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
     Worldview: does it matter?
       Is belief in evolution a worldview?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since I've opened up so many rabbit trails by addressing derwood in the vestige thread I would like to try and narrow it down to this one point that is both relevant to the debate (I believe) and encompasses at least a few of the hackles I've raised.

I believe that everyone has a worldview, a way of looking at the world, that is shaped by knowledge and experience. I admit it would be ridiculous to try and classify any individuals worldview on only two criteria but for the sake of argument lets consider a biblical worldview and an evolutionary world view.

The first, a biblical worldview, is more obvious: viewing the world as though the Bible is true and in this case creation is literal.

The second, an evolutionary worldview, is admittedly much more elusive in that there is no solid basis from which that view emanates. In other words, the ToE itself is continuously evolving, and thus how you view the world must naturally shift accordingly.

Good examples are: the change in definition of evolution to include speciation and the shift away from origin of life questions.

So the question is, does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:48 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionary worldview is a very restrictive term.  For the purposes of this discussion, scientific worldview would be much more accurate, because the basic conflict is whether a worldview interferes with an accurate representation of the universe.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:22 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that everyone has a worldview, a way of looking at the world, that is shaped by knowledge and experience.
Wrong.

I have several.

And i switch between them pretty often. It's good to me. I can compare them that way, and see how efficient each one is in different circumstances.

Those which exclude Evolution (like the possibility that we're in someone's imagination, or in a computer simulation) are the most useless, but i go even there too sometimes.

I admit it would be ridiculous to try and classify any individuals worldview on only two criteria
Cool. Because it is.
but for the sake of argument lets consider a biblical worldview and an evolutionary world view.
You seem to be assuming what you're set out to demonstrate.

The second, an evolutionary worldview, is admittedly much more elusive in that there is no solid basis from which that view emanates.
You're already saying it's a "view".

Why?
I call it "fact".

There's a slight chance that it's wrong, but so far it fits the definition.

In other words, the ToE itself is continuously evolving,
It's called "science". It's called "learning".
and thus how you view the world must naturally shift accordingly.
All of them?

You're simply wrong. The Matrix and the imagination don't. Lastthursdaism doesn't change either.

Good examples are: the change in definition of evolution to include speciation
Do you think that changes anyone's worldview? A definition?
and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?

It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.

Not even the Theory of Everything would actually explain everything.

So the question is, does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?
You're assuming it's a belief.

A belief is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Evolution doesn't resemble that at all.



-------
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: 11:34 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really, the question becomes; do we accept the Bible as a literal, infallible account accurate on all things physical and spiritual that cannot and must not be changed. Or, that we can look at the natural world in such a way that we can derive certain aspects from it, and things that don't fit our view of the world can be tossed out in favor of ideas that better fit what we see?

"Does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?"

The concept of changing my views based on the evidence plays a major role in how I view the world. It takes us out of the box set down from tribal leaders thousands of years ago, and gives us the audacity to ask the most chilling questions, and gives us the methodology to test those questions against reality and see if they hold up. More often than not, these new insights are things we could have never imagined, and it gives us the ability to accept it based on the evidence.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:49 PM on December 3, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:48 AM on December 3, 2009 :

I believe that everyone has a worldview, a way of looking at the world, that is shaped by knowledge and experience.


I would agree to an extent.  However, creationists employ this worldview argument to try to give their contrarian and non-scientific pontifications some sort of equivalence to science-based worldviews.  
For example - do you accept that germs cause disease?  
If so, then you are parting company from those who held a biblical worldview only a few decades ago (and there are still people around today that do not believe that germs cause disease).
Does a worldview that dictates that germs do not cause disease deserve to be placed on par with a worldview that has shown that they do?
This is essentially the YEC/OEC/ID worldview argument.



I admit it would be ridiculous to try and classify any individuals worldview on only two criteria but for the sake of argument lets consider a biblical worldview and an evolutionary world view.

The first, a biblical worldview, is more obvious: viewing the world as though the Bible is true and in this case creation is literal.


But not even all evangelical Christians fit in THAT 'biblical worldview.'


The second, an evolutionary worldview, is admittedly much more elusive in that there is no solid basis from which that view emanates.

Just like there are - what is it, dozens of 'versions' of the bible out there?  Hundreds of different Chtristian secvts and cults, all claiming to be the best/truest one?
Seems your worldview suffers from the same elusiveness you accuse the 'evolutionary' one of having.


In other words, the ToE itself is continuously evolving, and thus how you view the world must naturally shift accordingly.


The specifics will 'evolve' as all scientific matters do.  You see, those of us that operate within an 'evolutionary' (i.e., scientific, reality based) worldview do not resist change when it is warranted.  


Good examples are: the change in definition of evolution to include speciation and the shift away from origin of life questions.

Strawman.
Unless you can demonstrate that the ToE EVER encompassed abiogenesis, then you really should retract that statement.  Creationists often attempt to merge abiogenesis and evolution and then argue against evolution as such by claiming that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.




So the question is, does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?


I cannot answer for anyone else, but realizing that we (and by we I mean all living things) share a common ancestry and have collectively succeeded in overcoming the challenges Nature has placed before us gave me a greater appreciation for the world around me.  
Further, I find the notion that we, as a species, have risen to the top (at least temporarily) despite those challenges to be substantially enobling.

I think one who accepts evolution is far more likley to be empathetitic towards other peoples than those who believe that only certain groups of people are worthy as they are 'chosen' or because they belong to a particular religion.

You want to accuse Hitler etc. of being non-christian evolutionists, and that this drove their acts, but that is a dramatically oversimplified and disingenuous treatment of the matter, and it also demonstrates an ignorance of the facts and of history, though I suspect you are just parrotting one of the several right-wing religious tomes out there asserting such a connection.    And that is another problem of those in the biblical worldview - they have a distinct and documentable tendency to simply accept as fact and at face value anything written by a fellow biblcal worldviewist that comports with their worldview, regardless of its absurdity.


(Edited by derwood 12/4/2009 at 08:33 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:09 PM on December 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
I believe that everyone has a worldview, a way of looking at the world, that is shaped by knowledge and experience.

wisp[/]
Wrong.

I have several.

And i switch between them pretty often. It's good to me. I can compare them that way, and see how efficient each one is in different circumstances.

Yet later you say I'm wrong in claiming that they (worldviews) shift according to new learning. Hmmm...

[b]timbrx
The second, an evolutionary worldview, is admittedly much more elusive in that there is no solid basis from which that view emanates.

You're already saying it's a "view".

Why?
I call it "fact".

In your view, it it a fact. In my view it is a speculation. What's wrong with calling the belief in evolution as "fact" a view?


timbrx
Good examples are: the change in definition of evolution to include speciation

Do you think that changes anyone's worldview? A definition?

Absolutely. If you teach someone that evolution is a fact based on the observable speciation and they join you in concluding that this demonstrates that different species must therefor share a common ancestor that their "view" of the world has been influenced by a definition.

and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?

It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.

Logic dictates that if evolution were true than life must have arisen from non life and then evolved into the forms we see today. But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis). The discussion of origin is conveniently left out and the debate is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".

timbrx
So the question is, does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?

You're assuming it's a belief.

A belief is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Evolution doesn't resemble that at all.

I believe it does. I would surely love to see your argument for why belief in evolution is not a "belief". Even if it were a fact, it can't be proven so you still have to believe that its a fact based on whatever convinces you that it is so.
Yes, I used the "P" word. Proof is only applicable to mathematics and attorneys for are you not required to "prove" your case by presenting the available evidence?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:43 AM on December 4, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis
Evolutionary worldview is a very restrictive term.  For the purposes of this discussion, scientific worldview would be much more accurate, because the basic conflict is whether a worldview interferes with an accurate representation of the universe.

I would agree except that the science is the same whether you view it as emanating from evolution or from creation. This is what I mean by worldview. Do you draw your conclusions from your belief that evolution is true or that creation is true.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:50 AM on December 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:50 AM on December 4, 2009 :
apoapsis
Evolutionary worldview is a very restrictive term.  For the purposes of this discussion, scientific worldview would be much more accurate, because the basic conflict is whether a worldview interferes with an accurate representation of the universe.

I would agree except that the science is the same whether you view it as emanating from evolution or from creation.


Would you agree that science would require a consistent set of definitions, and that they cannot be altered at the whim of a worldview?



This is what I mean by worldview. Do you draw your conclusions from your belief that evolution is true or that creation is true.


Evolution has nothing to do with it, what does the science say?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:39 AM on December 4, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:43 AM on December 4, 2009 :
and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?
It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.

Logic dictates that if evolution were true than life must have arisen from non life and then evolved into the forms we see today.


