Time's almost up, Creationists [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Time's almost up, Creationists


GreenDrake
05-26-2012, 16:59
http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 17:19
Just a question, but couldn't a deity have created human life through a process of evolution? Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 17:29
Just a question, but couldn't a deity have created human life through a process of evolution? Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

I agree completely.

muscogee
05-26-2012, 17:38
Just a question, but couldn't a deity have created human life through a process of evolution? Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Must you hijack every thread with the same circular argument? So what?

imSteve
05-26-2012, 17:40
things do evolve/change over time, yes

but God created 2 animals just for the evolutionists

1. wood pecker - evolved would have a fractured beak or brain trauma which would
lead to extinction
2. duck billed platapus - bear claws, venom gland, duck bill, eats totally under water
while eyes are closed.

these 2 animals could not have evolved
...and NASA engineers can prove with mathematics, it is impossible for a bumble bee to fly.

I think it takes more faith to believe this is all a "perfect accident" than a grand design

I probably will not change your mind, you are probably not going to change "Creationists" minds

...but hey, have a great day and please keep it civil

GreenDrake
05-26-2012, 17:47
Food for thought in light of those that will still deny the process even with the myriad of evidence we currently have already. With so many different flavors of christianity, as well as all the other religions, even some christian creationists have a difficult time deciphering when hominid evolution took place, then there are others who devoutly believe in the garden of eden. Defies logical thought to think that such magical things are the basis of creation with ZERO evidence but a book written by self appointed intermediaries.

JBnTX
05-26-2012, 18:14
There's only two kinds of people;
Those who believe in God, and those who will.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 18:22
things do evolve/change over time, yes

but God created 2 animals just for the evolutionists

1. wood pecker - evolved would have a fractured beak or brain trauma which would
lead to extinction
2. duck billed platapus - bear claws, venom gland, duck bill, eats totally under water
while eyes are closed.

these 2 animals could not have evolved Except they did.

Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html)
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf)

...and NASA engineers can prove with mathematics, it is impossible for a bumble bee to fly. No one is served by repeating falsehoods. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm)
...but hey, have a great day and please keep it civilSomething we should all strive to achieve.

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 18:24
Must you hijack every thread with the same circular argument? So what?

We aren't talking about that.

We are talking about evolution, I'm just pointing out that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

JBnTX
05-26-2012, 18:30
I'm just pointing out that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.


A lot of people on both sides fail to understand that it's not a one or the other discussion.

It's quite possible, and probably most likely, that evolution and creationism
both are valid concepts, with each playing their part.

Maybe God created evolution too?

..

wallytoo
05-26-2012, 18:32
Time's up because Leakey says so? That's rather arrogant. I disagree. I believe Yahweh will decide when time's up.

wallytoo
05-26-2012, 18:39
Personally, the reason I find the two concepts mutually exclusive is that the Bible states that death was a direct result of the fall. Before sin, there was no death. For evolution to take place over millions/billions/kajillions of years, there would necessarily have to be death.

Does God have the power to have created all things in a way that used evolution? Yes. He also could have chosen to create everything in a fraction of a second. I believe He chose to do things the way He said He did, as recorded in Genesis.

I believe the Bible first, and my understanding of other viewpoints gets put through that 'filter'.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 18:41
We aren't talking about that.

We are talking about evolution, I'm just pointing out that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

They're not unless of course one insists on insanities like man made from dust, women from a rib, and a 6000 yo Earth.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 18:51
I believe the Bible first, and my understanding of other viewpoints gets put through that 'filter'.

Thank God there were men that didn't. I'm rather fond of the things such men discovered.

Vic Hays
05-26-2012, 19:01
Just a question, but couldn't a deity have created human life through a process of evolution? Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Christianity and evolution are exclusive.

Here it is:

If evolution is true there was no original sin in the Garden of Eden. If there was no original sin there is no need for a Savior. No need for a Savior means no need for Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

Deity could have created human life through a process of evolution. I used to believe in evolution, but evolution takes away all value and meaning to life and human life. If evolution is true then we are the result of an accident. I would rather be chastized by God than the alternative.

Hebrews 12:8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 19:20
...If evolution is true then we are the result of an accident...

There's your problem right there, you do not properly understand evolution. Evolution is not an accident.

Gunhaver
05-26-2012, 19:35
Except they did.

Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html)
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf)

No one is served by repeating falsehoods. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm)
Something we should all strive to achieve.

It would be so great if, when one put forth one of these fallacious arguments and it was promptly shot down as being anti science propaganda, that person would say something to the effect of, "Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Of course that's how bumblebees can fly. Why, they do it all the time and I was told it was magic. I've been duped."

Instead I suspect he'll tuck the bumblebee, platypus and woodpecker arguments back in the deck in his pocket for another day and another crowd to see if they will buy it.

Truth doesn't matter. Only lies that serve the cause and whatever truth they may stumble upon that might be useful to them.

Vic Hays
05-26-2012, 20:17
There's your problem right there, you do not properly understand evolution. Evolution is not an accident.

God can create a bird in flight, a universe with the light in place and a full grown man and woman. He doesn't need lots of time and death to create.

Death is an enemy that will be destroyed.

I Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet.
15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 20:30
God can create a bird in flight, a universe with the light in place and a full grown man and woman. He doesn't need lots of time and death to create.

Death is an enemy that will be destroyed.

I Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet.
15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Sure God could have but didn't as all scientific evidence shows. Thankfully God allows us to understand these things. Your view of God is limiting. Mine provides the medium for this conversation. Yours would still have us scribing on animal skins.

Gunhaver
05-26-2012, 20:46
things do evolve/change over time, yes

but

Is the macro vs micro evolution thing again?

Here's a question never answered by creationists; Where does micro end and macro begin? How many little changes are allowed by biology and what stops those little changes from going too far?

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 20:46
Christianity and evolution are exclusive. That's a serious problem for Christianity, considering that evolution has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild.


Here it is:

If evolution is true there was no original sin in the Garden of Eden. If there was no original sin there is no need for a Savior. No need for a Savior means no need for Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

Deity could have created human life through a process of evolution. I used to believe in evolution, but evolution takes away all value and meaning to life and human life. If evolution is true then we are the result of an accident. I would rather be chastized by God than the alternative.

Hebrews 12:8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.
Are you under the impression that what you prefer has any impact on reality? I would prefer that we all rode unicorns instead of driving cars. Does that make unicorns real?

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 21:14
....Are you under the impression that what you prefer has any impact on reality? I would prefer that we all rode unicorns instead of driving cars. Does that make unicorns real?

That's what I don't get either. I mean I understand sticking to ones faith but when that faith contradicts observable, testable, measurable reality, then I'm like WTF? The medium they are arguing on requires that science is correct.

I don't think they understand that if evolution was wrong then molecular biology would be wrong, bio chemistry would be wrong, chemistry would be wrong, genetics would be wrong, electromagnetism would be wrong etc...And most importantly this conversation would not be possible on the medium in which we are having it.

Vic Hays
05-26-2012, 22:10
Sure God could have but didn't as all scientific evidence shows. Thankfully God allows us to understand these things. Your view of God is limiting. Mine provides the medium for this conversation. Yours would still have us scribing on animal skins.


All scientific evidence does not show. The majority of scientists are taught and interpret data spinning toward evolution. I was taught evolution and believed it until I began to examine some of the claims and evidence.

I Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

"From Evolutionist to Creationist" by Walter J. Veith - YouTube

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 23:08
All scientific evidence does not show. The majority of scientists are taught and interpret data spinning toward evolution. I was taught evolution and believed it until I began to examine some of the claims and evidence.

I Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

"From Evolutionist to Creationist" by Walter J. Veith - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJH7A5NHT8)

Yes all real science does show. That BS you claim is science isn't. It's bull crap you need to call science because it makes you feel justified and comfortable.

I know, I Timothy is far greater evidence of whatever you think it proves. I know you have some fringe science not accepted by the rest of the scientific community you put forth because real science makes you uncomfortable.

Once again...I don't think they understand that if evolution was wrong then molecular biology would be wrong, bio chemistry would be wrong, chemistry would be wrong, genetics would be wrong, electromagnetism would be wrong etc...And most importantly this conversation would not be possible on the medium in which we are having it.

And again posting scripture is proof of nothing other than how gullible you are.

Gunhaver
05-26-2012, 23:35
All scientific evidence does not show. The majority of scientists are taught and interpret data spinning toward evolution. I was taught evolution and believed it until I began to examine some of the claims and evidence.

I Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

"From Evolutionist to Creationist" by Walter J. Veith - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJH7A5NHT8)

If you were ever "taught evolution" then it didn't sink in much because you constantly display a poor understanding of how it works. I suspect that you found "god did it" to be much easier to understand with the added bonus that you got to feel all warm and fuzzy inside so you went with that.

If most scientists are being taught a lie then how are they able to figure anything out? Garbage in=Garbage out, you know. Scientists, especially those that deal most directly with biology issues, have been putting out more and more non-garbage as understanding of evolution increases and you happily take advantage of it dozens of times a day without understanding where it came from. More lies=closer to truth? That's not how reality works.

I'm the opposite. I wanted the answers that made sense and "god did it" and "the bible says so" were proving to be more and more inadequate from the happy ignorants. The truth fills way more than one book.

randrew379
05-27-2012, 00:31
I've an idea. On some forums certain areas are restricted. What if GT required an IQ test before one could enter Religious Issues?

void *
05-27-2012, 00:55
Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

They're not. Read RI with that in mind, and keep mental track of both those that claim they are mutually exclusive, and those who have not claimed they're mutually exclusive. You'll find that the people claiming some sort of mutual exclusivity are the specific theists who believe in various literal interpretations of the creation stories in the Bible.

The deity that makes people through evolution is *not* the deity that makes a man-shape out of dust and breathes life into it. Thus, those who believe in the latter have to object to evolution. Those who don't believe in those literal interpretations are free to take it somewhat metaphorically and there is no conflict (which is, afaik, currently the position of, say, the Catholic church).

ETA: Or, to put it another way: Nobody that I know of on this board has made the claim that it is logically impossible for a deity to create man through evolution. There are, however, theists who have and do make the claim that the specific deity they believe in did not do so (and, to be perfectly clear, there are some theists who do not make that claim).

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 01:05
I've an idea. On some forums certain areas are restricted. What if GT required an IQ test before one could enter Religious Issues?

An IQ test? They'd have to rename it the atheist issues forum.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs

Maybe since it is the Religious Issues forum a test of knowledge of religion would be more appropriate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928

Nope. Still the atheist issues forum. But atheists don't have issues with anybody except the religious so we'll have to let them in or things will get boring.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 06:32
They're not unless of course one insists on insanities like man made from dust, women from a rib, and a 6000 yo Earth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole 6000 year thing was derived by people estimating the time of certain occurrences. I
Don't know any, including the most Christian people I know that think the world is only 6000 years old.

I see that tossed around a lot.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 06:48
It would be so great if, when one put forth one of these fallacious arguments and it was promptly shot down as being anti science propaganda, that person would say something to the effect of, "Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Of course that's how bumblebees can fly. Why, they do it all the time and I was told it was magic. I've been duped."

Instead I suspect he'll tuck the bumblebee, platypus and woodpecker arguments back in the deck in his pocket for another day and another crowd to see if they will buy it.

Truth doesn't matter. Only lies that serve the cause and whatever truth they may stumble upon that might be useful to them.

Yeah, those examples weren't very good. But I have an answer for the bumble bee, they are like helicopters. They don't really fly, they beat the air into submission. :)

My problem with evolution is that an uncontrolled alteration led to by blind luck and imperfect copying would almost always lead to a blind alley. Why would an organism need to reproduce to prolong its own life? What motivates procreation. If there is no motivation, why had life not just blinked in and out.

Intermediate structures. Many very simple intermediate structures don't work. Even simple structures like flagella are very complex upon close examination.

The simple complexity of life, the millions of chemical reactions needed to sustain life, the symbiosis, virulence, parasites.

There is evidence of animals adapting. Some shaky evidence of adapting into another species, and no evidence about how it all began, what started it, was there manipulation or a template? Was life created, or did it just happen?

I don't know, and I'm ok with it.

jbotstein1
05-27-2012, 06:55
It would be so great if, when one put forth one of these fallacious arguments and it was promptly shot down as being anti science propaganda, that person would say something to the effect of, "Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Of course that's how bumblebees can fly. Why, they do it all the time and I was told it was magic. I've been duped."

Instead I suspect he'll tuck the bumblebee, platypus and woodpecker arguments back in the deck in his pocket for another day and another crowd to see if they will buy it.

Truth doesn't matter. Only lies that serve the cause and whatever truth they may stumble upon that might be useful to them.

Yea. I sometimes wonder if a creationist would ever say, "okay, I was wrong" even after we uncover some surveillance video tape that was shot in super fast motion that showed evolution occurring over millions of years. Being that this video tape will never surface, evidence will be the only prrof of evolution, and people will alwyas be able to say there is no proof because they haven't seen it occur and the bible says otherwise.

I never saw Mt. Vesuvius erupt, but I believe it happened because of the evidence that is left over. It is also possible that Jonathan 3:14 and a dragon flew over the mountain and breathed hot fire down upon it causing god's land to melt and bury the sinners of Pompeii alive...

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:18
Yea. I sometimes wonder if a creationist would ever say, "okay, I was wrong" even after we uncover some surveillance video tape that was shot in super fast motion that showed evolution occurring over millions of years. Being that this video tape will never surface, evidence will be the only prrof of evolution, and people will alwyas be able to say there is no proof because they haven't seen it occur and the bible says otherwise.

I never saw Mt. Vesuvius erupt, but I believe it happened because of the evidence that is left over. It is also possible that Jonathan 3:14 and a dragon flew over the mountain and breathed hot fire down upon it causing god's land to melt and bury the sinners of Pompeii alive...

Good analogy of the video tape and evolution. But who would have pressed the record button? Why?

Evolution and creation are not necessarily opposing viewpoints. Evolution is often used to conclude that creation didn't happen. A leap of faith on their part.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:22
I've an idea. On some forums certain areas are restricted. What if GT required an IQ test before one could enter Religious Issues?

There's a good joke in there somewhere.

Probably something about how monstrously bad an idea that is in a discussion forum, and you're locked out because of it, but I didn't want to say anything offensive.

