PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A question for all you athiest

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, question for you all. Why are you atheists trying so hard to convince Christians and other religons that Evolution is true and there is no god? I mean, christians do it because we believe in converting you so you can spend eternity in paradise with you maker, but atheists believe there is no afterlife, no eternal rewards, nothing. When you die, you die. It's that simple. So, why do you desperately try to convince us of your religo..uh, theory? There is no point!


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:08 AM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very good question, JSF16.

One thing i always liked about christians is that they believe to have salvation, and some come to your door to offer it to you.

I think that's VERY sweet. And i appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. Seriously.

I think many atheists can't stand the idea of so many people living in delusion.

The answer to your question will be different for each atheist though.

Some will try to make you feel ridiculous. But even then it could be with a greater goal in mind.

I sometimes ridicule someone's opinion. I think that ridicule is an experience that can make you grow.

If you come to my door offering me your beliefs, i feel almost obliged to offer you mine. There's an underlying respect to my ridiculing you.

My goal is never to make you feel bad per se. Perhaps just as bad as it would be needed for you to change your mind towards something superior. A crisis of faith could lead to a better understanding of reality.

It might be hopeless, but some of us try anyway. Just like you, perhaps.

In Argentina i often see drug addicts in the train telling how they met Jesus and it changed their lives (for better, of course).

And i wonder... Is it possible that a fairy tale could be helpful for some people? It certainly looks like it is. Sad but apparently true. But that's the case with very weak minds. I hope yours isn't.

To sum up, i hope you find a better way to deal with the infinite than the primitive Yahweh.

EDIT: Your joke about "relig... theory" has a lot of sense to me, even if atheists disagree. They will say "Atheism is no more a religion than not-collecting-stamps is a hobby", which is smart. But i agree that all of us have faith (defined as "believing without understanding"). But at least we try to understand more and better.

I honestly believe that our understanding of reality is superior to that of any creationist, but still there are things we'll never understand, and we'll have to believe anyway. Like our own existences.


(Edited by wisp 10/18/2008 at 1:11 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:36 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One reason, because we believe there is value in truth and being in touch with reality.

Science is the best method ever developed for learning about nature.  We have learned more about our world in the last 400 years of modern science than in the preceding 10,000 (or whatever) years of religion.  

Science continues to provide better and better approximations to the truth.  And science works: which is demonstrable.

Science relies on objective evidences, open to all, and reason: unlike religion, which relies on purely subjective 'evidence' and faith.

Evolution is an unrefuted, extremely well-supported scientific theory: that's the best any theory in science can hope for.  



The people who reject evolution because of their outdated, ridiculous religious beliefs don't leave it at their personal beliefs.  No, they instead try to get evolution tossed out of public schools, try to get their ancient mythology taught as science in public schools, etc.   They push: we push back.
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:02 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, i forgot that. The pushing.

Some creationists try to force their beliefs into others (in Argentina this happens a lot less). And some of the others push back.

I understand some christians. I mean, i imagine that for them it's like we're blind and approaching a precipice. They try to make us stop, and we say "I know what i'm doing. IN FACT, YOU TOO COME THIS WAY!"

That's why i'm considerate with them.

Oh, just to clarify, i'm not an atheist. But i thought i had some answers.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:31 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for your opinions. One thing is, alot of people think god doesn't exist, because we cannot feel him, smell him, touch him, or see him. What about air Same story, but we depend on it alot. Besides, what about the 'medical miracles that have happened?" How else could anyone survive except through divine intervention. I will never become atheist because it is to dreary. No matter all the 'evidence', when you die, you die. That's it. I believe if you give your life to god, you spend eternity with him in paradise. For more info on heaven, I would suggest reading Randy Alcorn's book Heaven. It answers many of the doubts and questions people have about the christian afterlife. And about the pushing, every religon has pushers. Evolution, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:41 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When i was a kid i came to this conclusion:

There are basically two possibilities:
1) I am an immortal spirit. My death doesn't matter.
2) I am a mortal thing. My death doesn't matter.

You're wrong about the air. I feel it when it's windy, and when i fart. It can be weighed.

If God "exists" or not is basically a question of semantics.

We are to God what an equation is to the Mathematics (at least using my concept of "God", which can hardly be called "God").

