# If your a christian answer this **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2004, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277 "2004-03-03T08:53:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/101 "2004-03-06T20:10:07Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > > [@Susanann](#): > > > > Testing the oceans is the best objective way to determine the age of the earth. If the earth was really millions of years old, the mineral contents and sediments in the oceans would be far more than what is there. > > > > We can calculate the annual mineral runoffs of the world, add them up, and then multiply them by millions to see if we have millions of years of content in the oceans - we dont. > > > > We onlysee about 5-10 thousand years of summed runoffs collected and measured in the oceans. > > Cite!!! She’s repeating more misinformation that she got from YEC authors who are telling lies. Specifically, D. Russell Humphreys, in his Evidence for a Young World and his Creation: _Ex Nihilo_, took sedimentation rates proposed by V.V. Gordeyev and subduction rates proposed by W.W. Hay, subtracted the one from the other and claimed that he had “proved” that the Earth could not be as old as genuine scientists had proposed. However, when Hay calculated his subduction rates, he looked at the rate that the _crust_ was being subducted and used a level of sedimentation borrowed from another observation (he did not measure the sedimentation, himself). So we have one scientist measuring sedimentation and a different scientist measuring subduction. The scientist measuring subduction simply throws in a “bonus” figure for the amount of sediment subducted without measuring it. Humphreys then ignores the discrepancy and goes on to lie about the actual amount of sediment subducted. If we take the amount of sediment calculated by Gordeyev and apply it to the rate of subduction calculated by Hay, we come out with a level of sediment that does nothing to challenge the 4+ billion year age of the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/102 "2004-03-06T20:41:49Z")
Sorry **IWLN** my previous post wasn’t actually directed at YOU. However, I can completely understand why some members do (and probably should) enter a thread which goes off course \ and starts making scientific claims to support their religious beliefs. Especially those claims which are shall we say “unscientific” or as you said “blatantly false”. So, I agree with you IWLN in that IF a poster claims science proves his belief, then they opened the question to scientists to disprove their claim. But I still stand firm in that, **as long as I don’t claim that I can prove GOD exists through science.** Then, I should be allowed this consideration and freely debate an issue without being ridiculed. That being said, I think I’ll leave this thread since the OP is apparently lost interest. regards t-k ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/103 "2004-03-06T21:24:07Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > _bolding mine_But I still stand firm in that, as long as I don’t claim that I can prove GOD exists through science. Then, I should be allowed this consideration and freely debate an issue without being ridiculed. I do agree, mostly. In this setting though, if someone has the opinion that your beliefs are ridiculous, it is certainly not unexpected that they will say so. When I bring up some point about my belief in God here at SDMB, I expect it to be challenged, not validated. That’s why I come here. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_B.Goode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/958977/32.png) [@Johnny\_B.Goode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_B.Goode)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/104 "2004-03-06T23:22:57Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > How do you know that you woke up this morning? You could have been created half a nanosecond ago, with everything being pre-aged to look proper and you full of false memories? How do you know you actually existed to read the previous sentence? Perhaps it was implanted in your memory when you were created half a nanosecond ago (no, not that earlier half nanosecond, this half nanosecond). I had an episode with some blunt in the Bulldog Cafe in Amsterdam a few years ago where I started to freak and these thoughts came into my mind. I think I broke my brain that night. Fundamentalists propose that God made mountains complete with fossils and evidence of age and wear, he made star light appear to have come from millions of years ago and he made things look old to begin with. They come to this conclusion because they might entertain facts and reason with regard to anything else but the existence of their God and their interpretation of the scriptures is always off the negotiating table. Maybe Occam’s Razor would be more appealing to folks like Susanann if it was some sort of firearm. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/105 "2004-03-07T05:02:36Z")