Actually, since the ToE only deals with the changes that occur in living things to produce new species, i.e., the origin of species, then, logically, how life came to be is immaterial.
Seems pretty straightforward to all but those trying to conflate and confuse.

But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis).


You seem to have shifted the goal posts, and done so due to your idiosyncratic understanding of what the ToE actually encompasses.  Your OP went on about an 'evolutionary worldview', which you imply contains abiogenesis.  It is pointed out that abiogenesis is NOT part of the ToE, so now you are saying that the debate must be about the 'starting point.'
Which is it?


The discussion of origin is conveniently left out and the debate

Convenience has nothing to do with it.  Do discussion of quantum mechanics necessarily involve the big bang?  Does the law of mass action necessarily  have the production of all elements as its foundation?
The Theory of Evolution is about speciation, the evolution of species.  YouWANT it to be about abiogenesis, but it isn't, and that seems to really annoy you.
Too bad.  You do not get to dictate the contents of scientific theories to suit your needs.

is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".


Do you not think it is important to be on the same page when discussing an issue?

A belief is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Evolution doesn't resemble that at all.

I believe it does.


Not accepting the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.  You do not seem tp understand the means by which the ToE was produced.  It was the evidence that drove the idea, it was not some 'belief' that Darwin had.

I would surely love to see your argument for why belief in evolution is not a "belief".

OK - here it is:

It IS a belief, if by 'belief' we are referring to definition 3:

from m-w online dictionary -
Main Entry: be·lief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 :conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

There is a connotation of 'belief' that we resist - for it is common in religious writings to write of one's 'belief' in God, "I Believe" is a common phrase in religiospeak.  We typically like to contrast that with 'accept.'

If we are going to be semantic police, then sure, accepting evolution is a belief, but if we are to employ the colloquial usage and connotation of the word, then it is really un unfair characterization.

Even if it were a fact, it can't be proven so you still have to believe that its a fact based on whatever convinces you that it is so.

What cannot be proven, exactly?


Yes, I used the "P" word. Proof is only applicable to mathematics and attorneys for are you not required to "prove" your case by presenting the available evidence?

Since I have beenon this board, you and your fellow creationists have not seemed the least bit interested in the evidence.  You seem content to dismiss it, ignore it, co-opt it, or twist it, or to use as 'evidence' the assertions of a 'hero' (typically one who has written a  book that favors your presuppositions).

So please do not lecture anyone here about the use of evidence.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:47 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AARRRGGHH!
I had three words left on a reply to derwoods first post and my computer rebooted and list it! I'll be back when I fix my bios problem. Sorry
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:51 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
wisp
timbrx
I believe that everyone has a worldview, a way of looking at the world, that is shaped by knowledge and experience.
Wrong.

I have several.

And i switch between them pretty often. It's good to me. I can compare them that way, and see how efficient each one is in different circumstances.
Yet later you say I'm wrong in claiming that they (worldviews) shift according to new learning. Hmmm...
Wrong.

I said that "not all of them do".

Now i tell you this: the others change very little.

There was a big change when i learned about Relativity, and there was another big change when i learned about Quantum Physics.
And yeah, learning about Evolution gave me a new view of the world (which doesn't mean that Evolution IS a worldview).

The world views that don't change at all (your only one, for instance) tend to be the least useful.

Might be good for the heart, but no progress can come out of them.

timbrx
wisp
timbrx
The second, an evolutionary worldview, is admittedly much more elusive in that there is no solid basis from which that view emanates.
You're already saying it's a "view".

Why?
I call it "fact".
In your view, it it a fact.
Do we have to define "fact"?

From the National Center for Science Education
  Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

That's what Evolution is, Mike.

What part of that definition can you attack?

I know... The "for all practical purposes"... Sorry if it hurts, but listening to each and every religious group that opposes some particular aspects of Science that conflicts with their faith isn't "practical".
In my view it is a speculation.
Scientists agree that it has been confirmed. You don't count. Or i, for that matter.

I have problems accepting black holes, for instance. But people far smarter than me take it almost as a fact. I don't know... I must be wrong... I don't see how, but that's the thing about being wrong: you don't see how.

If the word "fact" has ANY value at all, Evolution is a fact. If you deny its factuality, then don't use that word, because it's meaningless.

What's wrong with calling the belief in evolution as "fact" a view?
Belief... Belief... You're trying to degrade our knowledge by name calling. I don't like that.

It's a fallacy. The most basic one. It's called "equivocation".

Light can't be dark.
Feathers are light.
Feathers can't be dark.

You're abusing words.
I'd say it's because facts don't help you.

wisp
timbrx
Good examples are: the change in definition of evolution to include speciation
Do you think that changes anyone's worldview? A definition?
Absolutely. If you teach someone that evolution is a fact based on the observable speciation and they join you in concluding that this demonstrates that different species must therefor share a common ancestor that their "view" of the world has been influenced by a definition.
But you're simply wrong. You didn't change any worldviews by defining. You could say you did by presenting inaccurate data.

If you teach people that God is the green stuff that grows from old bread, so God exists, you didn't change any worldview.

Different facts or different approaches. Those are able to change "worldviews". Not definitions.

Definitions are just agreements between people that don't change facts.

I don't know how you can suggest otherwise. I think it's part of your whole attitude of paying more attention to words when reality doesn't help you.

and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?

It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.
Logic dictates that if evolution were true than life must have arisen from non life and then evolved into the forms we see today.
It just seems more likely. It's not a necessity. Really!

If Yahweh did it, and he created the first cell, everything would be fine for the ToE.

If aliens planted life on Earth, everything would be fine for the ToE.

If life just fell on Earth from meteorites, everything would be fine for the ToE.

There's no logic that dictates what you claim.

If there is, show me.

You can't. =D

But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis).
You just conflate the issue, which is pretty simple.

I do happen to believe that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation. But abiogenesis is not a fact. Evolution is.

The discussion of origin is conveniently left out
Yes. Reality is quite convenient to us.
and the debate is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".
Well yeah. Since you won't go anywhere near providing evidence for YOUR stories, we have to force you to try to clarify your attacks on OURS (and you can't).

timbrx
So the question is, does a belief in evolution influence how you view the world around you and if so to what degree?
You're assuming it's a belief.

A belief is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Evolution doesn't resemble that at all.
I believe it does.
Sorry... I'm not trying to be arrogant, but it's just not debatable. Evolution isn't a vague idea. It's a very precise one: change of allele frequencies in populations.

And it's testable.

You can't say the same about "kinds" or "information". THOSE are vague and untestable, and yet you place a great deal of confidence in them.

The beliefs are yours.

I would surely love to see your argument for why belief in evolution is not a "belief".
Piece of cake. It's NOT vague (i've shown you), and it doesn't require for your unconditional trust, because it's easily testable, and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Even if it were a fact,
It is, until you present another (Creationist-friendly) definition of "fact".
it can't be proven so you still have to believe that its a fact based on whatever convinces you that it is so.
Proven???

You said you liked Science.

Wanna define "fact" as "an event that can be proven"? FINE! Then facts don't exist.

Are you happy now? ¬_¬

You defined reality away.

Now facts don't exist, and none of my worldviews (or yours) have changed one bit.

Why waste our time?

Yes, I used the "P" word. Proof is only applicable to mathematics and attorneys for are you not required to "prove" your case by presenting the available evidence?
...



-------
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: 12:56 PM on December 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:51 PM on December 4, 2009 :
AARRRGGHH!
I had three words left on a reply to derwoods first post and my computer rebooted and list it! I'll be back when I fix my bios problem. Sorry



Must have been quite a crash.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:22 PM on December 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 4:22 PM on December 8, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 1:51 PM on December 4, 2009 :
AARRRGGHH!
I had three words left on a reply to derwoods first post and my computer rebooted and list it! I'll be back when I fix my bios problem. Sorry



Must have been quite a crash.



Or hoping that Lester will come back and divert attention....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:18 PM on December 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suspect he's watching quietly and trying to regroup.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:56 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe he got a new computer on the celebration of the rebirth of the sun!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:12 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:12 PM on December 28, 2009 :
Maybe he got a new computer on the celebration of the rebirth of the sun!



You mean - the winter solstice celebration?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:24 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus#Sol_Invictus_and_Christianity

It speaks about Sol Invictvs, the winter solstice and Saturnalia too.

(Edited by wisp 12/29/2009 at 02:28 AM).


-------
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: 02:25 AM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do so miss Tim and his rebuttals.

I mean the 'new' Timbrx, the guy who was actually wiling to engage a bit, not the old Timbrx - the condescending, smart-mouthed know-nothing-know-it-all who routinely projected his shortcomings, ignorance, and attitude upon others (notably, me)....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:38 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ah, i see you finally got your computer fixed Timbrx.

Care to pick up?

