Evolution or Creation? [Archive] - Thoughts.com Forums

Skepticus

11-27-2007, 07:09 AM

Do you believe we all evolved from African races or do you believe in the creation theory?

Why would you care about what anybody believes? Believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing.

Personally evolution does not really exist in my mind.

So, I take it you have a closed mind? Are you saying you have never even considered it hypothetically even? Or, perhaps you are saying your mind has never evolved. Here's a tip... When you venture forth a statement about your beliefs, it is far more helpful and interesting I find, if you include some reasoning about them, that provides your reader with a few clues about how you came about your convictions. Still, it is good that you are willing to talk about them. ;)

I follow the creation theory which says we were all created by God, in different races.

How much paleoanthropology have you studied then? can I take it you have done a careful comparative study on the relative merit of both ideas?:rolleyes:

Would there even be any point? I have found that people who vest any credibility in creationism, simply don't have any concept of reasoning or critical thinking anyhow. I don't know why you would posit your beliefs without any evidence or reasoning to lend credibility to them. You might as well have declared that you are the tooth fairy. It would have seemed more plausible. :D

I myself, am very interested in the truth and the way nature works. The more I study it, the more I find there are reasons for why things happen to be the way they are. Learning the reason for one thing helps us generalize and learn new things, that have similar reasons. In nature there happens to be a massive interlocking pattern of cause and effect relationships. The conclusion that Homo Sapiens had a recent common ancestor in Africa, may be a moot point, but the conclusion that we evolved from a common ancestor with every other living creature in the animal kingdom, is one that is unavoidable to anybody who understands cause and effect relationships, is willing to examine the evidence and is capable of reasoning.

I'd love to meet the creationist, who can demonstrate a grasp of rational, evidence based reasoning, who understands the massive mountains of cross correlating, interdependent evidence, supporting biological evolution, and using Ockham's Razor, who can explain on those grounds, why he or she finds the puerile, ignorant bronze age, creation myth more convincing.

I might as well ask to meet the tooth fairy instead.:D

The fact that I happen to believe that biological evolution, is an undeniable fact of nature, is in itself a banal, uninteresting, irrelevant point. What you should be interested in is why I believe it. Likewise I can not see why, anybody would be interested in the fact that you actually do believe in a creator God. What is far more interesting is Why.

I have a habit of assuming that people have reasons for whatever things they believe. I wonder. Do you understand why I place reason before belief?

Skepticus

11-27-2007, 09:41 AM

Hi There

I believe that how we got here is not that important and really it always turns into a dicussion of opinions.

I feel that understanding the origin of the life, the universe and the intelligence within it, is the highest and noblest cause we can pursue. Nature is a unfathomably awesome. It contains mysteries far stranger than any man made fiction.

Just contemplating that nature gave rise to something which is capable of contemplating it and asking why we are here, sends shivers up my spine.

Like many animals, we eat breathe sleep and shit, but without the awesome power of higher intelligence, we would not be able comprehend the exquisite intricacy and mind boggling magnitude of natures mysteries. How can we not revel in the resplendid beauty, deadly power and infinitesimally intricate wonders of nature?

The following passage from Richard Dawkins, has been known to bring a tear to my eye:

When you look at the great galaxy in Andromeda you are seeing it as it was 2.3 million years ago and Australopithecus stalked the African savannah. You are looking back in time. Shift your gaze a few degrees to the nearest bright star in the constellation of Andromeda and you are seeing Mirach, but much more recently, as it was when Wall Street crashed. The sun, when you see it, is only eight minutes ago. But look through a large telescope at the sombrero Galaxy and you are seeing a trillion suns as they were when your tailed ancestors peered shyly through the canopy and India collided with Asia to raise the Himalayas. A collision on a larger scale, between two galaxies in Stephan's Quintet, is shown to us at a time when on Earth dinosaurs were dawning and the trilobites fresh dead.

It would be easy for anybody, who was ignorant of how sure knowledge about nature is achieved, to simply declare that any of our understandings are just matters of opinion. The earth rotating about its axis or the sun rotating about the earth might just be two different opinions then. If I asked you, is there a car parked on you roof, I expect you would tell me there is not. It's a mundane question, with a straight yes no answer. You would be unwilling I expect, to enter into a debate about the absence (or presence) of a car on your roof as a matter of opinion. You may well be of the opinion that there is no car parked on you roof, but surely even you would regard you opinion as being based on the certain fact that you know there is no car on your roof.

You know there is no car parked on your roof. The computer manufacturers know why computers behave in the predictable ways they do. I mean, they don't throw parts into a box, hoping that every now and then they will get one that works. No the science of electronic principals is very exact. It is based on sure knowledge about the nature and behavior of the electron. Likewise astronomers (and almost everybody else for that matter), know that the Earth revolves around it's own axis, even though it looks like the sun is traveling around us. Now, whether you like it or not, biological evolution is mater of fact, that is no more speculative than knowledge about electronics, astronomy, or the absence of a car on your roof.

I have to assume from your remark, that you have very little understanding of biology and evolution. So instead of realizing that you are in no position to know if you are spouting nonsense, you just stick you neck out and offer up the benefit of your ignorance. It is an insult Paul, to contradict the people who have studied, learned and know better than you.

It seems to me the important question should be what are we going to do now that were are here.

I can't think of a greater thing to do now that we are here, than to investigate why we are here. In fact why is the universe here, Why is there anything rather than nothing. Life could certainly be meaningless, if it were not for the quest to understand the natural order in which we find our selves Immersed.

Forgetmeknot

11-27-2007, 10:24 AM

Well skepticus, I do have my own opinion, thoughts, and beliefs. You obviously differ with yours, which is what makes us all different and our own people. But some of us, just believe...we don't need proof or any of that, we just do it because it is what we grew up around and what we feel inside. That's all I'm saying.

Skepticus

11-27-2007, 06:07 PM

Thanks skepticus we need you ..to educate us poor ignorant folk..

Hi Wayne

You don't need me. You obviously have a computer connected to the internet. Now, if you can type something into a search engine, you're all set.

Try Googling something like Ockham's Razor (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=2Ag&q=Ockham%27s+Razor&btnG=Search&meta=)

jmadtownweb

11-27-2007, 10:49 PM

So, your telling us that we assume to much? Am I right?

shawnbslee

11-28-2007, 12:10 AM

I think we all have reasons to be skeptical of skepticus!! However scientists find evidence every year of continued evolution of cerain species so I can't see how ANYONE can not lend some credence to evolution!!

Skepticus

11-28-2007, 02:25 AM

Hi Forgetmeknot

Well skepticus, I do have my own opinion, thoughts, and beliefs. You obviously differ with yours, which is what makes us all different and our own people.

We can all have our beliefs and opinions without necessarily submitting to beliefs that are demonstrably false. There are a great many ideas in this world, which deserve doubt or speculation. Yet there are many others which are far from speculative. It is which ideas we doubt, and which ones we believe uncritically, that makes all the difference. If you wanted to just believe something to set you apart or make you an individual, I wouldn't have chosen the Christian creation myth. :confused:

Wanting to be unique individuals, does not prevent us from trying to understand the world around us, and trying to reach agreement about what is or isn't true.

But some of us, just believe...

And therein lies a tricky problem. If some folk insist that believing without reason has any merit in it, while others regard critical thinking as a necessary step to finding the truth in the real world, outside of our heads, how do we reach agreement?

Faith or unreasoned belief, is anathema to reaching agreement with others or with evidence from the real world. It should come as no surprise, that people who believe without reason, do not arrive at conclusions that are consistent with reality. This is called having a closed mind. It is also called getting the facts wrong.

It is closed minded, because people who do it, simply refuse to consider (even for their own benefit), the possibility that what they believe is not true in the factual sense. They have closed their mind to the alternatives.

Take any statement of plain fact; For instance: "There is a car parked on my roof" Now this statement either is true or it isn't true. It can't logically both be true and false. To develop a belief about this statement I must keep an open mind to both possibilities. Moreover, it is not what I believe about this statement, that makes it likely to be either true or false, it is what reason I have to believe it and what evidence there is to support it.

...we don't need proof or any of that, we just do it because it is what we grew up around and what we feel inside. That's all I'm saying.

It may be my mistake to assume, that people generally want to establish beliefs, which are true in some larger sense, outside of their own heads. I don't need proof to believe many of the things I do either, but I do need some reason, otherwise how might my beliefs be different from a delusion?

I would also suggest Forgetmeknot, that you too require reason, to believe more mundane claims in the everyday sense. If I were to claim that there is a car parked on your roof, I wouldn't expect you to just believe my claim uncritically. I can provide no evidence to support my claim, and you have no reason to believe it. Based on a priori induction and standing evidence, you actually have very good reason to disbelieve it. Probably, there is no easy way to get a car onto your roof... no big metal ramps (I assume for the sake of debate, you do not live in a house dug into the side of a hill etc...). You weren't awoken last night to the sound of a noisy crane, clattering chains and a thump on the roof were you?

You see, you don't even have to go outside and prove conclusively, that there is or isn't car parked on your roof. You will very likely have established a very accurate estimate of how likely this claim is, from the comfort of your chair.

I like what Sam Harris has to say about this:

Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

If you spun the same yarn to me (about there being a car parked on my roof) and I believed you uncritically, I wouldn't blame you for considering me very gullible.

What I have sill yet to discover, is why you would want to start a discussion about religion, and not only that, contradict the popular mainstream paleoanthropological theory, as if your creation myth were even a remotely comparable idea. You obviously understand that they are mutually exclusive ideas, because you pitch them as alternatives, but then you are at a loss to actually discuss the relative merits of each idea, because as you confess, "some of us just believe". What is the point of raising an unfounded, baseless, superstitious belief, particularly in comparison to well founded, highly credible, scientific knowledge, if all you can say about it, is "I just believe this because I do"?

I actually think there are reasons why you believe the things you do. Few people just believe something because a notion just popped into their head. As I have said, your creationist beliefs are not original and they are not helping you to stand out as an individual. Free thinkers don't just regurgitate the same baseless dogma, that is believed by millions of other people in their local culture. You gave yourself away with the line "we just do it..." [your creationist belief] "...because it is what we grew up around". BINGO!!! Have you ever given some careful thought to that Forgetmeknot?

If there is supposed to be one true loving God, why do so many people have so many different religious beliefs? Why is a child born in China, so much more likely to become a Buddhist than a Bahi? Why is a child born in Istanbul, so much more likely to become a Muslim than Hindu? Why then, if the child is born and raised in England, Australia or America, are they so much more likely to become a Christian than any other of these beliefs? The answer to this in short, is that they are all culturally induced myths. They are man made stories that are different in different parts of the world. Raising a child to believe any of them is called religious indoctrination. You believe what you do, because it is pervasive in our culture and perhaps your parents, teachers and friends were inclined to believe the same thing. You were also quite likely told it was true by ministers and Sunday school teachers. That I believe, is the 'reason' why you believe what you do.

Notice now, how this so called 'reason', has nothing to do with what might actually be true about the real world. Christianity depends for its survival upon an endless cycle of indoctrination, it gets people before they have developed any critical thinking skills. It teaches people to believe things without reason and stifles curiosity about the natural world. It also resorts to emotional blackmail (hellfire and brimstone), self loathing and dependence (the original sin), as well as cheating and displaced redemption (the atonement). Don't even get me started on the fundamentalist variety, young earth creationism, creation 'science' or ID theory.

So much for what you do believe, how about what you declare you don't believe? So far, I have seen no evidence that gives you grounds to doubt the central tenets of paleoanthropology. To believe it though, somewhat requires that you understand it. The reason I suspect that you deliberately mention it and then summarily toss it out the window, is because it contradicts the creation myth you do believe. Is this really a fair assessment of competing ideas? Using your criterion of believing what you were indoctrinated to believe, then it wouldn't matter how much evidence it has going for it.

If instead of being indoctrinated to believe in the Christian Eve, you were indoctrinated to believe in African Eve, you would have presumably been willing to go along with this instead. Fortunately, nobody (I hope) would attempt to teach a tenet of science this way. Facts about the natural world do not require indoctrination, we can simply seek the evidence and let them speak for themselves. To actually consider the out of Africa theory in all fairness, you would have to get up to speed with a lot of the associated science, read up on the theory itself and you would also need to develop some critical thinking skills.

As you probably fall short of these prerequisites, it would be fair to assume that you have never even given the idea any consideration in the first place. So what then, can it mean, to say you don't believe it? It means nothing. It is irrelevant. What we do or don't believe about any idea, is irrelevant if we don't know anything about it.

Consequently, it seems that you have uncritically swallowed a bronze age cultural myth, because you were indoctrinated as a child. You repudiated a popular modern tenet of paleoanthropology which you don't know the first thing about, because it contradicts the bronze age myth. You wanted to have a conversation about religion but can't justify your beliefs with anything resembling a rational reason and you have a funny 'feeling inside', which might be all the pepperoni you ate last night. I don't much care about what loopy delusions are floating around in your head, I only hope if you have children, you don't poison their minds by passing the nonsense on.

I hope you get well soon :rolleyes:

Skepticus

11-28-2007, 02:39 AM

I think we all have reasons to be skeptical of skepticus!!

What's that supposed to mean?

jmadtownweb

11-28-2007, 07:37 AM

Consequently, it seems that you have uncritically swallowed a bronze age cultural myth, because you were indoctrinated as a child. You repudiated a popular modern tenet of paleoanthropology which you don't know the first thing about, because it contradicts the bronze age myth. You wanted to have a conversation about religion but can't justify your beliefs with anything resembling a rational reason and you have a funny 'feeling inside', which might be all the pepperoni you ate last night. I don't much care about what loopy delusions are floating around in your head, I only hope if you have children, you don't poison their minds by passing the nonsense on.

Great speech and everything Skepticus, but what your saying is everyone who is religious is, loopy, close minded, and will potentially "poison" their childrens mind. I am not going to say anything, or rebuttle because you already made up your mind...I'm just going to end this saying you probably wasted your time with that post..why even come back in here if your mind is already made up...Sorry I blew up.

scotslad60

11-28-2007, 09:37 AM

Google it?? So if its on google it MUST be true then!??

