A Case for Theism

[Phier]

Until the OP starts to answer or respond to the counterpoints raised, I wouldn't continue to post giant responses.

[hull19]

Nice load of infos you found, Ariovistus. Must have taken a while to right

There is currently absolutely no problem with evolution which is even by far definable as "serious".

Well... juste one problem: it can't be proven more then the bible.

[black-dragon]

Well... juste one problem: it can't be proven more then the bible.

Interesting statement. Now all we need is the mountains of fossil evidence, DNA evidence and experimental data that "prove" the Bible.

I'm waiting.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, as I said, I am anything but infallible. Some of my points would probably not be accepted by other Creationists. My purpose here was to expand my own knowledge, which has been accomplished.

So due to youth and inexperience (rather than the amount of material available), I have insufficient knowledge to respond to all 10 or so of you.

But suffice it to say that, in Oldgamer's words, I will continue to "keep the faith."

Also, BD, note that some evidence used by evolutionists is used by creationists; simply interpreted differently.

[Ummon]

Well... juste one problem: it can't be proven more then the bible.

Actually, it can be proven a lot better than the Bible, because it is not entirely based on a textual message relating with metaphysical items. The history in the Bible is erratic at times, too.

Evolution as a model, is currently capable of explaining the presence of life on Earth, coherently with available evidence, without significant gaps. Under certain aspects, it is still "under construction" (meaning that some things are just likely hypotheses and not certain facts) but the mechanism works.

The Bible is a mechanism which is far more complicated, as it deals with culture and human behaviour, without introducing the theological aspects.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Well... juste one problem: (evolution) can't be proven more then the bible.

The strength of evolutionary biology is that it can be disproven, while so-called "Creation Science" can't. Evolutionary biology is falsifiable - that's what makes it science. Want to falsify evolution? It's easy. Find one vertebrate fossil in a Pre-Cambrian strata and - bingo! - the whole theory goes down the drain.

Guess what - no-one has ever been able to do this. What does that say to you?

Now, explain to me how "Creation Science" could be similarly falsified and we'll talk about it being a genuine science rather some post factum pseudo scientific babble wrapped around fundamentalist dogma and Biblical literalist mumbo jumbo.

[Copperknickers II]

Considering that even if I was wrong and atheism was "the Truth," I wouldn't go to Hell (since there wouldn't be one in that case), I see no reason that my oppinion should bother atheists so much. It's not as if you're concerned about my soul. I mean, if this is all there is, then does it matter if we're right or wrong? We'll be dead all the same... and if it made us happy while we were here...

Because:

1. By the seemingly innocent act of believing in God, you are supporting extremists. Of course, there are plenty of Atheist extremists, but without religion people like Osama bin Laden and George Bush have one less base in this world.

2. Religion interferes. It interferes with science, it gives people a worse quality of life ("God will help me so why should i help myself", and "Abortion is killing god's creation so is wrong", both of which are detrimental to society in general), and it promotes unneccesary arguments such as this thread. It would be far more productive to agree on one side, and one side in particular (I think you know the one i mean ) is slowly but surely crumbling away.

3. You will not go to Hell, but you will have wasted huge amounts of your life. I know the concept of 'life' does not mean much to theists: you have an eternal afterlife so what you do now doesn't matter as long as you get into heaven - but to an Atheist, these short 70 years or so (for the lucky ones) are all we have in the universe, and at the end of the day we might as well use them, and not hope in vain for something that is not there.

[Ummon]

Because:

1. By the seemingly innocent act of believing in God, you are supporting extremists. Of course, there are plenty of Atheist extremists, but without religion people like Osama bin Laden and George Bush have one less base in this world.

Slippery slope.

2. Religion interferes. It interferes with science, it gives people a worse quality of life ("God will help me so why should i help myself", and "Abortion is killing god's creation so is wrong", both of which are detrimental to society in general), and it promotes unneccesary arguments such as this thread. It would be far more productive to agree on one side, and one side in particular (I think you know the one i mean ) is slowly but surely crumbling away.

Instead, without religion you will think: I can do it. And start a chain of unforeseen consequences. For the convenience of tradition over innovation in decision-making, there is an extensive scientific literature. Slippery slope nonetheless.

3. You will not go to Hell, but you will have wasted huge amounts of your life. I know the concept of 'life' does not mean much to theists: you have an eternal afterlife so what you do now doesn't matter as long as you get into heaven - but to an Atheist, these short 70 years or so (for the lucky ones) are all we have in the universe, and at the end of the day we might as well use them, and not hope in vain for something that is not there.

Based on an unproven assumption.

I am starting to think that atheists and religious literalists actually are the same thing. No, that's untrue. I have always thought this.

Wonder if we can classify viruses as "species".

No. Viruses are a border phenomenon between life and non-life.

