BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

Mrrzy:
I observed no religious-related content, nor religious discussions in my school years, nor none in my childrens schools.

However, I did observe that the local education system did a poor job of preparing students for science related careers, which I suspect would have an impact on some students considering future careers in science. In biology, information on human evolution was presented, with no related religious discussion.

What seemed puzzling to me in school was how my early grade history classes tended to show a strong western bias (mostly pro British and USA) in history, wars and governing systems- and little to explain the perspectives of the other sides. My recollection is educational materials related to socialism and communism were more akin to propaganda-versus descriptions that stimulated a students thought processes. But, this may have changed since, and, on reflection, may have been influenced by the cold war period when I was in school. Additionally, the material may have mirrored the perspectives of the societies where the books were published, which were mostly not local?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:56 AM

"What seemed puzzling to me in school was how my early grade history classes tended to show a strong western bias (mostly pro British and USA)..."

no need to limit it to lower grades... I never expected much during my first 8 years in St. Joseph's... I often knew more history & definitely science than my teachers.   So it was with great anticipation that entered 9th grade in our public jounior/senior high school and saw that 9th grade history was called World History. I felt like crying when I opened my textbook and discerned that it was world history as seen through western european eyes... it was a crushing blow to learn that it wasn't just my old parochial school with had tunnel vision.

Thankfully, my mom and dad loved books and our home library also contained several TimeLife series that included ancient history and various world cultures.

And this is the crux of the issue here... fundamentalists reject viewpoints that do not wholeheartedly support their own... there never seems to be an honest attempt to consider alternatives or examine various viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

While many (if not most) atheists and agnostics support the science of evolutionary theory, this is NOT a requirement... there are as many or more folks of religous conviction that accept science and scientific method as the valid tools that they are. It is only those who not only do not understand science, and seem to reject any attempt to understand because to do so would jeopardize they cherished beliefs, that are so vocal in their attempts to discredit science, scientific method and the information gained through it.

This has just been one more tired exercise in futility... because you can lead a zeolot to knowledge, but you can't make them learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

guest, just because this particular creationist is not a scientist, does not mean that this is true across the board, though such a notion might be comforting to Darwinist fundamentalists. he does however know that there is a difference between the scientific method, and origins ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM

How many more times...

You can use scientific approaches to your day job, whatever that may be. You can believe in creationism whilst promoting randomised clinical trials of a new lotion for athletes foot, still fine.

But.. Creationist science is an oxymoron. Not through my or anybody else's opinion but because there is no observational phenomena that leads to a creationist hypothesis being a credible explanation.

None.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 02:34 PM

hi joe, me again with my "idiotic" ideas ! "evolution...humbled by the complexity" funny that...sure I,ve been told what a simple idea it is !.
"testy toward bill" ? I,m sure bill knows I am not being disrespectful, though maybe more direct. the claim that the soft tissue in dino bone has been refuted , had not itself been substantiated by bill, nor anyone else, though stu,s post since seems an interesting angle.

seems to me that shimrod is upset because I caught him out in a couple of things.....
there are NO absolutes....but he is not absolutely sure about that !.
he is well versed in science but none of the areas of expertise or interest have a bearing on evolutionism . sounds like an own goal to me. I usually am led to believe that it was vital to science....so I was most sincere in thanking him for the info and insight.

so musket...what is the observational phenomenom that makes evolutionism a credible hypothesis ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:08 PM

well bill, maybe I was kidding.....one reposting of the a. .rgument refuted will do. I rather suspect that your meaning of "refute" is really -commented on -. if that be the case, I am sure thatyou really thought it had been refuted.
leviathan = whale....well maybe, just like a lot of scholars say behemoth [job 40] is a hippopotamus.
maybe believing dinos are myo and therefore soft tissue can last that long, is some sort of fallacy too.
I,m off out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:10 PM

Pete, even in the mostly unlikely case you were to provide good evidence, and convince anyone here, of the flaws you see in what science has shown us about evolution-this in itself does nothing to build onto the creationist theory and the age of the world.

