Adam and Eve or Evolution? (2 Viewers)

[Kierkegaard]

Evolutionary theory entails a post hoc fallacy? Golly gosh, your reasoning is startiling(ly lacking). I think what you meant to say is that it entails the assumption of uniformitarianism. It appears that you've been reading some David Hume and got a little confused. A post hoc fallacy is one where no causal link has been established. It's the 'miracle fallacy'.

By saying that evolutionists are commiting a post hoc fallacy, you're suggesting that there is an assumed causal link between evolutionary events. Well, that's utter tripe. I imagine that you weren't suggesting this; that you were, instead, suggesting that we (dogmatically) assume that what we observe has always happened and always will happen. This is the assumption of uniformitarianism, which is the basis for any inductive argument, which in turns forms the basis for uniformitarianism. This is the fallacy of evolution, but it is also a fallacy that cannot be avoided. If you have ever thought yourself justified in the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, you have commited this fallacy.

Then again, maybe you did mean that there is a post hoc fallacy, which is quite wrong.

Those who believe in creation are much more likely to commit a post hoc fallacy, as they're more inclined to believe in miracles.

 

[Li0n]

how can atoms which have no mind, and move about randomly, randomly form into new and different things

if you want to use science to prove something, complete a degree and dont go following shit that doesn't make sense

Kierkegaard captain genius, reply to my post

 

[withoutaface]

My personal belief is that God created the universe and started a chain of events (otherwise known as evolution) to one day create man in his own image. So yeah, both.

 

[Mege]

i think there is a higher 'being' but i dunno what it is. i think religion is misleading. so many wars are fought over it how can it be doin good.all the evidence is there for evolution but its still confusing

 

[Pace Setter]

Evolutionary theory entails a post hoc fallacy? Golly gosh, your reasoning is startiling(ly lacking). I think what you meant to say is that it entails the assumption of uniformitarianism. It appears that you've been reading some David Hume and got a little confused. A post hoc fallacy is one where no causal link has been established. It's the 'miracle fallacy'.

By saying that evolutionists are commiting a post hoc fallacy, you're suggesting that there is an assumed causal link between evolutionary events. Well, that's utter tripe.

The reasoning for evolution follows something along these lines: Species A existed shortly after Species B, species A and B have various similarities, etc--and abracadabra, evolution (of the genes/dna,etc and thus, species) has occured. A post hoc fallacy is where A causal link has been established, despite there being no evidence that THAT link was the one that caused the change. Whilst it's still possible that Species B evolved into Species A, it's post hoc fallacy to assert that evolution was definitely the cause of Species B coming into existence.

Edit: And the assumed causal link is that the gene/dna structure(or whatever it is that supposedly causes evolution). Is there any evidence in modern science to show that this kind of change in dna is possible at all?

 

[ishq]

No, but it does relegate said god to Ultimate Creator of the Universe status... which essentially rules him/her... it out entirely. He is just another name for, say, the Big Bang.

Seriously, read Angels and Demons....

 

[mitochondria]

Whether it's a theory or a law, logical fallacies apply either way. Not acknowledging the fallacy (whilst at the same time not explaining why it's not a fallacy) is a bit perplexing.

Whilst many who provide dismissals based on comprehensive evidence of various logical fallacies as well as other (similar but not official fallacies of logic) problems with Darwin's argument (no, I'm not talking about the "god created everything, therefore you're wrong argument") and are generally met with pig-headedness and a stubborness not dissimilar to that of many religious fanatics.

It occurs to me that people who have created and supported (are supporting) the evolution theory produced solid evidence and facts based on logical inferences. If such logical inference is a "logical fallacy", does that mean murderers who have no witnesses for their crimes should not be accused of murder, just because of some finger prints of a weapon found at the murderer's home which has the blood of the person being murdered?

And by the way.. those "who provide dismissals based on comprehensive evidence of various logical inferences (not fallacies)" have at least physical evidence to make them believe in what they believe. "Many religious fanatics" are "generally met with pig-headedness and a stubborness", that is because they possess predisposed believes that cannot be proved - and those who believe in evidence shall not be compared to them, or you may prefer: "those are intelligent forms of pig-headedness and stubborness"

Generalisations (about ones who believe in creationalism) like that are needless (my paragraph above demonstrates the vice-versa case).

That was not a generalisation... Note that I used usually instead of always and that was enough to separate the minority from the majority... I do not stereotype people who have religious believes, if I ever made you feel that way, accept my apologies..