Can you picture an equation asking itself if the Mathematics exist?

Actually: Do the Mathematics exist?

Does the color red exist? I mean, i've seen red things. Have you seen the color red?

We tend to think we understand each other when we communicate. We don't.

Each and every word of each and every language holds a slightly different meaning for each and every speaker.

Here, i can prove God exists:
"To exist" means to have an entity. By having a concept, anything exists. A "thing" is a construction in my mind (like "river", or "tree", or "shadow" which are dynamic entities). I constructed God using this concept: the infinite source of knowledge, love, consciousness and intelligence, of which just a tiny part can manifest in this finite world.

Just as real as the color red. I name Him, and He exists. Does it mean He exists because i imagined Him? Not if i add this to the concept: "eternal". There. He exists before i imagined Him.

Here, i can prove God doesn't exist:
"To exist" means to manifest itself in this world entirely. This world is finite, and God is infinite. Therefore He can't manifest Himself in this world thoroughly. Ergo, God doesn't exist (some parts of "Him" exist, if you want).



I guess you'll agree that lots of people have no real reason for living their lives everyday. Cowardice is the only thing that prevents some of them from suiciding (thank God for cowardice).

The idea of Heavens and reincarnation provides an easy solution.

Normally people don't ask themselves why do they live.

Evolution gives another easy solution: a biological imperative. Like hunger, or horniness.

If that's the case your reasoning seems very limited, because you couldn't live up to them. A biological imperative isn't a reason. It's a lack of choice. If your reason told you to suicide, you wouldn't do it.

Besides, what about the 'medical miracles that have happened?
If it had anything to do with God, why doesn't He heal amputees? Does He have a special plan for them? Why does He heal from cancer to a rush, but not amputees? Is He limited? Can you give some reasonable answer?

There's a superior God, JSF16. One that cannot be refuted. And has no name. And doesn't deal with petty things like healing rushes, or granting wishes. And doesn't write books. And has no enemies. And, basically, is no God. It dwells in your peripheral vision. If you look at it, it vanishes. If you name it, it disappears.

Ah, sorry about my nonsense. I'm just sleepy... 2:45 here. :S



What you say about religious pushers is absolutely true. And there's a reason for it. Religions evolve too. Religions without some elements that made them spread, died. The fittest religions survived and multiplied. Like those mails that go like this:

"Make a wish. If you send this mail to N persons your wish will be granted in NNN days, if you send it to NN persons it will be granted in NN days, if you send it to NNN persons it will be granted in N days, and Pamela Anderson will come to your door in a drunken state.

If you don't send this mail, a curse will befall you and your family. You'll die in ½N days and nobody will come to your funeral."



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:51 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 11:08 AM on October 18, 2008 :
Okay, question for you all. Why are you atheists trying so hard to convince Christians and other religons that Evolution is true and there is no god?


1) Evolution is true
2) Evolution is only contradictory to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
3) Numerous other religions all believe or accept evolution.
4) Several metaphorical interpretations of Genesis by Jews, Muslims and Christians are prevalent across this planet.
5) Evolution =/= Atheism
6) Stop being stupid

I mean, christians do it because we believe in converting you so you can spend eternity in paradise with you maker


That's sad. Greed is your underlying reason.

Atheists try to convince others of their view point because they believe it is true. The same reason religions try to convert people not of their religion.


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:59 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 12:41 AM on October 19, 2008 :
Thank you for your opinions. One thing is, alot of people think god doesn't exist, because we cannot feel him, smell him, touch him, or see him. What about air.


Are you serious?

Go into a vacuum. That's testing air. Smother a fire. That's testing air. Emit a laser through gasses. That's testing air. Jump out of a plane to skydive. That's testing air. Air, unlike Gods, is tangible.

Same story, but we depend on it alot.


No, it's not even close.

Besides, what about the 'medical miracles that have happened?" How else could anyone survive except through divine intervention.


Classic God of the Gaps argument. Try again.

I will never become atheist because it is to dreary. No matter all the 'evidence', when you die, you die. That's it. I believe if you give your life to god, you spend eternity with him in paradise. For more info on heaven, I would suggest reading Randy Alcorn's book Heaven. It answers many of the doubts and questions people have about the christian afterlife.


