Infectious Creationism Hits Britain

[holyheadjch]

Whilst everyone has been getting into a flap about Bird Flu (see what I did there?) something far more dangerous has managed to take hold. Witnesses believe a Sandal wearing American was the original carrier.

More than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution, according to a survey.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce intelligent design into science classes in the US.

Over 2000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.
Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.

Education questioned

Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.

"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."

When given a choice of three theories, people were asked which ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:

44% said creationism should be included
41% intelligent design
69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
Participants over 55 were more likely to choose evolution over other groups, while those under 25 were most likely to opt for intelligent design.

"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.

In the US, a recent high profile court case ruled that the intelligent design movement is motivated by a desire to introduce God into the classroom after parents in Pensylvania took a school board to court over its demand that biology classes should not teach evolution as fact. BBC

Why oh why would America, our greatest ally do this to us

[firecoins]

don't blame us!, you gave us the Church of England!

[Gajah Silat]

I have never ever met anyone in Britain that believes in Creationalism. I simply believe this poll is made up. :rolleyes:

'don't blame us!, you gave us the Church of England!'....you mean those big empty buildings with spires? Nah, they're just for weddings, only Catholics in the UK actually go to church. :D

C'mon I still find it hard to beleive anyone actually believes in Creationalism :rolleyes: ID yes there may be an arguement for that one, but the whole 7 days malarkey....IT"S METAPHOR :bang:

These Christain fundamentalists........... :confused:

[Bluce Ree]

These polls are meaningless, unless they actually go ask everyone in the UK, then they can't actually say that over half of us believe in creationalism - I wasn't asked and i don't believe in it. Same goes for my friends and most of my family.

[holyheadjch]

2000 people isn't a bad sample, of course if those 2000 people were all questioned on their way out of church, then it might not be representative, but MORI are generally quite good.

It doesn't say that 50% of people believe in creationism, where did you get that?

[Gary]

The bit that really shocked me there was kind of between the lines.

69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.

31% don't want evolution on the curriculum! :eek:

[Gajah Silat]

They must have found it hard to find 2000 people wearing hand knitted jumpers and a vacant smile!

A little off topic but kind of relevant is a car sticker I saw a while back.
A picture of Noah's Ark full of happy smiley animals but in the surrounding water were decidedly unhappy drowning animals :confused:

Underneath the slogan read, "God always keeps His promises" :eek:

Somehow, God just didn't come across as very nice!

I bet the owners of that car would love that Creationalist 'museum' in the US.

Check these out, they are actually serious :eek: Only in America :rolleyes: ....I hope

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

[tekkengod]

Check these out, they are actually serious :eek: Only in America :rolleyes: ....I hope

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/


WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY COUNTRY! :bang: :woo: :cry:

[jabcrosshook]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY COUNTRY! :bang: :woo: :cry:

You live there.

[Gajah Silat]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY COUNTRY! :bang: :woo: :cry:

Seems to be full of God botherin' Bible bashin' reactionary Christian fundamentalists ;) Yeeehaaaa :woo: :D

I remember a couple of conversations with your countrymen....."Malaysians are just like normal people even though they are Muslims" :confused:

California Dave with whom I spent many days on a Chinese cargo boat travelling the Mekong...."If you go to the US stick to the coasts, don't go inland...it gets wierd".

Later he advised me that people from Santa Cruz also had a predisposition for 'mystical, hippy stuff". To this day I can spot a Santa Cruzian from several miles:D

On a serious note, it does seem to be a matter of extremes. Either liberal in the broadest sense of the word or what I would call Christian extremists.

But, Y'know I'm British and we have Bush's monkeyboy as a PM :cry: We are mostly drunken heathens. I'm glad those Puritans had the good sense to go overseas.

On a happier note, at least our Churches are largely empty :)

I feel I may come to regret this post :D Please note the lashings of British humour and self depreciation. I do appologise in advance in a thoroughly British manner :D

[holyheadjch]

most foreigners dont get the sarcastic insincere nature of british humour, how'd you think WWI started

[Gajah Silat]

most foreigners dont get the sarcastic insincere nature of british humour, how'd you think WWI started

About time Johnny foreigner got a sense of humour then...I should say..What what!

But I swear, if any other American says "Is that near London, or Scotland?"....I'll...

My wife is a 'foreigner' and she is always impressed with the Brit's ability to laugh at oursevles. One of our great strengths is that we find ourselves so amusing :)

[Capt Ann]

........and she is always impressed with the Brit's ability to laugh at oursevles.I didn't know you guys were allowed to laugh. Are you? ;)

[wrydolphin]

Hey now, be fair, Creationism isn't just our problem. Plenty of people don't understand evolution and one of the more obnoxious ones is in Aussie.

Keep in mind, they didn't exactly give you the questions. Wording is everything. Nor did they tell you how they surveyed or how they calculated the numbers. Same thing with the American survey.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. :) A little Twain for ya.

[Moony]

I didn't know you guys were allowed to laugh. Are you? ;)

We are. On special occasions and following the correct forms of sacrifice!

Moony

[Gajah Silat]

I didn't know you guys were allowed to laugh. Are you? ;)

Not very often, but we may indulge in a wry smile now and again :) Stiff upper lip and all that ;)

[Radok]

Whilst everyone has been getting into a flap about Bird Flu (see what I did there?) something far more dangerous has managed to take hold. Witnesses believe a Sandal wearing American was the original carrier.

BBC

Why oh why would America, our greatest ally do this to us
maybe your the one with a brain disease if you think the religion of evolution should be the only one taught in schools, and that it should have government funding.

[Gary]

I didn't know you guys were allowed to laugh. Are you? ;)
We laugh all the time, usually at ourselves. All the great british comedic heroes are anti-hero losers.

[HearWa]

These polls are meaningless, unless they actually go ask everyone in the UK...
Wrong. It depends on if the sample was random or not, and also the number of people who were asked. Just do a little reading into statistics.

[Socrastein]

maybe your the one with a brain disease if you think the religion of evolution should be the only one taught in schools, and that it should have government funding.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif

[Moony]

maybe your the one with a brain disease if you think the religion of evolution should be the only one taught in schools, and that it should have government funding.

Evolution isn't a religion.

But be that as it may if anything else should be taught in schools as an 'alternative' it should be done in the correct classes, i.e. RE/PSHE.

Moony

[Knight_Errant]

Evolution isn't a religion, it's a well-proven scientific theory. And there is no 'alternative' that has any credibility.

[Radok]

Evolution is about as proven as saying bicycles just came together by chance from scrap metal rolling around on the earth's surface and running into each other for millions of years. Accept, of course, the fact that life is far more complex than a bicylce, and thus even more rediculous. And since evolution is only a theory and is not provable, it takes faith to believe in it. Faith is the stuff of religion, not science. Evolution is theoretical science at best.

[Taff]

The results of this survey hurt my soul.

[Gajah Silat]

Evolution is about as proven as saying bicycles just came together by chance from scrap metal rolling around on the earth's surface and running into each other for millions of years. Accept, of course, the fact that life is far more complex than a bicylce, and thus even more rediculous. And since evolution is only a theory and is not provable, it takes faith to believe in it. Faith is the stuff of religion, not science. Evolution is theoretical science at best.

PMLOL :D

Christ on a bike...Never heard the old 'bicycle' arguement before :D

Evolution seems the most logical and viable explanation to me. It's a lot more tangible than a non-provable supernatural being surely?

Can you tell be what your explanation for the incredible diversity of life on Earth is?

[Saz]

maybe your the one with a brain disease if you think the religion of evolution should be the only one taught in schools, and that it should have government funding.

This is the second post on this topic I've seen made by you that's bordering on a personal attack.

If you can't debate this subject without getting personal, then stop posting here before I remove your right to do so.

Same goes for anyone else who doesn't have the ability to debate, but does to insult.

[Maverick]

That poll is clearly made up. I don't know anyone who believes in creationism. Everyone I know who i've discussed it with accept evolution. The rest are agnostic. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual creationist my age who doesn't go to a 'special' school.

[medi]

Evolution is about as proven as saying bicycles just came together by chance from scrap metal rolling around on the earth's surface and running into each other for millions of years. Accept, of course, the fact that life is far more complex than a bicylce, and thus even more rediculous. And since evolution is only a theory and is not provable, it takes faith to believe in it. Faith is the stuff of religion, not science. Evolution is theoretical science at best.


Good lord are we still playing the "It's only a theory" card?

Obviously you missed the last 500 posts utterly destroying that half-grown 'argument'.

A Scientific Theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A 'Theory' is as proved as anything can ever get.

[wrydolphin]

Well, if it didn't work last time, maybe today is the lucky day?

After all, if you just keep repeating it loud enough, its true.... right? :D

[Moony]

Radok, It's occured to me to ask you if your aware of the subtle and self depreciating nature of British humour? Because to me, as a Brit, reading the title of the thread, written by another Brit, it's an ironic mocling of Britain.

So why the reaction?

Moony

[Radok]

It's a lot more tangible than a non-provable supernatural being surely?

Can you tell be what your explanation for the incredible diversity of life on Earth is?
Nonprovable evolution doesn't seem tons better than nonprovable creation. And what is there to explain about the diversity of life on earth? If God is smart enough to build a universe from the sub quantum level up, I think he could create an expansive ecosystem, doesn't seem like a huge leap to me.

[Radok]

This is the second post on this topic I've seen made by you that's bordering on a personal attack.

If you can't debate this subject without getting personal, then stop posting here before I remove your right to do so.

Same goes for anyone else who doesn't have the ability to debate, but does to insult.
that's a load if I ever read one. Calling someone elses belief system a brain disease is fine, but stepping up to the plate to defend it is some sort of offense. Right. :rolleyes:

[tekkengod]

maybe your the one with a brain disease if you think the religion of evolution should be the only one taught in schools, and that it should have government funding.

The religion of evolution? is that even a sentence?

i don't think it is, u see, religion usually involves killing everyone who disagrees with us, and mental disorders, seeing as how ur still alive and i haven't heard any violent subliminal messages since i watched family guy earlier, i think we're in the clear. :rolleyes: :bang:

How exactly does that give him a brain disease again?

[Moony]

that's a load if I ever read one. Calling someone elses belief system a brain disease is fine, but stepping up to the plate to defend it is some sort of offense. Right. :rolleyes:

And you skip my post on the British sence of humour...well done my man. Jolly good show what what!

Moony

[Moony]

Nonprovable evolution doesn't seem tons better than nonprovable creation. And what is there to explain about the diversity of life on earth? If God is smart enough to build a universe from the sub quantum level up, I think he could create an expansive ecosystem, doesn't seem like a huge leap to me.

Actually there is a lot of proof about evolution.

Moony

[wrydolphin]

Over a hundred years worth of trying to discount it. And you think you got it's number now? Go ahead, publish.

[Radok]

It's not up to me to disprove evolution, that's not the way science works. The way it works is a theory is supposed to be proven true, and it hasn't. By the way, remote controls are posessed by little demons in other dimensions that run to your tv and change the channel for you. Go ahead, prove it wrong if you think it's rediculous.

[tekkengod]

It's not up to me to disprove evolution, that's not the way science works. The way it works is a theory is supposed to be proven true, and it hasn't. By the way, remote controls are posessed by little demons in other dimensions that run to your tv and change the channel for you. Go ahead, prove it wrong if you think it's rediculous.

No it isn't. but its up to you to prove creationisim.

Theres an invisable mushroom who lives under a rock on jupiter and hes shooting heat seeking love missles at all the german shepards of the world, prove me wrong. see, same concept.

[holyheadjch]

It's not up to me to disprove evolution, that's not the way science works. The way it works is a theory is supposed to be proven true, and it hasn't. By the way, remote controls are posessed by little demons in other dimensions that run to your tv and change the channel for you. Go ahead, prove it wrong if you think it's rediculous.
I think you'll find that a theory is assumed to be correct until it is disproven, so it is on you to disprove evolution

[Radok]

No it isn't. but its up to you to prove creationisim.

Theres an invisable mushroom who lives under a rock on jupiter and hes shooting heat seeking love missles at all the german shepards of the world, prove me wrong. see, same concept.
Your free to believe in any mushroom you want, but it's not science until you provide evidence. Until then, it's religious belief. Just as I can believe creationism, and it's not up to me to prove it because I don't claim it's science, I admit that it's religious belief. Until evolution is proven correct, it too is nothing more than religious belief, since it isn't and can't be proven it is no more scientific than creationism.

[Radok]

I think you'll find that a theory is assumed to be correct until it is disproven, so it is on you to disprove evolution
Well, I guess you believe in my transdimensional demons and his mushroom then. Unless, of course, you've disproven them.

[CrazyMoonwalker]

By the way, remote controls are posessed by little demons in other dimensions that run to your tv and change the channel for you. Go ahead, prove it wrong if you think it's rediculous.

Here you go kid

All Infra Red (IR) remote controls use some kind of IR signal. The remotes transmit pulses of IR light to send the signal to the receiver. These IR LEDs transmit light in the frequency range of 30 kHz to 40 kHz. These high frequencies were chosen so that other light sources would not interfere with the receivers ability to correctly receive the transmitted signals. These signals are transmitted by the IR LED in some type of binary code. It turns out that for most consumer electronics this coding is the same. The binary signal varies in length for both time and bit length.

There are really only three different ways that manufacturers choose to code these signals. This coding is usually based on varying the length of pulses, varying the length of spaces between pulses or altering the order between spaces or pulses.

1) Pulse-Width-Coded Signals vary the length of pulses to code the information. In this case if the pulse width is short (approximately 550us) it corresponds to a logical zero or a low. If the pulse width is long (approximately 2200us) it corresponds to a logical one or a high.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/pulse.gif

2) Space-Coded Signals vary the length of the spaces between pulses to code the information. In this case if the space width is short (approximately 550us) it corresponds to a logical zero or a low. If the space width is long (approximately 1650us) it corresponds to a logical one or a high.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/space.gif

3)Shift-Coded Signals vary the order of pulse space to code the information. In this case if the space width is short (approximately 550us) and the pulse width is long (approximately 1100us) the signal corresponds to a logical one or a high. If the space is long and the pulse is short the signal corresponds to a logical zero or a low.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/shift.gif

This coding holds information such as the address to the machine that is using the remote and the command that the machine must follow. The address is very important because without it the signal would be processed by another IR receiver in the area.

When a button on a remote is pushed it sends a string of signals. The first piece of information in the string is called the Header. The Header usually contains a burst of highs that alerts all the IR receivers in the area to the string of data being sent. Following the burst of highs is the address to the specific machine to receive the next piece of data, the command. As long as the button is held down (depressed) the command will continue to repeat over and over. When the button is released a string of code called the stop is transmitted. As you may have guessed it the stop tells the machine to stop its executing the command.

[Radok]

Here you go kid

All Infra Red (IR) remote controls use some kind of IR signal. The remotes transmit pulses of IR light to send the signal to the receiver. These IR LEDs transmit light in the frequency range of 30 kHz to 40 kHz. These high frequencies were chosen so that other light sources would not interfere with the receivers ability to correctly receive the transmitted signals. These signals are transmitted by the IR LED in some type of binary code. It turns out that for most consumer electronics this coding is the same. The binary signal varies in length for both time and bit length.

There are really only three different ways that manufacturers choose to code these signals. This coding is usually based on varying the length of pulses, varying the length of spaces between pulses or altering the order between spaces or pulses.