Edit: And the assumed causal link is that the gene/dna structure(or whatever it is that supposedly causes evolution). Is there any evidence in modern science to show that this kind of change in dna is possible at all?

I recall reading that some micro-organisms can "show this casual link" because they multiply so rapidly that sometimes mutations occur.. Does that mean there are no more "casual links" and you would consider evolutionism is true by every means? Well, or at least more authentic than creationalism?

 

[alien]

yes he was of jewish blood though, ironically (if i may say so)
the jews and arab have a common semetic ancestry which is said to be traced to abraham

a little history lesson

yeah but Abraham was around AGES before Jesus, like hundreds of years, so even though Jewish and Muslims have the same heritage, deosn't mean Jesus looked like the Muslims of today.

 

[Lainee]

I believe in both, I dont think either can fully explain how humans came to being but rather that through God's divine actions He created humans through the natural processes of evolution. Im not fundamentalist and dont believe (nor do the majority of Christians) that the Earth was created in 7 days. As for the Adam and Eve question...humans had to have started from somewhere, it may not have been 2 people but theoretically at one stage or another there had to have been only a few humans in the form humans are currently in (depending on which theory about how humans evolved is correct).

Fuck. People are stupid. Before you are baptised you should go through a mandatory course in theology.

Not even Christians advocate that Adam and Eve were physical human beings. The entire point of the creation story and the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic, in that, from God all life is formed. Therefore the story of Adam and Eve is not contradictorary of evolution thoery, all it suggests is that all life and matter in this world stems from God, or a higher life.

I was about to write my own reply, but realised acmilan and absolution's replies summarised my beliefs pretty well too.

In short, I believe in God as a higher entity who created human beings, which as absolution pointed out is not in contradition to scientific theory (the Big Bang). In fact, the Big Bang theory was proposed by the Catholic church to support Creationism. Whatever you call it - God, Yahweh, Buddha - science proves the fact that all creation sprung from a single compressed point of energy. Thus my belief is that He created everything (the fact that Genesis is symbolic) and that from that human beings, as we know ourselves, evolved to today.

I agreed with everything absolution said until the last point:

Also, religion is a faith. Science is a theory. You cannot debate within two indelibly different forms.

It is my contention that science and religion are really not in conflict with each other; their purpose is to explain the questions of existance - where we came from, who we are, and what our purpose is; just that science is a bit behind religion. One day, it is my belief that all humans will discover that science was just trying to explain what religion already told us.

 

[mitochondria]

I am just curious at a few things after realing your post.. I am not questioning your believes as I have my own believes and I have no doubts where it will take me, but I would like to challenge your believe (sincerely) because I do not find it convincing And I'll do so by asking you a few questions..

In short, I believe in God as a higher entity who created human beings, which as absolution pointed out is not in contradition to scientific theory (the Big Bang).

Why should there be a higher entity? I have read a book on this topic.. In that book the author uses the parallel between the relationship between a shepherd/sheep and God/human - it indirectly insist on the fact that sheep can not precieve that they are being controlled by a higher entity then themselves - human - therefore if we can't "see" God and it does not mean He doesn't exist.. (well.. and not to mention that he bought up the metaphor of human as sheep from the Bible) It may sound convincing, but I'm sure that even a sheep would feel that it is being physically taken care of by this "higher entity", why don't we feel the physical presence of our "higher entity" - God?

It never convinces me when people tell me stories that could just be mere coincidence or can feel His presence. I precieve religions as merely a very clever manipulation of languge that appeals to us..

In fact, the Big Bang theory was proposed by the Catholic church to support Creationism. Whatever you call it - God, Yahweh, Buddha - science proves the fact that all creation sprung from a single compressed point of energy. Thus my belief is that He created everything (the fact that Genesis is symbolic) and that from that human beings, as we know ourselves, evolved to today.

Why would the Catholic church hesitate to propose such theory while it can help to preserve its integrity? Why would the pope deny evolution (by acmilan) while there are far too much evidence for him to deny it? He might as well tweak it a bit and say that it does not violate creationalism but part of it to calm doubting believers. (May I ask you to pretend that you are neutral - if you are not - for a moment and analyse it like politics?)

And again, why can't things just have happened? Why does everything have to have a cause? Do religions manipulate this fallacy to make us believe that there is in fact a creator?

It is my contention that science and religion are really not in conflict with each other... One day, it is my belief that all humans will discover that science was just trying to explain what religion already told us.

