[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

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]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

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]

Originally Posted by void *

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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 *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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/show...9&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]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

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]

Originally Posted by 427

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

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]

Originally Posted by juggy4711

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

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]

Originally Posted by jbotstein1

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 *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I do know that proving evolution is correct, does not prove that no deity ever existed.

Again, who is claiming it does?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Again, who is claiming it does?

Not too many here, openly at least.

[Backfire_Tx]

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]

Originally Posted by Backfire_Tx

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

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]

Originally Posted by Backfire_Tx

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.