1) Pulse-Width-Coded Signals vary the length of pulses to code the information. In this case if the pulse width is short (approximately 550us) it corresponds to a logical zero or a low. If the pulse width is long (approximately 2200us) it corresponds to a logical one or a high.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/pulse.gif

2) Space-Coded Signals vary the length of the spaces between pulses to code the information. In this case if the space width is short (approximately 550us) it corresponds to a logical zero or a low. If the space width is long (approximately 1650us) it corresponds to a logical one or a high.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/space.gif

3)Shift-Coded Signals vary the order of pulse space to code the information. In this case if the space width is short (approximately 550us) and the pulse width is long (approximately 1100us) the signal corresponds to a logical one or a high. If the space is long and the pulse is short the signal corresponds to a logical zero or a low.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/A95/projects/pierreg/works/shift.gif

This coding holds information such as the address to the machine that is using the remote and the command that the machine must follow. The address is very important because without it the signal would be processed by another IR receiver in the area.

When a button on a remote is pushed it sends a string of signals. The first piece of information in the string is called the Header. The Header usually contains a burst of highs that alerts all the IR receivers in the area to the string of data being sent. Following the burst of highs is the address to the specific machine to receive the next piece of data, the command. As long as the button is held down (depressed) the command will continue to repeat over and over. When the button is released a string of code called the stop is transmitted. As you may have guessed it the stop tells the machine to stop its executing the command.


Sorry buddy, those are meerly the auras of the demons, the only measurable sign of their existance that we can feel in this dimension. If you want, I can give you a whole bunch of unfounded theories and keep you busy for years. I think you can see now why it is up to the aspiring scientist to prove his theory, and not up to everyone else to disprove it. Things can be just about impossible to disprove. As we see here, you put up a long argument to disprove my offhand comment, and I can easily just make another that would take just as long or longer to refute. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is strangly absent in the evolution theory.

[Aegis]

Well, I guess you believe in my transdimensional demons and his mushroom then. Unless, of course, you've disproven them.
Those aren't theories.

The only reason evolution (as a theory) is treated as correct by pretty much every scientist worldwide is because of the phenomenal amount of supporting evidence. In essence, it's a waste of time to go back and show it to be true over and over again, so they just save the effort now, and occasionally perk up when yet another piece of evidence slots itself nicely into the framework.

Evolution was not assumed to be true to begin with, it had to undergo the same rigorous trials that every set of hypotheses must in order to become a theory. And as I said in the now-closed thread, after 150 years or so of creationists trying desperately to come up with even a single valid argument against it, there are none.

Evolution IS science, simple as that. If you want to disagree with it, then that's fine, but it's not for any genuine scientific reason. The only people I have ever seen disagree with evolution have done so for faith reasons. Some rare others remain skeptical of the theory, but accept that it is the best available explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

[Aegis]

Oh, and I changed the name of the thread to be less insulting, but still in line with the original humour (I believe)

[CrazyMoonwalker]

Sorry buddy, those are meerly the auras of the demons, the only measurable sign of their existance that we can feel in this dimension. If you want, I can give you a whole bunch of unfounded theories and keep you busy for years. I think you can see now why it is up to the aspiring scientist to prove his theory, and not up to everyone else to disprove it. Things can be just about impossible to disprove. As we see here, you put up a long argument to disprove my offhand comment, and I can easily just make another that would take just as long or longer to refute. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is strangly absent in the evolution theory.

No point arguing with obtuse people.

[GB-UK]

The religion of evolution? is that even a sentence?

i don't think it is, u see, religion usually involves killing everyone who disagrees with us,

No, I thought that was american foreign policy :woo:

[Radok]

Excellent change of title. Also, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to holyheadjch to show him the flaw of his logic.

[Moony]

Excellent change of title.

I don't think so.

Moony

[chasleeuk]

theres nothing wrong with teaching school kids creationism and intelligent design...I think it should be taught along side evolution and other creation theories, perhaps teaching it in more detail in Religious Education class leaving Evolution to the Science/Biology class.

kids these days need to know there are actually "people" in the world who believe in this stuff (*cough *cough AMERICA!!! AMERICA!!! GONA SAVE THE {inappropriate language deleted} DAY!!)...otherwise they might get abit of a shock when they meet some fundamentalists later on in life...(*Cough *Cough MAP religion threads...intelligent design vs evolution...) :D

[Strafio]

You know what, I don't think it's so disasterous that people believe in ID/Creationism.
It's unlikely that someone who knows all the facts will disbelieve in evolution. Most people can only take the word of their science teacher, so it's a matter of "faith" in scientists. Maybe it's a disappointment that scientific knowledge is so limited?

I have to say, until I came across the creationist arguments, I didn't know how much I was taking for granted with my belief in evolution. It turned out that there were good reason for believing in it but I wasn't so familiar with them at the time. So if someone doesn't have all the facts on evolution but can see flaws in it, would it be more rational for them to just take the scientists word for it dogmatically or make their own opinion? Not that there's not good reason to have faith in the experts, but it's also reasonable to doubt them if they haven't convinced you, right?

I mean, take that Kent Hovind guy.
Sure, his science is abysmall, but he's got an amusing wit and comes up with some pretty funny satire on scientific method in general (the spoons and forks bit was delivered with stand-up genius!!). The arguments perhaps a bit primitive for someone who claims to be an expert in the field, but still... :)

[medi]

If you want, I can give you a whole bunch of unfounded theories and keep you busy for years. I think you can see now why it is up to the aspiring scientist to prove his theory, and not up to everyone else to disprove it. Things can be just about impossible to disprove. As we see here, you put up a long argument to disprove my offhand comment, and I can easily just make another that would take just as long or longer to refute. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is strangly absent in the evolution theory.

Doesn't the fact that your hypothesis was disproved in minutes help you to understand the difference between a theory that has been accepted by the scientific community, and what you are trying to make out the Theory of Evolution to be, a flight of fantasy without supporting evidence?


If your hypothesis (the one with no basis or evidence) was on an equivalent level to the Theory of Evolution then surely it would only take a few minutes for you to disprove Evolution in the same way?

[holyheadjch]

I'd just like to state for the record, that despite the title change, I still consider intelligent design to be a brain disease, on par with meningitus and brain cancer.

[Strafio]

I'd just like to state for the record, that despite the title change, I still consider intelligent design to be a brain disease, on par with meningitus and brain cancer.
I disagree. If you look at my post 51, (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=768578&postcount=51) it's even intelligent to believe in creationism if your knowledge in science is limited - i.e. it's the best decision to make based on your current premises. Intelligent design (proper ID that is, not "creationism under new name" version) is even more acceptable as it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution so a scientist can believe in ID.

There's scientific evidence to show that life can arise from natural causes but not enough to show that it actually did. There's theories that claim the big bang didn't require an intelligent designer but nothing to suggest that there actually was or wasn't. Some might say that if we use Ockham's razor then we should do away with unnecessary complications like there being an intelligent being but I'm not convinced of that.

I can't argue against it at the moment.
I'll have to look more into Ockham's Razor sometime and work out why and where it should be applied, and to which "ultimate cause" theory it should be applied to...

[Moony]

I disagree. If you look at my post 51, (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=768578&postcount=51) it's even intelligent to believe in creationism if your knowledge in science is limited - i.e. it's the best decision to make based on your current premises. Intelligent design (proper ID that is, not "creationism under new name" version) is even more acceptable as it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution so a scientist can believe in ID.

There's scientific evidence to show that life can arise from natural causes but not enough to show that it actually did. There's theories that claim the big bang didn't require an intelligent designer but nothing to suggest that there actually was or wasn't. Some might say that if we use Ockham's razor then we should do away with unnecessary complications like there being an intelligent being but I'm not convinced of that.

I can't argue against it at the moment.
I'll have to look more into Ockham's Razor sometime and work out why and where it should be applied, and to which "ultimate cause" theory it should be applied to...

I can agree that those that believe in creationism because they've not learnt or been aught about the proccess involved in Evolutionary Theory. However the big problem comes when you get the likes of Hovind et al that refuse to listen to the evidence and dissmiss it with a fingers in ears 'lalalaaa i'm not listening' approach.

Moony

[medi]

The real problem is that Intelligent Design is a way for fundamentalists to try to catch up with the fact that the Bible simply had it wrong about how the universe, and life, was created. But they've already missed the science bus by a long, long time.

The fact is that they are now grasping at straws to stop their followers realizing that how wrong they've been about the fundamentals of the origins of life.

This is for the stated reason that they don't want any part of the Bible to be called into question, because that might cause other parts to be questioned. So the validity of the 'technical' parts of the good book are irrelevant as far as they're concerned, because unfortunately they are still trying to build the image of the Bible's infallibility as a house of cards without enough cards at the bottom.

Frankly I think that's far more damaging to the 'moral' parts of the Bible since if they admitted (as many Christians do) that the 'technical' part is just a metaphor, everyone would simply drop the issue and we could all stop wasting our time discussing it and continue LEARNING.

After all, it's not like God would explain to ancient man how he made the universe in terms of quantum mechanics and multidimensional spacetime. They'd never get it.

He'd just say "yeah I did some moving on the face of the waters and made the universe".

But people like "Dr." Hovind feel that learning about the actual process that occurred is going to destroy Christianity if it turns out to be a little more complicated than "Let there be light"

[Strafio]

I can agree that those that believe in creationism because they've not learnt or been aught about the proccess involved in Evolutionary Theory. However the big problem comes when you get the likes of Hovind et al that refuse to listen to the evidence and dissmiss it with a fingers in ears 'lalalaaa i'm not listening' approach.

Moony
Indeed, but I reckon that those guys are a small minority out of the people who chose creationism in the survey so these results aren't necessarily so bad.

[Socrastein]

If you look at my post 51, it's even intelligent to believe in creationism if your knowledge in science is limited - i.e. it's the best decision to make based on your current premises.

I strongly disagree. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of ignorance in today's world. Everyone here obviously has access to the internet, and anyone with access to the internet has access to anything they could ever want to learn. Even people without the internet have local libraries, and schools, and every available oppurtunity to learn whatever they do not know.

For someone to make false conclusions out of ignorance is inexcusable. Everyone who denies evolution and the big bang has obviously heard of them and could thus research them if they felt so inclined, but people who don't know enough about them and thus deny them out of ignorance get no vote of sympathy or understanding in my mind. They simply need to search a little bit, read a little bit, and actually TRY to understand these things. If they can't be bothered to educate themselves, then they need to keep their mouth closed and their mind open and not jump to premature conclusion.

So no Strafio, it is not intelligent to believe in creationism if you don't know any better, because NOBODY can use "I don't know any better" as an excuse. If you don't know any better, then withold your judgement! It's that simple. Don't go drawing conclusions out of thin air about things you know absolutely nothing about; that's quite unintelligent in fact.

As for Ockham's razor, or the law of parsimony. It is to be applied to every set of possible explanations, always. It "cuts out" unnecessary assumptions, hence the name.

Every single phenomenon in the universe can be explained literally in INFINITE ways. You can make up infinite magical causes, intangible beings, alternate realities, etc. to explain everything from the origin of the cosmos to the sound a hammer makes when you hit a nail. Everyone tacitly agrees with Ockham's razor about 99% of the time, because most people simply accept the least presumptious explanations for everything around them.

You can explain a hammer's "Bang" sound in infinite ways, here are a couple:

1) The hammer head strikes the nail with such force that it causes powerful vibrations in both the nail and the hammer, and immediate surrounding materials. These vibrations translate their energy into the molecules in the air, creating waves of pulsating energy that travel in all directions through the air so long as their strength permits them. Our ears recieve these waves and by the design of our ears and brains, we translate them into sounds, and in the case of the hammer, these sounds are what we describe as a loud "Bang!" or "Crack!".

2) Everytime a hammer hits the nail, small intangible gremlins that naturally live inside the hammer head happen to scream at the terror of being flung around and having their home banged against things. Everytime you smack a nail, or anything, with a hammer, the little gremlins inside scream in unison out of terror. These screams are always heard as a loud "Bang!" or "Crack!" because that's how gremlins scream.

Now, both of these explanations equally fit what we observe, and equally explain what we observe. However, nobody of even moderate intelligence would entertain the second idea. Why is that? Because people intuitively understand that it is pointless to introduce extra assumptions (like the existence of intangible, screaming gremlins that for some reason or another live inside every hammer head on the planet) in order to explain something.

To be blunt, why make up a bunch of useless crap to explain something, when it can be explained perfectly without any extra assumptions?

It is because of this powerful maxim that belief in the supernatural is irrational. There is no conclusive proof, or even evidence at all, of anything supernatural. Supernatural explanations can explain things, yes. You could explain lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, farts, thunder, thunderous farts, the universe, life, the origin of life... In fact, you could explain EVERYTHING we observe with the supernatural. However, we have perfectly natural explanations for everything, so until we have PROOF that the supernatural is really behind these things, it is irrational to posit metaphyical beings to explain a problem that can be explained WITHOUT THEM.

Now do you understand, at least a little more Strafio? Ockham's razor is deviously simple, and really quite undeniable.

When you think about it, it's nothing more than an extension of an even MORE obvious axiom - do not accept any proposition until you have sufficient reason for doing so.

Of course the antithesis is - accept every possible proposition that can be imagined until it is sufficiently disproven. Obviously that's ridiculous, so obviously we must apply the principle of parsimony to everything.

[Knight_Errant]

To be blunt, why make up a bunch of useless crap to explain something, when it can be explained perfectly without any extra assumptions?
I like being blunt.
I don't think any parts of the bible are intended to be a metaphor. I think if you could somehow obtain a written text for the beliefs of all of the cultures that were around at the time when it was starting to be written, they would all be just as if not more embarrassing. However, I also think the 'morality' of the old testament is as hilariously outdated and fundamentally wrong as the rest of it. And that christianity as reinvented by St.Paul is a mysoginistic, wicked heresy. I could go on and on like this for hours if I wanted to.

[Strafio]

I strongly disagree. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of ignorance in today's world. Everyone here obviously has access to the internet, and anyone with access to the internet has access to anything they could ever want to learn. Even people without the internet have local libraries, and schools, and every available oppurtunity to learn whatever they do not know.
There's no reason why they can't have access to the information, I agree.
The thing is, there are lots of things that I have an opinion on, often uninformed. There are some subjects that if I knew better then I'd probably have a different opinion on. Does that mean I've made bad decisions in the meantime?

They simply need to search a little bit, read a little bit, and actually TRY to understand these things. If they can't be bothered to educate themselves, then they need to keep their mouth closed and their mind open and not jump to premature conclusion.
It takes more than a little research... it's pretty complicated stuff.
Fair enough if you've nothing better to do with your life but can you really expect intelligent people to cover every aspect of knowledge? Keeping the mind open is a good point. Perhaps you were specifically thinking about those who claim to have an informed opinion, who strongly try to make out they know science better than actual scientists?

For people with only a casual opinion on the subject, I think it's fair enough that they don't necessarily get it right, but make the best decision based on what they do know. So long as they're honest on how informed their opinion is.

So no Strafio, it is not intelligent to believe in creationism if you don't know any better, because NOBODY can use "I don't know any better" as an excuse. If you don't know any better, then withold your judgement! It's that simple. Don't go drawing conclusions out of thin air about things you know absolutely nothing about; that's quite unintelligent in fact.
Withold judgement until you know better? When do you know better?
When I look into something deeper, I almost always have a naive opinion to start with that shapes into a stronger one based on new findings. There are lots of things I have an opinion that I'm not wholy informed on. If I thought that I was an authority on these things that I could see that as a problem, but as I don't, what problem could there be?