If its in the bible it MUST be true then?

If its in (enter title) book/ program/ thesis/ TV show/ News broadcast/ National enquirer, it MUST be true then??

Gimme a break!!

Verbosity reflects only a desperate attempt at convincing others of an arguement that oneself is not fully convinced of. In other words, Skepticus, if you can't say it in a couple of lines, you've still got a lot of "googling" to do!

Good luck!

Skepticus

11-28-2007, 12:23 PM

If its in (enter title) book/ program/ thesis/ TV show/ News broadcast/ National enquirer, it MUST be true then??

Gimme a break!!

OK then here's your break.

Learn to make comparisons and use a little common sense. There's lots of bullshit out there but it's not that hard to weed it out.

A good explanation should make sense in such a way, that the truth of value it, is self evident, or it should at least, be verifiable with other evidence...

aaah... Forget it. Perhaps you do need to be spoon fed after all. :mad:

Verbosity reflects only a desperate attempt at convincing others of an arguement that oneself... Blither.. Blither.. Blither.

Now you are just arguing sophist, cods wallop. I am usually extremely verbose, regardless of what I am writing. I have an attention disorder and suffer-from / enjoy perciveration. Other times, I leave things unfi...

Forgetmeknot

11-28-2007, 01:39 PM

There is A LOT of bullshit out there, and I think if you surf through these 3 pages you'll see A LOT of it.............

Now like I was saying, some of us believe because we believe. It's called faith, if you have none that's your opinion, do not waste your time lecturing me on why you think my opinions and beliefs are false, because in case you missed that part they are MY beliefs and opinions, I am not forcing them on others like you're attempting to do with me!

shawnbslee

11-29-2007, 12:02 AM

Since we are talking Evolution Vs. Creationism, can anyone here prove that God exists and that Bible is true? Just Curious.....

Goldy

11-29-2007, 03:42 AM

Since we are talking Evolution Vs. Creationism, can anyone here prove that God exists and that Bible is true? Just Curious.....

Any good Creationist will tell you that the proof of God's existence is your own existence!

The reason pandas exist today is because Noah had room for them on the Ark (it was a part of the plan all along to use them to discredit the theory of evolution) and it's a shame you have an inquiring mind because somewhere near Gomorah, someone's auntie was turned to a pilar of salt for that weakness. If you are lucky, you will come across a bush that will spontaneously burst into flames and then a voice will tell you what you need to know. Until then, watch for falling manna.

scotslad60

11-29-2007, 11:26 AM

ALL proof is what the individual percieves to be truth for them. Nothing else. No matter what the would-be intellectuals and scientists would try to make you believe!

Evolution or Creation? Whichever one you believe is the truth for YOU!

scotslad60

11-29-2007, 11:28 AM

OK then here's your break.
Learn to make comparisons and use a little common sense. There's lots of bullshit out there but it's not that hard to weed it out.

A good explanation should make sense in such a way, that the truth of value it, is self evident, or it should at least, be verifiable with other evidence...

aaah... Forget it. Perhaps you do need to be spoon fed after all. :mad:

Now you are just arguing sophist, cods wallop. I am usually extremely verbose, regardless of what I am writing. I have an attention disorder and suffer-from / enjoy perciveration. Other times, I leave things unfi...

A good explanation should be clear in a minimum of words. A lengthy explanation doesnt do that. Verbosity is not a clear way of offering an explanation.

Btw, I dont need to be spoon fed at all, tyvm.

Forgetmeknot

11-29-2007, 02:45 PM

I agree with scotslad, what we believe is what we believe, end of story.

shawnbslee

11-29-2007, 06:48 PM

Any good Creationist will tell you that the proof of God's existence is your own existence!

The reason pandas exist today is because Noah had room for them on the Ark (it was a part of the plan all along to use them to discredit the theory of evolution) and it's a shame you have an inquiring mind because somewhere near Gomorah, someone's auntie was turned to a pilar of salt for that weakness. If you are lucky, you will come across a bush that will spontaneously burst into flames and then a voice will tell you what you need to know. Until then, watch for falling manna.

I don't need a burning bush, and it is human nature to be inquisitive, I just asked a simple question.....btw my salvation is already assured tyvm.

Forgetmeknot

11-29-2007, 07:45 PM

Good for you shawn, it's nice to have people who know where they are headed.

wombatxxmd

11-29-2007, 08:54 PM

I was brought up by a Baptist mom and attended bible study for many years but I was never convinced by it, and I started shifting my faith towards secular humanism and science. Evolution a very factual THEROY (meaning that it is real, not a myth) supported by many facts etc. I have many doubts about Noah’s arch but I do not wish to talk about them on this board afraid for getting flamed. Anyways, evolution is the only thing that seems correct, NOT guided by a higher figure.

shawnbslee

11-29-2007, 09:10 PM

Skepticus

12-01-2007, 10:03 AM

Perhaps the two are inextricably linked and we are wasting our time trying to keep them separate. After all it is possible that a higher power is controlling (and has been) the evolution of his creation.

Supernatural entities such as your God are superfluous in evolution. What is seen to happen is predicted by natural selection. No guiding force or divine hand needed.

scotslad60

12-01-2007, 10:30 AM

Supernatural entities such as your God are superfluous in evolution. What is seen to happen is predicted by natural selection. No guiding force or divine hand needed.

So if its all scientific and everything is meant to be Skepticus then that means every post you have made here is not a product of your free will, your mind, your individual intelligence but only an automated response from your programming??

shawnbslee

12-01-2007, 11:51 AM

Godd point scot, I guess my point is that the world and it's inhabitants are constantly changing, (or evolving), therefore to me it makes sense. Technically there is more evidence to support Evolution than there is to support Creationism, so I people who hard facts to believe something can make a valid argument.

Forgetmeknot

12-01-2007, 12:48 PM

............ Evolution a very factual THEROY (meaning that it is real, not a myth) supported by many facts etc. I have many doubts about Noah’s arch but I do not wish to talk about them on this board afraid for getting flamed. Anyways, evolution is the only thing that seems correct, NOT guided by a higher figure.

The two words 'factual theory' actually do not go together. Facts are proven, HOWEVER theories can be proven OR disproven. They are not firm, and can be changed. Theories are supposition.

Just because something is supported by facts does not mean it is ENTIRELY true. Evolution may be the only thing that seems correct to you, but to others it might not be as correct as it is to you.

Skepticus

12-01-2007, 05:57 PM

So if its all scientific and everything is meant to be Skepticus then that means every post you have made here is not a product of your free will, your mind, your individual intelligence but only an automated response from your programming??

Are you claiming that, because natural selection is a scientific theory, that it is void of freewill?

Do understand natural selection scotslad60?

scotslad60

12-01-2007, 06:03 PM

Yes I do skepticus........ Thats what they called the process of gassing Six Million Jews!!

Thor

12-01-2007, 06:47 PM

Even for Evolution to be proven correct there would have to be a starting point. A single celled ameoba or whatever. How did the Amoeba get there ?

Forgetmeknot

12-01-2007, 06:59 PM

God....... some of us believe.

Thor

12-01-2007, 07:04 PM

God....... some of us believe.

What if the fella who wrote the Bible was dyslexic? Would we all worship Dog?

A rose by any other name and all that.

Forgetmeknot

12-01-2007, 07:20 PM

LMAO....um I don't know, but good point.....I guess :p

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 02:11 AM

The two words 'factual theory' actually do not go together. Facts are proven, HOWEVER theories can be proven OR disproven. They are not firm, and can be changed. Theories are supposition.

The word 'theory' in the scientific context, means 'the thoretical as apposed to the practical side of a scientific idea', it refers to how, in principal, the scientific idea works. What it does not refer to, is any speculative aspect of the idea. The word which refers to a tentative (speculative) idea is a 'Hypothesis'.

Of course, in some sense, all ideas about nature, are to some degree speculative. In 'philosophical skepticism', it is noted that there is no such thing as an absolute fact. Or at least that there may be absolute facts in the real world, but none of which we can be 100% certain. The idea of perfect proof in this school of though, is therefore an unrealistic, unattainable ideal.

As I have pointed out, for most of us including yourself Forgetmeknot, we accept the 'relative probability' of any idea. When somebody tells you 'the dog is outside', you probably don't decide to quibble about the tentative nature of all ideas being speculative. You accept that the dog either is or isn't outside and you accept it as a question of fact. The evidence for the dog being outside, will fall one way or the other and you will probably hedge your bets on the evidence available.

Just because something is supported by facts does not mean it is ENTIRELY true. Evolution may be the only thing that seems correct to you, but to others it might not be as correct as it is to you.

The question then, is who's opinion counts. Presumably, somebody who has studied the phenomenon for years and understands the principals at it's core, is in a better position to question it with integrity and authority. That's not to say that anybody else can't have a go, but I wouldn't expect an 'armchair biologist' to present alternative ideas, which seriously threaten to overthrow 100 years of mainstream biological science. Even then the layperson who wants to play the game of 'I-can-do-biology-too', needs to understand the current theory (that is 'how in principal the phenomenon works'). They then need to present evidence that the idea they are proposing, is more plausible (probable), than the existing theories.

Biological evolution by natural selection, is a theory and it is a fact. It is proven as far and well as any idea can be. There is no point to score, by taking a scientific word and playing semantic hide and seek with it. I invite you to take a close look at the definition of the word as given on Wikipedia here is a part:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

There is A LOT of bullshit out there, and I think if you surf through these 3 pages you'll see A LOT of it.............

Before you begin casting aspersions about bullshit, one might have hoped you would first resort to reasoned argument and present a case based on specific points being debated. I have been polite to you so far Forgetmeknot, and if you are going to start in with ad hominem rhetoric, don't expect me to get down in the gutter with you.

Now like I was saying, some of us believe because we believe. It's called faith,

Here's a little poem I wrote about ten years ago:

Show me something faith can do,
I don't have to believe it for it to be true.

I'll show you some facts you'll find hard to concieve,
that turn out the same, what ever's believed.

For heres just something between me and you,
Facts don't rely on belief to be true.

Now again... I pointed out to you from the beginning of this discussion, that just believing something doesn't make it true.

Stay Tuned... (To Be Continued)

jmadtownweb

12-02-2007, 02:31 AM

One thing I do know for sure is that no matter what proof you have, the people who base their beliefs on faith are not going to change their minds. It's like beating a dead a horse..

Or trying to get a pen to work when it's out of ink...

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 03:57 AM

Return To Reason (...Continued)

Just because something is supported by facts does not mean it is ENTIRELY true.

Well firstly I think what you mean is 'supported by evidence'. Secondly a 'theory' that is supported by insurmountable evidence, is only about 100% better than a claim that 'X is true because' (throwing my hands in the air an shrugging) 'I have faith in X and I believe it is true' Why? 'Because I do that's why!!' but why? 'I don't need to have any reason or logic to support my beliefs you nasty man!! Go Away.'

Evolution may be the only thing that seems correct to you, but to others it might not be as correct as it is to you.

Oh!!!... I SEE, now we are capable of hedging our bets are we? Now facts have to be tangible and conclusive do they? Now that we are talking about evolution the facts have to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, and of course you are going to deny flatly that they are proven this conclusively. And of course you will insist that evolution is speculative and inconclusive. But when it comes to religion it's all 'No evidence is required - and these are my opinions'

Well, if 'others' disagree with the the best reasoning and evidence available or the interpretation given by the top scientific theories and 'others' can see flaws in them that can't be resolved. I suggest that 'others' write a scientific paper and submit it for peer review in one of the popular peer review journals. They would be applauded for advancing science if their arguments were rational and their evidence conclusive.

The question then, is who's opinion counts. Presumably, somebody who has studied the phenomenon for years and understands the principals at it's core, is in a better position to question it with integrity and authority. That's not to say that anybody else can't have a go, but I wouldn't expect an 'armchair biologist' to present alternative ideas, which seriously threaten to overthrow 100 years of mainstream biological science. Even then the layperson who wants to play the game of 'I-can-do-biology-too', needs to understand the current theory (that is 'how in principal the phenomenon works'). They then need to present evidence that the idea they are proposing, is more plausible (probable), than the existing theories. The consensus is more likely to be accurate among educated rational people, than scientifically illiterate laypeople.

Biological evolution by natural selection, is a theory and it is a fact. It is proven as far and well as any idea can be. There is no point to score, by taking a scientific word, such as 'theory' and playing semantic hide and seek with it. I invite you to take a close look at the definition of the word as given on Wikipedia here is a part:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

There is A LOT of bullshit out there, and I think if you surf through these 3 pages you'll see A LOT of it.............

Before you begin casting aspersions about bullshit, one might have hoped you would first resort to reasoned argument and present a case based on specific points being debated. I have been polite to you so far Forgetmeknot, and if you are going to start in with ad hominem rhetoric, don't expect me to get down in the gutter with you.

[refering to faith]...if you have none that's your opinion,..

Again, you choose to ignore the valid points I made about the great many facts of nature which are not matters of opinion. I have no faith in any set of beliefs, because faith is not required to discover truth in this universe. That isn't my opinion, it is a bald-ass fact.

do not waste your time lecturing me on why you think my opinions and beliefs are false, because in case you missed that part they are MY beliefs and opinions, I am not forcing them on others like you're attempting to do with me!

I beg your pardon Forgetmeknot. I don't consider attempting to have a rational debate with creationists a waste of time. You can forget the egocentric delusion that I am trying to influence your beliefs one way or the other. As I have pointed out in a previous post "I don't much care about what loopy delusions are floating around in your head". The benefit of debating with creationists, is that curious bystanders, will eventually see them [creationists] shoot themselves in the foot.

As far as I know, this is an open public forum and anybody is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion was started by you, and it was you that wanted to compare the relative merits of a mainstream theory of science, to your primitive, supernatural, creation myth. If somebody such as myself comes on here and calls a spade a spade, you have no just cause, to go crying sour grapes. We are all grownups (I give the benefit of the doubt in creationist quarters), and we should all be willing to subject our world-view to critical assessment. Let's remember how this discussion started Quote you:

"Do you believe we all evolved from African races or do you believe in the creation theory?"

