Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172432 Jul 17, 2013
Sorry but you must first prove there is a god before you can assign deeds and properties to him.

Critical thinking. Try it :)
Roman Apologist wrote:
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172434 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>How can you make an accurate judgement of what I believe without further inquiry? I am simply not convinced that the evidence presented by proponents of Darwinian evolution indicates purely unguided evolutionary processes.

I can make an accurate assessment based on your statement that you don't believe multicellular life to be millions of years old. Just how old do you believe complex life forms have existed on this planet? Are you a Creationist?

My judgements is based on you ignoring established scientific facts concerning evolution. I'm sure you will refute these irrefutable facts. These are what 99.9% of ALL scientists world-wide accept as IRREFUTABLE FACTS.

1.) The Earth is more than 3.5 billions years old.

2.)(this you will undoubtably reject as well) Cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

3.) That ALL major life forms now on Earth were not at all present in the past. There were NO birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

4.) That major life forms of the past are no longer living.

5.) ALL living things come from pervious life forms, therefore ALL present life arose from ancestral forms that were different.

No person who pretends to understand the natural world can deny these facts anymore than they can deny the Earth is round, rotates on nits axis, and revolves around the sun.

BTW, you seem to have avoided my questions concerning at what point in Earths history did animals begin eating each other due to God's withdrawing his presents? Also very important to our conversation, at what point in Earths history did a fully formed male and female magically appear. Thanks
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172435 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>Why would you say I'm not open-minded and reasonable? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that intolerant? I happen to think I'm very open minded. I consider the full weight of an argument. There are very intelligent scientists of both beliefs working in labs and institutes all over the world. Their work is admirable. I wouldn't ignore it. To ignore all of it would be folly. Open minded means considering both natural and supernatural explanations and examining each on it's own merit. You seem to think that I should only consider naturalistic explanations. Is that open minded?

No, its NOT because you disagree with me, its because you chose to ignore factual information. I find that extremely unreasonable.

There may well be scientists of both beliefs but the overwhelming majority accept multicellular life that is millions of years old.

A 2010 poll by Pew Research Center found that nearly all scientist 97% say human and others life forms have evolved over millions of years.

You disagree with the accuracy of dating methods. "Radiometric dating has been tested and fine tuned for the past 50 years. 40 different dating techniques are used to date a wide variety of material." It's not just Earth material that is tested. Radiometric age dating of meteoric material is consistent with the ages of the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172436 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
I can certainly assess what you believe by your statement that you don't believe the evolutionary process to be millions of years old. Just how old are you willing to say that complex cellular life has existed on this planet? Are you in fact a creationists?
Why do you ask if I'm a creationist? Do you mean young earth? No. I'm not a young earth creationist. Do I believe in intelligent design? Yes. Do I believe in evolution? Yes but in a different way than you do. You would likely classify what I believe in to be long-term development after creation.

Why do you assume that I'm willing to assign an age to the earth? I'm not willing to do that because I don't agree with young earth creationists and I don't agree with Darwinian evolution. I'm right in the middle. I believe that both arguments are inaccurate. I don't think we have enough information to say with certainty (as you say 99.9%) just how old the earth is. But the age of the earth is irrelevant to me because I don't really care about the processes.

I'm not anti-science at all. But I do believe that you're putting much more faith in Darwinian evolution than I am in believing that an intelligent being is the reason for our existence.

Attempting to pigeon-hole me by saying that I'm avoiding answering you isn't an intellectually honest endeavor. I'm just simply not convinced that you're right. I have doubts. Does that mean I'm dishonest or delusional? Not at all. After all, you have doubts about what I believe. We're at an impasse on the subject of evolution.

Let me ask a question or two.

Can science prove science?
blacklagoon wrote:
You most likely will disputes these irrefutable facts concerning evolution, but this is the stance that present science has, the stance that 99.9% of ALL world-wide scientists accept as IRREFUTABLE FACTS.
1) Why are you assuming what I will and won't dispute?
2) Is there a poll or survey you can provide to support this percentage claim?
blacklagoon wrote:
BTW, you seem to have avoided my questions concerning at what point in Earths history that animals began to eat each other due to God withdrawing his presents. You also have avoided presenting the point in Earths history were a fully formed male and female magically appeared. It's very important to our conversation. Thanks!!
I don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started to eat each other. Didn't I tell you when we first started our dialogue that if I didn't know an answer that I would admit that I don't know? I'm quite sure I did. But that's not the issue.