I respectfully disagree. The response you received from the other poster (Post # 28) explains why, people on opposite sides of the issue naturally think they are the smart ones. The forum quickly becomes an echo chamber.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:30
An IQ test? They'd have to rename it the atheist issues forum.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs

Maybe since it is the Religious Issues forum a test of knowledge of religion would be more appropriate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928

Nope. Still the atheist issues forum. But atheists don't have issues with anybody except the religious so we'll have to let them in or things will get boring.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://archuletafanscene.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Irony.jpg&sa=X&ei=cDrCT6q6N4jg2gXa77Fq&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHnxhWWlFG98G3fa2aT9KW8cViTzA

Vic Hays
05-27-2012, 08:41
I'm the opposite. I wanted the answers that made sense and "god did it" and "the bible says so" were proving to be more and more inadequate from the happy ignorants. The truth fills way more than one book.

I graduated with honors. Not quite the top of my class but close.

Do you know the world is full of propaganda?

By your own admission you have chosen to believe only the things that make sense to you that you can see and feel as if that is the acid test for truth.

We know so little of what there is to know. It is pretty narcissistic to think that we are smarter than the one who made us.

John 20:27 Then said he to Thomas, Reach here your finger, and behold my hands; and reach here your hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
20:28 And Thomas answered and said to him, My LORD and my God.
20:29 Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

GreenDrake
05-27-2012, 11:29
Even more arrogant to doubt proofs and yet believe 100% in a bible full of impossible to prove prophecies.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 11:40
Even more arrogant to doubt proofs and yet believe 100% in a bible full of impossible to prove prophecies.

Last I heard, Evolution was a theory, not a scientific law. It does not negate the possibility of an intelligent designer.

But I do get your problems with a literal translation of certain texts. I see that it would be hard to make a girl from a mans rib. It's much too cheap a cut of meat. However, we are talking about a time that was a long long time ago. Stories, even copied from text to text are changed a little here and there, especially in translating from one text to another.

Who knows, maybe "rib" in their language was slang for DNA.

steveksux
05-27-2012, 12:28
Time is almost up? Time will never be up as as result of more facts coming to light regarding evolution. There's more evidence, from wildly divergent sources and disciplines, that all confirm evolution. More so than possibly any other theory out there. Pretty much nothing we know about the biological sciences makes sense if evolution is false. Evolution is the foundation of all of that, as much as mathematics is the foundation of engineering.

Facts have no effect against faith. So more facts are irrelevant to the issue of changing creationist beliefs, any more than throwing more scripture at evolutionists is going to persuade them to abandon evolution.

The author is making the mistake of thinking both sides are speaking the same language.

Mathematics and numerology. Chemistry and alchemy. Evolution and creationism.

Randy

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 15:22
Last I heard, Evolution was a theory, not a scientific law. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The exact process of evolution is still a theory, but then so is gravity.
It does not negate the possibility of an intelligent designer. No, it doesn't. Produce evidence that such a designer exists and it will become part of the discussion. Until that happens it makes no more sense to talk about intelligent design than it does to talk about pixies being responsible for gravity.
But I do get your problems with a literal translation of certain texts. I see that it would be hard to make a girl from a mans rib. It's much too cheap a cut of meat. However, we are talking about a time that was a long long time ago. Stories, even copied from text to text are changed a little here and there, especially in translating from one text to another. Not according to those who believe their scripture to be not only literally true, but also inerrant.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 15:27
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. The exact process of evolution is still a theory, but then so is gravity.
No, it doesn't. Produce evidence that such a designer exists and it will become part of the discussion. Until that happens it makes no more sense to talk about intelligent design than it does to talk about pixies being responsible for gravity.
Not according to those who believe their scripture to be not only literally true, but also inerrant.

I'm playing devil's advocate. Sorry about the pun. :rofl:

But it's proven, and been observed?? Adaptation has been observed, but have humans even been here long enough to observe evolution from one species to another?

Religious people are so intolerant. If you believe there is no god, why let it upset you if other people do?

Yeah, I think literalistic interpretation of any human copied text or story over a few days old is standing on shaky ground. But even if someone wanted to believe jonah was swallowed by a whale, why care?

There is some reason you care, any chance you want to share?

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 16:08
I'm playing devil's advocate. Sorry about the pun. :rofl:

But it's proven, and been observed?? Adaptation has been observed, but have humans even been here long enough to observe evolution from one species to another? Yes.
Religious people are so intolerant. If you believe there is no god, why let it upset you if other people do? Because they do things like try to teach their religion as science.
Yeah, I think literalistic interpretation of any human copied text or story over a few days old is standing on shaky ground. But even if someone wanted to believe jonah was swallowed by a whale, why care? If they believe it? I don't care in the least. If they try to teach it as a fact in a marine biology class? I care very much.
There is some reason you care, any chance you want to share?I don't want to live in a world where "scripture says" takes the place of observation, investigation, and understanding of the universe we inhabit.

packsaddle
05-27-2012, 16:29
the theory of evolution appeals to the unobserved past.

the article cited above appeals to future discoveries.

whole lot of appealin' goin' on.

yet, only 4 in 10 believe the hype.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx)

regardless, snake oil sales have been steady among parishoner's of the Church of Charlie, ever since Pope Darwin began preaching from his pulpit in the 1800's.

pick your religion wisely.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 17:24
Yes.
Because they do things like try to teach their religion as science.
If they believe it? I don't care in the least. If they try to teach it as a fact in a marine biology class? I care very much.
I don't want to live in a world where "scripture says" takes the place of observation, investigation, and understanding of the universe we inhabit.

That's interesting. Didn't know that. What species has man witnessed evolve into another species.

randrew379
05-27-2012, 19:29
Wolves/dogs.

Lone Wolf8634
05-27-2012, 19:36
the theory of evolution appeals to the unobserved past.

the article cited above appeals to future discoveries.

whole lot of appealin' goin' on.

yet, only 4 in 10 believe the hype.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx)

regardless, snake oil sales have been steady among parishoner's of the Church of Charlie, ever since Pope Darwin began preaching from his pulpit in the 1800's.

pick your religion wisely.

Very interesting article.:whistling:

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 20:25
Good analogy of the video tape and evolution. But who would have pressed the record button? Why?

Evolution and creation are not necessarily opposing viewpoints. Evolution is often used to conclude that creation didn't happen. A leap of faith on their part.

I know you don't flat out deny evolution so this comment isn't directed at you, just sparked by your comment of who would push the record button.

Nature/physics whatever you want to call it has pushed the recording button in many different record medias and we're always in the process of developing the film.

The geological strata and the way the fossil evidence is consistently laid out to show the progression of change over time, the genetic information stored in living and not long dead creatures that shows the links between them, the distribution of various species around the earth, even the shift of the earth's magnetic field in a roughly 300,000 year cycle is well recorded in iron rich igneous rock all over the earth. They all come together to show a big picture if you don't have preconceived notions that demand that you deny that evidence.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:35
Wolves/dogs.

Same species.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:36
That's interesting. Didn't know that. What species has man witnessed evolve into another species.

:popcorn:

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 20:38
the theory of evolution appeals to the unobserved past.

the article cited above appeals to future discoveries.

whole lot of appealin' goin' on.

yet, only 4 in 10 believe the hype.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx)

regardless, snake oil sales have been steady among parishoner's of the Church of Charlie, ever since Pope Darwin began preaching from his pulpit in the 1800's.

pick your religion wisely.

Did you not notice the astounding correlation between education levels and belief in evolution? Every study shows that the more educated a person is the more likely they will understand and accept evolution.

You will now claim that they are being brainwashed by the liberal education system. I ask, why would a business, mathematics, engineering, or sociology major be getting brainwashed about evolution? This isn't a field specific increase in acceptance. It happens across the board. Could it be that these people are learning better and better critical thinking skills and applying them to their beliefs?

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:41
Did you not notice the astounding correlation between education levels and belief in evolution? Every study shows that the more educated a person is the more likely they will understand and accept evolution.


Big deal, the electorate that brought Hitler to power was the most educated in the world. Our president is a perfect example, degrees out the wazoo but has the common sense of a gnat. I'm sure he also thinks nothing times nobody equals everything.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 20:45
Very interesting article.:whistling:

Oh, you caught that too did you? :rofl:

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 20:46
:popcorn:

Glad you have the popcorn out. Here's quite a list for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

packsaddle
05-27-2012, 20:47
Could it be that these people are learning better and better critical thinking skills and applying them to their beliefs?

Is critical thinking being taught or is only one side being presented?

(i.e. http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/)

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 20:54
Big deal, the electorate that brought Hitler to power was the most educated in the world. Our president is a perfect example, degrees out the wazoo but has the common sense of a gnat. I'm sure he also thinks nothing times nobody equals everything.

What is happening in the fields of study that have nothing to do with evolution that is changing people's minds about it.

Do you realize the minuscule proportion of paleontology and geology and biology degrees earned vs. things like law and business? Do you really think people get sat down on their first day at law or business school and get the lecture about how they're not going to graduate unless they get on board with this evolution thing?

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 21:14
Wolves/dogs.

Different breeds, not different species.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 21:22
Is critical thinking being taught or is only one side being presented?

(i.e. http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/)

Seriously? Are you ----ing kidding me here? You're saying that it's the college educated people that have the drive and option to study anything they like from biology to religious studies that are only hearing one side of the story and not the moronic high school dropouts that shuffle into whatever line of work they fall into?

Either the people who already believe in evolution are entering college at a very disproportionate rate or something is going on there that's making very informed people with access to all information change their minds about it. The issue of not hearing both sides of the story isn't a problem for evolution believers, it's a problem for evolution deniers. The people who once understood and accepted evolution but then change their minds to creation are minuscule compared to those that go the other way and you can only claim that this is the result of some massive conspiracy theory.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 21:28
Did you not notice the astounding correlation between education levels and belief in evolution? Every study shows that the more educated a person is the more likely they will understand and accept evolution.

You will now claim that they are being brainwashed by the liberal education system. I ask, why would a business, mathematics, engineering, or sociology major be getting brainwashed about evolution? This isn't a field specific increase in acceptance. It happens across the board. Could it be that these people are learning better and better critical thinking skills and applying them to their beliefs?


The interesting thing to think about, is that evolution may be occurring, but that has little or no impact to whether inteligent design is occurring or not. If the education system is putting out a message, it's not hard to understand how people that have more contact with that system believe what they are told to believe by that system.

Maybe it's a random event, maybe not.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 21:31
Different breeds, not different species.

Interesting thing about dogs that I brought up on another thread and of course got no response. If you look at the physical differences between the breeds of dogs you will see the most extremes of size, muzzle length, leg and tail length, fur type, and many other features. If this vast array of differences can come about in just a few thousand years of selective breeding then what can happen in a few billion? What genetic mechanism has been identified that limits the amount of change?

I'd think you'd have to assume that those changes can go to any possible extreme unless there were some biological factor to stop it at a certain point.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 21:38
The interesting thing to think about, is that evolution may be occurring, but that has little or no impact to whether inteligent design is occurring or not. If the education system is putting out a message, it's not hard to understand how people that have more contact with that system believe what they are told to believe by that system.

Maybe it's a random event, maybe not.

How many people in the education system do you think have unfairly never heard of the possibility that god may have done it? That's all there really is to ID, just the idea that god did it. Nothing to theorize about or experiment with or develop any kind of curriculum around. Just "god did it". Fine. We're all aware that that's a possibility that some believe and if we have a desire to explore that further that's our prerogative.

That doesn't seem to be the choice of the majority of college grads for some reason. :dunno:

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 21:50
That's interesting. Didn't know that. What species has man witnessed evolve into another species.

Drosophila and other flies. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

The Faeroe Island house mouse (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)

The Pacific Robin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

Yeast. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=test-tube-yeast-evolve)

E.Coli (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/)

Pod Mrcaru Lizards. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

Enjoy.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 21:50
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole 6000 year thing was derived by people estimating the time of certain occurrences. I
Don't know any, including the most Christian people I know that think the world is only 6000 years old.

I see that tossed around a lot.

I'm sure there is a point in there but I seem to have missed it. My point was that if creationists or ID folks believe in crap like that they have a few screws loose and at that point science and belief are mutually exclusive. I don't personally know any that think that either but they are out there.

If the education system is putting out a message, it's not hard to understand how people that have more contact with that system believe what they are told to believe by that system.

That goes for every system that encourages a set of beliefs.

"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities, who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself." - Timothy Leary

Dude might have been way out there but he got that right.

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 21:53
the theory of evolution appeals to the unobserved past. No, it doesn't. It appeals to both the observed past, in the form of things like fossils, and the present, in the form of things like genome sequencing, and the future, in the form of things like Lenski's e.coli experiment.
yet, only 4 in 10 believe the hype.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) Luckily science isn't dependent on popular acclaim.
regardless, snake oil sales have been steady among parishoner's of the Church of Charlie, ever since Pope Darwin began preaching from his pulpit in the 1800's. I suppose asking for examples would be more than you could handle?

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 21:55
The interesting thing to think about, is that evolution may be occurring, but that has little or no impact to whether inteligent design is occurring or not. If the education system is putting out a message, it's not hard to understand how people that have more contact with that system believe what they are told to believe by that system.

Maybe it's a random event, maybe not.If Intelligent Design is happening, where's the evidence?

Evolution, btw, isn't a random event.

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 21:57
Is critical thinking being taught or is only one side being presented? If only one side is being presented, it is because only one side is based on evidence and in the sciences, rather than an appeal to the supernatural and dismissal of observations.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 22:01
I'm sure there is a point in there but I seem to have missed it. My point was that if creationists or ID folks believe in crap like that they have a few screws loose and at that point science and belief are mutually exclusive. I don't personally know any that think that either but they are out there.



That goes for every system that encourages a set of beliefs.

"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities, who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself." - Timothy Leary

Dude might have been way out there but he got that right.


The point was, very few peopale believe the world is 6000 years old. But is an often used criticism.

But really, if people believe it's only 6000 years old, who cares?

If they mention during a science class that a few people claim that the world is 6000 years old based on calculations out of a book, but most people believe otherwise, what's the problem?

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 22:04
If only one side is being presented, it is because only one side is based on evidence and in the sciences, rather than an appeal to the supernatural and dismissal of observations.

Puhlease. If you do not see an agenda in most college education, you are not looking.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 22:05
The point was, very few peopale believe the world is 6000 years old. But is an often used criticism.

But really, if people believe it's only 6000 years old, who cares?

If they mention during a science class that a few people claim that the world is 6000 years old based on calculations out of a book, but most people believe otherwise, what's the problem?

The problem is science classes have no business pointing out what a few people claim. Science classes should only point out what science indicates and a 6000 yo Earth isn't one of those things.

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 22:07
Puhlease. If you do not see an agenda in most college education, you are not looking. I do see an agenda. In the sciences, it is teaching science. That's why creationism is excluded.

