HOME | DD
Ali-Radicali β Archaeopteryx
Published: 2012-01-06 20:37:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 5854; Favourites: 53; Downloads: 218
Redirect to original
Description
Creationism is a ridiculous belief when you consider all the evidence against it. One of the most tiring "arguments" out there is the so called "lack of transitional fossils". Not only does this fly in the face of a mountain of evidence, it also betrays a huge lack of understanding on the part of those making it: ALL creatures are "transitional", because all creatures differ from their parents(albeit very slightly).As a geology student, I'm genuinely offended by the way creationism tries to distort or retard scientific understanding, especially since they aren't even trying to validate their beliefs scientifically, rather they are preaching it to laymen who don't know any better than to accept what they hear as fact. If it were an honest intellectual debate, the creationist movement would be trying to find evidence to support their claims, or at the very least debunking science's explanations, but no. They don't seek the debate because they lost it decades ago, rather they just convert as many ignorant (not meant pejoratively here) people as possible to their side, as if truth were something that can be decided by strength of numbers.
I have no beef with people holding religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't harm others. I see this malicious campaign of misinformation and populism as extremely harmful, not because the layman's understanding of evolution per se is critical to our society, but because this type of slandering makes people doubt and mistrust science as a whole. Since I consider science the most important tool in the betterment and advancement of humanity, I can only consider any attack on it harmful to society.
So here is an Archaeopteryx, a fossil with Birdlike and Saurian features. It exists.
2 layer stencil
Related content
Comments: 80
Not all creationists believe that. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution. I don't distort any facts except few from the Bible.
π: 0 β©: 2
... are you a creationist though?
π: 0 β©: 1
... then how do you believe in evolution?
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe God used evolution and that the 6 days it took to create the world was millions of years to us, but just days to him.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, so you're an Old Earth Creationist.
π: 0 β©: 1
Basically, yeah. There have been times where I might've considered myself an agnostic atheist, but that's past.
π: 0 β©: 0
There are definitely many people who do this, yes, but my point is that not every creationist is ignnorant
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, I've seen all kinds of people here, from atheists to religious fanatics, and they all say you stupid and ignorant if you don't believe in their ''god''. What matters to me is to respect us as people, and not to try to impose our tastes and beliefs, and less by force.
π: 0 β©: 1
Discrediting erroneous beliefs is not disrespectful of the people holding them, or at least it certainly isn't my intention. However, I do _not_ believe ideas deserve any sort of respect or courtesy, especially if they're demonstrably false.
π: 0 β©: 1
You got that right, in this case, I see that the theory of evolution is just another religion, even scientists reject it.
π: 0 β©: 1
.....What.
What credible biologists reject evolution?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's right, there's no credible evidence of that.
But if you mean my username, in really, I'm not a biologist, I'm just a fan of those themes, biology, etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
no non-religious scientists disagrees with evolution AFAIK.
the mountain ranges of evidence are too much for people who aren't Ray Comfort
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, but I have no reasons to believe in the theory of evolution, but on the contrary, I have reasons to believe that it may not be possible.Β In addition, the theory of evolution is a Satanic theory, and that is destined to die.
End of conversation.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've seen that one! (the Archaeopteryx fossil)
It's one of my all-time favorite fossils.Β Got a creepy, beautiful, transformative look to it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, that limestone mud really managed to preserve it in amazing detail.
π: 0 β©: 0
this is random but, nice icon, soul eater moon?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why the hell do people want to believe in creationism in the first place. It's sooooooooo damn boring compared to the reality of life!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a Christian, and I don't necessarily think evolution didn't happen. But I don't believe it was an accident either. I'm pretty sure if evolution were running by itself as a force, things just wouldn't work out. If mistakes in DNA were what caused creatures to adapt, then without an Intelligent Force behind it, there would also be mistakes that would throw species directly into extinction.
Creation is something I'm still trying to figure out myself. I believe that, in the beginning, creatures were made which produced their own kind. Cats can be considered a "kind", because they are all related, though they come in many different shapes, sizes, and colors. A common ancestor would make sense. But this is just speculation.
π: 0 β©: 3
I typed out a huge answer, and deviant ate it up promptly as I submitted it *fumes*
The short abbreviated version:
Testimonial evidence is unreliable, for multiple reasons:
Problem 1: What is a miracle?
Is a miracle a rare event or something which cannot occur without supernatural intervention? The problem with many miracle claims is that they think rare is miraculous, but rare events happen all the time. A simple thought experiment:
Let's assume you make 200 observations per hour, 16 hours a day. That's 192.000 observations per day. Let's define a rare event as one-in-a-million. At 0.192 million observations, you're bound to notice something unusual happen once every 5-6 days!
Problem 2: The reliability of perception.
While our sense-brain system is mostly reliable, it's obviously not always infallible. Senses can be (deliberately) deceived or manipulated. Fatigue, emotion, hormones, drowsiness, alcohol, drugs, etc. can all affect your perception. What's worse, even when you're not under the influence of any of that, random glitches still happen every now and then, that cause us to experience (potentially bizarre) things.