1) Greed is a bad reason to believe
2) Without God, we are fully responsible and fully credited for our actions. That's empowering
3) Knowing that you're dead makes you act in a way to ensure you will be remembered.




 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:02 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote by Obvious_child:
6) Stop being stupid
That's not being smart either. When you go into a creationist debate you know you'll find these arguments. If you don't want to deal with them, just don't. What do you expect to accomplish by insulting? To make a person feel bad? Or to make him change his mind?

Greed is your underlying reason.
I'd say "fear" instead of "greed", but perhaps you're right. And perhaps greed is a form of fear. I like equating terms, and that phrase came in handy.

3) Knowing that you're dead makes you act in a way to ensure you will be remembered.
I guess you meant "Knowing that you'll die".

Anyway you seem to imply that this is something positive. Surely Hitler wanted to be remembered. And he was. And he will. I wish he was a christian.

Wanting to be remembered is also fear/greed.

I believe you'd learn a great deal from Buddhism.


(Edited by wisp 10/19/2008 at 2:39 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:38 PM on October 19, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 2:38 PM on October 19, 2008 :
That's not being smart either. When you go into a creationist debate you know you'll find these arguments. If you don't want to deal with them, just don't. What do you expect to accomplish by insulting? To make a person feel bad? Or to make him change his mind?


99.95% of creationists I've met will never change their minds no matter what evidence is given to them. Point #6 was for my own enjoyment. JSF16 will not respond to my post regardless of what I write. He's proven that he won't engage in a discussion that deals in honesty and is largely here to preach. This is his soapbox if you will. Therefore your point is moot.  

I'd say "fear" instead of "greed", but perhaps you're right. And perhaps greed is a form of fear. I like equating terms, and that phrase came in handy.


I wonder how the Biblical God would react given that some people believe because of greed. Doesn't seem to mix well with moral parts of the Bible.


Anyway you seem to imply that this is something positive. Surely Hitler wanted to be remembered. And he was. And he will. I wish he was a christian.


Depending on who you ask, he was. I'm not sure Hitler wanted to be remember rather then get what he wanted.

Wanting to be remembered is also fear/greed.

I believe you'd learn a great deal from Buddhism.


Perhaps, but that doesn't produce a problem like believing in God for greedy reasons.



(Edited by Obvious_child 10/21/2008 at 04:02 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 5:04 PM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you're not trying to change anyone's mind (and can't respond to the initial post). So not only #6 was for your own enjoyment, but perhaps all of your points. Right?

I wonder how the Biblical God would react given that some people believe because of greed. Doesn't seem to mix well with moral parts of the Bible.
I think He'd be ok with it. He wanted to be feared. And wanted for us to earn His prizes.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:14 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing. wanting to go into heaven is not greed. Let's ssay you are hungry, there is an apple on the table, you take it and eat it. Is that greed? No, you where hungry so you ate the apple. Same basics with wanting to go to heaven.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:54 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like that analogy.

Hunger is our most animal part wanting to keep existing.

The wish for eternal existence is the Ego (a bit above our animal part) wanting to exist forever.

Intellecta naturalibus desiderat esse semper.

Perchance our most spiritual part isn't that self-concerned.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:55 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Precisely.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 6:15 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 06:14 AM on October 20, 2008 :
[color=teal]So you're not trying to change anyone's mind (and can't respond to the initial post). So not only #6 was for your own enjoyment, but perhaps all of your points. Right?


Perhaps. But maybe if we keep pounding it into their silly heads, they may learn something.

I think He'd be ok with it. He wanted to be feared. And wanted for us to earn His prizes.


That seems to conflict with the idea of a all loving God.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:03 AM on October 21, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

True about the contradiction.

Loving, caring, omnipotent, omniscient, etc...

Now i wonder if there is but ONE of God's attributes which is not refuted within the Bible itself (the name doesn't count as attribute).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:25 AM on October 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can see why one would want to believe that there is something after death.  It would be nice to be with a lost loved-one again!  However, eternity is a long time - even in paradise, whatever that would be.

Death makes room for new life to occur.  In the process our atoms and molecules are incorporated into new life as well.  The old must give way to the young, just as old ideas must give way to new ideas.  To perpetuate the old would lead to stagnation.