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 22:10
The point was, very few peopale believe the world is 6000 years old. But is an often used criticism. Sadly, that's not true. As of 2010, according to a Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm), 40% of Americans thought God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Happily though, that number is dropping.
But really, if people believe it's only 6000 years old, who cares? People interested in actually understanding the universe and natural world.
If they mention during a science class that a few people claim that the world is 6000 years old based on calculations out of a book, but most people believe otherwise, what's the problem?It isn't science, that's the problem.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 22:36
The point was, very few peopale believe the world is 6000 years old. But is an often used criticism.

But really, if people believe it's only 6000 years old, who cares?

If they mention during a science class that a few people claim that the world is 6000 years old based on calculations out of a book, but most people believe otherwise, what's the problem?

If it's so unimportant then there's no need to mention it. You could waste every hour of every class for an entire semester covering all the ideas that loud minorities would like you to. If they mention in science class that some people believe that we are all alien spirits dumped into a volcano and left to possess ape like creatures then what's the problem?

Well, it's closer to science than the other stuff but still not science.

muscogee
05-27-2012, 22:44
the theory of evolution appeals to the unobserved past.

the article cited above appeals to future discoveries.

whole lot of appealin' goin' on.

yet, only 4 in 10 believe the hype.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx)

regardless, snake oil sales have been steady among parishoner's of the Church of Charlie, ever since Pope Darwin began preaching from his pulpit in the 1800's.

pick your religion wisely.

The IQ of half the people in the World is below average. This must be the lower 40%

muscogee
05-27-2012, 22:55
Puhlease. If you do not see an agenda in most college education, you are not looking.

The agenda is to advance our understanding. Only anti-intellectuals have a problem with that.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 22:58
Puhlease. If you do not see an agenda in most college education, you are not looking.

In politics without a doubt. Thing is when the scientific inaccuracies of the political right can be so demonstrable it isn't hard to convince university/college students that the politics of the right are also wrong. As the scientific credibility goes so does the social an political.

We are 95% or so genetically identical to Chimps. But the religious right says evolution is bogus. Impressionable students look to that and decide that the same folks can't be correct about Capitalism either.

Socialism here we come :(

Lone Wolf8634
05-28-2012, 04:54
Oh, you caught that too did you? :rofl:

Oh yes indeedy. I found it quite informative.................. and amusing.:supergrin:

The IQ of half the people in the World is below average. This must be the lower 40%

George Carlin said "Think about it. Most of the people you know are average and they're pretty dumb, right? Well, half of the world is dumber than that!!".:rofl:

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 07:13
Why would an almighty being, who can create and destroy everything, choose to make all living creatures out of the same 4 nucleotides in almost matching order? It almost seems lazy. If I were to create stuff, I would try to make them differ as much as possible so as to see which ones worked best, weed them out, and let the successful ones live on. Sounds like natural selection. Sounds like evolution. Wait a second. This is making too much sense.

Also, why would an almighty god design or create something as flawed as a knee or ankle or shoulder? I'd love to know because at 31 years of age I think mine are wearing out.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 07:14
Drosophila and other flies. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

The Faeroe Island house mouse (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)

The Pacific Robin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

Yeast. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=test-tube-yeast-evolve)

E.Coli (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/)

Pod Mrcaru Lizards. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

Enjoy.

I went through those. I hope I'm not using the wrong term, but I thought the difference in a species, was that all members would be able to breed together. So what I'm looking for isn't a wring on a seagulls neck or a robin that changed colors, but one animal that became another, no longer able to reproduce with the predecessors but able to breed with its own.

Adaptation occurs in people too, facial characteristics, skin tone, risks for certain disease processes, short, tall, fat, skinny, etc. but we still can breed in most cases. Has anyone observed a fly become a wasp, or a fish become an amphibian?

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 07:20
Why would an almighty being, who can create and destroy everything, choose to make all living creatures out of the same 4 nucleotides in almost matching order? It almost seems lazy. If I were to create stuff, I would try to make them differ as much as possible so as to see which ones worked best, weed them out, and let the successful ones live on. Sounds like natural selection. Sounds like evolution. Wait a second. This is making too much sense.

Also, why would an almighty god design or create something as flawed as a knee or ankle or shoulder? I'd love to know because at 31 years of age I think mine are wearing out.

Standard answer is the mysterious ways thing.

Hate to break it to you, but the warranty runs out at 30, it's all downhill from here. I see things the other way, the body is so massively complex with interdependent organs, negative and positive feedback loops, pretty darn good engineering, and with all that, you have to consider the possibility there was a plan, all this stuff happening randomly is difficult to believe without question.

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 07:24
I went through those. I hope I'm not using the wrong term, but I thought the difference in a species, was that all members would be able to breed together. So what I'm looking for isn't a wring on a seagulls neck or a robin that changed colors, but one animal that became another, no longer able to reproduce with the predecessors but able to breed with its own.

Adaptation occurs in people too, facial characteristics, skin tone, risks for certain disease processes, short, tall, fat, skinny, etc. but we still can breed inost cases. Has anyone observed a fly become a wasp, or a fish become an amphibian?

You are correct in your definition of speciation. This can occur by either physical incompatibility, differing breeding times, or geographic separation. I am too lazy to read those articles, but we have seen species evolve to other species in bacteria confronted with antibiotics in petri dishes.

I am a firm believer in odds as are you I assume Cavalry Doc. Our profession requires that in order to treat people the best way we can. I believe that the vastness of our universe with the multitude of stars like our sun and the billions of planets revolving those other suns means that there is probably other life out there. (Was that a runon sentence?) I also believe that the odds of sitting down at a blackjack table and winning approach 50%. A trained card counter can increase those odds dramatically. We can breed a horse and a donkey. To me it seems that given billions of years of time, nature too could hit blackjack and make some new species. All you really need is a change in an important piece of DNA and voila, evolution.

eracer
05-28-2012, 07:26
Just a question, but couldn't a deity have created human life through a process of evolution? Not sure how creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Evolution is just one one of the multitude of paintbrushes used by the unknowable to create the wondrous.

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 07:51
Standard answer is the mysterious ways thing.

Hate to break it to you, but the warranty runs out at 30, it's all downhill from here. I see things the other way, the body is so massively complex with interdependent organs, negative and positive feedback loops, pretty darn good engineering, and with all that, you have to consider the possibility there was a plan, all this stuff happening randomly is difficult to believe without question.

I don't understand your first sentence.

I know the complexities of the human body, but there are many mistakes and flaws as well. If the supposed almighty is perfect and we are supposedly created in his image, then what gives? And I have considered the possibility of a plan, but those considerations have lead me to believe that environmental pressures are the driving force behind our perfections, and if we are allowed to continue to evolve, I think the warranty may be good for 50, 60, or even 70 years.

Vic Hays
05-28-2012, 08:04
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Evolution is just one one of the multitude of paintbrushes used by the unknowable to create the wondrous.

The unknowable can chose to become known.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?

GreenDrake
05-28-2012, 08:14
things just got circular

Animal Mother
05-28-2012, 08:40
I went through those. I hope I'm not using the wrong term, but I thought the difference in a species, was that all members would be able to breed together. That is one definition. As you would know if you read the wikipedia article on speciation.
So what I'm looking for isn't a wring on a seagulls neck or a robin that changed colors, but one animal that became another, no longer able to reproduce with the predecessors but able to breed with its own. When those changes in coloring accompany reproductive isolation, that's a new species.
daptation occurs in people too, facial characteristics, skin tone, risks for certain disease processes, short, tall, fat, skinny, etc. but we still can breed in most cases. Has anyone observed a fly become a wasp, or a fish become an amphibian? That wouldn't be speciation, that would be change on at least the level of an order, Just the kind of ludicrous expectation creationists throw out so they can wave their hands and claim evolution isn't real.

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 09:27
The unknowable can chose to become known.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?

Try to participate without quoting somebody elses writings. Using a book that someone doesn't put any stock in as your evidence is not going to have any effect on the other person. Should I start quoting Darwins diary? Jeez.

Vic Hays
05-28-2012, 09:33
Try to participate without quoting somebody elses writings. Using a book that someone doesn't put any stock in as your evidence is not going to have any effect on the other person. Should I start quoting Darwins diary? Jeez.

So you are that someone who is offended?

A considerable number of people put "stock" in the Bible.

Back to the OP. I remember one of those Leakey's with a television program from National Geographic 35 years ago saying that evolution has been proven. I remember the reasoning he used to turn the jawbone of an ape into a prehistoric man that walked upright.

How is that for bias?

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 09:35
I'm not offended. We are having a discussion about evolution vs. creationism and you keep quoting the bible. I understand you believe it is true, but using it as your evidence in a discussion with people who don't is pointless. Are you trying to participate in the discussion or just talk to yourself?

ETA: I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just saying approach this with some original thought rather than just quoting stuff.

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 09:39
Sorry I got sidetracked, but I think people would be amazed by what they could come up with if they would try thinking outside the confines of a book. Our brains are pretty capable when you let them work.

Vic Hays
05-28-2012, 09:42
Sorry I got sidetracked, but I think people would be amazed by what they could come up with if they would try thinking outside the confines of a book. Our brains are pretty capable when you let them work.

Yep, there is no limit to what we can conjecture.

jbotstein1
05-28-2012, 09:53
Yep, there is no limit to what we can conjecture.

I sense the sarcasm. I realize you believe in the truth of the bible. That is fine. I'm not going to say it's not true or it is. I'm just saying try to make your point and add to the discussion without depending on someone elses thoughts. That's all. I could quote the 1000s of science books that explain evolution and show evidence for it, but how would that contribute to this discussion? You know that those books exist. I know the bible exists. Original thought is what makes these threads worthwhile. If we just sit and quote other peoples text, than we will never advance ourselves. We'll be stuck in the past. Let's progress to the future. Maybe we can figure this thing out, maybe not, but I guarantee if all we do is reiterate others thoughts from the past we are not going to move into the future.

muscogee
05-28-2012, 10:55
In politics without a doubt. Thing is when the scientific inaccuracies of the political right can be so demonstrable it isn't hard to convince university/college students that the politics of the right are also wrong. As the scientific credibility goes so does the social an political.

We are 95% or so genetically identical to Chimps. But the religious right says evolution is bogus. Impressionable students look to that and decide that the same folks can't be correct about Capitalism either.

Socialism here we come :(

Good point. I was raised hard core conservative. In college I found the conservative principals I had been raised with were indefensible, so it seemed liberalism must be the correct political philosophy. After Carter, I realized blindly adhering to any political philosophy was foolish. I frequently get called a liberal and a socialist iin Glocktalk and called a conservative and a redneck on the college campus. Extremists are both sides are equally appalled that I could disagree with them.

void *
05-28-2012, 10:58
I frequently get called a liberal and a socialist iin Glocktalk and called a conservative and a redneck on the college campus. Extremists are both sides are equally appalled that I could disagree with them.

I have the same experience on various message boards. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 11:38
You are correct in your definition of speciation. This can occur by either physical incompatibility, differing breeding times, or geographic separation. I am too lazy to read those articles, but we have seen species evolve to other species in bacteria confronted with antibiotics in petri dishes.

I am a firm believer in odds as are you I assume Cavalry Doc. Our profession requires that in order to treat people the best way we can. I believe that the vastness of our universe with the multitude of stars like our sun and the billions of planets revolving those other suns means that there is probably other life out there. (Was that a runon sentence?) I also believe that the odds of sitting down at a blackjack table and winning approach 50%. A trained card counter can increase those odds dramatically. We can breed a horse and a donkey. To me it seems that given billions of years of time, nature too could hit blackjack and make some new species. All you really need is a change in an important piece of DNA and voila, evolution.

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00190.png

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00140.png

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/images/224_big01.jpg&sa=X&ei=obfDT9-EKOa42QXW7q2KAQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGKjJERlG1X-fz7lNb824a4Jj8cIQ

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/images/224_big02.jpg

Life is also complex, and more likely to end than begin. More likely to "die" out than progress. Without a plan anyway. If it was all chance, it's more likely that life would have crapped out several times over. As it is, nature would have had to hit blackjack billions of times in a row to get to where we are now. So, although it is perfectly possible that all of what is simply occurred without an intelligence involved, to me, it is equally possible that an intelligence as involved.

void *
05-28-2012, 13:15
Life is also complex, and more likely to end than begin. More likely to "die" out than progress. Without a plan anyway. If it was all chance, it's more likely that life would have crapped out several times over.

If you really believe this, why aren't you a theist, rather than labeling yourself an agnostic?

As it is, nature would have had to hit blackjack billions of times in a row to get to where we are now. So, although it is perfectly possible that all of what is simply occurred without an intelligence involved, to me, it is equally possible that an intelligence as involved.

*All* of the odds arguments are invalid, because we do not have all of the information required to actually calculate a real probability (we don't, for instance, know the actual number of trials involved. With a sufficient number of trials, even long odds can become near certainty.).

Also, as an aside: a neat thought experiment: Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it well (take your time). Draw a card and write it down until you've written down all the cards. The odds of you getting the specific fifty-two card order you got are one in eight times ten to the power of 67 ... or eight with 67 zeros after it. Yet every single time you shuffle up and draw fifty-two cards, you hit an order that has that probability of being hit. (It is also true that the order you draw has, in all likelihood, never, ever been drawn by anyone else, ever).

steveksux
05-28-2012, 13:21
Life is also complex, and more likely to end than begin. More likely to "die" out than progress. Without a plan anyway. If it was all chance, it's more likely that life would have crapped out several times over. As it is, nature would have had to hit blackjack billions of times in a row to get to where we are now. So, although it is perfectly possible that all of what is simply occurred without an intelligence involved, to me, it is equally possible that an intelligence as involved.You'd have to be crazy enough to believe atheism is a religion to believe chance drives evolution.

Hard to believe someone could be that massively uninformed about such a wide variety of topics.


Randy

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 13:58
You'd have to be crazy enough to believe atheism is a religion to believe chance drives evolution.

Hard to believe someone could be that massively uninformed about such a wide variety of topics.


Randy

After reading GT Religious issues for 3 years I don't find it hard to believe at all.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 14:05
http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00190.png

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00140.png

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/images/224_big01.jpg&sa=X&ei=obfDT9-EKOa42QXW7q2KAQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGKjJERlG1X-fz7lNb824a4Jj8cIQ

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/images/224_big02.jpg

Life is also complex, and more likely to end than begin. More likely to "die" out than progress. Without a plan anyway. If it was all chance, it's more likely that life would have crapped out several times over. As it is, nature would have had to hit blackjack billions of times in a row to get to where we are now. So, although it is perfectly possible that all of what is simply occurred without an intelligence involved, to me, it is equally possible that an intelligence as involved.

