Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do people believe what they believe?
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 1 of 51 (95853)
03-30-2004 3:15 AM


Ok, I am completely new to this forum. As I explained a little bit in the visitors' forum, I'm here to rid some of my frustration toward creationists from my system.
Below, I will post some of the arguments I've seen creationists try to make. Does anyone here know exactly why the creationists use these arguments, even though they show a complete lack of understanding of science?
(1) I've heard this from at least 5 people that I can remember. Unless they can see a protozoan turn into a pigeon through random mutation, to them evolution is nothing more than a false belief.
Ok, does anybody see what's wrong with this particular claim? Not only does it truly show just how ignorant these people are of the theory of evolution, it also show how insecure they are about their faith. Disproving the theory of evolution won't help promote their faith one bit.
(2) Creationism originated from ancient texts, or history books, that were written down by ancient people. Since witness accounts are always more reliable than speculation, the creationist's view is more accurate than the evolutionist's view.
Again, I see nothing but desperation in their argument. In order for this conclusion to be true and the argument to be valid, they need to assert the premise that what ancient people wrote down were completely accurate. Another premise they need to have is that ancient people were sane when they wrote these things down.
I can easily point out Greek mythology or Roman mythology and assert that we can also base on those ancient writings as true, because they were written down by the ancients. I seriously doubt that anyone these day believe in the Olympian Gods living on Mt. Olympus and sane at the same time.
(3) Some have claimed that they don't believe anything they can't see. They can't see evolution taking place, therefore, creationism is truth, not evolutionism.
First of all, the theory of evolution from the scientific point of view doesn't try to give any truth. It's there to attempt to explain some of the natural phenomena observed by people.
Secondly, these people are not supposed to believe in God, because they can't see God. If any of them claim to be able to see God, I will need to buy a bullet proof vest for myself.
(4) Believing in God is more pleasant than not believing in him, because it is better to go to heaven after death than to become nothing.
Although I admit that the idea of eternal bliss is an attractive idea, just because something sounds more pleasant doesn't mean it's true. To people 5 hundred years ago, it was more pleasant for them to think that the universe revolves around the Earth. They even burned people at the steak for believing otherwise. Again, this argument is completely rediculous.
(5) The big bang wasn't written in any history book, therefore, it never happened.
Again, false conclusion that came from false premises, if there were any. I'd like to see this person explain in his own word what the big bang theory says and how the string theory directly connects to the big bang theory.
(6) I've even heard some that claimed God spoke to them in person.
I am very very afraid of these people, because I don't know when "God" will tell them to go to the top of a building and start snipering people.
(7) Only weak minded people believe in the theory of evolution.
This argument was made by someone only yesterday. After a couple posts from this person, it became very apparent that she doesn't know a thing about the theory of evolution. In fact, she said that she'd read a book on evolution before and found it completely unbelievable. When asked what part of the book she had trouble believing, she said that she don't remember a thing about the book. And get this, she didn't even know how natural selection works.
(8) Some have claimed that evolution tend to have a goal, which leads to a higher power that controls it.
Coincidently, this guy had absolutely no idea what natural selection was, how mutation could benefit or condemn a species, and why it takes millions of years for evolution to work. This is also the same guy that wanted to see a protozoan evolve into a pigeon and made the assertion that evolution has a purpose.
After a few posts from this guy, it became very clear that he doesn't know squat about the scientific method or what it means to be scientific. He is some kind of leader for a youth group at his church. This is a very scary fact, as we have someone in a position to permanently affect today's youth and he is obviously as uneducated as the youths he teaches.
(9) Speciation is make-belief, because we've never observed it happening.
Ok, besides the millions of years worth of fossile records, we are seeing new species of plants springing up everyday. We've also recently discovered a brand new species of rat that only came into being this generation. In 1997, they found the polyploid rat in Argintina. This rat, which has twice as many number of chromosomes as other rat species, came about through some errors in mitosis or meiosis in the sex organs of some normal rats.
(10) Scientists will ultimately say "I don't know..." when asked enough about a subject. Therefore, scientists are really the ignorant ones, and the children of God are really the educated ones.
When I heard this argument, all I wanted to do was get up and leave, because I didn't want to argue with a person that was obviously willing to crap anything out of his butthole to support his belief.
First of all, no good scientist in his right mind would claim to know everything. That is the strongest part of science: to be able to acknowledge that current scientific knowledge doesn't have an answer for everything. That is why scientists continue to learn new things themselves.
Secondly, if you ask a physicist about the theory of gravity enough question, he will admit that he doesn't know. To come to the conclusion that evolution is false because a biologist can't answer certain question is like saying things will fall upward because the physicist can't answer everything about gravity (this example was put forth by someone I know).
I can go on and on and on with the rediculous arguments made by creationists. As my philosophy professor put it, these people are doing nothing but "blow hot air out of their buttholes" to make their argument.
Ok, anyone know why these people embarrass themselves like this? Can't they do some research ahead of time before they enter a debate? I am president of the student philosophy club at my school, and we get these arguments all the time by everyone from students to preachers. Since we almost have weekly debates about everything, I am amazed at how many times these arguments are brought up again and again, even after we shot them out of the water like 10 million times. Argggg!
[This message has been edited by Lam, 03-30-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Denesha, posted 03-30-2004 3:38 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 3 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 8:45 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 03-30-2004 9:24 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 10:10 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 19 of 51 (95967)
03-30-2004 12:21 PM