Add all that together, and even with a generous one in a million chance, you'd end up with mistaken observations from one sense or another on a daily basis. Add in that 5-daily freak real event and you can easily see how someone who believes in miracles can see them happening everywhere. It's basically confirmation bias: giving special significance to certain events while ignoring or trivialising the others.
Problem 3: Observation versus interpretation
What you believe and what you think to know affects what you perceive and also your interpretation of those experiences. If you believe miracles occur, you're more likely to see miracles in mundane rare events or unexplanable experiences. Essentially, the problem lies in how you turn observation into a narrative of events. People normally don't remember a bunch of trivial details of an event, they remember a "story" of what happened. In doing so, they interpret a series of observations into a series of causes and consequences. Humans are pattern-seekers by nature, so presumably this is an efficient way of storing data for us, but it isn't always accurate. Oftentimes people confuse cause and consequence, see connections between unrelated occurences or see intent and purpose in random happenstance.
When someone tells you about their experience, they've already been convinced so it becomes difficult to distinguish fact from interpretation, and in trying to do so, you may make the believer feel you think he's lying. That isn't the case, I don't think these people are lying, I just think they're wrong. And given how often and obviously we make mistakes about mundane things, would it not be madness not to assume the same for people who claim miracles?
I'd like to quickly give an example:
In many cultures, people believed in supernatural beings that would visit people inthe night, bringing nightmares or paralysing them in their sleep. In the middle ages, people thought withches would sit on men's chests in the night "riding them", causing paralysis and asphyxiation. The words nightmare and haggard (hag-ridden) have their roots in these superstitions.
Nowadays, people worldwide report alien abductions. They claim waking up paralysed, having trouble breathing, seeing grotesque aliens and bright lights. The reports are numerous, and they are all remarkably similar.
Science tells us all of this is superstition, and that the real answer is a condition called "sleep paralysis". When you sleep, the brain shuts off control over parts of the body, in order to let it rest and to stop you from hurting yourself in your sleep. Sleep paralysis occurs when the brain wakes up but fails to remove this "block" on the body controls. This causes the body to remain "paralysed" and as the vitctim starts to panic, he experiences difficulty breathing since the lungs are still on autopilot. Long story short, all the stories of spooks, witches and aliens are simply the attempts of ignorant(not pejorative) people to explain something they could not. However, there is one important lesson to learn here, and that is that all these people reported seeing things they'd already heard of and/ possibly already believed in. Middle-agers didn't report alien abductions in the night, and people nowadays rarely report being ridden by witches. It's the power of suggestion that turned the objective facts of the sleep paralysis into a narrative of aliens or witchcraft.
Lastly, I want to adress the suggestion of how I could find "proof" for myself by humbly asking for it. You're basically asking for me to believe in god in order to experience something that would then prove my belief. I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. I understand that belief is a powerful thing that can greatly affect one's perception, I just fail to see a supernatural agenc in that.
π: 0 β©: 1
A miracle has been described to me as something that would happen in an "impossible situation", something only explained by divine intervention. In the case of my mentor, would a fast-moving train really be able to spot a vehicle on the tracks, at night, soon enough to not only keep the train from killing him, but also allow the perfect braking distance for the train to slow to a complete stop? I'm sure the conductor must've gotten some kind of warning, but I've observed a lot of "coincidences" happen when we pray.
I also have a friend who tore the ligaments in his shoulder through several injuries that occured over time. After playing dodgeball with another friend one day and noticing the immense pain in his shoulder hadn't subsided, he got it checked out and was told he would never be able to throw again. We were praying for him for quite a few weeks, and it did get somewhat better, but he still felt pain when he'd make a throwing motion, and couldn't do too much with it. Then a couple of weeks ago, we went on a missions trip to Bemidji where we had an event with testimonies and worship on the pow-wow grounds in Cass Lake. Someone was praying over him, and asked him if there was someone he hadn't forgiven. There was, and when he'd told God he'd forgiven that person, they prayed some more, and then went outside and threw some oranges around (as there weren't any balls :'D ). His shoulder was as good as new, even though he wasn't able to do that not even a day beforehand. It hasn't given him a problem since.
As with perception, you do have a point. A lot of very unusual things happen to people during intense worship sessions, and sometimes people are influenced into doing what others are doing, or what's happened to them perhaps in some other experience, even when they're not really experiencing anything (pretending to fall over, speaking in fake tongues, shouting, etc) because they mistakenly think that they'll invite His presence by faking it. My non-denominational Christian belief is that the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God within us) will manifest itself sometimes in ways such as causing people to weep, laugh, fall over, dance, prophesy, sing or speak in tongues (the heavenly language, supposed to strengthen one's spirit when spoken or, when spoken out loud and then interpreted, to edify the church), and other seemingly insane things. There are ways to know whether a manifestation is legitimate or not, such as a prophecy acually coming to pass, or a relevant interpretation of the tongues spoken. I've had random people, that I've never known or seen in my life, come up to me and tell me exactly what I'm going through and God's reason why I'm going through it, or list off things that I'm good at and what God wants to use them for. Prophecy is different from divination/ESP in the way that prophecy spoken from the Holy Spirit (no additives by the person prophesying/false prophecy spoken from wrong motives) is true. Divination and ESP are right sometimes, but have instances of failure. From what I understand, this is because there are evil spirits giving them the information, as a way to trick us into both believing that prophecy is just a Christian's explanation for psychic happenings, or that divination is an okay thing to practice, opening us up to spiritual attack because of exposure to evil spirits(destruction of marriage, depression, suicidal tendancies, anger problems, and so on and so forth). I doubt you'd be a person who watches Ghost Adventures, but the three guys doing the show provoke and invite "ghosts" to do things to them and speak to them. One of them has since suffered a divorce, and the other two are experiencing strange things at home.