There you have it. Sounds like an open invitation for discussion to me. It also sounds like you concede that these ideas are mutually exclusive i.e. either one or the other must be true. The first thing I had to say about this was to question your motive for asking the question. do you recall this?:

Why would you care about what anybody believes? Believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing.

So far we have not seen a reply to this, except for repetition of the circular reasoning that 'I believe it because I do'. You do however continue to feign an interest in 'reasonable' debate by pursuing the rhetorical banter about theories only being 'supposition'. The pretense that you are reasonable, falls apart because of your double standard. When anybody questions your belief you uphold blind faith as a virtue and no further examination is required or welcome. IF there is a minuscule discrepancy (imagined or otherwise), in rational mainstream science, you holler loudly about the division between fact and speculation.

The difference between a naturalistic science based worldview and your baseless supernatural clap trap, is that the naturalistic worldview is held accountable to reason and evidence, by it's own proponents. by spouting your misguided ill-informed rhetoric about 'factual theory' being oxymoronic, you demonstrate that you expect the science based naturalistic worldview to be accountable to the standards you seem quite unwilling to hold your own worldview.

My assumption from the outset, is that any REASONABLE person only wants to know what is true about the world in the factual sense. I also give them the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to search for the truth about how this universe works. My assumption in entering this discussion, was that you were willing to Reason i.e. REASON - ABLE and that an amicable debate could ensue, in which each party was attempting to reach agreement. Your two contending ideas proposed for discussion, are unfairly pitched against each other if you are not willing to subject each of them, to the same scrutiny and demand the same criteria for their relative plausibility.

To Be Continued... (Again)

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 04:30 AM

Return To Reason (continued...again)

Another lamentable creationist tactic, is the ploy of crying in their soup, about the nasty evolutionists, who are attacking their right to believe what they do. This obvious diversion, consists of starting or entering into a debate about what is or isn't true, in (or of) the Universe. Contending ideas are discussed, where upon the assumption is granted, that not all ideas are equal or more probable in the factual sense. When some mean bully of an evolutionist, dares to contradict the 'wisdom' of the creationist world-view, the response is to sulk, pout, and complain that the creationist is being personally attacked or that the evolutionist is attempting to force their opinions on the creationist.

Heads up Forgetmeknot, I couldn't give a tinkers damn, about your distorted picture of reality, I said so and I mean it. You don't see evolutionists, going door to door or standing on street corners preaching to people about their worldview. It is Creationists of many stripes, who have the monopoly on witnessing, conversion and indoctrination. I don't care about questioning your right to believe, what you do either. I don't care much for beliefs at all. What I care about is truth. The kind that can be demonstrated by reasoning and honest, rational inquiry. I have no interest in questioning your right to believe some la la land fantasy about angels, demons and Gods. You can believe you have fairies at the bottom of your garden for all I care. But when you enter a public forum and pitch your loopy beliefs, as worthy contenders, by comparison to rational, naturalistic, science based facts, then you are encroaching on my turf, and I will rightfully hold your beliefs to the same rational scrutiny, as I am willing to hold my beliefs.

You are obviously happy for science based belief, to be held to the rational protocols of evidence based reasoning. If science can't explain something you will gleefully hold it up as if to say, 'if science can't explain it, it makes my bullshity supernatural beliefs more plausible'. When I try to suggest that your beliefs, should be held up to the same scrutiny, you wallow in your own circuitous nonsense about "just believing it because you do" then, like a baby who has lost it's dummy, you have a sook about the nasty evolutionist trying to force his opinion on you. Here's an idea. Why don't some creationists grow up and let go of the obvious absurdity that any belief can REASON-ABLY be justified, without reason.

When somebody asks you in all sincerity, out of honest curiosity, with no other motive than to understand your point of view, "Why do you believe 'X'?" and you respond with "I believe it because I do" What effect do you think that this has on proposition 'X'? The answer is precicely none. Why do I have shoes on? Because I do. Why does it sometimes rain? Because it does. Why does the earth rotate on it's own axis then? Because it does. Ahhhha that explains everything then!!! :rolleyes:

What kind of world would we be living in now, if each and every one of us allowed this kind of 'thinking' to pass for intelligent reasoning. You might guess we would still be living in the dark ages. I don't think we would get that far. I don't think we would have discovered the wheel nor learned to light a fire and cook food. We would probably have gone extinct before religion was ever invented. We could still yet go extinct if superstitious, irrational, anti-intelectual nonsense is allowed to proliferate. We need to understand this fantastic universe of ours, in order to look after it, as well as to look after ourselves and each other.

Again (and for the same reason), I will ask you Forgetmeknot, to answer the question that I posed in the beginning of my first post here:

Why would you care about what anybody believes?

And in case you missed that bit, I will repeat it: "believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing."

By stating that fact, I am not attempting to convince you or coerce you or deny your right to believe anything you wish. You can just put that out of your head thanks. The point being made is that if you are not willing to provide reason for your beliefs then they are not reason-able beliefs and you are not being reason-able by being unwilling to question them, even to yourself.

I would like to know how believing something for no reason, and calling it 'faith' or anything else for that matter, gives it any more plausability in a person's mind. Does the fact that somebody has given it a name make it any more convincing?
How is it possible to distinguish this 'faith' from 'self (or communal) delusion'?

Oh and one more thing. Your beliefs are NOT simply 'your own' they are a communal delusions passed down from generation to generation. They didn't pop into your head by themselves. I put forward a proposition that you have been indoctrinated, a fact obviously borne out by your frank admission that you believe what you do because you were 'brought up around it.' This is yet another thing that you have failed to respond to. While you were bought up with your head in the Jesus fog, millions of others were bought up with their heads in other fogs such as the Allah Fog. Are you so egocentric as think that your beliefs are more credible because you were 'bought up around them'?

Still waiting for Creationist reasoning to begin. Regards Skepticus.

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 06:25 AM

A good explanation should be clear in a minimum of words. A lengthy explanation doesnt do that. Verbosity is not a clear way of offering an explanation.

Obviously you can't respond to any of the specific points I made, so you have to resort to casting aspersions and baseless rhetorical innuendos. By this logic, my brief little diatribes make the books of the Bible (even if you take them individually), look like gratuitously waffling nonsense. Of course we don't need to make this comparison to come to that conclusion. By the same token, I suppose that Doctor Suess was one of the clearest writers ever.

Btw, I dont need to be spoon fed at all, tyvm.

Apparently you do!! Since you are the one with the sarcastic mouth, who implied that truth could not be divulged by independent research. Apparently, by your reckoning, there is no point in googling a subject because you can't rely on what you read to be true. Hmmm? That is what you meant, is it not?

And yet, it still remains that, when a writer has presented a well argued case for the truth, that it may be obvious to an intelligent reader, who can apply common sense and who is at liberty to check the evidence etc... etc, that a good deal of confidence if not certainty in the proposition, can be acquired. You haven't addressed this point, by making baseless claims about my posts, and that their verbosity and clarity are inversely proportional.

Tell you what scotslad60. You write posts as long or short as you wish, and I will write posts as long or short as I wish. You worry about the clarity and brevity of your writings, I will worry about the same of mine. How's that idea grab ya? :cool:

scotslad60

12-02-2007, 08:48 AM

The purpose of a forum is to debate and discuss differing opinions Skepticus. Its not a platform for anyone to lecture, besides which, I know for sure that these good folks on Thoughts.com don't need lectured anyway. Some would even take exception to anyone trying to lecture them.

If you post in a forum, I may decide to comment on your posts, I may not. That is my decision, not yours.

Thanks for your "interesting" views though!

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 10:30 AM

Referring to two previous question by myself you have answered the last but not the first:

Are you claiming that, because natural selection is a scientific theory, that it is void of freewill?

Do understand natural selection scotslad60?

Yes I do skepticus........

Again I will ask: Are you claiming that, because natural selection is a scientific theory, that it is void of freewill? If so, perhaps you might explain for the boys and girls at home, how you reach the momentous conclusion that freewill is denied by natural selection.

Thats what they called the process of gassing Six Million Jews!!

Have you fallen out of your tree and bumped your noggin?

If you think that the totalitarian, ethnic cleansing, eugenics program, of a fascist dictatorship, is synonymous with, or in any way similar to, biological evolution by natural selection, you are obviously blissfully ignorant of the whole idea, and clearly haven't the foggiest clue about how it works.

Why don't you save yourself some embarrassment and go learn some basic biology? That way you wont sound like a complete fool when you blurt out the first thing that pops into you head.

Typical creationist ploy BTW. To just keep blurting out baseless, unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims, in effort to divert the debate away from the creationists own vacuous 'reasoning', for their own baseless dogma. I won't fall for it sport. :rolleyes: The onus is on you, to justify the ridiculous straw men you keep erecting.

Incidentally, until you can demonstrate that you comprehend a basic understanding of evolution by natural selection, you are not worthy of the debate. As I have said, you can't debate about something of which you know nothing. Well... you can, but you will look like a dumbass to anybody who can tell the difference.

So please... If you have any knowledge of evolutionary theory (the real thing not some contrived, straw man caricature), and you have a problem with it, tell us all and don't spare the specifics. Finding a discrepancy in current theory BTW, is often how science comes to find new understandings. Who knows, you might even win a Nobel Prize. :D

scotslad60

12-02-2007, 10:44 AM

Intellectualism does not equate to intelligence, Skepticus. Intelligent people do not resort to childish name calling and I don't debate with children!

It is your choice to believe in Science, it does not mean your opinions are correct for anyone else but you.

Also, Condescending attitudes bore me!

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 11:54 AM

The purpose of a forum is to debate and discuss differing opinions Skepticus. Its not a platform for anyone to lecture...

If anybody in the creationist camp, had anything of substance to contribute then it might sound like a debate rather than a lecture. It's not my problem if you and your creationist cronies, want to start a debate and can't back it up with substance and well reasoned arguments. As far as I am concerned, the debate hasn't even begun yet. Nobody has even addressed my first point that 'believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing'.

I mean it really is disappointing, I didn't come here to lecture anybody. Indeed I have emphatically stated in several places on this thread, such things as:

My assumption from the outset, is that any REASONABLE person only wants to know what is true about the world in the factual sense. I also give them the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to search for the truth about how this universe works. My assumption in entering this discussion, was that you were willing to Reason i.e. REASON - ABLE and that an amicable debate could ensue, in which each party was attempting to reach agreement. Your two contending ideas proposed for discussion, are unfairly pitched against each other if you are not willing to subject each of them, to the same scrutiny and demand the same criteria for their relative plausibility.

I've been bending over backwards to encourage some reasonable debate, but as I said, it hasn't even moved past point one. The dishonesty of a group of people who are unwilling to question their own beliefs is lamentable, but sniveling about being lectured to, because you can't provide the other half of a debate is just predictable creationist rhetoric. There's six or seven of you bods vs myself and perhaps one or two other pro evolution comments. As far as I am concerned, I am running rings around you lot. You haven't even moved off the starting post.

You say that "The purpose of a forum is to debate and discuss differing opinions", very well then scots, let the debate begin!!

If you post in a forum, I may decide to comment on your posts, I may not. That is my decision, not yours.

Well goodonya mate, I never asked you to comment in the first place, but since you have only managed to contribute baseless innuendo, straw men and style critique. I am responding in kind. What do you want to hear, that I agree with you? Fat chance!!

Thanks for your "interesting" views though!

Thanks for yet another substance free diversion. :)

scotslad60

12-02-2007, 12:25 PM

If anybody in the creationist camp, had anything of substance to contribute then it might sound like a debate rather than a lecture. It's not my problem if you and your creationist cronies, want to start a debate and can't back it up with substance and well reasoned arguments. As far as I am concerned, the debate hasn't even begun yet. Nobody has even addressed my first point that 'believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing'.

Ok, since you still wish this.......

"Believing something and simply stating you believe it does not make it more probable or convincing" - To YOU! I, for one, am not here to prove or disprove anything to you. I am here to discuss and debate, thats all. By your very name, you are a sceptic and, by many of your posts it seems you already have you mind made up. You will never convince a convinced sceptic, and why would you want to?

If I believe in something, that is MY belief. It only becomes an issue to you IF I set out to try and convince you that my beliefs are true. I didn't so therefore, you are arguing on a moot point.

I've been bending over backwards to encourage some reasonable debate, but as I said, it hasn't even moved past point one. The dishonesty of a group of people who are unwilling to question their own beliefs is lamentable, but sniveling about being lectured to, because you can't provide the other half of a debate is just predictable creationist rhetoric. There's six or seven of you bods vs myself and perhaps one or two other pro evolution comments. As far as I am concerned, I am running rings around you lot. You haven't even moved off the starting post.

You say that "The purpose of a forum is to debate and discuss differing opinions", very well then scots, let the debate begin!!

First off, there are NO dishonest people here. How dare you even infer that there are liars in this forum? Please ensure you choose your words much more carefully in future and do NOT make disparaging remarks. I have raised this matter to you more than once already. Neither am I in any way 'snivelling' about being lectured to, since it is beyond your capability to lecture me.

Those who believe that logic and science are the main sources of truth, often mistake their blind arrogance for intelligence.

scotslad60

12-02-2007, 12:27 PM

I agree Wayne.

Forgetmeknot

12-02-2007, 01:35 PM

Like I said one of my pet peeves is arrogance.................

If you need to talk down to others and use big fancy words to make yourself feel intelligent, then go for it, but don't put others down to build yourself up!

jmadtownweb

12-02-2007, 01:37 PM

Skepticus, I already told you I won't even try on this thread anymore, your a lecturing machine that has to use up a whole page to get your point across. I only need to use one word.

Amen.

Forgetmeknot

12-02-2007, 01:39 PM

Well said J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

shawnbslee

12-02-2007, 02:37 PM

Hallelujah!!