I do agree that they are not in conflict with each other...



I myself have pretty much been raised the Catholic way - Catholic kindy, Catholic primary school and 2 years of Catholic high school.. And I think many people are raised in an religious environment.. However, have you ever realised that we were only given the choice to believe? But not the choice to not-believe? Have you ever question yourself why you were raised that way? And last but not least, have you ever questioned the purpose of your religion - even though it seems to bring only goodness us?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

My personal belief is that the universe was created 1 second ago and all our thoughts of the past were placed in us by a superbeing.

 

[Pianpupodoel]

Buddha wasnt a God. He was a real person.

In fact, some might question buddhism as a real religion.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Buddhism is a religion there is just no diety.

 

[thaoroxy2001]

being a Buddhist myself i find it weird when people actually think that we assume Buddha to be GOD...umm..NO...buddha was an enlightened being who came to Earth for the salvation of human kind (kinda like Jesus)....Buddhists still believe that there is a higher power, a God if u call it so......

And another I got really angry the other day when this very devoted Christian girl said that I worshipped idols just because I have Buddha statues in my home...yet at her place she has statues of Jesus, Mary and the Cross everywhere.....the Buddha statues are there as a representation so that we can pay respect to them....yet some very closed-minded people think we worship idols...how hypocritical!

All religions should be respected.....

 

[Lainee]

I am just curious at a few things after realing your post.. I am not questioning your believes as I have my own believes and I have no doubts where it will take me, but I would like to challenge your believe (sincerely) because I do not find it convincing And I'll do so by asking you a few questions..

Heheh I'm up for a challenge, especially if it helps me clarify my thoughts and feelings. This might be a very long post though, I'll try to keep it as short as I can, but no promises!

Why should there be a higher entity? I have read a book on this topic.. In that book the author uses the parallel between the relationship between a shepherd/sheep and God/human - it indirectly insist on the fact that sheep can not precieve that they are being controlled by a higher entity then themselves - human - therefore if we can't "see" God and it does not mean He doesn't exist.. (well.. and not to mention that he bought up the metaphor of human as sheep from the Bible) It may sound convincing, but I'm sure that even a sheep would feel that it is being physically taken care of by this "higher entity", why don't we feel the physical presence of our "higher entity" - God?

Why should there be a higher entity? I don't think it's a matter of should or should not. The question is akin to 'should we have parents?'

I stretch the parallel further by pointing to children's attitudes towards parents: some find them unnecessary and after maturation pay very little attention to their parents, and others just the opposite. People who have very strong faith in their religions thus may find it incredible that others can refute the existence of a God: as you have ties to your parents and cannot refute their existence and their contribution to who you are today, I have similiar feelings towards both my parents and my religion.

Why don't we feel the presence of our 'higher entity'? I can't do anything but speculate on this, because I am one of those that have just accepted God as a fact, just as you accept that your existance was your parent's responsibility.

There are so many miracles in the world - we have just cease to find wonder in them. Have we ceased to believe there is something beyond the mundane? Has the world really become a place where we rather believe that the world and all it's wonders was a one in a zillion coincidence rather than that some divine hand had some role in it's making?

I think the question you wanted to ask was: if there really is a higher entity, why is there still pain in the world? If there was someone or something that created us, why doesn't it love us and look after us?

The bible uses the symbolism between the shephard and the flock as well but I'll be using my previous parallel with children and parents again here to explain.

The bible describes God as an omnipotent and benevolent being. The question the becomes: if indeed God loves us and has the power to save us, why does he let human kind suffer?

Someone mentioned Angels and Demons by Dan Brown before, and I had a quick glance at it to see what was relevant. This next bit is a highly relevant excerpt from page 401.

'Imagine you had an eight-year-old son... would you love him?'
'Of course.'
'Would you do everything in your power to prevent pain in his life?'
'Of course.'
'Would you let him skateboard?'
'Yeah, I guess,' Chartrand said. 'Sure, I'd let him skateboard, but I'd tell him to be careful.'
'So as this child's father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?
'I wouldn't run behind him and mollycoddle him if that's what you mean.'
'But what if he fell and skinned his knee?
'He would learn to be more careful.'
The camerlengo smiled. 'So although you have the power to interfer and prevent your child's pain, you would choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons?'
'Of course. Pain is part of growing up. It's how we learn.'
The camerlengo nodded. 'Exactly.'