Nothing lasts forever, not even the stars that shine in the night sky.  There is birth, a life, then death.  But death leads to new life.  We are all part of star-dust, the atoms within us had their beginnings in the center of stars, which in turn exploded at the ends of their life-cycle, but lead to what we see today - and to new life.  It's a beautiful cycle.  If God was involved, he did a nice job of it.  But it goes beyond what the writers of the Bible understood, or imagined.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:01 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is the physical cycle, but there is more. Like I said, try to read Randy Alcorn's Book Heaven to get detailed info.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:58 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JSF16, when are you going to get around to defending your original argument or shall we take your silence as admission of defeat?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:57 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a



Rate this post:
 Insightful Poignant Thought Provoking Comprehensive Funny Neutral Obfuscated Paltry Trite Off Topic Ambiguous    
That is the physical cycle, but there is more. Like I said, try to read Randy Alcorn's Book Heaven to get detailed info.


That's my point - science can only deal with the physical world - that which can be measured and logically deduced.  It doesn't have anything to say about the spiritual world - that is the relm of religion.  And given the number of religions in the world, what the spiritual world is really like (if it exists) is anyone's guess.  And I would say that God is in the spiritual world.  That the spiritual world exists is based on faith, not science.  Those are two seperate things.  

My problem with Creationism is this:

I don't really care if you believe in Creationism or not.  However, I do care if Creationism is presented as an alternative scientific theory - which it is not.    It really has no scientific basis.  If you're honest about it, and explore the evidence, you'll see that is so.




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:24 PM on October 21, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is dealing today with metaphysical problems (specially modern Physics). Like the nature of consciousness.

I believe that faith and science will meet tomorrow. And they have a lot to say about each other today.

I believe that keeping them separate is to limit human understanding.

That the spiritual world exists is based on faith, not science.
Perhaps it depends on your definition of "spiritual world". And perhaps i'm talking nonsense.

To me, consciousness, intelligence, understanding, intuition, are not physical entities. And yet science can deal with them (poorly, at the moment).

Psychology, Neurology, and even Quantum Physics have to deal with these concepts.

If by "spiritual world" you mean nothing related to those concepts, then what do you mean?

Thanks in advance. I always enjoy your posts.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:08 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When you start talking about consciousness, intelligence, intuition, etc, those are matters of the mind.  I don't think the mind exists beyond death.  Certainly other animals exhibit varying degrees of these traits.  We certainly have a lot to learn about how the brain works to be able to perform all the marvelous things it does.  

Some people think that there is a 'spirit' that is a part of us, and that continues to exists after the physical body dies.  That's what I would interpet as the 'spiritual world'.  

Personally, I don't think it exists.  But it is comforting to think that it does.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:29 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks. I get you now.

Personally i don't understand any "spirit" that is essentially different from the mind. To me it's as meaningless as Newton's absolute space.

Everybody believes in the mind. And everyone knows that it's nature is not physical.

The more you investigate about modern theoretical physics the less you believe in the physical nature of anything. "Physical" is actually a category made up by our minds, that doesn't adjust to any part of reality.

It just fitted a part of our ordinary experience.

A "mystic experience" can help you achieve a better understanding of the phenomenological world. And that is a fact (ask Niels Bohr).

For more on this i recommend Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics. You can read or download it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2532377/The-Tao-of-Physics



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:05 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience which in it's very nature transcends linguistics.
D.T. Suzuki

The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms... But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.
W. Heisemberg


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:14 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's an interesting article on the very topic of the mind, death, and the desire to believe in an immortal mind/spirit in the current issue of Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:04 PM on October 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That article is very interesting.

I had thought of all of that by myself (but without any data to back it up).

The mind cannot cease to believe in the mind. And the mind cannot believe in a ceased mind.

And yet, with all of that in mind (pun not intended) i don't believe in the mortality of the mental essence. Because the mind is a process, but the elements that make it are not.

That doesn't give too much hope to the ego.

To me it's like an infinite source of RAM and ROM memory. You could say that when you die the ram/rom is released, but since the source is infinite it wouldn't make any difference. The ego was always an illusion.