The strength of evolutionary biology is that it can be disproven, while so-called "Creation Science" can't.

That's really true and false at the same time. It's not the strength, but the reason why the one is science and the other is not. Of course, there are problems with refuting evolution as well given its predictions cover a span of time so extensive, and interpretational problems with fossil evidence and geological strata. But fossils are not the main evidence for evolution.

[Ummon]

If you wish to name the problems, I will be glad to dispel any possible doubt. Disclaimer: it may involve advanced mathematics.

The question you mention is not about the theory of evolution but about a particular concept of human phylogenesis. They are not the same thing: the position of a particular species, etc. in the evolutionary tree is not a matter pertaining the theory of evolution.

[Ummon]

You mean that you want evolution to be what you want it to be, instead of what it actually is?

That has a name in rhetorics: it is called building a strawman.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Etymology:
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

Quote…
When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.
…Unquote
Source: James Lileks, "The Daily Bleat"

Example:
Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network television show…entitled "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS".… I was one of nine guests on that live program.… …[A] single 45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic days in New York City.
Why…did I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant role? …I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence position on national television.… How sad that adolescents hear only the dangerous "safe sex" message from adults who should know better.

What follows, then, is what I would have said on television.…

Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?

…[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. … And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that "safe sex" is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity.

Analysis

Source: James C. Dobson, in a fund-raising letter for "Focus on the Family", February 13, 1992.

Exposition:
Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

Subfallacy:
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness.

A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:

•All P are Q.
•Most P are Q.
•Many P are Q.
•Some P are Q.
•Some P are not Q.
•Many P are not Q.
•Most P are not Q.
•No P are Q.
The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example to refute a universal proposition. Moreover, the world being such as it is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and "Some P are not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively. So, extremists are those who take positions starting with "all" or "no". For instance, the extremists in the abortion debate are those who argue that no abortions are permissible, or that all abortions are.

Therefore, Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".
Source:
T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 157-159.

Resources:
•Julian Baggini, "The Straw Man Fallacy", Bad Moves, 1/6/2004
•Michael C. Labossiere, "Straw Man"
Analysis of the Example:
Dobson is arguing against the "safe sex" idea of promoting condom usage as a way to limit the spread of HIV. In order to more easily knock down his target, Dobson portrays the sexologists he's criticizing as telling kids "that they can sleep around with impunity". The most prominent proponent of condom usage was Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who testified before Congress to the following:

Scientific evidence indicates that abstinence is the only completely safe way to avoid acquiring AIDS sexually. Except for mutually faithful monogamous relationships with uninfected partners, the use of a condom is the best method of reducing or preventing HIV infection known at this time for those who for one reason or another will not practice abstinence or monogamy.
Dobson chose to attack a straw man rather than the Surgeon General.

Source: C. Everett Koop, "Statement of C. Everett Koop", Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 2/10/1987 (PDF)

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Charles Morgan.

[Ummon]

In a nonlocal system, there are no unrelated facts.

[finsternis]

In a nonlocal system, there are no unrelated facts.

True, but there are not-directly-related facts that we can ignore: for example, the fact that the cat walks is not-directly-related to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. It might be related, but not directly (unless you expand the definition of directly).

I don't know if that was the best example, but I couldn't think of anything else.

[Ummon]

No, you're right. But that's exactly what I was saying. We never know if what we adjudicate as irrelevant really is irrelevant.

[finsternis]

That's Meno's paradox for you.

[Ummon]

No, but really.

[sephodwyrm]

@OP:
By Creationism, how am I to know which version is correct?
The original European version from the Nords:
- cow licks ice. There's a man in ice. Lesser men are from the sweaty armpits of Ymir.

The Chinese version:
- half dragon goddess makes both men and women out of clay and taught them to marry and have more children.

The Greek version:
- all was good and then Zeus made women to make men feel miserable

The Judeo-Christian version:
- YHWH made man, and then man felt lonely, so YHWH KOed him and made a woman out of his ribs.

The Kabbalah version:
- YHWH made man, and then man felt lonely. YHWH then made woman in front of him. The process was gross. Man did not want woman beta 0.1. So YHWH made another one. Man like woman beta 0.2, but woman beta 0.2 wants to be on top. But man was unreasonable. Woman beta 0.2 leaves. Man felt lonely again. So YHWH put man to sleep and made woman beta 0.3. Till now, we're stuck with beta 0.3.

[FuZe]

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. "

Bertrand Russell

[Ummon]

The original European version from the Nords:
- cow licks ice. There's a man in ice. Lesser men are from the sweaty armpits of Ymir.

The Chinese version:
- half dragon goddess makes both men and women out of clay and taught them to marry and have more children.

The Greek version:
- all was good and then Zeus made women to make men feel miserable

The Judeo-Christian version:
- YHWH made man, and then man felt lonely, so YHWH KOed him and made a woman out of his ribs.