How much of those super duper complex diagrams do you really understand? Because in my experience, the more someone really understands the mechanics of life the more willing they are to concede that it's not all that unlikely or impossible at all. It's always the same people that confuse evolution with random chance that say it can't happen.

void *
05-28-2012, 14:42
It's always the same people that confuse evolution with random chance that say it can't happen.

There's a game called Colonel Blotto's game that goes roughly like this:

"Colonel Blotto and his opponent each have 100 divisions, and are going to fight over 10 pieces of territory (regions). They therefore (independently) divide their forces up into 10 parts and send each part to one region. Ten fights take place, and the one with the larger force wins the region (or there may be a stand-off). The winner of the battle is the one with the most won territory."

(See http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~pmt6jrp/personal/blotto.html)

A few years ago I wrote a genetic algorithm that selected armies for fitness. It was pretty interesting in that the environment for the "armies" was entirely determined by what other armies were in the pool, and over time, there would be vasts shifts in what armies were "winning".

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 14:56
How much of those super duper complex diagrams do you really understand? Because in my experience, the more someone really understands the mechanics of life the more willing they are to concede that it's not all that unlikely or impossible at all. It's always the same people that confuse evolution with random chance that say it can't happen.

Enough to be a pretty good practitioner of medicine. It's not impossible that there is a plan, or that it all just happened. Both are pretty remarkable assumptions.

So, for me anyway, it is what it is, and until one side of the question comes up with some irrefutable proof, I see no reason to pick sides.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 14:58
After reading GT Religious issues for 3 years I don't find it hard to believe at all.

Steve is just uncomfortable that someone questions his assumptions, points out that he has made assumptions, and he cannot stick to the subject without drawing conclusions about the integrity or intelligence of anyone that disagrees with him.

packsaddle
05-28-2012, 15:00
Our brains are pretty capable when you let them work.

speaking of brains, did things such as the laws of logic, rationality, mathematics, morality, laws of physics, etc. etc. exist before human brains evolved?

if you say yes, then where did these absolute, necessary, unchanging, and eternal things come from?

if you say no, then you are essentially implying that these things are mere products of various electrical impulses jumping across synapses in the human brain and therefore can never be absolute, necessary, unchanging, and eternal.

this creates a big problem for you unless you can, for example, disprove the law of non-contradiction, which you can't since you would be using logic to disprove a law of logic (self-defeating).

but, hey, give it a whirl.

we'll wait.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 15:04
If you really believe this, why aren't you a theist, rather than labeling yourself an agnostic?



*All* of the odds arguments are invalid, because we do not have all of the information required to actually calculate a real probability (we don't, for instance, know the actual number of trials involved. With a sufficient number of trials, even long odds can become near certainty.).

Also, as an aside: a neat thought experiment: Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it well (take your time). Draw a card and write it down until you've written down all the cards. The odds of you getting the specific fifty-two card order you got are one in eight times ten to the power of 67 ... or eight with 67 zeros after it. Yet every single time you shuffle up and draw fifty-two cards, you hit an order that has that probability of being hit. (It is also true that the order you draw has, in all likelihood, never, ever been drawn by anyone else, ever).

I see both as equally possible. So it's easy to be an agnostic for me. I don't see any reason to pick sides.

What are the odds of all of the elements present in a human being being in the correct sequence and in the correct position in the human body to make a human? Don't forget that certain structures are required that have effect on distant tissues that would be incompatible with life without their influence. The odds boggle the mind, but maybe we are just ignorant and simple beings, incapable of really understanding reality.

The only thing for certain, is that it is what it is, and it is because it is, whether a deity was involved or not. We are what we are, where we are, and when we are.

I find the mystery to be acceptable. Some have a need to believe that they know, and so through faith, choose to believe one way or the other.

It's still possible.

void *
05-28-2012, 16:12
I see both as equally possible.

On what basis do you make that assessment?

GAFinch
05-28-2012, 16:15
Puhlease. If you do not see an agenda in most college education, you are not looking.

The agenda is to advance our understanding. Only anti-intellectuals have a problem with that.

Things I learned in college that turned out to be false:

-The Galapagos Island finches evolved into different species. The finches with the shallow beaks returned when the drought ended. The species there now are the exact same species that existed in Darwin's time.
-Peppered moth study in England. Turns out the study was a complete fraud.
-Scopes Monkey Trial showcasing the enlightened scientists versus the ignorant religious folk. Turns out the trial was a giant publicity stunt for the town, which desperately needed revenue from the resulting tourism boom.

I don't completely disbelieve evolution and I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I'm certainly extremely skeptical of traditional secular Darwinism.

The resulting issue is that, if you don't think Darwinism alone explains life, can you really be an atheist or firm agnostic?

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 16:22
I see both as equally possible. So it's easy to be an agnostic for me. I don't see any reason to pick sides.

What are the odds of all of the elements present in a human being being in the correct sequence and in the correct position in the human body to make a human? Don't forget that certain structures are required that have effect on distant tissues that would be incompatible with life without their influence. The odds boggle the mind, but maybe we are just ignorant and simple beings, incapable of really understanding reality.

The only thing for certain, is that it is what it is, and it is because it is, whether a deity was involved or not. We are what we are, where we are, and when we are.

I find the mystery to be acceptable. Some have a need to believe that they know, and so through faith, choose to believe one way or the other.

It's still possible.

As has been pointed out before, there are no odds. Nobody could come close to calculating such a thing without knowing the entire scope of the universe plus any other universes that may exist. It really doesn't matter if the actual odds are a billion times greater than the highest 'calculation' ever made. The universe gets to roll the dice as many times as it likes and nobody is around to question it until that number comes up.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:24
On what basis do you make that assessment?

Both sides have pretty good arguments. Once you separate yourself from belief in a particular deity or belief that no deity has ever existed, it's really quite simple.

It either was made/planned, or not. Both are possible.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:25
As has been pointed out before, there are no odds. Nobody could come close to calculating such a thing without knowing the entire scope of the universe plus any other universes that may exist. It really doesn't matter if the actual odds are a billion times greater than the highest 'calculation' ever made. The universe gets to roll the dice as many times as it likes and nobody is around to question it until that number comes up.

If the universe is rolling dice, doesn't that imply a consciousness.

It is what it is, that is certain. What it is, is uncertain, at least with the evidence we have.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 16:35
Both sides have pretty good arguments. Once you separate yourself from belief in a particular deity, it's really quite simple.

It either was made/planned, or not. Both are possible.

Both are possible but not equally likely and not equally valid arguments by any stretch. One supposes an infinite complexity could be the only cause of lesser complexity. The other supposes that complexity happens gradually from the ground (or the water) up. The latter is not only immensely more probable but also the only way we've ever observed it happening.

You could always argue that the former were still possible but the more adamant you are that both should be considered, the more of a bias it shows. It basically amounts to wishful thinking in the absence of evidence.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:40
Both are possible but not equally likely and not equally valid arguments by any stretch. One supposes an infinite complexity could be the only cause of lesser complexity. The other supposes that complexity happens gradually from the ground (or the water) up. The latter is not only immensely more probable but also the only way we've ever observed it happening.

You could always argue that the former were still possible but the more adamant you are that both should be considered, the more of a bias it shows. It basically amounts to wishful thinking in the absence of evidence.

And you don't consider yourself biased?

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DrSpockFascinating.jpg&sa=X&ei=6v7DT_XtFIWC2AWJ7aF7&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNH5DSAJvOZZwGs9m6aygocL5Ky6CQ

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 17:13
And you don't consider yourself biased?

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DrSpockFascinating.jpg&sa=X&ei=6v7DT_XtFIWC2AWJ7aF7&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNH5DSAJvOZZwGs9m6aygocL5Ky6CQ

I think you have a pretty skewed view of bias. A bias view of bias even. Why don't you go ahead and explain to me how that which always observed is on equal footing with that which is never observed.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 17:14
If the universe is rolling dice, doesn't that imply a consciousness.

It is what it is, that is certain. What it is, is uncertain, at least with the evidence we have.

As Gecko pointed out before, you know what I meant and you're pretending that you don't. It's pathetic and I'm not impressed.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 17:36
I think you have a pretty skewed view of bias. A bias view of bias even. Why don't you go ahead and explain to me how that which always observed is on equal footing with that which is never observed.

Life was either created or occurred on it's own, or maybe there is a middle ground position.

I don't know the answer.

You have proposed there is only one correct answer, but labeled me as biased.

That is fascinating.

juggy4711
05-28-2012, 18:43
...Some have a need to believe that they know, and so through faith, choose to believe one way or the other...

That's why I say I don't know but I believe. One can believe they know or know they believe but they aren't the same thing.

My only true issue comes when believers want their faith and belief to be elevated to the same level as science. Whether or not Creationism or ID is true does not change the observable, measurable and predictable results of science. Whether there is a God or not doesn't really matter in regards to reality.

...You have proposed there is only one correct answer, but labeled me as biased...

There is only one correct answer as I can't fathom a way it's both. I just don't think it's an answer we can determine for certain.

Animal Mother
05-28-2012, 19:02
-Peppered moth study in England. Turns out the study was a complete fraud.Which study was this? In what way was it fraudulent?

SIGlock
05-28-2012, 21:06
Thank God there were men that didn't. I'm rather fond of the things such men discovered.

Have you heard of Issac Newton and Albert Einstein?

Most two brilliant scientists in the human history....and they both believed in GOD. Surprised.:tongueout:

juggy4711
05-28-2012, 21:13
Have you heard of Issac Newton and Albert Einstein?

Most two brilliant scientists in the human history....and they both believed in GOD. Surprised.:tongueout:

Einstein in no way believed in God in the traditional religious sense. As for Newton well he had some whacked ideas even whackier than belief in God. The point being that they did not accept "God did it" as an acceptable answer for the questions the sought to answer.

GAFinch
05-28-2012, 21:23
Which study was this? In what way was it fraudulent?

The one in high school and college science classes that, along with the finches, was one of two primary cases showcasing evolution where the white moth lived on a tree with white bark, but when the Industrial Revolution came to England, the trees turned black and there was a picture of a white moth visible against the now black bark. The moths then evolved into black ones to blend in with the new trees.

Turns out the moths live underneath tree branches and were nocturnal. The scientist glued moths onto the trees to take the pictures.

Don't think of Darwinism as just objective, benign science...there are political influences on it. Because it provides a secular framework for life, it's highly integrated with Marxism (communism, socialism, social democracy, etc) to justify eliminating or reducing the influence of religion in a country and replacing religious organizations with state-run schools, hospitals, welfare programs, etc. Anyone who's been to college (even high school in some places) knows that Marxism is taught overtly or subtlety by a majority of professors, so it's no surprise that falsehoods are taught to justify the ideology. Same with global warming, a global wealth redistribution program, where "objective" scientists have been caught exaggerating or falsifying data.

Animal Mother
05-28-2012, 23:46
The one in high school and college science classes that, along with the finches, was one of two primary cases showcasing evolution where the white moth lived on a tree with white bark, but when the Industrial Revolution came to England, the trees turned black and there was a picture of a white moth visible against the now black bark. The moths then evolved into black ones to blend in with the new trees.

Turns out the moths live underneath tree branches and were nocturnal. The scientist glued moths onto the trees to take the pictures. Who performed this work? Who committed the fraud? When did it happen? Where was it published? Who revealed the "fraud"?
Don't think of Darwinism as just objective, benign science. I don't, I think of Darwinism as a made up pejorative term invented by creationists.
..there are political influences on it. Because it provides a secular framework for life, it's highly integrated with Marxism (communism, socialism, social democracy, etc) to justify eliminating or reducing the influence of religion in a country and replacing religious organizations with state-run schools, hospitals, welfare programs, etc. Even if that were true, and I'd ask for evidence that it is considering the primary Communist power of the 20th century championed Lysenkoism, not the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, how does that negate the scientific reality of evolution?
Anyone who's been to college (even high school in some places) knows that Marxism is taught overtly or subtlety by a majority of professors, so it's no surprise that falsehoods are taught to justify the ideology. Same with global warming, a global wealth redistribution program, where "objective" scientists have been caught exaggerating or falsifying data.I've been at a university for 12 years now, and I haven't even met the majority of professors much less taken classes from them. From personal experience I can say that the vast majority of my professors taught Marxism only as a philosophical system and that was only in the relevant classes.

As for your charges about climate change, I'd ask you actually review the science, not depend on what Limbaugh and co. tell you.

Animal Mother
05-28-2012, 23:51
Have you heard of Issac Newton and Albert Einstein?

Most two brilliant scientists in the human history....and they both believed in GOD. Surprised.:tongueout:As pointed out, Einstein hardly believed in the Christian conception of God and Newton also believed in Alchemy. But let's examine the implication that belief in God somehow colored either man's work. Could you point out where in the Principia or Optiks Newton ascribed the results of physics to the actions of God?

juggy4711
05-29-2012, 00:19
...As for your charges about climate change, I'd ask you actually review the science, not depend on what Limbaugh and co. tell you.

I went to College and University in the last decade. The political inferences were certainly skewed left. If I learned anything from statistics however it is that the meager amount of data available in regards to climate isn't enough to determine jack. Climate observations are being made with next to no data. A hundred even two hundred years of weather info is meaningless when the planet is 4 billion years old.

Animal Mother
05-29-2012, 00:42
I went to College and University in the last decade. The political inferences were certainly skewed left. Leaning left is something completely different from teaching Marxism, especially considering the increasingly anti-intellectual positions of the far right.
If I learned anything from statistics however it is that the meager amount of data available in regards to climate isn't enough to determine jack. Climate observations are being made with next to no data. A hundred even two hundred years of weather info is meaningless when the planet is 4 billion years old. We have weather information going back thousands of years from a variety of sources. While it may not be enough to reach a final conclusion, it also isn't evidence of intentional fraud as GAFinch charges.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 05:30
That is one definition. As you would know if you read the wikipedia article on speciation.
When those changes in coloring accompany reproductive isolation, that's a new species.
That wouldn't be speciation, that would be change on at least the level of an order, Just the kind of ludicrous expectation creationists throw out so they can wave their hands and claim evolution isn't real.

That doesn't make sense. An animal has an adaptive change, then moves to a new area, and due to geographic isolation,it's a new species?? But if you took one of the ring necked gulls back to the other area, they could breed.

I'm not saying evolution isn't real, but because it takes so long to occur, much of what we call evolution is adaptation.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 05:39
I don't understand your first sentence.

I know the complexities of the human body, but there are many mistakes and flaws as well. If the supposed almighty is perfect and we are supposedly created in his image, then what gives? And I have considered the possibility of a plan, but those considerations have lead me to believe that environmental pressures are the driving force behind our perfections, and if we are allowed to continue to evolve, I think the warranty may be good for 50, 60, or even 70 years.

