TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

omg shakka OMG!!! R u ok? I swear you spend so much time on TA that your wife might have already left you and you didnt noticed. Go check on her Shakka go!

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid omg shakka OMG!!! R u ok? I swear you spend so much time on TA that your wife might have already left you and you didnt noticed. Go check on her Shakka go!

Correction: I spend so much time procrastinating at work sometimes...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Correction: I spend so much time procrastinating at work sometimes...

...right...you spend so much time stalking me....do you have a thing for my avatar is that it? Do you? you like that ass

that's a good ass.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd that's a good ass.

These boards are filled with asses.

Eh, TvD since it's pointless to argue about evolution with you because we refuted every single one of your claims while you basically failed to refute any one of ours, I would just like to ask you why and how you think Charles Darwin came up with the idea of evolution in the first place, and why did the scientific community adopt that idea? Your basic claim is that science is now so hard stuck on evolution because of the reasons that are the very foundation of creationism in first place, mainly dogmatism and tradition. But if that was the case, then the theory of evolution would never even be considered, as the whole of scientific community was pretty certain about creationism back in the days.

Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution.

Allow me to clarify this up a bit with you. Nothing could be further from the truth pertaining to scientists. Quite the opposite, really. Scientists actually question evolution every single day, and they test and retest evolution in so many aspects of their research that the theory itself would surely be completely null and void by now if it wasn't considered scientifically valid.

But we don't see this for a reason - despite the literally millions of tests thrown upon evolution on the literally millions of different species of critters being tested, the theory holds up quite strong. In fact, with so many tests being performed, the theory only becomes more and more stronger.

There is no deniability here - it is only certainty. Most scientists ignore these so-called "criticisms" because up to this point, all criticisms given are erroneous and flawed. And when you get to know the creationist/ID camp the way I have over the years, you come to find that the vast majority of the flawed criticisms were deliberate and deceitful.

Let me repeat that for you:

you come to find that the vast majority of the flawed criticisms were deliberate and deceitful.

I don't say that lightly. But I have come to know the arguments of creationists/IDers pretty well by now, and up until recently I have naively given them the benefit of the doubt and felt that they simply misunderstood evolution.

But in fact, I've concluded that the harshest critics - Behe, Dembski, anyone in the Discovery camp, etc. actually do know evolution pretty good, but rather simply cannot accept it as a result of a supposed clash with their spiritual viewpoints. It's despicable and digusting to watch them willfully misrepresent evolution and spin it in a completely unscientific manner.

quote:

Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown.

Many citizens in those Red States haven't a fucking clue what evolution truly is and means in the first place, and that it should not be considered a threat to any spiritual belief they may have. I say this with complete knowledge of fighting this very fight in one of the reddest states in the country.

quote:

Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd.

Fucking bullshit. As stated previously, evolution is questioned on a daily basis. I've personally seen it questioned in both undergraduate and graduate research, and I see it being questioned in my Doctoral work with a professor I am considering working under as a research assistant (she's looking for a cure for diabetes). Scientists are tired as hell seeing wingnutters come after them with asinine questions that do nothing but waste their time and completely misunderstand evolution in the first place.

Now don't get me wrong, I think scientists are finally having to realize that they can no longer ignore the fundamentalist wingnutters anymore as this fucking debacle is building into a political PR battle, and as a consequence they are going to learn how to talk more openly and clearly in public circles about their research. But the problem is if one wishes to learn about evolution, it's not a sit-down 1-hr. conversation type ordeal. The intricacies are just as complicated in understanding as learning about relativity, quantum theory, etc. etc.

But I do think it's going to somehow be a necessary step in order to address the wingnutters.

quote:

A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate.

Oh please. Can you honestly blame them if they are literally being attacked by idiots who know next to nothing about what evolution states and doesn't state? It's a fucking insult to researchers to see these wingnutters pretty much piss all over their life's work.

Can you understand this? I'm not trying to be condescending, but think about it for a second. My undergrad. mentor, for example, spent the vast majority of his life studying underwater "flight" of various little critters in the ocean. Without evolutionary theory, his entire work would be nothing but worthless. IOW, his entire research would be completely baseless.

But, in fact, the opposite is true. But I challenge you or anyone else to get him or any other professor to attempt to insert a creationist or ID theory in place of evolutionary theory he has successfully utilized for some 35 years and see just how far his research would get him. Let's just see just how useful these creationist/ID theories are in a research setting, then we can have something to compare to.