As for Ockham's razor, or the law of parsimony. It is to be applied to every set of possible explanations, always. It "cuts out" unnecessary assumptions, hence the name.
...
...
...
Now do you understand, at least a little more Strafio? Ockham's razor is deviously simple, and really quite undeniable.
Good examples/explanation there. Kind of what I already guessed, but it re-inforced it. I'd still need to become more familiar with it to decide whether it should be used to cut an intelligent designer out of the equation. I'm not convinced it should cut out the supernatural either... maybe I will do in time but not at the moment.

[Socrastein]

My bad Strafio, I wasn't very clear. You're quite right, there's nothing wrong with having an uninformed opinion. I have uninformed opinions on somethings that I don't know a lot about, and I withold any opinion on some things I know nothing about.

I should have specified, I'm referring to people who throw their uninformed opinions around like they're absolute. People who deny evolution, but don't know anything about it for instance. It'd be more intellectually honest if the creationists who don't understand evolution (all of them if you ask me) simply say "I don't really agree with the theory, but I don't know all that much about it still. What could you tell me that maybe I don't know?". However, as we both now, that's not often the case. Usually they insist their right, whether they know what they're talking about or not.

[Radok]

No point arguing with obtuse people.
That is argument is quite insufficient for explaining your obviously flawed logic, and does in fact explain the reason for which I'm getting sick of arguing with you.

[Radok]

Doesn't the fact that your hypothesis was disproved in minutes help you to understand the difference between a theory that has been accepted by the scientific community, and what you are trying to make out the Theory of Evolution to be, a flight of fantasy without supporting evidence?


If your hypothesis (the one with no basis or evidence) was on an equivalent level to the Theory of Evolution then surely it would only take a few minutes for you to disprove Evolution in the same way?
My theory wasn't, and can't be proven or disproven, just like evolution. In short, it is not the stuff science is made of. Do you catch my drift?

[wrydolphin]

You mean unlike evolution, which has no less the three branches of science to support it and over a hundred years worth of acumulated evidence from literally thousands of scientists world wide?

[Moony]

My theory wasn't, and can't be proven or disproven, just like evolution. In short, it is not the stuff science is made of. Do you catch my drift?

It seems to me that you have little understanding of the scientific method to discount out of hand a theory that has amplet support.

You mean unlike evolution, which has no less the three branches of science to support it and over a hundred years worth of acumulated evidence from literally thousands of scientists world wide?

Ahem...all four brances of science.

;)

Moony

[medi]

My theory wasn't, and can't be proven or disproven, just like evolution. In short, it is not the stuff science is made of. Do you catch my drift?


No. Your drift is that you have too much personally invested in believing God made life to be open minded about the multitude of evidence that exists that he didn't, at least not it the way described in the Bible.

Who's more qualified to say whether evolution is 'the stuff science is made of'? You, or the thousands of scientists who use it as their model for the way the world actually works?


Can anyone find any Creationist 'scientists' who weren't Christians BEFORE they started examining the evidence? I'd like to see one who converted because they found the evidence for evolution lacking, because there are a few who've gone the other way.

[medi]

Ahem...all four brances of science.

;)

Moony

He did say no less than three. That includes 'four'.

[Aegis]

He did say no less than three. That includes 'four'.
I think you mean "she" ;)

[Moony]

He did say no less than three. That includes 'four'.

Blonde moment....i came online to look for some info and got distracted by map....

Moony

[CKava]

My theory wasn't, and can't be proven or disproven, just like evolution.
Evolution, in fact, could be disproven since it makes predictions that if falsified would prove the theory wrong.

[medi]

I think you mean "she" ;)


bleh

[Saz]

Charming the ladies again Medi? :D

[medi]

Charming the ladies again Medi? :D


Better to meet a girl you think is a guy than the other way around

[wrydolphin]

Unless you are the girl in question.

*off in a huff* :D:p

[medi]

Unless you are the girl in question.

*off in a huff* :D:p


Sorry hon


here

https://kumo.swcp.com/~pubs-us/rosesofroyce/images/roses/tf21-1.full.jpg

[Topher]

Well, I guess you believe in my transdimensional demons and his mushroom then. Unless, of course, you've disproven them.

These are claims, not theories.

[wrydolphin]

Apology accepting, but only because its not like there is a picture or something to go by. :)

[Radok]

It seems to me that you have little understanding of the scientific method to discount out of hand a theory that has amplet support.



Ample support? News to me, and I looked for quite a while.

[Radok]

These are claims, not theories.
When does it cross the line? And are you another one that believes the obviously rediculous notion that theories are believed true until proven false?

[Topher]

When does it cross the line? And are you another one that believes the obviously rediculous notion that theories are believed true until proven false?
1. You start with an hypothesis.
2. This hypothesis is tested.
3. Once it passes all of the test, and no other hypothesis can explain it better, it becomes a theory.

Evolution has passed all of the test and not a single person, in over 100 years has ever proven it incorrect.

Creationism on the other hand hasn't even made it passed the hypothesis stage - i.e. and claim which has yet to pass any tests and have ay supporting evidence.

In fact, the only "evidence" for creationism is the supposed "holes" in evolution. But, even if evolution were to be one day proven wrong (which i doubt, but lets assume), it still wouldn't mean another theory (creationism) takes its place by default.

[Strafio]

I should have specified, I'm referring to people who throw their uninformed opinions around like they're absolute. People who deny evolution, but don't know anything about it for instance.
Yeah. Those guys are asking to be put straight! :)

It'd be more intellectually honest if the creationists who don't understand evolution (all of them if you ask me) simply say "I don't really agree with the theory, but I don't know all that much about it still. What could you tell me that maybe I don't know?". However, as we both now, that's not often the case. Usually they insist their right, whether they know what they're talking about or not.
All the creationists I've met have been fairly humble and modest in their opinions, using words like "it does seem right to me" or "as a biologist I find the human body too complex" (the guy was a medic so it was applied biology rather than theoretical).

I've only found crazy ones on the internet.
So back to the original topic, I bet that out of the people who believed in creationism, only a slight few would claim to have a informed view of the subject, so that survey doesn't necessarily show our nation in bad mental health.

Big brother's ratings and Daily Mail readership on the other hand... :eek:

[Socrastein]

I've only found crazy ones on the internet.

Lucky you :) I've met plenty in person. I gave a presentation on Origin of Species in English my senior year of high school. We had to give a presentation on a book from the 1800s and it's impact on society and the world. I of course picked Darwin's book, and boy did the crazies come out with that one!

Probably didn't help that I started my presentation by reading a printout of the Genesis creation story and then tearing it up in front of the class :p

[Moony]

Ample support? News to me, and I looked for quite a while.

Well you've clearly been looking in the wrong places. Try picking up some first year undergrad level books and having a read through them. For Biology i'd recommend: Biological Scince 1 and 2 by Green, Stout and Taylor and edited by Soper. I believe it's a Cambridge University Press published book and most of the stuff you want is in book 2. For Geology i'd recommend: Homes' Principles of Physical Geology by Duff, i'm not sure of the publisher.

Now when you get these books please try to actually read the information without dismissing it out of hand. They arn't overly full of evidence for evolution, although Homes will be massivly against the young earth model.

However if you do dismis the evidence then that's not going to stop science continuing to find more evidence. Also even if we had say Hovinds way and it was removed from text books and not taught evolution would still happen. Denying it and living in ignorance won't stop it.

Adopting a young earth model could cause some problems with geolgy, principly the fields of seismology and volcanology. They'd have to start explaining the evidence older than 6000/10000 years by micky mouse things and it could damage the prediction of natural disasters. But all would be fine as the fundamentalists would have their way.

*rolls eyes*

Moony

[medi]

It's a funny coincidence that Creationists don't start picking apart things like e.g. covalent bonding which has also never been directly 'observed'. I mean, who here has ever seen a covalent bond? Hmmmm? Obviously the covalent bond is made up, and it's just the power of God holding all those molecules together.

No, remarkably, they only doubt science when it questions things that they already 'know' about solely because they have faith.

[medi]

Another key part of the hypothesis/Theory transition is that if you can't think of a way of testing the hypothesis, it is useless for scientific study for this reason: If no test exists, then the hypothesis doesn't affect the result of any experiment in any meaningful way, i.e. it doesn't have any impact on the real world..


In other words, "God made life" doesn't make a useful model for any scientific research, anywhere, because it doesn't actually tell us anything.

[holyheadjch]

Well you've clearly been looking in the wrong places. Try picking up some first year undergrad level books and having a read through them. For Biology i'd recommend: Biological Scince 1 and 2 by Green, Stout and Taylor and edited by Soper. I believe it's a Cambridge University Press published book and most of the stuff you want is in book 2. For Geology i'd recommend: Homes' Principles of Physical Geology by Duff, i'm not sure of the publisher.

Now when you get these books please try to actually read the information without dismissing it out of hand. They arn't overly full of evidence for evolution, although Homes will be massivly against the young earth model.

However if you do dismis the evidence then that's not going to stop science continuing to find more evidence. Also even if we had say Hovinds way and it was removed from text books and not taught evolution would still happen. Denying it and living in ignorance won't stop it.

Adopting a young earth model could cause some problems with geolgy, principly the fields of seismology and volcanology. They'd have to start explaining the evidence older than 6000/10000 years by micky mouse things and it could damage the prediction of natural disasters. But all would be fine as the fundamentalists would have their way.

*rolls eyes*

Moony
It doesn't matter if their beliefs directly lead to many deaths, so long as their way is the accepted way.

[wrydolphin]

I have yet to find evidence of a "creation scientist" who is not a lier and fraud. Just so you know the type of people you are defending with your creationism tripe, here's the link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

[holyheadjch]

"truth is no substitute for faith!"

Atot Almoron

[Radok]

1. You start with an hypothesis.
2. This hypothesis is tested.
3. Once it passes all of the test, and no other hypothesis can explain it better, it becomes a theory.

Evolution has passed all of the test and not a single person, in over 100 years has ever proven it incorrect.

Creationism on the other hand hasn't even made it passed the hypothesis stage - i.e. and claim which has yet to pass any tests and have ay supporting evidence.

In fact, the only "evidence" for creationism is the supposed "holes" in evolution. But, even if evolution were to be one day proven wrong (which i doubt, but lets assume), it still wouldn't mean another theory (creationism) takes its place by default.
I don't think you see what I am saying. Just because something is not disproven, does not make it true. Christianity has it's own theory on how stuff got here, which can't be disproven, and you said the third step is having a better explaination than anyone else. Well better is a matter of opinion, not fact, and in my opinion creationism is a better explaination that evolution. So creationism meets your criteria for a theory. See why "better" can't be used as a criteria? Who decides what's better?

[Gajah Silat]

Radok

What is exactly Cristianity's Theory?

Do you mean Genesis in the OT?

The problem with fundamentalists is they do not seem to have the capacity for metaphor and allegory.

C'mon, you don't really believe an supernatural being actually knocked out a whole universe in 6 days surely?

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, especialy with the recent advances in genetics.

So creationism meets your criteria for a theory
Apart from this bit
2. This hypothesis is tested.
Oh and this bit
3. Once it passes all of the test, and no other hypothesis can explain it better, it becomes a theory.

So, please explain how a creationist hypothesis has been tested :confused:

[CKava]

Radok you selected one word 'better' took it out of context and then came to the (false) conclusion that 'preference' was the sole criteria with which evolution and creationism are judged by...

You are wrong and that was clearly not the point Homer was making. Here again is a further explanation of why Creationism is not simply another equally supported theory:

Evolution is a theory based on scientific facts, it makes predictions which could easily be falsified and would have been if the theory was incorrect. So far not one piece of evidence has been found which contradicts the predictions the theory makes (all you need is a fossil in a strata it shouldn't be... just one!). Evolution is an accepted scientific theory due to which many scientific advancements have been made and those who argue for evolution are usually scientists actually involved in scientific work.

Creationism is a theory based on what it says in the Bible. There are no scientific facts that support creationism. Creationism doesn't make any falsifiable predictions any longer because all the predictions it made in the past were proved false (like the irreducable complexity of the flagella). So much evidence has been found which contradicts creationism its silly... Creationism is not an accepted scientific theory nor are its promoters involved with any scientific progress or research outside of trying to come up with new ways to attack evolution.

Creationism is not on an equal footing with Evolution when looked at from a rational point of view.

[Moony]

I don't think you see what I am saying. Just because something is not disproven, does not make it true. Christianity has it's own theory on how stuff got here, which can't be disproven, and you said the third step is having a better explaination than anyone else. Well better is a matter of opinion, not fact, and in my opinion creationism is a better explaination that evolution. So creationism meets your criteria for a theory. See why "better" can't be used as a criteria? Who decides what's better?

What makes creationism the 'better' option then? I know the answer will be somewhat emotive/personal but please bear in mind I don't appreciate being ranted/preached at by any religious type. I'd like your opinion not a sermon basically.

Moony

[medi]

Well better is a matter of opinion, not fact,


Not in science.

One viewpoint has a ton of physical evidence for it and can make accurate predictions based on its model, while the other, by definition has no evidence whatsoever and is pure conjecture.

The first viewpoint is better, scientifically, and will be a far more useful model for the purpose of furthering mankind's knowledge, even if details of the model have to be modified along the way.

[Radok]

No, the word better is most definitely within the realm of opinion. Two scientists often have two different opinions of what is better between two theories. Better can definitely not be a criteria for a theory. In fact, you guys make fun of me, claiming I no nothing of the scientific method, and you guys can't even pin down what a theory actually is. I believe it is a hypothosis with at least one falsifiable statement, and if that is the case, I think you would agree that just because something is a theory definitely does not even suggest that it's true. Even under those criteria, it is easy to come up with very rediculous things that could qualify as theories. So just because it is a scientific theory, does not make evolution any better than the wild flights of fancy that I can come up with.

[Radok]

What makes creationism the 'better' option then? I know the answer will be somewhat emotive/personal but please bear in mind I don't appreciate being ranted/preached at by any religious type. I'd like your opinion not a sermon basically.

Moony
Just my opinion that God is more worthy of my faith than the scanty arguments for how evolution could have come about. I am not arguing that creationism is good science, I am arguing that evolution isn't.

[wrydolphin]

Creation isn't science, period, much less good or bad science. Creationism is a crock that is perpetrated by people who are too afriad to look critically at their faith.

If I sound angry its because I am, though not at you specifically. I am angry at all the so-called scientists out there pumping this stuff out despite the fact that they know that it is bad science and incorrect. I am mad at the people falling all over themselves to lie and cheat honest Christians who don't know any better. I am mad that they would deny the truth to others while compensating privately.

[Moony]

Just my opinion that God is more worthy of my faith than the scanty arguments for how evolution could have come about. I am not arguing that creationism is good science, I am arguing that evolution isn't.

What makes evolution a poo science? Because as far as i knew it was held up to the same level of testing and verification that all science is. So by questioning evolution you're also bringing a number of other areas of science into the spot light.

What about the age of the Earth? And the dating methods used for rock strata? And our knowledge of radioactive decay? The nature of the atom?

Moony

[medi]

Just my opinion that God is more worthy of my faith than the scanty arguments for how evolution could have come about. I am not arguing that creationism is good science, I am arguing that evolution isn't.

Who cares whether it's worthy of your faith? Science is about finding the truth so that all our lives can be improved, it's not a popularity contest.

[yodaofcoolness]

Ok... I have not read all the past posts, so excuse me if this was mentioned already.

If you look at the theory of the big bang and evolution does the time frame in which things happen not resemble the way it says in the Bible?
1) In the beginning God created heavens and earth. Then the Bible talks about seperation of light from darkness and seperation of water, like vapor turned to liquid, as if some things cooled down... (big bang)
2) Also look at how in the Bible simple life forms were formed first, lifeforms in the water and then on land and so forth untill man. Notice man comes last.

