If something happens today it is just as true in a thousand years, but don't forget that in a thousand years from now the version that people get of your account of it will be far different than the one you gave.

A more recent and better example would probably be the mind/body connection. Science used to think it ridiculous that our thoughts and natural energies can affect our physical health to the degree that we now know they can. Nowadays it is well established that thoughts can cause or help to cure diseases. There have been verified medical accounts of people being operated on with no anesthesia and feeling no pain. They were able to do this because they had mastered their minds.

Heh, I know this isn't addressed to me but I couldn't help but comment on it. I agree with this, and I could also say:

Theists are human after all, and some are just damned fools. And yes, the peer review process is flawed. That doesn't undermine the spiritual method, but it is all the more reason to apply a discerning eye to practice.

LOL :D

<<<<<whatthefat>>>> Nonetheless, a paper that challenges the existence of evolution today is up against the same challenges as one that challenges the existence of gravity. And rightly so. The evidence is simply overwhelming in both cases.>

On the other hand, if I remember correctly, we do not know for sure yet however why particles have a mass - I think that is related to gravitons and the string theory but not completely sure. In any case, there is no unified globally-accepted view to deal with the exact how and why's of gravity. On a side-note, I think on a big scale [e.g. planets] gravity can be explained due to spacetime.

Evolution is much more complicated of course; it clashes with many religious ideas and the evolution of a new species takes generally longer than the falling of a mug.

Besides, what exactly does it mean to 'evolve' one creature into another; generally changes are small and happen very gradually. Individuals are different and so can be groups. For instance, since a few years the pigeons in the center of Amsterdam have began taking a preference for left-over french fries, is this evolution? Would it be evolution if out of the thousands of different bacterias in the stomach they would show to have a significant higher amount of a specific sort which helps metabolize potatoes? Or, seeing how individuals differ, would it be necessary to show that, on average, they have significantly different beaks after some tens of years?

<amadeus> I agree all the way around. I think it's rather lame, though, to "raise points", as if believing in the Bible imposes some sense of being a Renaissance Man upon you. My baseline take on things is that I believe the testimony of a number of eyewitnesses. I believe they are credible. That's why I believe what I believe.

Do you think the version of the discussion we are now having will be far different a thousand years from now than it is from today? For years, skeptics made a similar claim about the Old Testament, saying the text had been corrupted and referencing the fact the oldest texts we had were from the 9th Century. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, dating back so far as 150 BC, and it was found they were nearly identical to the manuscripts from 900 AD. Time is inevitably the enemy of the skeptics.

<The Bible has been edited numerous times, translated from one difficult language to another, was written by many authors over thousands of years who oftentimes contradict each other, and has many versions out.>

If you cared to present a contradiction, I expect I could address it off the top of my head, and surely could with a little research.

<The gospels for example where written 70 - 90 years after the crucifixion. Did the authors even remember what they saw? You're welcome to put all your faith in such accounts, but in my most humble opinion you would be better served to be more concerned with your own experience.>

<because [scientists] *are* aware of the Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false.".

- You agreed that this was your belief. >

Yes.

<I subsequently made this claim: <if a scientist were to put forth a hypothesis that depended on a young universe (only a few thousand years old to agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis), then it would quickly fall in the face of observed evidence that the universe is billions of years old>

Your response: <And on that point, we greatly disagree.>. I took this to mean that you feel strongly that scientists do not have grounds to reject the young universe hypotheses.>

That is what I meant. I think the evidence of the stars' visibility can be lead to either of two conclusions: 1. The stars have been in existence long enough for their light to reach us. 2. God created the stars already visible to man.

Believing in conclusion #1 is reasonable, but I see no valid reason for scientists to reject conclusion #2. That would be a prime example of the anti-bible bias. "Hey, colleagues in the religion and history department, I know what you guys study, but that's outside our realm, so we will reject it out of hand, and there's no cough cough underlying motive for us to do so."

Just like the analogy of the 3AM neighbor, believing something scandalous had happened is reasonable, but you would have no valid reason to reject the conclusion it was a friend of the family helping out in a household emergency-particularly if you had a raft of witnesses who'd told you the wife was a model of decorum and goodness.

<So, I made the point about how supernovas also work against the the young universe hypotheses because it implies that scientists are witnessing events that never happened.

You countered that this isn't a problem because it compares with Adam being created as an adult who never had a childhood. >

I understand that. I am aware scientists are aware of what the Bible says on the matter. My point was that IF you accept the fact Adam appeared to be older than he was on his first day of life, it's just as easy to accept the same thing regarding star light, sedimentary rocks, and supernovas. So I don't agree supernovas "also" work against the young earth theory. They are just another verse of the same song.

<While I understand your point, it doesn't do anything to help convince scientists to accept the young earth hypotheses, does it? The scientist will simply say that you are using circular reasoning: Using one literal interpretation of Genesis to defend another literal interpretation of Genesis.>

I counter that the scientist is raising equivalent points of the same argument, one that has already been addressed. I do understand the the circular reasoning charge, and won't hesitate to use it myself. The hard part is that most arguments are at base, circular. Back to the 3 AM analogy. I think it would be patently unfair of you to say "The evidence of my own 2 eyes tells me a man left my neighbor's house at 3 AM. I saw it, and don't need to rely on what anyone else saw at any other time. I know 1000 people would line up and describe her character in glowing terms, but I trust what I saw more than them."

(3) Write about how amazing it is that holy book 'predicted' the scientific theory.>

I think the other side does the same thing too. Let me amend your post a little bit.

<Surprised? Don't be. Both sites use the same fallacious method:

(1) Take a scientific theory developed by scientists.