For example, if you were to provide convincing evidence that my dog is not a German Shepherd, it does nothing to add to a potential notion that he must be a Poodle.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM

"what is the observational phenomenom that makes evolutionism a credible hypothesis ?."

if you really want to understand, then I suggest you get rid of the term "evolutionism" which may have been useful in the 1800s but is worthless today. One thing about science... it moves on, based on new information that helps explain observable facts.

If you want to know what is going on today, you need to use the phrase "modern evolutionary synthesis" which is seen as the best explanation of current data.

Things that were unknown in the mid 1800s, such as nuclear decay, plate tectonics, molecular genetics have been merged with new paleontological finds around the globe - among other sources of information- and these widely disperate disciplines have supported the theory of evolution.

Scientific method is asking questions that provide information used to ask better questions. The answers are used to formulate a better understanding of the world/universe. The goal is to increase our overall knowledge and understanding, not to cling to an ignorant past.

If you really believe in an all powerful, all knowing God... why do you then insist that said being is restricted to only what you can "understand". Sounds like the sin of pride to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:30 PM

"he is well versed in science but none of the areas of expertise or interest have a bearing on evolutionism . sounds like an own goal to me."

But you have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, you silly arse!! So, by your reckoning, you're not qualified to take part in the evolution vs creation debate at all!

And if you really wanted to know about evolutionary biology you would read something other than crackpot creationist websites. There's lots and lots of books out there - want us to supply you with a reading list?

And if you didn't understand the subtleties of the no absolutes/not absolutely sure 'joke' - then there's no hope for you.

Oh, and by the way: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:12 PM

When I complained to the publishers of the textbook my kids were being preached to out of (take that, grammar police!) I was informed, well, that's what Virginia wants; we have textbooks that don't preach in our history line but they aren't bought by your schools. I was unable to interest the ACLU in taking on the publishers, and now my twins are out of high school and majeurs so am no longer in charge of their educations.

And there is really no aspect of science that doesn't have a bearing on evolution since evolution underlies the life sciences, it isn't a separate discipline. Take some biology, chemistry, physics, and you can understand evolution. There isn't such a thing as teaching "evolution" but rather such a thing as teaching science, life sciences in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

Thanks science geek.

Saves me calling pete a fucking looney and upsetting Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:38 PM

Einstein had some"opinions" on science and religion. As noted, they are just
Opinions, no better of worse than manybothers and I suspect reflect his upbringing and the times he lived in.

Einstein, Science and Religion  

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:43 PM

> we have textbooks that don't preach in our history line but they aren't bought by your schools.

This comment shows (surprise!) that educational publishers may be more interested in $$$$$ than in education.

Textbooks tailored to heavily fundamentalists states like Texas have been a problem for almost as long as I can remember. They buy so many books that it's can be too costly for some publishers to print anything the locals might object to. (That includes a "liberal" slant on American history.)

Local school boards (made up of local parents and teachers) purchase (and reject) whatever books they wish. If a fundamentalist history book is likely to bring in extra $$$$$, the publishers are happy to provide it. After all, if they don't, their competitors will.

This foolishness essentially disappears at the college level - except for a number of small private colleges that pride themselves on their fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 05:23 PM

It is the government, through the Department of Education, Book Bureau, that selects school books for programs from grades one to 12, where I live.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM

A bit off topic, but, government science has its problems, which especially impacts, to some, degree, the environment.
.


some additional problems impacting science 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:22 AM

I suspect that I know why Pete7* does not concede that he may be wrong. It is because it would, in his opinion, be disloyal and disrespectful to his God- and that could have dangerous consequences.

Years ago, my sis reared her daughter with what I considered short sighted, ignorant mores; she didn't appear to want to consider anything than the fundamentalist viewpoint, no matter what anyone in the family believed.

The poor girl went through a rough time after she became grown and left home, going through drug use and various other experiments.