In thoes pics of evolution where the monkey turns into a man, notice the man comes last. They never show a man turning into a monkey.

I find it very interesting that the order things happen in the Bible is very similar to evolution considering its age in contrast to evolution.

[Radok]

Who cares whether it's worthy of your faith? Science is about finding the truth so that all our lives can be improved, it's not a popularity contest.
That's my point, that's why niether creationism nor evolution should be tought as fact, as evolution often is in schools.

[Radok]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=4

Also, the bible says that plants were there before the sun. When it's only one day, no problem, but when you enterperate the meaning of a day to be a million years in an attempt at mixing evolution with the bible, you have a problem.

[yodaofcoolness]

Also, the bible says that plants were there before the sun.
Where?

[Moony]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=4

Also, the bible says that plants were there before the sun. When it's only one day, no problem, but when you enterperate the meaning of a day to be a million years in an attempt at mixing evolution with the bible, you have a problem.

You see, now that you posted a link to that persons site any miniscule amount of respect I might have had for your thoughts has now gone. He's so bad even mainstream creationists don't associate with him!

Moony

[Aegis]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=4

Also, the bible says that plants were there before the sun. When it's only one day, no problem, but when you enterperate the meaning of a day to be a million years in an attempt at mixing evolution with the bible, you have a problem.
Please, no more links to Kent Hovind... That guy is a complete hypocrite in addition to being either a liar or an idiot. You actually demean yourself by posting links to his site, so make your own case look better by not linking to a guy who claims a doctorate for a piece of work less well-written and researched than some of my undergraduate (possibly even a-level) coursework, as well as lying about what scientists actually say, then "misunderstanding" some fairly basic science in order to support his view.

I truly pity any student who he actually taught high school science to. They mustn't have actually understood much science by the end of it.

[medi]

That's my point, that's why niether creationism nor evolution should be tought as fact, as evolution often is in schools.


It's as much fact as the rest of science. You only object because this happens to cross your personal beliefs - the science behind it has nothing to do with it.

If you admit that, I think everyone would be more respectful.

[holyheadjch]

Please, no more links to Kent Hovind... That guy is a complete hypocrite in addition to being either a liar or an idiot. You actually demean yourself by posting links to his site, so make your own case look better by not linking to a guy who claims a doctorate for a piece of work less well-written and researched than some of my undergraduate (possibly even a-level) coursework, as well as lying about what scientists actually say, then "misunderstanding" some fairly basic science in order to support his view.

I truly pity any student who he actually taught high school science to. They mustn't have actually understood much science by the end of it.
he's the kind of guy who can actually unteach

[Aegis]

he's the kind of guy who can actually unteach
Now that I'd agree with. Anyone without a reasonable understanding of, say, the second law of thermodynamics could actually come away from one of his seminars knowing less about that law than when they went in.

[Moony]

he's the kind of guy who can actually unteach

That's scarey!!

Moony

[BendzR]

Probably didn't help that I started my presentation by reading a printout of the Genesis creation story and then tearing it up in front of the class :p

ROFL :eek:

[Socrastein]

Radok

Kindly tell me what it would take for you to change your mind. You said earlier that you are searching for truth and understanding, and you implied that you're open-minded, so unless you were lying, that means that there is a manner in which your beliefs may change. Tell me, what would it take? What piece(s) of evidence would it take to show you that you are wrong about evolution? What piece(s) of evidence woulod it take to show you that Genesis isn't supposed to be interepreted literally?

I see three possibilities here.

1) Nothing can change your mind, and thus you were lying, both to me and yourself, when you said you were searching for truth with an open mind.

2) The evidence you'd need to change your mind is so staggeringly unattainable that you might as well say nothing can change your mind, and you're still just as close-minded.

3) Something could change your mind, some reasonable measure of evidence or logic, if presented to you, would make you rethink your views because you actually are open-minded, you actually do want to know the way things really are, and you truly do have a desire for factual truth.

So I ask again, what is it you need to see before you'll change your mind? Is there anything that would sway you? Do you require things that can't be possibly given?

Are you honest enough with yourself that you could admit that you are close-minded and you have no desire for truth, if this is was the case?

[Radok]

Creation isn't science, period, much less good or bad science. Creationism is a crock that is perpetrated by people who are too afriad to look critically at their faith.

If I sound angry its because I am, though not at you specifically. I am angry at all the so-called scientists out there pumping this stuff out despite the fact that they know that it is bad science and incorrect. I am mad at the people falling all over themselves to lie and cheat honest Christians who don't know any better. I am mad that they would deny the truth to others while compensating privately.
I do not consider creationism science. There, I said it. I don't consider evolution science either. I consider them to both be a matter of faith unworthy of the title "Science".

[Radok]

I would need to see some kind of way that evolution could have occured without flying in the face of all the odds.

[CKava]

I consider them to both be a matter of faith unworthy of the title "Science".
Fortunately your biased judgements have nothing to do with what does and doesn't meet the requirements of being a supported scientific theory. The scientific community en masse agrees with your position on creationism however the same can't be said for evolution. You might not like it (though I doubt you really have done much research into the theory) but evolution ALREADY IS SCIENCE :D.

[tekkengod]

Just my opinion that God is more worthy of my faith than the scanty arguments for how evolution could have come about. I am not arguing that creationism is good science, I am arguing that evolution isn't.

oh yea sure, theres SO MUCH supporting that idea :rolleyes:

[Socrastein]

I would need to see some kind of way that evolution could have occured without flying in the face of all the odds.

What "odds" are you referring to, specifically?

[Moony]

I would need to see some kind of way that evolution could have occured without flying in the face of all the odds.

........

There are no odds against evolution and neither does it fly against any.

And if you don't view creationism as science then why are you using links to one of the worst creationists there ever was??

Moony

[CKava]

I think what he meant by odds against is the astronomical odds against the conditions arising to make life possible. However this is an error as although the odds are significantly stacked against conditions being created which sustain life the fact is they did occur and the evidence is all around us. The argument that the odds are too great against it, to be merely chance does not work; to illustrate imagine you played a game of poker and recorded all the hands you received, if you then worked out the odds that you would be dealt those exact cards you would find the odds against it would also be astronomical... but it still happened and it was still merely chance. Not to mention that astronomical odds become rather less significant when you have astronomical amounts of time.

[Topher]

2) Also look at how in the Bible simple life forms were formed first, lifeforms in the water and then on land and so forth untill man. Notice man comes last.

Wrong.

In Genesis chapter 1 it says man and women were created after the animals. But in chapter 2 it says man was created first, then the animals, then woman.

Chapter 1 says life appeared on land as plants on the third day, before life arose in the sea, which happened on the fifth day. However science shows that the sea contained life for about 3 billion years before life appeared on land.

It also says birds were created on the fifth day and the reptiles on the sixth but science proves that reptiles were around a 100 million years or more before the birds.

Take a read of this: http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Science_Classes_and_Creationism.htm

[BendzR]

"against all odds"

Origin of Life and Evolution are not the same.

Don't confuse evolutionary concepts with the problem of biogenesis. There are no "odds" against evolution.

Unlike creationism, evolution has got nothing to do with the origin of life. It has only to do with the changing inevitable nature of life itself. The topic of life spawning is a totally different subject.

[Socrastein]

I think you meant abiogenesis BendzR :)

[BendzR]

woops! :D

[Strafio]

I would need to see some kind of way that evolution could have occured without flying in the face of all the odds.
When you say against odds, you mean you don't think it could've happened by random chance?

If there was an intelligent designer fiddling with these odds (as you believe), do you think that evolution could've been his way of doing things? Or do you reckon that evolution = atheism?

[Radok]

^yeah, I would say evolution=atheism. Because if God is smart enough to make everything, he is smart enough to make animals correctly for their environment. Not torture them with all kinds of physical shortcomings and millions of years of dying just to come up with the properly formed animal, like evolution says. And yes, I find it extremely hard to believe that the incredible complexities needed for a single cell to live would come up by random chance.

[BendzR]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the incredible complexities needed for a single cell to live would come up by random chance.

Origin of Life and Evolution are not the same thing.

Atheism and Theism are different (in regards to origin of life) based on what started life. Atheism stated "Something other than God started Life" and Theism states "God started Life". Neither of those outlooks have any correlation with Evolution.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. Should I repeat it ? Incase you didn't get it before when I posted it ?

Evolution is not about the origin of life.

I don't mean to sound condecending, but I cannot stress this enough.

Evolution is the process of life changing. A totally different topic to Abiogenesis (origin of life without a creator).

Most Creationists actually believe in speciation (in otherwords they don't deny evolutionary concepts) but they believe God created life.

In otherwords, Theism and Evolution do not contradict each other (in Regards to what I'm refering to). It's the link that Evolution has to Abiogenesis which bothers the Theist.

To say that someone cannot be a Theist if they believe in Evolution is completely ignorant.

[Moony]

I would say evolution=atheism

Well you'd be wrong. As I'm Agnostic and have no issues with Evolution.

Moony

[medi]

Because if God is smart enough to make everything, he is smart enough to make animals correctly for their environment. Not torture them with all kinds of physical shortcomings and millions of years of dying just to come up with the properly formed animal, like evolution says.


Yeah, the natural world that God created is clearly so kind to the animals.

For gazelles, getting torn apart by a hungry leopard is clearly a hobby.


Do you actually think the world as designed by God is kinder to animals than the one designed by Evolution? Or are you just quoting Hovind without thinking?

[pj_goober]

Ok, i'm coming to this thread late, but heres a point that seems to have been missed (appologies if i just didn't see it when someone mentioned it earlier).

Evolution is not a theory of creation, it is a process by which all living things change. We can observe this change. Radok > you believe in dogs right? Within the recorded history of humanity, dogs have evolved and changed (domesticated) from feral wolves. You can clearly see quite dramatic genetic differances between breeds of dogs. This is evolution in action. The same is true of numerous other recorded examples of both natural (look into SARS and MRSA) and unnatural selection (do some research into Unnatural selection as a farming technique, or Mendels peas)

Assuming you do not doubt that dogs exist (or any of the other examples that i have given that PROVE evolution happens) surely you accept this process as a means of change. Hence Evolution (this process of change) is scientific fact.

Now - maybe this isn't the bit you are struggling with, in terms of sciences explaintation of how life came into being. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, the origins of life are very complicated and confusing, and require a depth of knowledge about biochemisty amongst other things. But we'll leave that debate for now. Can you at least concede that evolution (the process of change [due to genetics] that can be seen and proven) happens.

[BendzR]

(appologies if i just didn't see it when someone mentioned it earlier).

How 'bout 3 posts earlier ;) :D :D

[pj_goober]

How 'bout 3 posts earlier ;) :D :D

D'OH!!!!

oh well.

[Topher]

Radok

Look at the H5N1 (bird flu) virus, which is mutating, possibly into a form which can pass from human to human. That is evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5N1

[Socrastein]

And yes, I find it extremely hard to believe that the incredible complexities needed for a single cell to live would come up by random chance.

So do I. Fortunately, abiogenesis doesn't say that a fully formed cell the likes of what we see today randomly formed out of nowhere. Your comment shows that you have not bothered to attain even a basic understanding of what you're talking about. You're just parroting Hovind because you can't be bothered to think for yourself. If you're going to let someone do the thinking for you on evolution, let it be a respected biologist, Dawkins for example, not the world's most idiotic creationist.

So those "odds" are completely irrelevent and have nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. So, I ask again, what odds must be overcome in your mind for you to accept evolution? And if it were proven to you that the odds you have a problem with weren't a problem, would you actually change your mind? Or would you just find some other problem with the theory? Is there really anything that could change your mind, or are you so close-minded that nothing anyone says will change your narrow little worldview?

[Radok]

When I see life arise from non life spontaneously, then maybe, there would be at least a tiny, slim chance that I would think evolution might be possible. The whole thing from the bottom up just takes a lot of faith to believe in. And yes, I can and do always think for myself and question everything I'm told. I do not need to be told my beliefs by anyone.

[Radok]

Yeah, the natural world that God created is clearly so kind to the animals.

For gazelles, getting torn apart by a hungry leopard is clearly a hobby.


Do you actually think the world as designed by God is kinder to animals than the one designed by Evolution? Or are you just quoting Hovind without thinking?
Yes, I do think that God made earth a kind place for all the animals, and when man brought sin into the world it just fell apart into the mess we have today.

[Radok]

Evolution is not about the origin of life.

You don't think the majority of evolutionists believe that evolution started life?

[BendzR]

Evolution, by Scientific definition, cannot possibly start life.

Evolution means "to evolve" which requires life to exist before it starts to function.

The process of non-life to life, has very little to do with Evolution. So I think its a bit rash to say Evolution has a direct relation with Atheism. Many people who are strong supporters of Evolution actually believe that Evolution supports the idea of Theism.

Many people believe that some devine supernatural something started life, and once it existed in a very simple form, Evolution took over and we came from that.

The reason for this, is because - to my understanding - Abiogenesis (the biochemical science that is all about non-life to life) seems to be very unlikely and random.

Mind you, I last read a book about this topic in 2002, so my understanding on where Science is regarding the origins of life, is not very up to date to be honest.

Either way, Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor does it intend to. It would be like trying to explain long devision with only plus and minus.

They are independant fields.

[medi]

Yes, I do think that God made earth a kind place for all the animals, and when man brought sin into the world it just fell apart into the mess we have today.

So the animals weren't killing and eating each other before that?

[BendzR]

According to the Bible - which I assume he will go ahead and agree with - Yes. Death did not occur. It just did not. Until Adam and Eve spawn the king of sin by disobeying their creator, everything is tip top. No one stepped on Ants, and Croccodiles were herbivores. ;)

This arguement is the reason why Creationists say that if you are to believe the Bible you must believe in Genesis and its record of creation.

I totally agree with it. If you are going to follow a religion which is based on a man who dies for sin - and the 'original sin' as well - then you must have some concept of the origin of sin. If you neglect the Genesis story, then you might as well neglect Jesus and the cross, because without the original sin, its pretty much pointless.

Now, I do not believe an Evolutionist cannot be a theist. But yes, a Evolutionist cannot really be a Christian, unless he totally rearranges the Bible and the Theory of Evolution so they can suit the concept of dying for original sin. Which I guess is possible, but it personally makes me raise an eyebrow.

[wrydolphin]

I would like to point out that NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES THAT EVOLUTION IS ABOUT ABIOGENESIS!!!!

Evolution is about change over time. I highly suggest that you do some reading on the theory so that you don't get smushed when any biologist decides to address your poor arguementation. For the time being, I myself am busy with people who know better arguements.

[pj_goober]

You don't think the majority of evolutionists believe that evolution started life?


By this post you have not only proved that you know NOTHING about evolution, but that you didn't read either BendzR's or my posts on the matter, which is just plain rude.

Learn what you're talking about, or shut up.

[Moony]

By this post you have not only proved that you know NOTHING about evolution, but that you didn't read either BendzR's or my posts on the matter, which is just plain rude.

Learn what you're talking about, or shut up.

Goo, creationists cherry pick, it's what they do best it seems.

Moony

[Radok]

By this post you have not only proved that you know NOTHING about evolution, but that you didn't read either BendzR's or my posts on the matter, which is just plain rude.

Learn what you're talking about, or shut up.
I'll ask again. Do you, or do you not, believe that evolution was the origin of life? I actually know a decent bit about evolution, but there is no need for complexity if you guys can't give a straight answer on such a foundational question. Answer the question or shut up. See, I can be rude too, it doesn't make you special.

[Aegis]

I'll ask again. Do you, or do you not, believe that evolution was the origin of life? I actually know a decent bit about evolution, but there is no need for complexity if you guys can't give a straight answer on such a foundational question. Answer the question or shut up. See, I can be rude too, it doesn't make you special.
The answer has already been provided: evolution does not address the origin of life, just the origin of biodiversity.

