Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

Okay, a couple of questions for the evolutionists.

1. If there was a worldwide flood as described in the Bible, (and work with me here, let's call it a hypothesis, you science nerds love those ;D), what effect would a monumental worldwide catastrophy like that have on things like carbon dating, fossil records, death of certain species (like dinosaurs etc.)? Would any of our current research be skewed if that actually was a fact?

Alright, your hypothesis is that a massive global flood led to the extinction of numerous species? The effect on carbon dating (and other radiometric dating methods) = nil....the massive deluge would not affect the half lives radioactive isotopes. The fossil record in your hypothesis should show a mixing of all species throughout the geological layers...primarily in a layer laid down by the flood itself. Do we observe this? No, the fossil record shows a clear chronological record, with species that evolved earlier present in older layers, whereas more recently evolved species are found in 'younger' geological layers. There are no 'fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian' to quote J.B.S. Haldane.

As to a flood skewing our data...that suggests that such event wouldn't contribute to the evidence....ie. there would be evidence of such an event. There isn't some scientific conspiracy to debunk theist beliefs...the evidence just doesn't bear them out.

2. Pantera, you said "I KNOW cars are 'intelligently designed' because I can observe it in action." Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action? Please don't deflect this question by quoting evidence or fossil records etc. but answer it as it was asked - Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action?

There a many examples of speciation reported in the literature. Go back a couple of my posts to one where I was responding to Djevv on this matter. There is a very good review of the literature relevant to macro-evolution that I posted a link to. As I said to Djevv, don't take my word for it, or the author's word for it, go and look at the evidence that they are citing...it is a referenced and available for you to look at. So to answer your question...YES, macro-evolution has been observed in action, creationist assertions notwithstanding.

3. If there actually is a God, (again, work with me on this hypothesis), and He doesn't always work by our human -conceived scientific laws, then would that not potentially throw much scientific discovery on our origins, specifically evolution and things like carbon dating, into question? If He is not bound by these laws, which Christians believe He clearly isn't, then I would think that this would raise some questions that you refuse to ask.

Ah, the theist 'get out of jail free card'. Why not a pink unicorn? Or a leprechaun? Or Shiva?

Please elaborate on the questions that I refuse to ask. Perhaps I have asked, and the God-answer was found wanting?

I know you will probably try to debunk these questions saying there is a lack of evidence to support said theories, but I would like you to answer them genuinely, with respect to the way that they were asked.

I am not just trying to debunk your questions. There are flaws in your arguments that I am pointing out. Instead of restating your arguments, perhaps you could respond to my comments and point out where they are flawed. I, too, mean that genuinely.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm not going to try and debunk your theories via lack of evidence but what do you expect? Once again, as always, it comes down to having faith in what you believe in. You can't prove it one way or the the other. Never will.

No, these questions can't be answered 100%, but that doesn't mean that both points of view have equal amounts supporting them. IMO there is as much supporting the existence of a theist god as there is of any of the mythical beings that humans of come up with throughout our history. Do you not believe in Zeus? Why not?

And by the way, as an atheist, I don't know why there seems to be this link between atheism and evolution. An atheist, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't believe in god and rejects organised religion. Evolution has nothing to do with it. If that puts me out in no mans land, then so be it. To be quite honest, I've got no idea where we came from. There could be any number of explanations.

Does it really matter anyway?

You are right to point out that the fact that biological life on this planet has evolved has no bearing on the existence of a god, nor does belief in a theist-type god automatically mean that you have to reject the enormous body of evidence in support of evolution. However, the power of evolutionary theory is that it certainly removes a big 'gap' where god once resided. It provided a natural explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that was once ascribed to special creation.

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Charles Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker

 

[Djevv]

Okay, a couple of questions for the evolutionists.

1. If there was a worldwide flood as described in the Bible, (and work with me here, let's call it a hypothesis, you science nerds love those ;D), what effect would a monumental worldwide catastrophy like that have on things like carbon dating, fossil records, death of certain species (like dinosaurs etc.)? Would any of our current research be skewed if that actually was a fact?

Evolutionary understandings of geology are based on an unproved assumption - uniformatarianism. Uniformatarianism says that the (geological) processes operating today are fully sufficient to explain the Earth's geology. There are actually two others as well - but I won't go in to these as they are not contoversial. If uniformatarianism is correct - then evolution is a great model for the rock layers and the fossils they contain. If it is not correct and there was a cataclysm (like the flood) then there is no reason why nearly all the rocks we see could not have been formed in that way. It would also mean that the fossil correlations that are the backbone of the geological timescale don't represent geological ages, but particular cataclysmic events that lead to the death of these particular creatures. So a resounding YES to your question - all current research assumes uniformatarianism is correct.