This is not really a belief. They are just concepts.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:38 AM on October 24, 2008 | IP
DiggzDime

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont actively go out and try to prove there is no God. In every situation I have ever been in, it has been a Christian or some other Religious person questioning me for NOT beliving in what ever Religion they choose to participate in.

I get that a plank of your belief system is to "convert" but it does get annoying.




-------
Yes!
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:46 PM on November 20, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" Why are you atheists trying so hard to convince Christians and other religons that Evolution is true and there is no god. So, why do you desperately try to convince us of your religo..uh, theory? There is no point! "

Easy! this is a fake question.  Some atheists try.  Most dont.

Thinking Christians can see that the efforts to prove evolution to be false are themselves false arguments... kind of like your fake question

God, and the nature of reality is not limited to the covers of an old book.   Evoltuion can proceed just fine with a god looking on.


Your use of the word "desperate" is false and misleading.  

"Your religo" (sic) isnt even cute.  Why not just say what you think?

Caliing the study of evolution a religion is meaningless.   And btw, it makes it sound like there is something wrong with religion.  Is there?


 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:33 PM on December 10, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha! Good point!

Anyway, science is a religion if not collecting stamps is a hobby.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:41 AM on December 11, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The basic method of science is to propose theories (hypotheses) and then try to prove or disprove them. Generally it is much easier to disprove them so that is what most experimentation aims to do.
If an hypothesis is both useful and has resisted concerted efforts to refute it then it becomes established as a working hypothesis. That doesnt mean its absolutely true.. just useful and possibly true. "useful" is very important to scientists.

So, scientists are in the business of arguing for and against their hypotheses. Many scientists spend a lot of time and effort trying to disprove their own hypotheses. That is why they are prepared to debate topics related to their field of interest. Its normal behaviour for scientists.

Its interesting how the question of Gods existence comes into the evolution-creation debate. The evolution hypotheses are neutral on the subject of God. Strictly speaking evolution has nothing to say about the absolute beginning of life. Its about shifts in gene pools and assumes the prior existence of the pool of interest.

In the 19th century some churches thought that evolution contradicted creation. Some atheists saw in evolution an opportunity to denounce certain key christian dogma. Both were wrong but the debate got going and has persisted ever since. Its a silly debate mostly argued by people on the one hand who do not understand evolution and on the other by people who do not understand theology.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:40 PM on December 15, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But we're not talking theology. We're talking about the biblical account of the creation. That's much more precise.

Many parts of the Bible obviously contradict what we have come to understand through science.

People who have known me for quite some time are shocked when they learn that i'm not an atheist.
Indeed what i've learned through science does not contradict but refines my concept of God.

For instance, being the Universe finite (i'm not talking only about extension), and by "exist" we mean "manifest itself in this Universe", then God (being infinite by definition), could not exist.

So, according with my own concept of God, He has many atributes. Existence isn't one of them.

So perhaps i AM an atheist, depending on your definition of "atheism". In any case i'm not an agnostic, since i don't have a doubt about God's existence. Right?

PD: Do you happen to have any creationists to spare? We kinda run out of them. =(



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:28 AM on December 16, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

The Biblical Creation narrative is a relatively late addition to the Bible and bears striking resemblance to various ancient near eastern creation myths. It is quite clearly mythic in form. Mythic narrative, while it may be taken literally by some, is not primarily historical in purpose. It usually forms part of a complex of symbols and metaphors that are identifying for the community within which the myth operates.

Within the Christian community creation deals with the nature of God and the relationship between 'man' and God. It is therefore primarily theological in nature. To treat the Biblical Creation stories as science makes about as much sense as treating Shakespeare's Macbeth as history. ie it completely misses the point.




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:28 AM on December 17, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

The Biblical Creation narrative is a relatively late addition to the Bible
I had no idea. Very interesting!

It usually forms part of a complex of symbols and metaphors that are identifying for the community within which the myth operates.
Yeah... I don't know much about it, but i think the snake symbolizes knowledge. It has represented wisdom quite often (i think it bears the same meaning when Moses turned his staff into a snake that ate those of the Pharaoh's counselors).

When making that story they made an account for creation that some take for literal.

As a literal account, it's open for attack, and i will attack it.