There are also cases though in which children have seen Jesus without knowing what He looks like. There's a story of a little girl (maybe four or so) who describes Jesus as having white hair and red eyes; when most people paint Jesus, He looks remarkably like a white person, with curly brown hair and a beard, and I highly doubt Jesus looks the way everyone thinks He does. There is a verse in Revelations describing Jesus's appearance in heaven (Revelations 1:14), but the parents say that they had never read Revelations to their daughter. As for aliens and witches and sleep paralysis, I'd say it's both the science and the supernatural. Not to say there are witches and aliens. I've witnessed an old woman experience intense pain during group prayer, so intense that a nurse that was praying with us thought she was having a heart attack. But the doctors in the emergency room said that they could see nothing wrong. The woman later told us that someone had prophesied over her that evil spirits would attempt to kill her. From what I understand, demonic attack isn't just the freaky excorcist-type stuff. Demons attack people on a regular basis, especially when they are tired or stressed. It can come in the form of a feeling of suffocating lonliness, it can come in an onslaught of sudden resentment towards a close friend, and it can even come in the uncharacteristic urge to kill one's self. Sleep paralysis happens to both healthy and ailed individuals, and demons don't always necessarily appear as demons (2 Corinthians 11:14, "ghost" witnesses claiming to see dead people). If false cardiac arrest is demonic, why wouldn't sleep paralysis be also?
I'm not asking you to believe, I'm asking you to open up the possibility. It may sound ridiculous to you, I know. I was asked to do the same a little before I became a Christian. I didn't really believe there was a God at the time, but I wondered if maybe there was. I didn't get some huge revelation as I was praying, nor did I hear a voice. At the time, I thought nothing happened. But as time went on, I learned more about what being a Christian meant, and found it to be what I was looking for all along. I thought that I could find a higher purpose to life without looking to religion, which I then perceived as primal, even mad. I believed in being a good person and helping others, but there was still something missing. But I don't feel that anymore; I have a destiny now.
π: 0 β©: 0
The problems with the examples you've given, and testimonial evidence in general, are manifold. Between our observation of events and the interpretations we come up to explain our observations, there are already so many places where an error might crop up that eyewitness testimony is considered one of the least credible types of evidence, in court and out.
So what is a miracle? Is it a rare event, or something that requires supernatural intervention to be possible? Some of your examples, like the man who almost got hit by the train, concern events which, while rare and unlikely, are not necessarily supernatural. Trains have brakes and (hopefully) competent drivers/engineers, so while your mentor friend was very lucky not to have been crushed by the train, I don't see anything supernatural about the case. So let's talk about probabilities for a bit:
Lets say you make 200 observations every minute (a conservative estimate IMO), and you're awake 16 hours per day. 200*60*16 = 192.000 observations per day.
Now lets define a miracle as a once-in-a-million event. At the rate of 192000 observations a day, you'd see one of these every five to six days! So if you keep an eye out for rare events, you're likely to see then popping up all the time. It's called confirmation bias.
What's worse, human perception is fallible. While we can rely on our senses most of the time to give a more or less accurate reflection of reality (albeit not a full one), there are times when our senses are fooled. Both your sensory organs, and your brain which processes these, can make mistakes, especially if you're tired, just awake, under the influence of medication, alcohol or drugs, etc. So even if nothing miraculous occurs, your body might still give you a perception or feeling that might seem unexplanable, and therefore miraculous (to the believer).
Let's assume the same rate of observations as the last calculation, and since the sensory system can fail on muliple levels, I think it's be fair to lower the chance to 5:1.000.000
That'd mean you'd experience something highly irregular once every day, with an unexplanable (real) event once every 5!
There is a third crucial problem: What we observe and how we put those observations together into a narrative of events are two different matters (they're intrinsically related, but not the same thing).
Your beliefs inform how you view the world, and thus how you interpret events, be they real or the project of a sensory malfunction. Now for mundane observations like a fly buzzing around the room, or a car passing by, most people's observations would probably not be informed by their beliefs, at least not to a very high degree. However, once you try to see patterns in events (which isn't bad, it just goes wrong often), you can end updeluding yourself, seeing cause and consequence in unrelated events, intent and purpose in random happenstance, miracles in rare events or perceptions.