(2) Hunt around in the holy book (Bible or Quran) looking for a passage that by coincidence can be contrived (with the help of specious interpretation and commentary) to *appear*> contradictory <of that scientific theory.

Well, lets say turning a monkey into a man, or a fish into a frog. One could also ask why we still have monkeys and frogs if this really happened? As the theory goes if billions of humans sacrificed themselves by trying to breath water and drowning themselves in the ocean over millions of years we would turn back into fish. Do you believe this?

<<<<<dakgootje>>>> generally changes are small and happen very gradually.>

Yes, according to evolution the process would take millions of years which makes it impossible to test or see. Kind of like creationism.

<<<<<dakgootje>>>> Individuals are different and so can be groups. For instance, since a few years the pigeons in the center of Amsterdam have began taking a preference for left-over french fries, is this evolution? Would it be evolution if out of the thousands of different bacterias in the stomach they would show to have a significant higher amount of a specific sort which helps metabolize potatoes?>

I would call it more a change in taste. French fries left on the street are so dirty and contaminated that the bacteria would be no surprise to me.

<<<<<dakgootje>>>> Or, seeing how individuals differ, would it be necessary to show that, on average, they have significantly different beaks after some tens of years?>

That would be more convincing if it were to actually happen, but there are other possible explanations. I suspect that French fries are very bad for pigeons. It could also be the effects of malnutrition. It’s well established that sick mothers run the risk of giving birth to sick offspring.

<<<<<dakgootje>>>> On the same account, what is life? Cells seem to be alive, but why? How is their 'living' different from the processing of their organelles? How are those different from the little things that transport RNA? Surely we can not really call RNA alive as it is no different than molecules which are obviously not alive as they are built of atoms. Where, on the scale of atom [for the argument not taking quarks etc into account] to cell, does something become alive?>

Actually, we have observed the latter - in simple organisms of course, since they reproduce much more rapidly and so the course of evolution can be observed on the laboratory timescale. We have also observed the evolution of adaptations in much higher life forms on the timescale of years.

<dakgootje: Evolution is much more complicated of course; it clashes with many religious ideas and the evolution of a new species takes generally longer than the falling of a mug.>

I disagree. To me, the theory of evolution is one of those ideas that's so blindingly obvious that it seems surprising it took a genius like Darwin to come up with it (and yet that's what sets such geniuses apart). And if you look carefully, you can see it in action all around you. Not only in biology (e.g., the adaptive immune system relies entirely on selection processes to function, and bacteria build resistance to antibiotics through selection), but also in the running of businesses, governments, manufacturing, fashion, etc.

<Besides, what exactly does it mean to 'evolve' one creature into another; generally changes are small and happen very gradually.>

The basis of variation is genetics, and variation at a single genetic locus is the smallest unit of change. As you say, there is a continuous spectrum of change, so it is difficult to simply draw a line between species. One definition says that if the offspring of two organisms is capable of reproduction then the two organisms belong to the same species. Throw in enough genetic variation and the genes will no longer be compatible, so to speak. Typically such changes are driven by exposure to novel environmental challenges, and take many generations to accumulate, although even in humans we see significant adaptations in the forms of skin/eye color, lactose tolerance, and sickle cell anemia.

<On the same account, what is life?>

<That is what I meant. I think the evidence of the stars' visibility can be lead to either of two conclusions: 1. The stars have been in existence long enough for their light to reach us. 2. God created the stars already visible to man.

Believing in conclusion #1 is reasonable, but I see no valid reason for scientists to reject conclusion #2. That would be a prime example of the anti-bible bias. "Hey, colleagues in the religion and history department, I know what you guys study, but that's outside our realm, so we will reject it out of hand, and there's no cough cough underlying motive for us to do so.">

But scientists do have valid reasons to reject conclusion #2:

It doesn't agree with their verifiable understanding of the distances involved and the speed of light. There is no motive to believe #2 apart from accepting the preconceived literal interpretation of Genesis.

~~~ Consider this example:

I just wrote on a piece of paper: <YouRang created the universe at 12:00am January 1, 2000>. This piece of paper shall henceforth be known as the "Holy Book of YouRang".

You scoff?! You argue that it's against common sense because of all the evidence to the contrary?

It's easy to explain: I created the universe with the illusion of age. This includes all of the memories in your brain that appear to precede the creation time. It includes all the old photos, old books, old tire tracks, old posts on cg.com, dead bodies in graves -- the whole lot.

If anyone doesn't believe it, we (YouRangists) will consider them to be either ignorant (if they are not aware of my holy book) or liars (if they are).

I will make a public offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove (to my satisfaction) that it is wrong! Every year that passes, I will boast that nobody has dared to challenge my offer -- thus giving weight to the truth of my holy book.

Scientists? They will reject it because of underlying bias against YouRangism.

~~~

Now, I'm sure you understand the point I'm getting at. ;-)

Look at your analogy with the rigor that scientists must use:

Seeing someone leave your neighbors house at 3AM is merely an observation -- a fact. There is no way that this supports a conclusion of hanky-panky. Nor does it support a conclusion that it was a friend helping in an emergency. But either case could be regarded as a hypothesis.

If we introduce more facts, such as testimonies of several witnesses supporting the wife's reputation, it would still not be strong enough to support a conclusion, but it would make the 'helping friend' hypothesis seem stronger than the 'hanky-panky' hypothesis.

Suppose more facts were added. For instance, the friends's wife testifies that she took the call for help, and sent her husband to your neighbor's house at 2:30AM. Now the 'helping friend' hypothesis is looking very good. Maybe we can call it the prevailing theory.