TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Equal time for creationism bill introduced
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Equal time for creationism bill introduced

See now this is what happenes when people keep marrying their own cusins. They end up producing offspring like Senator Gary Jackson and it's just not right!

"A bill calling for "balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution" was introduced in the Mississippi Senate and referred to the Committee on Education on January 10, 2005. Introduced by Senator Gary Jackson, who represents the 15th Senate District, SB 2286 defines "scientific creationism" as "the belief, based on scientific principles, that there was a time in the past when all matter, energy and life, and their processes and relationships, were created ex nihilo and fixed by creative and intelligent design," and would, if enacted, require "instruction in scientific theories of both evolution and scientific creationism if public schools choose to teach either." Only K-12 instruction would be affected by the bill. In both its title and in particular choices of phrasing, SB 2286 seems to be modeled on Lousiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction," which was held to be unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard."

Seems fair enough to me i guess, but only so long as they teach other religions along with christianity

quote:

Originally posted by Lateralus Seems fair enough to me i guess, but only so long as they teach other religions along with christianity

They better include neo-paganism too.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild They better include neo-paganism too.

Exactly, just a farce really. If it's ment to be non-denomiational then it'll have to be based upon fact rather than belifs..... that'll be science then?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Exactly, just a farce really. If it's ment to be non-denomiational then it'll have to be based upon fact rather than belifs..... that'll be science then?

That was my point. I do at points consider myself a neo-pagan but I don't need children's science classes to propogate my beliefs.

Where's TranceVanDyk? He could teach a couple of Creationism courses.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer Where's TranceVanDyk? He could teach a couple of Creationism courses.

I think he felt the athiests were bullys...bring him back i say...

bravo for Mississippi.

quote:

Seems fair enough to me i guess, but only so long as they teach other religions along with christianity

philosophically speaking, we all have a religion, i really dont want to whip out the dictionary and find the definition of religion, because the word religion doesnt always mean the belief of a deity. im assuming your religion to be Secular Humanism. what right does secular humanism have in public school's over other religions? what makes secular humanism "true"? What is truth? what is "right", and what is "wrong"?

i think your statement is hypocracy because if secular humanism is taught in school's, other religions should be too, whether u agree with them or not.

i kinda stayed away from the religious debates, because the creation-evolution discussion became soooo looonnnggg and drawn out, i no longer had the time. concerning creation in this thread, ide rather not get into it, but search for "What if Christianity and Islam were combined?" by Lira. go to around page 9, i think, around there, and youll see my arguement for creationism, and the arguements for evolution.

The only real problem I have with this is that they probably have to sacrifice time from teaching real science to incorporate this stuff now. Meaning that kids are learning less real science and more of this nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer The only real problem I have with this is that they probably have to sacrifice time from teaching real science to incorporate this stuff now. Meaning that kids are learning less real science and more of this nonsense.

But its not considered nonsense...by people that believe..and i guess they have a point as well..

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer The only real problem I have with this is that they probably have to sacrifice time from teaching real science to incorporate this stuff now. Meaning that kids are learning less real science and more of this nonsense.

but what if what's being taught IS NOT TRUE!!?? evolution can never be proved without a doubt, and there are very strong arguements against it that have not been substantially answered. lets not get into a debate over the specific arguements, but why not teach the different theories, and let the students decide for themselves what they regard as the best theory, and what they will believe. people complain about christianity shoving it's doctrine down people's throat, when evolutionists and seculars, do the exact same thing.

this issue is part of a much bigger issue. it's a spiritual/doctrinal/religious battle that's going on, and this is part of it. who is ultimately going to win. i know without a doubt. moslims are battling, christians are battling, seculars, evolutionists are battling, armies are battling, music is being fought over, and the classroom is being fought over. everything is being fought over. hopefully, people can grasp this.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: bravo for Mississippi.

Bravo for what? Attempting to give equal time to science and religion in a science classroom? I don't see people demanding evolution to be taught in sunday school.

quote:

philosophically speaking, we all have a religion, i really dont want to whip out the dictionary and find the definition of religion, because the word religion doesnt always mean the belief of a deity. im assuming your religion to be Secular Humanism. what right does secular humanism have in public school's over other religions? what makes secular humanism "true"? What is truth? what is "right", and what is "wrong"?