Now when someone tells you they experienced a miracle, that person has already taken his observations and come to the interpretation that it must have been a miracle. At this point, to question the miraculousness of the claim would (to the believer) imply that you think they're lying. That's not the case. When hearing a testimony, it's important to distinguish observation from interpretation, in order to more accurately assess what's happened. It's possible to accept that the event took place, but think that the interpretation might be mistaken. That doesn't mean the other is lying, it just means you think they're wrong. And seeing how often we (obviously) are wrong about mundane things, wouldn't it be madness not to assume the same for people who make miracle claims?
To give an example to illustrate my point, no doubt you've heard about alien abductions. Many people around the world have reported waking up in the night, feeling paralysed, having difficulty breathing, and seeing bright lights and vague shapes and distorted faces hovering above them. Many of these accounts bear a striking resemblance to one another.
In the middle ages (and earlier) people told stories about witches, hags and maras (and other supernatural beings in other cultures) that would sit on a person's chest while they slept, and give them nightmares, or they would wake them up to terrify them. The word "nightmare" has its roots in this mythology, as does the word haggard (hag-ridden).
Nowadays, science knows what causes all these claims, it's a condition called "sleep paralysis". While you sleep, your brain temporary "turns off" control over parts of the body, so you don't hurt yourself while you dream. When sleep paralysis occurs, the person has woken up, but the brain has failed to "re-activate" the body, causing partial paralysis (and as the victim starts to panic, difficulty breathing). The grotesque faces that seem to accompany the experience might be part of the dream state continuing on, I'm not a neurologist, but the fact that people report seeing things they've already heard of (witches in the middle ages, aliens in modern times) is a telling testimonial to the power of belief to colour a person's judgment.
You say that if I humble myself and truly try to believe in god, I might experience something "unexplanable". I have no doubt I might, since you're essentially asking me to believe in order to acquire the evidence to believe. I have no problems accepting that believing things can alter your experiences, in fact recent studies show actual neurological differences in the brains of theists and nonbelievers. I just have a problem seeing anything supernatural in that.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm glad you're at least considering the possibility that evolution is real, but at the same time it saddens me that you've already concluded that god must be the force behind it. It's precisely that sort of thinking, where you investigate things with a preconceived answer in mind, that can blind you to anything that might contradict your beliefs.
Yes, mutations are a part of how evolution works. How do you go from "random accidents in DNA transcription which may have no effect, negative effects, or in a select few cases, positive effects", to "a grand intelligent force driving the process"? If it's all being led on by an intelligent force, why does he need trial and error and random chance to work?
If a mutation is harmful, the organism carrying that mutation or its offspring will most likely perish, thus preventing that harmful mutation from propagating. Even if the disadvantage is slight (like myopia in humans), that slight disadvantage gives the "healthy" individuals a slightly higher success rate, enabling them to outcompete their poorsighted brethren.
You say it's all speculation, but it really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, isn't. Scientists don't just make shit up and publish it. What science tells you about the age of the earth, the development of life, etc. is not just the insane ramblings of confused old white guys, it's actually based on evidence. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and remarkable, you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice not to investigate it with an open mind.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not looking to start arguments about who's right and who's wrong. I may not know very much about the technicalities of creationism or evolution or what-have-you, but I believe and am thoroughly convinced that God exists, and thus I believe He created everything, each with its own purpose, none being an accident. I don't just believe in God because I agree with the "religion." And I actually see evolution as a plausible theory; I just believe it to be God-led. I was an atheist up until a little over two years ago and wanted nothing to do with God. But when I decided to be open-minded to Him, I began experiencing Him, and have gone through things I never would have without having faith. I have a personal relationship with Him, and nothing can convince me that He isn't there. I'm not trying to change your beliefs, or attack them. I'm simply sharing mine.
I brought this up because I don't believe that mutations are mistakes. Ecosystems are very fragile things, and the slightest change in one organism could have immense effects on the environment. Mutations may form to make some animals more vulnerable in order to control the population. The mutations that are for the better help them to prosper and survive. Mutations in humans, I believe, have a deeper meaning because we have more understanding. Harlequin-type Icthyosis, for example, is a genetic disease that I find very hard to swallow. It's absolutely horrible to see, and I can't imagine what the mother of a child with this disease must go through. But the fact of the matter is things like this happen. I'm taught that God doesn't want them to, but they do, because we live in a fallen world. God controls everything, but if He saved us from every harm, how would we grow? We are helped in every experience whether we're aware of it or not. I personally believe this to be true, not because it's comforting, but because I have experience it myself.
On another note, I don't think poor eyesight would make someone less successful. Needing glasses isn't necessarily unattractive.
