quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually, most of the younger priests seem to hold the same belief as I do on the mix of creation of the universe by god and the evolution of the universe and life as part of a natural order.
I really cant wrap my head around a God that just snaps his fingers and something pops into existence. It just seems the lazy way of doing something, and after the many times of reading the bible, both catholic and king james versions, God just does not seem to be one for instant gratification. Just my opinion.
As for the absence of proof there is a god, proof is in the perception of what a person sees. I have had some experiences that may have a scientific or medical explanation, but to me they seemed downright miraculous.
So if you dont want to believe, that is fine, if you do believe, great. I am not about to try to force someone to believe in the same things I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I think that's all down to the question of 'how much time in your life do you want to piss away thinking about bugger all that's of any use or consequence?', Vincent. God-bangers want to irritate scientists by using scientists' own, honourable, rules against them - despite the fact that they, the god-bangers, hold to no such principles themselves whatsoever.

Me, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove that giant crocodiles in pink hats who play the banjo while skateboarding on Mars don't exist either. However, I can't be arsed to consider either matter whatsoever.

That is the sum total of anyone's intellectual abilities and effort that should be put into such questions, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I think that's all down to the question of 'how much time in your life do you want to piss away thinking about bugger all that's of any use or consequence?', Vincent. God-bangers want to irritate scientists by using scientists' own, honourable, rules against them - despite the fact that they, the god-bangers, hold to no such principles themselves whatsoever.
Me, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove that giant crocodiles in pink hats who play the banjo while skateboarding on Mars don't exist either. However, I can't be arsed to consider either matter whatsoever.
That is the sum total of anyone's intellectual abilities and effort that should be put into such questions, IMO.

An excellent question, Peon. One that can be answered on several levels:
With a background of teaching Sciences in the public schools I am alarmed at the continuing attempt of Believers to degrade science education by influencing publishers to erase Darwin from textbooks and by trying to infiltrate the classroom with the psuedoscience Intelligent Design (the Creationism pig with lipstick) led by The Discovery Institute and various local and state politicians. They advance the lie that there are gaps in the theory of natural selection and significant disagreements among evolutionary scientists.
On a national level, as a citizen of a Republic, I am dismayed by the increasing prevelance of myth and superstition, which in America influences our politics. This may not be an issue in the UK, Peon, but ignorance and superstition are very much a factor in American politics. You do not have rabid Christian fundamentalism in the UK. Whereas, it has been a part of the American polity since the Pilgrams landed with all their biases and delusional truths.
You cannot be arsed about giant crocs with pink hats because there is no active cult of pink hat crocs trying to alter your schools and your nation by their delusions.
On a personal level when you reach senior age the question of Faith becomes a more immediate concern. The end of life becomes a more salient issue. It is no longer an academic exercise but a growing reality. So, do I live the remaining days of my life in hopes of an afterlife or do I accept that there is no afterlife? It won't matter much if there is no afterlife but it matters now because it colors the fabric of my acceptance and contentment.
Again, good question, Peon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I think that's all down to the question of 'how much time in your life do you want to piss away thinking about bugger all that's of any use or consequence?', Vincent. God-bangers want to irritate scientists by using scientists' own, honourable, rules against them - despite the fact that they, the god-bangers, hold to no such principles themselves whatsoever.
Me, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove that giant crocodiles in pink hats who play the banjo while skateboarding on Mars don't exist either. However, I can't be arsed to consider either matter whatsoever.
That is the sum total of anyone's intellectual abilities and effort that should be put into such questions, IMO.

An excellent question, Peon. One that can be answered on several levels:
With a background of teaching Sciences in the public schools I am alarmed at the continuing attempt of Believers to degrade science education by influencing publishers to erase Darwin from textbooks and by trying to infiltrate the classroom with the psuedoscience Intelligent Design (the Creationism pig with lipstick) led by The Discovery Institute and various local and state politicians. They advance the lie that there are gaps in the theory of natural selection and significant disagreements among evolutionary scientists.
On a national level, as a citizen of a Republic, I am dismayed by the increasing prevelance of myth and superstition, which in America influences our politics. This may not be an issue in the UK, Peon, but ignorance and superstition are very much a factor in American politics. You do not have rabid Christian fundamentalism in the UK. Whereas, it has been a part of the American polity since the Pilgrams landed with all their biases and delusional truths.
You cannot be arsed about giant crocs with pink hats because there is no active cult of pink hat crocs trying to alter your schools and your nation by their delusions.
On a personal level when you reach senior age the question of Faith becomes a more immediate concern. The end of life becomes a more salient issue. It is no longer an academic exercise but a growing reality. So, do I live the remaining days of my life in hopes of an afterlife or do I accept that there is no afterlife? It won't matter much if there is no afterlife but it matters now because it colors the fabric of my acceptance and contentment.
Again, good question, Peon.

Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around? Or, was the issue one of bones that completely break down to nothing? Why are there no "missing links" still roaming around? We have apes, then we have humans. Where are the go-betweens? Where are the subtle changes between the two? The odds of evolution happening to such an extent within a couple generations have to be staggeringly against it happening, but this is something we are simply to believe? IMO, there takes a certain amount of faith to plant oneself securely in the Evolution camp. Since science can't really include faith, we are left with questions that can't be answered with the evidence we have to date. This doesn't disprove Evolutionary Theory, but just adds to the possible falseness of it, or part of it. And, it neither proves or refutes Intelligent Design.

quote:

cant see how lack of proof is proof. dude A or B killed dude C. No evidence dude A did da deed so dats proof dude B did?

quote:

Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around? Or, was the issue one of bones that completely break down to nothing? Why are there no "missing links" still roaming around? We have apes, then we have humans. Where are the go-betweens? Where are the subtle changes between the two? The odds of evolution happening to such an extent within a couple generations have to be staggeringly against it happening, but this is something we are simply to believe? IMO, there takes a certain amount of faith to plant oneself securely in the Evolution camp. Since science can't really include faith, we are left with questions that can't be answered with the evidence we have to date. This doesn't disprove Evolutionary Theory, but just adds to the possible falseness of it, or part of it. And, it neither proves or refutes Intelligent Design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Could you talk me through that because I was just reading Genesis 1:3-2:3 and it seems an awful lot like water and the earth predate the existence of stars which is a pretty massive cosmology fail.