Mod note to everyone: try to keep it a little bit civil please.

[Radok]

If you guys do not think life evolved, you're not really evolutionists, are you? In any case, if you don't think it arose from natural means, it must have come from supernatural, which would make you a theist, and then the only difference between us is I believe in a God who could make stuff correctly, and you believe in a God who needed billions of years to reach the same final product.

[wrydolphin]

If you guys do not think life evolved, you're not really evolutionists, are you? In any case, if you don't think it arose from natural means, it must have come from supernatural, which would make you a theist, and then the only difference between us is I believe in a God who could make stuff correctly, and you believe in a God who needed billions of years to reach the same final product.
Oh for Pete's sake!
Please go to your local elementary school, library or other book depository and pick up the Encyclopedia Brittanica and look up evolution. Evolution is about the creation of variation and the creation of new species, NOT as you so willfully misconstrue, the formation of life.

I would also like to point out that this issue is not black and white as you seem to also insist. There are many Christians that have gotten past the fact that evolution has occurred and is still occurring. The only one who does not believe otherwise is you.

Abiogenesis is the name of a set of theories that deal with how life might have been formed biochemically. If you are going to rant about a theory, please get the thoeries correct.

[Aegis]

If you guys do not think life evolved, you're not really evolutionists, are you? In any case, if you don't think it arose from natural means, it must have come from supernatural, which would make you a theist, and then the only difference between us is I believe in a God who could make stuff correctly, and you believe in a God who needed billions of years to reach the same final product.
Evolution as a theory addresses biodiversification of a population of imperfectly replicating life forms. Why would this address the origins of the population any more than chemistry examines the origins of matter?

As wry said, abiogenesis hypotheses are designed to attempt to explain how/where life first developed, and certain experiments suppoirt the notion that simple life could feasibly form from non-life (for example, Miller and Urey's experiment to create amino acids from natural molecules). However, this is actually a seperate branch of science to evolution, and has considerably less direct evidence backing it simply because the origin of life is a one-off event (that we are aware of) billions of years in the past, while evolution happens all around us every day.

[AZeitung]

According to the Bible - which I assume he will go ahead and agree with - Yes. Death did not occur. It just did not. Until Adam and Eve spawn the king of sin by disobeying their creator, everything is tip top. No one stepped on Ants, and Croccodiles were herbivores. ;)

This arguement is the reason why Creationists say that if you are to believe the Bible you must believe in Genesis and its record of creation.

I totally agree with it. If you are going to follow a religion which is based on a man who dies for sin - and the 'original sin' as well - then you must have some concept of the origin of sin. If you neglect the Genesis story, then you might as well neglect Jesus and the cross, because without the original sin, its pretty much pointless.

Now, I do not believe an Evolutionist cannot be a theist. But yes, a Evolutionist cannot really be a Christian, unless he totally rearranges the Bible and the Theory of Evolution so they can suit the concept of dying for original sin. Which I guess is possible, but it personally makes me raise an eyebrow.
According to the bible, Jesus didn't just die to save us from original sin, but from all sin - as in, every sin you specifically commit. Considering the fact that baptisms continued after Jesus, I don't think he was meant to just remove original sin. And since the Catholic church hasn't had a problem with evolution since at least the 1950s, I think it's difficult to say that you can't believe in evolution and still be a Christian.

Besides, original sin can still exist even in the context of evolution, especially if you take the story of Genesis allegorically.

[Topher]

Besides, original sin can still exist even in the context of evolution, especially if you take the story of Genesis allegorically.
How so?

[pj_goober]

I'll ask again. Do you, or do you not, believe that evolution was the origin of life?
No, i don't. Neither does anyone who knows anything about evolution, see below....
I actually know a decent bit about evolution.
Sorry, but i disagree, as evidenced by your insistant stance that evolution is some sort of creation theory. Not only do you know next to nothing about evolution but you continually refuse to actually read peoples posts on the matter. As i have posted my explaination on what evolution is once, (and had it ignored) i thought i'd post it again. maybe you'd care to read it this time?

Evolution is not a theory of creation, it is a process by which all living things change. We can observe this change. Radok > you believe in dogs right? Within the recorded history of humanity, dogs have evolved and changed (domesticated) from feral wolves. You can clearly see quite dramatic genetic differances between breeds of dogs. This is evolution in action. The same is true of numerous other recorded examples of both natural (look into SARS and MRSA) and unnatural selection (do some research into Unnatural selection as a farming technique, or Mendels peas)

Assuming you do not doubt that dogs exist (or any of the other examples that i have given that PROVE evolution happens) surely you accept this process as a means of change. Hence Evolution (this process of change) is scientific fact.

Now - maybe this isn't the bit you are struggling with, in terms of sciences explaintation of how life came into being. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, the origins of life are very complicated and confusing, and require a depth of knowledge about biochemisty amongst other things. But we'll leave that debate for now. Can you at least concede that evolution (the process of change [due to genetics] that can be seen and proven) happens.

[Radok]

So you just don't have any idea where life came from, then? Well, just about every other evolutionists I have spoken with believes that life evolved. In the case of wolves, they are not a different species from domestic dogs. They can breed a litter with a domestic dog, and that litter is capable of breeding another generation, which is the definition of species. Dogs have not evolved.

[wrydolphin]

Ah, grasshopper, this is where you are incorrect. In more ways then one.

A.) The evolution of new species is not "the evolution of life" or abiogenesis as was previously pointed out to.

B.) Dogs have evolved. They are generally not placed in the same species as wolves, not unless you are a serious lumper (somone who lumps several species into one species, usually resulting in several sub species). Dogs rarely interbreed with wolves naturally, most crosses are human forced. Also, dogs vary greatly from wolves in skull morphology and temperment. Most wolves would consider dogs to be an annoying teenager as dog behavior is that of an adolescent, as dogs evolved to fit around human temperment and expectations. When you look at ancient skeletons of dogs, they are actually different then modern dogs in that they are generally more homologous (as humans had less of an influence in their breeding) but they are definatly less predatory then wolves. Tigers can breed with lions, yet you wouldn't call them the same species and dolphins can reproduce with small beaked whales, and they are definately not the same species. When two species rarely interbreed naturally, then we can and often do consider them as belonging to seperate species.

[BendzR]

According to the bible, Jesus didn't just die to save us from original sin, but from all sin - as in, every sin you specifically commit.

All sin includes the original sin, does it not ?

Besides, original sin can still exist even in the context of evolution, especially if you take the story of Genesis allegorically.

I'm sure you can, but I am sure you can see why many Christians believe literal Genesis is required.

If you are willing, I would like to hear how you personally interpretate Genesis (in detail) but if it's too much writing for your fancy, then no worries.

I may have been a bit rash in saying "I totally agree with this arguement", so I'll backpedal and say that I totally understand why this arguement exists and for what reason.

;)

As for Dogs being not a new species :confused:

Dolphin showed that you can define a species based on its breeding tendency as well as its physical construction. Another way to define a species would be - I imagine - how they are fit for different environments.

For example, Africans and Eskimos would prefer different environments but they can still survive both in Australia, or where ever. So they are still both in the same species, even if they have different features and skin colour.

Now, compare a Wolf to a Poodle. Poodles would have a hard time to make a week in a harsh environment where Wolves might thrive. A Wolf on the other hand, would probably die pretty quickly in a suburban neighbourhood. Since it would kill someones pet, or intimidate someone, which would result it being shot in the head.

They can obviously function better and worse, in different environments, which to me, would make them a different species.

[Aegis]

So you just don't have any idea where life came from, then? Well, just about every other evolutionists I have spoken with believes that life evolved.

In the sense that every living thing evolves, then I suppose you could say that not only has life evolved, but it also is evolving and will continue to evolve as long as selective pressures influence the propagation of mutations through successive generations, but this certainly does not state that "life started from non-life".

As you have been told on numerous occasions now, abiogenesis is a separate area of science to evolutionary theory, and I'm quite simply amazed that you don't appear to have been able to accept this so far.


Many (possibly even most) scientists also feel that abiogenesis is the best available explanation for life existing in the first place, but calling that evolution is incorrect.

[Aegis]

As for the definition of a species, this is something that confuses an awful lot of people, myself included! A species is basically defined as a genetically isolated group of organisms, one which does not or cannot pass on genes to another group of organisms. Now, the problems with this lie when you consider that this would appear to define individual packs of creatures as species in their own right, but since young members of almost all species are known to occasionally be adpoted by other species and therefore pass on genes, this is hopefully dealt with, leaving the more useful (in my opinion) definition.

The fertility issue is probably the better explanation of a species, in that two creatures must be able to produce a fertile offspring in order to be considered the same species. As such, a lion and tiger producing a liger does not make them the same species, as the liger is infertile (same story with a mule). Naturally this definition can be quite a tricky one to apply, as specation is not an instantaneous process and can take several generations to develop completely separate genetic species, leaving species as a somewhat difficult word to define ;)

At least it's better than "kind" used by creationists though...

[holyheadjch]

If you guys do not think life evolved, you're not really evolutionists, are you? In any case, if you don't think it arose from natural means, it must have come from supernatural, which would make you a theist, and then the only difference between us is I believe in a God who could make stuff correctly, and you believe in a God who needed billions of years to reach the same final product.
I'd like to point out that either way God did a pretty shabby job, I have a dodgy back and a dodgy knee, and dodgy shins - in industry you'd get fired for building a product with that many flaws, not to mention the appendix - clearly gods answer to building us, and being left with the token piece left over. If God did create us as we are today - then he is a candidate for the worst engineer of all time.

[pj_goober]

So you just don't have any idea where life came from, then? Well, just about every other evolutionists I have spoken with believes that life evolved.

I have an idea about where life came from, but its irrelevent to this argument. As people have said the creation of life has scientific hypothesese about it, but none that can be proven. This is why Abiogenesis is not taught in schools. Evolution is a FACT. this is why it is taught in schools. Lumping evolution together with creation theories (be they scientific or theological) is only done by people who know nothing about evolution, or those that do but cynically ignore what they know as they have a vested interest in Intelligent design being taught in our schools.

If the argument was "abiogenesis is taught in science class so why isn't Intelligent Design" i might have some sympathy (as there is [as yet*] little proof of abiogenesis)

*i'm sure there will be soon, at which point creationists will be right proper #beep#ed.

In the case of wolves, they are not a different species from domestic dogs. They can breed a litter with a domestic dog, and that litter is capable of breeding another generation, which is the definition of species. Dogs have not evolved.

Dude, read a book that isn't the bible. Even (sane) creationist would accept that dogs are evolved from wolves - its recorded human history.
In fact since in species with a fast gestation period we can see evolution happening (again [and i taking a guess that you didn't before] take a look at a book about medels peas) anyone who argues that "evolution does not happen" is simply misinformed.

[thepunisher]

I've been reading this thread for a while and even though its a good argument and a good topic to discuss does it really matter in the end if god created us or it was evolution ? The fact is, we are made of atoms, which build up cells, which make us. The fact is, we are 94 % made of water. The fact is, we can reproduce. The fact is.......we are alive ! Whether thats due to some imaginary figure out there or due to some chemical processes doesn't really matter. We can't change it anyhows.

Let one group believe there is something out there that created us and let the other group believe that there was something called the "Big Bang". Neither can be proven, the thing is why spent all of our lifes discussing where we come from instead of simply enjoying that we are alive. And by making it this science vs religion thingy again the only thing that happens is that we create enemies within our own kind.

Christian

[pj_goober]

Because knowledge about the wolrd and how the world works betters mankind for everyone. Due to our knowledge of evolution (and related subjects such as genetics), we better understand the human body on a genetic (and macroscopic) level and this knowledge leads to better medicine. Its true of every sphere of human knowledge. If everyone simply accepted what they were told and read the religious text they were given as "the truth" without questioning or attempting to better understand things - we'd still be living in the middle ages. Science is the process of questioning - EVERYTHING. take all scientific developments away from mankind and we're barely better than chimpanzees.

Even religions accept that science is worth listening too (eventually) and religious beliefs (like it or not) change with scientific develoupments. Frankly Intelligent Design is a very good way of fitting the FACTS about evolution into the standard christian belief system. I have no quarrels with the theory of intelligent design (although i don't believe it) Look even furthur back - Galileo proved the world was spherical and travelled around the sun. the greatest christian minds of the time imprisoned, excommunicated and tortured him, for his insistance at this, nowadays no christians still think the world is flat or that it is orbitted by the sun (Radok - please prove me wrong!). The Religious view of the world has changed because of science. So you are right the two can work hand in hadn (although it is science that does all the actual work :p )

What i am arguing against is the fact that christian phillosophy should be taught with the same standing as scientific facts about genetics and evolution of species. I'm also trying to educate someone about what evolution actually is (final time - ITS GOT NOWT TO DO WITH CREATION)

goober
:)

[Radok]

Evolution is a FACT.



No, it isn't.
Wolves are dogs, they are the same species. The fact that they are listed as a different species is a misnomer.

[tekkengod]

No, it isn't.



Yes it is.

*commence 5 year old ignorant argue mode*

[Aegis]

No, it isn't.
Wolves are dogs, they are the same species. The fact that they are listed as a different species is a misnomer.
Would you like to back that up with some scientific evidence? One search on google was all it took to show me that canis familiaris (domesticated dogs) and canis lupis (grey wolves) are classed as different species, so obviously the scientists who have studied taxonomy all their lives seem to think they should be different species.

In any case, I'm not entirely sure why you're going down this line on reasoning. Even if you somehow managed to show that dogs and wolves should still be classed as the same species, what would it prove? Nothing other than the fact itself. We can still observe evolution happening, we can still observe speciation in short-lived populations, and we can still examine the evidence from the past (fossil record and DNA evidence) to conclude that evolution happened, is happening and probably will continue to happen.

[thepunisher]

Would you like to back that up with some scientific evidence? One search on google was all it took to show me that canis familiaris (domesticated dogs) and canis lupis (grey wolves) are classed as different species, so obviously the scientists who have studied taxonomy all their lives seem to think they should be different species.

Actually they aren't listed as different species, the hint is in the latin Name: Canis. They may be a different species of dog but they are still part of the group of canins (sp), which refers to the their teeth. And canins are actually all the dog related mammals including dog, hyena and wolves. Same group of species. As another example house cats, lions, cheetahs and panthers are all in the same grouping as well-panthera.

Christian

[medi]

Actually they aren't listed as different species, the hint is in the latin Name: Canis. They may be a different species of dog but they are still part of the group of canins (sp), which refers to the their teeth. And canins are actually all the dog related mammals including dog, hyena and wolves. Same group of species. As another example house cats, lions, cheetahs and panthers are all in the same grouping as well-panthera.

Christian


"canis" is a genus, not a species

[Aegis]

Actually they aren't listed as different species, the hint is in the latin Name: Canis. They may be a different species of dog but they are still part of the group of canins (sp), which refers to the their teeth. And canins are actually all the dog related mammals including dog, hyena and wolves. Same group of species. As another example house cats, lions, cheetahs and panthers are all in the same grouping as well-panthera.

Christian
Canis refers to the dog family, in the same way as homo refers to the human families. Do you believe that homo erectus and homo sapiens are the same species, because that's another thing that you'd need to inform taxonomists of.

Homo and Canis are both examples of genus-level classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus), so all dogs, wolves, hyenas, etc are of the same genus, but not the same species.

[thepunisher]

Canis refers to the dog family, in the same way as homo refers to the human families. Do you believe that homo erectus and homo sapiens are the same species, because that's another thing that you'd need to inform taxonomists of.