No, I don't think evolution was made up, or the big bang, or the seperation of the continents at whatever time. I highly respect scientists, and I respect their work. But really, humans did not watch the process happen. I don't believe we can know everything about how it all works, because we only know a little part of a much bigger picture. No person can say exactly why dinosaurs were so big, for example. Regarding their environment, they didn't have to be that big. Nobody knows exactly how they died, either. We just know little pieces from what we do have. There is so much more to know about the world than we can ever know in our worldy existence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your statements seem absolutely contradictory. On the one hand, you claim that we can't know everything, only the tip of the iceberg, and since we can't know everything, therefore we have to keep an open mind. However, at the same time that you "humbly" claim ignorance, you assert with a full 100% conviction that god exists and has to be the cause of evolution, mutations and a whole host of other stuff. This does not compute. Either we can't know these things (in which case, why are you making claims about it?) or we can find out about these things, in which case you need EVIDENCE to make a claim one way or the other. Ignorance is never a reason to assert anything as fact, so to say "we can't know, therefore god" strikes me as a fallacy, not to mention a huge non-sequitur.
Furthermore, if god is all powerful and omnibenevolent, why the heck would he not want to stop harlequin ichthyosis and similar, horrible conditions? You can make up any number of rationalisations for this (or the problem of evil in general) but the fact is: if god is omnipotent, he can achieve the same result in a different way. If he can create galaxies in a single day, surely there are more humane ways in which he can instruct people than making them look like this: [link] If he cannot, he isn't omnipotent; if he doesn't want/care to, I'd say god is a right prick for making people suffer Harlequin ichthyosis. And no, I'm not saying that to pick a fight, I genuinely can't grasp how you can consider your god to be omnibenevolent if you truly believe he's omnipotent (but not ending needless suffering).
You say you think mutations are not a mistake, but I think you're confusing terms. "Mistake" refers to the fact that a mutation is the result of either damage to the DNA or an error in copying the DNA, not a deliberate mechanism in the organism (like sexual reproduction F.E.). Furthermore, you're equivocating the subjective outcome with the actual event: whether we consider a mutation harmful, neutral or beneficial is based on the effects of the mutation. That doesn't take away from the fact that the mutation itself was an error. This doesn't mean that all mutations are harmful, - AFAIK most don't have any impact one way or the other - but there certainly are plenty of cases where the mutation is harmful to the organism.
My problem with your assertion that mutations are all "part of the plan" is that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason or pattern associated with mutations. Sure, you can find causal correlations (for example between skin cancer and sunbathing), but what you don't find is specific species being "targeted" with nothing but harmful mutations to destroy them or nothing but beneficial mutations to improve them. You don't even come close. Just like any other type of superstition, you can fool yourself into seeing a pattern by counting the hits and ignoring the misses, but that's not how science works.
Getting back to evolution, mutations are a cause for change and diversity in the gene pool, but not the only one, and certainly not the only mechanism responsible for evolution by means of natural selection. The natural selection bit is as least as important, if not more so, in determining whether a species lives on or goes exinct. Yes, ecosystems can be fragile, but where did you get the idea that mutations are the driving force behind changes in ecosystems? The whole point is that since an ecosystem is a complex interplay of a great number of factors, changing any one of those factors can fundamentally upset the equilibrium. So yes, that change could be the evolution of a new species(although that would in most cases be such a gradual change that it wouldn't even be noticable to us), but it could also be a change in rain patterns, the introduction of a new species from elsewhere, the emergence of a disease that cripples a population, etc.etc.
All in all, I hope you continue to investigate these scientific subjects with an open mind (I.E. without the foregone conclusion that god must be a part of the answer). I say that, not because I want you to stop believing, but because keeping an open mind is the only way in which scientific progress can be made. Whenever you answer an unknown with "god did it" or any other answer, you stop looking further for the real answer. Germs weren't discovered until someone wasn't satisfied with the biblical explanation of diseases. Does that mean god can't be somehow responsible for making you sick? I guess he might be, but his influence in the matter is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore has no bearing on the actual science of disease.
π: 0 β©: 1
I really am trying to make sense. I don't see anywhere that I stated that God definitely and absolutely is responsible for everything. I merely stated that it's what I believe, and what I'm taught. I, personally, am convinced there is a God because I, personally, have experienced things that can only be explained by the existance of a Higher Being. I can't give tangible evidence because it is personal; it's like trying to convince another person that you truly love someone. And according to what I believe, I don't think that there will ever be anything to prove or falsify that there is indeed a God until/unless the Rapture comes. If we had evidence that the God of the Bible exists, then there would be no such thing as faith; that is, trusting that the Word of God is truth, and following Him out of love. I think evidence of God would cause more people to follow Him out of fear of hell or desire for favor more than anything. God doesn't want fake faith or fake love, so I think evidence of God would cause more hypocrisy in the church than is already going on. Furthermore, I'm just saying that whatever we as people discover about the world probably isn't final; science, as it develops, is continually correcting itself.
I believe that God does want to heal the sick, but He has a time for it. He doesn't always heal people either, but for a purpose. I know of a much loved Christian teacher who suffered several long days waiting to die from cancer. Throughout this extremely difficult time for him, his wife, his baby girl, and his friends, family, and students, his faith stayed strong. In the end, his cancer proved that his faith was real, and I'm sure this is inspiring for more people than just me. I also don't understand how the same result can be acheived in a different way. Losing a child to a terrible disease doesn't really have an equal in my mind, though I don't believe such things are okay. I believe things like this happen as a result of evil, yes, and are not "caused" by God. It's not because of something that person did, but because of the fall and the devil's hatred for the human race. Sometimes the devil gets his way, and it's tragic. But God turns these things around for our good, to show that He is in control (more powerful than the bad thing that happened) and is good. Again, this is my belief.