Or perhaps, just perhaps that has already been done? And perhaps, just perhaps this is why there is not 1 peer-reviewed paper pertaining to the usefulness of any creationist/ID theory out there. I promise you, this is is not some academic conspiracy - the reason is quite clear: there is no utilization or support of any kind pertaining to any given creationist/ID theory.

Unless, of course, they have somehow successfully understood methodological naturalism and found the scientific method worthwhile for once in some little-known paper that I am unaware of. I'd be quite interested in seeing that, if you know of any (as would about a few hundred-thousand biological researchers out there too).

And then perhaps one can explain to me why ID places like Discovery.org continually state that they are working on research, when in fact they do nothing of the sort and instead focus all their finances on PR battles in local elections for state and school board of education officials. Pretty interesting tactic for a group that contends their theory is so strong, ain't it?

quote:

Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible.

We write it off for good reason. I've been down this road countless numbers of times with a number of folks here on this forum, and an even higher number of times with other creationist/ID folks in other forums and public events.

If people wanna look in the Bible for "answers", all the power to them. But attempt to put those Biblical "answers" in the science classroom where we try to teach kids that science uses methodological naturalism and the scientific method as a means to understand the natural world through science, and I'll be the first in line to block your entrance. If people cannot understand the distinct and very different concepts of faith and science, fuck 'em. They will not be attempting to bring their confusion into my future kid's science classroom as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts.

Well maybe, just maybe it's because most rationally thinking individuals, many of them Christians themselves, have come to realize that the Bible is not inerrant when it comes to history and science lessons. I could be wrong, but the last time I checked I don't think rabbits chew their cud, do you?

So instead of using the Bible as some history map and science guide, maybe wingnutters should consider using the Bible what it was intended for - a moral guide? I know, that's a really crazy thought to hold, but it just might work a bit better for them that way. And then they can leave the study of the natural world up to something that does quite well with that instead, like science?

I know, it is a crazy thought.

I wery much doubt that anyone would be lynched by a mob of angry fanatical evolutionist if he would question the theory of evolution and could argument his point of wiev by solid facts. It is becouse people try to disprove it without any facts whatsoever on their side that evolutionist tend to be perhaps a bit more reluctant to listen to them.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I know, it is a crazy thought.

Let me consult The Book of Revelations on this matter.

It says "Ack!"

Of course the ancient scriptures were written in a different time, so I will have to translate the meaning of this prophetic word of wisdom into a more colloquial message.

Translated it says

"The propagation of the theory of evolution is one of God's favourite examples of apomIXIs"

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts.

TVD's attacks against evolution have all been refuted time and time again by numerous posters. Every single argument posed by a creationist in this forum has been responded to whereas they feel the need to cherry pick the arguments they want to respond to. This debate has been going on for some two years now. So the fact that many in this thread casually dismiss TVD's arguments is because he's not presenting any new arguments. And while it's perfectly all right for people to look towards the bible for understanding the "mysteries" of life (they can look towards a where's waldo book for all I care), it hardly has a place in a classroom of science as does Mel Brook's History of the World has a place in history class.

But assuming we do teach creation myth in the classroom side by side with evolution, whose creation myth do we teach?

the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushiate, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, or Zulu?

Furthermore, I demand reciprosity:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider TVD's attacks against evolution have all been refuted time and time again by numerous posters. Every single argument posed by a creationist in this forum has been responded to whereas they feel the need to cherry pick the arguments they want to respond to. This debate has been going on for some two years now. So the fact that many in this thread casually dismiss TVD's arguments is because he's not presenting any new arguments. And while it's perfectly all right for people to look towards the bible for understanding the "mysteries" of life (they can look towards a where's waldo book for all I care), it hardly has a place in a classroom of science as does Mel Brook's History of the World has a place in history class. But assuming we do teach creation myth in the classroom side by side with evolution, whose creation myth do we teach? the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushiate, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, or Zulu?

Hmm, not to be nitpicky, but I really didn't know that Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, among other nations, all have their own version of creationism myths. I suppose you could go back to some old slavic myths but in that case their stories of creation of the world are generally pretty much the same.

I don't wnat to be misunderstood. I do not believe creationism has a place in a science class (the idea is fucking laughable if it weren't so sad), nor do I believe in its place in the class room (public that is). However, I understand when people draw parallels to "untouchable" religion and "untouchable" science.

I've met plently of religious and non-religious ppl, and they're all equally stupid. At the same time I've come across a few religious and non-religious ppl, all equally intelligent.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution.

Evolution is both a theory and an observable fact, see below.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown.