As an example of this I will re-explain what I mean about the ice ages of a page or so ago. The ice ages are relatively recent events, and, as Panther said, are based on very sound data. Without uniformatarian assumptions these might be interpreted as conditions in the post-flood world. The rest of the Phanerozoic (560 mya according to uniformatarian assumptions) would represent the sediments (and volvanics) layed down in the various phases of the flood. That is why the fossils contained in them are all from warm climates - the pre-flood world was much warmer than the one we presently inhabit. My guess is also that the pre-flood world with its ideal conditions for life produced a much greater profusion of species than we presently see - which accounts for all the extinct animals we find as fossils.

Radiometric dating is similarly based on numerous uniformatarian assumptions.

2. Pant era, you said "I KNOW cars are 'intelligently designed' because I can observe it in action." Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action? Please don't deflect this question by quoting evidence or fossil records etc. but answer it as it was asked - Have you or any other person ever observed macro-evolution in action?

Some change has been seen in species via mutation and other change mechanisms. How far this can be taken is the issue. For years scientists have been mutating fruit flys - Drosophila Melanogaster creating all sorts wierd and wonderful variations, but nothing that is not demonstanbly a fruitfly. Does this answer your question?

3. If there actually is a God, (again, work with me on this hypothesis), and He doesn't always work by our human -conceived scientific laws, then would that not potentially throw much scientific discovery on our origins, specifically evolution and things like carbon dating, into question? If He is not bound by these laws, which Christians believe He clearly isn't, then I would think that this would raise some questions that you refuse to ask.

This is outside the realm of science IMO. Materialist science has been pretty sucessful in describing the world around us - I say let it continue in doing it's great work. To me our rational universe with it's unchanging immutible laws - implies a single creator - rather that a multiplicity - so Zeus and Shiva and other polytheistic Gods are out the window - you would expect a polyverse from them. I also believe that a universe with a beginning implies a First Cause, but this is again, a philosophical question, beyond the realms of science. I don't believe science would have an issue with God reaching into His universe and 'tweaking' things for His reasons, but once it entered the universe it would become part of our natural world.

As for Nerd, well, I know I'm cool at any rate ;D........................

 

[Disco08]

My guess is also that the pre-flood world with its ideal conditions for life produced a much greater profusion of species than we presently see - which accounts for all the extinct animals we find as fossils.

Do you find it a little odd that the Bible mentions plenty of modern animals but not a single one of these millions of extinct species?

 

[Tiger74]

Do you find it a little odd that the Bible mentions plenty of modern animals but not a single one of these millions of extinct species?

no mention of crocoducks either :spin

 

[Djevv]

Do you find it a little odd that the Bible mentions plenty of modern animals but not a single one of these millions of extinct species?

I'm not sure what animal this passage describes, but it's not one I've ever seen:

Job 40:15-24 (New International Version)

15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]
or trap him and pierce his nose?


Apart from that there was another strange one called 'Leviathan'.

I think, on the whole, the bible was written (well) after the flood, which is why only modern animals are described.

 

[Disco08]

So why did Noah only take modern animals onto the ark?

And that passage is used in a lot of places to try and point out that the bible describes a dinosaur, most like a large one like a brachiosaurus. However I don't think any reeds on earth could conceal a dinosaur that size and I think the only way his mouth would be at water level in the Jordan would be if he was lying down.

 

[Six Pack]

Oh man, don't get me started on that old fairy tale. Surely we dealt with that in the early days of the Christian thread.

The poo!! The poo!! How did they deal with all the methane gas?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Oh man, don't get me started on that old fairy tale. Surely we dealt with that in the early days of the Christian thread.

The poo!! The poo!! How did they deal with all the methane gas?

And how did he store every species of flora and fauna that were not aquatic? There are 350,000 species of beetle alone!

An inordinate fondness for beetles.
J.B.S. Haldane
Reply to theologians who inquired if there was anything that could be concluded about the Creator from the study of creation.

 

[Djevv]

I didn’t really want to talk about ark theories.
But
1. The thing was the size of a WW2 aircraft carrier, so it was capable of carrying LOTS of animals.
2. It could have been engineered to cope with methane and dung presumably these problems would have been forseen.
3. The account refers to every ‘kind’ of animal. This is a vague term probably referring to every type of animal that could be found. I doubt there was an exhaustive collection, but I think numerous extinct types would have been included. Most of these would have died out in the changed post-flood conditions.
4. As for the Haldane quip. No-one believes in special creation any longer – limited evolution is well within a creationist world view.