If my observations about evolution/mutations/genetics are wrong, then please, correct me. It just seems to me that genetics and mutations are what determine natural selection, and I'm only saying that it's an important factor in ecosystems. Also, you tell me to have an open mind, but I feel that you automatically pity me for my belief in God. I do want to learn more about the theory of evolution and how nature works, and I do believe science is important. But I also believe that the spiritual should not be dismissed as superstituous nonsense, because there are things that science cannot explain. I hope that you'll look into it further before you draw the conclusions as well.
I don't mean to sound like I know it all. If I come across as haughty, it's probably because my feelings are hurt. If you agree to disagree with me, that's okay. I don't have a problem with you. I don't really have a problem with evolution either. It does no use to slander what we believe is true back and forth; it just offends people. If you feel that I'm shoving my "religion" down your throat, I'll leave you alone about it. I just don't appreciate being talked down to.
π: 0 β©: 1
You freely admit that you have no concrete evidence of a god, only your personal experience and what others have taught you. Nevertheless, you think it's justified to believe in these things unquestioningly. You said it yourself: "I have a personal relationship with Him, and nothing can convince me that He isn't there."
That's what I have a problem with; not the belief that there might be a god, but the rigid certainty based on personal evidence. And yes, you've had a personal experience. Guess what, so have muslims, Jews and Hindus, so have scientologists and raelians. Just because it's possible through religious practices and rituals to evoke strong feelings and emotions which seem unexplanable to the believer, that doesn't mean that the explanation given for that feeling by the religion is accurate. I believe the human brain-body complex is capable of inducing incredibly bizarre experiences in people, but I don't see any evidence linking that to a god. Again, I'm forced to point to the huge similarities between testimonies of believers of different religions. For example, near death experiences are often cited as evidence of god, and christians often report seeing jesus or angels or other, similarly-themed visions. However, people of other faiths see THEIR gods and demons and whatnot when they have such an experience, and even atheists can experience such an event, they just don't tend to link the experience to religious imagery. Science has made it more than plausible that the hallucinations and visions occuring during an NDE are in fact the result of oxygen deficiency in certain parts of the brain. So at this point, with a scientific explanation based on observable mechanisms, I see no need to interject a god into the process, so I don't. It's Occam's Razor: the more succinct answer which deals with all the problems is the right one.
You claim that belief WITH evidence would meaningless to god, to which I can only counter with the example of the desciple Thomas, who DID demand evidence of the resurrection, and got it. Why is it OK for a guy who was Jesus' personal friend and presumably witness to numerous miracles during his life to ask for proof of his faith, but not for you or me? Why is it perfectly acceptable to believe in gravity or evolution based on evidence, but the minute you try to imply that religion should present evidence you get this "that would destroy free will" apologetic. I find this response incredibly irksome and anti-intellectual, because it seems to imply that belief without evidence is in fact a more honourable thing than justified belief: Gullibility id good to god. Furthermore, if christians really believed that their faith should not rely on evidence, why is it that they go about searching for evidence in support of the historicity of the bible, why do they try to prove the effects of prayer, why do they bother with supposed miracles? Wouldn't that hurt their faith, if they really believed that evidence is bad? To me, it just seems like an ad-hoc rationalisation of the fact that there IS very little in the way of evidence for the bible's teachings. If god truly loved you, he wouldn't be angry with you for using reason. And the scientific method for finding truth, the rational way to finding knowledge, relies on evidence, not faith or heartfelt convictions.
Now your second paragraph..... what are you trying to say? On the one hand hand, you agree that god wants to heal the sick. Yet he doesn't? But somehow that's OK because it strengthens our faith and really, it's just the devil messing around, and we deserve it because adam and eve ate some forbidden fruit? Really?
This devil character, or the idea of necessary evil, is something which is wholly contradictory to the omnipotence/omnibenevolence claims. If god wants to achieve something, he can. Omnipotence is omnipotence, it means he can do ANYTHING. If he wants something not to happen he can prevent that thing without affecting anything else (why, because if he can't do that he isn't omnipotent, see?). If god wanted to stop harlequin type ichthyosis, he could simply intercede every time such a mutation was a bout to occur and simply prevent it from happening.
Furthermore, even if we accept the apologetic that (some) evil is necessary for our moral development (which I reject, but lets assume it for the sake of the argument). Even if sin and evil is necessary for people to "see the light", there's no reason to assume the amount of evil in the world right now is the necessary amount. If we need black to recognise white, wouldn't a very very tiny little speck of darkness be enough? Why do we need harlequin ichthyosis,huge natural disasters and neonazism? In fact, what's the point in natural disasters? There doesn't seem to be any pattern in what type of people get hit, if there's any pattern to be seen, it's that the people affected tend to live in the area that was affected (golly). If god was trying to tell us something, you'd think there'd be a more obvious pattern there.