The Kabbalah version:
- YHWH made man, and then man felt lonely. YHWH then made woman in front of him. The process was gross. Man did not want woman beta 0.1. So YHWH made another one. Man like woman beta 0.2, but woman beta 0.2 wants to be on top. But man was unreasonable. Woman beta 0.2 leaves. Man felt lonely again. So YHWH put man to sleep and made woman beta 0.3. Till now, we're stuck with beta 0.3.

Just noticed this.

1) the first is not the original european version.

2) Half-dragon goddess happens to be much like woman 0.2 in Kabbalah (who would be a demon, Lilith, which possesses serpentine features). The demon (Lilith, Lilitu, etc. apparently the mother of Lillim who are also the sumerian/akkadian/babylonian gods Enlil, Ninlil, Munlil, etc. is also a (black) moon goddess. The cow is a moon symbol.

http://www.paleolithicartmagazine.org/pagina16.html

The horns of the Taurus are associated to the moon, since the horns of the cattles are correlated to the Magna Mater, like supreme divinity of the fertility.They also refers to the cows, from always correlated to the the woman, like life source through the milk. It does not have to astonish the possibility of a similar metaforic connection, since the same engraving introduces a sure degree of abstraction, in how much the prehistoric artist has represented with great realistic precision the body of the woman, while the face is represented with an abstract style. Horns and moon are from immemorable times associated also for the scythe shape. In historical age, near Sumerians and Babylon People, moon and cow came associated in the fecundity rituals . Therefore the horn indicates both the increasing moon (would be the way to say " the horns of the moon ", than sure sends back to the association moon-horn, and that finds reply in the fact that in many cultures the horn is considered symbol of the new moon),and the vulva, source of every life.

Occasional connections between cow and dragon: http://www.projectdiscovery.net/Jour..._petrosyan.htm

The unique monuments of prehistoric Armenia, "višap" vishaps (Arm. višap ‘serpent, dragon’ an Iranian borrwing) or “dragon stones” are spread in many provinces of historical Armenia – Gegharkunik, Aragatsotn, Javakhk, Tayk, etc. They are cigar-shaped huge stones, 10-20 feet tall, usually situated in the mountains, near the sources of rivers and lakes. Many of them are in the shape of fish; they have a bull’s skin (complete with head and feet) carved into them; there is also a stream of water flowing from the mouth of the bull’s skin and some vishaps have images of water birds carved below the bull’s head. The earliest višap "višap" stelae would be dated, probably, from the 18th-16th centuries BC; an Urartian inscription in a višap from Garni testifies that they were created in pre-Urartian times (before the 8th century BC).

Also, not cows but bulls are to be found in Lilith's iconography:

http://www.answers.com/topic/lilith

A cult in Mesopotamia is said to be related to Lilith by early Jewish leaders. According to the hypotheses proposed by William F. Albright, Theodor H. Gaster, and others, the name Lilith already existed in 7th century B.C. and Lilith retained her Shedim characteristics throughout the entire Jewish tradition.[30] Shedim is plural for "spirit" or "demon". Figures that represent shedim are the shedu of Babylonian mythology. These figures were depicted as anthropomorphic, winged bulls, associated with wind. They were thought to guard palaces, cities, houses, and temples. In magical texts of that era, they could be either malevolent or benevolent.[31] The cult originated from Babylon, then spread to Canaan and eventually to Israel.[32] Human sacrifice was part of the practice and a sacrificial altar existed to the Shedim next to the Yahweh cult, although this practice was widely denounced by prophets who retained belief in Yahweh.[33]

Ribs happen to be in armpits (go wonder). In myth Zeus actually splits an androgynous being in two (genesis and kabbalistic literature hint at the same concept).

Clay is also a common factor. Especially in parallel greek versions of the myth: http://online.sfsu.edu/~pstanley/clas360.htm/myth5a.htm

Creation by Prometheus
Best known version
Fashioned humans from clay taken from Panopeus
Athena breathed life into the creatures
They are senseless creatures
Zeus wished to destroy them

Some Lilith iconography:





Is it a bit clearer with this sketchy outline, or do you need a diagram?

[sephodwyrm]

Biblical literalist mumbo jumbo.

There's a lot more creation stories out there. The Book isn't the only one. But I doubt if the Biblical literalists would care about other Creationist myths.

[sephodwyrm]

then declare the difference on creation at the hands of God?

Suppose creation at the hands of God/s is correct, which version are we to believe in anyway?

I do support the idea that a Half-Dragon Goddess made us, and did not make womenfolk out of our ribs.
Heh...hehehheheeee...

But you don't see new species

Erm, human selection (evolution with human pressure) created new species out of several of the most important cereal crops.