Guess what- the 'girl' is now about 50 years old and as dogmatic as her mother...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:26 AM

I don't know what the consequences for pete would be if he upset his god but after demonstrating my "Jesus on a rubber cross" in the pub last night, perhaps I should keep a lookout for stray thunderbolts ?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:25 AM

There's an article about the Nigerian, Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram in today's (09.09.2014) Independent newspaper (UK). My attention was caught be the following quote:

" ...Boko Haram, whose name translates colloquially as "Western Education is sin" and which began life in 2002 as a movement to reject concepts such as evolution and the big bang theory ..."

So religious fundamentalists, who reject the findings of modern science, can be very dangerous indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:41 AM

"guest, just because this particular creationist is not a scientist, does not mean that this is true across the board, though such a notion might be comforting to Darwinist fundamentalists. he does however know that there is a difference between the scientific method, and origins ideas."

and here we have a clear example of why pete will never understand science... "Darwinist fundamentalists" are purely a construct of creationists and their propagandists...

"Darwinist fundamentalists" are imaginary people who follow the false prophet and blindly accept his writings... in other words - creationists actually believe that anyone who accepts the validity of evolutionary theory are mere counterpoints of themselves. They can and will not accept the reality that we do not think as they do. We question and question and question... and when we stop questioning is when we stop behaving as scientists. And the questions that we ask are more discerning than earlier questions because we take what we learned from the first questions and applied that to the new ones.

Fundamentalist do not question their own "knowledge"... they restrict their questioning to those that do not share their beliefs. They do not even understand how to craft proper questions. pitiful...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:01 PM

I'll repeat my favorite bumper sticker:

"Don't Believe Everything You Think."

Of course, a creationist will simply say that it applies to evolutionists only.

There's a reason why universities offer courses on logic and argumentation. Cogent reasoning doesn't often come early or naturally.

But if you believe that Reason is the devil's whore, you're not likely to sign up for a course like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:11 PM

Love that bumper sticker. Also I used to like god, protect me from your followers, but then decided not to pretend there were gods to beseech... another good one is god was my copilot until we flew into a mountain and I had to eat him.

Sorry for the thread creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:33 PM

I can't help noticing that pete, as well as being a bit of a gullible, arrogant dork, is a sort of 'digital' person, i.e. he thinks only in 0s and 1s, yes's and no's and black and white.That's probably why he didn't get my 'joke' about absolutes. pete's religion represents, to him, absolute truth; anything which contradicts that truth must be wrong.

I suspect that, deep down, pete is terrified by the complexity of the world/universe - so he tries to simplify the world/universe by adopting fundamentalist religious beliefs and making himself wilfully blind to any of the difficult bits of reality.

Of course much of the world/universe isn't digital. Most sets and classes of things exhibit natural variability. So members of a specified population will display a range of values for a particular parameter or characteristic. For example, all adult men within a specific ethnic group, will display a range of heights but these heights will be clustered around a mean value with exceptionally short and exceptionally tall men in the 'tails' of the distribution. This is a statistical concept and statistical thinking is central to many areas of science - including evolutionary biology. It's not difficult to see that when a species is subjected to changes to its environment, such changes may tend to select sub-populations in a tail of a distribution and the mean will tend to shift in the direction of that tail. Such changes, accumulating over long periods of time, will mean that one species may change into a new species.

Have you ever studied statistics, pete? Silly me! Of course you've never studied statistics - you've only ever studied the pages of www.redneckcreation.com - haven't you? For the record, I spent most of my working life making measurements and analysing the data statistically - that's one thing that qualifies me to compare the claims of the science of evolutionary biology with the pathetic pseudoscience of 'creationism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

GUEST,sciencegeek - PM
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:41 AM

he said it well.

I will say this ONCE... if no one has anything to contribute beyond petty pot-shots at Pete and his motives & intelligence, I will ask for this thread to be closed!
I wanted a place to debate the issues... not the psychology & character of anyone.

I have made many attempts to clarify the importance of new discoveries in various areas of science, while at the same time seeking to show the logical & scientific flaws in various of Pete's claims and analysis.