**IWLN** I’ll try not to hijack this thread too much, but I wanted to respond to your statement. I hope you don’t mind if I just insert my comments bolded into your quote. > [@IWLN](#): > > I do agree, mostly. In this setting though, **(this setting is a question posed by Faucet which, as per his request, be restricted to theology)** if someone has the opinion that your beliefs are ridiculous, **(When discussing GOD or practically any supernatural ideaology in the context of science, you are obviously going to seem “ridiculous” when asked for proof. That’s the point of my protest. It is an unprovable theory or better yet, not subject to disproof, it is therefore NOT scientific by nature AND should not be held to the same standard, unless the person presents it as such.)** it is certainly not unexpected that they will say so. **(I agree that it is not unexpected. In fact, I feel that it has become immanent here. Ask a question that is, let’s just say empirical, to use somebody else’s terminology. If it is a question that can’t actually be proven it is like an invitation to ridicule. That’s not fighting ignorance. Browbeating, condescension, and namecalling have no place in debate.)When I bring up some point about my belief in God here at SDMB, I expect it to be challenged, not validated.(The problem with that is the original intent of the OP is lost in the ridicule, just like this one. I don’t know what, if anything, Faucet got out of this thread, other than “forget I asked”. I think it’s a good question myself. I mean, if the trekkers, KOTH and “the Simpson’s” fans 😉 can discuss the universe as seen on TV, surely a person can ask a simple question about their faith and actually have the thread stay on topic.)** That’s why I come here. 😉 Glad to have you too. Maybe IMHO would have been a better forum for this OP? with utmost respect, t-k I think I’ll go find some other Dragons to slay…and try not to get burned too badly in my attempt. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/106 "2004-03-07T05:58:12Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > **IWLN** I’ll try not to hijack this thread too much, but I wanted to respond to your statement. I hope you don’t mind if I just insert my comments bolded into your quote. I don’t mind at all. Hopefully you won’t mind now if I post it all backwards and show you that the \*\*DEVIL \*\* is speaking in the text. 😃 I do hear what you’re saying, but in all honesty, I saw some slightly “smug” condescension from a theist before anyone else chimed in. It doesn’t matter though. It’s a given that it will happen from both sides, in GD anyway. If someone thinks your ideas are idiotic, this is acceptable; if they indicate that you’re an idiot, then it’s not. If I give my opinion and everyone agrees, I’ve learned nothing. Defending it against attack is where I learn the most. Don’t worry about getting “burned”, it’s kind of a dry heat here. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/107 "2004-03-07T23:01:12Z")
> [@](#): > > From JS Princeton > Humans and all life you see around you evolved from earlier lifeforms. This is not up for debate: it is fact and no amount of scientific revolution is going to change this observed fact just as no amount of scientific revolution is going to change the observed fact that heat is transfered from a hot body to a cold body. This is _NOT_ an argument against evolution. Lest you think it is, re-read this reply again and again until you understand that. This _is_ and argument against thinking evolutionary theory will never be replaced. Scientists have concluded, based on a tremendous of amount of evidence and information, that life evolved from earlier lifeforms. The support for evolutionary theory is amazing in its depth. However, this does NOT preclude anyone from forming another hypothesis which competes head to head against evolution. The new hypothesis would need only explain all the data we presently have, and in addition be falsifiable (make predictions). Evolutionary theory, in replacing previous theories, passed this test. Creationism does not. Someday, it is possible for evolution to seem ridiculous and people will wonder how it ever came to pass. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/108 "2004-03-08T00:59:18Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > One of the major conflicts/contradictions which separate men from GOD has to do with our attempt to explain the universe. Science has attempted to explain the universe but it is incomplete and often confusing. Incopmlete, absolutely! How is it confusing? > [@](#): > > Constantly contradicting itself with the “new” theory or evidence, science is by no means GOD. (Hmmm, then again the bible is a bit contradicting of itself as well.) Can you give an example of how science contradicts itself? Science is stated to be incomplete. The contradictions are only if you take the science to be more complete than it actually is. > [@](#): > > Meaning…this isn’t a debate whether GOD exists or not. It is a question about whether GOD used evolution or was creation a six day event. If you believe that GOD uses something to create and you believe in truth then it necessarily follows that GOD used evolution simply because that’s how things came about. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/109 "2004-03-08T01:04:17Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > This is _NOT_ an argument against evolution. Lest you think it is, re-read this reply again and again until you understand that. This _is_ and argument against thinking evolutionary theory will never be replaced. This is an argument on the manner in which theorires are replaced. You sum it up by saying that any alternative theory needs to 1)explain all data and 2)be falsifiable. Sure, I’ll go along with that. How much of evolutionary theory is just data? I would contend that the observed fact that life evolved from earlier lifeforms is simply data. In other words, it cannot be overturned by any new theory, but any new theories need to take into consideration this observed fact. > [@](#): > > Someday, it is possible for evolution to seem ridiculous and people will wonder how it ever came to pass. I’m simply inclined to say this is just as likely as someone finding out that heat transfering from a hot body to a cold body seems ridiculous. Observed facts do not get overturned by new theories, as you point out. The evolution of new lifeforms from earlier lifeforms is observed fact. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/110 "2004-03-08T02:12:19Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Someday, it is possible for evolution to seem ridiculous and people will wonder how it ever came to pass. This is even more likely to be true about religion, as more and more people require some kind of evidence. Many parts of evolution have been empirically proven, not so with religion. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/111 "2004-03-08T05:39:39Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > Incopmlete, absolutely! How is it confusing? I suppose you claim to understand everything science has put forth? Not hardly. However, I said confusing in the sense that the scientific method is not about proof. It is about disproof. Hypothesis are subject to being disproven and when they are (if they are) they are then subject to change or perhaps dismissed entirely. As technology advances many of todays accepted scientific theories will also be disproven. New discoveries will promote new theories and so on. There is no absolute fact, yet some “scientists” like to pretend **they** know the truth. If you are one of those scientists, then you are very confused yourself. (I should probably intervene here and say, the theories themselves aren’t disproven. The hypothesis on which they are based may disproven which in turn may effect the theory.) That’s beter. 😉 just a little prepost edit > [@](#): > > Can you give an example of how science contradicts itself? Science is stated to be incomplete. The contradictions are only if you take the science to be more complete than it actually is. Surely you aren’t asking me for cites in which science has made discoveries which contradict or even disprove the paradigm? It is not ME who is claiming science to be more complete than it is. How about light? Is it constant or not? Wave, particle, or both? Wanna talk about dark matter? (BTW: I wrote my physics thesis on Hawking) Or perhaps you’d like to get into quantums…do monopoles exist or not. Does a neutrino have mass even though it has energy? Can you explain spin theory without confusing everyone? See I studied all this too and have been an avid reader all my life. We can debate these things as well, if you like. But not here. 🙂 I was attempting to answer a question posed by **Faucet** based on religion NOT science. If he had put forth the question in scientific terms my answer would have been different. > [@](#): > > If you believe that GOD uses something to create and you believe in truth then it necessarily follows that GOD used evolution simply because that’s how things came about. End of story. Think of it this way **JS** We can have an intelligent debate about Plato and his ideal plane. We can discuss and present evidence appropriate for the subject. That doesn’t mean we necessarily accept HIS conclusion. If you are just out to prove people wrong, I’m afraid you’re pissing up a rope. The idea of GOD’s nemesis interfering with HIS creation is just as possible as the creation itself. Those who believe in creation are more subject to discuss the “science” behind evolution if you don’t call them kooks in the beginning. and FYI… I’m not aware of anyplace in this thread where I claimed this to be my personal belief. It is just another point of view. An added bonus just for you. I’ve been working on something for my wife and daughter, who both have MD. I’ve recently been researching the effects of different antioxidants and their ability to reconstruct certain defects found in mitochondrial DNA. So far the mechanisms aren’t fully understood. Perhaps we’ll start a thread and see where it goes. > [@](#): > > End of story I kinda doubt it. But take care anyway… t-k ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/112 "2004-03-08T11:24:21Z")