As for same old arguments, well, you let us know when you folks stop claiming that nuclear decay was much, much, much faster in the past...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:49 PM on May 5, 2010 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, derwood. I'll pick back up for a time. I'm glad you missed the "new" me. Which "you" will engage here?

Quote from timbrx at 09:43 AM on December 4, 2009 :
and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?
It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.


Logic dictates that if evolution were true than life must have arisen from non life and then evolved into the forms we see today.



derwood Actually, since the ToE only deals with the changes that occur in living things to produce new species, i.e., the origin of species, then, logically, how life came to be is immaterial.
Seems pretty straightforward to all but those trying to conflate and confuse.


I believe that the ToE is used to explain more than just speciation (which is observable). It is also used to explain how one kind of animal (such as a cat) and another kind of animal (such as a dog) both have a common ancestor. While I would agree that this can be explained as advanced divergent speciation it can't be observed.


timbrx But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis).



derwood[/] You seem to have shifted the goal posts, and done so due to your idiosyncratic understanding of what the ToE actually encompasses.  Your OP went on about an 'evolutionary worldview', which you imply contains abiogenesis.  It is pointed out that abiogenesis is NOT part of the ToE, so now you are saying that the debate must be about the 'starting point.'
Which is it?


I'm saying that the creationist worldview attributes what we see to a creator while an evolutionary worldview attributes what we see to natural processes. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to yours as a naturalistic or secular worldview.
I'm not trying to shift the goal posts. I'm trying to illuminate them.

[b]timbrx[/] The discussion of origin is conveniently left out and the debate


[b]derwood[/] Convenience has nothing to do with it.  Do discussion of quantum mechanics necessarily involve the big bang?  Does the law of mass action necessarily  have the production of all elements as its foundation?
The Theory of Evolution is about speciation, the evolution of species.  YouWANT it to be about abiogenesis, but it isn't, and that seems to really annoy you.
Too bad.  You do not get to dictate the contents of scientific theories to suit your needs.


This is where our worldviews come in. Yes, my worldview- biblical creationism- includes by its very nature the origin of life. It's part of my paradigm. But even if origin of life is not necessary to your explanation of life's variety, it is still a part of your individual worldview.


[b]timbrx[b/] is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".



Do you not think it is important to be on the same page when discussing an issue?


Of course. But it is not useful to nitpick over a term when discussing generalities. If I say "genetic information" you know what I mean. If I say "one kind of animal into another" you know what I mean. I assume you are reasonable enough to understand particular words according to their context. Why march off to war over the use of a simple word?



[b]derwood[/] Not accepting the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.  You do not seem tp understand the means by which the ToE was produced.  It was the evidence that drove the idea, it was not some 'belief' that Darwin had.


I disagree. Desire to remove God from the equation drove the debate.

[b]timbrx[/] I would surely love to see your argument for why belief in evolution is not a "belief".


OK - here it is:

It IS a belief, if by 'belief' we are referring to definition 3:

from m-w online dictionary -
Main Entry: be·lief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 :conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

There is a connotation of 'belief' that we resist - for it is common in religious writings to write of one's 'belief' in God, "I Believe" is a common phrase in religiospeak.  We typically like to contrast that with 'accept.'

If we are going to be semantic police, then sure, accepting evolution is a belief, but if we are to employ the colloquial usage and connotation of the word, then it is really un unfair characterization.


You've proven my point. You want to remove God from the equation because there is no room for him in your worldview so you object to the usage of a perfectly legitimate work because of "religious connotation".

[b]timbrx Even if it were a fact, it can't be proven so you still have to believe that its a fact based on whatever convinces you that it is so.


derwood What cannot be proven, exactly?

Evolution of the variety of creatures observed today from some distant common ancestor.

timbrx Yes, I used the "P" word. Proof is only applicable to mathematics and attorneys for are you not required to "prove" your case by presenting the available evidence?


derwood Since I have beenon this board, you and your fellow creationists have not seemed the least bit interested in the evidence.  You seem content to dismiss it, ignore it, co-opt it, or twist it, or to use as 'evidence' the assertions of a 'hero' (typically one who has written a  book that favors your presuppositions).

So please do not lecture anyone here about the use of evidence.


I know you don't want to get this, but the "evidence" is the same for either case. The interpretation is what differs. The reason it differs is because we do not share worldviews.

By the way, my math/lawyer proof analogy was for wisp who hates for me to use the word "proof" even though he, as an attorney, tries to "prove" his case every day even though I doubt he has ever used mathematical "proofs" to do so.


 


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:41 PM on May 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:41 PM on May 5, 2010 :
Sure, derwood. I'll pick back up for a time. I'm glad you missed the "new" me. Which "you" will engage here?

The one that always has - the one who responds in kind.

Quote from timbrx at 09:43 AM on December 4, 2009 :
and the shift away from origin of life questions.
Shift? What shift?
It's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Not the Theory of Life.


Logic dictates that if evolution were true than life must have arisen from non life and then evolved into the forms we see today.



derwood Actually, since the ToE only deals with the changes that occur in living things to produce new species, i.e., the origin of species, then, logically, how life came to be is immaterial.
Seems pretty straightforward to all but those trying to conflate and confuse.


I believe that the ToE is used to explain more than just speciation (which is observable). It is also used to explain how one kind of animal (such as a cat) and another kind of animal (such as a dog) both have a common ancestor.

Which is multiple rounds of speciation.  Speciation, regarldess of how 'extreme', still requires that the ancestral species already be living.
Yes?

While I would agree that this can be explained as advanced divergent speciation it can't be observed.

It can be inferred via multiple lines of evidence.
Recall that in science, 'observation' does not necessarily mean direct, real-time observation of a phenomenon.  It also means observing the aftermath, observing 'circumstantial' evidence, observing effects, etc.
If we had not had cameras to 'observe' the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, would we have to conclude that we simply do not know what happened there?  Or could be deduce/inifer that a particular type of eruption occurred there, premised on what we know from eruptions that have been observed and the effects they produce?

timbrx But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis).


derwood[/] You seem to have shifted the goal posts, and done so due to your idiosyncratic understanding of what the ToE actually encompasses.  Your OP went on about an 'evolutionary worldview', which you imply contains abiogenesis.  It is pointed out that abiogenesis is NOT part of the ToE, so now you are saying that the debate must be about the 'starting point.'
Which is it?


I'm saying that the creationist worldview attributes what we see to a creator while an evolutionary worldview attributes what we see to natural processes. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to yours as a naturalistic or secular worldview.
I'm not trying to shift the goal posts. I'm trying to illuminate them.

But the dichotomy you seem to think exists, doesn't.  There are many people who believe that a deity exists yet accept that evolution, i.e., 'the origin of species', happens.  Would these folk be of a 'secular' or 'naturalistic' worldview, or a supernatural/YECist one?  

I believe that life began via natural means, but if I am someday shown that this is not the case, I will accepot what the positive evidence supporting something else indicates.  I personally see no reason to posit a supernatural entity at this time because in my view of history, I see such explanations for nearly everything falling by the wayside as 'natural' explanations are discovered.  'Naturalism's' track record of finding natural explanations for phenomena formerly attributed to the supernatural is, for me, sufficient to believe that someday a naturalistic OOL will be discovered.

If you want to call that 'faith', so be it, but it is not the same sort of Faith that you have.  Mine is a faith that what has been shown to work pretty well over time will ultimately provide the answers we seek, while the Faith of the cretionist is that an ancient collection of writings are 100% true regardless of their implications, internal inconsistencies, hostory of having been fiddled with, etc.

[b]timbrx[/] The discussion of origin is conveniently left out and the debate


[b]derwood[/] Convenience has nothing to do with it.  Do discussion of quantum mechanics necessarily involve the big bang?  Does the law of mass action necessarily  have the production of all elements as its foundation?
The Theory of Evolution is about speciation, the evolution of species.  YouWANT it to be about abiogenesis, but it isn't, and that seems to really annoy you.
Too bad.  You do not get to dictate the contents of scientific theories to suit your needs.


This is where our worldviews come in. Yes, my worldview- biblical creationism- includes by its very nature the origin of life. It's part of my paradigm. But even if origin of life is not necessary to your explanation of life's variety, it is still a part of your individual worldview.

Perhaps, but it is not part of evolution.  Which is why I indicated before that the 'evolutionary worldview' does not contain abiogenesis.  
Please remember that for me, the ORIGIN of life is irrelevant to what I see has happened to it since.
If you want a discussion about "worldviews" as such, then you will not get much out of me on the starting points.  

[b]timbrx[b/] is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".



Do you not think it is important to be on the same page when discussing an issue?


Of course. But it is not useful to nitpick over a term when discussing generalities. If I say "genetic information" you know what I mean.