Just because science doesn't have all the answers yet, that doesn't mean that anything is fair game, that doesn't mean you can fill the gaps with claims about gods or souls. Science simply deals with that for which it can find evidence. If there is no forthcoming evidence for a claim, the justified position is tentative disbelief, no matter what the actual claim is. If, 2000 years ago, I were to talk about relativity and electromagnetism to a bunch of Roman scholars, they would be perfectly justified in scoffing at me unless I was able to demonstrate any validity to my claims, either by accurately predicting things or demonstrating these scientific laws with experiments of some sort. Even though I'd be right about these things, they couldn't know that without evidence, and therefore they'd have to tentatively assume it to be untrue until proven otherwise. I'm not being closeminded or dogmatic when I say I don't believe in the supernatural. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. If something exists and affects the real world, then it can be shown to exist, at which point belief is justified by knowledge. However, if you cannot demonstrate something exists, you have no choice but to tentatively disbelieve until you acquire actual knowledge. If you don't do this, there are any number of untestable claims that you'd have to believe in, many of which are mutually exclusive (God and Allah for example). How do you choose which one is true and which one isn't, when you (by definition according to some theists) cannot have evidence? The only way is to have an inconsistent worldview where you accept certain claims and reject other claims despite having no real evidence either way.
So while I disbelieve in supernatural claims, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if I'm given what I deem to be sufficient evidence. In the case of god, I wouldn't even be that critical: a banana shaped exactly like Ray Comfort's head, while not a conclusive demonstration of omnipotent power, would certainly go a long way in making the god hypothesis more plausible.
In the end, while I'd like to agree to disagree, i can't honestly do that without in some way enforcing this notion of "personal truth" that I find very dangerous. Your favourite colour or flavour of ice cream is something I'll happily agree to disagree on, the nature of reality.....not so much. While I don't believe that you or I or anybody has "the truth", I do believe it exists somewhere. I believe in an objective reality outside our human perception, and I believe it is vitally important for humanity to get a better understanding of that reality. And in order to do so, I think it is very important to support science and to fight ideas which are unscientific or antiscientific. I'm not offended by your posts, honestly you're probably the most reasonable and polite chrisitan I've debated with online, which is probably why I spent so much time trying to explain where I'm coming from, because I think we might share a lot of common ground. I don't get offended by people criticising beliefs of any kind, be it my own or others', because I think it's important to weed out the good beliefs from the harmful ones, and ciritcal discussion is the way to achieve that IMO. I believe I have a rational justification for my beliefs, but if someone can demonstrate otherwise, so much the better: I'd rather not believe untrue things. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, I don't object. As a skeptical atheist, I'm curious what convinced you to believe in theism.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am aware that people of other religions and atheists have had dreams or visions about gods or demons. I believe that people's dreams either come from A) God, B) the devil, or C) naturally occuring dreams of our hopes, fears, memories, etc ("soul dreams"). I don't think I've had a supernatural dream (my personal "evidence" consists of answered prayers, witnessed miracles, life changes, & the like), but I do have friends who have experienced what they believe to be supernatural dreams. First of all, I should probably say it can be difficult for someone to discern exactly where a dream is from or what it means, if it has a meaning. I'm told that dreams from God are usually very profound, which might be why dreams in the Bible are recorded in such vivid detail. Dreams we think are from God also must be in accordance with Scripture, i.e. we should not take a dream as being from God if it contradicts His character, which is best summed up as love, but even with that it is still hard to tell. Dreams from the devil are basically his tools of deception, which he uses to discourage, confuse, mislead, and destroy. I know someone who, at one point, woke up from hellish dreams to find blood all over his bed, but without a scratch on him. I'd say this is a demonic dream. I also know a girl who received dreams about God when she was a Muslim; in the first dream, she was following a bunch of people she didn't know into a cemetary. At some point, the strangers' true forms were revealed (not human), and she was then alone. She experienced a breif moment in hell (thick, tangible blackness, unearthly noises) and was warned that she must change (in order to be saved). Believing she was being told to be a better Muslim, she had a second dream a while after in which she experienced heaven and met Jesus, and she remembers feeling extremely happy and at peace. I don't remember the rest of what she said, but she very willingly converted. Regarding Islam's strict nature and belief that all non-Muslims should be killed, and the friend's choice to follow it just out of family tradition, I'd say the dreams have very relevant meaning, and must've been from God in my book. I don't know how much these dreams mean to you, but I highly doubt that my friend was just seeing things when there was actual blood on his bed.
Jesus showed His wounds to Thomas because He wanted him to believe, and He was hurt that he had doubted Him, but not angry. Thomas had already believed that Jesus was who He said He was before His death. Yet when the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were religious leaders and followers of God, demanded that Jesus show them a miraculous sign to prove his authority, He denied them. They did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God; they openly criticized Him for not following Jewish traditions (their expectations of Him), failed to practice what they taught (or believed was right), and refused to believe that they might be doing something wrong, or were wrong about Him. I think this might be why God decides not to show Himself to the world as a whole. But I believe God does show Himself to us individually, if we get off our high horses and give Him a chance, so to speak. A very respectable mentor of mine told God to show up in a very desperate time in his life. One night, he'd been drinking and decided to drive his car down the train tracks. He fell asleep, and when he woke up, he saw the front of a train engine over his windshield, mere centimeters from his car. If that's not God showing up, then I don't know what is.