That is simply not correct. Religion does require a belief in either a deity or at least in some sort of spiritualism, but the key word here is belief. Now, while you could say that strict atheism and religion do share the fact that they both believe in something, secularism is basically the same as agnosticism and therefore does not believe in anything. Hence it can not be regarded as a religious or even a belief system, and therefore it has more right to be taught in schools not because it teaches people what is right or wrong, but because it teaches people only about things which are observable and of which we are pertty much certain of. Every other religion and belief system including atheism includes in itself things that are not observable and that only a result of one's personal believs and ideals.[/quote]

quote:

i think your statement is hypocracy because if secular humanism is taught in school's, other religions should be too, whether u agree with them or not.

Again, secular humanism is not a religon, but really, if you teach every religion in the world, you'd finish your schooling at the age of 50. But what you are demanding here is grossly unfair. You want public secular schools to teach your religion, yet you do not want your specific church to teach secular values. Getting yourself catholic education is not forbidden in the US, and if you want to learn about creationism (which is dismissed even by the pope himself), you can go to your local church. But you shouldn't force your religious values upon anybody, because scientists are not forcing your church to teach evolution.

quote:

i kinda stayed away from the religious debates, because the creation-evolution discussion became soooo looonnnggg and drawn out, i no longer had the time. concerning creation in this thread, ide rather not get into it, but search for "What if Christianity and Islam were combined?" by Lira. go to around page 9, i think, around there, and youll see my arguement for creationism, and the arguements for evolution.

Well, ultimately it must come to this because the only reason why evolution is being taught in schools instead of creationism is that it has much more evidence on its side.

They shouldn't be teaching creationism or any other sort of religious mumbo jumbo in a science class.

you go to school for science, math, languages, and history...
you go to church/mosque/temple for religion

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Bravo for what? Attempting to give equal time to science and religion in a science classroom? I don't see people demanding evolution to be taught in sunday school. That is simply not correct. Religion does require a belief in either a deity or at least in some sort of spiritualism, but the key word here is belief. Now, while you could say that strict atheism and religion do share the fact that they both believe in something, secularism is basically the same as agnosticism and therefore does not believe in anything. Hence it can not be regarded as a religious or even a belief system, and therefore it has more right to be taught in schools not because it teaches people what is right or wrong, but because it teaches people only about things which are observable and of which we are pertty much certain of. Every other religion and belief system including atheism includes in itself things that are not observable and that only a result of one's personal believs and ideals.

Main Entry: re�li�gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

secular humanism is a system of beliefs, it is a principle, and it has a cause. religion can involve the belief in a deity or spiritualism, but the keyword is can. u are right in that secular humanism is non-theistic "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." the word "god" also can be something other than the christian god, allah, or a deity. god can be your favorite singer, your job, your car, money, etc. whatever you hold of supreme value is your god. like i said, it can be jesus, allah, or money, your girlfriend, your job, your car, etc.

science is great in many aspects. but in the question of the beginning of everything, science jumps the bounds into the spiritual, because the question of "What is the first beginning?", and "What set all physical laws in place?", and "Why does everything work together like a machine, intelligently created by a human, likewise, the human body, which like a machine, has all the different parts working together, just like a car, also created with intelligent design.

and with that, evolution is on the same page as creation. both can only observe what they have on the table now. no video camera's in the beginning of existance. there are creation scientist out there who are scientifically, using the scientific method finding evidence for creationism. but, evolutionists have already made up their mind that is all just religious smack, and u dont even listen to the creationist arguement.

quote:

Again, secular humanism is not a religon, but really, if you teach every religion in the world, you'd finish your schooling at the age of 50. But what you are demanding here is grossly unfair. You want public secular schools to teach your religion, yet you do not want your specific church to teach secular values. Getting yourself catholic education is not forbidden in the US, and if you want to learn about creationism (which is dismissed even by the pope himself), you can go to your local church. But you shouldn't force your religious values upon anybody, because scientists are not forcing your church to teach evolution.

secular humanism is a religion because it falls under "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" this definition. i wasnt saying teach every religion. im calling your case hypocracy because if secular humanism is taught in schools, and u say "if we teach one religion, we must teach them all." this is your own words. secular humanism is a religion, and so hey, why arent u teaching the rest? because u have come to the conclusion that all other worldviews are wrong, and that secular humanism is the only true one. christianity is doing the same, which is why there is such a big fight going on over this. each side believes itself to be absolutely right.

i have no catholic education. i have a mostly secular one, with the 1 year of protestant education and another year of protestant schooling. who knows what ill study in college?

the pope means nothing to me. i believe the catholic church is a false religion in that they put traditions and rules in front of what the bible really says. purgatory is not in the bible, they have added extra books to the bible, u earn salvation by good works, etc. this why there are protestants. the bible calls the catholic church the Great Prostitute

"Revelation 19
Hallelujah!
1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: �Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.� 3And again they shouted: �Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.� "

what do u mean scientists are not trying to force their values on us?? look at the definition of Secular Humanism.

Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion.

secular science is antagonistic against christianity especially. look at the battle going on over abortion, the media, schools, people's minds, over science. secular's, humanists, atheists alike are all trying to get Christianity out of everything, and whether u realize it or not, instituting their own system of beliefs upon all whether they agree with it or not.

and ill say, it will come to a day where christians will be killed en masse, just like the jews of the haulocaust, by the millions and then seculars will have their day.

quote:

Well, ultimately it must come to this because the only reason why evolution is being taught in schools instead of creationism is that it has much more evidence on its side.

creationism has a mountain of evidence behind it. it's just that u, evolutionists, atheists, and seculars alike have already made up their mind to not even look at the evidence. they just put it off immediatly as myth. they have already come to their conclusion, and nothing will change their mind. look at the evidence, then come to your conclusion. genesis isnt the only thing creationism has to support it. there is a mountain of extra-biblical evidence, which most of u fail to see.

im going to admit. u know much more than i do on this subject of science, im a B science student. so, its best that i let the PHD's make my case.

Creationist Papers

following this link, youll find a page full of creationist papers written by scientists themselves and many scholars, of which can fight my case much better than i can.
------------------------------------------

im going to respond to your naturalism worldview this way..

Naturalism, logic and reality By: Dr. Ken Ham
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, �Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don�t believe in God.� I answered him, �Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don�t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don�t know if you�re making correct statements or even whether you�re asking me the right questions.�

The young man looked at me and blurted out, �What was that book you recommended?� He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations �such �reasoning� destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, �Actually, I�m an atheist. Because I don�t believe in God, I don�t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can�t even be sure of reality.� I responded, �Then how do you know you�re really here making this statement?� �Good point,� he replied. �What point?� I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, �Maybe I should go home.� I stated, �Maybe it won�t be there.� �Good point,� the man said. �What point?� I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

quote:

I may be a bit off here, but are you somehow equating science to this so-called "secular humanism"? Well science cares nothing about beliefs or values that are given in a religious setting - all it cares about is hypothetico-deductive reasoning that either supports or negates hypothesis, and then further evidence that supports theories. Equating these two is quite erroneous of you.

no, im mistaken. i equate evolution to secular humanism. not science, my mistake.

This arguement is really over our presuppositions. no matter how much we think we're right, we have already come to our conclusion before-hand and nothing will change that. its like a firewall to a computer. some things u let in, some things u dont. u have come to the conclusion that the christian god does not exist, and so therefore with that basic assumption, creationism cant be true, and all religion is fallicy. on the other hand, i cant see how the christian god cant exist, and so with this basic assumption of mine, evolution cant be true, and naturalism is fallicy.

its the way we look at this world, the lenses we are looking through, and everyone worldview is a different prescription.
----------------------------

Creation: �where�s the proof?�
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you �leave the Bible out of it�, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

�My friends say they don�t believe the Bible and aren�t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there�s a God who created, and then they�ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they�ll start to listen to me?�

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence�the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars�the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present�and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren�t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a �time machine�. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That�s why the argument often turns into something like:

�Can�t you see what I�m talking about?�

�No, I can�t. Don�t you see how wrong you are?�

�No, I�m not wrong. It�s obvious that I�m right.�

�No, it�s not obvious.� And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It�s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses�which means to change one�s presuppositions.

I�ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist�s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can�t put on the Christian�s glasses�unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting �evidence�, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense �on the facts�. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found �stronger facts�.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is�a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions�i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the �facts� for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, �Well sir, you need to try again.�

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher�s basic assumptions. Then it wasn�t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn�t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think.