See but I don't.  Ask 10 creationists what they mean by 'genetic information', 5 will avoid the issue, and the other 5 will give 3 different answers depending on what the specific topic is.
Sometimes, we get 'the instriuctions for making a living thing' - so vague as to be meaningless.  Sometimes, we get a more mathematiclaly-based definition that falls apart upon investigation.  Sometimes we get terminology-laden gibberish that doesn't even make sense to the person providing it.  Sometimes we get claims of standard Shannon information, but when shown that according to Shannon, randomly adding bits does, in fact, increase information, we are then told that somehow this doesn't count.

So it is NOT trivial as far as I am concerned.

If I say "one kind of animal into another" you know what I mean.

More or less, but when I say 'speciation' I can provide plausible mechanisms.

I assume you are reasonable enough to understand particular words according to their context. Why march off to war over the use of a simple word?

See my statement re: information.  As my hero Rush Limbaugh says, words mean things.  If you say 'genetic informaitn cannot increase naturally' and I provide a mathematical demonstration that it can, will you (the generic you) simply dismiss it because you've made up your mind that it cannot no matter what?  Will you argue that THAT kind of information is not what you meant?  See, the specific definitions DO matter when one is going to discuss scientific issues.
Is that not what this is supposed to be?  it is for me.

[b]derwood[/] Not accepting the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.  You do not seem tp understand the means by which the ToE was produced.  It was the evidence that drove the idea, it was not some 'belief' that Darwin had.


I disagree. Desire to remove God from the equation drove the debate.

Do you have any actual evidence for this?
This is the stuff of Weikart books and YEC pamphlets.  I've never seen any actual evidence, and in fact, from what I have read of Darwin, he was quite troubled by the implications of what he had 'discovered'; Wallace even moreso.  

[b]timbrx[/] I would surely love to see your argument for why belief in evolution is not a "belief".


OK - here it is:

It IS a belief, if by 'belief' we are referring to definition 3:

from m-w online dictionary -
Main Entry: be·lief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 :conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

There is a connotation of 'belief' that we resist - for it is common in religious writings to write of one's 'belief' in God, "I Believe" is a common phrase in religiospeak.  We typically like to contrast that with 'accept.'

If we are going to be semantic police, then sure, accepting evolution is a belief, but if we are to employ the colloquial usage and connotation of the word, then it is really un unfair characterization.


You've proven my point. You want to remove God from the equation because there is no room for him in your worldview so you object to the usage of a perfectly legitimate work because of "religious connotation".


On the contrary - we want to make clear that evolution is NOT a religion, and so deign not to employ religious phraseology.

But, there is no NEED for god in science.  What does it help?  Laplace was, by all accounts, a very religious man, yet he was once asked where God fit into his equations and he is said to have replied "I have no need for that hypothesis."

Tell me how god fits into medicine?  How does inserting god into physics tell us anything?  How does inserting god into biology help with anything?  At what point does one lay an observation at god's doorstep, and what does that help us to understand?

Look at what happened to the research output of 'famous' scientists upon becoming YECs - it drops to nothing.  Because of the conspiracy to suppress the truth, right?  No - they have their own journals.  Yet the garbage churned out in them is less rigorous than typical high school science fair stuff.  When, that is, there is nayh reseach actually done.

So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

[b]timbrx Even if it were a fact, it can't be proven so you still have to believe that its a fact based on whatever convinces you that it is so.


derwood What cannot be proven, exactly?

Evolution of the variety of creatures observed today from some distant common ancestor.

That can be inferred, however, from multiple lines of evidence.
And, of course, it is not the goal of science to "prove" anything, it is the goal of science to try to understand and explain what we see.  Sometimes those explanations are incomplete, sometimes they are wrong, but they are based on what is knowable at the time.  Contrast this to your worldview, which disallows contrary iniformation and is unyielding even to direct disconfirmation.

timbrx Yes, I used the "P" word. Proof is only applicable to mathematics and attorneys for are you not required to "prove" your case by presenting the available evidence?


derwood Since I have beenon this board, you and your fellow creationists have not seemed the least bit interested in the evidence.  You seem content to dismiss it, ignore it, co-opt it, or twist it, or to use as 'evidence' the assertions of a 'hero' (typically one who has written a  book that favors your presuppositions).

So please do not lecture anyone here about the use of evidence.


I know you don't want to get this, but the "evidence" is the same for either case. The interpretation is what differs. The reason it differs is because we do not share worldviews.


Not all interpretations are valid.
My mother was a luddite and believed that the government was putting something in the air when jets flew that changed the weather.  It is true that jet exhaust can produce nucleation particles around which clouds can form.  But it not anything that the government is purposefully doing.  The observation that the weather was 'fiddled with' by jet exhaust was valid (to an extent); her interpretation of the evidence was not (that the gubment was up to something).

By the way, my math/lawyer proof analogy was for wisp who hates for me to use the word "proof" even though he, as an attorney, tries to "prove" his case every day even though I doubt he has ever used mathematical "proofs" to do so.

I suspect that most juries would fall asleep if math were brought up.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:53 PM on May 5, 2010 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood As my hero Rush Limbaugh says,

Are you a ditto head? If so, we have something in common.

derwoodSee, the specific definitions DO matter when one is going to discuss scientific issues.
Is that not what this is supposed to be?  it is for me.

Yes, definitions do matter. I am merely pointing out that you can understand what is meant in the context of a general statement, particularly in a discussion of such a broad and complicated subject as this, without further complicating things by opening up rabbit trails that distract from the original topic.

derwood Do you have any actual evidence for this?

Actually, yes. The evidence is found throughout history. A few of the "enlightened minds" that have influenced the secularization of society are:
Nietzshe, Dewey, Kinsey, Skinner, Bailey, Keynes, Freud, Sanger and Alinsky.

derwood So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

God can't be "fit into" anything. If He fit into a box, he wouldn't be God. But everything, including science, fits into a universe created by God. Whether or not a person believes in God has nothing to do with that persons potential for discovery. It should, however, influence that persons conclusions or motivations. I personally don't begrudge you your worldview. I just don't agree with it.

derwood I suspect that most juries would fall asleep if math were brought up.

I suspect that in wisps case he would dazzle them with lots of pictures.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:54 PM on May 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 6:54 PM on May 5, 2010 :
derwood As my hero Rush Limbaugh says,

Are you a ditto head? If so, we have something in common.


I was being a wise ass.  Limbaugh is all the things I despise rolled into one - a draft dodger, a drug addict, a hypocrite, quite possible a pedophile (recall he got caught taking viagra to the Dominican Republic - a place knwn for underage male prostitutes), and a child of privilege.

derwoodSee, the specific definitions DO matter when one is going to discuss scientific issues.
Is that not what this is supposed to be?  it is for me.

Yes, definitions do matter. I am merely pointing out that you can understand what is meant in the context of a general statement, particularly in a discussion of such a broad and complicated subject as this, without further complicating things by opening up rabbit trails that distract from the original topic.


You are still missing my point.

If one is going to argue against evolution by claiming there can be "no new information," it is trivial to show that new information can and does arise/exist via natural means.  This is when the lack of a rigorous agreed upon definition creeps in, and the anti-evolutionist can just retreat to "well, I meant this other kind of information" or simply dismiss the demonstration as not being 'good enough.'

I'm sorry, specific definitions matter when one is using a particular concpet as part of an argument.  
Do I know "in general" what is meant?  More or less, but again, a general, more or less understanding of what is actually meant doesn't help much when the vague generality is used as an escape clause when things don't go as planned.

derwood Do you have any actual evidence for this?

Actually, yes. The evidence is found throughout history. A few of the "enlightened minds" that have influenced the secularization of society are:
Nietzshe, Dewey, Kinsey, Skinner, Bailey, Keynes, Freud, Sanger and Alinsky.


Um, OK... I think we are talking past each other again - I'm still on the 'evolutionary worldview' thing, and it looks like you are talking more broadly.
Frankly, I do not put much stock in what philosophers say about anything, and other than their actual empirical work (if any), I am unfamiliar with the positios of those you list.  

I do wonder though - do you think people like me sit around reading anti-god literature?
I came to my positions on such matters all on my own - I decided that the bible contains tall tales and myths after I had actually sat down and read it all when I was 20 years old.  I hadn't heard of Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll until after I had become an atheist.  I think you folks believe that authors and philosophers have a lot more pull with us than they really do.


derwood So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

God can't be "fit into" anything. If He fit into a box, he wouldn't be God. But everything, including science, fits into a universe created by God. Whether or not a person believes in God has nothing to do with that persons potential for discovery. It should, however, influence that persons conclusions or motivations. I personally don't begrudge you your worldview. I just don't agree with it.