I cannot answer your questions in such a way as you're asking me to. I'm not a young earth creationist, so I'm not going to throw out the fundamentalist answer of "6,000 years." That would be dishonest. I don't believe that answer myself so why give it as an answer? Do you think I want to silence you? No. I enjoy our dialogue. I'm not going to convince you any more than you're going to convince me. Why not be honest about it?

I believe that you're looking for 100% certainty from me. If I'm wrong, please inform me. I would not willingly and knowingly misrepresent your position.

I base my theism and faith on plausibility and probability and not upon certainty. We all make decisions everyday that don't require 100% certainty before we act upon them. So if you were to measure my faith in quantitative terms, I'm 90-95% sure that God exists and that He interacted with us in the person of Jesus Christ. I base this percentage on the civil legal and historical standard of "preponderance of evidence." Simply put, I believe there is enough supporting evidence to conclude that it's much more likely that there is a personal God rather than not.

In closing tonight's argument and discussion, I do not believe that the opposite of faith is reason. The opposite of faith is disbelief.
Either of those positions require reasoning to reach the conclusions that we have.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#172437 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
It's turtles all the way down.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172438 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologists wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started to eat each other. Didn't I tell you when we first started our dialogue that if I didn't know an answer that I would admit that I don't know? I'm quite sure I did. But that's not the issue.

Can science prove science? Nor sure exactly what that means, but I do know this...Something is either real or NOT, either true or NOT, and the ONLY methodology we have to determine if something is real or true is science.

If you don't know how long after God withdrew that animals started eating each other, then how do you know he actually withdrew, or that animals were eating each other anyway? You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support. Here:

Science shows that complex multicellular life has been around for hundreds of millions of years, dating methods and fossil evidence makes that a fact......You... A God like entity for which you have no physical evidence created a fully formed male and female. The process used is unknown, some would simply call it magic. You have no idea at what point in Earths history this took place. This makes your assertion an unproven or unsupported belief.

Science shows through fossil evidence, that animals 250 to 300 million years ago were classified as herbivores and carnivores. Carnivores evolved to be predators with large teeth and powerful jaws. Just recently a duckbilled dinosaur fossil was discovered with a Tyrannosaurus tooth lodged in its back. The fossil was dated as being from 275 million years ago. Fossil evidence doesn't lie..........You........Before God decided to withdraw his presents, animals like the Tyrannosaurus ate........what? Apparently carnivores didn't eat other animals, so what did they eat? You, have no idea do you? You can't even tell me when God chose to withdraw. Science would tell you this NEVER happened were carnivores did not prey on other animals. Science supplies all the answers here, you supply.....NOTHING. No dates, no evidence for your assertion, you can't even venture an educated guess at either of these beliefs you claim are real.

Even you, MUST see the difference between what science shows us to be factual, and you, armed with only a belief, and a belief that contradicts scientific evidence. You have to be intelligent enough to see the folly of both contentions. If you want to say Adam and Eve were the very first humans and NO evolution of our species took place, then you are required to produce some evidence for your claim. If you want to assert that there was a time when Carnivores did NOT prey on other animals, you are also required to provide evidence for your claim. If you cannot provide this evidence, and fail to accept the scientific evidence that totally refutes your claims, then please have the honesty to say this is simply your belief, you have no evidence or support for your claim it is just a belief.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172441 Jul 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I highly recommend a trip on theThe Flåm Railway in Norway. Magnificent - pure eye candy!
Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch und haben ein paar entfernte Verwandte aus München.
Sie sprechen kein Deutsch?
sorry didn't learn german in school

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172444 Jul 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Can science prove science? Nor sure exactly what that means, but I do know this...Something is either real or NOT, either true or NOT, and the ONLY methodology we have to determine if something is real or true is science.
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.

1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!