This is fair, but notice your own wording:

Creationists (without accusing you of being one) want Evolution to be held up to the lens of scientific reason and approached objectively ("the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it"), while they simultaneously refuse to have their own theories subject to the same calibre and degree of scrutiny.

Ask yourself who's being intellectually honest here and who isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd.

This isn't exactly fair.

What you're describing there is the scientific community's total consternation with the religious right, who refuse to do their basic homework so that a meaningful discussion can be had between the Evolutionists vs. the those that advocate Intelligent Design.

Evolution isn't a religion per se, but you have a case for a cult of intelligent reason. It was dawned by the Age of Enlightenment.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate.

It's true that there are many whom are virulently contemptuous of the religious right.

But you have to understand the basis of that: when Creationists wave their hands and dismiss Evolution (or as Opus was saying, willfully and demonstrably misrepresent and/or distort it) what they are simultaneously doing is dismissing the scientist's life work (and thereby the basis of science). They are also dismissing the very basis for the advancement of human civilization. It is difficult to contend with that kind of behaviour.

When a scientist dismisses a Creationist, the Creationists get into an uproar. Why is it fair for one and not the other? ("Ask yourself who's being intellectually honest here and who isn't.")

This is another perfect example of the double-standard that the Creationist demands he should be able to apply at will, and which he insists is binding on all parties. When the scientist objects and refuses, the basis for common conversation disintegrates.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible.

Scientists, logicians, atheists, agnostics have documented their case against the argument of the bible 200 years ago.

If Creationists insist on holding to the bible anyway, they should examine the arguments of the scientists and attempt to generate conversation on why they feel the scientist's argument is lacking with respect to creation as described in the bible.

When Creationists ignore the scientist's argument, and continue to pretend it doesn't exist, the scientist sees no basis for common conversation.

Scientists have done their biblical and scientific homework. We're ready to talk about the matter from any angle you may choose, or be interested in.

We're also waiting on the Creationists to extend the same courtesy. We'll even help you to do so:

--

Reposted from a response I made last week:

Introduction

God and Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Evolution and Philosophy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html


Biology

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...to-biology.html

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Fossil Hominids FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

-N

Re: the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.

Something NEW under the sun??!!11ONE

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i think so. do you?

"And in world news apparently someone, somewhere doesn't like a man who loves Jesus. Startling to say the least."

So what? I love God. Honestly dude...what's your point? You think I'm dumb, and unintelligent...so?

So you could say we both don't like things. You don't care for faith or God, and I don't care for sin.

The thing is, and here's the kicker...I still wouldn't treat you any different for NOT believing. Hate is lame.

Science is fettered by alot of things, sometimes I find it hard to trust other humans after reading a bit about the science profession.

If you read say, Kuhn, or Popper, or some others, science sounds alot more like a power struggle to publish each person's opinion more than it sounds like an efficient method to reveal truths about the universe. There are alot of judgement calls made in science without any real empirical reason, those judgement calls that nobody seems to acknowledge are things that dont allow me to beleive that science is unfettered truth. The post-Openheimer national research system pioneered by Vanevar Bush (yes the very same Bush family) is not the best model for discovering the truth(IMHO).

That being said, evolution is pretty obvious and alot of people who interperet the bible literaly do tend to be in denial about some pretty elementary ideas that appear provable. Logic can't prove the existance of God for one side or the other, there is just as much uncertainty on both sides so I think that beleif in a god is neither a positive nor negative mark on a persons intelligence.

I don't think that the origins of life is important enough to take part in the argument of creation vs evolution, it is quite possible that both contain certain measures of correctness.

Beleiving in solely evolution requires one to believe that we owe our lives to random chance and the struggle to survive, which is a sad view in some ways, especially when one considers that alot of things happen for a reason and not because a random mutation happens to have survival value. One misses an important point which is, how are new evolutionary traits made? Random chance seems to be todays answer, but it really seems naive to say that randomness is the cause of so many significant things, it is not stupid to beleive that there are intelligent purposes behind phenomena that are not well understood.

Beleiving in solely creation requires one to beleive that we are all under the influence of some greater being that has seemingly unlimited abilities, and that everything that exists was designed by this being, making one dismiss the very noticable patterns in how living things have changed over time. One almost has to falsify the past in order to beleive that a higher being created everything the way we know it today. Sure theories like carbon dating, DNA evidence and others are debatable in some ways but one has to except that there are some truths about the world that science has the ability to reveal.

It is good to have faith in something, it is good to have evidence of something, but neither will make you smart or stupid, there is no correlation except at the extreme ends of the scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Science is fettered by alot of things, sometimes I find it hard to trust other humans after reading a bit about the science profession....