Here is what I don't get - you say that we are blocking god from science (or however you phrase it) but then cannot tell me how god should be accounted of IN science.  HOW should it influence our conclusions or motivations?

In my experience, when folks allow their YECism to influence theior conclusions, we get demonstrably non-scientific results - I have written about it on here, where a team of YEC scientists were employing molecular analyses to test their hypotheses on 'kinds' and such - when their results did not support their Scrptiure-based pre-conclusionsz, they simply dismissed the empirical results and essentially massaged the data to get what they wanted.  Climate researchers are accused of doing far less than that and we are told that they should be in jail, yet baraminologists do far worse and we are told that they are TROO scientists.

I simply do not understand what you expect - if we do experiments and the results support evolutionary hypotheses, would it be Ok if we just said something like "Our analyses indicate that taxon X shares a common ancestor with Species Y - isn't God amazing?"

I really just do not understand your position.  Disagreeing with my worldview and indicating that somehow science should incorporate god into it baffles me.

derwood I suspect that most juries would fall asleep if math were brought up.

I suspect that in wisps case he would dazzle them with lots of pictures.


That could be.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:41 AM on May 6, 2010 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood I was being a wise ass.  Limbaugh is all the things I despise rolled into one -

I'm relieved to hear it. I was concerned that I had totally miss-read you.

derwoodSee, the specific definitions DO matter when one is going to discuss scientific issues.
Is that not what this is supposed to be?  it is for me.



derwood You are still missing my point.

If one is going to argue against evolution by claiming there can be "no new information," it is trivial to show that new information can and does arise/exist via natural means.  This is when the lack of a rigorous agreed upon definition creeps in, and the anti-evolutionist can just retreat to "well, I meant this other kind of information" or simply dismiss the demonstration as not being 'good enough.'

I'm sorry, specific definitions matter when one is using a particular concpet as part of an argument.  
Do I know "in general" what is meant?  More or less, but again, a general, more or less understanding of what is actually meant doesn't help much when the vague generality is used as an escape clause when things don't go as planned.

OK. You're right. It is disingenuous to present a concept and than disregard opposition because they "don't understand" your meaning.


derwood Um, OK... I think we are talking past each other again - I'm still on the 'evolutionary worldview' thing, and it looks like you are talking more broadly.
Frankly, I do not put much stock in what philosophers say about anything, and other than their actual empirical work (if any), I am unfamiliar with the positios of those you list.  

I do wonder though - do you think people like me sit around reading anti-god literature?
I came to my positions on such matters all on my own - I decided that the bible contains tall tales and myths after I had actually sat down and read it all when I was 20 years old.  I hadn't heard of Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll until after I had become an atheist.  I think you folks believe that authors and philosophers have a lot more pull with us than they really do.

I think you are far more influenced by the efforts of such as I've listed than you realize. Take John Dewey for example. The father of the modern American educational system. You may have never read a single quote from him but the way you were educated since kindergarten was strongly shaped by him and his cohorts. You don't have to read Marx to think like a communist. The concept of equalization through redistribution is a part of our culture now. When you "read it all" at 20 what were you searching for? I would bet that you found it.


derwood  So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

God fits into the scientist. What a person believes accounts for their direction and motivation in whatever they are about. I don't care how often you scream about the purity of science and "true scientists". As long as humans are part of the equation the results are tainted.


derwood Here is what I don't get - you say that we are blocking god from science (or however you phrase it) but then cannot tell me how god should be accounted of IN science.  HOW should it influence our conclusions or motivations?

If you believe in God than your conclusions and motivations should be guided by the principals and purposes espoused by your belief. For me, God should be glorified by His creation.
I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations. Any pretense of working for the 'greater good" without God as the standard is simply self promotion.  

derwoor In my experience, when folks allow their YECism to influence theior conclusions, we get demonstrably non-scientific results - I have written about it on here, where a team of YEC scientists were employing molecular analyses to test their hypotheses on 'kinds' and such - when their results did not support their Scrptiure-based pre-conclusionsz, they simply dismissed the empirical results and essentially massaged the data to get what they wanted.  Climate researchers are accused of doing far less than that and we are told that they should be in jail, yet baraminologists do far worse and we are told that they are TROO scientists.

So how is what bariminologists are doing "far worse" than falsifying evidence and creating fear in the populous in order to gain power and wealth amongst a small group of elites?


derwood  I really just do not understand your position.  Disagreeing with my worldview and indicating that somehow science should incorporate god into it baffles me.

I don't expect you to incorporate God into your worldview and consequently your science. But I would hope that you are secure enough within your worldview to allow for me to have mine. It disturbs me to think of you as a college professor. I hope I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that you sneer at and humiliate students who express a belief in God in your class. If you don't, I apologies. But if you do that I think you're a coward


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:33 PM on May 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
derwood
Actually, since the ToE only deals with the changes that occur in living things to produce new species, i.e., the origin of species, then, logically, how life came to be is immaterial.
Seems pretty straightforward to all but those trying to conflate and confuse.
I believe that the ToE is used to explain more than just speciation (which is observable).
True. It has an enormous explicative power.

I use it to explain Internet memes, and spreading religions, for instance.

Still they're not a part of Biological Evolution.
It is also used to explain how one kind of animal (such as a cat) and another kind of animal (such as a dog) both have a common ancestor.
Sorry, but after all this time i don't know what a "kind" is, and i still bet that nobody in the world does.

In any case, you're still correct. WHATEVER you mean by 'kinds', the ToE does imply that cats and dogs have a common ancestor.
While I would agree that this can be explained as advanced divergent speciation
Thank you.
it can't be observed.
Not directly, no.

Evidences must be observable, somehow. But the conclusion doesn't have to be. Just the evidence.

Nobody has ever observed an atom, for instance. And yet assuming that they exist is useful.

But you seem to accept evolution without the need for a starting point (except Orion) when clearly the debate should be BASED on the starting point and not interpretation of the evidence (genesis vs. abiogenisis).
Sorry, but that's not clear at all.

Actually, to me it's clear that it SHOULDN'T.

Perhaps WE do need a starting point (whatever you mean by "need"). The ToE doesn't.

If it does, why would you put it in the beginning of life? What's special about that? Why not put it in the beginning of the Universe?

The ToE doesn't have to explain any of them.

Actually i bet the ToE can't be applied for a long period after life already started. Too much horizontal gene transfer. We need proper heredity for the ToE to make accurate predictions.

Descent with modification. That's that the ToE is about. Horizontal gene transfer is a violation, and the ToE washes its hands from the results.

I'm saying that the creationist worldview attributes what we see to a creator
Correct. Whatever it is we see. Because, as you've said before, "what we see is what we get". No predictions.
while an evolutionary worldview attributes what we see to natural processes.
Several things:
Why call such a worldview "evolutionary"? Only because the ToE is a part of it? Why not call it "gravitational"? Just because YOUR particular worldview includes it too?

This "worldview" might do that. But the Theory of Evolution doesn't. If primitive life was created by interdimensional leprechauns, the ToE doesn't suffer one bit.

Get it?

NOT ONE BIT!

But WE might. I would certainly say "WTF?!?!" if such a thing was demonstrated.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to yours as a naturalistic or secular worldview.
Sounds a lot better, but i'm sorry to say that i still have a couple objections.

1) I contend that "naturalist" doesn't mean anything (even if lots of smart people use that term).

2) Even if you have a religious view on reality, you might still accept Evolution. So how appropriate is it to call it a "secular worldview"?

The thing is that you join every aspect of Science that conflicts with biblical myths, and try to give them all a unifying name.

If some branches of Science conflict with other myths you don't think those branches deserve a name.

The discussion of origin is conveniently left out and the debate.
Mike, it's not a part of the debate.

I could say this: I believe Abiogenesis is true but, since i'm not willing to defend it, i concede defeat. Your god started life.

Would that satisfy you?

It wouldn't. Because this is about your Bible, and not about your God. If He didn't do things like the Bible tells you, then you won't believe in Him.

Yes, my worldview- biblical creationism- includes by its very nature the origin of life. It's part of my paradigm. But even if origin of life is not necessary to your explanation of life's variety, it is still a part of your individual worldview.
Now you're talking!

Yes, that seems to be true (even if some of us don't give it a lot of thought).

[b]timbrx[b/] is reduced to arguments over the definition of such things as "information" and "kind".
Do you not think it is important to be on the same page when discussing an issue?
Of course. But it is not useful to nitpick over a term when discussing generalities.
It's not nitpicking. I just don't know what you're saying. Believe me.
If I say "genetic information" you know what I mean.
I don't. Seriously.

Are you at least talking about something detectable and quantifiable? Can you measure it in bytes? Can the same type of "information" be found in other places? Which ones? A spiderweb, perhaps?

If I say "one kind of animal into another" you know what I mean.
Heavens strike me if i do!