The only thing that really pisses me off about creationists is when they try to use science to explain their theories. Relgion has always stood in the way of science and always tried to stop people from thinking for themselves (I'm talking 15-17th century here). And now that people start thinking for themselves and science becomes more accepted and understood, they decide to use science in their own theories.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer The only thing that really pisses me off about creationists is when they try to use science to explain their theories. Relgion has always stood in the way of science and always tried to stop people from thinking for themselves (I'm talking 15-17th century here). And now that people start thinking for themselves and science becomes more accepted and understood, they decide to use science in their own theories.

what, u want them to be bible thumping all day long, just so u can chastize the notion of creationism against your anti-theistic worldview??? excuse me, but the catholic church stood in the way of science (15-17th century), not theism as your stating.

nobody isnt taking away your free will of thought. the doctrine of christianity states, "In God's love, He has given us a choice. We can live in ourselves, or live in God. There are consequences for both. It is like a murderer being put on trial. that murderer deserves to be punished. what kind of judge would just aquit that criminal with that words, 'since im a nice guy, and i love u, ill let u go, have a nice life.' no, people would be angry. a just judge judges. jesus is so essential because he can take away that murderers guilt and put it upon himself. with the words 'ill take on your guilt, just follow me'. "

u have a free will to do whatever u want. u can think for yourself all u want, but i will say, if we were left to ourselves, we would destroy ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: nobody isnt taking away your free will of thought

If they're taking away from the rest of the science curriculum to teach creationism then I'd say they're forcing this on the kids. I'm not saying that anyone is forcing them to believe it, but considering that in some states they want to outlaw teaching about evolution, I'd say this is pretty hypocritical. It's like they finally found a loophole that allows them to bring religion into public schools.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer If they're taking away from the rest of the science curriculum to teach creationism then I'd say they're forcing this on the kids. I'm not saying that anyone is forcing them to believe it, but considering that in some states they want to outlaw teaching about evolution, I'd say this is pretty hypocritical. It's like they finally found a loophole that allows them to bring religion into public schools.

we're not saying take out evolution. we're actually the one championing free will in that it is the creationist desire to let the student decide for themself what they will accept as the correct theory according to their presuppositions, not be told that a theory as controversial as evolution be taught as 100% fact, and anything else is unscientific.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: im going to admit. u know much more than i do on this subject of science, im a B science student. so, its best that i let the PHD's make my case. Creationist Papers following this link, youll find a page full of creationist papers written by scientists themselves and many scholars, of which can fight my case much better than i can.

I read papers and commentary from a number of websites, including arn.org, icr.org, discovery.org, iscid.org, answersingenesis.org, trueorigin.org, among others. What are you attempting to show me that I haven't already seen? Let's see as I click on the icr link -


Oh! By golly what do we have here? A lovely diatribe collection from none other than Henry Morris and Mr. Ham himself! How quaint. And the beauty of it ranges from the Big Bang, selecting a good Christian college, biblical prophesy, and Cain's wife!

Oh, I guess there's some papers involving evolution laced throughout too. Tell you what, champ, instead of putting me on a scavenger hunt of papers, and for the sake of both brevity and my sanity, why don't you at least attempt to bring some primary arguments from these or other papers here, so that way we can at least try to keep this from being a little too ridiculously long?

And if you cannot do so, might I suggest that you simply try not to argue in the first place? It seems quite apparent that you have little understanding of evolution - I'd hate to have you not understand your creationist arguments very well either.

quote:

im going to respond to your naturalism worldview this way.. Naturalism, logic and reality By: Dr. Ken Ham Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).

*sigh*

Here we go again.

Look, I'm going to say this nice and slowly for all you creationists out there, so you have a firm understanding on what I am saying. Write this down. Copy and paste it in your memory somewhere. Print it out. Just do whatever you can to remember this point, okay? Here it goes:

Science, or more precisely evolution, doesn't give 2 shits about whether or not a god exists. Do you understand that yet?

Science does not have any verifiable, testable means of measuring the supernatural, nor has it been able to confirm the presence of the supernatural. All we can ask of science to do is to measure, observe, verify, and test natural phenomena. That is all we are physically capable of doing, got it?

Now here's another little snippet I want you to carry around in your wallet. Here it goes:

In no way does evolution or any science for that matter eliminate God or any other divine being. Just because science cannot observe, successfully verify, and test the existence of God in no way entails the nonexistence of a God. Got it?

IOW, the supernatural may very well exist. God or anyone playing outside the natural world may very well exist. We simply cannot measure this, however, nor are we able to simply insert certain supernatural events wherever we wish to arbitrarily IN a field that requires a verifiable and testable measure of something.

