88 replies to this topic

[Byakuya Kuchiki]

I'm just going to jump into the swimming pool I suppose.

Alright, so perhaps the religious 'God placed us on the earth thing' is all whacked up. Lets use actual facts, presented logically to disprove the Creationist concept shall we? Now, if we really wanted to get into it, we would be looking far into the past. So let us start in the past.

The Earth was 'created' around 4.5 billion years ago, if current geological texts are to be accepted as the correct scientific definition. By created, I do not here mean that God or any higher complex said 'there's the earth, and it was so'. I speak here more about clouds of dust and debris coalescing around gravitational centers, forming into the planets that we now know, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and the one quirky 'asteroid' named Pluto. Granted, the debris left over from the formation of these 8 planets and one larger asteroid generated the Kuiper belt (sometimes called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 55 AU from the Sun¹) and the Asteroid belt, centered between Mars and Jupiter. By radioactively testing isotopes found from meteors from these belts, we can almost certainly place the dates of these fragments roughly around 10,000 years of the creation of our solar system ²

If we are to take into the fact that most religions place the 'creation' of the Earth around 4,000 years ago, science has already disproved this. However, in relation to the origin of life, and of the general kingdoms of life (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Eukaryota, Archaea), we see rapid growth roughly around the Cambrian time of the Paleozoic. Either way, some form of evolution gave rise to the family of the apes, which can be traced roughly to 60 million years ago, during the Mesozoic. This can be traced into the fossil record, with the first ape-like creatures appearing in fossil form.

Now, with the recent discovery of Ardi, and the not-so-recent discovery of Lucy, this furthers the complex of evolution. Granted, there are still many skeptics who do not even believe that Ardi, or for that matter, Lucy, are pre-human branches of evolution from the ape family, and to be quite fair there is not much evidence in the fossil records to correspond as such. However, and here is the rebuttal to that entire argument: The fossil records that we know are incomplete. There are billions of miles of rock below are feet left unexplored. There could very well be evidence that there were other evolutional patterns besides Ardi and Lucy buried beneath our feet, yet humans can not yet see the entire record. This simple fact granted doesn't prove or disprove any theory of evolution, but with the discovery of Ardi in relation to Lucy, could very well mean the end of the Creationist viewpoints, even though there are people who still don't accept this. Granted, there is still much evidence left to be provided, and much testing to be done. But until humans can view the entire fossil record, there is always the possibility that Evolution is correct.


1) Alan Stern (1997). "Collisional Erosion in the Primordial Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt and the Generation of the 30–50 AU Kuiper Gap"
2) Karen Kelly (2007). "U of T researchers discover clues to early solar system"

[Mathijs]

M'kay, any more religious comments?

[Spectre]

Science and Religion do not disprove themselves, it is only the illusion that they do.

All I can really say is that why can't we bash on religion? Every Human has the right of opinion; and each opinion - popular or infamous - has equal importance. Now, I do know that opinions can, and will somewhere along the line, try to disprove, or try to illude the other that his is less valued among the world, and cause arguments or controversies.

I see it an Eye for an Eye, If we have the opinion to bash religion, the opposition has every right to, obviously, oppose the other. We do not need to change our opinions, and although you do have the right to oppose our opinions, you have no right trying to convince us our opinions are wrong.

[Allathar]

Hmm, yes we do. Otherwise those people with wrong opinions will stay delusional for the rest of their lifes, y'know.

[Archon]

Yeah, you can say what ever you want, whether you dislike religion or have religious beliefs. I certainly don't want to limit anyone's free speech.

Granted, there are still many skeptics who do not even believe that Ardi, or for that matter, Lucy, are pre-human branches of evolution from the ape family

'Lucy' was not, in fact, an early ancestor of humans, but part of another branch of the great apes. Read this.

If we are to take into the fact that most religions place the 'creation' of the Earth around 4,000 years ago, science has already disproved this.

