Religion (God)

Quote:Yes. If God doesn't want the criticism, he should have been a bit more skilled in putting man together.

LoL. He doesn't deny you your ability to do so (such would be an infringment upon our precious right to free will), but He does advise against the folly of such an under-taking.

Quote:Clear, but not true. Ultimately the logic of the Wager falls apart anyway.

When did you become God (oh wait, we're getting there :-P)? Please explain.

Quote:But in order for your 2-choice wager to work, not only does Christianity have to actually be true, but it has to be common knowledge amongst both participants that it is true. The atheist likely is not convinced of its truth, however, and thus from his perspective (EVEN if it is really true) the other choices still have equal weight.

Remember, it doesn't matter what people feel like, or if they believe it/know it that makes something true. The wager holds! :-P

Quote:Definitely. Basically what I'm saying is: Even if we accept that I should live my life as a Christian because, if I don't, I might suffer for all eternity...this doesn't serve as proof that Christianity is actually true. That is to say, the proof:

1. Suffering is bad
2. If you aren't a Christian, you might suffer in the afterlife.
3. Therefore Christianity is true.

doesn't work. Pascal's Wager doesn't speak to the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

Totally correct. The assumption that Christianity is correct is necessary to make the wager valid. Remember, everything starts with assumptions/faith.

Quote:You said it in this post:...

So I did. =) To me, all other options of belief are ludicrous and impossible for me to believe. But that's true for everyone, isn't it?

Quote:Given that the entirety of the evidence for his existence also applies to other claimed gods of other religions, the probability of all of them is equal (since the evidence for all of them is the same). Because the probability is equal (and low), choosing any of them is not justified, and choosing any of them over another is definitely not justified (since I have no basis by which to rank them)

I actually meant, why do you place your faith in your reason? (Good point though...I'll look into it...later =P)

Quote:Evolution doesn't talk about the moral "why", but instead the physical "why"
...huh?

Quote:But evolution doesn't present a worldview :P This is, to me, like talking about the worldview that gravity presents: It is an almost absurd thing to speak of.

Wrong. Evolution the theory that all life came from non-life. Purposeless, non-life, that sprang into action through dumb luck, and by random chance, became higher life forms (in complete opposition to all the laws of thermodynamics, no less). Why would such an unscientific theory come about? One reason, one real reason. We can't stand the idea that we are responsible to someone. The IMPLICATIONS of the belief in the Evolutionary theory are basically the well-spring of every single problem we've covered thus far.
1. Subjectivity
2. Purposelessness
3. Total freedom from responsibility to anyone but ourselves
...
And I will write more but I just looked out the window and the sun just came up.
I need to sleep...bad.
Till later,
-Tyler

While I wait for you to reply to my whole bit about morality, I'll post my responses. Please, reply to my bit about morality before replying to these posts ;)

Quote:No way! You have a history final too? Or just finals in general?

It isn't a final in the sense that YOU have a final - rather, I have an AP examination in one week in US History

Quote:It seems (to me) that you are straddling both sides of the fence.

Your perception is based on an inconsistency that I wish to point out. It is not that I want God to both interfere and not interfere - I would much rather he interefered. Rather, it seems odd that God *is* doing both: He interferes to a very limited extent, by granting miracles or whatever, but then chooses not to interfere to a larger extent (like making all the crops grow well) supposedly because this somehow violates our "free will". It does not seem to violate our free will, however, in that he is not making *choiceS* for us, but rather he would be altering our environment. If altering the environment serves as a violation of free will, then why don't miracles?

I apologise though: Sometimes I switch from attacking with my viewpoint or simply questioning yours. I apologise for the ambiguity.

Quote:How do you judge what is best for humanity? If God is omniscient, shouldn't He KNOW what's best for us, and act accordingly?

Since what is best for humanity is necessarily a normative judgement (devoid of truth value, since it rests on value determinations), I can judge because I am capable of judging. God is not capable of "knowing" what is best any more than I am in this manner.

Quote:So, really, God must prevent only unnecessary evil.

That seems odd. How can a thing be a necessary or unnecessary evil. Why was Katrina, for instance, a necessary evil?

Quote:In your words, just because you reject (or accept) something, does not make it untrue (or true).

No, becaues in this case I am making a normative, not descriptive statement. Because normative statements are variable depending on the observer in question, and because they cannot be argued upon based on rational grounds, it is impossible to prove or disprove the statement "Humans can have the same moral weight as property". I consider such a statement to be immoral, you may not. However, because it is immoral to me, the proceeding statement you made is then false under my moral system.

Quote:It's fine to say that you don't like the rules God lays down, but it doesn't really matter what a child thinks of his parents rules, does it?

Not in the sense that the child can do anything about it, but still: Let us say a parent tells a child to eat his dinner with a fork, but then proceeds to hide the fork in some place or another and then tortures the child because he failed to follow this commandment. Would we say that this is at all moral? Of course not: Most people would condemn the parent for being a psychotic freak

Quote:Also, you would think that a creation would be required to worship (out of mere decency of gratitude) its creator, right?

Definitely not. Especially if the creator is so morally disturbed as ours appears to be :)

Quote:That is why, I think, we have free will.

But why *ought* we have free will? Why does it matter whether we have "real love" for him or not? Why should he care?

Quote:Sin demands justice,

But morality flows from God. God can redefine justice in whatever manner he wishes, and by definition, his definition is the "correct" one, right? If God really wants to, he can say "Justice is enduring 2 hours of Ugly Betty per sin violated" - so why not either say "Justice is repenting for your sins or going to hell" or "Justice is this, but I am merciful too and will set aside justice", or whatnot? Why the strange Christ loophole?

Quote:"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)

As an atheist, I must admit that this one creeps me out a bit :)

Quote:but that doesn't really matter does it?

It definitely does, because we are having a debate about what ought to be.

Quote:That would deny His justice, and God cannot/will not deny or defy his nature.

So please, define his definition of justice more to me.