Can you point here where the lie begins?

Cladus: Eukaryota
Supergroup: Opisthokonta
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Divisio: Neoptera
Subdivisio: Endopterygota
Superordo: Panorpida
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Divisio: Ditrysia
Sectio: Cossina
Subsection: Bombycina
Superfamilia: Bombycoidea
Series: Saturniiformes
Familia: Saturniidae
Subfamilia: Saturniinae
Genus: Rothschildia

...incomplete
If i knew what you're talking about i could do it myself.

I can't.

I assume you are reasonable enough to understand particular words according to their context.
That's a huge piece of salanganga.

I know you don't want to get this, but the "evidence" is the same for either case. The interpretation is what differs.
I get it.

It's quite easy to understand. It's also easy to understand why it's wrong.

If it can be made to point towards contradictory conclusions, then it's NOT EVIDENCE.

By the way, my math/lawyer proof analogy was for wisp who hates for me to use the word "proof"
I don't hate it. It's just wrong.
even though he, as an attorney, tries to "prove" his case every day even though I doubt he has ever used mathematical "proofs" to do so.
Science and Law have different languages, and very different methods.

Law is black and white. In Argentina, when the day of your 18th birthday you're no longer a minor. As if something had changed. You can prove someone is not a minor.
Conventions and classifications have important consequences in Law.

In Science, they do not.



-------
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: 5:59 PM on May 6, 2010 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's a moth.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:48 PM on May 6, 2010 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx
If you believe in God than[sic] your conclusions and motivations should be guided by the principals and purposes espoused by your belief.


If you believe in God and that God both created the world and has the power to intervene in the affairs of the world then the persistence of human suffering in this world inevitably leads us to the conclusion that this God is, at best, morally ambiguous or, at worst, inherently evil. To believe that this God is unambiguously good is patently irrational unless one redefines good and evil.

Perhaps one has a better chance of producing a 'greater good' through rejection of this capricious and at least partly evil god.

Your personal presupposition that "selfishness is at the heart of [atheist] motivation" is clearly not based on any compelling evidence as my experience suggests that many atheists make great personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.

It appears to me that you have here revealed a propensity for irrational commitment to 'worldviews' that are quite unjustifiable on the basis of the available evidence.

(Edited by waterboy 5/6/2010 at 6:54 PM).

(Edited by waterboy 5/6/2010 at 6:56 PM).

(Edited by waterboy 5/6/2010 at 6:57 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:53 PM on May 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
It's a moth.
So "moth" is a kind? That puts the limit below ordo. How much? Every moth you find belongs to the same kind then?

Butterflies and moths are two kinds? No more and no less?



-------
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: 7:12 PM on May 6, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



derwood  So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

God fits into the scientist. What a person believes accounts for their direction and motivation in whatever they are about.


Timbrx, a lot of scientists believe in God.  But I fail to see how someone's belief in God will make them be a better scientist.  Science and religion take two completely separate paths to looking at the world.  One is based on investigating and understanding naturalistic processes.  The other is based on faith in an undetectable entity that science has nothing to say about.  Religious faith is therefore a personal matter.  It cannot enter into the  empirical realm of science.  But that doesn't exclude a scientist from being able to have a strong personal belief in God.  Francisco Ayala is an excellent example of an evolutionary biologist who has done superb scientific research, yet professes a deep personal belief in God.  I admire him for that.


I don't care how often you scream about the purity of science and "true scientists". As long as humans are part of the equation the results are tainted.


Wow!  You don't seem to have much regard for people in general, and science in particular - do you.  Science is simply a methodology used for understanding Nature.  Unfortunately for Creationists, that rigorous scientific  methodology leads to conclusions about  Nature that directly contradicts everything they believe in, which is the inerrancy of the Bible.  Notice that I say 'the inerrancy of the Bible', not 'the inerrancy of God'.  There's a BIG difference.


If you believe in God than your conclusions and motivations should be guided by the principals and purposes espoused by your belief.

Oh!  A person can only have 'principles and purposes' if they have a belief in God?  That's a rather outrageous statement to make, Timbrx.  Arrogant to the extreme.


For me, God should be glorified by His creation.
I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations. Any pretense of working for the 'greater good" without God as the standard is simply self promotion.


You know, I am absolutely flummoxed and stunned at that statement.  That is an incredibly arrongant and naive statement.  Where on earth do you get these misguided notions you have?  The Bible?

(Edited by orion 5/7/2010 at 12:55 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:54 AM on May 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Timbrx, a lot of scientists believe in God.  But I fail to see how someone's belief in God will make them be a better scientist.
The belief in a deity can only make you a worse scientist.

If you believe that some deity is in control of some part of the physical world, there will come a time when you will stop trying to explain.

It happened to Newton (perhaps the greatest genius that ever lived).

It happened to Ptolemæus (who was a great scientist, all things considered).

There will come a time when you'll justify your laziness by calling it "God".

Francisco Ayala is an excellent example of an evolutionary biologist who has done superb scientific research, yet professes a deep personal belief in God.  I admire him for that.
Perhaps it's not a deity what he believes in. I don't know... But if it IS a deity, then he's a good scientist IN SPITE of that (like Ptolomæus and Newton).

Notice that I say 'the inerrancy of the Bible', not 'the inerrancy of God'.  There's a BIG difference.
Very big, and very important.

It's not God what creationists defend. It's the Bible.
I see no way around this...

If you believe in God than your conclusions and motivations should be guided by the principals and purposes espoused by your belief.
Oh!  A person can only have 'principles and purposes' if they have a belief in God?  That's a rather outrageous statement to make, Timbrx.  Arrogant to the extreme.
I don't think that's what he's saying.

I might be wrong, but i didn't see that.
I hope i'm not.

For me, God should be glorified by His creation.
I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations. Any pretense of working for the 'greater good" without God as the standard is simply self promotion.
You know, I am absolutely flummoxed and stunned at that statement.
I'm not.

In a way he's absolutely right (even if in most ways he's absolutely wrong).

I love people. I care about people. That makes my help a selfish thing.

I care.

Timbrx's mistake is to believe that he's off that hook we all share.

The thing is that such a hook is pretty capricious (if not malicious). It's very real, but very not-worth-mentioning. If every behavior is selfish, then the word "selfish" doesn't make any distinctions, and should be discarded.

That is an incredibly arrongant and naive statement.
Christianity allows you to act like the most arrogant person in the world, without actually being it. *

Even if you're the most humble person in the world, when you're a Christian you believe you know stuff others don't, about GOD! God justifies you, cleanses you, teaches you through revelation... Suddenly you're inerrant too.

I've seen it. I've seen humble people making outrageously arrogant statements. They can't even notice.


Edit:
*They are perfectly able to say the most outrageously arrogant things driven by an absolute self-loathing, as derwood says down there.

(Edited by wisp 5/7/2010 at 08:39 AM).


-------
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: 06:55 AM on May 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:33 PM on May 6, 2010 :
derwood I was being a wise ass.  Limbaugh is all the things I despise rolled into one - drug addict, draft dodger, welfare recipient, family values monger who has been divorced 3 times, possible pedophile, etc.

I'm relieved to hear it. I was concerned that I had totally miss-read you.

derwoodSee, the specific definitions DO matter when one is going to discuss scientific issues.
Is that not what this is supposed to be?  it is for me.



derwood You are still missing my point.

If one is going to argue against evolution by claiming there can be "no new information," it is trivial to show that new information can and does arise/exist via natural means.  This is when the lack of a rigorous agreed upon definition creeps in, and the anti-evolutionist can just retreat to "well, I meant this other kind of information" or simply dismiss the demonstration as not being 'good enough.'

I'm sorry, specific definitions matter when one is using a particular concpet as part of an argument.  
Do I know "in general" what is meant?  More or less, but again, a general, more or less understanding of what is actually meant doesn't help much when the vague generality is used as an escape clause when things don't go as planned.

OK. You're right. It is disingenuous to present a concept and than disregard opposition because they "don't understand" your meaning.


OK.... I think...

derwood Um, OK... I think we are talking past each other again - I'm still on the 'evolutionary worldview' thing, and it looks like you are talking more broadly.
Frankly, I do not put much stock in what philosophers say about anything, and other than their actual empirical work (if any), I am unfamiliar with the positios of those you list.  

I do wonder though - do you think people like me sit around reading anti-god literature?
I came to my positions on such matters all on my own - I decided that the bible contains tall tales and myths after I had actually sat down and read it all when I was 20 years old.  I hadn't heard of Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll until after I had become an atheist.  I think you folks believe that authors and philosophers have a lot more pull with us than they really do.

I think you are far more influenced by the efforts of such as I've listed than you realize.

Well, how can I possibly argue with that?