I precieve religions as merely a very clever manipulation of languge that appeals to us..

If you really do perceive it in such a way, I really have to ask you - what is your definition of religion? Human language is the only way we can explain human logic, it is the only way we can communicate the existence of God to others. But the Bible isn't religion, nor priests, or the Koran or whatever. The bible is just a collection of recounts that people wrote. If you witnessed the baptism of Christ, and God speaking from the heavens - how would you write it down so that generations after would understand what you saw and feel the mystery and awe within it?

Why would the Catholic church hesitate to propose such theory while it can help to preserve its integrity? Why would the pope deny evolution (by acmilan) while there are far too much evidence for him to deny it? He might as well tweak it a bit and say that it does not violate creationalism but part of it to calm doubting believers. (May I ask you to pretend that you are neutral - if you are not - for a moment and analyse it like politics?)

I think you meant 'oppose' rather than 'propose' in your first sentence. I'll leave the bulk of this to acmilan to answer since it was directed to him, but I urge you once again to consider what you believe religion is. Further, the church has denied such controversial issues such as homosexuality - if your logic holds true, and the church really just wanted to 'appease the masses' - why the inconsistency in accepting some claims and not others?

However, have you ever realised that we were only given the choice to believe? But not the choice to not-believe? Have you ever question yourself why you were raised that way? And last but not least, have you ever questioned the purpose of your religion - even though it seems to bring only goodness us?

The purpose of religion? I reiterate - religion is not some political scam or power struggle as sceptics tend to believe. I assume you're talking about organised religion. It is a personal devotion to something which you feel is so obviously true, that you feel everyone else must be blind (please see my first example where I posed the question: 'should we have parents?'). You must excuse some extremist sometimes when they go a bit overboard, but the faith is so obvious to me that for me to think otherwise will be just like me suddenly believing I'm an immaculate conception.

 

[clancy04]

Lainee, you are correct. Organised religion is not some political scam or power struggle. However to deny that it does not vehemently advocate obstinate guiding principles, rules etc. is to deny that it is not the most powerful form of social cohesion available to mankind. Indeed, I believe it is precisely this necessity for social cohesion which has seen religion, in its many different forms, present in almost all societies throughout history. How do you control the masses? With religion.
Additionally, what does the relative juvenesence of Christianity denote for the human beings who lived 200,000 years ago. Are they to burn for their lack of faith when they had never even contemplated such a God or higher power? This is a very important question.

 

[alien]

no they're judged according to their knowledge ie. if they knew it was bad (assuming they had cognitive thought, like 200,000 years ago? Woah!) to kill someone but they still did... yeah.

 

[clancy04]

Yes they did have cognitive thought 200,000 years ago. Amazing huh.

 

[alien]

lol yeah it is

 

[Lainee]

Additionally, what does the relative juvenesence of Christianity denote for the human beings who lived 200,000 years ago. Are they to burn for their lack of faith when they had never even contemplated such a God or higher power? This is a very important question.

I'll have to do some research to answer this question (*groans and googles for a searchable online bible*) but basically... the answer I've got in mind is one which many will not like.

And as for humans having cognitive thought 200,000 years ago? I don't really know, it's not a field which I'm interested in so I don't know much about it. But I did have to do some anthropology related research a while back and stumbled across something I didn't know.

Xenophanes (570-475 BC) knew of three colours of the rainbow only: purple, red and yellow; Aristotle (384-322 BC) spoke of the tri-coloured rainbow. By examining language, as late in the life of the race as the time of the primitive Aryans (not more than 15 or 20,000 years ago), humans were only conscious of, or only perceived, one colour!

The sense of fragrance seems to have developed even later. It is not mentioned in the Vedic hymns and only once in the Zend Avesta. Musical sense has existed for less than 5,000 years and it does not exist in more than half the members of the race. These recent additions to human senses could be evidence of human evolution and moral progress. How can we fit in this in an organically static brain?! There's some evidence that the cerebral cortex is still evolving, which opens some really interesting questions about human capability! I digress.

Thus, 20,000 years ago we can imagine how the world must have appeared to humans: lacking in variety of colour, sounds and smells. The connotations of this are significant, lacking in outer sensory perceptions, they may have lacked in the ideas of beauty, symmetry etc. and concepts of goodness, compassion and purity that we can perceive today.

But yeah, I will try to offer some discussion about cr04's observation tomorrow after I recharge with a little sleep.