Quote:But then, why not look at it as "sending yourself to jail/hell"?

Because under my moral system, I am not doing anything that merits the sort of punishment God wants to hand out. It's like this: If a murderer gets sent to the death penalty, we may say he did so himself, because he commited an unspeakable crime.
However, if someone who accidently destroyed the property of someone else were given the death penalty, we may say that the *judge* or the *state* is killing him because in this case the punishment does not fit the crime at all.

Quote:oes He, being the Creator of your very existence, not have that right?

Not unless we are to say that humans can become property.

Quote:sn't it ludicrous and even laughable to imagine a pot saying to the Potter, "You block head! What the heck did you make me like this for?! You're doing it all wrong you idiot! Get it right!"

You paint it in such an amusing light, but let us look at it from another point of view: Let us say that this pot is going to hold water for transport across long distances. Let us also say that the pot magically gains self-awareness (so that it can speak). If the pot knows that it will have such a purpose, and the potter is, say, making an open instead of closed pot, it would not be unreasonable for the pot to say "Yo, you're doing it all wrong you idiot! Get it right!"

As well, again, he is violating my free will by holding me to the terms of a thing I did not agree to. If this is the case, he does not particularly appear to value free will...

Quote:is god immoral, evil, hardly, whom is ultimate judge, period, hard to swallow, what the crap, I think the answer is, God does everything to bring glory to Himself. Egotistical?, self centered?, whom is centre of universe, humans bent on idea, all about us, its not

Indeed: It's all about God, isn't it? ;)
But rather, if God has created some beings that are made for dishonour and some that are made for honour...that is, some that are made to go to hell and others made to go to heaven, then this entirely negates free will, and his desire for our free will. As well, by the moral system of modern westerners, it is completely immoral to essentially set up a caste system where some people are inherently better than others. You've addressed this point by saying "Oh well, we can't question God's morality!", but that isn't a particularly satisfying answer for an atheist: This God appears to be extremely immoral, creating people for essentially the purpose of suffering for eternity. That can be described as no less than sadism. Why should I worship your God at all? He appears to be extremely morally bankrupt.

Quote:Your intellect or God's (assumed) word?

My intellect.

Quote:. That we cannot know ANYTHING without first making assumptions (beliefs>faith).

Yes! This is correct.

Quote:So then, all God is asking is for you to put your faith in Him, rather than yourself.

I disagree here. All reasoning requires that we make some assumptions about the world. These assumptions are ones I call normative assumptions: We make assumptions as to how the world *ought* to be. Thus, we are able to act on the world: I drink water because I *ought* to preserve my life. I do homework because I *ought* to get a good education because I *ought* to change the world for the better. Etc: If we made no assumption, we would have no reason to act whatsoever.

However, these assumptions are not assumptions to how the universe actually is (descriptive) but to how it ought to be (normative). Thus, they are inherently subjective - rules for "evidence" or "reason" do not apply because normative statements are without truth value.
By putting my faith "in God", however, I am now making an assumption as to how the universe actually is - suddenly rules about evidence or reason apply because I'm no longer just expressing a personal preference, but I'm saying how things actually are. Hence, it is not possible for me to put my faith in God in the same way I create a moral system.

Note that this post included lots of smileys, but I had to reduce it to 4. Bah.

Quote:The truth worht of a person is based on the what the creator of that person says about them.

And the creator has said that, basically, he'll judge based on whether they believe in the One True God(tm) or not. Thus, worth comes down to that.

Quote:But since moral truth is relative, it doesn't really matter what you think is "desireable" does it?

When it comes to me worshipping your God, yes, it does

Quote:It might follow, had God not actually commanded us to care for the poor.

But he also tells us that the way to get into heaven is to believe him, that works don't matter, and he himself doesn't help the poor...Since he defines morality, because he does not see it as a moral imperative to help the poor, why ought I?
And what of countless number of other issues: Sharing food or helping the elderly or defending freedom or whatever.

Quote:What if that statement is actually true?

Then I'm in an unfortunate position.
However, does it not seem logical for a religion to condemn unbelievers, especially those who do not believe in any God at all? For they pose the greatest threat to the religion and to the power establishment that promotes that religion: If nobody believes in God (or superstition in general), the powerful lose a tool by which to manipulate the population.
A great many religions have little lines that say "Atheists are wicked people, don't touch them." - as is wise for them to do.

Quote:We're all equally messed up.

Really? Are you as messed up as, say, Adolf Hitler?

Quote:(notice the revulsion you feel at this statement)

Yes. I suppose I've been taught to be suspicious of people who tell me to blindly obey

Quote:What I'm trying to say is that it IS possible to believe in God and still be you!!! He wouldn't have it any other way.

But it isn't: I define myself by standing for a specific moral system, one that judges people based on their works, not their irrelevant beliefs. I define myself by my pursuit of rationality, a rationality that so far has no reason to believe in God. God and I are, it seems, in conflict here.

Quote:He made us to worship Him. There, I said it, plain as day. Why does this sound repugnant and egocentric?

Because were this a human, it would sound psychotic: This person doesn't care about whether you do great things for the people of the world or not (the or not part is important: He doesn't care if you do bad things for the world either). All he cares about is whether, at the end of the day, you bow down to worship him. If you fail to do so, not only does he kill you (which would be bad enough), but he tortures you for eternity.

As well, typically in Western society, ones actions ought not be driven by ones ego.

These come into direct conflict with the moral systems of most people.

Quote:No, you didn't end up becoming a Christian, in fact, you ripped out his beard, flogged off his skin, and nailed God to a cross. (And so did I by the way.)

Oh...I must have been sleep-walking when I did this, for I have no memory of it. :)

Quote:You (and I) would have done the same.

Please do not presume to speak for me. I have no political interest in scapegoating God for anything, nor do I have any religious interest for burning the heretic.