Skepticus, as briefly as you possibly can, in your belief who did the universe come into being? REMEMBER AS BRIEFLY AS YOU CAN!

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 03:14 PM

Intellectualism does not equate to intelligence,

Intellectualism equates to intelligence, a whole lot better than some la la land supernatural fantasy. Angels Demons and Gods leave a lot to be answered for in terms of intelligence, when it comes to the minds of those who posses them.

Intelligent people do not resort to childish name calling

Intelligent people do not resort to sophist, diversionary, rhetoric either. You don't like the aspersion that something you have said might make you look like a fool (I didn't actually call you a fool), but you don't mind casting aspersions of your own.

It is your choice to believe in Science, it does not mean your opinions are correct for anyone else but you.

No it is not my choice nor is it a matter of belief. I simply wish to understand the objective facts of reality that exist outside my own perception.

In a world where reality exists outside the mind of the observer, we who live in such a place, have to assume that certain circumstances are inevitable. A history in time for instance, existed before each of us were born. Our own mothers must exist before we perceive them into existence, in order to give birth to us etc.. etc.

You yourself scots, are willing to discuss the objective facts of reality when it suits you. You too are willing to contend with an objective world beyond the realm of your senses, for which facts can be debated as such. Isn't that right? Other wise I don't have to agree that any Jews died in a holocaust and I can complain that this is your reality not mine. (Please note, I am not in the habit of holocaust denial).

I assume you live on an a world which isn't flat and wasn't created by my perceptions. Like wise I expect you to comprehend me as an individual separate from your perception and living on a world that is also spheroid.

The best way to explain the collusion of our separate realities, is to assume that there actually is an objective reality to speak of. You can point out that my appeal to an objective reality is based on an assumption. Ok, but there either is an objective reality or there isn't. Furthermore my preference for accepting the objective reality, is not actually discretionary is it? After all, the reason I invoked it in the first place, was because it was the best model of reality, to explain the the multitude of things, that collude between each of our separate perceptions.

The solipsist fantasy, of a multitude of subjective realities for each of us, is indistinguishable from delusion as far as I can see. Why would any of our perceptions happen to collude in any way whatsoever. Why would an external world seem to exist at all. What is understood in science, is that immutable laws of nature exist in an objective reality which make particular circumstances necessary as a matter of fact:

A pendulums period is proportional to its length, rather than its weight or its amplitude. The force exerted between two magnetic poles, is equal to their sum, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, and so on. These observations may be backed up by mathematical proofs which explain why they are necessary, and that furthermore, as facts they can considered inevitable. I can't expect anybody who is not privy to the laws or their mathematical proofs to accept them as fact, but denying something is not the same as refuting it. Exclaiming disbelief is not the same as providing a reason to disbelieve.

I don't choose my beliefs, because I have no choice about the nature of the objective reality (and neither do you for that matter). What I choose to believe is not relevant, because in an objective reality, facts don't rely on belief to be true.

Also, Condescending attitudes bore me!

Apparently, so does getting some facts straight as well and learning about the grown up world where reality doesn't depend on the beliefs you choose, but rather on an external reality which exists outside of your own head.

Rather ignorantly, you also assume that your own boorish assumptions (from previous posts) have not come across as condescending to me. Wrong there too.

Never mind. In the interest of reasonable debate, I will overlook what I have seen in the way of attitude, if you will do likewise. It's not the point in my eyes.

jmadtownweb

12-02-2007, 04:23 PM

Hallelujah!!

Skepticus, as briefly as you possibly can, in your belief who did the universe come into being? REMEMBER AS BRIEFLY AS YOU CAN!

I don't think it's possible Shawn. Yet another page has been written.

Forgetmeknot

12-02-2007, 06:50 PM

Why do people think that if they fill a page with words it equates to intelligence?

Do they think big words make them 'seem' intelligent?

Simple answers are sometimes the best, and they tend to get a point across much better than a whole page of nonsense and babble.

(sorry guys I'm sure he'll have another long page of nonsense coming :p)

Skepticus

12-02-2007, 07:43 PM

Ok, since you still wish this.......

Thank you scots. That's better. :)

"Believing something and simply stating you believe it does not make it more probable or convincing" - To YOU!

That's right - to me... and I fail to see how simply stating a proposition, however much I believe it, makes it anymore likely to be true in my reality, your reality or anybody else's reality. This is nearly as obvious as a logical axiom can get. If I could make something true by simply believing it were so, then I would simply begin to believe that I can fly to the shops by flapping my arms.

So as not to be selfish, I would also bestow the same powers on everybody else. Perhaps you have already done this. Maybe in your reality, I regularly fly to the shops, where as in my reality I have to drive because I haven't the foresight or imagination to just believe I can fly.

I, for one, am not here to prove or disprove anything to you.

Ok, I won't ask you to prove anything, but I can't help wondering where the boundaries of this kind of solipsist reality are, if indeed there are any. Do you honestly believe I should be able to fly if I just start believing it? Will your reality also agree, so that if I fly past your house, you will see me from the yard, flapping my arms and flying past? Are there any laws of nature which you believe any of us must obey because they are simply immutable?

I am here to discuss and debate, thats all.

That's a nice sentiment scots, but how can you be amenable to debate, if there is no objective measure of truth? By what measure is any test of credibility possible?

By your very name, you are a sceptic and, by many of your posts it seems you already have you mind made up. You will never convince a convinced sceptic, and why would you want to?

You see!!? This is the very kind boorish, arrogant assumptions I alluded to earlier. I am not the one here, who's beliefs are a dogmatic cage, into which no reason can penetrate. I notice with interest that no form of reasoned debate what so ever could break the spell of creationist dogma, because creationists do not admit of logic, evidence or reason (unless of course they are using it in their counter arguments as an imposition on naturalism). It is creationism which is an unreasonable, untenable, dogmatic system of beliefs which can not be altered.

Can you seriously say that you don't feel just a little silly, pointing that particular finger of accusation at me? HELLLLOOO POT? THIS IS KETTLE. The whole point of an evidence based worldview, is that if evidence can be found that leads to a different conclusion about any idea, then I have to shift my convictions to what seems most plausible. I invite reasoned debate, explicitly because I am checking my convictions out against the evidince in the real world. I have repeatedly said that what I believe, is not whats important, because, as a rationalist, I subjugate my beliefs to reason. If somebody is willing to do some well reasoned debate and provide good evidence for a better explanation of some particular phenomenon, then I am all ears. Why should I not change my convictions according to the best explanation I can find? It's not me who is bound by the shackles of dogma.

Once anybody has considered the available evidence for any idea, they are entitled to estimate their convictions. Again, I am simply referring to the empirical evidence, surrounding rational propositions, being tested in an objective world. I am not prejudiced against any evidence or reasoning that would make me reconsider any part of my testable understandings. Don't you wish you could say the same thing?

If I believe in something, that is MY belief. It only becomes an issue to you IF I set out to try and convince you that my beliefs are true. I didn't so therefore, you are arguing on a moot point.

Well... No, I don't agree. The fact that you believe some particular idea, is not an issue in my books. It is a completely different thing to ask whether that idea, stands on it's own merit. I can test it's truth value (in my own worldview) and not give any consideration to whether you do or don't, should or shouldn't believe it. In your case I would have to forgo the pleasure of that debate, because I already have it on good authority, that you do not wish to enter into logic based reasoning of your beliefs. Nevertheless what is a belief from your point of view, may be a testable proposition from mine. While I have no objection to your believing it, you should have no objection to me scrutinising it from a rationalist viewpoint. Whether it is factually true, from a rationalist point of view, may be a moot point to you, but not to me.

First off, there are NO dishonest people here. How dare you even infer that there are liars in this forum?

There are no liars in this forum TO YOU!!! Incidentlly how in the hell do you know there are no liars here? Did you prove it? Isn't that something of an empirical claim. You state it as if it were true in some absolute factual sense. In any case you take my expression to extremes of offense that were never intended. A person can be dishonest in more subtle ways than being a willfully conscious liar. They can lie to them selves, they can refuse concede a point of dispute by choosing not to understand it, and they can manipulate an advantage more or less unconsciously as in becoming unwittingly sly. Intent to win even without conscious intent to deceive, can still get lost in the grey margins.

Please ensure you choose your words much more carefully in future and do NOT make disparaging remarks. I have raised this matter to you more than once already.

Whatever disparaging remarks I make, I do so in the full knowledge of what a nice guy I am, and that anything I say must be deserved.:D Only kidding.:p A perfect example of the subtle dishonesty I refer to, is your willingness to take my remark as maliciously as possible. You deceive yourself a little to justify your annoyance at me. Nevertheless religion and dishonesty are bedfellows in my books. The dishonesty consists of avoiding accountability for being reasonable and rational. The barrage of straw men and excuses to resist any attempts at questioning the religious belief is characteristic of religious dogma.

Those who believe that logic and science are the main sources of truth, often mistake their blind arrogance for intelligence.

So tell me again scots... Who is the one in here that is supposed to be all mouth and attitude? Is this an example of the kind of disparaging remark I am forbidden by Your Hollyness to make? I would rather blind arrogance and a little intelligence any day, over blind ignorance and no intelligence. :mad:

If there is another source of any original information, how do you know that what it produces is truth? Where I come from truth is a testable concept. What kind of tests could we place on such a bastion of wisdom? If it isn't testable how do you know it is in any sense true? how can you differentiate this so called 'truth' from personal or communal delusions?

scotslad60

12-03-2007, 09:46 AM

Ok Skepticus now you have overstepped the mark!!

It is plainly obvious to all in this thread that you are incapable of impersonal debate. I have said it nicely before, now I am NOT asking, I am TELLING you!

DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS, RESORT TO CHILDISH NAME CALLING AND ATTEMPT TO SPEAK DOWN TO ANYONE IN THESE FORUMS!

If you do not understand the concept of debate and RESPECT, I suggest you learn these before attempting to enter into further dialogue here.

Further deliuberate disresepct WILL result in a formal complaint regarding you and your accont here, to the Site Owners!

You are beneath my contempt!

Nephele

12-03-2007, 01:36 PM

*

..Hmmm…

This entire thread reads something like a play of Beckett.

What passion animates your trumpet of Reason, Skepticus!

That I myself have written critical works on some of the very subjects you here mention and, to be sure, am of similar mind with regards to the elemental questions – evolution by ‘natural selection,’ the wondrous discoveries and conjectures of our dear paleo-anthropologists, the positive advantages and usefulness, even the pleasures of critical thinking, &tc – still does not in-itself obviate that I find greater merit in the naiveté of one like ForgetMeKnot. (&nd I do not mean naiveté in the unflattering sense, rather more in a philological sense).
The reason is very simple. Her ego has achieved a higher level of self-possession. It is more noble and more beautiful.
You may climb higher – you probably will – but so what?
When you will have climbed as high as you will prove able in this life, your perspectives will all be different and, if you find yourself a sterile, ignoble Spirit on your highest rung – will it have been worth it?

Do you really delude yourself to such vast-reaches as to believe all you’ve argued here is not predicated on faith?
My dear empiricist extraordinaire! ..Pray don’t confess having failed to read even Hume?

..Or perhaps, your intellect has surpassed the Masters of the Ages hitherto, &nd you have in the brief span of your life unlocked the riddles and slain the Sphinx of epistemology?
If you have not, then per force of what reason would you envelop these questions and the sundry responses given in such obfuscating clouds?
“Parking a car on your roof” - ?
And you would dare slap the hand of one who would mention the critical importance of semantics?
..Shame on you …

What is the value of all the Reasoning in the world, if it cannot even be fair?

&nd as for Reason itself, need you be reminded it is but one of the critical faculties – and in my view, not at all of the highest innate-value or the most noble.
Whether one agree or disagree – by itself it is worse than worthless.
Without Spirit in its totality (my term, meaning the totality of the psychical entity) – Reason is nothing, not even an orphan – and without Reason, Spirit would not be possible.

Let your trumpeted Reason and commendable esteem for critical thinking mature some more – discover the pathos of distance required to be more than reasoning – because until one learns how to be reasonable – dialogue is held in perpetual stasis.
Look what all your careful attention, energy, good-faith (yes I recognize it) and earnest effort here has accomplished in the way of dialogue hitherto.
It’s not because the others here are imbeciles, or hopelessly petrified in Medieval ideology or dogma, or are just ‘mean & stubborn’ – but you have failed the dialogue.
If your Will is to speak with them, you need first speak to them, not against them.

Any fool can point to the irrational and berate it ‘til the moon turns to cheese and falls to Earth. A sage will never waste the energy.

Before you can even learn the priceless lesson of the pathos of distance – and I do mean it in the full, hardy, aristocratic Roman sense – one must achieve a certain level of self-Mastery.

You should also be very careful about the ground you stand on.
Speaking about the ‘earth rotating on its own axis’ is not commensurate with speaking about Existenz in its all-encompassing phenomenological sense – and if you will pretend any ‘Cartesian certainty’ with respect to the cognitive-operations and nature of ‘mind’ – the delusion will be stamped with your own name to your own discredit.
&nd I will assume you catch the two-fold meaning, being fully aware of what Descartes’ ‘certainty’ “led” him to.

When some mean bully of an evolutionist, dares to contradict the 'wisdom' of the creationist world-view, the response is to sulk, pout, and complain that the creationist is being personally attacked or that the evolutionist is attempting to force their opinions on the creationist

So what? Why do you care?

You don't see evolutionists, going door to door or standing on street corners preaching to people about their worldview.

They don’t need to, and they don’t feel moved to do so – nor have they been given any ‘commandment’ to ‘go forth and proselytize.’ So what?

It is Creationists of many stripes, who have the monopoly on witnessing, conversion and indoctrination

No, it’s not by a very long shot.
They’re just generally far less sophisticated or subtle in how they attempt it.

You seem to me, to all intents & purposes to be an ‘evolutionist’ and ‘empiricist’ who is attempting to do it now, in the same unsophisticated, unsubtle manner.