I mean, obviously I was influenced by people I'd not heard of whose work I had not (and for the most part, still have not and do not plan to) read.  
I guess I just don't realize how I came to my own conclusions, so please explain it to me.

Take John Dewey for example. The father of the modern American educational system. You may have never read a single quote from him but the way you were educated since kindergarten was strongly shaped by him and his cohorts.


Right - bunch of commies run the educational system.  Been trying to take god away from us since day 1!


You don't have to read Marx to think like a communist. The concept of equalization through redistribution is a part of our culture now.


"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

---
Acts 2:45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Acts 4:34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales


Bunch of friggin' commies.  Looks like Marx took WWJD to its anti-capitalism extreme, eh?


When you "read it all" at 20 what were you searching for? I would bet that you found it.


I was searching for solace.  My father died unexpectedly one month after retiring from a job that he had worked for more than 40 years.  I couldn't understand how such a thing could happen.  My mother urged me to visit my pastor, but as I was in Turkey on a field training exercise at the time, I could not, but I did have a bible, and while I was waiting in my hotel for my flight back to the U.S., and on the 8 hour flight home, I actually read it, cover to cover, for the first time.  This was, by the way, about 6 months after I had met my first atheist.  When I found out he wan an atheist, you know what I said to him - I asked him "How can you not believe?"  Now I know.  Anyway, I found no solace.  I found no comfort.  I found laughably silly tall tales and myths written by superstitious nomads to justify their cultural biases.

You don't know me, so please do not pretend to know anything about me.

derwood  So please tell us how and where god SHOULD fit in science and how this will help to understand anything.

God fits into the scientist. What a person believes accounts for their direction and motivation in whatever they are about.

So, the religious person, it seems, when doing science is driven to engage in fraud.


I don't care how often you scream about the purity of science and "true scientists". As long as humans are part of the equation the results are tainted.


Even moreso when you start with your conclusion based on scripture and then are duty bound to distort, delete, reject, omit, or fabricate data when what you discover does not conform to your preconceived notions.

I guess I just have a higher opinion of humanity that you do.

derwood Here is what I don't get - you say that we are blocking god from science (or however you phrase it) but then cannot tell me how god should be accounted of IN science.  HOW should it influence our conclusions or motivations?

If you believe in God than your conclusions and motivations should be guided by the principals and purposes espoused by your belief. For me, God should be glorified by His creation.


So, saying "we have evidence that humans evolved from apes - isn't God amazing???!!!" would work.


I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations.


And you wonder why you get the responses you do.  Arrogance and self-righteousness drives the 'troo Christian', it seems.

I get out of life the same things anyone else does - the sheer joy at watching my children grow, the satisfaction of comleting projects, the awe at discovering new things.  I just don't see a need to lay all the good things in life at the feet of a thuggish deity and taking the blame for anything bad that happens upon myself.  Self-loathing seems to drive the christian.

Any pretense of working for the 'greater good" without God as the standard is simply self promotion.  


Any pretense of working for the 'greater good" with God as the standard is simply selfish.  For lets face it - 'christians' do 'good things' to ensure that THEY are in god's good graces.  You people are out for yourselves from day 1.


derwoor In my experience, when folks allow their YECism to influence theior conclusions, we get demonstrably non-scientific results - I have written about it on here, where a team of YEC scientists were employing molecular analyses to test their hypotheses on 'kinds' and such - when their results did not support their Scrptiure-based pre-conclusions, they simply dismissed the empirical results and essentially massaged the data to get what they wanted.  Climate researchers are accused of doing far less than that and we are told that they should be in jail, yet baraminologists do far worse and we are told that they are TROO scientists.

So how is what bariminologists are doing "far worse" than falsifying evidence and creating fear in the populous in order to gain power and wealth amongst a small group of elites?


You don't seem to have read any of the follow-up on that whole issue.  

But please tell me - just who gained all this power and wealth?  Are you against people making money?  Are you a commie?

derwood  I really just do not understand your position.  Disagreeing with my worldview and indicating that somehow science should incorporate god into it baffles me.

I don't expect you to incorporate God into your worldview and consequently your science. But I would hope that you are secure enough within your worldview to allow for me to have mine.

Let me say this very clearly - I DON"T CARE what you believe or what your 'worldview' is.  What i DO care about is that people like you want to force your particular brand of religion upon the rest of us and pretend it is science.

It disturbs me to think of you as a college professor. I hope I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that you sneer at and humiliate students who express a belief in God in your class.

It disturbs me to think that you seem to believe that religion plays any role whatsoever in my classes.  It disturbs me to think that you believe that students should be bringing up their religion in college classes if something comes up that they disagree with.
I have been teaching at the college level for 10 years.  In all that time, a grand total of 2 students even discussed the issue with me, in both cases it was out of class.  One student casually asked me if I believed in 'god or evolution.'  I replied that the two are not mutually exclusive.  he said "Oh" and dropped it.  The other commented that although he was a creationist, he found my class interesting.

So, your stereotypical impression of me is premised, no doubt, on embellished anecdotes and plain old lies told to you by the 'professionals' or by those who make a point to disturb classes with fire and brimstone outbursts.  Ever heard of Charlie Michelson?  He is a YEC who took some evolution classes at Columbia several years ago and tried to sue the school because one of his instructors refused to give him the class email distributio list so he could distribute YEC literature to all the students.  This was on top of numerous class outbursts that ultimately got him kicked out of the university (he later complained about it all on the CreationTalk website, where he complained about the "Jew" in the admissions office).


If you don't, I apologies. But if you do that I think you're a coward

Unlike the typical YEC, I do not feel a need to try to force my beliefs on others.

But what I do find cowardly is replying to discussion forum posts and omitting half of what you are replying to.

It is a shame that the old Timbrx is creeping back in so quickly.



(Edited by derwood 5/7/2010 at 08:37 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:23 AM on May 7, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I took a lot of science in college (my degree being in chemistry), including a fair amount of biology.  Not once in any class did I ever hear God and/or religion mentioned.  Why should the topic come up?  Those were SCIENCE classes, having nothing to do with the topic of religious beliefs.

I did have a grad student (who was functioning as a lab assistant) come up to me outside organic chem lab and ask me personally about my belief in JC.  I gave him some vauge reply.  But he was not conducting a class, nor in a teaching role.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:39 AM on May 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like maybe the YEC's meds ran out....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:21 AM on May 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I think Timbrx just wanted to come in on his high horse and be 'holier than thou'.  He did nothing to impress me - just the opposite.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:13 AM on May 13, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:13 AM on May 13, 2010 :
Yeah, I think Timbrx just wanted to come in on his high horse and be 'holier than thou'.  He did nothing to impress me - just the opposite.



Indeed.  It is a shame, because I thought we had started out pretty well in this thread.

Then when he dropped bombshells like "It disturbs me to think of you as a college professor. I hope I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that you sneer at and humiliate students who express a belief in God in your class." and "I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations."  I knew he was just being the condescending ass he once accused me of being.


 These people disgust me.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:20 AM on May 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Derwood:
Then when he dropped bombshells like "It disturbs me to think of you as a college professor. I hope I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that you sneer at and humiliate students who express a belief in God in your class." and "I don't know what an atheist gets out of life. I would presume that selfishness is at the heart of your motivations."  I knew he was just being the condescending ass he once accused me of being.


He has shown that he is not a good judge of character.  He mistook your mocking comment about liking Rush Limbaugh seriously, and thought you were a Rush Limbaugh follower!  In the process he revealed he actually likes Rush Limbaugh.  Why am I not surprised.  He showed that he holds a low regard that people who do not share his own worldview (Christian fundamentalism and general disdain/distrust for government, social programs, and public schools, etc) cannot hold a high degree of integrity and moral values.  

That's a pretty miserable attitude to have, IMO.
(Edited by orion 5/13/2010 at 2:18 PM).

(Edited by orion 5/13/2010 at 2:21 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:15 PM on May 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it just came out wrong.

It's easy to talk like that when you think you go by God's rules. Like i've said before, it's not even genuine arrogance.

I didn't know who Rush Limbaugh was. I saw the wiki article. A Republican guy with a radio show...

I'm very ignorant about politics, but the classic simplification of a republican is just bad, ignorant and/or dumb.

Your movies and TV shows portray them like that, quite convincingly.

Since it was never my interest, i kept forgetting who were the republicans and who the democrats. But if i asked anyone i knew "who were the bad guys?" the prompt answer always was "the republicans".
I had to make a pneumonic rule so i didn't forget again.

Remember the republican christian Texas school board candidate who energically opposed creationism? What was his name?
Oh, Joel Walker... I sent him a mail. Seems like a cool guy. He regrets that it has been his party that has been an obstacle to Science education on certain "key topics".