Things that fit the creationist model:
1. The Cambrian explosion – as well as the appearance of numerous fossil species without precursors.
2. The lack of transitional forms between fossil species as a general rule. The ‘transitional’ forms found are easily explained as similar animals living at the same time.
3. The same succession of correlated sediments all over the world - presumably each one due to a separate cataclysm.
4. The succession of fossilised creatures being able to be correlated is from simple (especially marine) to more complex (the simpler were less able to escape).
5. The succession of fossils from sea to land based creatures.
6. The fact that nearly all fossils are found in ‘graveyards’ rather than life positions.
7. The fact that quick burial is required to preserve fossils (especially the large ones) and this is better explained by cataclysmic sedimentary conditions rather than slow accretion.
8. The fact that very large land based creatures (dinosaurs & mammals) are found as fossils in sea (ie under water) sediments. How on earth did this occur?
9. That most sediments are in successions of layers which show no erosional boundaries or unconformities (ie no demonstrable time delay between sedimentation events)
10. Sea saltiness measurements which prove (taking into account removal of sea salt) that the oceans are no older than 60my.
11. The flood was observed by eyewitnesses in the Bible which has NEVER been proved to be incorrect with regard to ancient history.
12. There are numerous flood myths from many cultures all over the world which possibly point to a real event lost in the mists of history.
13. Fossils have been discovered which have some organic remains. Seems hard to imagine this after 65+myrs

 

[Six Pack]

dj, just another thing on this topic. jay has mentioned somewhere that the Earth is only 6000 or 7000 years old. How does this fit in with yr understanding of christianity and science?

 

[evo]

for the life of me i can't understand this "lack of trasitional form" argument,Djevv.

Every lifeform is 'transitional' --man doesn't have a perfect eye,or ear,he has weird things like appendix etc. And all animals are like that--evolution is an ongoing process.

Scientists can see it occuring in petrie dishes for pete's sake.How can it even be in doubt is beyond me.

 

[Disco08]

1. The thing was the size of a WW2 aircraft carrier, so it was capable of carrying LOTS of animals.

And sailed by Noah and his family while they attended to all the animals in a massive storm?

2. It could have been engineered to cope with methane and dung presumably these problems would have been forseen.

Yet no mention of these remarkable feats of engineering millenniums ahead of their time in the actual story?

The account refers to every ‘kind’ of animal. This is a vague term probably referring to every type of animal that could be found. I doubt there was an exhaustive collection, but I think numerous extinct types would have been included. Most of these would have died out in the changed post-flood conditions.

Wouldn't God have helped out here given the conditions for most non-aquatic animals would have been very grim indeed?

What would all the carnivores have eaten? I guess you could theorise that the surviving ate the extinct but a tiger eating a tyrannosaurus doesn't seem quite right, does it?

4. As for the Haldane quip. No-one believes in special creation any longer – limited evolution is well within a creationist world view.

Does the fact that similar specimens dated to similar times on earth exist throw a spanner in the works here?

 

[Djevv]

dj, just another thing on this topic. jay has mentioned somewhere that the Earth is only 6000 or 7000 years old. How does this fit in with yr understanding of christianity and science?

This is the Ussher date for the world based on tracing the lengths of lives and geneologies of Biblical patriarchs. It represents when the world began from a human perspective. Whether it was around before this is anyones guess.

I believe that millions of years and evolution go hand in hand, disbelieve one and you might as well ignore the other. I cant see any reason for the earth to be that age apart from the necessity of making time for evolutionary processes to work.

 

[Six Pack]

But for a christian who believes in the OT the earth began from a human perspective with Adam and that was about the start of it overall.

That doesnt sit right with science does it?

 

[Disco08]

The fact that we can see light from millions of light years away isn't compelling evidence for an old earth?

 

[Six Pack]

The fact that we can see light from millions of light years away isn't compelling evidence for an old earth?

maybe god's out there in deep space mucking around with some mirrors and a bloody big torch?

 

[Djevv]

for the life of me i can't understand this "lack of trasitional form" argument,Djevv.

Every lifeform is 'transitional' --man doesn't have a perfect eye,or ear,he has weird things like appendix etc. And all animals are like that--evolution is an ongoing process.

Scientists can see it occuring in petrie dishes for pete's sake.How can it even be in doubt is beyond me.

Two answers to this one:

Firstly most species arise suddenly in the fossil record, persist for a while, then disappear with no precursor or transition to other species apparent. These gaps are such a feature of the fossil record that the 'punctuated equilibrium' (evolution works quickly, geologically speaking, and stasis of form is the rule) model of evolution was invented to explain them. Now if all the animals in the fossil record were contemporaries, then this is exactly what you would expect.

Evo, no-one disputes natural selection, whereby new bacterial strains can arise fairly quickly, the dispute is how far this can be taken. Can reptiles given long enough develop multiple new features, which all work together and take off into the wild blue yonder? Possibly, but personally, I doubt it, and will continue to do so until it is conclusively demonstrated.

 

[Djevv]

The fact that we can see light from millions of light years away isn't compelling evidence for an old earth?

Seems to be, for an old universe, as far as I can see. But there may be some other explanation we don't know about.

 

[Six Pack]

Seems to be, for an old universe, as far as I can see. But there may be some other explanation we don't know about.

see above. torch and mirror and old guy with a beard and a surly outlook.