Okay, but that doesn't affect me, since I don't believe that.

But until humans can view the entire fossil record, there is always the possibility that Evolution is correct.

Attempting to use that to defend evolution is a logical fallacy. Proof by lack of evidence to the contrary is not "proof." I could then send the Russell's teapot argument back at you.

[Ash]

Indeed. However, you cannot (or should not) be attempting to prove a negative, because that's a null hypothesis (i.e., there will not be an effect). A lot of religious folks try this trick by saying "Prove God doesn't exist." That's the null hypothesis, the experimental hypothesis being "God exists." Therefore the burden of proof is on the religious to prove his existence, or otherwise accept his nonexistence. To do it the other way around leads to simple filibuster by anybody who disagreed with any theory ever.

As for the fossil record, it is certainly by no means complete, but it's certainly good evidence for the progression of species over time. You can radiocarbon date the rock and the fossil and find out roughly how old it is, and you can compare those creatures to things before and after. If it is eventually proven wrong, so be it, however the evidence points that way and it's more than merely circumstantial evidence.

While we're in this mood, I'd like to throw in an additional unrelated point about Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a null argument anyway. What if the atheist is wrong? Well, tough luck for the atheist. But what if both the atheist and the Christian are wrong, and it was in fact the Muslims who are right? Anyone who really wants to play Pascal's odds would have to adhere to most or all religions, but in so doing would break the majority of the tenets of all of them. Not least the first commandment of Christianity, Judaism and Islam: Thou shalt not worship any other god but me.

That said there are about 3 versions of the commandments in the bible alone. This means God's indecisive and therefore not perfect. so...yeah. Oh, and God is guilty of at least three of the seven deadly sins, possesses none of the seven virtues, and has broken most of his own commandments (starting with 'thou shalt not kill'...plus the creative interpretations by all denominations of his followers...)

[Archon]

Indeed. However, you cannot (or should not) be attempting to prove a negative, because that's a null hypothesis (i.e., there will not be an effect). A lot of religious folks try this trick by saying "Prove God doesn't exist." That's the null hypothesis, the experimental hypothesis being "God exists." Therefore the burden of proof is on the religious to prove his existence, or otherwise accept his nonexistence. To do it the other way around leads to simple filibuster by anybody who disagreed with any theory ever.

I agree, and I wouldn't use that 'cop-out' method to prove the existence of God.

As for the fossil record, it is certainly by no means complete, but it's certainly good evidence for the progression of species over time.

True, and I don't deny the fact that species do progress over time. That's an obvious, undeniable fact.

Oh, and God is guilty of at least three of the seven deadly sins, possesses none of the seven virtues, and has broken most of his own commandments (starting with 'thou shalt not kill'...plus the creative interpretations by all denominations of his followers...)

Which three? I don't even know what the 'seven virtues' are (Catholic?)
Firstly, 'thou shalt not kill' is incorrectly translated. It is 'thou shalt not murder'. And you can't blame God for Christians interpreting the Bible differently. They're human after all

[Ash]

Well, he still murdered people. Either way, he broke it. I correct, he probably hasn't broken most of the commandments because most of them relate to him or to the working week.

While we're on the subject, every single Christian breaks the first commandment. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Every Christian puts Jesus first. Most, if not all, have idols to him, and worship him. They sort of wrote in the idea of him being the son of God and God himself (either incestuous, transcendental or impossible. probably a combination of the above) to try and dodge that little technicality, but they're still breaking it. Sorry, but they are. They're also useing the name of the Lord wrongly by calling Jesus the Lord. Michaelangelo fucked up at the Sistine Chapel, too; he painted God. Even more idolatrous than an image of Jesus, that is. That the majority of Christianity ignores the Old Testament (even Catholicism does this a lot) only makes this breach of the covenant even more obvious to an outsider looking in. So, frankly, every Christian is even more damnable and culpable than an atheist like me. How's that feel? He will actually look upon me more favourably, because I haven't accepted any other god into my heart, whereas every Christian has!