I couldn't give a tinkers damn, about your distorted picture of reality, I said so and I mean it

Who would spend so much time & energy on something they don’t give a damn about?
Your sense of Spiritual-economy seems severely-flawed.
..Or physiological-economy if you prefer.

I don't care much for beliefs at all. What I care about is truth. The kind that can be demonstrated by reasoning and honest, rational inquiry.

You apparently haven’t yet developed sufficient powers of discernment to recognize it when you see it.
No ‘truth’ can be demonstrated by any mean, measure or artifice. Unless we will agree on our semantics for a philosophy of aesthetics and come to hold that objectification of an artist’s intent is a type-demonstration of a ‘truth.’
&nd if you didn’t care for ‘beliefs’ – you would be enveloped in total silence: - and completely dysfunctional. In common usage, we’d call it a coma.

But when you enter a public forum and pitch your loopy beliefs, as worthy contenders, by comparison to rational, naturalistic, science based facts, then you are encroaching on my turf, and I will rightfully hold your beliefs to the same rational scrutiny, as I am willing to hold my beliefs.

I believe that in your mind presently, this is consistent with your conception of ‘fairness’ (or ‘justice’ if you prefer) – but it’s not.
You’re only subjecting them to a war you carry on with yourself, one begun long before you crossed any of their paths, and you want to do it at their expense.
That’s not only cruel, it’s very juvenile – also an error.
You cannot trumpet the ‘virtues’ of science for having well-reasoned models, and conveniently dispose of ‘model’ when critiquing any un-scientific conception. Once you do that your intellectual integrity proves its mortality.

If you were as intelligent as you’ve persuaded yourself hitherto, would you not first be able to distinguish a simple remark, or a simple question for what it is & nothing more? It’s not hard to recognize an affirmation of faith wearing a question mark for a pendant.
Express the difference of your taste if you like – but what more is there?
If you disagree with it on a more fundamental level – that’s fine. I wager no one here would have said or thought a thing about your saying so, if you left it there.
It’s not the first one to be made and it won’t be the last.
So what? Are you going to ‘challenge’ every one of them? Even if you could, what would be the point?
You aren’t trying to ‘teach’ anyone anything. There’s nothing in your diatribe that even hints of being aimed at enlightenment. So what is the point?
It’s just burning up nervous energy? You’re taking out frustrations on strangers?
You like the way your careful, reflective thoughts and writing contrasts with those more-visceral, more careless & indifferent – less ‘educated?’
To me, you just appear mean and struggling with some personal issues.
(Oh yeah – been there, done that myself. Many years ago – but I remember it well enough; and I regret the wounds I gave others for the sake of my own intellectual-struggles).

Examine your own questions on their own ‘merits.’

What kind of world would we be living in now, if each and every one of us allowed this kind of 'thinking' to pass for intelligent reasoning. You might guess we would still be living in the dark ages.

&nd what exactly do you ‘know’ of ‘Worldness?’
You think so little of Schopenhauer for example?
&nd are you so enlightened & have still not apprehended that we are very much in a Dark Age even now?
Why so much Priestliness? What you hold ‘true’ today, is the carrion of tomorrow’s laughter.

I don't think we would get that far. I don't think we would have discovered the wheel nor learned to light a fire and cook food. We would probably have gone extinct before religion was ever invented.

None of those things owes to reason in-itself. Nor indeed, has anything of worth man has achieved. Reason is the faculty of ‘after-thought.’
Everything man has done has come from impelling psychical necessity, the Imaginative driven by the Passions, more-or-less ‘stabilized’ and exploited by Reason.
This too, ‘evidenced’ by psychical-evolution.

Do you think it simply a consistently recurring ‘accident’ in history that ‘wrong,’ ‘bad,’ ‘false,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘misguided,’ ‘naïve’ ideas have been the most fecund seeds & seed-beds of our greatest achievements? –and, conversely, that seldom is so much harm done than flows from the ‘well-meaning,’ ‘well-reasoned,’ ‘rational,’ etc..?

( Cont’d )

*

Nephele

12-03-2007, 01:48 PM

*

Put all the faith you like in Reason – but it is an Emperor-Dwarf and man has genius for only two things – art & nihilism.

Still waiting for Creationist reasoning to begin.

What could you possibly care whether anyone here has read and understood St. Augustine, Leibniz, Spinoza or any other?
You already know perfectly well what the reasoning is. I’ll wager you’ve at-least some grasp of both, their best reasoning & their worst.
So what are you really about here?
I say again – you’re not trying to enlighten anyone, so what then?

A good explanation should be clear in a minimum of words. A lengthy explanation doesnt do that. Verbosity is not a clear way of offering an explanation.

Length or brevity is never a meaningful issue – unless one is both poor & sending a telegram.
“..Clear in a minimum of words,” is aphoristic – and there are precious few who have ever learned to do it well enough.

I think of the man who once – jokingly – asked Abe Lincoln while stump ‘speechifying’ on the 1860 campaign – “..Just how long do a man’s legs need to be in order to be President?”
To which Lincoln instantly quipped back: “Sir, I hold they should be long enough to reach the ground.”
I think that’s a good length for anyone …

My assumption from the outset, is that any REASONABLE person only wants to know what is true about the world in the factual sense. I also give them the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to search for the truth about how this universe works.

Stop assuming. That never leads to anything but disappointment & error.
&nd if you really believe that about people generally, that is profoundly naïve.

My assumption in entering this discussion, was that you were willing to Reason i.e. REASON – ABLE and that an amicable debate could ensue, in which each party was attempting to reach agreement.

Agreement regarding what?
The two views are either poignantly contradistinctive, or are partially-reconciled through a type-compromise on behalf of Creationists.
What is there to argue for sake of any ‘agreement?’
On what will you agree, save for a total capitulation to your viewpoint?

Your two contending ideas proposed for discussion, are unfairly pitched against each other if you are not willing to subject each of them, to the same scrutiny and demand the same criteria for their relative plausibility.

Not only is that very well said, it is all you needed to say.
Had anyone picked it up from there – great. Failing to do so – how is it you don’t recognize the duck as ‘just a duck?’

Yes, the question was raised in a Public Forum. So what?
It’s not a University lecture hall – and it won’t be the first or last time an essentially rhetorical question will be raised by a human being.
Why berate it so?

I've been bending over backwards to encourage some reasonable debate, but as I said, it hasn't even moved past point one.

As Sartre said – the method is everything.
&nd even so – “..hasn’t moved past point one” – though here it is, Page 6 of this Beckettian Thread.
& you still haven’t seen where the failure really rests?

No it is not my choice nor is it a matter of belief. I simply wish to understand the objective facts of reality that exist outside my own perception.

Yes, it is your choice & a matter of faith - &nd when I was much younger I wanted to be a god too; but – “..to understand the objective facts of reality that exist outside my own perception” is a type ‘philosophers’-stone’ – it isn’t possible, unless you choose a Master and resign to dogmatism.

..reality exists outside the mind of the observer…

Yes. &nd mind even in it’s facultied-totality has no direct access to it.
Have you read yet Hiedegger’s, Sein und Zeit - ?
What then is the point of the interrogation of Dasein?
All we have is perspectives – and those are not established (‘objectively’) by pure consciousness. Why lie about that?
What good comes from self-deception at your level, that is so far superior to any self-deception of any others on other levels?
There is Being and there is existence – there is the Ontological Phenomenon and the ontical phenomena – the finite-subjective ‘eternally’ encompassed by Being (or ‘the Absurd’ if you prefer that).
To lie about it is a funny little piece of artistry.

You are also either intellectually in error or guilty of dishonesty in speaking of such as solipsism – which no-more corresponds to the reality as it is, than does Gnosticism.

..but there either is an objective reality or there isn't.

Yes & no.
We only have the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ because all we have is hermeneutical-experience and finite-perspectives.
You may as well say, there either are ‘cars’ or there aren’t.
There are – because mind invented them for its own sake.
No this isn’t a solipsistic argument: it simply observes that what we mean by ‘objective’ relates to the Ontological Phenomenon – Time, Space & causation. But it is fundamentally dishonest to press it any further. The phenomenological character of existential reality is comprised entirely of ‘Either/Or’ – undifferentiated Being – or an infinite-plentitude of finite-subjectivities (which may be infinitely-reducible).

..learning about the grown up world where reality doesn't depend on the beliefs you choose, but rather on an external reality which exists outside of your own head.

I think you have much to learn and yet digest – well.
( Yes, so do I ).
But you are, in my view, sorely mistaken in this conception of ‘reality’ – and brutally so with regard to ‘Worldness.’
That ‘objective’ reality which exists outside of ones own head is utterly absurd.
We have no choice but to invest it with meaningfulness.
Even K. in ‘The Castle’ confronts the same ‘reality.’ (See, Kafka).
It is not only ‘absurd’ – it is the ultimate ground of Nothingness.
You can’t and never will ‘discover’ any ‘objective facts’ in the sense mathematicians turned empiricists mythologize. That is utterly delusional. No more than K. ‘discovered God.’

‘Worldness’ Is Will and Representation – period.
‘Objective reality’ is meaningless. If that’s your aim, not only will you either end up disappointed or grievously deluded, it will be a shame if in your efforts you declare war on others who happen to cross your path.
That type is to me, not a whit different than a Byzantine Patriarch holding a scepter in one hand and a sword in the other.

By what measure is any test of credibility possible?

Honesty.

The fact that you believe some particular idea, is not an issue in my books. It is a completely different thing to ask whether that idea, stands on it's own merit. I can test it's truth value (in my own worldview) and not give any consideration to whether you do or don't, should or shouldn't believe it. In your case I would have to forgo the pleasure of that debate, because I already have it on good authority, that you do not wish to enter into logic based reasoning of your beliefs. Nevertheless what is a belief from your point of view, may be a testable proposition from mine. While I have no objection to your believing it, you should have no objection to me scrutinising it from a rationalist viewpoint. Whether it is factually true, from a rationalist point of view, may be a moot point to you, but not to me.

That’s fine – I’ll even say excellent: also – so what?
You don’t require these people to do that. You will find far better and a far-broader range of arguments of all types in other, more sensible places to contemplate & refute to your heart’s content.
Without intending insult to anyone – you, or any other Poster here – I rather doubt you’ll encounter any argument here that has not already been fully-enough expounded in St. Augustine, Anselm, etc…

You are either too stupid to comprehend it, or too ignorant to respond

- Or too proud. Human dignity is most apt to turn away from such as you’ve given here.
A good deal of what you’ve said and even more the way it has been said is just mean. It is also unfair, & I think you know it.

You’ve now spent untold energy and accomplished nothing of worth.
How clever was that?

We all have much to learn. When we will have learned all there is, we will stand with Socrates in Elysium and with humble smile admit at last – “I know nothing.”
Until then, we should at least enjoy the adventures of life & the feast of thinking.

*

Helix42

12-03-2007, 04:19 PM

Nephele,
I'm glad you waded in before I did.

I would have challenged him quite differently and far more poorly. I really liked what you wrote....

Later

Helix42

12-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Skepticus,

If you are still hot for a debate on origins I would be glad to discuss the topic with you. I am a creationist and a very conservative Bible believing Christian.

Before we dive in though there are a few things that you should know. I will not accept argument by consensus. Just because most of the mainline sciences believe a certain thing, does not make it true. If that is the crux of your argument then we best not bother. Ptolemy and his cosmological model held sway in the 'scientific' community for more than a millennium, but he was also quite wrong. 100 years of biological research is not that great of time, by comparison.

I will not debate the facts. Facts are facts the creationist and the evolutionist have the same set of facts. What I will discuss is how those facts are interpreted.

If your position is one that says that faith and reason are incompatible then I would suggest that you look at history. A great number of the greatest reasoning minds that have ever lived have also been Christians - men of faith. So the idea that you have to be loopy to be Christian is silly, putting it kindly.

Just post away if you like...

Cheers

shawnbslee

12-04-2007, 12:33 AM

As for ME, there is more physical evidence to support Evolution, than there is to support Creationism. Luckily for Creationists they don't require evidence or proof.

danielle_88

12-04-2007, 12:43 AM

in the bible it says that God created earth and man, from man he created woman. those were the only two on earth, and since eve eat from the tree God punished her by making her bear children, which populated the earth as we know it today. But of course we as people do still evolve to our suroundings, and we learn to addapt.

shawnbslee

12-04-2007, 12:53 AM

Good point Danielle. I for one think there is a link somewhere between Evolution and Creationism. Sort of like there is a link between Cheney and Obama.

Oh by the way welcome to thoughts......

Helix42

12-04-2007, 09:17 AM

Danielle,

Welcome - I hope you will enjoy posting here. I hope you will not be offended and since this is a discussion about evolution and creation, I need to point out a couple things about Creation and specifically Genesis.

in the bible it says that God created earth and man, from man he created woman. those were the only two on earth, I am with you to here...

and since eve eat from the tree God punished her by making her bear children, which populated the earth as we know it today.In order to appreciate the full importance of the argument you must have a clear understanding of what Genesis says.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." [ESV]

Note that here God has created man and woman, given them dominion over creation and told them to be fruitful and multiply. There is no reason to assume that Eve was not or could not bear children before the fall.

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." [ESV]

Here is the curse for Eve. Notice that it says that "your pain in childbearing" will be multiplied not that she will start having to bear children. Bearing children is not a curse, but a blessing. The curse is that now its really gonna hurt.

But of course we as people do still evolve to our suroundings, and we learn to addapt.Sorry to be nit picky, but we are discussing evolution. Adaptation is not the same as evolution. It is one thing for an animal or a person to change in way that is more suited to another habitat (adaptation). It is entirely another thing to say that a dinosaur became a duck (evolution).

This is a link to a piece of free Bible software. It is excellent and offered completely without charge. Hopefully the administrators will not remove it since I am not trying to sell you anything. http://www.e-sword.net

In Him

Helix42

12-04-2007, 09:28 AM

Shawn,

As for ME, there is more physical evidence to support Evolution, than there is to support Creationism. Luckily for Creationists they don't require evidence or proof.