This thread is supposed to be about those ISSUES, not a a vehicle for snarky insults!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Pete... I asked once if you would consider becoming a member so some comparison of views could go on without the knee-jerk personal remarks... it's not a big deal, but I don't think you've ever said why you don't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:31 PM

Just wondering:
Does this thread have a purpose in being open any more, beyond the "manly sport" of heaving personal attacks at Pete 7*s?

IMO, that's about as interesting as watching someone kick their pet dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:32 PM

Check this idea out: evolution is not to be believed or disbelieved, but either understood or not.
Why you should stop "believing" in evolution.

From slate.com, always a great place.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:44 PM

Well pete has become a bit of a target because he's the only one, on here, pushing full strength, undiluted creationism. You argue with him, you argue with full strength, undiluted creationism. And with his one-track, bloody-minded, wilfully blind stubborness he doesn't do himself any favours!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

""Well pete has become a bit of a target because he's the only one""

Well, yes. But, it kinda reminds me of a heavily lopsided football game, with not many interested watching- only a few players idly kicking a ball about. At some stage, is it not reasonable to ask the question-"whats the point in that"?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 03:23 PM

Problem solved. From wiki-proof alone that the world is older than some speculate:

""The world's oldest known dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm Germany.""

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:17 PM

I guess I have no particular reason not to be a member, bill, but though it might be in some ways advantageous to have a one to one , and thereby bypass all the badmouthing and vulgarity, those same offenders do their own case no favours, but rather demonstrate the poverty of their argument. that leaves you and I, and a couple of others debating in a civil manner. anyone else looking in can form their own conclusions, and as neither you nor I look to be bending in belief , private debate would only be on my radar if I had the time to tackle private and thread.
shimrod flatters himself. I got the joke, but the joke is on him, as either there are absolutes or there aint...I think it is known as a self refuting argument.
he also makes completely unwarranted comparison of Christian creation belief with violent islamists. if you want to go down that road again we can talk about atheist democide also.
sciencegeek.....what you posted may sound convincing , but only if what you assert can be verified. essentially, you are making the same argument as bill, and others, that all the scientific disciplines converge on, and support evolutionism [ that term is accurate enough for me , and I am not about to let you tell me the terms of discussion], but again, as I said to bill,....an argument from authority/ numbers[or variation thereof] really you are expecting us to just believe, that if we do just enough evolutionary reading we would all be evolutionists. the corollary of this, is that you are not able to produce much, if anything specific to evidence your position.....or maybe anything that creationists would grasp !
we on the other hand do deal in specifics, and I am happy to let anyone unbiased decide on explanations of the data.
mrrzy...I read the link...the usual equating of observable , testable science with unobservable ,unproven Darwinist belief.
ed...if you got an Alsatian, I got no interest in claiming its a poodle. in fact we could debate whether its one of scores of breeds..
origins, best I can tell, are a choice of 3, or variation thereof-
steady state
evolutionary
creation
does anyone still follow the first?
that essentially leaves the two options. I fully recognize that there is the faith factor in creation, though, I believe more in accord with observational science. my aim is to dent the faith of evolutionists, and inform those who accept it blindly of the evidence against it. thankfully, though being a scientist would be a great benefit, some of the more simple arguments are useful too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:23 PM

Shimrod!!

"You argue with him, you argue with full strength, undiluted creationism. "

So bloody what? That IS the issue! If he were just sort of vaguely unsure, we'd probably have won him over by now.

Unquestioning youngEarth creationism IS an issue. Pete presents it because of a deep conviction, and we (at least several of us) try to counter his explanations because we accept the evidence & logic of science!

It is not **relevant** to turn the entire discussion to calling him insulting names and implying his beliefs 'insult' YOU.
If you cannot refrain from remarks like "wilfully blind stubborness", you don't do yourself any favors.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:28 PM

sigh...

the human lifespan is simply not long enough to conduct "experiments in evolution". BUT we do have other observations which support the theory of evolution.

this is not faith, this is observation, study and peer review. once again, there is no faith of evolutionists. nada

please be respectful enough to accept that

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:47 PM

Ok, Pete..(you beat me by a few minutes).

I will see how it goes, but even if you are willing and have the fortitude to ignore most of the abuse, I may not be willing to see the discussion diluted by their digressions.