Envy - "I your Lord God am a jealous God..." (he even admits it!)
Greed - "Thou shalt worship no other gods but me" - he's greedy about his worshippers, and wants to keep them from anyone else.
Pride/Vainglory - "And He looked upon those things which He created, and He saw that they were Good." - We'd all like to write our own reviews...
Wrath - where do I begin?
Lust - One could argue he consorted with Mary, and that his son (who is also, transcendentally, also seen to be God...=/ ) with Mary Magdalene.
Sloth - The seventh day. Oh, and everything that's ever happened since the Old Testament.

Let's look at the book of proverbs while we're on the subject. Six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth:

* A lying tongue ~ "Kill your son, Abraham, for it will please me." He lied as a test of faith. That's still a lie. Also, he told Adam and Eve that the tree of knowledge would kill them. That's still a lie.
* Hands that shed innocent blood ~ God's guilty of this.
* A heart that devises wicked plots ~ God's definitely guilty of this.
* Feet that are swift to run into mischief ~ God's only tinkering into the affairs of man have inevitably caused mischief.
* Him that soweth discord among brethren ~ If half of the old testament isn't full of examples of God doing this, then my name isn't Ashley M. Haldenby, BSc.

Ok, the seven virtues:


Lust <----> Chastity (He still impregnated Mary. But in any case, chastity's hardly a virtue. Propagation of the species is rather important).
Gluttony <----> Temperance (If we broaden temperance to encompass all kinds of greed or overexuberance, when has God shown any such leniency or compassion?)
Greed <----> Charity (So, all those people he commanded to be slaughtered, all those people he slaughtered himself, and all those people who he allowed to be slaughtered in his name. He was particularly charitable to all of those, wasn't he?)
Sloth <----> Diligence (See above. Not particularly diligent, and he hasn't done fuck all since the old testament. Either he got his busybody son to do it or he just didn't bother, even in the face of mankind's darkest hours when it seemed most likely for us to wipe ourselves out. An all-loving God wouldn't permit such atrocities, nor would he permit things like cancer, the plague, etc.)
Wrath <----> Patience (no real demonstration of this anywhere in the old testament)
Envy <----> Kindness (as above)
Pride <----> Humility (God isn't all that humble, as I'm sure you can be sure to note)

So, God's basically a huge bastion of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

[Byakuya Kuchiki]

Yeah, you can say what ever you want, whether you dislike religion or have religious beliefs. I certainly don't want to limit anyone's free speech.

Granted, there are still many skeptics who do not even believe that Ardi, or for that matter, Lucy, are pre-human branches of evolution from the ape family

'Lucy' was not, in fact, an early ancestor of humans, but part of another branch of the great apes. Read this.

If we are to take into the fact that most religions place the 'creation' of the Earth around 4,000 years ago, science has already disproved this.

Okay, but that doesn't affect me, since I don't believe that.

But until humans can view the entire fossil record, there is always the possibility that Evolution is correct.

Attempting to use that to defend evolution is a logical fallacy. Proof by lack of evidence to the contrary is not "proof." I could then send the Russell's teapot argument back at you.

I never actually stated that Lucy was part of the human branch of evolution, so please don't throw words into my post. I said she was a pre-human branch of evolution from the ape family. As for that article that 'proves' that Lucy wasn't a pre-human ancestor, well read my previous statement. As for that Article, let me quote from it:

therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man's direct ancestors.

Ok, they may not be direct ancestors. We get it. But there is so much missing information that they very well could have converged back into the ape family. The honest answer is that Lucy existed, we obviously have proof that she existed. What we don't have is proof that she is a direct ancestor. That either will or won't come in time. Either way, she was an evolution of the ape family, the bones mostly correlate, and the Israeli researchers came to about the same conclusion.

They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, "be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours."