Was at least the first life form created?

[theVOID]

How about teaching the child that God is a matter of faith

Sure. Some faith is definitely required since God cannot be scientifically "proven". But I do not think it is a blind faith, like I am guessing you mean. It is a reasoned faith. I have no problem teaching my children that.

Note, I wasn't sure all of what you meant by the last part of your comment so I left it out.

The last part is clear - Through hundreds of years of painstaking analysis of the universe and it's nature there has never been a single piece of positive evidence for God - If you really care enough about your children to want them to have a solid foundation of truth, you must acknowledge that none of the reasons for believing in God are from objective evidence and that the reason you do not accept evolution is because it is incompatible with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that you so value over objective evidence.

[rjh4 is back]

The last part is clear - Through hundreds of years of painstaking analysis of the universe and it's nature there has never been a single piece of positive evidence for God - If you really care enough about your children to want them to have a solid foundation of truth, you must acknowledge that none of the reasons for believing in God are from objective evidence and that the reason you do not accept evolution is because it is incompatible with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that you so value over objective evidence.

hock:

You really think you have a lock on the "truth" don't you. This keeps getting funnier all the time.

[Eilonnwy]

Do you think it is possible to have a basic understanding of evolution (common descent), or even an in depth understanding of it, without actually agreeing with it?

I would have to say yes, because I can't account for everyone's understanding of evolution versus their acceptance of creationism, even though it's hard for me to imagine someone understanding evolution and refusing it. It baffles me that people could have an in depth understanding of evolution and refuse to believe it because of their religious preconceptions. And it brings me back to my original point about religious convictions stifling science. If you can't accept a scientific fact because you would rather believe God created the first humans in the Garden of Eden, that's where the answer of "God did it" prevents scientific inquiry.

Everyone has preconceptions, I understand that. However, to not accept a scientific fact based on religious convictions, to me that's ignorant. There's no nicer way to put it.

[rjh4 is back]

If you can't accept a scientific fact because you would rather believe God created the first humans in the Garden of Eden, that's where the answer of "God did it" prevents scientific inquiry.

But what if creation is what really happened? Do you ever consider that it might be what really happened, i.e., the absolute truth? I doubt it.

Remember the scientific method can only provide models that will provide a naturalistic explanation for something. If you automatically rule out a "supernatural" explanation, you may be ruling out the real answer, i.e. the absolute truth. So while common descent does provide a naturalistic model that explains a lot of what we observe, not every observation fits well with common descent and that may not be how things really happened. I actually find it laughable for anyone (scientists included) to think that the scientific method can provide any more than a guess at what happened in the unobserved past, let alone millions or billions of years ago. I guess I think the scientific method is a lot more limited than you do.

[Meatball]

To go back a bit, things like this really make me with schooling was privitized, so backwards bullheaded religious folks could send their kids to a school that teaches what they want, superstition and all, and rational parents could send their children for a real, un-molested education based on fact.

We'd definitely see some natural selection going on when nobody lines up to see the Jesus Christ School of Faith graduates for their flu shots.

I actually find it laughable for anyone (scientists included) to think that the scientific method can provide any more than a guess at what happened in the unobserved past, let alone millions or billions of years ago.

How are writings from the bronze age any less laughable? You think there was someone hanging out with a tablet and a chisel to observe creation?

[Eilonnwy]

But what if creation is what really happened? Do you ever consider that it might be what really happened, i.e., the absolute truth? I doubt it.

Of course I don't, because it's not what is proven to be true. Evolution is a fact. However, if the scientific method proved creation, I would put my money there. Just because I don't know with absolute certainty that evolution is true, does not change it's status in science as a well established theory that beautifully explains how we came to be. I don't waste my time on thinking, "Well what if Zeus exists?" Or "What if gnomes exist?" And I'm willing to bet you don't either. If you're trying to say that my preconceptions exclude creationism the way religion excludes evolution, you're wrong. Those who accept creationism despite all the evidence are unconcerned with facts. Meanwhile, science clearly lays out a path for creationism to become a true theory. It doesn't meet the rigors of science.

Remember the scientific method can only provide models that will provide a naturalistic explanation for something. If you automatically rule out a "supernatural" explanation, you may be ruling out the real answer, i.e. the absolute truth. So while common descent does provide a naturalistic model that explains a lot of what we observe, not every observation fits well with common descent and that may not be how things really happened. I actually find it laughable for anyone (scientists included) to think that the scientific method can provide any more than a guess at what happened in the unobserved past, let alone millions or billions of years ago. I guess I think the scientific method is a lot more limited than you do.

So how does a crime scene investigator find out the cause of death and figure out who the murderer is? Is science perfect? No. Is it the best way to find out what is most likely to be true about our world? Yes. Just because you can't imagine how science can reliably understand the past does not make it impossible. You're arguing from personal incredulity.

Your insistence that there is an absolute truth is absurd. There is no method of determining what is absolutely true, religion most certainly does not do it. Science, however, gets us as close to the truth as possible and it works. The best and strongest part about science is when a preconceived notion is proven to be false, it adjusts it's thinking. This is science's strongest characteristics, yet people consistently misconstrue it as a weak a point. I repeat, it's absurd.

I also do not think science has nothing to say on the supernatural. If the supernatural is said to be the explanation for a natural phenomena, we can study it. I do not accept this "non-overlapping magisteria" crap.

People are so obsessed with thinking they know the absolute truth, and religion only fools you into thinking it's possible and you have it.

[rjh4 is back]

I see no need to belabor this conversation. But I do want to address one thing...

Your insistence that there is an absolute truth is absurd.

Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?

[theVOID]

The last part is clear - Through hundreds of years of painstaking analysis of the universe and it's nature there has never been a single piece of positive evidence for God - If you really care enough about your children to want them to have a solid foundation of truth, you must acknowledge that none of the reasons for believing in God are from objective evidence and that the reason you do not accept evolution is because it is incompatible with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that you so value over objective evidence.

hock:

You really think you have a lock on the "truth" don't you. This keeps getting funnier all the time.

I said that you would be lying to your children if you told them there is scientific evidence for God. I stand by that statement, unless you have evidence to prove otherwise.

Evolution is so thoroughly grounded in evidence that your rejection of it boils down to either incompatible ideologies (you value your existing conclusions over objective evidence), a misunderstanding of evolution (you have either inadequate or incorrect concepts and facts), fear of the implications of accepting evolution(losing your social ties with the all-or-nothing breed of fundamentalists) or all of the above.

Denying something so evident in favor of primitive, mythological explanations is the epitome of ignorance and frankly shows an innate weakness; your desire for the comfortable, complete and absolute concept of God despite the lack of evidence for and in the face of so much contradictory evidence against.

It all comes down to this: The scientific method is the single most reliable methodology that our species has ever known when it comes down to separating fact from fiction - no single methodology has achieved more for our species. From medicine to electronics, physics to engineering, mathematics to chemistry - nothing has given our species more, nothing has shown us more truth, not your ancient religious myths, not the new age superstitions, not the spiritualism of the eastern world.

---

I see no need to belabor this conversation. But I do want to address one thing...

Your insistence that there is an absolute truth is absurd.

Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?

It's quite clearly an opinion, or were you incapable of making that distinction on your own?

[rjh4 is back]

It's quite clearly an opinion, or were you incapable of making that distinction on your own?

I know. I was trying to be funny. Maybe you need to evolve a sense of humor.

[theVOID]

If you can't accept a scientific fact because you would rather believe God created the first humans in the Garden of Eden, that's where the answer of "God did it" prevents scientific inquiry.

But what if creation is what really happened? Do you ever consider that it might be what really happened, i.e., the absolute truth? I doubt it.

Creation may have happened - but what reason can you give as to why i should accept that claim? Where is the evidence for creation? Where is the irreducible complexity that the creationists always harp on about? Even the favorite example of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, has been conclusively proven not to be irreducibly complex. If you want me to accept the claim that Creation had a part to play in the development of life or the universe you will need conclusive evidence for your claim, until then i will leave you with some Christopher Hitchens:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Remember the scientific method can only provide models that will provide a naturalistic explanation for something. If you automatically rule out a "supernatural" explanation, you may be ruling out the real answer, i.e. the absolute truth. So while common descent does provide a naturalistic model that explains a lot of what we observe, not every observation fits well with common descent and that may not be how things really happened. I actually find it laughable for anyone (scientists included) to think that the scientific method can provide any more than a guess at what happened in the unobserved past, let alone millions or billions of years ago. I guess I think the scientific method is a lot more limited than you do.

What reason do you have to believe that the supernatural exists? Where is the irrefutable proof for the existence of the supernatural? Do you have anything more than an assumption in regards to it's existence?

The existence of the supernatural could be defined and measured easily through it's effect on the natural world. Psychics could easily demonstrate an ability to gather information beyond the ability of a cold-reader, the effects of prayer could be analysed and statistically shown to be more effective than placebo. James Randi's million dollar challenge has been around for years, and there has not been a single individual ever who has been able to demonstrate any ability higher than chance.

As for the 'unobserved past';

If you know anything at all about cosmology you know that the distance of a foreign body can be estimated to a high-degree of accuracy using triangulation over 6 month periods of the earths rotation around the sun. You will also know that light travels at a constant speed 299,792,458 meters per second and that the light you see from an object is the object as it was x amount of time ago. For an object 100,000 light years away it means we see the light that left the object 100,000 years ago (light years is the number of earth years it would take travelling at the speed of light), so cosmologically, we can literally look back in time.

Evolution is more like a criminal investigation, the same way a detective pieces together the crime from the pieces of evidence left behind. There are two main culprits, evolution and creationism. The detective has literally millions of individual pieces of evidence across multiple fields of study to consider, and after a very long time analyzing the data it is revealed that every single sample collected points to Evolution as the culprit, not a single iota of evidence favors creation.

---

It's quite clearly an opinion, or were you incapable of making that distinction on your own?

I know. I was trying to be funny. Maybe you need to evolve a sense of humor.

Maybe you need to stop dodging questions.