> [@Faucet](#): > > If your an atheist then this question really isn’t for you because I’m assuming that God created the universe. The question is do you think God used evolution to create the universe or did he create it in 6 days? > I personally tend to believe 6 days because we are talking about God here not some 20 man construction crew. How long was a day before god created light? Who or what created god? If as the Bible says god said, it was good, was it good because god said so, or did god say so because it was? If it was good because god said so does that not just beg the question? And if it was good and god merely recognized the fact, does that not also beg the question? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/113 "2004-03-08T15:55:27Z")
I need to take a step back and say, for the record, I’m an atheist and I firmly believe evolution explains our existence, not creation. Having said that… > [@](#): > > By JS Princeton > How much of evolutionary theory is just data? I would contend that the observed fact that life evolved from earlier lifeforms is simply data. In other words, it cannot be overturned by any new theory, but any new theories need to take into consideration this observed fact. No one has observed a human evolving from other lifeforms. No one. There is, however, ample evidence that one lifeform does evolve into other forms, and based on the fossil record we can conclude humans did evolve from other lifeforms. But it is not an observed fact. > [@](#): > > by JS Princeton > I’m simply inclined to say this is just as likely as someone finding out that heat transfering from a hot body to a cold body seems ridiculous. Observed facts do not get overturned by new theories, as you point out. The evolution of new lifeforms from earlier lifeforms is observed fact. Once again, human evolution is _not_ an observed fact. It isn’t even a fact. Attraction of bodies is an observed fact. Go drop an apple on your head. Gravity was a perfect explanation. But wait, sometimes objects push each other away. Why? Ah… magnetism. Gravity is still there, but magnetism is sometimes stronger. In this case, the original theory (gravity) needed to be refined or something new added to explain a new observation. Someday, we might find a situation where the cold body transfers heat to a warmer body. In that case, a new theory on heat transfer might be needed which explains why in some situations heat transfers hot-\> cold and vice versa. Look out your window. Does the Earth look flat or round? To me it looks pretty flat. Is this an observational fact? Of course not. Why? Because what we think we are observing is not really what is there. The scale of the Earth is so big that it just appears flat from this perspective. Observational “facts” can and do change as new evidence is brought to light. A new theory which explains why lifeforms change without using evolution is a possibility. It will always be a possibility. We can only surmise (guess, albeit with a high degree of confidence) where humans came from. Today, the best guess we have is evolution. It explains A LOT, but that doesn’t guarantee it will always be. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/114 "2004-03-08T16:48:28Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I need to take a step back and say, for the record, I’m an atheist and I firmly believe evolution explains our existence, not creation. > . How can it make anymore sense to profess Atheism than it does to profess faith? I mean you are claiming to have FAITH that God does not exist. Personally, I am comfortable with the understanding that somethings, are beyond my understanding. I am neither Agnostic, Atheist, nor Believer, I do not know whether God exists, nor do I care. He/She/It has seen fit to leave me alone and I will return the curtesy. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/115 "2004-03-08T16:53:42Z")
The **fact** is that species die out and are replaced by other, similar species _which weren’t there before_. This phenomenon is called evolution, and it is an observed fact. The _Theory_ of Evolution is an explanation for this fact, and has withstood over a century of attempts by some of the world’s finest minds to find flaws in it. Arguing about the observed fact of species extinction and the subsequent appearance of different species, over the course of **millions** of years, is as absurd as arguing about the shape of the Earth. This thread is not about “disproving God” in any way. It is about _debunking factual claims which are clearly false_, such as that grass is older than the Sun or that the Earth is mere millennia old. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/116 "2004-03-08T16:54:55Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > How can it make anymore sense to profess Atheism than it does to profess faith? I mean you are claiming to have FAITH that God does not exist. > > Personally, I am comfortable with the understanding that somethings, are beyond my understanding. I am neither Agnostic, Atheist, nor Believer, I do not know whether God exists, nor do I care. He/She/It has seen fit to leave me alone and I will return the curtesy. Why, askeptic, you sound like you are actually using skepticism. Is it permitted for self-identified skeptics to actually practice isosthenia instead of disbelieving? ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/117 "2004-03-08T18:01:39Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > I suppose you claim to understand everything science has put forth? Not hardly. Everything that science puts forth is, however, comprehensible from the standpoint that it is simply models and observations. It’s not involved in things that aren’t empirical like theology, for example. > [@](#): > > However, I said confusing in the sense that the scientific method is not about proof. It is about disproof. Hypothesis are subject to being disproven and when they are (if they are) they are then subject to change or perhaps dismissed entirely. As technology advances many of todays accepted scientific theories will also be disproven. New discoveries will promote new theories and so on. There is no absolute fact, yet some “scientists” like to pretend **they** know the truth. Just because things get disproven does not mean there is no absolute fact. A statement of humankind’s limitations is not a critique of science. It is a critique of humankind’s limitations only. No self-respecting scientist will claim or pretend to know the absolute facts of the way nature works, but we DO know how to explain phenomenon in terms of models which are consistently correct. > [@](#): > > How about light? Is it constant or not? It depends. Light is constant in a vacuum. There has never been a theory offered that said otherwise. > [@](#): > > Wave, particle, or both? Both. > [@](#): > > Wanna talk about dark matter? (BTW: I wrote my physics thesis on Hawking) Absolutely. And by the way, Hawking has little to nothing to do with the developments of dark matter theory in astronomy. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps you’d like to get into quantums…do monopoles exist or not. Monopoles may or may not exist. This doesn’t change the fundamental nature of quantum field theory. > [@](#): > > Does a neutrino have mass even though it has energy? You are confused here. Every object that has mass has energy. Massless objects also have energy. Neutrinos have mass as discovered from the recent Superkamiokande experiment. > [@](#): > > Can you explain spin theory without confusing everyone? If you’re willing to learn, I’m willing to teach. > [@](#): > > See I studied all this too and have been an avid reader all my life. We can debate these things as well, if you like. But not here. 🙂 I think your snowjob proves my point precisely. These are things that are KNOWN by science. They are observed things that are explained by theory. That’s ALL I was saying. > [@](#): > > I was attempting to answer a question posed by **Faucet** based on religion NOT science. If he had put forth the question in scientific terms my answer would have been different. Except the question asks about the creation of Earth/universe: which is manifestly known because of science. > [@](#): > > If you are just out to prove people wrong, I’m afraid you’re pissing up a rope. I’m out to fight ignorance and offer observations that explain reality. That is all. > [@](#): > > The idea of GOD’s nemesis interfering with HIS creation is just as possible as the creation itself. Those who believe in creation are more subject to discuss the “science” behind evolution if you don’t call them kooks in the beginning. No argument here. That’s just not what I’m talking about when I’m commenting on some of the issues that arise from taking a nexxus between science and religion as you have. I’m not blaming you: I’m simply pointing out pitfalls. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/118 "2004-03-08T20:21:39Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > How can it make anymore sense to profess Atheism than it does to profess faith? I mean you are claiming to have FAITH that God does not exist. > > Personally, I am comfortable with the understanding that somethings, are beyond my understanding. I am neither Agnostic, Atheist, nor Believer, I do not know whether God exists, nor do I care. He/She/It has seen fit to leave me alone and I will return the curtesy. I mentioned the fact I’m atheist lest people think I’m arguing against evolution. I’m not. I’m arguing against the notion that evolutionary theory will persist forever. For now, at least, we have a theory (which is about as close to a fact as you can get in scientific terms) that explains things pretty damn well. But that doesn’t mean something better won’t come along as new facts arise. You can call atheism faith, if you so choose. But then what you profess is just another faith in an of itself. You just have FAITH that whatever higher power exists, should it even exist, is not interested in interacting with you. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/119 "2004-03-08T20:21:44Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Why, askeptic, you sound like you are actually using skepticism. Is it permitted for self-identified skeptics to actually practice isosthenia instead of disbelieving? Actually I believe equipollence may be a better term as far as verb tense goes. 😃 But show me a skeptic that claims not to believe something and I will show you a fraud. You clearly understand that skepticism is not about not believing. (double negatives and all) Dogface: BTW and OT are you a vet? ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277/120 "2004-03-08T20:24:55Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > No one has observed a human evolving from other lifeforms. No one. There is, however, ample evidence that one lifeform does evolve into other forms, and based on the fossil record we can conclude humans did evolve from other lifeforms. But it is not an observed fact. > > Once again, human evolution is _not_ an observed fact. It isn’t even a fact. Incorrect. It IS an observed fact. See [Gould’s article here](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html). > [@](#): > > Attraction of bodies is an observed fact. Go drop an apple on your head. Gravity was a perfect explanation. But wait, sometimes objects push each other away. Why? Ah… magnetism. Gravity is still there, but magnetism is sometimes stronger. In this case, the original theory (gravity) needed to be refined or something new added to explain a new observation. Exactly. Which is exactly why the observed fact of evolution in the details might be incomplete but the major points are still valid. Similar to gravity. > [@](#): > > Someday, we might find a situation where the cold body transfers heat to a warmer body. In that case, a new theory on heat transfer might be needed which explains why in some situations heat transfers hot-\> cold and vice versa. We alreday have one: a refrigerator. This does not mean that the OBSERVED FACT of heat transfer is incorrect or disproven. It just means that there are amplifications to theory that need to be considered. Same thing applies to evolution. Which is why human beings being descended from earlier apes that were different species will not change though the details of the speciation process are somewhat prone to tuning. > [@](#): > > Look out your window. Does the Earth look flat or round? To me it looks pretty flat. Is this an observational fact? Of course not. Why? Because what we think we are observing is not really what is there. The scale of the Earth is so big that it just appears flat from this perspective. Observational “facts” can and do change as new evidence is brought to light. This is a good example of an observational fact. The horizon appears flat because the curvature of the Earth is a matter of scale. This is an observed fact. Plain and simple. Don’t claim that the Earth appearing flat is not an observational fact: it is a very important fact. It is, for example, the reason we can get a constant acceleration due to gravity. Again: observed fact. > [@](#): > > A new theory which explains why lifeforms change without using evolution is a possibility. It will always be a possibility. No it is manifestly not. It will need to explain the evolution that is seen. Period. > [@](#): > > We can only surmise (guess, albeit with a high degree of confidence) where humans came from. Today, the best guess we have is evolution. It explains A LOT, but that doesn’t guarantee it will always be. Evolution is manifestly NOT a guess. I’d be more comfortable with this sort of treatment from talkorigins: > [@talkorigins](#): > > Why not say the same for everything that happened before you were born? How do you know the world didn’t come into existence the second you were born? Your parents weren’t around before, either; they were created at the same time with implanted memories of living before you were born. And why stop there? One frequent talk.origins poster (jokingly) asserts that the universe was created Last Thursday by his cat, and that the universe will end with the Judgment Day of the Litterbox Next Tuesday. He may be correct–there’s no way of telling if he’s right or not. > > Since we cannot tell the difference between the universe of Last Thursdayism and the universe as we think it operates, we can only assume that there is no Trickster God fabricating evidence everywhere we look, including evidence–multiple independent lines of evidence – that the universe is billions of years old. That doesn’t mean geology or cosmology or evolutionary biology is metaphysics; it just means that science can’t ultimately prove anything. All science can say about any question is, “It looks like this is the case, and this is what all the evidence we have points towards.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-your-a-christian-answer-this/232277.md?page=7)