"God works in mysterious ways" Was the saying I referenced.

Well, the imperfections are there, but again, are they planned, or did they just happen by random chance and natural selection? Beats me. :dunno:

There really is no warranty. People die at every age due to a multitude of issues. But I do commonly point out that by the time you hit 30, you are past your prime, in most cases.

Animal Mother
05-29-2012, 05:58
That doesn't make sense. An animal has an adaptive change, then moves to a new area, and due to geographic isolation,it's a new species??No, do to it's reproductive isolation, it's a new species.
But if you took one of the ring necked gulls back to the other area, they could breed. What gulls are you talking about? Do you mean ring species?
I'm not saying evolution isn't real, but because it takes so long to occur, much of what we call evolution is adaptation.Adaptation is an aspect of evolution, so you more properly would be saying "what we call evolution is evolution."

jbotstein1
05-29-2012, 06:27
"God works in mysterious ways" Was the saying I referenced.

Well, the imperfections are there, but again, are they planned, or did they just happen by random chance and natural selection? Beats me. :dunno:

There really is no warranty. People die at every age due to a multitude of issues. But I do commonly point out that by the time you hit 30, you are past your prime, in most cases.

Oh. I gotcha. That answer is a copout to me. So is "it is what it is". It obviously is what it is, but the why is what intrigues me. Creationism answers the why with a simple answer in my opinion. We are much more complex than that as you've said yourself. Sure, it's possible that we were just made, but as others have said, that argument is based on something we can comprehend. I believe the answer is something we can't presently or potentially ever understand or even begin to fathom. That's why I love these discussions. They make my brain hurt. My head starts spiraling with all sorts of ideas and what ifs until it becomes painful. I am okay with the concept of not being able to ever know or understand. I'm not okay with giving up and saying I know, and this is how it happened when I have no proof to back that belief up. (I ended a sentence with a preposition.)

eracer
05-29-2012, 06:29
The unknowable can chose to become known.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?There are many books that claim to know the truth.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 07:09
No, do to it's reproductive isolation, it's a new species.
What gulls are you talking about? Do you mean ring species?
Adaptation is an aspect of evolution, so you more properly would be saying "what we call evolution is evolution."

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. If you Reintroduced them, they could date & if the guy's a smooth talker, procreate.

Living in different time zones isn't a biological observation of one animal evolving into another.

English
05-29-2012, 07:42
That's what I don't get either. I mean I understand sticking to ones faith but when that faith contradicts observable, testable, measurable reality, then I'm like WTF? The medium they are arguing on requires that science is correct.

I don't think they understand that if evolution was wrong then molecular biology would be wrong, bio chemistry would be wrong, chemistry would be wrong, genetics would be wrong, electromagnetism would be wrong etc...And most importantly this conversation would not be possible on the medium in which we are having it.

Well, you are right of course, but the flaw in your argument from the Vic Hayes direction is that God could create all that scientific structure and evidence to be found in electronics, nuclear science, the structure of DNA and its relationship between different animals, fossils in rocks of apparently different ages, and so on. Further He could have done it in an instant, or a week. Or he could have done it yesterday and created us all with memories of lives that had not existed. If we allow the existence of a God or gods then anything could have happened and whether God chose to do some things by evolution or direct creation is immaterial.

The implications of this are profound because they mean that God is a cheat and a deceiver. The conflict between what the Bible or other holy books say and scientific evidence of the nature of the world, life and the universe is so deep that it is unbridgeable.

If God created life he did a very poor and unimaginastive job of it. The modifications of the same basic structures to make different animals able to survive with different ways of life have been stretched beyond any intelligent creation. If He merely set the conditions for life to evolve and left it to evolve as it would, he clearly has none of the personalised interest in us as individuals that all those praying to their God hope for. Regardless of the half baked idea that evolution and creationism could be compatible, they can't be so at all unless God has the personality of a seriously disturbed child.

If I were to choose between being the roundabout creation of a seriously disturbed child or the process of evolution I would much prefer the latter, though my prefference makes no difference to the actuality.

English

jbotstein1
05-29-2012, 07:46
That seems a bit arbitrary to me. If you Reintroduced them, they could date & if the guy's a smooth talker, procreate.

Living in different time zones isn't a biological observation of one animal evolving into another.

Evolution is driven by natural forces, so by us reintroducing them, it would not be evolution. No matter how smooth of a talker he was. The whole pangaea thing is an example of geographic isolation. If the continents drift apart, and animals who were once the same species and neighbors are no longer neighbors become influenced by different environmental factors, over time evolve into different species, which, even if they were reintroduced, would not breed in the wild.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 07:54
Oh. I gotcha. That answer is a copout to me. So is "it is what it is". It obviously is what it is, but the why is what intrigues me. Creationism answers the why with a simple answer in my opinion. We are much more complex than that as you've said yourself. Sure, it's possible that we were just made, but as others have said, that argument is based on something we can comprehend. I believe the answer is something we can't presently or potentially ever understand or even begin to fathom. That's why I love these discussions. They make my brain hurt. My head starts spiraling with all sorts of ideas and what ifs until it becomes painful. I am okay with the concept of not being able to ever know or understand. I'm not okay with giving up and saying I know, and this is how it happened when I have no proof to back that belief up. (I ended a sentence with a preposition.)

I see "it is what it is" as an acknowledgement that I don't know. It may be possible to know, but I doubt anyone has any real proof whether there is intelligent design involved or just random chance and natural selection. I also do not see them as mutually exclusive.

Animals do adapt. That is a fact.

Animal Mother
05-29-2012, 08:02
That seems a bit arbitrary to me. If you Reintroduced them, they could date & if the guy's a smooth talker, procreate. No, they couldn't. That's what reproductive isolation means.
Living in different time zones isn't a biological observation of one animal evolving into another.No, it isn't, but that isn't what's being described either.

English
05-29-2012, 08:28
That doesn't make sense. An animal has an adaptive change, then moves to a new area, and due to geographic isolation,it's a new species?? But if you took one of the ring necked gulls back to the other area, they could breed.

I'm not saying evolution isn't real, but because it takes so long to occur, much of what we call evolution is adaptation.

The depths of ignorance and weird definitions on which you build your towers of philosophy are fascinating in a booring kind of way.

Above you illustrate one example. In spite of widespread belief to the contrary, the ability to cross breed is not diagnostic of two apparently different species being mere variations of the same species. The inability to cross breed evolves in related allopatric species in order to prevent their species specific attributes from being lost. Those attributes evolved over very many generations and are valuable to the species of they would not have been selected. Cross breeding produces massive desegregation of different characteristics or traits, and so few beyond the first generation cross are viable. As an example, two species of Love Birds from differen areas carry nesting materials in differen ways. One carries in the beak and the other carries under a wing with the aid of specially evolved feathers. Many cross bred birds can be seen to be trying to carry nesting material under a wing when the lack the adapttion to do so. A natural species cannot survive those odds and so has to evolve barriers to cross breeding.

There is a species of wolf that lives at high atitude in isolated Abyssinian mountains. In the last few decades, herders have started to colonise those areas and their domestic dogs have interbred with the wolf even though the wolf has been genetically separated from other wolves for a very long time. They are now well on their way to extinction. By your definition this wolf species and all other wolf species and domesticated dogs are the same species but taxonomic and behavioural differences make it clear that they are separate species.

Related allopatric species evolve mating barriers in a variety of ways: incompatibility of sexual organs by size or shape, different mating behaviours or displays, variations of pheromones and so on. Others have evolved to produce non fertile offspring from hybrids - such as mules. Species which have evolved separately after some change of climate or geography have separated them do not need to evolve such barriers and so do not do so. When they are brought together they can and do mate. One partial example is the Polar Bear and the Grizzly. Polar Bears evolved from Grizzlies only some 30,000 years ago and are separated by their habitats. Even so, some Grizzlies get into Polar Bear territory and cross breed. This is a rare enough event to be unimportant enough to have driven the evolution of mating incompatibility in such a short time.

English

Vic Hays
05-29-2012, 09:44
There are many books that claim to know the truth.

So the inference is that if there were only one book it would be true or is it that there are so many you can't find which one is true?

There is no other book like the Bible. It has withstood the test of time.

eracer
05-29-2012, 10:13
So the inference is that if there were only one book it would be true or is it that there are so many you can't find which one is true?

There is no other book like the Bible. It has withstood the test of time.So have the Hindu Vedas, the Islamic Quran, and the Hebrew Torah.

All seek to understand the mysterious. Each has its faithful acolytes.

None are the sole arbiters of truth.

Vic Hays
05-29-2012, 14:56
So have the Hindu Vedas, the Islamic Quran, and the Hebrew Torah.

All seek to understand the mysterious. Each has its faithful acolytes.

None are the sole arbiters of truth.

How many Truths are there?

Maybe the Truth is a person.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
18:38 Pilate said to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, I find in him no fault at all.

jbotstein1
05-29-2012, 15:14
ETA: Removed. That wasn't nice.

Gunhaver
05-29-2012, 15:19
Life was either created or occurred on it's own, or maybe there is a middle ground position.

I don't know the answer.

You have proposed there is only one correct answer, but labeled me as biased.

That is fascinating.

I am either typing or speaking my responses into a computer or I have invented some device that turns my thoughts into text. Are you ready to assign equal probability and credibility to both possibilities? If I were to swear that I was thinxting this to you would you not be extremely skeptical? Maybe call BS on that claim? Demand some evidence? See how that works?

But I could just keep calling you biased and that makes everything alright. At least it would if I were fine with being persistently wrong.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 16:20
I am either typing or speaking my responses into a computer or I have invented some device that turns my thoughts into text. Are you ready to assign equal probability and credibility to both possibilities? If I were to swear that I was thinxting this to you would you not be extremely skeptical? Maybe call BS on that claim? Demand some evidence? See how that works?

But I could just keep calling you biased and that makes everything alright. At least it would if I were fine with being persistently wrong.

I've had an epiphany. I now believe you have a sense of humor.

Lone Wolf8634
05-29-2012, 16:50
I've had an epiphany. I now believe you have a sense of humor.

Do you believe that with ardor and passion?:whistling:

Gunhaver
05-30-2012, 08:05
I've had an epiphany. I now believe you have a sense of humor.

I notice you completely ignored my point.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 19:16
I notice you completely ignored my point.

We are pretty close to that technology. I'd ask for proof, and if you were convinced you were thinxting, but offered none, i'd ignore your statement. I would not choose to believe you did not have a computer.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 19:17
Do you believe that with ardor and passion?:whistling:

Can I believe it with a chuckle?:supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-30-2012, 21:13
We are pretty close to that technology. I'd ask for proof, and if you were convinced you were thinxting, but offered none, i'd ignore your statement. You'd want evidence, you mean?
I would not choose to believe you did not have a computer.On what basis would you reach that conclusion?

Gunhaver
05-30-2012, 21:33
We are pretty close to that technology. I'd ask for proof, and if you were convinced you were thinxting, but offered none, i'd ignore your statement. I would not choose to believe you did not have a computer.

So you've made up your mind that I have a computer without evidence. Why not reserve judgment until there's more evidence? I might be like that guy in X-Men that just has the internet in his head. You can't say for sure, you only know that you've never seen anything like that and you choose to believe the most likely scenario.

427
05-30-2012, 22:07
Proof;
If I made the claim that I'm god's other son and can walk on water, would people take me at my word or would they demand proof?

There seems to be proof for some things, others, not so much.

juggy4711
05-30-2012, 22:34
Proof;
If I made the claim that I'm god's other son and can walk on water, would people take me at my word or would they demand proof?

There seems to be proof for some things, others, not so much.

Are you Asus, Bsus, Csus, Dsus, Esus, or Fsus?

427
05-30-2012, 23:34
Are you Asus, Bsus, Csus, Dsus, Esus, or Fsus?

I'm Bob.

void *
05-30-2012, 23:58
Are you Asus, Bsus, Csus, Dsus, Esus, or Fsus?

D7sus4???

void *
05-31-2012, 00:23
That seems a bit arbitrary to me. If you Reintroduced them, they could date & if the guy's a smooth talker, procreate.

Is that offspring sterile, and if not, can it survive? Mules are sterile when mated with other mules (there's a difference in the number of chromosomes between horses and donkeys). Coyotes have a particular mating cycle, which avoids birthing in winter - Coydog/dogotes do not exhibit that cycle, and will litter at times of the year when the pups will not survive.

eracer
05-31-2012, 05:15
How many Truths are there?

Maybe the Truth is a person.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said to him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
18:38 Pilate said to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, I find in him no fault at all.Can we 'know' the truth? Or only believe?

jbotstein1
05-31-2012, 05:34
What do creationists say about vestigial organs?

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 06:46
So you've made up your mind that I have a computer without evidence. Why not reserve judgment until there's more evidence? I might be like that guy in X-Men that just has the internet in his head. You can't say for sure, you only know that you've never seen anything like that and you choose to believe the most likely scenario.

Maybe the fact that you posted on the Internet means that you had an Internet capable device, even phones now are small computers.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 06:49
You'd want evidence, you mean?
On what basis would you reach that conclusion?

If someone makes a claim, if it's not important to you, why bother jumping to a conclusion at all?

If gun haver wants to believe he is thinxting, why should it bother me?

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 06:53
Is that offspring sterile, and if not, can it survive? Mules are sterile when mated with other mules (there's a difference in the number of chromosomes between horses and donkeys). Coyotes have a particular mating cycle, which avoids birthing in winter - Coydog/dogotes do not exhibit that cycle, and will litter at times of the year when the pups will not survive.

And what do those observations tell us about whether or not there was an inteligent design? Not enough to make a claim one way or the other from my perspective.

Evolution does not rule it in or out, and neither does the big bang theory. We only see what we can see, and some full in the gaps with what they choose to fill in the gaps with.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 07:44
Maybe the fact that you posted on the Internet means that you had an Internet capable device, even phones now are small computers.

Maybe? But it's not 100% conclusive. So are you assigning equal probability to both possibilities?

void *
05-31-2012, 09:34
And what do those observations tell us about whether or not there was an inteligent design? Not enough to make a claim one way or the other from my perspective.

Evolution does not rule it in or out, and neither does the big bang theory. We only see what we can see, and some full in the gaps with what they choose to fill in the gaps with.

Hi,

Did I say it did? No, I did not. In fact, my comment had nothing to do with evolution ruling that in or out. Why would you pretend I said anything of the sort?