Notice my emphasis on point #4? There's a very good reason for that.

I have two items of interest for you to consider:

1)In 1953, Stanley Miller tried to prove that amino acids can come about naturally. He used a constant flow of electricity to replicate lightning in the earth's atmosphere. But, lightning isn't constant, so that's flaw #1. Then Miller compounded his error by using the wrong gases. He used carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor which is no longer believed to be the atmosphere of early earth; flaw #2.

2) In 1997, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin made a shocking confession in The New York Book Review:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.

So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.
blacklagoon wrote:
You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support.
I don't see how you can say I'm making sweeping statements when you claim only science can reveal truth, in light of these two unfortunate revelations as to the philosophical beliefs of scientists.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172445 Jul 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
<quoted text>53% of your income...that only works for poor ignorant people who can not make a decent living and so which to sap those who work hard and exceed.
How does a $10k dollar annual income cancer patient paying $5300 equate to a $1 million dollar annual income cancer patient paying $530,000? Does the latter get his own tooth brush or does he have to share one with the poor sap?
No matter how you slice it socialized medicine means that someone who studied longer, played less and works harder gets the same benefits as the high school drop out who skipped school, played much and worked little.
Unlike the USA where dropping out of school was always in high-fashion - European countries do not share this enthusiasm for ignorance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172446 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.
1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!
Yes, the first two are required to be truth. The third isn't technically required, especially for historical sciences. What *is* required is that the basic laws can be tested and those tests are repeatable. The specific application of those laws need not be repeatable.

The fourth condition is an important one. It is why the scientific method has a built-in error correction process. Some scientists have biases. Some instruments are incorrectly calibrated. Some experiments are ambiguous in their import.

The point is that any dishonesty will be revealed by further investigations by others. Any bad calibration will similarly be discovered. And ambiguous experiments will be refined to resolve the ambiguities. This isn't an instantaneous process. At times it is a long and laborious process. There can be many wrong turns and dead ends. Sometimes egos get in the way for years. But, eventually, the truth wins out *because* we require testability, observations, and repeatability.

If you have another way of finding truth that is better than the scientific method, please let us know. If you have found a way that can eliminate falsehoods and resolve disagreements better than testing through repeatable observations, this would be a wonderful thing.

What we know is that philosophy doesn't manage to do this. Philosophers are still arguing about the same things they were 2000 years ago. Religion doesn't do this. There are still violent disagreements about religion with no way to resolve them *because* no observations could do so. We know that intuition is fallible.

So, yes, in order to be called a *truth* as opposed to an *opinion*, I do require testable observations of basic principles. And that is the scientific method.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172447 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<
So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.
First, the scientific method is based on repeatable, testable observations, not necessarily materialism per se. However, the materialistic bias has been very helpful for finding new truths. In fact, materialism can be *defined* by testability.

Stanley Miller made a first, crude model based on what was known about the atmosphere of the early earth at the time. Using a continuous current as opposed to a sporadic one may or may not have affected his results, but the experiment itself was honest. He determined that amino acids can be made from conditions similar to what he thought were the conditions of the early earth. Since his experiment, many others have been done with different atmospheric compositions, and different combinations of electric current, heating and cooling cycles, etc. ALL of them give the same basic result: formation of biologically relevant amino acids is easy in conditions that are approximately what were around on the early earth.

Furthermore, the Miller experiments have been extended to include the production of microspheres that can catalyze reactions important for life, that grow and bud and have many of the characteristics of life (but are not life yet).

As I said, sometimes scientists make mistakes. Sometimes they do experiments based on incomplete information (that is kind of the point). Sometimes their results don't have the applicability they originally expected. But, over time, and with repeated observation and testing, the truth wins out.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172448 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.

Polymath 257 has answered you better than I could have. he makes excellent points. Scientists are human and subject to all the human frailties and flaws as another human. Does that mean we should suspend all scientific endeavors? You sited TWO examples out of hundreds of thousands of scientist. As was pointed out to you, Millers experiments were NOT dishonest, we was working with the information available at that time, he was NOT trying to deceive anyone.