-------
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: 4:18 PM on May 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - I got to hand it to you, you know a LOT more about American politics than I know about Argentine policies - by a huge amount!  I only know the songs from Evita that Madonna sings.  (My wife plays that CD all the time)

Yeah, politictians drive me crazy.  I try to steer clear of talking politics, if I can.  But every once in awhile...  As Derwood described, Rush Limbaugh is a BIG jerk, to put it politely.  (I only use polite language on the forum).  :0)

Let's move on to more important topics.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:35 PM on May 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Talking about worldviews... Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist for president. That's for sure. But would they vote for Jesus if he ran for office?

Would right wing christians vote for a middle-east liberal jew who looks like a hippie, when it's so much easier to accept him as their master while ignoring anything he says?

What would his politics be? Right-wing Christians are not prone to healing the sick, or selling everything to feed the poor, or hating their families and following their master, or loving their enemies, etc.

Perhaps America is just a little too Christian for Jesus.



-------
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: 4:37 PM on May 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Wisp:
Talking about worldviews... Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist for president. That's for sure. But would they vote for Jesus if he ran for office?

Atheist voted for president of the USA?  That'll be the day!  Not in my life-time.  Although I was impressed that Obama mentioned us atheists in his speech shortly after being sworn in as president - citing people of different faiths pulling together, even included 'non-believers'.  

Jesus (if he ever existed - I have my doubts) - now that would be interesting.  But he probably wouldn't have a beard and long hair today.  But not being a hawk, I don't think the right would accept him.


Would right wing christians vote for a middle-east liberal jew who looks like a hippie, when it's so much easier to accept him as their master while ignoring anything he says?

You're right, Wisp - they most likely wouldn't recognize him as the person they worship.  And if you told them who he was, they wouldn't believe you - not unless he performed some miracles to convince them first, which would never happen.  So no... they wouldn't recognize their own savior.


What would his politics be? Right-wing Christians are not prone to healing the sick, or selling everything to feed the poor, or hating their families and following their master, or loving their enemies, etc.

'Hating their families'?  Surely Jesus loved his parents.  After all, I see signs saying 'Jesus loves you' all the time.  Well... often enough.


Perhaps America is just a little too Christian for Jesus.

Yeah, perhaps America is!  

America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, though Christianity is not surprisingly the dominant faith - seeing as how most of the inital people were from Christian European countries.  The founding fathers weren't especially zealous Christians from what I've read of them.  A lot of them were Deists, as were a lot of the intellectuals of that day.

How about Argentina?  What's it like there, Wisp?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:13 PM on May 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, declaring yourself an atheist would be bad policy here too. You would just lose some votes (mainly from the sadly less educated sectors).

Throwing a little bit of God in your speeches gets you more popularity points than it costs you, so it's kinda customary.

The Catholic Church keeps emitting opinions (about gay marriage, for instance) which smart sensitive people find disgusting (specially considering the sexual scandals within the church). Politicians are beginning to dare almost ignoring them, which is pretty cool. They don't directly give them the finger, but their actions pretty much do, sometimes.

There are plenty of improvised chapels in poor zones, with several different branches of christianity. We don't have many exotic religions here. Just branches of Christianity.

I have a friend whose parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. She's an atheist, and she suffers a lot. Her mother suffers a lot too.
People in christian sects talk a lot about their happiness. They don't talk about these sadnesses.

I found a creationist among my facebook contacts (which was very weird). He's a good kid. He needed some religion. He tried several ones, and settled with the Adventists. He decided to accept the whole bunch unquestioningly. I showed him stuff. He thought he could handle it, and perhaps even respond. He saw he couldn't, so he hid behind the last wall: "Well, it's my faith."

That's a partial victory, in my opinion. When they say that they have seen that their faith doesn't agree with the facts. And they'll be more careful about making claims. Because, unlike Lester, he's a pretty honest and humble guy.

There are more creationists than i was aware of in Argentina. Not only among the poor and uneducated.

The thing is that here they don't lobby. They have no political power, most of them don't have access to Internet, none of them speak on TV... That's consoling (even though i'm disappointed that we have more creationists than i had thought).

I don't think creationism will gain force here as a movement. It's split among too many branches of Christianity.

Perhaps that's what you need. More Christianity. ^_^

Instead of atheist zealots perhaps you need other christian zealots to tell creationists that they're blasphemous and making God cry.



-------
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: 5:45 PM on May 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just wondering if manly Tim plans to addres the replies - or is he just a coward?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 04:50 AM on May 25, 2010 | IP
Zoetherat

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Timbrx

“I'm saying that the creationist worldview attributes what we see to a creator while an evolutionary worldview attributes what we see to natural processes. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to yours as a naturalistic or secular worldview.”

Yes, it would. Evolution is just one specific scientific topic that creationists take exception to because they don’t feel it fits their religious framework. But ppl can believe in evolution and still have any number of spiritual or religious beliefs, so it can’t be accurately described as a worldview.

“I would agree except that the science is the same whether you view it as emanating from evolution or from creation. This is what I mean by worldview. Do you draw your conclusions from your belief that evolution is true or that creation is true.”

I think you’re making an assumption that’s fundamentally wrong. You seem to think that ppl start with a worldview and then interpret the evidence they come across to fit that preexisting framework; whereas I think the evidence should, and often does, create the framework. That’s the difference between making your evidence fit your conclusions and drawing your conclusions from your evidence.

Hundreds of years ago, Western civilization was very religious and belief in a young earth and special creation was the status quo. Today, it’s much less so among the general population, and even less than that among scientists. In fact, even the vast majority of scientists who believe in God (and who are, if anything, biased towards creationism) believe in evolution and an old earth. I think that what caused this change in society is that when ppl started discovering science, they found out that the evidence didn’t fit their preconceived beliefs, so their beliefs started to change.

And I think that the biggest threat that science has to offer religion isn’t any particular conclusion about the world (evolution, abiogenesis, an old earth, etc); it’s methodology. The scientific method is a rigid methodology that’s designed to arrive at the most likely conclusions without respect to biases or assumptions. In other words; it starts with the evidence and arrives at the conclusion, rather than the other way around.

 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 11:07 AM on June 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zoetherat
In fact, even the vast majority of scientists who believe in God (and who are, if anything, biased towards creationism) believe in evolution and an old earth.
That's a very important point.

Creationist make the psychogenetic fallacy, saying that we want to disprove their god, and that's our bias. Disregarding the fact that it's naively arrogant, it is obviously not the case when there are so many Christian scientists.



-------
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: 11:49 AM on June 20, 2010 | IP
Zoetherat

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

“You want to remove God from the equation because there is no room for him in your worldview”

I don’t think someone with a consistent, evidence based epistemology can believe in a religion and I think it’s important for this conversation to explain why that is.

We all have evidence of the natural world. So if we base our beliefs on evidence, then we reach the conclusion that the natural world exists. Any supernatural entity requires additional evidence to be included among the things we believe exist. In other words, atheism is the fall back option and the burden of proof is on the ppl making supernatural claims to provide sufficient evidence for those claims. Follow me so far?

So let’s discuss the reasons why religious ppl believe in their religious beliefs. By far, the biggest factors that shape a person’s religious beliefs are what they were raised to believe and what culture they grew up in. And if religious beliefs were based on objective evidence, then this wouldn’t be the case. Religious ppl with confirmation bias sometimes claim they have objective evidence, but it’s usually only convincing to other ppl who share their bias.  

Then there’s subjective evidence, but the problem with that is that every religion, denomination, sect, and cult has that, and many of them are mutually exclusive. And it can just as easily be explained by modern psychology.

And then there are the arguments where you say that the supernatural can explain something (morality, the existence of the universe, etc) that natural phenomena can’t. But saying that God did something is epistemologically no different from saying that magic did it; it can be used to explain absolutely anything, by absolutely anyone, while explaining absolutely nothing. It’s an argument from ignorance rather than being based on positive evidence.

So ultimately, God and religions should be logically rejected due to the fact that there’s not enough evidence to justify having a belief in them.

 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 12:17 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zoetherat
Religious ppl with confirmation bias sometimes claim they have objective evidence, but it’s usually only convincing to other ppl who share their bias.
Yes... Did anyone see Ray Comfort trying to prove God?

His arguments were so childish... And perhaps he came out of that thinking he DID prove god scientifically!

Sunsets are 100% scientific proof there is a magical djin that pushes the Sun down!

Only that when he plays with words a little, it comes out like this:


Creation is 100% proof there was a creator! You cannot have a creation without a creator!

My neurons want to go on strike...

Oh, Zoetherat, i think you'll love this:
The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker

I was working on something like this, and then along comes this guy and says it more clearly (and in a funnier way) than i ever could...



-------
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: 4:33 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.