Not a bad assessment, but a quick comment on this:

quote:

Beleiving in solely evolution requires one to believe that we owe our lives to random chance and the struggle to survive, which is a sad view in some ways, especially when one considers that alot of things happen for a reason and not because a random mutation happens to have survival value. One misses an important point which is, how are new evolutionary traits made? Random chance seems to be todays answer, but it really seems naive to say that randomness is the cause of so many significant things, it is not stupid to beleive that there are intelligent purposes behind phenomena that are not well understood.

This is a pretty common misconception about evolution. First, it doesn't have to require a belief of any kind here - empirical data alone suffices quite well in our understanding.

Second, random chance (i.e. random mutation) is only 1/2 of the aspect involved with the evolutionary mechanism. The other 1/2, natural selection, is not a random event, but works much like a filter to sift out the deleterious events that lead to a less successful population and favors a more successful one. Random mutations occur all the time, even within our own bodies (something like 60-70 in our lifetime, but don't quote me). What evolution pertains to is the POPULATION, however, and not just one individual. So there's quite a lotta time that's involved in order for a mutated event(s) to be naturally selected out that accomodates a higher fitness rate in an ever-changing environment.

I don't mind at all that people have faith. Hell I think I've got a few drops of it myself. But intermingling faith within the science realm where one has to utilize valid evidence in our study of the natural world is illogical and misplaced.

to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms I just can't fool myself into thinking that entropy(however filtered it may be) is the root cause of it all.

I agree that faith does not belong in science, but that doesn't mean that it does not belong in life at all. We dont need religion to figure out the truth but more to guide people in making better heuristics for themselves. Guiding principles like "do unto others..." seem to be the more important point of religion rather than how we came into being. Things like that don't make a person stupid, using faith to oppose evidence however does seem like a stupid idea.

What empirical data is there that tells us why zebras grew stripes or how giraffes got really tall, except that some zebras happened to have stripes and some giraffes happened to have long necks, and those animals had more babies than the others. Actually I guess that isnt quite randomness, but moreso a selective breeding process. So then that would make it a sexual thing, whoever has the traits that gets them the most ass puts them in the next generation, I guess selective breeding would be the answer instead of randomness, but still, survival value and selective breeding remain mere filters of randomness. How did the machanisims for selecting a mate evolve during the time before organisms had the ability to select? Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just fucked whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate?

Those random chances, the entropy, they are places where science is incomplete or not yet understood. It just CAN'T be that random occurances are the root cause of all living things. But evolution seems to make people want to believe that for the time being until somebody firugres something out. I think evolution is the right direction towards finding the truth but this root dependency on random chance is where the flaw is. I guess I am saying mutations have to have causes in order for evolution to make sense to me, there seem to be a few proven causes but not enough to explain all life.

Please forgive me if I didn't understand you.

yikes, answered my own questions on the drive home from work

OK, so I realized that it is entrely possible that the abilty to make decisions came into being before it was even possible for lifeforms to "fuck", and I can imagine how lifeforms evolved the ability to make decisions,

I would think it has a parallel to how we moved from a few transistors to advanced computers following moore's law.

Being an American student makes it hard to understand the details of evolution because it is too controversial to teach. So it just took me a bit longer to realize how some things about life could come into being by mutation/selection cycles rather than a driving force of some kind. But if the capability to make decisions came before the concept of male-female and sex then I can see that evolution does in fact have a guiding force, and that force seems to be the lifeforms themselves. So it would just be a matter of discovering the order in which things hapened, which could b possible if that order was found with evicende rather than artificial arguents brought up just for the sake of preserving the theory or satisfy the funders, which scientists have been known to do.

I had a bit of a breakthrough today, w00t.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms [QUOTE]Originally posted by Zombie0915 to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms I just can't fool myself into thinking that entropy(however filtered it may be) is the root cause of it all. I agree that faith does not belong in science, but that doesn't mean that it does not belong in life at all. We dont need religion to figure out the truth but more to guide people in making better heuristics for themselves. Guiding principles like "do unto others..." seem to be the more important point of religion rather than how we came into being. Things like that don't make a person stupid, using faith to oppose evidence however does seem like a stupid idea. What empirical data is there that tells us why zebras grew stripes or how giraffes got really tall, except that some zebras happened to have stripes and some giraffes happened to have long necks, and those animals had more babies than the others. Actually I guess that isnt quite randomness, but moreso a selective breeding process. So then that would make it a sexual thing, whoever has the traits that gets them the most ass puts them in the next generation, I guess selective breeding would be the answer instead of randomness, but still, survival value and selective breeding remain mere filters of randomness. How did the machanisims for selecting a mate evolve during the time before organisms had the ability to select? Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just fucked whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate? Those random chances, the entropy, they are places where science is incomplete or not yet understood. It just CAN'T be that random occurances are the root cause of all living things. But evolution seems to make people want to believe that for the time being until somebody firugres something out. I think evolution is the right direction towards finding the truth but this root dependency on random chance is where the flaw is. I guess I am saying mutations have to have causes in order for evolution to make sense to me, there seem to be a few proven causes but not enough to explain all life. Please forgive me if I didn't understand you.