Homo and Canis are both examples of genus-level classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus), so all dogs, wolves, hyenas, etc are of the same genus, but not the same species.

Sorry, appologize. Got the two confused-genus and species. Need to get my rusty latin fixed, lol.

Christian

[Aegis]

No worries, the Latin gets quite confusing from time to time.

[Topher]

So you just don't have any idea where life came from, then?
We are not certain about the origin of life, and because we are not certain, we don’t make rash conclusions.

Well, just about every other evolutionists I have spoken with believes that life evolved.
That’s correct. But this has nothing do with it's origin.

[Topher]

does it really matter in the end if god created us or it was evolution ?
Evolution is separate to origin. The question is did life arrive naturally or was it created. Not "Evolution or God".

Many people believe in God and evolution (that evolution was his handy work). Although i don’t really appeal to a creator (simply because there is no reason or evidence to, at least for now), it is far better to believe in God and evolution, than just God. That's simply ignoring the tons of facts we have.

[thepunisher]

Evolution is separate to origin. The question is did life arrive naturally or was it created. Not "Evolution or God".

If you look at science I don't think there is that much difference between the two. We all originated from a cell and atoms. And these cells over long periods of time went through changes...chemical changes, which is a state of evolution. We weren't just homo sapiens like that, we went through steps and todays homo sapien isn't the same as the homo neanderthalis from the stone ages.

Whether god created that universe, of which our cells originiated (in the form of atoms)can be argued but we still went through an evolution to arrive at the stage we are today. And so did many other species.

Thats also why that "god created man in seven days" is something that science has already proven is wrong. Why would we otherwise be able to carbon date bones of the homo genus from millions of years ago ? And this wasn't a homo sapien (just look at the form of the head compared to today)but a evolutionary stage of us.

Christian

[Topher]

If you look at science I don't think there is that much difference between the two. We all originated from a cell and atoms. And these cells over long periods of time went through changes...chemical changes, which is a state of evolution. We weren't just homo sapiens like that, we went through steps and todays homo sapien isn't the same as the homo neanderthalis from the stone ages.

Whether god created that universe, of which our cells originiated (in the form of atoms)can be argued but we still went through an evolution to arrive at the stage we are today. And so did many other species.

Thats also why that "god created man in seven days" is something that science has already proven is wrong. Why would we otherwise be able to carbon date bones of the homo genus from millions of years ago ? And this wasn't a homo sapien (just look at the form of the head compared to today)but a evolutionary stage of us.

Christian
Creationists would have us believe that God pointed his finger and we appeared. People like Hovind who believe evolution isn't science and the Bible is literally and scientifically true make creationism look even worse, which I thought was impossible.

Now, Intelligent Design and evolution work together, although ID was the result of science completely shredding creationism. Many ID proponents would probably prefer to publicly believe the Bible, but they don’t as they know it would get then nowhere.

[thepunisher]

Now, Intelligent Design and evolution work together, although ID was the result of science completely shredding creationism. Many ID proponents would probably prefer to publicly believe the Bible, but they don’t as they know it would get then nowhere.

Just because we have figured out how to use a cell and make a duplicate of something doesn't mean some higher creature found himself a pot of atoms and decided: "Okay now, lets make ourselves a man." hehe ;) :D So any creationist who believes that is seriously wrong....the evidence for it: First thing, our sun is already older than our earth. Second thing: We can use carbon dating to not only date bones but also layers of our planet. If something is a million years old I don't think someone appeared overnight and "hookus pookus" we appeared.

Third thing, all the other evidence I previously listed. But like I said before, its useless to debate about the origin of us. If someone wants to believe we were created in seven days, its their perrogative. We are over 6 billion ppl on this planet and each of us thinks in a different way so does it really matter if one side is right or wrong ? It doesn't change that we are on this planet, does it ?

Christian

[Gajah Silat]

Is this still going on?

I'd have thought the Creationalists might have at least evolved into IDists by now :D

[pj_goober]

No, it isn't.
Wolves are dogs, they are the same species. The fact that they are listed as a different species is a misnomer.

Every post you make, makes me feel more and more like you know nothing about what you are talking about.

Even if you arbitrarily decide (against all the evidence to the contrary, which is the sign of an ill informed idiot) that dogs and wolves are the same species [hint - they're not] that wouldn't invalidate all the other evidence that catagorically proves evolution happens (for *expletives* sake you can WATCH evolution happen, physically watch it.)

The question is did life arrive naturally or was it created. Not "Evolution or God". actually the question was "should we be teaching ID in schools along with evolution" - which is an argument only someone who knows nothing about evolution would make, as ID is a theory about creation and evolution is sciences way of explaining how every living thing changes over time.

[AZeitung]

How so?
Well, somebody had to sin first, unless a few people did it at exactly the same time.

Or perhaps original sin could just be the part of us that compells us to do evil.

And who even knows how many people the current group of humans descended from. The last I heard, they found that mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a group of about 30 women.

[Topher]

Well, somebody had to sin first, unless a few people did it at exactly the same time.

Or perhaps original sin could just be the part of us that compells us to do evil.
Define "sin"

[shaolin_hendrix]

The UK wouldn't have caught the creationism infection if you had kept Tony Blair out of the country. :p

[pj_goober]

The last I heard, they found that mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a group of about 30 women.


Mitochondrial DNA is very misleading. Although it can be shown that current mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to around 30 or so people (i thought it was 8) that doesn't mean there were only that many people alive at the time when we traced it back to. don't ask me to go into the details of explaining it - mitochondrial DNA tracing is complicated and not something i'm an expert in - if you're interested theres bucket loads of info out there.

[CKava]

Why would we otherwise be able to carbon date bones of the homo genus from millions of years ago ?
We can't carbon date bones from millions of years. We can use other radiometric tests but carbon dating only goes back to 60,000 years ago. Just clarifying...

[tekkengod]

Well, somebody had to sin first, unless a few people did it at exactly the same time.

Or perhaps original sin could just be the part of us that compells us to do evil.


Wow, hearing someone with a degree and a strong background in physics is just weird! :confused:

[wrydolphin]

The best explanation of the Fall that I know of or have heard is that it is an allegory. Basically, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve represented the first time humans became aware of themselves as individuals and as a culture. Without culture and higher cognitive processes, there is no sin. As soon as you define "normal" or "good" you also define "wrong" and "bad".

Also, there is the part about bringing death into the world, which can be interpreted as meaning that before that animals were not aware of their mortality. By being unaware, they were effectively immortal. Once humanity realized their mortality, it "brought death into the world".

[thepunisher]

Also, there is the part about bringing death into the world, which can be interpreted as meaning that before that animals were not aware of their mortality. By being unaware, they were effectively immortal. Once humanity realized their mortality, it "brought death into the world".

Cool, so now we all just need to figure out how we can stop from being aware of our mortality. ;) :D

Christian

[Strafio]

Yeah. I've always read the "Garden of Eden" story as "Ignorance is bliss"! :D

[AZeitung]

Define "sin"
I have numerous times - going against the will of God.

[AZeitung]

Mitochondrial DNA is very misleading. Although it can be shown that current mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to around 30 or so people (i thought it was 8) that doesn't mean there were only that many people alive at the time when we traced it back to. don't ask me to go into the details of explaining it - mitochondrial DNA tracing is complicated and not something i'm an expert in - if you're interested theres bucket loads of info out there.
As far as I know, about 70,000 years ago there was some kind of volcanic eruption that killed off most of the human population, leaving only a very small group, from which everyone alive today has descended.

Genesis, I think, was at least at a time, supposed to be more of a story about the origins of the Hebrew people than necessarily of everybody. So, we really only need to worry about the group of people that are alive today, and who they descended from if we want to talk about some kind of "sin" that was passed down from "adam".

[AZeitung]

The best explanation of the Fall that I know of or have heard is that it is an allegory. Basically, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve represented the first time humans became aware of themselves as individuals and as a culture. Without culture and higher cognitive processes, there is no sin. As soon as you define "normal" or "good" you also define "wrong" and "bad".

Also, there is the part about bringing death into the world, which can be interpreted as meaning that before that animals were not aware of their mortality. By being unaware, they were effectively immortal. Once humanity realized their mortality, it "brought death into the world".

I think it's important to note that even if a church accepts evolution as a strong possibility (the church will never say that it's *wrong* to believe the creation story literally), or at least, in the case of the Catholic church, they will still insist that original sin is passed down through the generations.

So, the fact that a blood connection does exist from humans today to humans at the beginning is an important part of Christianity. Not just that there was a cultural awareness passed down from generations, but that we are all in the same family as these original humans.

In the context of evolution, you could say that our blood lines are what differentiate us from some other species that didn't achieve what we achieved, which was the ability to understand God's will with rational thought and choose to defy it.

In the bible, before original sin, the chief difference between man and the animals was that God had placed man above the animals. After original sin, man has more of an understanding of himself, and an awareness of the world in a way that he didn't before. And this, and it's consequences are passed down through generations.

So, it sounds like it could be referring to when humans became really human, or when we, as a species, were made something more than just smart apes. With that came the ability to defy the will of God, and with that ability, somebody did. If I had to put meaning to the term original sin, I would probably guess that it's that.

[Gajah Silat]

Do they not teach elementary biology in the US?

This is a completely serious question.

I find the lack of understanding of even the basics of science among US posters on this thread uttery astounding. :eek

I honestly thought thought American 'flat Earthers' and 'Biblical literalists' belonged to redneck stereotypes that the rest of the planet seem to have about Americans.

Now I am not so sure :confused: they seem to really exist.

[AZeitung]

Er. . . if you're referring to something from one of my posts, would you like to point it out? The volcanic eruption 70,000 years ago is fairly accepted theory, as far as I know - or at least, it's what I learned in my anthropology class two years ago.

As for my previous post, there wasn't really anything about biology in it. As for the ability to understand God's will, I'm not suggesting that's a biological phenomenon, but something that God gave to us, specifically.

[Gajah Silat]

Just a general observation on the seeming lack of elementary education, not a snipe at any individual in particular.

However, sometimes this forum is like an online version of the film Deliverance :p The religion thread should have dueling banjos in the background.

With regard to Anthropology, try some of the US guys to begin with, Clifford Geertz or Franz Boaz would be a start! Oh and start off with a little objectivity.

Most anthropologists would agree that sin is culturally relative.

We are all 'filter' to information, as we all project our view onto information we seek to interpret.

Back to track. Did you guys not breed and mutate fruit flies in Biology? You can practically watch the fundamentals of evolution actualy happen.

[AZeitung]

Just a general observation on the seeming lack of elementary education, not a snipe at any individual in particular.

However, sometimes this forum is like an online version of the film Deliverance :p The religion thread should have dueling banjos in the background.

With regard to Anthropology, try some of the US guys to begin with, Clifford Geertz or Franz Boaz would be a start! Oh and start off with a little objectivity.

Most anthropologists would agree that sin is culturally relative.

Ah, yes, cultural anthropology - the annoying and useless anthropology :D
I don't think this thread has ever been about coming up with an anthropological definition of morality. And I think the nature of God is out of the realm of what anthropologists seek to explain.


We are all 'filter' to information, as we all project our view onto information we seek to interpret.

That, combined with "sin is culturally relative", sounds like a great way to start off with a little objectivity.


Back to track. Did you guys not breed and mutate fruit flies in Biology? You can practically watch the fundamentals of evolution actualy happen.
Actually, I never did that in my biology class. But I only took one semester in highschool (although it was honors biology). We did cover evolution, and look at skulls of various species. The one thing I remember about it is that our textbook referred to "austrolopithicus bosei", which is now classified as paranthropus. I actually don't remember much of what I studied in my anthropology class in college either (university, for you UKers - don't you call high school college? Or is that just the French? I can't remember anything right now.).

[pj_goober]

What you call university is what we call the end of secondary school (a-levels) combined with the start of university (degree).

Our secondary school (up to GCSE) is what you call high school. We don't really have colledges (other than as another place to do a-levels, some schools don't do them)

What we call primary school, you call the President.

(all with the standard rider about probably being totally wrong).

[Gajah Silat]

We tend to call that archaeology :)

Anthropology although not concerning itself with the existence of God does certainly study religion in relation to culture.

Maybe you would also find Bruno LaTour's "Laboratory life" interesting. It's an ethnography that suggests that a lot of scientific beliefs are more cultural than scientific. Science is also interpreted within a cultural framework.

Oh, and I suppose sin is not culturally relative if you have read the Bible, been brought up as a Christian and Know what is right and wrong.

That's about as culturally relative as it gets :eek:

[AZeitung]

We tend to call that archaeology :)

There is a big overlap in biological anthropology and archeology, but there's a big overlap with cultural anthropology as well, isn't there? Archaeology seems to be a big part of anthropology in general.


Anthropology although not concerning itself with the existence of God does certainly study religion in relation to culture.

Maybe you would also find Bruno LaTour's "Laboratory life" interesting. It's an ethnography that suggests that a lot of scientific beliefs are more cultural than scientific. Science is also interpreted within a cultural framework.

I took a quick look at wikipedia. From a cursory glance at what he's written, I'd say it's important to note that scientists aren't, or shouldn't be allowed to draw any conclusions until they actually have data where the limits on the accurracy of the data are within the bounds needed to verify the hypothesis. There are methods that are culturally invariant (in otherwords, mathematically and physically meaningful, not just made up) for determining how accurate the data gathered from your experiment is.

And regardless of the cultural acceptance of a theory, there is a strict methodology of peer review, searching for errors, and mathematical verification that are needed for a theory to beome accepted within the scientific community.


Oh, and I suppose sin is not culturally relative if you have read the Bible, been brought up as a Christian and Know what is right and wrong.

That's about as culturally relative as it gets :eek:
The entire idea of the bible is that sin isn't relative, but is defiance of the will of God, regardless of what society might think the will of God is or isn't. Don't worry about the knowability of such an idea for a moment, just know that Christians say that specifically is the measuring stick against which our idea of morality must measure up.

[wrydolphin]

Yes but it is religion and culture that define what is meant in the Bible and both sin and intrepretation of the Bible (even barring more recent scientific advancement) have changed over the years.

Sin is definately described by the culture, even amonst Christians.

[AZeitung]

That's not really the point. The point is that by the definition in Christianity if Christianity's understanding of what sin is was contrary to the will of God, Christians themselves would still be sinning. That's why I mentioned knowability. By Christianity, when we act by our understanding of what God's will is, we are acting by what we understand to either be a sin or not be a sin. That has no bearing on what whether we're doing is a sin or not. The definition appeals to an absolute, whether that absolute is exactly knowable or fully understood is a separate issue.

[Topher]

We don't really have colledges (other than as another place to do a-levels, some schools don't do them)
Colleges are for further education whereas universities are for higher education. Secondary schools might include A-levels (sixth form) but some go to college for more choice (other than A-level).

[Topher]

I have numerous times - going against the will of God.
What’s the will of God? Oh right, it’s in the Bible.
How do we know of God existence… the Bible.

So the Bible is really the only source there is, which itself has so many contradictions, why should it be believed.

The only evidence of the various claim made, are the claims themselves.

The point is that by the definition in Christianity if Christianity's understanding of what sin is was contrary to the will of God, Christians themselves would still be sinning.
So why the difference in doctrine/belief between Christian denominations?

Surely, if the "will" of God was absolute there would be no multiple interpretations of the Bible, or no differences between Christian groups for that matter.

Also, regarding original sin, I don’t understand how someone could be punished for doing evil (sin) prior to have knowledge of either evil or good.

[AZeitung]

So why the difference in doctrine/belief between Christian denominations?