The problem is that you assume that societies are entirely stagnant morally: That they have the exact same moral system throughout all time. This is patently false: Rome, for instance, didn't quite seem to have things like universal suffrage, or freedom of speech, or a value on liberty, or anysuch. Here in America, we tolerate freedom of religion. Can we say the same for Rome? Ask Jesus.

So yes, I am so arrogant as to think I am better than most of the people who lived back then, because I was born in a different time than they were: I was taught a completely different moral system than they were, and so my actions are going to be completely different.

Perhaps if I were born back at the time, I may have done the same thing...but if I were born back at the time, I wouldn't me *me* - I'd be someone else with different beliefs, experiences, desires...So it isn't meaningful to really speak of what *I* would have done back then. The only meaningful thing to speak of is what *I* would do right now.

If God came down, cured disease, made crops abundant...not only would I *not* attack him, but I would worship him because he is doing extremely good things.

Quote:No matter how hard you try to explain to Christians that Atheism just PLAIN MAKES SENSE, they seem to be ignorant, stupid, blind even. They do not believe.

Atheism makes sense, with enough philosophical backing to it. People have varying degrees of skill and such when it comes to logic, and most people let their emotions and culture get in the way of it.
Again, we cannot say:

1. Other people do not believe X (Christianity/Atheism).
2. Therefore, X (Christianity/Atheism).

it doesn't quite flow, and thus isn't a proper argument ;)

Quote:Yes, you are right. But we CAN observe his actions--namely creation.

And so the argument to prove creationism is:

1. ASSUMPTION: Creation proves creationism.
2. Therefore, creationism.

This is a little...invalid.

Quote:Have you observed the primordial singularity? Or macroevolution?

Until scientists present more evidence regarding the big bang (I suspect that will come from some variation of string theory), I'm still out on that one
When it comes to macroevolution, of course *I* personally haven't seen it, but collectively science has. It is possilbe that there is a great conspiracy to decieve me, but I think the more likely explanation is that these observations actually occured, the analysis on them is honest, and thus the theory is well supported.

Quote:Though, if God is omnipotent and lives outside of time, I'm sure He's got the "time" to orchesrate such events.

Then again, free will takes a hit: If God orchestrates the location of everything in the universe, because everything can be reduced to atoms, God has already charted our course and we are unable to choose otherwise (we merely think we can): Thus, we are having this conversation because God, long ago, made it such that the masses of atoms in our bodies would eventually hit keys on a keyboard in this specific pattern.

Note that I'm cool with that: It means that, no matter what, everything is going according to God's plan, and I'm not a moral agent, but it doesn't matter because God directs me as he wishes. It actually solves a lot of the problems of God.

Quote:V for Vendetta! (What'd you think of it?)

It was a good movie - I thought it was a little too preachy about how things are going on in the United States, but I enjoyed the film aspect of it anyway. I thought the ending was highly improbable, though (more likely the government would kill all people who attempted to defy it, and more likely nobody would have attempted to defy it).

Quote:Cool! Do you do yoga? Or am I mixing up my religions?

No, and no. I meditate on occasion. Mostly, though, I believe that much of what buddhism says (suffering comes from desire, etc) is true. Plus, it helps me here in conservative Utah: Instead of saying I'm an atheist, I can just say "I'm a Buddhist" and people go "Oh, well, that's cool, I guess."

Quote:Another potentially offensive (though that doesn't necessitate it's invalidity) verse.

It doesn't necessarily make it invalid, but I doubt the validity of the Bible anyway

Quote:...Though I could probably just google it. I'm guessing this has the name "three missionaries problem" or "random choice problem". But perhaps this is original...let's see.

It's something that I just thought of, actually.
Get back to me when you get an answer. Until then, I'm going to think God is still rather immoral.

Quote:There is a prime-mover, and that prime-mover is not responsible to anyone or anything but itself.

If morals are absolute and they flow from that prime mover, yes. But as I demonstrate...morals can only really be absolute if they don't flow from that prime mover ;)

Quote:The real "hell" of Hell is separation from our meaning in life, from our purpose, from our Creator.

So am I in hell right now?

Quote:Those are my personal thoughts on Hell, I can't back them up scripturally, so I might just be talking out my butt, but it makes sense to me. :-P

Why do you then attempt to justify EVERYTHING based on the Christian bible, and conservative interpretations thereof? Why not simply abandon the Bible and say "Hey, I have my own moral system." - that is, talk out of your butt all the time?

Quote:I don't really understand or see how your hypothesis is played out in history, could you explain?

Basically: The first instinct of a person is to be selfish, to hoard things, to not share, to be a bit isolationist. However, as time progresses, people discover that they themselves benefit even more when they do share: First it was on defence. After all, a tribe of people is much much stronger than simply 1 person alone.
As time progressed, they discovered that this applies to a wide variety of things, but the lesson was general: If we be friends, even if we do things differently, we'll both be stronger for it. Hence, this was gradually applied to home life, religion, economics, etc...resulting in a system like we have today.

Imagine if everybody shared everything. Would we all not benefit even more than we do now? If I created a car and then gave it to some person who needs it, or food, or whatever...If I worked for the betterment of society rather than myself, then ultimately I benefit far more greatly than if I had worked just for myself.

The reason that this takes time to develop is because we have a bias toward working just for ourselves, and we know that other people have this bias and so we mistrust them, and the combination of these two makes progress slow. Also, things like religion complicate it.

Quote:Liberalism leads (in theory) to liberation, or freedom, which is another name for individualism. Yet, we appear to be social, pack creatures. What's the deal?

Because we evolved from social pack creatures The two are not incompatible, though: Liberalism provides the required bridge between our social nature and our desire to be individuals. It lets us be individuals in all spheres that do not interfere with other people, while still maintaining the open lines of communication necessary for social interaction. In Saudi Arabia, being an atheist is bad bad bad, and you will be isolated (and probably killed) because of it. In the United States, you can be an atheist and still participate in the community. This is even more true in Western Europe.