secondlaw stated:
"1) I have a hard time reconciling life coming from non-life."
"2) Laws of Thermodynamics: particularly the law of entropy."
Truthlover was right that these 2 arguments have been shot down before many many times.
The first one deals with philosophy, and the second deals with science. I'll address the second first.
I'm going to oversimplify a lot of things to fit it in this one post. Can't really write everything I've learned in one post.
Let say that you have an enclosed box. If you insert a handfull of particles into this box, the law of entropy says that the particles will eventully reach a state of equilibrium where all the particles are evenly spread out. If you could take a 3-D snapshot of the inside of the box, you will be able to see that there are equal spaces between all the particles. In other words, entropy has reached optimum.
The problem with trying to use the laws of thermodynamics is that it doesn't apply to living beings. The very definition of life is to be able to violate certain laws of nature.
Now, let us put a single cell into this box that is already full of particles. Because this cell is "alive," the cell wall will actively pump out certain particles and pump in certain particles to create less entropy INSIDE the cell. However, this process causes an increase in entropy in the cell's surroundings.
You are using the definition of life itself to try to use against it, which doesn't work to people that are trained in this field.
Let us now address the second statement there. So far, philosophers that support the creationist view have made 3 possibilities, which they claim to be the ONLY 3 possibilities for existence.
(1) Something had to come from something
(2) Something came from nothing
(3) Something came about from its own sake
Since I am a science person and a philosophy person, these statements are very simple minded as far as I'm concerned.
Here is an anology. I am sitting in my room. I am looking at the wall. I cannot see anything beyond the wall. THEREFORE, nothing exist beyond the wall.
See anything wrong with this logical progression? Just because I can't see anything beyond the wall doesn't mean there is nothing beyond the wall.
Going back to the 3 possibilities that creationists present. Just because we can't think of any other possibility for existence to come about doesn't mean that there aren't any out there. The human mind is still very limited. Not even the brightest minds in the world could imagine any dimension beyond the 4th, let alone 10 (recent calculations based on the string theory tells us that the universe have 10 dimensions, not 4). I don't know why these people think that they can just assume 3 possibilities and say "that's it, there's no other way..." Sounds too arrogant to me.
If these are the only 2 issues you have with science, boy do you have things to think about tonight. However, I doubt that, because you have your "unshakable faith."
Please understand that what I've written above is a grossly simplified version of what's out there. Don't start nitpicking things because I left out a dot on the i or a cross on the t.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 12:52 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 25 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 2:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 51 (96017)
03-30-2004 3:04 PM


compmage, the point I was trying to make was that life seem to violate certain laws of nature, like the laws of thermodynamics. But for simplicity's sake, I just said that you can't treat something that is alive like everything else.
About the particles in a box thing, I think you are thinking about enthalpy, not entropy. Entropy is the measure of disorder, which is supposed to increase naturally.
Secondlaw, scientists have been able to create amino acids out of non-organic materials under the theoretical premordial conditions. It is very possible that these amino acids, over a very very very long time, combined to form the first protein, the building block of life.
As far as the "mathematical impossibility" that you asserted, would you mind clarifying that?
People can't calculate possibilities of something they don't know, not yet anyway. The best that this fact can do in your favor is show that we still have a lot to learn about math, science, and the universe. It doesn't support creationism one bit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 3:32 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 28 of 51 (96042)
03-30-2004 4:03 PM


Compmage, I am well aware of the technicalities behind the laws of thermodynamics (physics major). However, I've heard these arguments from creationists before, and most of them can't understand all the science behind the laws. Therefore, I've only used the concept of entropy because that was what Secondlaw was refering to. He didn't care about anything else about the law because it doesn't do much to support his view.
Coincidently, here is a direct quote from that site of yours: "For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state." The second law deals with heat and energy, but it also deals with the disorder of things. So, please stop nitpicking while you're at it.
Edited:
By the way, did you even read that website you recommended to me? If you scroll down to the bottom there, it has a whole section on the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
[This message has been edited by Lam, 03-30-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 4:30 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 38 by secondlaw, posted 03-31-2004 7:26 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 51 (96117)
03-30-2004 8:08 PM


I think you will find this site more to your liking.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by compmage, posted 03-31-2004 3:42 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 33 of 51 (96231)
03-31-2004 2:41 AM


Cman, before we go any further and without doing a google search, can you tell us in your own words why all living things eventually die?
You really sound like someone who have absolutely no idea what science is and what its purpose, let alone the theory of evolution. I'm not trying to put you down or anything, I just want you to clarify to us what you already know about these topics that you brought up and we can go from there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cman, posted 03-31-2004 3:46 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 46 of 51 (96381)
03-31-2004 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by secondlaw
03-31-2004 7:26 AM


Re: mathematical impossibility
I am not going to say much because others have already gone over what needs to be gone over.
One thing that have always bothered me, besides the fact that these creationists misrepresent science and then come up with a number through that mirepresentation, is the argument of probability itself. Mathematical probability only tells us how likely something will occur through random processes, not if it will occur at all or not.
Let us look at you, as a biological being. Just based on the chance of the moment your parents decided to "get it on" and the number of sperms being produced each minute and destroyed each minute AND the egg in your mother's overies that, by chance, happened to come out at the time for that particular conception, then technically you don't exist at all based on your argument.
Just because a probibility is small doesn't mean it can't happen. So, even if can take that probability of yours seriously, it still doesn't do crap to support the creationist view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by secondlaw, posted 03-31-2004 7:26 AM secondlaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024