Are you even trying to read what I wrote? You continually confuse knowability with actuality, even though I explicity stated there would be a difference.

For instance, I can't count the number of times that I tried to explain something about relativity on this forum, and people grossly misunderstood it. Even though different people had different interpretations of what I was saying, there was only one correct interpretation - which is what I actually meant - even if no one else understood me.

[Topher]

The point i was making is you’re saying there is only one truth in Christianity - God's word. But there are different views and interpretations of his word from the different Christian denominations, so, which one is correct.

[Moony]

As far as I know, about 70,000 years ago there was some kind of volcanic eruption that killed off most of the human population, leaving only a very small group, from which everyone alive today has descended.

Ummm......as far as my knowledge goes mans big problem about 70000 years ago was more ice related in the form of cyclic ice ages. I know you can't study every volcanic eruption that ever took place but I think one that strong would have been covered in some part of my degree. Also last time i checked volcanos weren't that selective, they just generally take everything out.

I don't suppose you could post a link for me to investigate?

Moony

[AZeitung]

I can't really post a link, it was what I remember from anthropology class. I could give you the professor's e-mail, maybe? Let's say it was 75,000 years ago, there must have been some point around that time that wasn't the middle of an ice-age. Obviously volcanos aren't selective, but there's generally a lot of non-lava related death associated with ash in the air blocking out sunlight, changes in food supply etc. Now, it seems perfectly logical to me that even if most people died out, a small group might be able to survive, doesn't it?

The fact is, our lack of genetic variation does point to our species coming out of a small group from around that period. Archaeological records do show evidence of homo-sapiens from around 120-150 thousand years ago, that display morphological characteristics that aren't present today (I'm not referring to what used to be called homo-sapien archaic, as I know that's been classified into an other species - homo-heidelburgensis, maybe?). In order for us to contain the very minimal level of genetic variation that's present there had to be a significant reduction in population during that time period.

As far as I can remember, there's some kind of evidence of severe volcanic activity from that time period as well, along with a lot of things dying. I'm pretty sure this is fairly well established.

[Moony]

Your right, volcanos aren't selective. But an event that would have had such an impact as that would have been a reasonably strong one. Take the Tambora eruption of 1814/15, one of the big after affects of this was the year without a summer the following year. Many people did die due to famine but I don't record it reducing the population globally by enough to cause any significant changes in the gene pool. So for one to have effected the human population as you say it would have needed to be a lot stronger. Also what about the effects on the rest of the life on the planet?

Moony

[AZeitung]

The point i was making is you’re saying there is only one truth in Christianity - God's word. But there are different views and interpretations of his word from the different Christian denominations, so, which one is correct.
The point *I* was making, which you seem to be continually missing, is that none of them have to be exactly correct. That's not actually the position that I take, but the point I was making is that even if everybody misunderstands or misinterprets and absolute slightly, that doesn't make it any less of an absolute.

Let's say for example, that the MTW Gravitation book is the word of God and the physics contained in it is morality. And let's say the website The Einstein Hoax, which has it's own idea of physics, is somebody else's morality.

We let 50 non-scientists read MTW's book on Gravitaion, and none of them really understand everything in the book perfectly, but they get a pretty good general idea of how a lot of things work. There are still some misunderstandings and disagreements among them, but they generally agree on things like the speed of light being invariant, and gravity being the curvature of space-time, etc. When it comes to things like Bianchi identities, they don't fully get it.

We also let 50 non-scientists read The Einstein Hoax. They're all convinced that relativity is the result of a mathematical error, and that there's an obvious simple calculus mistake in GR that a high school student could spot.

Now, everybody is wrong about something. But the people who read MTW appeal to Gravitation as the source of absolute truth. They say that MTW Gravitation is the standard by which all things must be judged and that The Einstein Hoax is not a valid standard.

You say "well, if Gravitation is the absolute standard, how come you all disagree? Which one of you knows the truth?" And I'm trying to point out that regardless of who understood Gravitation correctly, the book is still the standard.

[AZeitung]

Your right, volcanos aren't selective. But an event that would have had such an impact as that would have been a reasonably strong one. Take the Tambora eruption of 1814/15, one of the big after affects of this was the year without a summer the following year. Many people did die due to famine but I don't record it reducing the population globally by enough to cause any significant changes in the gene pool. So for one to have effected the human population as you say it would have needed to be a lot stronger. Also what about the effects on the rest of the life on the planet?

Moony

I don't really remember, it's been two years since I took the class. I may be able to find lecture notes online or something - although I think he did that through blackboard, so I probably can't get access anymore.

[Moony]

I don't really remember, it's been two years since I took the class. I may be able to find lecture notes online or something - although I think he did that through blackboard, so I probably can't get access anymore.

Fair do's.

Moony

[Topher]

The point *I* was making, which you seem to be continually missing, is that none of them have to be exactly correct. That's not actually the position that I take, but the point I was making is that even if everybody misunderstands or misinterprets and absolute slightly, that doesn't make it any less of an absolute.

Hang on….

Even though different people had different interpretations of what I was saying, there was only one correct interpretation - which is what I actually meant - even if no one else understood me.
If there is only one correct interpretation (which is your position), how then do they not all have to be “exactly correct?”

My question is simple - what is the correct interpretation?

And there are issues which are not just slight differences, but major differences to down right contradictions.

[Strafio]

There's a correct interpretation which might, or might not be, one of the ones going around. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing until the end of time when God sets the record straight once and for all.

Christians disagree on a number of things, but they all agree on one atleast.
They have sinned and ask for Jesus' forgiveness.
Some believe that's a requirement to stay out of hell, some are believe that God has communicated to other cultures in other ways, some think A's a sin, others think that B's a sin, etc etc hence all the different groups/denominations etc.

So I'm not sure whether I count as one though...

[Topher]

There's a correct interpretation which might, or might not be, one of the ones going around. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing until the end of time when God sets the record straight once and for all.
So it’s essentially a guess then. And a majority of those people who devote their life to Jesus/God won’t be successful as they are following the wrong interpretation.

Alternately, if the fact they have accepted Jesus/God in their life is good enough, then any and every interpretation is therefore fine. It doesn’t really matter what interpretation they follow as they’ve already scored a place through their acceptance of Jesus.

How do you know there is a correct interpretation anyway?

[AZeitung]

So it’s essentially a guess then. And a majority of those people who devote their life to Jesus/God won’t be successful as they are following the wrong interpretation.

Actually, nobody will be completely successful. The bible says that being perfect is beyond anyone's means. But fortunately it also says that God can forgive us when we sin. But just because he forgives us doesn't mean that we're not sinning. Sin is defined by how we act in relation to the will of God, not how we're punished.

[AZeitung]

There's a correct interpretation which might, or might not be, one of the ones going around. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing until the end of time when God sets the record straight once and for all.

Christians disagree on a number of things, but they all agree on one atleast.
They have sinned and ask for Jesus' forgiveness.
Some believe that's a requirement to stay out of hell, some are believe that God has communicated to other cultures in other ways, some think A's a sin, others think that B's a sin, etc etc hence all the different groups/denominations etc.

So I'm not sure whether I count as one though...
Thanks, Strafio. That's basically what I was trying to say. Just to reiterate the point that I was making and that you reinforced:

I've been trying to make a point in this thread for a long time. Homer has repeatedly misinterpreted my posts. But even if neither he nor anyone else correctly interpreted my posts, there still exists a correct interpretation - because *I* am the standard when it comes to interpreting things that I wrote.

I don't see why that's so difficult to understand.

[Topher]

It seems your avoiding the question. :rolleyes:

I'll ask again: If there exists a correct interpretation as you confidently suggest... WHICH IS IT!! :bang:

If you don't know, then it's a guess. Pot luck. And you cannot say someone is incorrect in there interpretation.

What has anything you wrote got to do with the correct interpretation of the Bible/God. We're not talking about what you wrote, were talking about the Bible/word of God.

[AZeitung]

It seems your avoiding the question. :rolleyes:

I'll ask again: If there exists a correct interpretation as you confidently suggest... WHICH IS IT!! :bang:

If you don't know, then it's a guess. Pot luck.

Answering the question of "who is right" is a different issue that I would discuss at a different time, but doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion.

Even if nobody has the correct interpretation, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Anyone can plainly see that there are a lot of things we didn't know about the earth, science, and the universe for thousands of years - but that didn't make them any less real.


First of all, it's not a guess, I don't know where you got that idea. It's not any more a guess than if you read Gravtitation, you'd be "guessing" at how general relativity works. See post 201.


And you cannot say someone is incorrect in there interpretation.

Yes, I can. If you "guess" at how quantum mechanics works, does that mean I can't say you're wrong? Just because you make a "guess" doesn't mean you get to say you're right.


What has anything you wrote got to do with the correct interpretation of the Bible/God. We're not talking about what you wrote, were talking about the Bible/word of God.
Why does it matter if it's my word or the word of God? Either way, there exists someone who actually meant something. If my name was God, would that mean that everyone would get to interpret everything I write however they want?

Even if I signed up for an account here and never made any posts, that doesn't mean someone could say "AZeitung has never posted here, so all interpretations of what he thinks are valid - that means that anyone can use him to back up any argument he wants, and all beliefs of his actual stance will be equally valid". Only one belief of my stance on an issue is valid, whether I tell you what it is or not. I believe God *DOES* tell us what his stance is - but even if he didn't, that wouldn't mean that it was whatever we wanted it to be. It's not a difficult concept - things exist even when you're not looking at them.

You seem to be missing the point - what Christians believe isn't that individual interpretation is what we're judged against. We're judged against God's standard - not our own. So my own personal beliefs will not matter when it comes time for judgement if they conflict with God's. It doesn't matter if I know how he judges or not. He will judge by His own standard. And the only person that needs to know the standard in that scenario is God, who by definition knows, because it's whatever he wants it to be.

[Topher]

First of all, it's not a guess, I don't know where you got that idea. It's not any more a guess than if you read Gravtitation, you'd be "guessing" at how general relativity works.

We're judged against God's standard - not our own

What is God’s standard? If we don’t know God’s standard, you have to guess it.

Either there is, or there isn’t a correct interpretation (of Gods word/the bible/Gods standard, whatever you call it)

If there is a correct interpretation, what is it! (i.e which branch provides the correct path)

If there isn’t a correct interpretation, at least not a known one, no Christian can be classed as wrong in their version.

I said it was a guess, because Strafio stated that “ There's a correct interpretation which might, or might not be, one of the ones going around. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing until the end of time when God sets the record straight once and for all.” Therefore we don’t know which is the correct interpretation (assuming there is one), which means it is essentially guess work.

You GR analogy is invalid as we know that Einstein's work on general relativity is the correct view/source, and one only needs to read and study the theory to understand it. There is no need to guess. And there is no version A; version B; version C…etc of general relativity, unlike Christianity and the bible/word of God.

Anyway, there are three possibilities…
1. There is a single, correct interpretation. Which is it?
2. There isn’t a single interpretation – there all acceptable.
3. There is a correct interpretation, but we don’t know which, so it’s a guess.

Which is the most accurate?

[tekkengod]

my own personal beliefs will not matter when it comes time for judgement if they conflict with God's. It doesn't matter if I know how he judges or not. He will judge by His own standard. because it's whatever he wants it to be.


:eek: Dosen't that kinda defy the purpose of even having personal belief?! thats a great system... So how does that embellish faith? you just admitted you have no idea!

[Strafio]

The whole "guesswork" theory is another reason why I don't think God stakes your eternal life on whether you "get it right". Otherwise life would be the ultimate russian roullette indeed! :eek:

[Topher]

The whole "guesswork" theory is another reason why I don't think God stakes your eternal life on whether you "get it right". Otherwise life would be the ultimate russian roullette indeed! :eek:
Exactly, hence no one can be classed as incorrect in their view of it.

Assuming there is one, any God worth worshiping would judge you on your character and the good/bad you've done, not whether you've accepted Jesus and follow an ancient book. Would an all loving, omniscient God condemn a decent atheist (such as Bob Geldof) to eternal hell just because they used their intellect (which he gave them!) rather than blindly accepting something they were not sure of.

That said, as an atheist, i don't care either way.

[Strafio]

Depends on how much faith you have in the fact that God doesn't exist.
Doesn't it ever worry you that you might've gotten it horribly wrong and are in for a nasty surprise in the after-life?

[Topher]

Depends on how much faith you have in the fact that God doesn't exist.
I don’t have faith that he doesn’t exist as that implies I believe something, just because I believe it, which I certainly don’t. That’s what I’m arguing against.

I don’t believe in God because science, logic and reasoning don’t give me a reason to. If one day evolution was disproved God would seem more likely. If there were actual reasons and evidence to believe in God then I would. But there isn’t.

God seems like the shortcut for those that want closure and explanation. I’m in no rush.

Doesn't it ever worry you that you might've gotten it horribly wrong and are in for a nasty surprise in the after-life?
Well I believe hell/judgement day etc only apply if you already believe (ironically). But let’s suppose God really does exist. Any God worth worshiping would judge you only your character and the good/bad you’ve done, not whether you would have blindly followed some book and what others have said.

Secondly, if God really does exist then he gave me this intellect/mind which I’ve chosen to use. With him being omniscient/omnipotent he would have known that I wouldn’t believe (if believing is so important why doesn’t he just create believers in the first place). Would a good God punish someone for something HE made happen in the first place.

[Strafio]

Faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in God.
You can have faith in any belief.
In your case, faith in your athiestic beliefs means that theistic "nightmares" won't bother you because you've got strong faith in a contradicting belief.

Your last paragraph is along the lines I'm thinking along, but there's often that nagging feeling that I might've gotten it all wrong. Maybe I need a little more faith in myself. :)

[Topher]

No. Faith means believing in something, just because you believe it. Something i don't do. I believe what i do regarding life/religion etc because science, reason and logic explain it best. Show me logically sound evidence for another argument and if it explains it better, i’ll take it. I am prepared to change my view with reason to do so, something a lot of creationists won't do.

Science/evolution has so much evidence supporting it, whereas the opposing argument, creationism is riddled with contradictions and fallacious arguments. If creationism does anything, it provides more unnecessary questions which don't add anything.

[Strafio]

There's still a certain amount of faith to it, whatever you believe in.
Be it faith in the evidence, faith in scientific method.
There's always a leap of faith somewhere.
Atheism is a faith in the fact that there's nothing out there, that there isn't some higher being that's going to hold you accountable for your actions in life.

Some beliefs involve a higher degree of faith but nothing is free from it altogether.

[Topher]

It depends on your definition of faith, which I class as believing in something without evidence. If you’re referring to faith as ‘confidence’ in something, then I am confident in the evidence supporting evolution. But my confidence in the evidence isn’t because it supports evolution, it’s because it provides the best explanation and I know the process it had to go through in order to survive (such as cross-examination, supported by additional independent evidence, peer review etc)

I think that’s the difference. Most religious people base evidence around their belief, while logical thinking people base their belief around the evidence.

I think that a belief/claim should be supported by logic and evidence. The scientific method is the best method of finding the best explanations. What’s worse however is that some have faith in something, despite ample evidence to the contrary!

[Strafio]

It depends on your definition of faith, which I class as believing in something without evidence. If you’re referring to faith as ‘confidence’ in something, then I am confident in the evidence supporting evolution.
Kind of...
Basically, everything has an element of faith.
If you believe something because it has "evidence" then what evidence do you have to believe that this "evidence" is actual evidence. And if you have "evidence" for that... basically, there's this infinite regression unless somewhere along the line you take something for granted.