The 'physical evidence' is what it is. This observational science is the same for both the Creationist and the Evolutionist. There is no difference in the physical evidence. Where we diverge is in philosophy. We have radically different world views, so we interpret the facts quite differently. The Theory of Evolution is an interpretation of the observational science. Biblical Creationism is a literal reading of the book of Genesis, but it must deal with the same observational science as Evolution.

There is this weird view that somehow men of Christian faith and men of science cannot be the same, but if you take a look at history some of the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have also been Christians.

Cheers

Nephele

12-04-2007, 01:06 PM

*

As for ME, there is more physical evidence to support Evolution, than there is to support Creationism. Luckily for Creationists they don't require evidence or proof.

Again, the intended meaning is understood, but the expression is probably flawed.

This is not a true statement.

The first affirmation may be true, since it is subjectively qualified.
If ‘true’ in such limited sense, I would then lose faith in the author’s understanding of what constitutes ‘evidence’ and the critical role of interpretation.
But it may just be careless writing. The intent behind the affirmations seem clear enough (to me).

The 'physical evidence' is what it is. This observational science is the same for both the Creationist and the Evolutionist. There is no difference in the physical evidence ... Where we diverge is in philosophy ... we interpret the facts quite differently. The Theory of Evolution is an interpretation of the observational science.

If you will kindly permit me this slightly edited quotation, that I might emphasize what to me are the essential points – this is as well said as it is understood. &nd it is well understood.

The full, unedited quotation contains a little ‘confusion’ in the manner of placing a cart before the horse – but as I don’t know whether that owes to hurried writing or such confusion in the view-itself, the edits serve well to show that the core of this understanding is – in my view – well comprehended.

Creationism is another interpretation of the SAME observational science.

Is it?
I think not.
Creationism as a ‘school of thought’ may appropriate the ‘theory of evolution’ to further expound its interpretation and argumentation, but it doesn’t owe-itself to, nor emanate-from ‘science of evolution.’
This may seem a trivial critique of the way it was articulated, but – to be fair, it’s not, and if it is overlooked one misses a good deal of what so energized the posts of Skepticus – and he was correct in that regard.
If any meaningful discourse – even be it ‘merely’ a comparative one – between these two perspectives and interpretations is Willed, let us be honest about the origins of both.
Origins may matter – and that is enough to recommend great carefulness with regard to them.

There is this weird view that somehow men of faith and science cannot be the same, but if you take a look at history some of the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have been men of faith

Perhaps I might respectfully challenge you to further refine your usage of terms?
You will, I pray, forgive an old philosopher this fastidiousness with regard to language – particularly any term which could have a critical meaning-value.
I believe I know exactly what you mean here – but the language is inadequate to express that point specifically.
If we will leave it as ‘faith’ alone, such as you’ve written it in this statement, then I will hold that it is both ‘true’ and ambiguous to the point of meaningless.

The predominant reason I would hold it so, is that without faith (in something) – science would not even be a possibility.
But I don’t think you mean ‘faith’ in this rather more universal psycho-imperative sense, but you mean a religious faith – and probably, an expressly Judeo-christian one.

In both senses, by either definition, the statement is true; but let’s take care to avoid ambiguities – yes?

~ N.

*

Helix42

12-04-2007, 03:20 PM

Nephele,

The full, unedited quotation contains a little ‘confusion’ in the manner of placing a cart before the horse – but as I don’t know whether that owes to hurried writing or such confusion in the view-itsel Your edit is more clear and I hope it is due to my being in a hurry. Unfortunately such is the state of my life - I seem to be constantly in a hurry...

Creationism is another interpretation of the SAME observational science.
Is it?
I think not.

Careless of me - point taken.

Perhaps I might respectfully challenge you to further refine your usage of terms?
You will, I pray, forgive an old philosopher this fastidiousness with regard to language – particularly any term which could have a critical meaning-value.You can and I do. If you will please pardon my careless use of language I will accept your criticism.

The predominant reason I would hold it so, is that without faith (in something) – science would not even be a possibility.
But I don’t think you mean ‘faith’ in this rather more universal psycho-imperative sense, but you mean a religious faith – and probably, an expressly Judeo-christian one.I would agree on both counts. I do mean an expressly Judeo-christian one and should have been more clear. I do err on the side of brevity from time to time, though not often. Usually I write more than I need too.

Faith is an interesting topic. I was once asked, "what do you know, really know, without thinking about it?". My answer was that I have faith. In the universal psycho-imperative sense. He didn't like that answer. He then responded that the thing he knew was that he existed. We then spent about twenty pages going back and forth about whether he existed or not and how one might "know" this thing. But, it is quite a bunny trail, not sure we should hop down it.

Anyway, what I should have said instead of "Creationism being another interpretation of the observational science", is that Creationism must deal with the same observational science as Evolution. Or in more precise language, Creationism must provide a framework that explains observational science, just as Evolution must and if that framework is contradicted by observational science, then it must change.

Biblical Creation is constrained by a literal and straightforward reading of the Biblical accounts of creation found in Genesis, and thus it is more difficult to maintain (in my opinion) than a theory that has no such constraint. This does not, in any case, mean that I consider evolution to be simpler or more probable than Biblical Creation. Just to be clear, later on if I use the word Creationism I mean Biblical Creationism or sometimes called Special Creationism or (to run on) a view that considers the book of Genesis recorded history.

This is shaping up to be a fun discussion ... However, I would ask that we try to keep our responses as short as possible - as I said earlier I seem to never have enough time...:)

Later

2rivers

12-04-2007, 07:33 PM

If you believe the Bible it says that God created the universe and everything in it in six days - He obviously didn't have to read this thread first!
If your beliefs make you a good human being then I am happy with that and you can move in next door to me.
Wanna beer with your steak?

Forgetmeknot

12-04-2007, 08:54 PM

LOL rivers, yes the posts are getting a tadbit long aren't they?? Anyways, I am a creationist and I believe just because I believe and that is enough for me.

Skepticus

12-05-2007, 03:30 AM

Do you really delude yourself to such vast-reaches as to believe all you’ve argued here is not predicated on faith?

NO I do not delude myself and NO it is not predicated on faith.

My dear empiricist extraordinaire! ..Pray don’t confess having failed to read even Hume?

Hume is one of the only philosophers I do have time for. Laminated, above my computer resides a sign baring his maxim:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless that testimony be of such a kind,
that its falsehood would be more miraculous,
than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

..Or perhaps, your intellect has surpassed the Masters of the Ages...

No no, don't worry, Monty Python are still the best. :D

...hitherto, &nd you have in the brief span of your life unlocked the riddles and slain the Sphinx of epistemology? If you have not, then per force of what reason would you envelop these questions and the sundry responses given in such obfuscating clouds?

Well at least you ask the question in terms of reason, but I would have thought all this "Prey", "hitherto" and "per force" stuff, was more obfuscating than my language.:rolleyes:

Anyhow. It is good to see some engaging thought on this topic. :)

“Parking a car on your roof” - ?
And you would dare slap the hand of one who would mention the critical importance of semantics?
..Shame on you …

Hang on!! I am the one who mentioned semantics and their importance. The context was when ForgetMeNot declared emphatically and assertively:

The two words 'factual theory' actually do not go together. Facts are
proven, HOWEVER theories can be proven OR disproven. They are not firm, and can be changed. Theories are supposition.

Which as you can see is quite sternly and authoritatively asserted. It's also unequivocally wrong. The term has been hijacked, bastardized an used to prop up creationist obfuscation, of how science precedes, for ages. It is a tired old warhorse, that needs to be put out to pasture.

Are you calling me out on a double standard? I don't get it? The point I was trying to make with the 'car on the roof' bit, is that we don't tend to spiral into a hair splitting philosophical debate about the true nature of reality and the liberties we may extend to our perception and interpretation of it, when somebody makes a banal but specific claim, about physical reality. I picked that situation because it is highly unusual yet not dependent upon mysterious unseen, (or supernatural) forces. In a similar vein Richard Dawkins has pointed out the kind of heckle, that is based on the common plaints of cultural relativism:

A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a
particularly profound or wise remark, but it comes into its own in the
special case where the little learning is in philosophy (as it often is). A
scientist who has the temerity to utter the t-word ('true') is likely to
encounter a form of philosophical heckling which goes something like
this:

There is no absolute truth. You are committing an act of personal faith when
you claim that the scientific method, including mathematics and logic, is the
privileged road to truth. Other cultures might believe that truth is to be found in
a rabbit's entrails, or the ravings of a prophet up a pole. It is only your personal
faith in science that leads you to favour your brand of truth.

That strand of half-baked philosophy goes by the name of cultural
relativism. It is one aspect of the Fashionable Nonsense detected by Alan
Sokal and Jean Bricmont, or the Higher Superstition of Paul Gross and
Norman Levitt. The feminist version is ably exposed by Daphne Patai
and Noretta Koertge, authors of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales
from the Strange World of Women's Studies:'

Women's Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination
... the standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they
are incompatible with 'women's ways of knowing'... These 'subjectivist' women
see the methods of logic, analysis and abstraction as 'alien territory belonging to
men' and 'value intuition as a safer and more fruitful approach to truth'.

How should scientists respond to the allegation that our 'faith' in logic
and scientific truth is just that - faith - not 'privileged' (favourite in-
word) over alternative truths?

I would caution Dawkins here, on his use of the term 'scientific truth'. I don't believe there is any such animal. Science is the establishment, people and methods, that are responsible for all so much human inquiry into nature, but it is nature that is being studied, and the truth that is procured by the methods of science, actually come from nature not science. I would prefer the term 'natural truth'

A minimal response is that science gets
results. As I put it in River Out of Eden,

WHAT IS T R U E ?
Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite ... If
you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics,
the reason you will probably get there - the reason you don't plummet into a
ploughed field - is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got
their sums right.

Science boosts its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter
and energy jump through hoops on command, and to predict what will
happen and when.

Dawkins goes on to make particular concesions to different perspectives and interpretations of the world, albiet which still turnout to make sense from the perspective of a universal, objective reality. He then continues...

But none of this seems to undermine our ordinary concept of what it
means for something to be true. If I am in the witness box, and
prosecuting counsel wags his stern finger and demands, 'Is it or is it not
true that you were in Chicago on the night of the murder?', I should get
pretty short shrift if I said,

What do you mean by true? The hypothesis that I was in Chicago has not so
far been falsified, but it is only a matter of time before we see that it is a mere
approximation.

Or, reverting to the first heckle, I would not expect a jury, even a
Bongolese jury, to give a sympathetic hearing to my plea that,

It is only in your western scientific sense of the word 'in' that I was in Chicago.
The Bongolese have a completely different concept of 'in', according to which
you are only truly 'in' a place if you are an anointed elder entitled to take snuff
from the dried scrotum of a goat.

It is simply true that the Sun is hotter than the Earth, true that the desk
on which I am writing is made of wood. These are not hypotheses
awaiting falsification; not temporary approximations to an ever-elusive
truth; not local truths that might be denied in another culture. And the
same can safely be said of many scientific truths, even where we can't
see them 'with our own eyes'. It is forever true that DNA is a double
helix, true that if you and a chimpanzee (or an octopus or a kangaroo)
trace your ancestors back far enough you will eventually hit a shared
ancestor. To a pedant, these are still hypotheses which might be falsified
tomorrow. But they never will be. Strictly, the truth that there were no
human beings in the Jurassic Period is still a conjecture, which could be
refuted at any time by the discovery of a single fossil, authentically
dated by a battery of radiometric methods. It could happen. Want a bet?
Even if they are nominally hypotheses on probation, these statements
are true in exactly the same sense as the ordinary truths of everyday life;
true in the same sense as it is true that you have a head, and that my
desk is wooden. If scientific truth is open to philosophic doubt, it is no
more so than common sense truth. Let's at least be even-handed in our
philosophical heckling.

And that was the point of my 'car on the roof' example. You wouldn't subject a mundane fact of reality, to a philosophical tirade of cultural relativist meta twaddle. Or would you? However sympathetic you may be, to the sensibilities of cultural studies, like anybody, you will probably arrive fairly quickly at a probabilistic estimate, of how likely it is, that there is a car on your roof. That estimate, will not very likely involve the epistemology of a village of south Tibetan yak herders. The plaint, that there is more than one way to skin the epistemological cat, is a moot point which seems to work best in general debate about the truth, but as soon as you get down to specifics and look for empirical evidence of these other modes of truth, the reality falls short of expectations. The Inuit Indian may claim to have another 'way of knowing', but ask him how he finds his fish and you will probably find it involves common sense and reasoning, based on empirical methods.

(To be Continued.)

Nephele

12-05-2007, 06:15 AM

*

Helix_,

If you will please pardon my careless use of language I will accept your criticism.

We are all careless with language at times – and in other matters too.

But, it is quite a bunny trail, not sure we should hop down it.

Descartes has already hopped down that trail well-enough in the Three Meditations.

Creationism must provide a framework that explains observational science…

If you will refer for instance to the repeated Posts of ForgetMeKnot, you will see this isn’t true.
Any ‘imperative’ for such does not rest in ‘creationism.’
One could better say I think, that creationism provides a framework for interpreting observational science.

..just as Evolution must and if that framework is contradicted by observational science, then it must change.

But ‘Evolution’ is neither a framework nor an observational science, it is-itself both an interpretation and a type-axiom. An inductive-postulate.

Biblical Creation is constrained by a literal and straightforward reading of the Biblical accounts…

With all due respect, no – it’s not.
It is constrained only by the Will and reasoning or the lack of them, of the reader.
&nd though ancient Hebrew is a language of considerable poverty, the Hebrews like all peoples, produced some very bright & capable minds. We know & understand well enough how many of the Hebraic texts were conceived and written as allegorical. So any insistence that one be constrained to literal-interpretation rests solely with the reader – or the bleating sheep who will follow and not even read at-all.
Additionally, we also have no sound reason whatever to surmise the ancient Hebrews were somehow, miraculously a unique exception to the progressive-regressive dialectics of history.
They didn’t know more in the sixth century B.C.E. than is known today about empirical or phenomenological reality – regardless of what their interpretations or understandings may have consisted.