Quote:It is my theory that kids who are left to themselves, given whatever they want (thus less inhibiting the natural nature of the being) turn out to be complete spoiled brats.

That's been my experience as well, but my own childhood seems to offer a different story (though you'll disagree): I was raised in an environment were I basically was given whatever I wanted. At first I really enjoyed it, and I had a real sense of entitlement...but then I realised that all these material things were useless to me. They were devoid of any meaning or substance at all. So I moved on to things like politics, philosophy, etc...
I like to think I turned out well in that regard :)

Quote:This idea, from my perspective, serves as little more than a cop-out for the difficult reality that morality is objective, not subjective.

We will see

Quote:"It demonstrates His justice."

Again, I'm really seeing God as the psychofascist dictator here. He wants to create a state where he is the sole leader, the sole thing of worth in the state and that all others exist to serve him. He has a caste system where some people are the "superior people" whereas others are condemned to suffer - and suffer they do! He sends troops out to the lower castes in order to torture them for all eternity in order to show the rest of the population his power and justice.
This is all kind of WTF worthy ;)

Quote:Now you have no excuse,

Wrong. My excuse is that you have failed to prove your position. Merely telling me the position is not enough: Remember, you had no answer to my "three missionaries" problem. You need to prove your position so that I know how to properly choose between your God and the infinite gods of all the other religions.

Quote:He cannot/will not coerce us into loving Him.

But he can show us *proof*. He doesn't need to force us: I'm sure that, again, if people across the world turned on their TV and CNN and Al Jazeera and Novosti all had cameras where teh JESUS was speaking and performing miracles and tricks...Christianity would shoot from 50% to 99% within the week. People are free to say "No, I hate him." but that at least provides me with a logical reason to support you in this matter.

Quote:Divine rape--hardly consistent with the character of God.

God is a fascist dictator. Divine rape doesn't seem too far out of line for him.

Quote:Evidence: Flower
A correlation to the physical world.

Go on...It needs to be a bit more than.

1. Flower.
2. Therefore, creationaism

;)

Quote:f evolution? Of creation? It swings both ways.

This is really unfair for you, because creationism cannot be proven: It is an ad-hoc hypothesis. No matter what evidence comes up to support anything else, you can always tack on the ad-hoc "Well, God created that, too".
It is like the satirical Last-Thursdayism: This hypothesis holds that the entire universe was created last thursday. God simply created our memories, too, and placed all the evidence that makes it look like the universe is really old.

No matter what evidence comes up for evolution, or the age of the universe, or earth, or whatever...Last Thursdayism can never be disproven, because I can always say "Well, God created that, too". Hell (heck?), let's make it even more absurd: The entire universe, with everything in it, was created 1 millisecond ago. That seems absurd, of course (although when I think about it, it is really trippy, because its like I was thinking about thinking about it even before I was actually thinking about it, FOREVER...), but there is nothing you can do to disprove me.

What about intelligent falling...Gravity doesn't actually exist, it is God who makes everything fall. This cannot be disproven either, for no matter what we discover, I can always say "Well, that's just God making it fall."

What about intelligent electricity? It isn't that electricity does anything, it's that God magically makes our trinkets turn on.
What about intelligent hearing? It isn't that you actually hear anything, it's that God is planting the memories of hearing inside your brain!
What about intelligent rocketry? It's not that our rockets actually fly...it's that god is picking them up!
What about intelligent bathing? It isn't that your rubber duck is floating...it's that God is holding it in his hand! :)

Do you see the problem? None of these can *ever* be disproven: they aren't falsifiable. They don't seem particularly likely, of course.

So yes, the evidence does swing both ways, because creationism is structured in such a way that all evidence for evolution can automatically be considered evidence for creationism: "Oh, God did that."
So we could have just accepted creationism and not done anything else...but the information we have gained by learning about evolution has assisted so many sciences and impacted our lives in such a manner that to ignore it would be a tragedy. The dischotomy for evolution isn't "Evolution-Creationism", but rather "Evolution-NotEvolution". Creationism (or intelligent falling, or 1 millisecond-ism, or intelligent bathing...) simply has no place in scientific debate whatsoever.

Quote:Because after all, there is no "proof" in science.

Oh no, there definitely is. Lamarckianism, for instance, has been proven against.
There is no definitive proof for a thing, of course, but there can be proof against a thing.

Quote:1. Hilarious odds (truly, evolutionists have greater faith than I do)

The only real hilarious odd is the formation of the Earth, and even that isn't particularly hilarious: Imagine that you have ten dice. Imagine also that you want the dice to roll in a specific order: 1, 4, 5, 4, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 6. The chance of you rolling this specific combination is (if my math is correct, and it probably isn't) 0.00000165381716879202%. Assume you have one year to do it. Let's say you can complete 1 roll a second (a generous estimation - computers can complete a massive number of rolls each second). That means 60 rolls a minute, 3,600 an hour, 86400 a day, 31536000 a year. The odds still aren't in your favour: You still have a 59% chance of not rolling those numbers. But if you do, should you be so shocked? Of course not 40.6% chance is still a very very good chance.

(Math involved, please correct me: (1/6)^10=X, X^31536000, answer *100.)

Of course, the formation of Earth would be much more complex than that. But the universe is far far larger: The number of "rolls" that the universe can perform each second is extremely high. So it it *that* unlikely? After however many rolls per second over the course of 13 billion years (410240376000000000 seconds!), the formation of at least one earth does not seem impossible. Plus, was it not just a bit of time ago that we discovered another planet that may have water on it? We've only "explored" (and not really even that) a fraction of the universe...so if we, in our primitive state, can find even the possibility of a planet with Earth-like conditions, then Earth forming does not seem unlikely at all.

Once Earth forms, its just a matter of waiting.