Read this if you haven't: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19016369&postcount=27

If you can't show a post where an atheist or an agnostic has claimed that 'evolution rules out intelligent design', the rational thing to do would to be stop posting as though that were a claim anyone other than some of the theists are making.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 10:39
Maybe? But it's not 100% conclusive. So are you assigning equal probability to both possibilities?

Which two possibilities are you referring to, there have been a few mentioned.

muscogee
05-31-2012, 11:10
Proof;
If I made the claim that I'm god's other son and can walk on water, would people take me at my word or would they demand proof?

There seems to be proof for some things, others, not so much.

Several times on this forum I have made the claim that I was God and invited people to prove otherwise. So far, no one has done it.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 17:03
Which two possibilities are you referring to, there have been a few mentioned.

Posting on an electronic devise is comparable to the universe having come about all on it's own. That's all we've ever observed, that's all we have any evidence to believe.

Putting thoughts directly from my brain onto this thread is comparable to a god having been responsible for creating the universe. It has much more basis in human imagination than any reality we've observed and we have no reason to consider it a possibility other than the fact that we may really want to.

Those are the two extreme ends of the spectrum we're talking about here. Most likely on one end moving towards least likely on the other.

Now, are you saying that both ends of this spectrum of claims are equally valid and worthy of equal consideration?

juggy4711
05-31-2012, 21:06
I see both as equally possible. So it's easy to be an agnostic for me. I don't see any reason to pick sides.

While you view them as equally possible, you do realize only one can be correct?

What are the odds of all of the elements present in a human being being in the correct sequence and in the correct position in the human body to make a human?...

Easy answer here. The odds, chances, probability or what ever word you want to use, are that we are, otherwise we would not be.

The odds boggle the mind, but maybe we are just ignorant and simple beings, incapable of really understanding reality.

Actually reality is defined by probability. Therefore the reality we experience is probable and hardly mind boggling, well accept of course for reality being determined by probability rather than certainty. I'm glad for it though. It allows us free will. Otherwise we would be Newtonian slaves to the pool table of sub-atomic particles.

The only thing for certain, is that it is what it is, and it is because it is, whether a deity was involved or not. We are what we are, where we are, and when we are.

Yep. Now why is it that the parts of your post above don't align with that statement? It is what it is because chances are it was, yet you find those chances mind boggling as if the chances were it would not be? That does not add up at all.

I find the mystery to be acceptable. Some have a need to believe that they know, and so through faith, choose to believe one way or the other.

It's still possible.

As I said before, one can believe they know and/or know they believe. One can not know that they know. You have a need to believe it can't be known. Or if you prefer need to know/believe one can not accurately believe or know. Is it getting confusing yet?

The last bit I will admit I do not get. What is still possible? It's possible I could run into a solid wall and pass right through it. The probability on the other hand is what scientists call very,very small. (Bonus points to those that pick up on that reference).

Animal Mother
05-31-2012, 22:02
If someone makes a claim, if it's not important to you, why bother jumping to a conclusion at all? Is how Gunhaver posts important to you? The proper study and application of science is very important to all of us.
If gun haver wants to believe he is thinxting, why should it bother me?If he was attempting to require that everyone be taught his "method" was the only acceptable way to post, would that not interfere with your methods?

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 03:46
Is how Gunhaver posts important to you? The proper study and application of science is very important to all of us?
If he was attempting to require that everyone be taught his "method" was the only acceptable way to post, would that not interfere with your methods?

Science can be studied in depth without bias whether one believes in a deity or not. Science does not negate the possibility. If a deity does or did in fact exist, and created the universe and/or life, that would be the nature of things. Science would then be discovering what is, and how it came to be. No requirement to believe in the supernatural, as it would not be supernatural, but natural. If one believes a deity does not exist, they can explore what is, without any concern for why, as there would be no why, only how.

If others believe in their holy books, and that belief makes them happy, and does not influence them to walk into your local coffee shop with a bomb strapped to their chest, why worry? No big deal.

Why not teach science from the approach of:

Kids, this is what we can see. This is what we can test. These theories are widely accepted. These are the mystery's we are exploring. None of this proves or disproves whether a deity or deities have ever existed, for that information, talk to your parents. Whether a deity has or has not existed should simply not be a topic of discussion.

Most schools now have religious studies, not a theology class or induction class, but a look at the beliefs of the world. They are many, and they are not consistent at all, but it would be of benefit for young adults to know what other's do believe, and that would be the place for the creation vs. it just happened discussion. And in my undergrad level religious studies class (required) atheism was discussed and given equal merit, if not better. The Professor was an atheist.

From my perspective, separation of church and state has missed one religion that needs to be gotten out of the schools.

It's even registered: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 03:57
While you view them as equally possible, you do realize only one can be correct?

...



Well, maybe a deity did exist, but is now no longer in existence. Maybe there were more than one. Maybe there were none at all, ever.

Bottom line for me, is since there is no convincing evidence one way or the other, why feel a compulsion to choose, then feel further compelled to convince everyone you are right?

I understand it's human nature to want to know, and to want to be right, but it's not that hard to overcome those urges for me, at least on the very profound question of whether this was created or just happened. Other subjects, I am highly opinionated on, but that is due to my own experiences and understanding. I have no useful information on whether a god exists or existed or not. I see the claims on both sides though. It's easy to see standing in the middle of both sides. We are all complex, but some are more complex than others.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 04:07
Science can be studied in depth without bias whether one believes in a deity or not. Not if one requires that a deity be given credit and/or a specific scripture adhered to before even beginning the investigation.
Science does not negate the possibility. I don't know that anyone claims it does in an absolute way. However, in the absence of evidence for any deity, much less a specific being, they shouldn't be admitted to the scientific discussion in an effort to comfort their followers.
If a deity does or did in fact exist, and created the universe and/or life, that would be the nature of things. Science would then be discovering what is, and how it came to be. No requirement to believe in the supernatural, as it would not be supernatural, but natural. If one believes a deity does not exist, they can explore what is, without any concern for why, as there would be no why, only how. This presumes there is a why, in a philosophical sense.
If others believe in their holy books, and that belief makes them happy, and does not influence them to walk into your local coffee shop with a bomb strapped to their chest, why worry? No big deal. Because even if it doesn't result in immediate violence, the invocation of a deity as justification for one's positions can have nothing but a detrimental effect on scientific investigations.
Why not teach science from the approach of:

Kids, this is what we can see. This is what we can test. These theories are widely accepted. These are the mystery's we are exploring. This is exactly how science should be taught.
None of this proves or disproves whether a deity or deities have ever existed, for that information, talk to your parents. Why should even this discussion be raised?
Whether a deity has or has not existed should simply not be a topic of discussion. Then why do you keep arguing it should be discussed?
Most schools now have religious studies, not a theology class or induction class, but a look at the beliefs of the world. They are many, and they are not consistent at all, but it would be of benefit for young adults to know what other's do believe, and that would be the place for the creation vs. it just happened discussion. And in my undergrad level religious studies class (required) atheism was discussed and given equal merit, if not better. The Professor was an atheist. I believe it's been repeatedly said, by others, that religious studies or philosophy classes are the proper realm for discussing creationism. I'm glad you now agree with that position, and presumably also advocate excluding the discussion from science classes.
From my perspective, separation of church and state has missed one religion that needs to be gotten out of the schools.

It's even registered: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/Your perspective is wrong, but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 04:26
Not if one requires that a deity be given credit and/or a specific scripture adhered to before even beginning the investigation.
I don't know that anyone claims it does in an absolute way. However, in the absence of evidence for any deity, much less a specific being, they shouldn't be admitted to the scientific discussion in an effort to comfort their followers.
This presumes there is a why, in a philosophical sense.
Because even if it doesn't result in immediate violence, the invocation of a deity as justification for one's positions can have nothing but a detrimental effect on scientific investigations.
This is exactly how science should be taught.
Why should even this discussion be raised?
Then why do you keep arguing it should be discussed?
I believe it's been repeatedly said, by others, that religious studies or philosophy classes are the proper realm for discussing creationism. I'm glad you now agree with that position, and presumably also advocate excluding the discussion from science classes.
Your perspective is wrong, but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

All religions are created equal, but one is more equal than others? Is that about right?

Schools should not be pushing religious beliefs, or from your perspective, disavowing them. Those are not the discussions one should have in a science classroom. It is a natural question though, and so it should be explained that all that science knows, cannot tell you if a deity or deities exist or have existed. That is a discussion to have with your parents, or in a religious studies class.

I'm arguing for true neutrality on the question of religion in schools, and you are arguing to stack the deck in the favor of atheism. Very similar to what we call the silent jihad.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 04:46
All religions are created equal, but one is more equal than others? Is that about right? No, it isn't right at all.
Schools should not be pushing religious beliefs, or from your perspective, disavowing them. Where did I say anything about disavowing? Ignoring them? Yes. Disavowing young earth creationism and intelligent design as relative to science? Absolutely.
Those are not the discussions one should have in a science classroom. Except that you think they should be discussed. How should discussions of things that should be discussed handled exactly?
It is a natural question though, and so it should be explained that all that science knows, cannot tell you if a deity or deities exist or have existed. That is a discussion to have with your parents, or in a religious studies class. If the question comes up, from a student, that would be an adequate response, but it's also completely different from the position you've championed in the past.
I'm arguing for true neutrality on the question of religion in schools, and you are arguing to stack the deck in the favor of atheism. Very similar to what we call the silent jihad.No, I'm not. I'm arguing to stack the deck in favor of science in science classes, which is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

jbotstein1
06-01-2012, 07:23
I'd like to pose a question similar to a previous one I asked. If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was a fact, that a fish swam on land, grew legs and lungs, began walking, etc. etc., would the theists out there deny their faith that says God created man and then a woman from his rib?

ETA: My guess is a lot of people will say no. And with that mindset, this discussion is pointless.

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 11:44
No, it isn't right at all.
Where did I say anything about disavowing? Ignoring them? Yes. Disavowing young earth creationism and intelligent design as relative to science? Absolutely.
Except that you think they should be discussed. How should discussions of things that should be discussed handled exactly?
If the question comes up, from a student, that would be an adequate response, but it's also completely different from the position you've championed in the past.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing to stack the deck in favor of science in science classes, which is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

There is a proper forum for everything. As far as your criticism about my change in position, discussing it has led to an evolution of my position. All of this is abstract and academic. I sincerely doubt the school systems even in my home town, let alone the nation, would be receptive to my advice.

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 11:49
I'd like to pose a question similar to a previous one I asked. If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was a fact, that a fish swam on land, grew legs and lungs, began walking, etc. etc., would the theists out there deny their faith that says God created man and then a woman from his rib?

ETA: My guess is a lot of people will say no. And with that mindset, this discussion is pointless.

Don't know what the theists would say, but I'd say any document transcribed and translated that many times by people that long ago, with far inferior knowledge of science, over that many years might contain a few inaccuracies. Maybe "rib" was a deities slang term, or a misspelling of "DNA". Plus, bias seeps in. Maybe the first man was a woman?

I don't really know, it was way before my time. I do know that proving evolution is correct, does not prove that no deity ever existed.

void *
06-01-2012, 11:58
I do know that proving evolution is correct, does not prove that no deity ever existed.

Again, who is claiming it does?

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2012, 16:39
Again, who is claiming it does?

Not too many here, openly at least.

Backfire_Tx
06-01-2012, 19:18
CS Lewis who gave his radio talk on "Mere Christianity" in the 1940's England - while at war with Germany. Had some interesting thoughts on changing from an Atheist to Christianity.

He started with a "common moral law" within the human machine. He goes in great depth describing how most all people understand that law - and it weighs heavy on them. An example is that in almost all cultures "selfishness" is not viewed in a positive light. Read the 1st 5 chapters of Mere Christianity. If you can hang in there with CS Lewis. He is tough to understand at times - i read the book 3 times. Here is a quote from the book:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

Lewis, C. S. (2009-05-28). Mere Christianity (p. 6). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Not bad huh? Get the book and read it. There is a moral law that weights on men - and weighs heavy.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 21:04
CS Lewis who gave his radio talk on "Mere Christianity" in the 1940's England - while at war with Germany. Had some interesting thoughts on changing from an Atheist to Christianity.

He started with a "common moral law" within the human machine. He goes in great depth describing how most all people understand that law - and it weighs heavy on them. An example is that in almost all cultures "selfishness" is not viewed in a positive light. Read the 1st 5 chapters of Mere Christianity. If you can hang in there with CS Lewis. He is tough to understand at times - i read the book 3 times. Here is a quote from the book:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

Lewis, C. S. (2009-05-28). Mere Christianity (p. 6). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Not bad huh? Get the book and read it. There is a moral law that weights on men - and weighs heavy.What does any of that have to do with the reality of evolution vs. the fantasy of creationism?

juggy4711
06-01-2012, 21:19
Science is science. Religion is religion. When religion rejects science it does nothing but discredit religion. If science was wrong we would not be enjoying any of it's achievements. The religious that want to accept smartphones but not evolution do not understand the connectivity of scientific principles. All of modern science is built from the quantum level up. If any of the steps were wrong none of the steps could be right. End of story.

Backfire_Tx
06-01-2012, 21:46
What does any of that have to do with the reality of evolution vs. the fantasy of creationism?

Ones mans fantasy is another mans belief. Science is good. It is the measurement and evaluation of data gathered to draw conclusions. But unfortunately science conclusions are not constant. I.e See Dark Matter, or expansion vs contracting universe. Hubble has help debunk much "conclusion" gathered and taken as fact by laymen folks like you and me. University papers written by PHD's in physics now all have to be trashed and re-written on the latest measurements and evaluations based on Hubble's data. But what you consider fantasy and reality of evolutionary science is a strong belief statement - on what you perceive to be an absolute fact. Creationist is someone who believes that a creator or God exists and someone who ultimately all have to give an accounting of our life for - is due to the moral law we all carry with us. Including you. That's the connection. When you dump the God behind His creation - you deny his moral law of right and wrong, and your own conscience.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 22:32
Ones mans fantasy is another mans belief. Ok, but that doesn't make it true.
Science is good. It is the measurement and evaluation of data gathered to draw conclusions. But unfortunately science conclusions are not constant. Of course the conclusions of science aren't constant, they change in the face of new data. That's one of the great strengths of science, not a weakness.
University papers written by PHD's in physics now all have to be trashed and re-written on the latest measurements and evaluations based on Hubble's data. Which is a very good thing. Would it be better to ignore the data we get from Hubble and adhere to an Aristotelian or Ptolemaic model of the cosmos?
But what you consider fantasy and reality of evolutionary science is a strong belief statement - on what you perceive to be an absolute fact. I perceive the phenomenon of evolution to be an absolute fact, just like gravity, because they've both been observed. I'm open to the possibility that the mechanisms driving those phenomena are different than what is currently accepted and open to any evidence demonstrating that to be true. Do you have any?
Creationist is someone who believes that a creator or God exists and someone who ultimately all have to give an accounting of our life for - is due to the moral law we all carry with us. No, a creationist, at least in the context I'm using it, believes the Genesis account of the creation of the world is literally true.
Including you. That's the connection. When you dump the God behind His creation - you deny his moral law of right and wrong, and your own conscience.Morality is a completely different subject, but if you really want to discuss it a deity who purportedly wipes His creations out when He gets annoyed with them might not be the best arbiter to set forth as a source for morality.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 10:14
What does any of that have to do with the reality of evolution vs. the fantasy of creationism?