More a bit later.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:22 PM

Where is there "unobservable darwinist belief" in that article? isn't darwinism by definition science-based?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:46 PM

yeh bill, I understand where you are coming from. but if you get the thread closed, I predict someone will raise the subject again, such is the thinly disguised animosity to people with Christian faith...esp those termed fundamentalist because they believe the bible.
respect goes both ways, sciencegeek. true you are qualified and I am not, but as you know, not every scientist is an evolutionist either, and such are routinely dissed by evolutionists.
and since you see fit to preach at me on post 8/9/14 3;14, I shall return the compliment. it is not pride to accept the teaching believed to be Gods word, whatever faults I might otherwise have. pride, rather is shown by those who rebel against God, refusing to believe both biblical revelation, and the witness of creation.
....so , what are these observations that support evolution[ism] ?.
and they must support the microbes to man sort of evolution, and therefore going beyond the creation science model, to be convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 06:10 PM

"shimrod flatters himself. I got the joke, but the joke is on him, as either there are absolutes or there aint.."

Oh digital pete! 0s and 1s, yes's and no's, black and white?

"It is not **relevant** to turn the entire discussion to calling him insulting names and implying his beliefs 'insult' YOU."

But he DID insult me. I asked him a simple question and he refused to answer it and then, rather irrelevantly asked me about my scientific background. I politely complied with his request and he then proceeded to belittle my experience and career by insisting that they did not entitle me to have an opinion on evolutionary biology. I considered this to be a bit rich coming from a man with no scientific background whatsoever! He continually dreams up arbitrary rules which only appear to apply to his opponents and not to him. When one of his opponents transgresses one of his made-up rules he jumps up and down claiming some sort of great victory.

I've been debating with him for a couple of years now, and I've tried to be as polite as possible but I'm getting heartily fed up with his appalling lack of logic, his fatuous tricks and his sneaky, underhand subterfuges when on the ropes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 06:12 PM

Pete, my above question was directed to you...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 08:43 PM

"I asked him a simple question and he refused to answer it ..,"

It was only a "simple question" in the phrasing. It was NOT a simple question to answer.

""Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?""

He did not suggest that YOU should believe it..(though he'd probably be delighted if you did)... he said HE believes it. The short answer is that he believes it because he believes it. That, of course, is not a very good answer, but it is the position held by millions of Christians... and of course, there are similar positions held by Muslims, Astrologers, racists.. and superstitious people all over the world.
   The long answer is a complex description of how he came to his belief, what he hears from those who share his beliefs and his understanding of the place of logic & evidence and how to recognize & evaluate each. I have been debating these things with Pete for several years.

You... and several others... fail to note that Pete is quite a rare bird. He takes the time to TRY to face the combined might of several learned of us who disagree with his basic concepts and definitions and, to us, odd conclusions. I enjoy... well, am fascinated by, the insight into how fundamentalist creationist/YEC positions are defended.
   I do NOT feel 'insulted' by having my position(s) misunderstood and denied. I feel frustrated and vaguely 'worried' about how the human mind can work in order to follow such amazingly awkward tracks. Pete is no threat to me, and if I understand the trends in the UK, no threat to any of you either.



I am reminded of one of my 5 or 6 all time favorite Peanuts cartoons...(this can apply to either side of an argument, but here it seems similar to the idea that yelling at Pete will help)

Lucy is standing in front of Charlie Brown, demanding..."Change your mind!"

Charlie Brown looks startled.

2nd panel..louder.."Change your MIND!"

Charlie Brown looks upset..

3rd panel..screaming"CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!"

4th panel..Lucy, walking away muttering.."I wonder why it's so hard to get people to change their minds these days."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 09:59 PM

I found this linked article interesting, on why people establish illogical beliefs and why they continue to hold onto them, even when faced with significant evidence that such beliefs are not based on logic.