..thus it is more difficult to maintain (in my opinion) than a theory that has no such constraint.

For any ‘literalist’ so constrained, of course it’s more difficult.
It is easier to place a round peg in a round hole, than it is to keep shaving a triangular peg until it fits.

There is a reason that exegetical works have been produced for ages & continue to be produced.

This does not, in any case, mean that I consider evolution to be simpler or more probable than Biblical Creation.

Understood. But you do of course also apprehend they are ‘apples and oranges?’

Just to be clear, later on if I use the word Creationism I mean Biblical Creationism or sometimes called Special Creationism or … a view that considers the book of Genesis recorded history.

Understood.
Do I understand correctly that by ‘Special Creationism’ your purpose and intent is to assert Deliberate Creation – to distinguish it from arguments asserting ‘accidental’ or ‘un-intended’ creation?

I would ask that we try to keep our responses as short as possible - as I said earlier I seem to never have enough time…

I can try, but without promise to succeed.
My time is precious as well, but for any ‘serious-minded’ discourse, I typically give the time needed to say what I wish, as carefully as able: but neither my time or interest, such as it is, nor my integrity can be constrained by anyone else’s.

If we continue at all, let’s just do our best, respectfully, and see how the discourse develops of its own… ;)
There’s no need to feel rushed.

~ N.

*

Nephele

12-05-2007, 06:25 AM

*

Dear Skepticus,

I am glad you returned and replied to my replies – I had hoped you would.
You are more-calmed now? ;)

NO I do not delude myself and NO it is not predicated on faith.

Yes, it is. Every psychical construct owes to a faith in something.
It would seem you have some fixed notion that faith is per definition un-reasoned and unreasonable – which makes me wonder how much Hume, (for but one lonely example) have you understood? –or- on what epistemological ground do you disagree with him?

Hume is one of the only philosophers I do have time for.

That’s a shame – but there are worse candidates for such notable uniqueness.

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless that testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous,
than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

O’ …how can one not love Hume? :)
That is indeed worthy of the student of Cicero who moved himself to La Flèche for the sake of literature. &nd of a piece with his metaphysics such as they were.

To offer this quotation alone as though it establishes the totality of its context is, one might think, somewhat deceptive. Particularly as was laid out in the Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – in which it was his very aim to expose the inexorable limitations of Reason and to discover how the mind makes its judgments in the “..absence of the illusory support of Reason.”

Neither did Hume escape reflecting and engaging the inexorable problems of mind in the epistemological realm, and his own metaphysics are among the most interesting offered (that I know of) by a skeptical empiricist.
&nd it really is his skepticism not his empiricism that is so joyful.

I would have thought all this "Prey", "hitherto" and "per force" stuff, was more obfuscating than my language.

“Prey” – Freudian slip? ;)
I have nowhere criticized your style of writing & am not wounded by your critique of mine. I at-least confined myself to your arguments & assertions in such regard.

Hang on!! I am the one who mentioned semantics and their importance. The context was when ForgetMeNot declared emphatically and assertively

Perhaps I misread the passage. You have my apology then.

It is a tired old warhorse, that needs to be put out to pasture.

Shoot it in the head for all I care. It will be just as useless in the pasture.
I’m not in disagreement.
Again, perhaps I misread the passage in any event. I was mostly struck by your emphatic yelling into a stagnant puddle – and seemingly genuine expectation of eliciting a response other than belching of bubbles.

The point I was trying to make with the 'car on the roof' bit, is that we don't tend to spiral into a hair splitting philosophical debate about the true nature of reality and the liberties we may extend to our perception and interpretation of it, when somebody makes a banal but specific claim, about physical reality.

‘Double-standard?’ No.
But that is my point. This is pointless & leads to that sort of error.
You qualify with – “..a banal but specific claim.”
The truly bromidic deserves no response but silence. I mean, come now sir, really? :) What can you reasonably expect?
If one is going to reply, then one should overlook the banality, and it is inexcusable to wave-aside dismissively any “..philosophical debate about the true nature of reality and the liberties we may extend to our perception and interpretation of it.”

I’m utterly unimpressed by Dawkins and, while he occasionally, accidentally hits the nail, it seems rarely on the head; and I see no-way that it applies here even if I thought it had merit.
The quotation regarding ‘feminism’ however is as hilarious as it is true – it is all complete & utter rubbish.

I would caution Dawkins here, on his use of the term 'scientific truth'. I don't believe there is any such animal. Science is the establishment, people and methods, that are responsible for all so much human inquiry into nature, but it is nature that is being studied, and the truth that is procured by the methods of science, actually come from nature not science. I would prefer the term 'natural truth'.

I understand your meaning here (pretty sure) – and agree in toto, to the extent embodied in Humean empiricism and his metaphysics.
But let us be sure, this is a specific affirmation wherein we have agreed to simplify our terms for sake of mutual comprehension.
The bottom line here, Skepticus – as I perceive & understand it – is you & I really disagree on nothing ‘profoundly fundamental.’
Given enough time and interest, I have precious little doubt we could come to understand each others terminologies and we would be in agreement on every point ‘which matters.’ At-very-least so-far as a discussion such as this is concerned.

This is also why when I entered this discourse, I directed my critique specifically to you.
We will agree – that was clear to me from the jump. So what? That’s not interesting or even entertaining.
There is simply no point and nothing served by rolling up the pages of our views and brow-beating others who think, or believe differently.
&nd to become as personal and ad hominem as you reached – in frustration – is pointless, mean, unfair and undignified.

The plaint, that there is more than one way to skin the epistemological cat, is a moot point which seems to work best in general debate about the truth, but as soon as you get down to specifics and look for empirical evidence of these other modes of truth, the reality falls short of expectations.

Which ‘reality’ do you have in mind?

The Inuit Indian may claim to have another 'way of knowing', but ask him how he finds his fish and you will probably find it involves common sense and reasoning, based on empirical methods.

Of course, and this has nothing at all to do with the fundamental problems of epistemology. Nor does it contradict even Hume – who also recognized how much faith is involved in ‘empirical science.’

~ N.

*

Forgetmeknot

12-05-2007, 08:14 AM

Oh boy, here we go...........

Helix42

12-05-2007, 08:51 AM

2Rivers,

If you believe the Bible it says that God created the universe and everything in it in six days - He obviously didn't have to read this thread first!
If your beliefs make you a good human being then I am happy with that and you can move in next door to me.
Wanna beer with your steak?

Yes please - possibly more than one...:)

Helix42

12-05-2007, 02:10 PM

Nephele,

If you will refer for instance to the repeated Posts of ForgetMeKnot, you will see this isn’t true. Any ‘imperative’ for such does not rest in ‘creationism.’ One could better say I think, that creationism provides a framework for interpreting observational science.

I have been unclear again. :rolleyes: There are two elements to evolutionary ‘theory’ if you will permit. One is the observational science, just the facts please. Then there is the side that is more philosophy that attempts to assign meaning or interpretation to the raw science. I meant that, in the same way that the philosophical part of Evolutionary theory must provide an explanation of what is observed and a framework for continued interpretation of new data, apologetic Biblical Creation (science) must also explain what is observed. The use of ‘must provide’ over ‘provides’ results from a more evangelical mindset. To the outside, Creation must provide a framework in which the observational science is explained and a guide for the interpretation of new data. This is the element known as Creation Science. To the inside, proof is not required, although it is in a way given, but that is beyond the scope of what we are talking about right now.

But ‘Evolution’ is neither a framework nor an observational science, it is-itself both an interpretation and a type-axiom. An inductive-postulate.

I disagree. This may have been true in the beginning, but Evolution in the broader sense, includes philosophical elements. When this term is bandied about in the real world, it tends to include a naturalistic explanation of origins. In doing so it has moved out of the arena of pure science and that of a strict interpretation of the ‘facts’ and become a cornerstone of a naturalistic worldview. Thus it has become a framework against which new observations are evaluated, no longer just an interpretation or inductive postulate.

Case in point: Inside a tyrannosaur bone there was found something that looked very much like red blood cells. There was no reason to assume that they were not, however, red blood cells and more specifically hemoglobin, cannot exist after 65 million years. Therefore, since these scientists ‘knew’ that the bone was this old, they had to set about proving that these objects were in fact not red blood cells. They had to bang their square peg into the round hole because their preexisting framework (evolution) did not allow for it. What we generally call Evolution has become as much philosophy as science.

Helix
Biblical Creation is constrained by a literal and straightforward reading of the Biblical accounts…
Nephele:
With all due respect, no – it’s not.
It is constrained only by the Will and reasoning or the lack of them, of the reader.

With all due respect, yes – it is.
The will and reasoning, or lack thereof, of the reader are not the only constraint. Biblical Creation is much more specific than simply ‘God created the universe and everything in it’. It is constrained by a few rules. One of which is the rule of straightforward interpretation. If an idea, philosophy etcetera disagrees with the straightforward reading of scripture, then it is incorrect and needs to be re-evaluated. This does not mean that allegory is ignored or everything taken strictly literally and underlying meaning is denied. What it means is that the allegory, or underlying meaning, or whatever, will agree with the straightforward reading. Another is literal interpretation, unless allegory is the clear intent. To put it another way the default interpretation is literal.

This taken into account – Biblical Creation is a very specific type of creation that is entirely constrained by the Creation Account of Genesis and is defined specifically as a literal interpretation thereof. There are other creation theories that attempt to shoehorn the Biblical account into what mainstream science believes. These are only constrained by the will and reasoning and/or imagination of the reader.

We know & understand well enough how many of the Hebraic texts were conceived and written as allegorical. So any insistence that one be constrained to literal-interpretation rests solely with the reader – or the bleating sheep who will follow and not even read at-all.
I get what you are saying here and in part I would agree. Hopefully, I don’t sound too much like a politician voting for a thing before I vote against it. If a person so desires they can read any text they wish as allegory and interpret it as they desire. However, you cannot do this and adhere to good hermeneutics, such as the rule of straightforward interpretation. Since these rules are a part of Biblical Creationism, as defined, then the constraint is real and rests outside of the strict purview of the reader. Any interpretation of the text, must agree with a straightforward reading whether it is allegorical, historical or otherwise.

Additionally, we also have no sound reason whatever to surmise the ancient Hebrews were somehow, miraculously a unique exception to the progressive-regressive dialectics of history. They didn’t know more in the sixth century B.C.E. than is known today about empirical or phenomenological reality – regardless of what their interpretations or understandings may have consisted.
This is one point of view – which I think I am loosely grasping. However, it only holds true if the Bible is not divine revelation. If the Bible, as I believe, is divine in nature, then, what is revealed about reality, both empirical and phenomenological is accurate in everything that it addresses because its origin rests with the creator of all things. Since He created it, he then has the only objective seat currently in the house and, as creator, also has [i]the authoritative voice on any subject. I’ll stop here, because to go any further down this course would be lead me to do what a friend of mine calls Elmer Fudding: chasing rabbits and if I am not careful I will run down every trail with a nice set of rabbit tracks.

For any ‘literalist’ so constrained, of course it’s more difficult.
It is easier to place a round peg in a round hole, than it is to keep shaving a triangular peg until it fits.I would simply argue that the hole is some other shape besides round or triangular and neither peg fits perfectly. Why would the divinely inspired version not fit perfectly? Because the observations are not perfect and there is insufficient wisdom and knowledge to reach perfect conclusions from those observations in any case. So, the peg made by Creation Science is not perfect because it seeks to address imperfect observations. It says this is how the creator might have done it not necessarily this is how He did do it.

There is a reason that exegetical works have been produced for ages & continue to be produced.Quite true. But you will find a great deal of agreement among those who follow the rule of straightforward interpretation vice those who do not.

Helix:
This does not, in any case, mean that I consider evolution to be simpler or more probable than Biblical Creation.
Understood. But you do of course also apprehend they are ‘apples and oranges?’ In one way, yes I see that they are quite different, but in other ways they are quite similar. They both interpret data based on a set of presuppositions. These presuppositions are radically different and as expected lead to radically different conclusions, however, they both do presuppose many things.

Do I understand correctly that by ‘Special Creationism’ your purpose and intent is to assert Deliberate Creation – to distinguish it from arguments asserting ‘accidental’ or ‘un-intended’ creation?Yes and additionally the methods used to reach conclusions based on the Genesis account being literal history and not completely allegorical.

If we continue at all, let’s just do our best, respectfully, and see how the discourse develops of its own…
There’s no need to feel rushed.Thanks…I have obviously not done so well with brevity and you are right it is hard to have a serious conversation without using a few words. :)

Cheers

Goldy

12-05-2007, 09:15 PM

Even for Evolution to be proven correct there would have to be a starting point. A single celled ameoba or whatever. How did the Amoeba get there ?

I haven't got any idea where the "amoeba or whatever" came from, but my lack of knowledge is not a good reason for me to substitute fiction for fact. I'm not at all embarrassed to say "I don't know.". On the other hand, I would be embarrassed to claim I knew it was burped up by a etheral dragon because someone wrote the story down and my mother and father read it to me.

Forgetmeknot

12-05-2007, 09:18 PM

All I do is believe in creationism, end of story. I'm not embarassed to say that!

BushGuy

12-06-2007, 01:38 AM

For the benefit of anyone who benefits, I believe in creationism because I have come to trust with all my heart, the very real person of Jesus Christ. To say that He is not real is anyone's perogative, but as for me, you might as well say that my mother is not real, or I am not real. I believe in him because I know him. I know he's real, and as such, I trust that he's truthful, and fully capable of explaining himself in book form.
I have seen evidence of his reality in the form of my own very dramatic heart change, and this overwhelmingly beneficial change of life, as it is clearly described on the pages of the scriptures, repeated over and over in the lives of very dear friends.
My faith is based on personal evidence, reasoned evidence, thoughtful evidence, scientific evidence, and probably alot more evidence I can't think of right now because I'm tired, and am going to bed. But I am so glad and grateful to have found this wonderful bunch of folks. Goodnight.