Let's assume evolution is absolutely correct. How does that disprove the involvement of a deity in creation? Is it possible that a deity designed evolution?

They are not mutually exclusive.

GreenDrake
06-02-2012, 10:42
According to the christian version they are absolutely mutually exclusive. Religions tend to adapt over time to bend the rules to fit the evidence presented, or flat out deny it, whichever is more convenient.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 11:02
According to the christian version they are absolutely mutually exclusive. Religions tend to adapt over time to bend the rules to fit the evidence presented, or flat out deny it, whichever is more convenient.

Science too adapts to fit the current understanding of reality. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth much.

jbotstein1
06-02-2012, 11:20
Science too adapts to fit the current understanding of reality. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth much.

True, but that has always been a reason why science and religion have been somewhat at odds. Science, by definition, can change based on new theories, proof, etc. Religion, to those who hold fast to it, should remain the same as it was God who wrote the books and rules however long ago. People have changed religion so that it fits into their lives. Look at Orthodox Jews, many Muslims, and many Christians. These people all read the books that they think God wrote and adhere to their teachings and rules to the t. If science contradicts those books than one or the other must be wrong.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 11:38
True, but that has always been a reason why science and religion have been somewhat at odds. Science, by definition, can change based on new theories, proof, etc. Religion, to those who hold fast to it, should remain the same as it was God who wrote the books and rules however long ago. People have changed religion so that it fits into their lives. Look at Orthodox Jews, many Muslims, and many Christians. These people all read the books that they think God wrote and adhere to their teachings and rules to the t. If science contradicts those books than one or the other must be wrong.

If people want to believe in the garden of Eden version of events, really, who cares? Even if they bring it up, couldn't you just disagree and move on?

Science too has conflicts within science. The whole MMGW issue is just one example.

I don't see the need to shove your beliefs down their throats any more than I see a need for them to shove their beliefs down your throat. Agree to disagree. It works.

Animal Mother
06-02-2012, 16:53
Let's assume evolution is absolutely correct. How does that disprove the involvement of a deity in creation? It doesn't.
Is it possible that a deity designed evolution? Yes, but in the absence of any evidence for that position, it doesn't require consideration.
They are not mutually exclusive.That's a conversation you'd need to have with a creationist.

Animal Mother
06-02-2012, 16:56
If people want to believe in the garden of Eden version of events, really, who cares? Even if they bring it up, couldn't you just disagree and move on? If that were all YEC and ID proponents tried to do, sure. When they try to pass legislation to force their religion into the science classroom, that's when the conflict arises.

jbotstein1
06-02-2012, 21:11
If people want to believe in the garden of Eden version of events, really, who cares? Even if they bring it up, couldn't you just disagree and move on?

Science too has conflicts within science. The whole MMGW issue is just one example.

I don't see the need to shove your beliefs down their throats any more than I see a need for them to shove their beliefs down your throat. Agree to disagree. It works.

See Animal Mother's post above. Also, I'm not trying to shove beliefs down anyones throats. I thought we were just having an intelligent discussion. I'm all for letting anyone believe what they want. My intent behind all of my posts is to try and explain and justify my own beliefs. If I come across as preachy, I apologize, that is the last thing I want to do.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 07:46
It doesn't.
Yes, but in the absence of any evidence for that position, it doesn't require consideration.
That's a conversation you'd need to have with a creationist.

You really don't see it, do you?

You claim a passive lack of belief, but preach and proselytize more persistently than any jehovah's witness I've ever met.


That's not meant to be an insult, just an observation. You are very committed and active in your passive lack of belief. I find that fascinating. Also, you seem to have a real problem with creationists. Why is that? If they want to believe something you believe is impossible, it's not going to change the maintenance schedule on your vehicle, the work you have to do in the yard, or what you are going to order the next time you are out to eat.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 07:53
See Animal Mother's post above. Also, I'm not trying to shove beliefs down anyones throats. I thought we were just having an intelligent discussion. I'm all for letting anyone believe what they want. My intent behind all of my posts is to try and explain and justify my own beliefs. If I come across as preachy, I apologize, that is the last thing I want to do.

I haven't reached that point with you, but some here are very passionate and committed to their "lack" of belief.

My position, is that it is a very interesting question, whether or not a deity had a hand in what we see around us now. I don't know. So I guess it would be accurate to say I lack belief one way or the other. But people are free to believe whatever they want. We all still have to work and live together. I can work with people of any faith in my line of work, even if we have different beliefs about the origins of the universe, that rarely comes up as a subject when you are treating and evaluating patients. What is happening at the time is important enough to not worry about where it all came from.

English
06-03-2012, 08:31
You really don't see it, do you?

You claim a passive lack of belief, but preach and proselytize more persistently than any jehovah's witness I've ever met.


That's not meant to be an insult, just an observation. You are very committed and active in your passive lack of belief. I find that fascinating. Also, you seem to have a real problem with creationists. Why is that? If they want to believe something you believe is impossible, it's not going to change the maintenance schedule on your vehicle, the work you have to do in the yard, or what you are going to order the next time you are out to eat.

There was a commedian who started by saying, "In my family it is understood that I make the important decisions. My wife decides what house and car we will buy. I decide who should be the next President and what foreign policy is best for America." This is immediately funny but government policies do have an impact on every day life.

Dumb beliefs like Creationism do not have immediate impacts on the work to be done in the yard but they have long term impacts on everything because politicians pander to pressure groups, regardless of how stupid they are. This has direct impacts on education, that impact the economy and the standard of living. Eventually that impacts the work you can or must do in the yard.

The trouble with people believing stupid things is that it is insidious. It spreads stupidity though the entire society and there is more than enough of that already. So it is and should be a matter of passion for any thinking person.

I suppose you will find this fascinating too!

English

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 08:48
There was a commedian who started by saying, "In my family it is understood that I make the important decisions. My wife decides what house and car we will buy. I decide who should be the next President and what foreign policy is best for America." This is immediately funny but government policies do have an impact on every day life.

Dumb beliefs like Creationism do not have immediate impacts on the work to be done in the yard but they have long term impacts on everything because politicians pander to pressure groups, regardless of how stupid they are. This has direct impacts on education, that impact the economy and the standard of living. Eventually that impacts the work you can or must do in the yard.

The trouble with people believing stupid things is that it is insidious. It spreads stupidity though the entire society and there is more than enough of that already. So it is and should be a matter of passion for any thinking person.

I suppose you will find this fascinating too!

English

You have your bias. It's already been explained that the education in the sciences should probably not discuss whether a deity exists or existed or not. There is no evidence one way or the other.

Considering there is no evidence one way or the other, the fact that you have chosen to believe the guys that believe one way are "dumb", which begs the question, why don't you think the guys that assume the other way are dumb too?

Both have a right to believe what they want to believe. But only the guys that disagree with you are dumb. That's mildly interesting, but not fascinating.

High-Gear
06-03-2012, 09:53
You have your bias. It's already been explained that the education in the sciences should probably not discuss whether a deity exists or existed or not. There is no evidence one way or the other.

Considering there is no evidence one way or the other, the fact that you have chosen to believe the guys that believe one way are "dumb", which begs the question, why don't you think the guys that assume the other way are dumb too?

Both have a right to believe what they want to believe. But only the guys that disagree with you are dumb. That's mildly interesting, but not fascinating.

I think you assume both are equally defensible positions, and wothy of equal respect. Lets throw in a third. If a presidential candidate said he believed the ballon people from mars seeded the planet with cheerio shaped mushrooms which sprouted all life as we know it, he would be laughed off the stage. Why? You cant disprove it. Just becuse he believes it, and it makes him feel good is not reason enough. This is why we (you and I) would think he is an idiot, or suffering a mental disorder.

The point is only one position is formed by rational thought and observation of physical evidence. Others are allowed to submit new evidence, and if it holds up the position of science will change.


I do agree with you on one point. At a personal level I could care less if a person believes in stones, as long as they arent cast at me. I begin to care when their belief affects my life, or other's liberty.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 10:01
I think you assume both are equally defensible positions, and wothy of equal respect. Lets throw in a third. If a presidential candidate said he believed the ballon people from mars seeded the planet with cheerio shaped mushrooms which sprouted all life as we know it, he would be laughed off the stage. Why? You cant disprove it. Just becuse he believes it, and it makes him feel good is not reason enough. This is why we (you and I) would think he is an idiot, or suffering a mental disorder.

The point is only one position is formed by rational thought and observation of physical evidence. Others are allowed to submit new evidence, and if it holds up the position of science will change.


I do agree with you on one point. At a personal level I could care less if a person believes in stones, as long as they arent cast at me. I begin to care when their belief affects my life, or other's liberty.

More accurately, he would be laughed off the stage because he was very different.

I have met some very rational and intelligent people that have chosen to believe in a deity.

Choosing one way or the other seems to be a choice. It seems to be a choice people have very strong feelings about. From where I sit, there is really no evidence one way or the other, so why bother getting emotionally involved enough in the issue to force myself to choose.

I do see the bias and prejudice from both sides. That is clearly present.

High-Gear
06-03-2012, 12:00
More accurately, he would be laughed off the stage because he was very different.

I have met some very rational and intelligent people that have chosen to believe in a deity.

Choosing one way or the other seems to be a choice. It seems to be a choice people have very strong feelings about. From where I sit, there is really no evidence one way or the other, so why bother getting emotionally involved enough in the issue to force myself to choose.

I do see the bias and prejudice from both sides. That is clearly present.

Yes I will admit I am biased toward physical evidence, reason, and logic. Just because something makes someone feel good, or that it is old does not make it true. I do not believe faith without evidence is a virtue.

English
06-03-2012, 12:10
You have your bias. It's already been explained that the education in the sciences should probably not discuss whether a deity exists or existed or not. There is no evidence one way or the other.

Considering there is no evidence one way or the other, the fact that you have chosen to believe the guys that believe one way are "dumb", which begs the question, why don't you think the guys that assume the other way are dumb too?

Both have a right to believe what they want to believe. But only the guys that disagree with you are dumb. That's mildly interesting, but not fascinating.

Not so. One side believes a mass of interlocking evidence about the physical world which makes the existence of a god so unlikely that it is not worth serious consideration. It believes in a system of developing knowledge that discards false knowledge as soon as it is found to be false. It believes that truth cannot be know with certainty but that falsity can be found, at least eventually, with certainty. Within that framework, people who have to feel that they know the truth are lost without a compass.

The other side believes that some writings more than 1,000 years old, written in a non-scientific age by people living in peasant or herder based economies ruled over by despotisms of one kind or another is the word of a God of one kind or another. When this document conflicts with scientific evidence, they are unable to believe the evidence and live their lives in denial of that evidence.

These are not two sides equally able to deal with the problems of life or equally logically defensible. Either the development of knowledge is valuable or it is not. Believing that all the knowledge you need is contained in some holy book is not a mindset thatallows the free development of knowledge.

Saying, as you do, that both sides contain equally impassioned proponents and therefore no choice can be made between them is nonsense. Strength of belief has no relationship to truth or falsity. The incredibly rational and intelligent people you know who are believers might have very high IQs and might argue very cleverly but they are not rational because they can't be rational when it comes to conflict between their faith and other information.

English

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 13:04
Not so. One side believes a mass of interlocking evidence about the physical world which makes the existence of a god so unlikely that it is not worth serious consideration. It believes in a system of developing knowledge that discards false knowledge as soon as it is found to be false. It believes that truth cannot be know with certainty but that falsity can be found, at least eventually, with certainty. Within that framework, people who have to feel that they know the truth are lost without a compass.

The other side believes that some writings more than 1,000 years old, written in a non-scientific age by people living in peasant or herder based economies ruled over by despotisms of one kind or another is the word of a God of one kind or another. When this document conflicts with scientific evidence, they are unable to believe the evidence and live their lives in denial of that evidence.

These are not two sides equally able to deal with the problems of life or equally logically defensible. Either the development of knowledge is valuable or it is not. Believing that all the knowledge you need is contained in some holy book is not a mindset thatallows the free development of knowledge.

Saying, as you do, that both sides contain equally impassioned proponents and therefore no choice can be made between them is nonsense. Strength of belief has no relationship to truth or falsity. The incredibly rational and intelligent people you know who are believers might have very high IQs and might argue very cleverly but they are not rational because they can't be rational when it comes to conflict between their faith and other information.

English

I cannot remember where I heard this story, but it stuck with me. Supposedly, Billy Graham and an atheist were having a debate. Billy said god created the heavens and the earth, and the atheist said it was created by the big bang. They went round and round, and finally, Billy allegedly said, I give up, you are obviously right, WITH A BIG BANG, god created the heavens and the earth.


Nothing in science precludes the involvement of a deity. We are just seeing what we can see. That is all.

The belief that a deity has existed, or not, is a choice. Neither side has any proof, both have faith. It seems that there are many on both sides with strong feelings.





There is one side, there is another, and there is middle ground.

That is the truth of the matter. But none of us really know the truth of the matter, we only believe.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 13:08
Yes I will admit I am biased toward physical evidence, reason, and logic. Just because something makes someone feel good, or that it is old does not make it true. I do not believe faith without evidence is a virtue.

None of the physical evidence rules out the current or prior existence of a deity. Neither does logic.

I see that both sides of the argument have faith that their belief in their chosen version of event surrounding the origins of our current existence is the right way to think.

Both are religious beliefs in my opinion, which for some unknown reason chafes the living heck out of the atheists. :dunno:


Why should they care what I think?

High-Gear
06-03-2012, 13:46
None of the physical evidence rules out the current or prior existence of a deity. Neither does logic.

I see that both sides of the argument have faith that their belief in their chosen version of event surrounding the origins of our current existence is the right way to think.

Both are religious beliefs in my opinion, which for some unknown reason chafes the living heck out of the atheists. :dunno:


Why should they care what I think?