The usual reason for believing in something is because "it works".
You believe in scientific method because it's been demonstrated to work in so many ways, so you've built a kind of faith in it. Me too, as it happens. Kent Hovind too, for most science.

People will likely aquire faith for their religious beliefs in a similar kind of way. I think that the main differences is that science deals best with the purely objective while religious beliefs explore personal subjective experience where science can't really go so easily. Having said that, the difference in the amount of "faith" between a scientific belief and a religious one might make my point kind of pedantic...

But my confidence in the evidence isn’t because it supports evolution, it’s because it provides the best explanation and I know the process it had to go through in order to survive (such as cross-examination, supported by additional independent evidence, peer review etc)
Ofcourse, but your faith in these processes had to come from somewhere.

I think that’s the difference. Most religious people base evidence around their belief, while logical thinking people base their belief around the evidence.
Christian attempts to reconcile their faith with modern science can turn out like this, but the reasons why people believe in the first place are likely to be down to evidence, usually in the form of a certain teaching working with personal experience.

I think that a belief/claim should be supported by logic and evidence. The scientific method is the best method of finding the best explanations. What’s worse however is that some have faith in something, despite ample evidence to the contrary!
Yeah. I might have a few beliefs that aren't well supported but I don't think I have any that fly in the face of evidence.

[thepunisher]

I don't consider:"I saw god before me one day !" alot of evidence because neither can the person provide the prove for it nor most of the time is willing too. The exuse most often then is:"If you don't believe in god you won't see him !" as if that is any prove I wouldn't be able to see him. If he was there I would be able to see him whether I was a believer or a non-believer.

With science you can just open up a scientific journal or book and most of the scientific theories are explained and in some cases even a simple experiment is given to try out. Like concerning the bending of light or the law of gravity. Open up a bible and the verses won't make god appear all of a sudden, will they ?

Hence science is alot easier to believe than any bible.

Christian

[AOFNick]

can't we all just get along

[wrydolphin]

can't we all just get along
er, no? :rolleyes:
:love:

[Wali]

I don't consider:"I saw god before me one day !" alot of evidence because neither can the person provide the prove for it nor most of the time is willing too. The exuse most often then is:"If you don't believe in god you won't see him !" as if that is any prove I wouldn't be able to see him. If he was there I would be able to see him whether I was a believer or a non-believer.

With science you can just open up a scientific journal or book and most of the scientific theories are explained and in some cases even a simple experiment is given to try out. Like concerning the bending of light or the law of gravity. Open up a bible and the verses won't make god appear all of a sudden, will they ?

Hence science is alot easier to believe than any bible.

Christian

I find your name extremely ironic...

[Strafio]

I don't consider:"I saw god before me one day !" alot of evidence because neither can the person provide the prove for it nor most of the time is willing too. The exuse most often then is:"If you don't believe in god you won't see him !" as if that is any prove I wouldn't be able to see him. If he was there I would be able to see him whether I was a believer or a non-believer.

With science you can just open up a scientific journal or book and most of the scientific theories are explained and in some cases even a simple experiment is given to try out. Like concerning the bending of light or the law of gravity. Open up a bible and the verses won't make god appear all of a sudden, will they ?

Hence science is alot easier to believe than any bible.

Christian
Like I said, that's the difference between objective evidence and personal evidence. Objective means that the same reasons that convinced you are demonstratable to another person (through experiment for example).

If it's personal then it's something that only means anything to you.
So maybe if an alien came to earth and spent an afternoon with you and then went away, leaving no trace. There'd be no way to show it to anybody, no way to objectively prove it. All there would be would be your personal experience, which means that you'd be justified in believing it but people would be justified in not believing you. It would be true, you'd be right, but unless someone trusted your honesty/sanity/rationality etc beyond belief then they'd be crazy to believe you. But you'd still be right.

So I don't snub personal faith. Someone saying "I saw god before me one day!" wouldn't be enough to convince me that it was true, but I wouldn't necessarily consider them mad or irrational either... not purely on that statement atleast. If they were regularly saying delusional stuff then I might think that they were crazy but if they were straight minded and rational in every other way then I'd even consider that there was some substance to it.

[Topher]

If you believe something because it has "evidence" then what evidence do you have to believe that this "evidence" is actual evidence. And if you have "evidence" for that... basically, there's this infinite regression unless somewhere along the line you take something for granted.
Evidence usually has other independent evidence and research that corroborates it. You have two or more pieces of independent evidence, often from different areas of science such as biology, anthropology, cosmology etc and they all “fit” and verify each other. Also, I believe the evidence because of the process it goes through (peer review, scientific method). Evolution for example has had over 100 years of people trying to discredit it.

You believe in scientific method because it's been demonstrated to work in so many ways, so you've built a kind of faith in it. Me too, as it happens.

People will likely aquire faith for their religious beliefs in a similar kind of way. I think that the main differences is that science deals best with the purely objective while religious beliefs explore personal subjective experience where science can't really go so easily. Having said that, the difference in the amount of "faith" between a scientific belief and a religious one might make my point kind of pedantic...
For me faith signifies a bond between a person and something that they usually don’t want to loose. (How many religious people are concerned they will loose their faith if they properly understand evolution?) As I said, they will believe something, simply because they believe it (usually because someone told them to.) If something appears to support their belief and not opposing arguments, they accept it, despite how illogical it may be. This probably comes from indoctrination as a child or maybe some kind of religious experience which appears to have resolved their problem, so they jump to the conclusion that it was the religion that did it, their faith in it develops from there. That is not critical analysis/thinking.

The scientific method has been proven to work over all these years. Faith has nothing to do with it in my opinion. The very nature of the scientific method makes faith irrelevant. That’s the point of it - to filter out the rubbish so everyone arrives at the same conclusion.

Also a scientist will and have changed their opinions with reason to do so. If they had faith (how I see it) they wouldn’t drop their view in favour of the better method so easily. That would seem to contradict their faith.

I should mention that even if there was some kind of “faith” in science, it wouldn’t be anything like the faith in religion, so comparing “scientific faith” with religious faith will get you no where. It would be like comparing the scientific definition of theory to a standard definition of theory.

I agree that religion explores subjective elements of life but the problem is claiming they are fact, true, historically accurate etc when they are subjective. As long as you’re honest with yourself about the use of your religion/spirituality I don’t have a problem with it.

Ofcourse, but your faith in these processes had to come from somewhere.
I don’t need to have faith in the scientific method as the process speaks for itself.

Christian attempts to reconcile their faith with modern science can turn out like this, but the reasons why people believe in the first place are likely to be down to evidence, usually in the form of a certain teaching working with personal experience.
I agree, a belief is down to evidence. But what if the evidence is illogical, irrational, erroneous, isn’t parsimonious and most importantly, has been proven wrong dozen of times. This happens, yet people still use this supposed “evidence.”

[Topher]

Like I said, that's the difference between objective evidence and personal evidence. Objective means that the same reasons that convinced you are demonstratable to another person (through experiment for example).
Subjective evidence is essentially useless evidence. As it’s subjective, the only person it proves anything to is the person presenting the “evidence” as support for their claim. But, as this personal evidence is only useful to them, it’s useless to everyone else. Ironically, evidence is about proving claims to others, which exactly what subjective evidence dosn't do.

You need to prove objective claims with objective evidence.

Note that, subjective evidence is fine for a personal 'quests', but not for claims which you argue as fact and truth. "I saw God, therefore he exists and created the universe" dosn't hold.

To quote you: If it's personal then it's something that only means anything to you. I rest my case. ;)

So maybe if an alien came to earth and spent an afternoon with you and then went away, leaving no trace. There'd be no way to show it to anybody, no way to objectively prove it. All there would be would be your personal experience, which means that you'd be justified in believing it but people would be justified in not believing you. It would be true, you'd be right, but unless someone trusted your honesty/sanity/rationality etc beyond belief then they'd be crazy to believe you. But you'd still be right.
People also hear little voices in their head to murder their family. :p

Anyway, for this to be true we would have to assume the existence of extra terrestrials, their ability to travel intergalactic distances and their reasons for doing so. The more likely explanation is the person is nuts.

[Strafio]

I should mention that even if there was some kind of “faith” in science, it wouldn’t be anything like the faith in religion, so comparing “scientific faith” with religious faith will get you no where. It would be like comparing the scientific definition of theory to a standard definition of theory.
This is why I said my point was kind of pedantic... :)

Subjective evidence is essentially useless evidence. As it’s subjective, the only person it proves anything to is the person presenting the “evidence” as support for their claim. But, as this personal evidence is only useful to them, it’s useless to everyone else. Ironically, evidence is about proving claims to others, which exactly what subjective evidence dosn't do.

You need to prove objective claims with objective evidence.
Ofcourse. When I said that personal experience is evidence, I said that it was evidence to you and you alone and that no one else could really use it as so.

Note that, subjective evidence is fine for a personal 'quests', but not for claims which you argue as fact and truth. "I saw God, therefore he exists and created the universe" dosn't hold.

To quote you: If it's personal then it's something that only means anything to you. I rest my case. ;)
Easy now... Where did the bit in bold come from? :eek:
I said that if someone genuinely saw God then that would be good evidence for them to believe. I specifically said that I wouldn't be convinced but if they were usually reliable in every other way then I'd see that as evidence that something had happened. (perhaps someone slipped an acid tab in their tea! ;))


I agree that religion explores subjective elements of life but the problem is claiming they are fact, true, historically accurate etc when they are subjective. As long as you’re honest with yourself about the use of your religion/spirituality I don’t have a problem with it.
Me too. There's some people on this board who'd call a faith in God irrational. I don't think that's so. I think that Soccy's convinced me with his points that there isn't objective evidence for God if you don't already believe (ofcourse, whether you already believe in not is likely down to your personal experience) but I don't think that rational belief is purely down to objective evidence.

People also hear little voices in their head to murder their family. :p

Anyway, for this to be true we would have to assume the existence of extra terrestrials, their ability to travel intergalactic distances and their reasons for doing so. The more likely explanation is the person is nuts.
Yep. So I wouldn't take their word for it, you wouldn't take their word for it, but that's the point: we wouldn't take their word for it even if they were right. So I respect people's own personal evidence, especially as these people who claim to know God are extremely rational and intelligent in every other way. Perhaps religion found the achillies heel in their reasoning as TekkenGod believes, but think that there's more to it than that.

But you're right.
Subjective, personal experience can't be used to state objective facts like some religious people try to. So don't be thinking that I'm trying to say that! :p

[tekkengod]

I find your name extremely ironic...

:rolleyes:

[Topher]

Ofcourse. When I said that personal experience is evidence, I said that it was evidence to you and you alone and that no one else could really use it as so.
Which renders is useless evidence, therefore it’s illogical to try to make an argument with it.

Easy now... Where did the bit in bold come from? :eek:
You mean you haven’t heard arguments of fact/truth based on subjective evidence?

I said that if someone genuinely saw God then that would be good evidence for them to believe. I specifically said that I wouldn't be convinced but if they were usually reliable in every other way then I'd see that as evidence that something had happened. (perhaps someone slipped an acid tab in their tea! ;))
Even if they are usually right, the ability to review the evidence for yourself is still important. Even if say, Richard Dawkins presented something, despite other scientists probably being confident in his work, they would still want to see evidence which they themselves can test. Just because someone is usually right it would be jumping to conclusions to assume they were right based on previous work. And ironically, the people arguing for God are usually wrong!

Me too. There's some people on this board who'd call a faith in God irrational. I don't think that's so. I think that Soccy's convinced me with his points that there isn't objective evidence for God if you don't already believe (ofcourse, whether you already believe in not is likely down to your personal experience) but I don't think that rational belief is purely down to objective evidence.
Logical, rational and parsimonious explanations are a part of what makes evidence objective.

[CKava]

You seem to be missing his point somewhat Homer your actually agreeing on most issues if you'd just take the time to stop firing off on your agenda. Look:

it’s illogical to try to make an argument with it.
it was evidence to you and you alone and that no one else could really use it as so.
Here Strafio accepts that subjective evidence cannot be used to make an argument that would compell someone else to agree with you.

You mean you haven’t heard arguments of fact/truth based on subjective evidence?
Subjective, personal experience can't be used to state objective facts like some religious people try to.
I think this quote from Strafio's post BEFORE yours should make it quite clear Strafio is aware that religious people frequently use such arguments and also makes abundantly clear he doesn't agree with them!

Just because someone is usually right it would be jumping to conclusions to assume they were right based on previous work.
Yet this happens all the time in every aspect of life including science. Science has a mechanism for dealing with it... peer review but thats not infallible as a quick google search of scientific frauds would reveal. Anyhow, I agree with you most of the times Homer but besides taking an extremely one sided position your really belabouring the point here and its tedious. Strafio is clearly not pushing the creationist/ID agenda and thus there is no need to keep raising a religion vs. science dichotomy. Science doesn't necessarily have to conflict with religion hence why many scientists are still religious. Some scientists are even involved in exchanges/discussions with religious groups (e.g. the Brain/Mind conferences arranged between prominent scientists and Buddhist monks) and to be honest in the transcripts I've read of such discussions its quite apparent that in some cases religious figures can teach scientists somethings! Point being as long as religious people aren't trying to attack or hinder scientific progress and aren't (like Strafio) demanding that you accept their arguments wheres the need for the confrontation?

I wont deny Religion is often abused for selfish reasons and religious explanations of natural phenomena are often times very silly but if you take the time to look its quite clear there are positive aspects of religion (despite what Mr. Dawkins says ;)).

[Topher]

Sure I noticed our agreements but I was focusing on certain points where there was a difference such as subjective evidence NOT being evidence. Strafio agreed, but still kinda implied some validity to subjective evidence:

I specifically said that I wouldn't be convinced but if they were usually reliable in every other way then I'd see that as evidence that something had happened.
I understand what he was saying, but unless that something is that they hallucinated/dreamt/made up etc, then I contest that something did not happen, atleast with reason otherwise. I would naturally question an outlandish claim even if they were usually reliable.

wheres the need for the confrontation?
What confrontation?

Anyway the point we were talking about was whether there was faith in science, which I don't think there is, at least not by any normal definition of the word. With these type of debates, it easy to get sidetracked.

if you take the time to look its quite clear there are positive aspects of religion (despite what Mr. Dawkins says ;)).
I don’t and have never denied this. I don’t agree with some of Dawkins stance that all religion pernicious. While I understand his sentiment I don’t think it is ultimately true.

[Strafio]

Thanks Ckava. Homer, it did sometimes seem that you were arguing against points I hadn't made. :)

I understand what he was saying, but unless that something is that they hallucinated/dreamt/made up etc, then I contest that something did not happen, atleast with reason otherwise. I would naturally question an outlandish claim even if they were usually reliable.
If the person in question doesn't usually mistake dreams/hallucinations for truth then there's a chance that they might be on to something, right? It's not especially strong evidence, but it is something, especially when it's happening to a lot of people the same way.

Perhaps it's a weakness in the mind where everyone makes the same mistake.
Perhaps it's not.

What confrontation?
You were brutally tearing down some strawmen of mine! :p

[Topher]

Thanks Ckava. Homer, it did sometimes seem that you were arguing against points I hadn't made. :)
I should clarify that in addition to replying to your comments I was also referring to the general perception regarding this, and related issues. I was basing a big part of my main argument on that view. I should have been clearer with this. Apologies. :o I know we agree on most stuff so when it appeared I was arguing about comments you hadn’t made (maybe i indirectly was to some degree??), I was actually arguing against (attempting to at least! :p ) the general claims which those of opposing views usually make, such as the many claims of personal revelations and fallacious evidence proving God or “it’s true because of faith” etc.

Now that sorted, who’s for milk and cookies! :D

[Strafio]

:)