Below is one interesting statement I cut out:

""We need to be clear that the overall purpose of understanding the drivers of beliefs in pseudoscience or alternative beliefs is not to ridicule, but to understand.The "Ha ha ha, aren't you dumb" approach, common among some sceptics and critical thinkers, wins few arguments. It might feel easy to triumphantly declare one way of looking at the world is superior to another, but fail to note that some people get enormous purpose and meaning from the way they do.""

Why clever people believe in silly things 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:43 AM

Thumbs up on that one, Ed - but then, I give a "thumbs up" to almost everything you say.

We don't win people over by defeating them in rational combat. We win them over by drawing them in, respecting them while slowly presenting our own point of view.

Not that I think we'll ever convert Pete - and that's OK with me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:28 PM

mrrzy, what evolutionists do , is bait and switch. they point to observations of changes in organisms, and extrapolate from that, that microbes became man, even though that can not be observed. of course, they say that other scientific areas support the theory, but just about any data can be alternately interpreted. even Darwin conceded his own observations were open to other interpretation. sciencegeek observed that human life was not long enough to do experiments in evolution [well, origins science and observational science are not exactly the same !], however observations have been made on fast reproducing organisms, such as flys, but however much change is observed the fly is still the fly.

methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution.
like I sais.....own goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:39 PM

Despite the title, there is nothing special about this thread. It is merely one more series of postings by members and guests who are unable to actually create a discussion or dialog because of entrenched positions and an unwillingness to make an honest effort to understand the actual issues.

Before you can engage in meaningful dialog, you need to set the ground rules… and then try to stick to them. Think of peace talks… to even get to table there is usually a list of demands/requirements that need to be met before anyone agrees to show up.

Trust vs Faith - this is where I suspect our inability to discuss the issue of evolutionary theory in relation to faith and/or revelation dogma. Religion requires faith and science requires objective observation and trust in those who use the tool of scientific method to do so properly. That's why science relies upon peer review and the ability to replicate observations. Science relies upon trust in the process. There is no other way to build upon a body of work without the need to replicate centuries of prior work. And when an observation does not agree with what was previously learned or thought, then that's when more work is done to explain the discrepancy – either as an error or a special case that better explains the facts.   So faith and trust are not the same… faith is internal belief and can resist outside influences. Trust must be supported… if trust is betrayed, trust is lost. Trust is maintained by verification… I don't need faith to accept that 2 plus 2 equals 4… it's an equation that I can replicate for myself. I have taken college courses that deal with chemistry and physics. I know there is more than one form of carbon and that carbon 14 is radioactive and can used to determine the age of organic samples as old as 50 thousand years.   Using uranium decay we can age rocks from the earth and the moon in the range of 3 billion years. This is trust, not faith.

People of faith take from their dogma the facets that they select… facets that fit their personality. They take for themselves what them want or need to believe.   How else to explain how a single book(s) such as the Christian bible or the Islamic Koran can be used by both rational moderates and extremist zealots to support their viewpoints.    Can you really have it both ways? Which is truth and which is heresy?

Throughout this and other thread on science and religion, there has been a pervasive refusal by those supporting the creationist viewpoint to accept the assertion that science does not rely on faith. This includes Pete because he is the one posting on this thread and who keeps coming back to phrases that imply that anyone who accepts evolutionary theory as clinging to faith or belief.

I regret that Pete is like those door to door evangelists… who come to "save" you whether you need it or not.   They listen only closely enough to formulate a response that is designed to put their viewpoint as the correct one and really make no effort to understand, much less accept, what you may tell them. They parrot back to you what they have been told are legitimate arguments. You can not hold a discussion with a parrot any more than you can converse with a wall.

Pete, I am sorry that you find it so upsetting; but the world is far older than 6 thousand years and it has been billion or so years since the earliest discovered lifeforms arose. And no... we do not have all the answers, but we do have enough to support evolutionary theory and nothing at all to support the garden of Eden.

Harking back to my reference to peace talks… world peace is as likely as an actual discourse on this thread. Mores the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:46 PM

"Refusing to believe god's word" isn't pride, its simple, rational common sense.