As a symbolic story, i find it very interesting and of great value.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:15 AM on December 20, 2008 | IP
Livewire_27

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The snake in the story of the garden of eden represents sin and the master of sin and it was satan in a differnt form to confuse Adam and Eve.
But any way the story of creation is true I can prove it in many ways one is the sahara dessert it would be the size of all africa two the great barrier reef would be a lot bigger.

(Edited by Livewire_27 4/16/2009 at 09:39 AM).[color=red]

(Edited by Livewire_27 4/16/2009 at 09:40 AM).

(Edited by Livewire_27 4/16/2009 at 09:43 AM).


-------
Livewire27
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 09:18 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Livewire_27

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:15 AM on December 20, 2008 :
The Biblical Creation narrative is a relatively late addition to the Bible
No it isn't
It usually forms part of a complex of symbols and metaphors that are identifying for the community within which the myth operates.

Christanity is not a myth





[color=red]
[color=red][/color][color=red]

(Edited by Livewire_27 4/16/2009 at 09:46 AM).


-------
Livewire27
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 09:43 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:21 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why are you grouping athiests and people who accept evolution together? Athiests can be athiests without accepting evolution aswell as people who are religous can accept evolution. Do you just mean people who accept evolution, or are you assuming that everyone who accepts evolution is an athiest?

I think most of the time us athiests do not try and convince religous people that there is no god by proving evolution. I think we try hard to make people understand why evolution is true (because it is supported by a huge number of facts and evidence), but not because we want to prove other people wrong. What personally grinds my gears is that when people (creationists for example) say that something is true based purely of faith (which cannot be observed, tested and repeated), and then use that to try and discredit something like evolution. Even when they are presented with overwhelming evidence which proves they are wrong without a shadow of a doubt they will still be convinced that their belief is true. Which is Faith I suppose. And thats fine.

What ever your beliefs, if you admit that they are beliefs you don't have to defend them. Stating them as fact without evidence requires you to defend them. In the case of the earth being only 6000 years old, no-one has been able to come up with ANY credible evidence, and when people make up things like that Man living with dinosaurs museum in the US (I forget where exactly, but I'm willing to bet its one of the southern states) thats just being plain dishonest. Thats what pisses me off and why probaly a large number of athiests try so hard as you put it.

And another thing! if somehow evolution turned out to be false, it would not mean the creationism would be proven. You would still have to porvide the evidence for it to be true. If that could be done it would have been by now. And I don't get how people can believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, when light from distant stars has taken billions of years to get here! Creationists would still need to get around that which they can't!

[/rant]


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 3:17 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Atheists as group might want to prove the non-existence of god, but evolutionists as a group don't give a poop.  I think the real question is why do those people who study/support/"believe in" evolution feel so passionately about it?  The answer for many creationists lies in what they consider an irrational "belief" in the theory of evolution such that the ToE can be thought of as a religion.  But I think was gets supporters of ToE so exercised is not a belief in EVOLUTION per se, but a passion for the methodology of science.  Evolutionists (short-hand for scientists and supporter of the ToE) take exception to creationism and especially creation science/ID not because ToE is a "religion" to which they are loyal, but because they see creationism as an attack on the very foundations of scientific endeavor.  This is doubly true, I argue, for the "scientizing" of creation, the cloaking of creationism in the language of science.  
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 3:28 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha! Yeah Sciborg, I think thats what I wanted to say, may have got a little side tracked....

I'm an athiest, but I'm not bothered about proving God doesn't exist because it can't be done. Can't be proven either.
I was thinking about what I believe while I was swimming just now. I believe Jesus was real, but definitely not the son of god. I think he was a man trying to do do some good and got persecuted for it.
I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as a fact of life. Most importantly, I believe in myself.

Tangent alert!
Going back to your comment Sciborg, I do think that YECs wrongly see people accepting ToE as a belief in a religion like...um...thing.
I think this stems from the fact the no YEC seems to be able to understand what evolution is, and they frequently get it confused with cosmology or abiogenesis. This wouldn't be so bad if they took the time to do a little research, but they just spout the same old lines and mis-quotes as the one before.

Nail on the head there I think, "Evolutionists (short-hand for scientists and supporter of the ToE) take exception to creationism and especially creation science/ID not because ToE is a "religion" to which they are loyal, but because they see creationism as an attack on the very foundations of scientific endeavor."