It does not rule out the invisible pink unicorn, nor the flying spaghetti monster either. The point is a deity is not necessary for the equation to work. Why waste time considering the deity's involvement.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 13:50
It does not rule out the invisible pink unicorn, nor the flying spaghetti monster either. The point is a deity is not necessary for the equation to work. Why waste time considering the deity's involvement.

Why waste time believing that no deity was involved.


There is a reason, I just don't see it.

jbotstein1
06-03-2012, 18:27
Cavalry Doc, I see what you are saying over and over again in response to these assertions, but doesn't the old testament say that Adam was made by god and Eve from his rib? Would that not directly conflict with evolution?

Animal Mother
06-03-2012, 22:37
Why waste time believing that no deity was involved. Why waste time believing that a deity or deities were involved? What explanatory benefit does that bestow?

Gunhaver
06-04-2012, 02:52
Why waste time believing that no deity was involved.


There is a reason, I just don't see it.

Because believing things without any evidence can make you crazy? :dunno:
(Or possibly demonstrate that you already were)

Gunhaver
06-08-2012, 22:57
A little bit closer now...
http://news.yahoo.com/universes-1st-objects-big-bang-possibly-seen-nasa-163220691.html

High-Gear
06-09-2012, 04:02
Science can be studied in depth without bias whether one believes in a deity or not. Science does not negate the possibility. If a deity does or did in fact exist, and created the universe and/or life, that would be the nature of things. Science would then be discovering what is, and how it came to be. No requirement to believe in the supernatural, as it would not be supernatural, but natural. If one believes a deity does not exist, they can explore what is, without any concern for why, as there would be no why, only how.

If others believe in their holy books, and that belief makes them happy, and does not influence them to walk into your local coffee shop with a bomb strapped to their chest, why worry? No big deal.

Why not teach science from the approach of:

Kids, this is what we can see. This is what we can test. These theories are widely accepted. These are the mystery's we are exploring. None of this proves or disproves whether a deity or deities have ever existed, for that information, talk to your parents. Whether a deity has or has not existed should simply not be a topic of discussion.

Most schools now have religious studies, not a theology class or induction class, but a look at the beliefs of the world. They are many, and they are not consistent at all, but it would be of benefit for young adults to know what other's do believe, and that would be the place for the creation vs. it just happened discussion. And in my undergrad level religious studies class (required) atheism was discussed and given equal merit, if not better. The Professor was an atheist.

From my perspective, separation of church and state has missed one religion that needs to be gotten out of the schools.

It's even registered: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

I Have never once had a teacher say a god didnt exist. In science classes it was not talked about. In other classes teachers slipped in references to a christian god, or had religious paraphernalia on their desks and such. Our football team had a mandatory prayer before every game led by a Catholic Priest. In the city I live in now, accomidations are made to allow some students leave school for 45 minutes twice a week to attend a christian bible study. You seem to thin the absence of religious discussion is somehow promoting atheism.

Please show me where public schools k-12 have been advancing an atheist agenda, and stating god is bunk.

droidfire
06-09-2012, 04:13
Death is an enemy that will be destroyed.



Appropriately, through science.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

English
06-09-2012, 04:30
Let's assume evolution is absolutely correct. How does that disprove the involvement of a deity in creation? Is it possible that a deity designed evolution?

They are not mutually exclusive.

I get bored with this repeated idea of yours. Of course they are not mutually exclusive because an omnipotent God could do anything.

If it were true, however, it would mean that God had created life and evolution as an interesting experiment to see what happened and that He has no interest in the welfare of individuals or in being worshipped, sacrificed to and prayed to. This would mean that Christianity and all the rest are incongruent with a God which created evolution. God and religion are almost certainly a creation of man rather than the other way round.

English

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 06:24
I get bored with this repeated idea of yours. Of course they are not mutually exclusive because an omnipotent God could do anything.

If it were true, however, it would mean that God had created life and evolution as an interesting experiment to see what happened and that He has no interest in the welfare of individuals or in being worshipped, sacrificed to and prayed to. This would mean that Christianity and all the rest are incongruent with a God which created evolution. God and religion are almost certainly a creation of man rather than the other way round.

English

The assumptive power is strong in you. If a deity designed evolution, it would not necessarily be an experiment. If they are all knowing, past present and future, wouldn't they know how it ends?

Evolution may be occurring.
A deity may have designed evolution.

Neither of those two posits, when considered together, lead only to an impersonal detached deity.

Maybe there is or was a god, maybe not. It's OK to leave it right there and take care of mowing the grass today.

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 06:29
I Have never once had a teacher say a god didnt exist. In science classes it was not talked about. In other classes teachers slipped in references to a christian god, or had religious paraphernalia on their desks and such. Our football team had a mandatory prayer before every game led by a Catholic Priest. In the city I live in now, accomidations are made to allow some students leave school for 45 minutes twice a week to attend a christian bible study. You seem to thin the absence of religious discussion is somehow promoting atheism.

Please show me where public schools k-12 have been advancing an atheist agenda, and stating god is bunk.

I graduated from a suburban high school in the Mid-80's, and I remember teachers saying that there is no god. It was more than one, less than 10, but there were a few.

According to my kids, it's more prevalent now.

Atheist/Secular Agenda in Public Education (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=secular+agenda+atheist+agenda+public+education)

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 06:41
Atheist/Secular Agenda in Public Education (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=secular+agenda+atheist+agenda+public+education)Christian/Religious Agenda in Public Education (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=religious+agenda+christian+agenda+public+education)

Your search returned 589,000 results, mine returns 14,800,000. Clearly, according to this entirely scientific and statistically relevant sample, the religious agenda is 25 times more prevalent than the atheist agenda.

jbotstein1
06-09-2012, 07:04
The assumptive power is strong in you. If a deity designed evolution, it would not necessarily be an experiment. If they are all knowing, past present and future, wouldn't they know how it ends?

Evolution may be occurring.
A deity may have designed evolution.

Neither of those two posits, when considered together, lead only to an impersonal detached deity.

Maybe there is or was a god, maybe not. It's OK to leave it right there and take care of mowing the grass today.

I posted a few days ago a question to you. If the old testament says Adam was created and Eve was made from his rib, how does that not directly contradict evolution?

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 04:47
The assumptive power is strong in you. If a deity designed evolution, it would not necessarily be an experiment. If they are all knowing, past present and future, wouldn't they know how it ends?

Evolution may be occurring.
A deity may have designed evolution.

Neither of those two posits, when considered together, lead only to an impersonal detached deity.

Maybe there is or was a god, maybe not. It's OK to leave it right there and take care of mowing the grass today.

Doesn't have to lead to an impersonal detached deity but the alternative is one that is a personal attached D-bag.

We don't know, maybe there are/were God/s, but what do you believe?

I posted a few days ago a question to you. If the old testament says Adam was created and Eve was made from his rib, how does that not directly contradict evolution?

Whether there are/were God/s has nothing to do with the validity of a religion.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 09:03
Doesn't have to lead to an impersonal detached deity but the alternative is one that is a personal attached D-bag.

We don't know, maybe there are/were God/s, but what do you believe?



Whether there are/were God/s has nothing to do with the validity of a religion.

If there is or was a god, he/she/it may have had motivations we understand or not.

As far as what I believe, I believe that I do not know whether or not a deity or deitys have or do exist.

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 19:21
...As far as what I believe, I believe that I do not know whether or not a deity or deitys have or do exist.

Know and believe don't mean the exact same thing. You don't just believe that, you either know you don't you know, or know you don't believe you know. One means you're certain you don't know, the other means your certain that you feel you don't know. There are subtleties to language that get over looked too often is these discussions. Hear and listen don't mean exactly the same thing either.

The whole devil's advocate thing use to work for me as I could usually argue with all sides effectively but at some point it got old. I don't know stopped being an argument that gave me satisfaction as it furthers the discussion not one lick. There are points to be made and things to be learned from believing whether one knows or not. When one believes they can't know it adds very little to the discussion.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 19:30
Know and believe don't mean the exact same thing. You don't just believe that, you either know you don't you know, or know you don't believe you know. One means you're certain you don't know, the other means your certain that you feel you don't know. There are subtleties to language that get over looked too often is these discussions. Hear and listen don't mean exactly the same thing either.

The whole devil's advocate thing use to work for me as I could usually argue with all sides effectively but at some point it got old. I don't know stopped being an argument that gave me satisfaction as it furthers the discussion not one lick. There are points to be made and things to be learned from believing whether one knows or not. When one believes they can't know it adds very little to the discussion.

What can I say, on one little question, I am neutrally uncertain.

I believe that I don't know. I am certain that deity either has or has not existed. But I don't have an answer to that question, and I am very comfortable not knowing. Bottom line, is that it is what it is, regardless of my opinion, and both are equally possible. When you stop, and look at the real evidence, the stuff most people use to negate the possibility that a deity existed, doesn't really negate that.

Evolution, Big Bang, subatomic particles, cosmology..... None of them really answer the question.

So, since I don't know, and am comfortable not knowing, I believe that I do not know. And I am OK with that.


I believe that it is possible to know. Especially if there is an existence after death. But I'm cool jumping into death not knowing what happens next. Either it will all fade to nothing, or it will be really interesting. Just another adventure. We all get to die at least once, it's like a rule or something.

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 21:34
...So, since I don't know, and am comfortable not knowing, I believe that I do not know. And I am OK with that.

I agree nothing in science eliminates the possibility of God/s. You state that you believe you don't know, so you are uncertain if you do not know? You don't even know what you believe you know or don't?

I don't know either and am comfortable not knowing, but I know what I believe. Again they're not the same thing.

Gunhaver
06-11-2012, 00:15
What can I say, on one little question, I am neutrally uncertain.

You seem anything but neutral, constantly asking the question, "Why care about what other's believe?" when it's been explained to you over and over that it's the actions and not the beliefs of religious people that most atheists are concerned with.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 04:50
You seem anything but neutral, constantly asking the question, "Why care about what other's believe?" when it's been explained to you over and over that it's the actions and not the beliefs of religious people that most atheists are concerned with.

You don't see that those are two different questions?

It's not the belief I have any problem with, it's the behavior.

Theists ranting about you burning in hell is about equivalent to atheists ranting about how a particular religion is bunk, and that only their position is logical. Forced participation in prayer and blue laws are as offensive as having a cross removed from public land (veterans memorial).

I see it as competing religions with people behaving badly on both sides.

Cavalry Doc
06-11-2012, 04:56
I agree nothing in science eliminates the possibility of God/s. You state that you believe you don't know, so you are uncertain if you do not know? You don't even know what you believe you know or don't?

I don't know either and am comfortable not knowing, but I know what I believe. Again they're not the same thing.

I believe that I am certain that I don't know whether or not a deity or deities have or have not existed. I believe the odds of a deity having existed is roughly equal to the odds that none has existed.

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 21:28
I believe that I am certain that I don't know whether or not a deity or deities have or have not existed. I believe the odds of a deity having existed is roughly equal to the odds that none has existed.

You believe you're certain that you don't know?

Translation...You feel sure that, that you know for sure, that you are not aware if there is a God or not. I'd have never conceived that an Agnostic would have to go through more mental gymnastics than a religious devotee all in an effort to claim some form of neutral superiority.

You're trying way too hard.

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 21:51
You don't see that those are two different questions?

It's not the belief I have any problem with, it's the behavior.

Theists ranting about you burning in hell is about equivalent to atheists ranting about how a particular religion is bunk, and that only their position is logical. Forced participation in prayer and blue laws are as offensive as having a cross removed from public land (veterans memorial)...

I can dig on the second part of your post, I find that crap offensive as well, but for the first part? Seriously?

Pointing out how a religion is flawed is as bad a condemning another to hell?

Cavalry Doc
06-12-2012, 05:51
I can dig on the second part of your post, I find that crap offensive as well, but for the first part? Seriously?

Pointing out how a religion is flawed is as bad a condemning another to hell?

I can rephrase it to make it less harsh.

The disapproval, intolerance and proclivity toward ungentlemanly like conduct each side in the Theist v. Atheist debate display is duly noted, and disapproved of by me.

Better?

Cavalry Doc
06-12-2012, 05:53
You believe you're certain that you don't know?

Translation...You feel sure that, that you know for sure, that you are not aware if there is a God or not. I'd have never conceived that an Agnostic would have to go through more mental gymnastics than a religious devotee all in an effort to claim some form of neutral superiority.

You're trying way too hard.

The statement in red is correct. If you wanted to pin me down, that's where to stick the pin, I think.

Bottom line, I don't know if there is(was) or is(was) not, and don't really see a reason to pick sides without any information. To me, that requires a leap of faith that I just don't have, either way. And I don't have anything against people that make that leap, good for them. For me, the "honest to myself" answer is I simply do not know. I'm comfortable with that.

void *
06-12-2012, 12:32
I believe the odds of a deity having existed is roughly equal to the odds that none has existed.

So your personal assessment is a probability of 0.5 for 'No deities have ever existed' and for 'some deity has existed', correct?

Cavalry Doc
06-13-2012, 09:04
So your personal assessment is a probability of 0.5 for 'No deities have ever existed' and for 'some deity has existed', correct?

Roughly estimated, about equally possible either way.

void *
06-13-2012, 11:34
Roughly estimated, about equally possible either way.

Well, that's not quite an answer to my question. You could be setting the probability at 0.3 each, with 0.4 for some third option that's not actually even logically possible (given that you have, in the past, claimed a logically impossible third option for strict dichotomies). So is 'about equally possible' the equivalent of about 0.5, or what?

Gunhaver
06-13-2012, 11:47
Roughly estimated, about equally possible either way.

Is there any other aspect in life in which you assign equal probability to that which is consistently observed and that which has never been observed?

Gunhaver
06-13-2012, 12:10
You don't see that those are two different questions?

It's not the belief I have any problem with, it's the behavior.

Theists ranting about you burning in hell is about equivalent to atheists ranting about how a particular religion is bunk, and that only their position is logical. Forced participation in prayer and blue laws are as offensive as having a cross removed from public land (veterans memorial).

I see it as competing religions with people behaving badly on both sides.

Try to stop looking at in the abstract and see it for what it is. One side saying you should accept something with no evidence and the other saying you should apply the same standards of reason that you do to everything else. The two concepts simply are not with equal merit.

SDDL-UP
06-13-2012, 22:19
juggy4711,

I do have something for you to ponder...

Are you going to be anything other than dust once you die? At least that part is a scientific fact I guess.

What you must understand at some point is that your "belief" that there is no God is just as much a "belief" as those that do believe in God. There is no more proof for your point of view than mine. Claim all the "fact" and "scientific evidence" you want, none of which is proof...

All you may claim is we do not have a full understanding of God, or a full understanding of His works and creations. All the claims that science "proves" anything you may claim about God is purposterous.