Yes, science is the ONLY way to discover whether something is either real or not or whether something is true. He asked you and so will I, do you know of any other way rather than science to discover if somethings true or real?

Science is a self-correcting system, all discoveries are subject to enormous scrutiny. All discoveries are subject to not only peer review but falsification. Other scientists try their very best to prove the discovery has major flaws or is simple wrong. The discovery is tested over and over again for repeatability, measured, weighted, examined from every angle. It's a very long process, and only after this exacting process does the discovery become a working hypothesis. Now can you say the same about your claim that before God withdrew his presents Carnivores did NOT prey on other animals? Can you apply the same exacting criteria on your claim that at some point in Earths history, your have no idea when that was, a deity of unknown properties, using a process that is total unknown and defies all scientific logic, created a fully formed male and female?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172449 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see how you can say I'm making sweeping statements when you claim only science can reveal truth, in light of these two unfortunate revelations as to the philosophical beliefs of scientists.

Yes, you are making extreme sweeping claims, claims that fly in the face of established scientific facts. You have a belief and I respect that. I can see how passionate you are about your beliefs, but one of them is flat out wrong, the other is totally unsupported and is simply a belief. There was NO period in Earths history were Carnivores did NOT prey on other animals, fossil evidence bears that out. Carnivores evolved to prey on other animals, forward facing eyes, large teeth for ripping meat, strong jaws to hold and kill prey, large claws form grasping their prey. These are facts, carnivores ate meat, ALWAYS, and you have absolutely NO information that refuted this. If in fact you have any verifiable information that demonstrates there was a time in Earths history were carnivores did NOT hunt and eat other animals, I'll accept and and apologize to you. Until that time, you are simple wrong about this claim.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172450 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Can science prove science?
Yes, it can. We have the hypothesis that the scientific method works to discover new truths. The evidence is found in the last four centuries of use of the scientific method and the great number of truths that have been produced. The tests are found in any new area of study, where the scientific method is applied and we see whether new truths about that area can be found. Such tests have been done repeatedly in many different areas of study and the scientific method has passed the tests each time.

Now, the hypothesis is that the scientific method is the only reliable method of finding new truths about the real world (as opposed to abstract truths, such as in mathematics). This hypothesis is tested by the large number of alternative systems that have been attempted over time: philosophy, religion (of many different types), intuition, meditation, etc. None of these has been shown to be a *reliable* way to find new truths over time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172451 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.
Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
And scientists don't claim that carbon dating answers every question regarding age with unquestionable accuracy. In fact, they explicitly say otherwise. For example, carbon dating cannot be used for ages older than about 50-100,000 years. And there is very good reason why not. The half-life of C-14 is about 5700 years. During that time, the amount of C-14 decreases by half. This happens every 5700 years. So, after 50,000 years or so, the amount left is so small that it is difficult to measure accurately in most of our detectors. Some very specialized detectors can push that boundary back a bit, but eventually the amount left is too small to measure.

Also, if the carbon source used for an organism isn't well mixed with the atmosphere, the basic assumptions for dating are violated. So, for example, deep sea molluscs that get much of their carbon from very old carbonaceous rocks will give falsely old ages. Again, this is well known by scientists and the reason is well documented.

And, again, it is known that the production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere changes over time. That affects some of the assumptions in the method. The 'fix' is to calibrate the C-14 dates with other methods, such as dendrochronology or ice cores. This has the added advantage of allowing the *measurement* of how C-14 production changes over time. For ages older than tree-rings allow, the C-14 dates are reported as 'raw' dates, which are known (at least by the scientists) to possibly be off.

And this is part of the point. Scientists, for the most part, are interested in finding out the truth. They find new methods and *test* them in a wide variety of situations to determine their validity. They look at situations where their assumptions may fail and determine the 'limits' of their methods. That is part of the overall method.

But, there are many other methods of finding the age of specimens. Other radioisotopes have different half-lives and are not subject to some of the issues involved in C-14. So, for example Rb-Sr dating is even self-correcting in many circumstances (or at least allows the determination that the sample was contaminated). Uranium tracking dating allows dates over a very large range, from decades to billions of years (with an accuracy that depends on the age). In addition to absolute dating, there is also relative dating, which doesn't determine an actual age, just which samples are older and which are newer.