Why do you keep insulting people pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:56 PM

I read that rather long link, ed.
highly educated tend to accept evolution....well they would, if they are not told how it don't stack up....
the more intelligent are more likely to suffer "backfire"....
and quite a few of them here playing the "scare card"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:01 PM

"...extrapolate from that, that microbes became man, even though that can not be observed"

Oh, sure it can... all that is required is a 4 billion year life span.

If there is a God, HE observed it as He watched His creation develop. I do wish he'd drop in and clear all that up. Our ancestors 2000-4000 years ago were a bit confused with how they copied down the instructions.

( and yes... Ed T is usually right on the mark.. as is Lighter)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:07 PM

No- nothing special about the link, as it is kinda common sense to me.

Unfortunately, common sense seems not that common at times, especially when people have entrenched positions, or feel they have (infallible) superior ideas and mostly put others down - those who merely see things differently, for one reason or another. Interesting and productive debate works best with tolerence and respect (as Bill D does). But, some see it differently and feel compelled to act in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:15 PM

Well said, Geek.

Except for the part about the Christian bible being a single book. It is a collection of books by a number of authors. And I believe you mean the "Judaeo-Christian" bible, since the New Testament is an organic outgrowth of the old. It couldn't have come into existence without it.

(There is some disagreement about the relevance of a few established books deleted by the Council of Nicaea - after a couple of centuries of equal status. But they still appear in most bibles as the Apocrypha.)

And then there's the Book of Mormon, a very popular outgrowth of the New Testament. Whether Mormons are "really" Christians is another focus of debate - by those who love labels above all. (I have also heard the "Christianity" of Catholics impugned.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:45 PM

well, Lighter, I settled for book(s) because I didn't want to go too deeply down that road... I also left out the Talmoud or eastern religions... too much like a tar baby...   also a bit distracting from the point.

I once had the dubious pleasure of meeting a couple at a friend's house who got quite exicited when I mentioned a local group of performers who called themselves Orion's Belt. At first I thought they were pulling my leg, but they actually believed that humans were galactic refugees from somewhere in Orion's Belt and somehow contact was being kept through crystals... the details of their tale are fuzzy but the feeling of shock and disbelief on my part are with me still. I did manage to remain politely quiet - though I'm sure my body language would have given me away eventually.   

By my fifth year in parochial school - 8 total- I had looked closely at belief systems that rely on faith and determined that I am not a person of faith. Faith really does not make sense to me. I know enough people of faith... many different faiths at that... to accept that there are those who value or need their faith. But I see nothing in the various dogmas out there to see how one is right and all the others wrong. The best we can hope for is to be able to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:21 PM

true bill, you would need an awful long time to observe microbe to mudcatter evolution, but the best we got, is a few human generations that can observe multiple generations of fast reproducing organisms.
as the desired effect has not been achieved, I presume evolutionists need more human generations, or ultra fast reproducers.
as a highly skilled scientist, sciencegeek, I assume you can tell me if the dating techniques know the starting conditions/amounts, whether they can be certain of the rate over the unobserved ages, whether you can be sure that nothing added or subtracted/escaped over those ages in a test sample.
in the mean time, I take the view that , if rocks of known age have been wildly incorrect, why should I trust any other reading.
yes, I should like to see you all "saved" ,but remember, it is not me starting these threads , and I am not planning on letting you have an agreefest!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:46 PM

Pete... you are free to prattle on, but please do not insult me with "offers" to dispute your points. You are not listening and have no intention of listening. Your own words give us your true intentions... which are to throw whatever monkey wrench or distractions you can into what might otherwise become a productive discourse (however unlikely).

"yes, I should like to see you all "saved" ,but remember, it is not me starting these threads , and I am not planning on letting you have an agreefest!."

"Agree fest?!?" Are you so insecure that the very thought of a civil discussion of "heresy" compels you to take up the gauntlet against those who disagree with you? Might not prayer ( if not action) for world peace be a better use of your religious convictions?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:18 PM

"..., if rocks translations of known age scripture have been wildly incorrect, why should I trust any other particular reading?"

It does work both ways,Pete... and dating rocks is more accurate than translating many old manuscripts.... not to mention the wildly different interpretations OF the many translations.