What I'm trying to say is, according to Christianity, this world has been tainted by sin, and is no longer the perfect world it was at first meant to be. That means evil and discord run amok like they own the place, because the devil is convinced that he owns us as a result of our sin. God humbled Himself to human form and died as a sacrifice that would end all sacrifices and pay every blood debt, wiping our slate clean, making us innocent in His eyes, because He loves us and desires for us to be with Him. While He is in control of this world, bad things still happen; sometimes it's a consequence of our own actions, sometimes it's a consequence of another person's actions that we have no immediate connection to, sometimes it's something that happens so that He can undo it, and sometimes it's something we simply don't understand. One could just as easily say that, if God really loved us, we'd all be in heaven at this very moment, and we wouldn't have to go through all this junk. But God's thinking is higher than our own. He sees everything that is going on, and has a plan to save us and defeat the enemy. But while that plan is perfect, that doesn't make it painless. Christians probably go through more pain than people who don't believe, and it's because while we have a God who loves us (and I mean everyone when I say that), we also have a devil that hates us, especially those on God's side. God also chooses to require our cooperation (God is not a dictator), and if we instead follow temptation, fear, or doubt, it will result in a bad outcome. But bad situations can also prove to be powerful testimonies when one allows God to turn the tables, because He makes all things work together for the good of those who love Him. In the end, everything is for His glory, because He's worth it. That's what I believe.
If you want proof, I say you should ask God to show Himself if He exists. You might be surprised. I say this to you in all honesty. You just need to have your heart in the right place.
I thank you for being patient with me, and at least having productive intentions and viable information; I was not expecting a full-blown debate like this, but I know many people would be willing to toss much worse things at my beliefs, and at me. It's interesting that you say there is an ultimate truth out there somewhere; I sought the same thing as an atheist. I think "relative truth" is a bunch of garbage also, as we can't make up reality. I perceive what I believe in as truth because it took more than the Bible or a few church sermons to show me that Christianity wasn't what I thought it was, and I was provided what I needed to see it. I can't make you see God as a possibility, but I hope I at least make sense somehow.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sonofa-
I replied at length to this post -twice- and both times it got deleted. Thank you DA.
Will reply later.
π: 0 β©: 1
It did? 
π: 0 β©: 1
Still can't see it. Weird stuff.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmm. :/ It just looks to me like you've replied to the wrong comment (the very first one I posted).
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I they both got stuck in at the top. I'm pretty sure I was replying to your latest post when I posted the comments, but w/e.
Try to ignore the redundancy between the two posts, they're essentially the same thing but differently worded :/
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, idk. Glitches.
I've read over both of them, so it's not a problem. I just decided to answer the shorter one since I don't feel like writing a book every time I reply. c': But I appreciate being able to share this stuff.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually there are several forms of Creationism. Young Earth Creationism is the most notorious and popular.
I am a creationist who knows that Evolution is real, but I believe that God had either little, no, or complete involvement in it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know there's more than one form of creationism, heck, it's not even exclusive to Christianity. Young Earth Creationism is probably a very small minority within the group of people that believe in some form of creation, but is the most vocal, factually erroneous, deceptive and harmful of the lot, which is why I go after it.
If you want to see the hand of god in whatever it is science tells us happened in the past, fine. It's still as unfalsifiable and as lacking in evidence as any other religious belief, but at least it doesn't blatantly contradict what the actual evidence tells us.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well there's no evidence to deny the existence of a "entity" that is so far more unimaginably "intelligent" than human minds could be that could have had some involvement of the shaping of our universe. Athiest just can't accept the fact that God exists because the evidence that he does exist is......................................bacon XD
π: 0 β©: 1
You also have no evidence to disprove my claim that I have a pet manticore in my back yard, but that doesn't make it a "reasonable" belief to hold. Just because you've defined your god as being unprovable doesn't mean that we should all accept that he exists. The time to believe any claim is when you have confirming evidence, not when you lack evidence to the contrary.
If the evidence for god is bacon, why is the bible against eating pork? Why did god give me so much compassion for animals that I'm a vegetarian?
π: 0 β©: 1
Bacon > Supreme Court
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, neat stencil.
I used to be really into young-earth creation, but then I thought: "Look at all this evidence. I mean, there could be a lot of mistakes in our ideas concerning evolution, but how could we be so wrong that the entire theory is a lie?" I hate to think we evolved form apes, but hey - I believe that we are all sinners and that the only way out of hell is through Jesus. So I understand that the truth isn't always what we want to hear!
π: 0 β©: 2
Hear hear! So we share common ancestry with apes (c'mon, apes are cool), does that change what Christ did?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, it doesn't really change what He did.
And apes really creep me out, but I think I have to admit they are pretty cool, just like everything else in Creation.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>