I hate the term creationist science!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 5:17 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We could embrace that oxymoronic term, and call the regular scientists "objective scientists".

Although just "scientists" would do.

Edit:
Alternative medicine (I begin),
by definition (I continue),
has either not been proved to work,
or has proved not to work.

You know what they call
alternative medicine that
has been proved to work?
~
~
~
~
~
"Medicine".
Tim Minchin - "Storm".


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 5:53 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:53 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Biblical Creation narrative is a relatively late addition to the Bible and bears striking resemblance to various ancient near eastern creation myths.


How about - all the ancient cultures had a flood 'myth' -80% of which clearly indicated that it was a worldwide flood? How about - the Eastern Creation 'myths' are based on the fact that all the peoples of the world originated from the ones that climbed off the ark which is why the story is found everywhere.
Mars, on the other hand, has no stories much less people, yet their topography suggests erosion by vast amounts of water. 'Scientists' are very happy to accept past floods on Mars despite the current lack of water but don't like the sound of a worldwide flood on this planet where we still have 70% of the planet covered by water. Strange...


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:20 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What personally grinds my gears is that when people (creationists for example) say that something is true based purely of faith (which cannot be observed, tested and repeated), and then use that to try and discredit something like evolution.


Tell me have you ever observed any one kind of creature turn into any other kind of creature? Has anybody?

How can you prove relationships via dead bones?

Evolution is a faith -it cannot be observed, tested or repeated -that is why we call it a religion. Before pointing a finger at our 'faith' which is historically supportable, have a "look" at the 'evidence' for yours. It doesn't exist.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:28 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, you are comparing, evidence-wise, apples and oranges.  I don't know precisely all the evidence that scientists use to predict that Mars had "vast amounts of water," but it's probably stuff along the lines of geological patterns consistent with water erosion and the like - in essence, evidence from observations of the natural world.  You want to compare that kind of evidence with stories told my humans.  We already know that humans have the capacity to impart inaccurate information, either on purpose or because of the vagaries of communication.  Humans can lie.  Humans have imagination and can create narratives.  Therefore a human story about a world-wide flood is not as reliable a piece of evidence as observations of patterns nature - not by a long shot.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 06:33 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, when you say "kind" of creature, can you be more specific?  If you mean species, then the transformation from one kind/species to another kind/species that you describe has indeed been observed in our lifetime.  This process is called speciation and is observed quite a bit - the now-infamous London tube mosquitos is a good example, but you'll find others if you simply Google "speciation."

However, I suspect you mean, have we seen a dog evolve into a whale or some other major change in appearance, habitat, etc.  I also suspect you know perfectly well that the Theory of Evolution holds that such changes occur over thousands and thousands and thousands of years - much longer than we have been observing the natural world.  So admitting that we have not observed such a thing does not invalidate the hypothesis, and asking about it is just a rhetorical ploy.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 06:42 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know precisely all the evidence that scientists use to predict that Mars had "vast amounts of water," but it's probably stuff along the lines of geological patterns consistent with water erosion and the like


Yes, that's right. I really don't mind if they hypothesize its occurrence on other planets, they must just think twice before insisting that no major worldwide flood ever happened on this planet.

You want to compare that kind of evidence with stories told my humans.


No, there's lots of geological evidence as well -certainly a worldwide flood cannot be discounted unless by prejudice (don't want one of those, you know!) As for stories told by humans -try very similar stories (flood stories) from cultures of North and South America, Ireland, England, Switzerland, France, Italy, Egypt, Iran, China, India, Japan etc etc. Far too many stories to be discounted except by prejudice.

Put the human stories and the sedimentary rock record of vast death together and you could have something pretty close to a flood of gargantuan proportions. Unless you prefer a material only explanation in which case you still need to explain how we got here and it doesn't help the cause if you throw all the buried evidence in with a flood. Then there's nothing left for evolution.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:04 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Going back to the original question, and my first response about creationism being viewed as an attack on science:

I am currently reading both Temple Grandin's "Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior" and "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion and the Battle for America's Soul" by Edward Humes and two things occur to me in relation to this debate.  