It's a lot to walk through. Though interpretations vary, if you look up "Pre-adamite world" you can find lots of details that explain how Genesis and Science aren't necessarily at odds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around?

You've talked about having taken some Biology, was it really that long ago? I just don't get how you're so out of date on this subject and completely unaware of the "legions of 'Lucy's'" that have been found.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Could you talk me through that because I was just reading Genesis 1:3-2:3 and it seems an awful lot like water and the earth predate the existence of stars which is a pretty massive cosmology fail.

It's a lot to walk through. Though interpretations vary, if you look up "Pre-adamite world" you can find lots of details that explain how Genesis and Science aren't necessarily at odds.

That doesn't address how terribly wrong the biblical order of creation is in light of what we know concerning cosmology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around?

You've talked about having taken some Biology, was it really that long ago? I just don't get how you're so out of date on this subject and completely unaware of the "legions of 'Lucy's'" that have been found.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around? Or, was the issue one of bones that completely break down to nothing? Why are there no "missing links" still roaming around? We have apes, then we have humans. Where are the go-betweens? Where are the subtle changes between the two? The odds of evolution happening to such an extent within a couple generations have to be staggeringly against it happening, but this is something we are simply to believe? IMO, there takes a certain amount of faith to plant oneself securely in the Evolution camp. Since science can't really include faith, we are left with questions that can't be answered with the evidence we have to date. This doesn't disprove Evolutionary Theory, but just adds to the possible falseness of it, or part of it. And, it neither proves or refutes Intelligent Design.

@Scurii
In addition to Nosathro's point . . . the fallacy in your thinking is that man descended from apes. The theory is that man and other ape species came down from a common ancestor. We share 98% of the Chimpanzee genome. That does not mean we descended from chimps. Only that we are cousins.
As for "missing links" there are those as well. There are fish with lungs and lobed fins [adaptation for crawling about on land] For example the coelacanth, long thought to be extinct but caught by a fisherman back in the 1930s(?) There is also Archaeopteryx. A number of fossils have been found of the feathered winged dinosaur.
There are no legions of skeletons lying about because fossilization requires particular conditions.
And no evolutionist that I know of made the claim that evolution occurs within a couple of generations. The subtle changes are in the variations and mutations that occur within all populations. Those variations gain an advantage and become distinguished only when there is a change in environment that favors them over the majority. Clearly demonstrated today in the development of bacteria that are super resistant to antibiotics. Bacteria generate every twenty minutes or so. That’s why your doctor cautions you to use all your prescribed anti-biotics. To get at the more resistent varients.
Hope that answers some of your questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around?

You've talked about having taken some Biology, was it really that long ago? I just don't get how you're so out of date on this subject and completely unaware of the "legions of 'Lucy's'" that have been found.

21-22 years ago...

My point is that if there is a link between Lucy and Homo erectus., why have we not found them? For a great change to occur, there had to be small adaptations along the way. Billions of years is an awful long time and does give lots of opportunities for mutations, but for a mutation to endure, there has to be some benefit to it, or there has to be some reason it stays around, even if it's only a predisposition for mating. It has to last long enough for the next mutation to occur. Where are the links?

All you can do is question my education? Again? Puh-lease. Get a cogent argument.

quote:

About a million years after Lucy (or some 2 million years ago) there begin to appear fossils of creatures so much closer to us that they have been specifically classed as human, sharing with modern people the genus Homo.

The earliest known type of human has been called Homo habilis ('handy man') because simple tools, made from flakes of stone, are regularly found with his remains (fossil bones of this kind were first identified at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1959, but are now known from several other African sites).








As with Australopithecus, there is much dispute as to how many varieties of Homo habilis there are. Surviving specimens range in size from as small as Lucy to almost the height of modern humans.

What is certain is that for about a million years Lucy and her kind coexist in Africa with creatures more recognizably human.







Homo erectus: 2 million years ago

Read more: Here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Seems like there is only a shade of difference between the two statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have we found the "missing links?" Have we found legions of "Lucy's" littering the ground? If there was an entirely new species, wouldn't there be scads of skeletons lying around? Or, was the issue one of bones that completely break down to nothing? Why are there no "missing links" still roaming around? We have apes, then we have humans. Where are the go-betweens? Where are the subtle changes between the two? The odds of evolution happening to such an extent within a couple generations have to be staggeringly against it happening, but this is something we are simply to believe? IMO, there takes a certain amount of faith to plant oneself securely in the Evolution camp. Since science can't really include faith, we are left with questions that can't be answered with the evidence we have to date. This doesn't disprove Evolutionary Theory, but just adds to the possible falseness of it, or part of it. And, it neither proves or refutes Intelligent Design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Here is a link to a discussion of the topic on Richard Dawkins' website Dr. Dawkins is pretty well established as an atheist, I would say.

quote:

It only makes your theory, at most, just as possible as any other theory with no evidence