Quote:2. Terrible track record regarding "missing links".
3. Utterly inefficient fossil records.
For more fun:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
">http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting.html

First of all, I hope that you've researched from more sources than "Creation Apologetics" ;) You might be getting a warped view of things if that is your only source. The language on some of these pages is rather...how shall I say, biased.
Also, the links seem to be of somewhat dubious scientific value. For instance, your second link purports to deny continental drift and plate tectonics (which have been studied to death - they were rejected at first due to lack of evidence, but as our technology grew, evidence also began to grow) in order to show how creation geology can work. Hence, you'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of your sources.

There is a definite fossil record to indicate that various transitions have occured between various different species. There was the recently discovered Tiktaalik fossil that indicates a link between fish and amphibians, for instance. Objections to these records tend to come in the form of "Well, you've been wrong before." (Which is an irrelevant objection: The status of a person being wrong in the past doesn't have any particular bearing to the subject at hand noW) or "It is a hoax." (Not falsifiable). Indeed, I find it somewhat strange that the objections seem to come from fossil records of the early 20th century ;) Records that science rejected, by the way. I also find it somewhat strange that creationists do not propose their findings or objections in any form of peer-reviewed manner, but instead seem to appeal to the public's sentiment instead, which doesn't seem like a particularly scientific method of inquiry.
So your first site seems to basically say "It's a hoax, or they are wrong". The second site seems to say that speciation never occurs (which is patently false, as we've observed speciation ourselves), and that it violates the second law of thermodynamics (again, also patently false: the sun provides more than enough energy required to keep it all in checK). Then it says that, while there is *overwhelming* evidence against evolution, there is a large conspiracy between the media and the scientific establishment to continue to promote evolution (because apparently we are a godless society?). It seems that creationists do have a lot of serious consideration by a great many people and media sources (hell, they almost penetrated the education system in many areas, including the one I live in), so why can they not simply take their evidence and have it scientifically reviewed upon?
The fact is that all the evidence that creationists have been able to put together to attack evolution has been scientifically reviewed, and none of it has worked. When a fossil is discovered or whatnot, a lot of care goes into making sure it is genuine, and if it isn't then it simply isn't entered in as evidence (as the past hoaxes of the 20th century have shown us).

So it seems not only are your sources a bit biased, but the information contained within does not appear to be correct.

Here is a really friendly source for you, if you like:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47

Others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution (Wikipedia has a ton of information on evolution, including links to further reading and other sources that might interest you. Also, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Read a debate that took place between the two sides:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

From my perspective, it seems like the debate has taken a turn toward ad-hoc hypotheses. Many creationists, instead of simply moving on, simply continue to tack on more objections. "Well, evolution needs to be bigger than X (where X is some instance of evolution discovered)" or "It's all just a hoax! A conspiracy!" or whatnot. This is no longer scientific debate: The specific merit of the theory in question (remember, theories organise information in order to explain phenomena through a proposed mechanism) is no longer being particularly debated, but instead the standard of evidence is being continiuously redefined.

And I just don't see why. So many people seem to think that if evolution is true, their faith must necessarily not be. It seems like a ridiculously easy matter to reconcile evolution with faith - there are far more powerful arguments against religion than evolution (evolution isn't a proper argument against religion anyway). The links you provided seemed very...emotional about the issue. Why? I just don't understand that mindset.

Quote:Please explain.

The wager is essentially a thought experiment to promote a specific form of action on the part of those who do not believe. However, by virtue of the fact that they don't believe, they likely don't consider the statement "X god exists." (where X is your god) to be true. Because of that, from their perspective, one cannot draw the dichotomy between Atheism and Christianity, because all the other options availible from all the other religions also have equal weight with Christianity, and thus must be included.

Because of this, it falls apart, despite your attempts to limit it to just two.

Quote:Totally correct. The assumption that Christianity is correct is necessary to make the wager valid.

Indeed. But I doubt that the person you are attempting to convert via the wager is going to nicely assume you are correct for you ;)

Quote:So I did. =) To me, all other options of belief are ludicrous and impossible for me to believe. But that's true for everyone, isn't it?

Not necessarily. Most people will consider any system significantly opposed to theirs to be ludicrous, but otherwise...

Quote:I actually meant, why do you place your faith in your reason? (Good point though...I'll look into it...later =P)

I place a high value (or faith, if you like) on truth.
There are some philosophical movements that maintain truth to be irrelevant (that is to say, they don't place a high value or faith on truth), and say that only what is useful ought to be considered. It might not be *true* that God exists, but since it is *useful*, we'll pretend like he does.

Quote:...huh?

If you ask evolution "Why do I have a foot?", evolution will say "You have a foot because ...."
If you ask evolution "What is the meaning of life?", evolution will say "i dunno lol"

Quote:Evolution the theory that all life came from non-life.

Evolution doesn't talk about the origin of the universe - that is something for the physics people to debate (and they are making progress, when it comes to string theory, but that hasn't been proven at all and thus isn't a scientific "fact" yet).
Evolution teaches that life responds to its environment. We developed large brains because we needed to in order to survive, etc.

Quote:(in complete opposition to all the laws of thermodynamics, no less).

Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Quote:Why would such an unscientific theory come about

It doesn't seem particularly unscientific, in that it seems to correlate with all of our observations of everything.

Quote:The IMPLICATIONS of the belief in the Evolutionary theory are basically the well-spring of every single problem we've covered thus far.

If this were true, then we would have seen a massive rush by society to adopt evolution. We did not see this: We saw evolution, in the beginning, condemned as heresy and trickery. Those who thought evolution was true were condemned as being against the Lord, and people were rather upset that anyone would suggest that we "came from monkeys".
Indeed, we still see this in highly religious societies (see: the middle east).

If humans had this massive need to feel like they were completely alone in the universe, that God is dead, etc...we would not see religion as powerful a force throughout history as it has been. It's only a very recent thing that large numbers of people have begun to question superstitious thinking, and we have Christianity to thank for that: The efforts of Christian philosophers and thinkers, many of whom were very brilliant, contributed to promoting an environment were the issue could be critically examined.