The first is a renewal of my assertion that creationism represents an attempt to undermine the very foundations of the scientific endeavor to understand and explain the world.  "Monkey Girl" is an excellent exposition on the court case in Dover, PA (Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Board of Ed.) and describes the naked ambition of various creationist factions to supplant science education in general with their own world-view.  

Secondly, in reading "Animals in Translation," I am struck that without science and the theory of evolution in particular, most of Grandin's work would make ZERO sense; and, elegantly, WITH the explanatary power of the theory of evolution, everything she does say makes perfect sense.  The ToE is consistent with or predicts Grandin's ground-breaking advances in animal behavior.  And her work by the way - for those anti-evolutionists who are fond of saying that the ToE never did us any favors - has led to improvements in the dairy and beef industry, to name a few.  

If the Dover board of education had had its way, even just in "teaching the controversy" and led the way for other boards of ed and other schools across the country, we would get a generation of students unable to distinguish between observable fact and intellectual exercise, between rational thought and logical fallacy, between good science and poor science and even science and non-science.  Where would the fields of animal behavior, medicine, biotechnology, chemical engineering and other applied sciences BE?!

THAT is one of the reasons we're so bloody passionate about evolution and science, folks.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 07:11 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This process is called speciation and is observed quite a bit


Yes but that doesn't prove anything bigger. Fruit flies breed other fruit flies; bacteria breed other bacteria. To jump beyond that is an unobserved and unobservable phenomenon -so there is no observable 'scientific' evidence for it. Everything else is philosophy and faith.

I also suspect you know perfectly well that the Theory of Evolution holds that such changes occur over thousands and thousands and thousands of years


Yes which means we have no 'scientific' evidence for it, nor will we ever, which is quite convenient if it is not true.

So admitting that we have not observed such a thing does not invalidate the hypothesis


Not as long as it remains an hypothesis. It is those that keep repeating that it is a 'fact supported by mountains of evidence' that are the problem here.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:14 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is true that much of science involves making inferences from evidence other than facts directly observable with the naked eye.  If you want to discount all evidence that was not directly observed by the researcher, either because the object of inquiry happened in the past, is too far away, is too tiny, etc., then I admit that I have nothing more to say about it - except to point out that if science took up your position, it would grind to a halt.  In any event, someone else can take up the task of convincing you that this kind of indirect evidence has usefulness and validity in science if they wish - perhaps someone with the background in science that I lack.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 07:28 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

about creationism being viewed as an attack on science: ....my assertion that creationism represents an attempt to undermine the very foundations of the scientific endeavor to understand and explain the world.


That's not what it is, that's what it is perceived to be by some. There's nothing to be gained by that however, I certainly have nothing to gain by it and I can't imagine what other people could gain by it. If evolution were so obviously true, we could all just be theistic evolutionists and fit in . The problem is only that I care about the truth -what really happened in history is my priority question.

And her work by the way...has led to improvements in the dairy and beef industry


How? Care to give me a quick rundown there?

we would get a generation of students unable to distinguish between observable fact and intellectual exercise


That's exactly what we've got -that's our objection. No intelligent discernment, no critical thinking allowed, just evolution. 'Everything else is religion.'
Rubbish, evolution is religion and children are being indoctrinated, not educated. Present both sides and if the non-evolution side is obviously wrong, then you have nothing to fear by exposing people to the arguments.Not allowing the opposing arguments in the classroom is an exercise in futility. It makes people really curious as to what the problem is. If evolution is the obvious answer, less and less people would be bothered to argue. As it turns out, that is not what is happening.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:58 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want to discount all evidence that was not directly observed by the researcher, either because the object of inquiry happened in the past....


The thing is not to discount inference but to distinguish between fact and inference especially about the past. It is difficult enough to work out what exactly happened in 1810 much less in the year dot when our original unicellular ancestor supposedly existed. At least with the former we have historical records to get a picture from, with evolution we have imagination built on philosophy, all of which may well be false.

except to point out that if science took up your position, it would grind to a halt.


No it wouldn't, evolution contributes only to imagination, not to science. There is a lot of observable, repeatable science out there -that's the kind I like. It's the real thing.We can know it is true. You don't have to accept by faith that water boils at 100 at sea level, you can check it out and, whoever said it first, knows not to bother to lie about something that others can disprove.Not so evolution. Our humanoid so-called ancestors are a case in point.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:12 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.