.
As I’ve said, I’m not the type of creationist you’re ranting about here. I believe in evolution, because it makes sense. But I just see evolution as the tool that god put on earth to allow the development of the animal species.
God created plants, we have obvious proof that human beings can grow plants, can water them, can harvest them, can plant more, grown them, harvest them et cetera. And man has understood this very simple (but hugely important) process for millenia.
That’s because God gave us the framework, most Christians don’t believe he would create a system where he was constantly involved with the growth of every plant (although for him it’s perfectly efficient to be involved in the growth of every plant.) However God gave us life on earth to manage for ourselves, so he set up the framework for us to do that.
Scientific discoveries are just a further uncovering of the framework. That’s why I also feel that science is never a violation against god unless it violates certain specific commandments (murder, theft et cetera.)
To get back to the point you can prove abiogenesis exists, you can reproduce it for me in a lab. And I’ll have two things to say:
I don’t believe in a universe that existed before god, there was no existence before God. Everything you can show me as proof for creation revolves around there already being matter there. The Big Bang theory says we have matter there at the beginning, so does abiogenesis. I will always say to you, “God created that matter, and I also think that in the beginning he shaped it directly, now I think he’s left it to more passive processes.”
And if you can prove how all the matter in the universe came to be “scientifically” I’ll again tell you we are just discovering more about the work that God did at creation.
Basically you can’t make me stop believing in creationism.
Do I think any other creationists feel like I do? Some, I know do. Most of them Catholics. Some, well, they can’t be stopped from believing in creationism because they are a different brand of creationists. These are the Christians that have been gifted with logic and reason but have refused to use it in a perversian of God’s faith. These are people that I don’t think God looks upon favorably.
These are the fundamentalists et cetera. And all of them have already pre-decided everything.
Religious faith doesn’t suffer because of science, for whatever reason it seems you like to think that.
Religious faith goes down because it is natural for humans to sin against God, to turn their backs against God. That is why God rewards the humans that don’t do this. Throughout all of biblical history we read a story where the majority of humanity did not believe in God.
The Catholic Church more or less forced the belief of God on everyone in Western society for about 1500 years or so. When the Catholic Church’s power was broken, humans were more free to go back to what they most naturally do: live their lives thinking about the short term and caring not for God.
People didn’t believe in God during the middle ages because they lacked the scientific skills to disprove his existence (because you lack those skills today) but rather because it was a lot easier to believe in God than it was to not believe in God. Belief = a normal life, disbelief = death. Not too fun.
Now it’s easier to not believe in God because you feel that you can set your own morality.
But anyways we’re starting to diverge from the original topic now.
Yep.
Yep.
Sure. That’s the problem with explanations that can explain anything and everything. No matter what happens, you can always go “yep, there’s my god at work!”
I agree. That’s why I was careful in my OP and subsequent posts to carefully specify who I was talking about, and note that the Catholic Church has already accepted evolution (though not, to my knowledge, abiogenesis).
We have no evidence of this, but there’s no way to disprove it either.
Seems like that would have been a tremendous waste of effort for an all-powerful being to put so much thought and design into stuff that was there already.
Right. Again, this is why I was careful to already include people like you in my discussion by noting that diestic belief can always remain viable.
Sure, sure.
That’s fine, because as long as you continue to make unfalisfiable hypothesises, I’m cool with you believing whatever you happen to believe.
I don’t. There’s faith, and then there’s faith.
That’s not very nice of you! You are going to die just as much as I, no sense trying to rub it in!
I don’t feel anything of the sort. I don’t see what morality does, or even can, have to do with God.
OK…I’m not being terribly eloquent. What I meant was that blind faith is a danger regardless in what one’s faith is placed.
Are the people you are referencing here those who make the arguments or the target of the arguments? The targets are probably not able to absorb the details of either argument, but they do understand that the Bible says God did it, and not believing that is not believing in the Bible. In addition, the creationist marketers produce arguments designed to make evolution silly for those who don’t understand the nuances - chicken or egg, ape to man, a dog giving birth to a cat. How much of the public really understands ring species?
Those who write the stuff, on the other hand, are just liars - though I am sure they believe they are lying for a noble cause.
Cite please for an atheist who has said this? I’m sure some yutz has, but in over a decade on this discussion, I don’t remember ever seeing one. Saying that evolution proves that a literal Genesis is not true is far from saying it shows religion is bunk.
I agree, though, that many who accept evolution do it on faith, which is unfortunate. I am not saying that someone who “believes” in evolution is any smarter than someone who believes in creationism.
Goodness, why bother trying to hunt down a random cite when you’re going to basically concede my point seconds later?