No, I don't think you misunderstood me, so I'll try not to misunderstand you in my reply. It seems that you are essentially asking the metaphysical "nature" of natural selection. For that I honestly don't know, and to be honest I'm not sure it's terribly important in studying evolution. But to examine this at another angle, if we eliminate the value of natural selection itself, or to take it a step further - make natural selection a truly random event, then there would truly be no survival whatsoever. Or at the very least, the probability of a population's survival plummets drastically. For example:

take Pop. A and have it undergo random mutation over the long, long years. Now over time a part of that population inhabits an environment that, for some reason or another, puts a different kind of stress on that branch of the population - say a geographical isolaiton event for example. Well over time, this separate population we'll call Population B has some very different environmental factors to deal with, and as a consequence the mere randomness of mutation events just don't cut it for this new isolated population to survive. For argument's sake, let's say the food is higher in the trees for this species to reach, but before when it wasn't isolated it had food readily available on a lower level. A few mere random mutations over hundreds of thousands of years are not going to cut it for this population - what they need to happen instead is a filter for the population B to survive.

That filter is natural selection (NS). So with NS you start seeing a mutation event of say, longer necks, take place over more than just one generation - it occurs over and over again over thousands of years because this group is able to reach those higher-up fruits in the tree. However, the remaining members of the population B that have not undergone this randomly mutated event will not survive, because they were not naturally selected.

Follow? So think of the random event itself in terms of the mutated event only. Natural selection, however, occurs as a consequence to the ever changing environment itself - therefore this event is not a random occurrence.

Now if you're asking the metaphysical "whys" of it all, don't ask me, and don't ask any evolutionary researcher because they don't care. They leave the "whys" up to someone else. If you wanna say "Godidit", have at it. But don't bring that unsupported assertion into the same realm of science, where supported assertions must be utilized in scientific methodology.

And this last comment:

quote:

Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just fucked whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate?

Not exactly sure what you mean. Could you clarify a bit here? If you're referring to the beginning of critter development - well more than just evolution is theorized - symbiotic relationships is a common and fairly widely accepted theory for example. But if you're referring to man's ancestors, I'm not sure how to answer your question - do you want to know about monogomous relationships vs. polygamy amongst early ancestors? If so, what confuses you?

crikey you type fast, I think I was writing some stuff and editing some stuff as you were rebutting me, you might want to check the sorta self-corections I might have been writing while you were wriging your reply.

There are just a few missing details that aren't immediately obvious(like my whole embarrasing "ability to select a mate" thing), and that a school will not teach because of the controversy. I think alot more people would understand if some more of those details were given rather then leaving people to fill in the gaps with their imaginations.

But yeah, the question no longer stands

How dare you all have a religious discussion without me?

back to youring drinking binge you hussy.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 If you read say, Kuhn, or Popper, or some others, science sounds alot more like a power struggle to publish each person's opinion more than it sounds like an efficient method to reveal truths about the universe.

It can be, as many academics tend to become egomanics. It is "true" as you say that this is an unfortunate event, but this is no basis to dismiss all or even some of science's findings.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 There are alot of judgement calls made in science without any real empirical reason, those judgement calls that nobody seems to acknowledge are things that dont allow me to beleive that science is unfettered truth.

I've had this discussion with many a postmodernist philosopher.

So, examples, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Beleiving in solely creation requires one to beleive that we are all under the influence of some greater being that has seemingly unlimited abilities, and that everything that exists was designed by this being, making one dismiss the very noticable patterns in how living things have changed over time. One almost has to falsify the past in order to beleive that a higher being created everything the way we know it today.

But understand how neat and tidy such belief is for many people, since it absolves them of having to educate themselves, form a responsible, intellectual opinion and come to grips with the potential that this life is all there is.

Some people just don't possess the ability to, or the psychological tools to cope with, that possibility at the stage of life they're in.

-N

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.