As I've shown time and again, polls have consistently demonstrated that there is a good healthy % of scientists who hold a belief in a divine deity of sorts. Up to 40%, in fact. They are actually able to keep their faith separate from their scientific research.

What a concept.

Please tell me you get this now. I really am running out of patience making this point over and over.

quote:

2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

Oh boy, not these cute little stories again. Oh well:

quote:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, �Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes.

And the big bang has to do with biological evolution how?

Regardless, this young man was idiotic to believe that he arrived here by random processes only. There's this tiny little tidbit he's missing - natural selection, that is also plays a central role in the process. It was an idiotic statement to be approached by in the first place.

Call me cynical, but methinks Ham likely made this bullshit story up in the first place. It's pretty much in line with his own way of thinking.

quote:

I don�t believe in God.� I answered him, �Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness.

Irrelevant to the question at hand (which was flawed to begin with).

quote:

So you don�t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don�t know if you�re making correct statements or even whether you�re asking me the right questions.�

As I stated previously, random processes are only part of the equation. Natural selection also occurs. Random processes can and do lead to nonrandom outcomes, which is exactly what we see with the evolutionary mechanism of mutation (randomness) and natural selection.

quote:

The young man looked at me and blurted out, �What was that book you recommended?� He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations �such �reasoning� destroys the very basis for reason.

Like I said, methinks Ham made this shit up. It's just too irrelevant and apocryphal. That the orginal replicating molecules on the planet arose by random process does not mean that subsequent evolution was random. I could just as easily say that the Great Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks! makes you believe in your god by hitting you with an invisible handgranade full of drugs and it would be just as logical as this silly example.

quote:

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, �Actually, I�m an atheist. Because I don�t believe in God, I don�t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can�t even be sure of reality.� I responded, �Then how do you know you�re really here making this statement?� �Good point,� he replied. �What point?� I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, �Maybe I should go home.� I stated, �Maybe it won�t be there.� �Good point,� the man said. �What point?� I replied.

Two things come to mind:

1. This is completely irrelevant to evolution, but I'll indulge the question on atheism - How do you know you actually believe in god? How do you know you believe in the right one? How do you know there are not millions of gods....you have absolutely no basis in reality for your beliefs. That is why it is called faith. The atheist does not know that there is no god/gods/all powerful Great Cookie Monsters, but there is no evidence for any supernatural beings so he/she does not care, again why should I care about mythological dieties?

2. This is a really stupid straw man argument (as opposed to "smart" straw man ones? Anyway...). It's certainly true that there are no absolute certainties in science, but that doesn't mean we can't be ever-so-slightly logical and rule out certain options or outcomes. Furthermore, we can formulate hypothesis and test them out. The end result after logically ruling certain options out by testing them is our best approximation to the truth or "reality".

So no, we can't be absolutely sure of reality, because new information is found and tested all the time. However, we can still be pretty damn sure of certain events occurring, and can be sure to continue to rely on those events.

The idiot that Ham is here is essentially wanting us to believe that since we're unsure of a sturdy bridge will remain up, we just shouldn't build it altogether. The universe does tend to operate on regular rules, and though not explicitly stating as such - I'm sure we can rely on a house being where you left it (unless you live in Indonesia I suppose). Talk about throwing the fucking baby out with the bathwater.....

Ham merely saying "what point" doesn't get him out of his own sophistry.

quote:

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

If there is no Great Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks!, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?

If there are no crazy, loony bird that crapped out the earth from his Great Ass, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?

If there are no egg-laying mammals, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?

Uh, by checking to see? By seeing what predictions the idea makes, and finding out whether they are right, or whether the opposite is the case?

Mindblowing, ain't it?

quote:

no, im mistaken. i equate evolution to secular humanism. not science, my mistake.

That doesn't negate my point whatsoever, nor have you demonstrated or explained why. Here, I'll reiterate my point but substitute the word "science" with "evolution":

quote:

I may be a bit off here, but are you somehow equating science to this so-called "secular humanism"? Well science cares nothing about beliefs or values that are given in a religious setting - all it cares about is hypothetico-deductive reasoning that either supports or negates hypothesis, and then further evidence that supports theories. Equating these two is quite erroneous of you.

And as I stated previously, I see no "values" or blind faith required in evolution, so you're going to have to explain yourself better here too.

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