Finally,'unquestionable accuracy' is not required for many determinations. For example, being off by less than 10% is quite enough to determine that a rock is 2 billion years old instead of 2 million. And it is a rare dating method that is that bad when properly used.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172452 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
Who ever said it did? The basic materials for life are produced in stars and supernovas. There is a great deal of chemistry in nebula, including the existence of amino acids, sugars, etc. Those chemicals were certainly part of the cloud that condensed to form the sun and the planets.

Life is a chemical process. The basic chemicals are common in the universe and have been since at least the second generation of stars. Chemical processes on the early earth would only add to the variety of bio-relevant materials.

But life did not start when the universe did. Until the first (and probably second) generation of stars went supernova, the basic elements (for example, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, calcium) simply did not exist in any abundance in the universe. So life was impossible before then.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172453 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
A specific population can't be sustained by just a single pair. That much is true. But I'm not interested in sustaining. What interests me is how the process starts.
It would seem that you would need two creatures that have reached sexual maturity at the same chronological point in time, in the same location, that they would successfully mate and produce offspring that could also repeat this process. That's what interests me. Where or how do these two biological creatures come into contact at the right place, at the right time, with the optimum health needed to reproduce and carry on?
No, what you need is a population that has slowly changed characteristics over time. From one generation to the next, the changes will be small enough that reproduction is not an issue, but over a thousand generations (minimal), large enough changes can happen that a new species appears.

As for how sexuality started, you do realize there are many species with individuals that are *both* male and female, right? And species where the gender of an individual can change over a lifetime (sometimes several times). And species where sexual reproduction isn't the main form of reproduction, but it exists as an alternative?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172454 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
I have no idea. What are the laws governing 'outside of space-time'?
That's funny, I thought "kinds" was an English word meaning:
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
In *this* context, the word 'kind' is used as an alternative to the biological concept of 'species' by those who promote creationism and the story of the Biblical flood.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172455 Jul 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
There was NO period in Earths history were Carnivores did NOT prey on other animals, fossil evidence bears that out. Carnivores evolved to prey on other animals, forward facing eyes, large teeth for ripping meat, strong jaws to hold and kill prey, large claws form grasping their prey. These are facts, carnivores ate meat, ALWAYS, and you have absolutely NO information that refuted this. If in fact you have any verifiable information that demonstrates there was a time in Earths history were carnivores did NOT hunt and eat other animals, I'll accept and and apologize to you. Until that time, you are simple wrong about this claim.
I would urge you to be careful here. First, there is a distinction between carnivores and those of the order Carnivora. It is certainly the case that Carnivora have not always been on the earth. They are all mammals.

Second, there was a *long* period of time when no carnivores preyed on other animals simply because there *were* no animals. Multi-cellular life is a relatively recent development (probably the last 1 billion years) and during most of the Earth's history all life was single celled. Whether one cell engulfing another is a carnivore is a matter of definition.

Next, even when actual animals developed, it was a long time before 'forward facing eyes, large teeth, and large claws' developed. The earliest carnivores (in the loose sense) were probably jelly fish (or related species) that ate other jelly fish. It was only much later that fish with backbones developed, along with teeth. It was even later that claws developed.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172456 Jul 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
In *this* context, the word 'kind' is used as an alternative to the biological concept of 'species' by those who promote creationism and the story of the Biblical flood.
I realize some might use it in this way, but for those who do, it's my understanding that it's incorrect to do so. The word "kind" isn't in the early Hebrew text of the Torah, and the reason it appears there now is to describe classifications of clean and unclean animals. It has nothing to do with promoting creationism to replace the word species. If anything, secular science misunderstands the text and uses "species" to disqualify it in favor of Darwinian evolution. That argument can cut both ways.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Denisova 16,914
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 4,902
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr thetruth 1,670
Turkey blocks website of its first atheist asso... 3 hr thetruth 3
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? 3 hr thetruth 31
The Consequences of Atheism 4 hr Thinking 827
Religiosity 11 hr NightSerf 1
More from around the web