I simply believe you are too hasty to simply dismiss all these arguments against you as coming from beings that really want to be alone in the universe, since I don't think that observation correlates with reality: Most people don't want to be alone in the universe, since *that* makes life devoid of meaning (for many people). As you said, some people think that evolution destroys the moral basis for society. People don't want that - people like to have a god next to them, looking over them, etc. Hence why they've chosen for 7000+ years to have a god next to them. I personally would find it very comforting if God existed (and wasn't evil, like yours ;) ). Sometimes, when I go through hard times, it would really help me if he did exist...But I'm not going to confuse my desires for truth.

As you said, humans are social animals. They don't like subjectivity (hence why moral relativism is such a dirty thing), they don't like purposelessness (for instance, look at the rise and fall of governments: Strong governments are able to give their people a feeling of purpose), and they don't really like total freedom (hence why governments are so incredibly large). But even if they liked all these things, it still doesn't speak to the truth value of evolution.

I'm not a biologist, but I'll try to answer any specific claims you have against evolution (or if I missed something in your links). But first, read the links I gave you.

Something interesting:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Tyler Heald
PHI- 103
4/22/07
Manninen – B10

It’s A Fact
Should Creationism be taught along side Evolution in the public school system? What is evolution? For clarity’s sake I will make one certain, specific distinction.
“Evolution” - With a capital “E”. this is the theory of evolution. This is synonymous with macroevolution: The belief that all species mutated from a single ancestor.
“evolution” - lower case “e”, this is the “fact of evolution.” This is synonymous with adaptation and microevolution: The process by which species adapt to their environments. Note that it has never been the case that species adapt into new species.(1)
Whether intentionally or otherwise, some people interchange or combine these two crucially different terms into one. This is a great source of agitation in arguing for or against the theory. Also note that evolution (adaptation) is not in opposition with any view of creation, whereas Evolution (theory) is.
At this point I must clarify which specific Theory of Creation I am advocating and why it is precisely in opposition to the Theory of Evolution. First, why do theories arise? The purpose of a theory is to attempt to explain the previously unexplained or unexplainable. The origin of life, however, had been explained (theorized) as the result of a purposeful, omnipotent, God, by the Christians for quite some time before Evolution arose. Several other accounts of the beginning of life existed as well, all including gods, spirits or other driving forces, though none so well documented and replicated as the Biblical creation account wherein God created the universe in six days. So why was another theory required? Was this theory inadequate in some way(s)? Perhaps, but as explained further down in this paper, there don’t seem to be any objections that retain their necessity, as the Evolutionists claim. “After all,” they explain, “We wouldn’t have come up with it if it weren’t necessary.” They are partially right. However, the necessity is not “scientific defensibility” as you will often be cited (more on that later). The necessity was the desire for freedom from responsibility to a higher power(2). The only way to have this is random, dumb, coincidental luck. Were it any other way, we, humankind, would be responsible to something or Someone other than ourselves. We would not be “the measure of all things,” as Sophocles put it. And this thought is more than some care to bear; hence the birth of Evolution—the alternative to God. This is why randomness is essential for Evolution and why it is nonsensical to advocate a “middle-ground” position, such as Intelligent Design, Deism, or Non-literal Creationism, as many have valiantly tried to do. The two worldviews, theories, or whatever you want to call them, are in utter opposition. In the words of Jesus, “And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”(3) The attempt to marry together these two antithetical theories simply misses the point of both and tries, in its postmodernist but sloppy way, to make everybody happy. Unfortunately for middle-grounders, the path of least resistance is rarely the correct one. So, either God created the earth, or He did not. For the sake of encapsulating all other alternatives, I will rephrase this assertion. Either humankind is responsible to something or Someone other than ourselves, or we are not. This is the true debate between Evolution and Creation. Now we may examine the facts, the evidence, the science of the matter.
“But evidence never speaks for itself; it has meaning only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what may be considered and what counts as evidence.”(4)
What are the arguments for and against Creationism being taught alongside or in place of Evolution? Here are some objections I have come across.
Creationism is: not backed by factual evidence, myth, unscientific, anti/counter scientific, a religion.
Evolution is: not backed by factual evidence, myth, unscientific, anti/counter-religious, a religion.
So, since these arguments amount to little more than opinion, who is right? At this point the Evolutionist may claim that they have the “evidence” or the “facts” on their side and thus, their theory is more valid and more worthy to be taught in the school system.(5) However, when asked, “Which evidences do you present?” the Evolutionists, equal to the Creationists, have a bad record. Anything from wishful thinking to blatant fabrication has been offered up as “evidence” for the theory of Evolution (the Creationists are likewise guilty).(6) I will be straight-forward; It is my belief that the Theory of Evolution is little more than an elaborate pet-theory, revised and edited under the guise of “science” to provide an escape from responsibility, namely to a Creator.(7) The fervor with which it is defended, the willingness of its defenders to ignore contradictory facts, and the dedication of its followers belie its pretense as a “scientific theory.” The theory of Evolution is as much a religion as is Christianity, the only difference is opinion.(8) If one examines the history, how is this not the perfect doctrine, arrived late, for Atheists? As Dawkins put it, “Evolution makes it possible for an Atheist to be intellectually fulfilled.” In other words, it presented a believable alternative to Atheists other than their blind faith to rely upon the assumption that there was, in fact, no God.

In short, the Theory of Evolution is a creed. Stripped down to its hard “facts,” Evolution has precisely zero objective truth, but boldly proclaims it does. Oddly enough, this is consistent with science as declared by this statement:
“In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question.”(9)
This sounds good, and works even better for evading any accusation that the Evolutionist may not want to face.(10) It would appear that this statement alone is reason enough for advocating the religious position of Creation, in that at least some sense of certainty is afforded.(11) “We never claim truth, unlike you religious folk.” I believe this to be the height of hypocrisy. They obviously claim a more valid “non-truth” than the theory of creation, and the way some textbooks read give the distinct impression that Evolution is a cold, hard fact of reality. All things considered, the Evolutionists would like the “religious folk” to play by the rules of science, but seem to believe themselves exempt for some reason or another. Note: I am not trying to prove that Creationism is not guilty of religious associations, but rather that the Theory of Evolution in fact, is. It is based on this reasoning that I make the appeal for equal representation of the “theories” of origins. Truly, these theories have a lot more attached to them than science, though Evolution has been able to more effectively hide under the façade because the Creationist notion has been known for considerably longer amount of time. I have already demonstrated why Evolution meets the criteria of religion, but then, what does not meet the criteria? Are all theories based in some sort of religious agenda? Does everyone have an agenda? The short answer is “Yes.” When asserting their basis on “factual evidence” falls through, the Evolutionist will most likely fall back on the assertion that Evolution is a preferable theory because it does not evoke immeasurable, unquantifiable, supernatural entities. Coupled with Occham’s Razor, this seems to be an effective retort against the teaching of Creationism—but it is not. As pointed out in the document ANIMADVERSIONS ON KITZMILLER v. DOVER--CORRECT RULING, WRONG REASONING(12) it is explained that just because a theory evokes supernatural entities does not mean it is opposed to science. The reason it appears as such is because the supernatural entities, i.e. God, cannot be classified, measured, or quantified in any way. However, the effects of what He has done can. This is where the Creationist gathers his evidence. The Evolutionist claims this same evidence as proof(13) for his theory, but now claims he is more justified because of a principle developed by the logician William of Occam, known as Occam’s Razor, which states: “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” or “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” (14)
When the Evolutionist presents this argument he will usually specify that by “entities” it is meant entities of another realm or similar definition, because these entities cannot be classified, quantified, or measured by science. Let us take him at his word, let us accept his definition, and again we find the same song, different verse: “You play by these rules, but I am exempt.” Exactly how many entities do Creationists posit that are non-measurable by science? I can think of one—God. Perhaps there are more, but I doubt they outnumber the Evolutionists’. Even were we to overlook all the rules of physics that are inherently opposed to Evolution (e.g. all the laws of thermodynamics), Evolutionists have some explaining to do. Where is the quantifiable, undisputable, undeniable proof for the existence of non-life arising from life randomly(15), of ape-men(16), of plankton-fish, of fish-lizards, of lizard-birds, etc., of in-between species, (ought there not be basically every variation of intermediate forms of life living today among us? They do not exist.)(17) Excuses in the form of theories for why they are not here are not acceptable. If the Evolutionist cannot prove these, he is on equal footing with Creationists. We must have measurable facts of science, otherwise, Evolutionists are positing entities upon entities to explain, revise, and support their theory. This is clearly the exact problem William of Occam was trying to avoid when he proposed his principle.
In the end, I concede one thing. Creationists have been lazy about playing by the scientific rules, possibly due to the unpalatable hypocrisy of their opponents.(18) Nonetheless, it is no longer excusable, in this Information Age, to allow for one religion to supplant another in the name of “science.” If we are serious about teaching Creationism alongside Evolution, let us be straightforward in our intentions. There is a theory of origins widely circulated in the world, and it has thus far claimed monopolistic control of the “Theory of Origins” market. It is possible, and probable, that this theory is incorrect on at least one point. At the very least, I propose that the decision to teach Evolution as a theory not a fact be upheld, that we push for alternate, equally valid theories to be taught alongside this theory, and that ultimately we accept the truth about Evolution. It is not a purely scientific theory. It is not an unbiased, logical, scientific approach to the answer to the question, “From whence did we come?” I have presented the evidence to support the claims of its true nature.
In the end, all extremes produce undesirable results. It is up to the student, (unless a law is passed utterly banning the teaching of Evolution) to think critically, to deduce for him/herself what is right and true and good. Giving the excuse, “It’s what they taught me in high school.” is no excuse for lazy musical, artistic, or mathematical reasoning. Why should it be for scientific? Perhaps the thing we should be lobbying for is the instruction in Philosophy mandated in junior high and high schools. This, more than almost anything, will instruct students that no one has all the facts, no one person is right about everything, and all of mankind is fallible. If we are going to court, the ideal outcome for me would not be “Teach Creation and ban Evolution.” But rather, “Think for yourself and seek the truth.” I believe the best results would follow from this decision.

Corrosponding Footnotes to the Paper

1. There is the case of some plant species adapting into different “species” with close human control and manipulation but the only criterion for the definition “new species” is the inability to breed with parent forms. This does not seem to be a beneficial mutation as the odds become even more astronomical that two identical species would mutate at the same time in such a manner as to be able to not breed with all previous species, and be able to breed with each other. When other factors such as the proximities of time and space—all initiated by random chance, are figured into the odds, the likelihood requires more than the time thus far allotted for Evolution.
2. Perhaps Evolutionists make no such claim, that they do not mind being responsible to a higher power, and they just want to be scientifically, logically consistent; and creationism doesn’t do that for them for one reason or another. However, this is inconsistent with the a priori mentality that most Evolutionists portray. “Obviously Evolution happened, we’re here aren’t we?” It is this attitude that betrays their near-religious dedication, that views things like the fossil record as an obstacle rather than a contradiction.
3. Mark 3:25 ESV
4. Johnson, Darwin on Trial p. 14
5. Also note this can be persuasively argued by the Creationist. Once again it is a matter of opinion, depending on what one accepts as “evidence.”
6. For real fabrications in favor of Evolution visit:
A. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/deano/vpost?id=671150
B. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
7. Again, the attempt to have it both ways, wherein God sets Evolution in motion, is a vain attempt to please everyone. The problem with this becomes “Why would an omnipotent God, (or for alternative views) a very powerful god, use Evolution rather than instantaneous creation?” Either it is powerful enough to create a universe, but not life on one planet: illogical; or that maybe He just chose to do it that way. The heart of the issue has then subtly changed. It is no longer, “Did God do it this way?” but, “How can we conform God to our anti-God theory of Evolution?” Again—nonsensical.
8. Dictionary.com defines religion as follows:
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. [but not limited to] when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
I will later argue that Evolutionists have the requisite beliefs, they are devout in their acceptance of their belief, and the implications for morality are staggering for the acceptance of purposeless existence via Evolution.
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (note the contradiction in the statement itself) Oddly, this definition appears to be inconsistent with the definition of ‘science’ given by www.dictionary.com
“1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.” (Emphasis mine)
10. If you assert that you are not making any assertions, you cannot effectively be attacked. So keeping a squirming Evolutionist consistent is about as easy as nailing Jell-o to a wall.
11. The theory of Evolution has undergone severe renovation since its arrival 150 years ago, revising and editing core issues. Six years a statement was issued that life could not possibly have started with a single ancestor but must have had three different forms of life to start with, effectively tripling the already exorbitant odds against it.
12. http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/ricker/pests/essays/fales.pdf
13. Or should I say “non-proof”? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Thus, every time (and I have seen it occur several times just in the past hour of internet-browsing) a scientist claims “proof” for evolution, you can be assured they are not practicing science, as defined by themselves, but their own beliefs—their religion.
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

15. Several experiments have attempted to reproduce this scenario. The best we have gotten under minutely controlled environments are amino acids, being destroyed shortly after by the very atmosphere in which they were created. Even if we were to reproduce longer living amino acids, the fact remains that not only is it irrational to assume that amino acids will “know” how to assemble themselves into a living organism, capable of survival, metabolic processes, etc. It is also self-defeating, as Evolution requires random chance to supply life, and the experiments are anything but.
16. The Evolutionists’ track record on this particular subject is particularly mendacious.
17. I am not talking about monkeys and amphibians. It is equally arguable that these species have been around since, or very near, the beginning of time.
18. Note the reciprocity of the situation. Christians are noteworthy today for their flagrant hypocrisy. If one thing is gained through this paper, I would like it to be the realization of how much in common these two worldviews share. Perhaps then we may call Evolution what it is. Once this happens, it is a short walk to the abolition of such a worldview, all implications considered.

Now I remember why I didn't post this before--footnotes are a pain in the butt. Is there some sort of way to upload .docs to the internet? Then maybe I could've linked it. Oh well =)
Hopefully this will take care of much of what I have been trying to explain.
Looking forward to your response,
-Tyler

I apologize for not addressing every point, I'm just going to pick the ones that stick out most to me. I tried doing it systematically last night and...well I have too much to say, and my time is very limited (Going to Cali for the entire summer, and I haven't packed up yet).

That being said, I WILL go back and try to comment on your morality post, I just didn't get to it tonight. Hahah you can totally tell I got tired last night, my responses got shorter and shorter. Maybe that's how I should keep them.

Quote:They are hardly mystical. For instance... ...It isn't that some die rolled a 6 and so magically the colourers are going to become darker.

See my paper--you're confusing macro and micro.

Quote:Evolution doesn't talk about responsibility, except in the sense that some forces are responsible for provoking change in other forces (the eaters were responsible for provoking change in the colourers, for instance)
Exactly. No responsibility.

Quote:
But a moral agent is only that agent which has the knowledge of good and evil. If they did not have this knowledge, then they were essentially no better than robots, since I believe moral agency is a preqrequisite to free will.
I don't think this follows. They obviously had a choice between obedience and disobedience. They chose wrong. The "knowledge of good and evil" was not required for obedience. They had a choice between "obey the being that gave me existence" or their pride. Indeed, Eve was deceived, lured by her pride by satan. (have you read Genesis? If not this won't make very much sense.) Adam, seeing Eve fallen, made the conscious choice to disobey God. (This is why sin entered the world through man, not woman. A. The man is responsible to God for his family/marriage, and is also the head of the house hold. And B. He made a choice of will, whereas Eve was tempted and decieved by Satan. ("You won't really die like God said, Eve. You'll be like God, knowing good and evil.) Coincidentally, this is the same attitude that satan had, getting himself thrown out of heaven.
...getting off topic. Anyways! They made a choice, they were moral agents. I can't explain it more than that at this point.

Quote:But it is an unfalsifiable position, and not particularly interesting: We can potentially explain away everything as "You aren't God, yo.", but as a form of logical argumentation, this doesn't really address the point in question.
You are absolutely right. God will not be disproven. Remember my "Let God be proven true, though every man a liar" verse? For people that are bent on science as their faith, this is simply unacceptable. They will not, cannot accept an absolute. (See my paper quote about the impossibilty of truth and "proof" in science.)
Just wanted to let you know that every time you mention the word "proof" you are being inconsistent, because science claims no proof. I'll link you the site (by evolutionists, don't worry) if you need.
The main thing I will drive for is consistency, that is why I quote the bible so much--more on that later.

Quote:
Oh. This point caught me by surprise: I've never heard it before. Why would we die?

Because of our sin nature, and the nature of God, being completely Holy, we would "melt" in His presence. Basically, sin cannot stand in that presence of holiness. Liken it to dross (impurities) in silver when the hunk of ore gets tossed into the fire. The silver (lets say soul) remains, but the nature (say the flesh) is destroyed, burnt up, annihilated. Alternatively, like chaff (worthless stuff in wheat) that is blown away in the winnowing (separation) process.

Quote:Except that he gets to define what is just, because he is God, and all morality flows from him, doesn't it? So he is free to say "It is just for me to forgive you this once."
Partially correct. But God has an unchanging, immutable nature. One which He never, has never, and will never deny. He IS a judge. He IS a king. He IS love. He IS merciful, patient, compassionate, vengeful (vengance is mine, says the Lord. Hebews 10:30), risk-taking. That should prompt a few questions =)

(P.S. Do my smileys annoy you? I find it difficult to convey emotion through text, and often am misunderstood for sarcasm or cynicism if I do not make my mood clear through "emoticons".)