Goldy

12-06-2007, 02:00 AM

[QUOTE=Helix42;12669]Shawn,

There is this weird view that somehow men of Christian faith and men of science cannot be the same, but if you take a look at history some of the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have also been Christians./QUOTE]

I don't think a belief in Jesus as savior is has anything to do with science or an endorsement of evolution or creationism. People simply pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. Many Christians will tell you they don't accept the Adam and Eve story as fact.

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 02:00 AM

Continued from 'Common Sense Truth (1)'

I don't know how a person justifies to themselves, having an alternative epistemology, but they have certainly never justified it to me. They just claim that something that is true for me is not true for them (or visa versa) and refuse to justify it. How can I accept such a banal claim, when there is no a priori basis to expect it, no evidence to support it, and while it is obvious that there is a clear, utilitarian motive for fabricating the claim. I.e: To evade rational debate.

Also when I look at the logic which underpins epistemology in mainstream philosophy, I find that it is indistinguishable, from the same logic which is used in mainstream mathematics and physics. It relies on the same logical constructs such as syllogisms and is answerable to the same fallacies, such as 'the fallacy of the undistributed middle term', etc etc...

I cant see how any alternative epistemological framework could be derived, without being based on an alternative set of logical rules. If there could be an alternative logic and therefore, alternative epistemology, then we may find that when seeking 'the truth' that there is no 'the truth' there may be multiple different answers to the same question. But how can this be?

To avoid contradictions in the empirical evidence, we may have to begin to entertaining the prospect that there are different realities for each observer; Not perspectives mind you, but actually different realities. Observer created realities perhaps. Solipsism again. In your reality perhaps people can flap their arms and fly. In my reality say, their legs can turn into wheels, when they need to travel very fast.

On this thread I have been told that my proposition: 'Believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing.' is only true for me. Well I don't know how this could be possible, unless we call upon alternative logic, alternative epistemology, as well as alternative facts in an alternative reality. I would like to see that alternative logic, and alternative epistemology, that leads us to the alternative facts, that must be insulated in an alternative reality.

The reason we need to propose an alternative reality system, is simply to avoid contradictions. How can it be that to you, it is possible for some thing to be more probable by just believing it is true (not saying you make this claim, but just for argument sake :)), while for me, it is a fundamental axiom that beliefs do not have a causal influence on the external world. After all, a belief is just the act or result of agreeing that some proposition is true. It can't have an effect on the proposition can it? If so, how?

Now how about that alternative reality? Seems like a pretty far fetched extreme, just to justify a claim, that is self evidently false. In terms of Ockham's razor (the principal of parsimony) it is absurd. It is also self evidently false, that we each construct our own separate realities. In this scheme, none of our realities would have to agree. Contradictions between your reality and mine would be permitted. In your reality there may be a car on my roof, in mine there is none. In your reality I might not exist and visa versa.

That is not what plain prima facie evidence tells us is it? In our shared world we are connected through our computers to a network, which gives us access to the same vast set of information. We may see the same external, objective reality from different perspectives, but we are each immersed in the same objective reality nonetheless. If you swing a pendulum and measure its period, and I do precisely the same experiment, we will surely get the same results.

The whole of science would not be possible, were it not for the fact that the fundamental principals of nature were universal. All of scientific knowledge relies on the fact that the principals of nature are universal. It would be no good at all if engineers built a footbridge that they calculate would more than hold my weight, but I get there and in my reality disagrees and the footbridge holds only half my weight. The same goes for maths or geometry, how could a circle in your world have a value of PI, that is any different from mine. All of this Knowledge is based on epistemology that is also universal. That, in turn, is based on a universal logic.

There is a word for people who are in denial about the self evident nature of reality. Psychiatric institutions are full of people who believe such things as, 'that they become invisible when they close their own eyes'. Anybody who honestly thinks, that by believing something about the world outside their own head, the world itself, changes according to their belief, deserves a room in one of those institutions.

&nd as for Reason itself, need you be reminded it is but one of the critical faculties – and in my view, not at all of the highest innate-value or the most noble. Whether one agree or disagree – by itself it is worse than worthless. Without Spirit in its totality (my term, meaning the totality of the psychical entity) – Reason is nothing, not even an orphan – and without Reason, Spirit would not be possible.

Ok. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, but for 'critical faculties', I suppose you may mean such things as aesthetics, ethics, utility etc... Well, you and I may both agree and hold such things in very high regard, but firstly I don't necessarily regard them as interdependent or at least inseparable in the fine. In fact It is important to me, to establish the aspect of virtue for which you are arguing, in any point of debate. I might even be tempted to contend that truth is the highest virtue and even that it has it's own intrinsic, aesthetic value. I should at least contend that 'reason' is the critical faculty that deserves the highest priority. Reason enables us to move our models of objective, empirical reality, from tentative speculation, to ones that more closely agree with the evidence at hand. When all is said and done I would much rather accept an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie. I don't quite know what you mean by 'spirit' either but I suspect I will have no use for that hypothesis.

...until one learns how to be reasonable – dialogue is held in perpetual stasis.

In order to be reasonable, one must be willing to enter into the dialog with a willingness to examine their preconceptions and beliefs. Showing the reasoning by which they have come by those beliefs, is par for the course in my reckoning. The word 'reasonable' is based on 'reason' and 'able' When you are reasonable you are able to reason. I realise that in the common vernacular it has come to mean fair and/or amicable. But I still maintain that it is fair to expect people to question their beliefs particularly if they are pitching a debate on contending worldviews. As for amicable. I can be plenty amicable, with people who are not given to decietful sophism. Chasing the 'out' when they have drawn somebody into a debate they can't sensibly win, is a recipe for contention. I don't like people pretending they are willing to engage in honest debate and then becoming irrational. That's not reasonable. That's called sophism.

(To Be Continued...)

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 04:07 AM

Continued from 'Common Sense Truth (2)

&nd as for Reason itself, need you be reminded it is but one of the critical faculties – and in my view, not at all of the highest innate-value or the most noble. Whether one agree or disagree – by itself it is worse than worthless. Without Spirit in its totality (my term, meaning the totality of the psychical entity) – Reason is nothing, not even an orphan – and without Reason, Spirit would not be possible.

Ok. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, but for 'critical faculties', I suppose you may mean such things as aesthetics, ethics, utility etc... Well, you and I may both agree and hold such things in very high regard, but firstly I don't necessarily regard them as interdependent or at least inseparable in the fine. In fact It is important to me, to establish the aspect of virtue for which you are arguing, in any point of debate. I might even be tempted to contend that truth is the highest virtue and even that it has it's own intrinsic, aesthetic value. I should at least contend that 'reason' is the critical faculty that deserves the highest priority. Reason enables us to move our models of objective, empirical reality, from tentative speculation, to ones that more closely agree with the evidence at hand. When all is said and done I would much rather accept an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie. I don't quite know what you mean by 'spirit' either but I suspect I will have no use for that hypothesis.

...until one learns how to be reasonable – dialogue is held in perpetual stasis.

In order to be reasonable, one must be willing to enter into the dialouge with a willingness to examine their preconceptions and beliefs. Showing the reasoning by which they have come by those beliefs, is par for the course in my reconing. The word 'reasonable' is based on 'reason' and 'able' When you are reasonable you are able to reason. I realise that in the common vernacular it has come to mean fair and/or amicable. But I still maintain that it is fair to expect people to question their beliefs particularly if they are pitching a debate on contending worldviews. As for amicable. I can be plenty amicable, with people who are not given to decietful sophism. Chassing the 'out' when you have drawn somebody into a debate you can't sensibly win, is a recipie for contention. I dont like people pretending they are willing to engage in honest debate and then becoming irrational. That's not reasonable. That's called sophism.

When it comes to religion, I have a special can to kick. It nauseates me. Creationists dont mind using bad reasoning and muddle headed ideas, if they think it is winning over the converts. They don't mind enlisting the power of reasoning and logic at all, if they think that they can get away with it, as a means to bolster their peurile myths. The trouble is, logical reasoning will only help them in cases where they have their facts wrong (good logic, bad data). Otherwise it will be found that they have their logic wrong (Good data bad logic). Evidenced based, logical reasoning does not support the puerile dogma of creationism, quite the contrary. When their logical house of cards falls over, creationists will put on a different philosophical hat and move from rationalist to cultural relativist or whatever else might get them off the hook so they don't have to answer to evidence.

Look what all your careful attention, energy, good-faith (yes I recognize it) and earnest effort here has accomplished in the way of dialogue hitherto.

Hey!? Some people watch sport and I am convinced that is a waste of time. Challenging fundamentalist Creationism, is something of a sport for me. Besides which, the dialog is still going and you are in it. A much more interesting and satisfying development from where I stand. Besides, dialog may not be my only motive. These debates can be something of a spectator sport too.

Any fool can point to the irrational and berate it ‘til the moon turns to cheese and falls to Earth. A sage will never waste the energy.

Hmmmmmmm!!!! Moon Cheese. Yum. :D

And when a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile gawks at the finger. It is never a waste of time to draw a distinction between the rational and the irrational, and it is not something I believe 'any fool' can do. Any fool can claim they have another "way of knowing' and fail to procure evidence that confirms it. Any fool can pretend they are being rational then shift the goal posts, or play bait and switch.

When some mean bully of an evolutionist, dares to contradict the 'wisdom' of the creationist world-view, the response is to sulk, pout, and complain that the creationist is being personally attacked or that the evolutionist is attempting to force their opinions on the creationist

So what? Why do you care?

Perhaps Ill just cut to the chase. Allow me to quote the late great Douglas Adams:

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, “Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!” If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says “I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday,” you say, “I respect that.”

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking “Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?” But I wouldn’t have thought, “Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics,” when I was making the other points. I just think, “Fine, we have different opinions.” But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say “No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it.”

Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows — but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

I suspect that you will not agree with Douglas over the point about the scientific method being the most powerful intellectual idea, but I agree with him 100% and it is time to stop pussy footing around with religion. As Sam Harris has said 'it will unmake our world'.

You don't see evolutionists, going door to door or standing on street corners preaching to people about their worldview.

They don’t need to, and they don’t feel moved to do so – nor have they been given any ‘commandment’ to ‘go forth and proselytize.’ So what?

So... I was being accused of trying to force my beliefs onto my opponent. Apparently, the distinction between critiquing another persons beliefs and proselyting ones own, is a concept that is lost on some people. Christians do proselytize rather gratuitously, so it is rather a 'pot calling the kettle black' kind of situation.

It is Creationists of many stripes, who have the monopoly on witnessing, conversion and indoctrination

No, it’s not by a very long shot.
They’re just generally far less sophisticated or subtle in how they attempt it.

You are joking of course - right? It certainly isn't atheists or secular humanists which are leading the fray.

You seem to me, to all intents & purposes to be an ‘evolutionist’ and ‘empiricist’ who is attempting to do it now, in the same unsophisticated, unsubtle manner.

You seem to me, to be mistaking passion for proselytizing. I may decry Christianity and other religions, while I may also advocate reason, nature and science, but atheism is not a doctrine in and of itself. It is simply the absence of the set of beliefs pertaining to supernatural creation and creator deities. There is no central tenet and certainly no dogma to proselytize.

(To be Continued)

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 08:56 AM

I couldn't give a tinkers damn, about your distorted picture of reality, I said so and I mean it

Who would spend so much time & energy on something they don’t give a damn about?

I have explained this. I was not spending time doing a conversion on RegretMeFog. The opportunity is to expose the Intellectual poverty of creationism for others who might be lurking, participating or looking up this thread in the future. If that helps them to come to terms with the non-existence of a supernatural creator then good on 'em. More importantly there is overwhelming evidence to support biological evolution, while supernatural creation is a completely unsubstantiated, positively falsified, infantile, myth from the bronze age. Unlike creationists I don't canvas support by proselyting in the manner of 'believe this or you will go to hell', 'Jebus, loves you don't you love him back' and all manner of emotional blackmail. For my part, the facts should speak for themselves, at least in a rational world they would.

I don't care much for beliefs at all. What I care about is truth. The kind that can be demonstrated by reasoning and honest, rational inquiry.

You apparently haven’t yet developed sufficient powers of discernment to recognize it when you see it. No ‘truth’ can be demonstrated by any mean, measure or artifice. Unless we will agree on our semantics for a philosophy of aesthetics and come to hold that objectification of an artist’s intent is a type-demonstration of a ‘truth.’

Huh???

&nd if you didn’t care for ‘beliefs’ – you would be enveloped in total silence: - and completely dysfunctional. In common usage, we’d call it a coma.

Well apparently I am in a coma then. I don't care for beliefs because for a rationalist, they are trivial secondary artifacts of reason. They are not something to be heralded as important for two reasons: 1.) I should not choose a belief I should come to it by way of reason. When I recognise something is a fact, that is the same as saying I believe it. 2.) In keeping with the convention that all knowledge is, in the strictest terms, provisional, and depends upon the present evidence, I realise that I may have to adjust my beliefs. On the other hand belief is a little simplistic. I don't always either believe or disbelieve something. Instead, I may choose to estimate my confidence level in a proposition. If knowledge is provisional, even if truth is not, then it is better to have a mental gradient of probabilities, than absolute beliefs or disbeliefs. What I mean by 'I don't care for beliefs', is that beliefs don't make something true, reasons do. Placing reason before belief is one of my personal maxims.

But when you enter a public forum and pitch your loopy beliefs, as worthy contenders, by comparison to rational, naturalistic, science based facts, then you are encroaching on my turf, and I will rightfully hold your beliefs to the same rational scrutiny, as I am willing to hold my beliefs.

I believe that in your mind presently, this is consistent with your conception of ‘fairness’ (or ‘justice’ if you prefer) – but it’s not.
You’re only subjecting them to a war you carry on with yourself, one begun long before you crossed any of their paths, and you want to do it at their expense.

Expense??? EXPENSE??? They spend a few minutes (ok, maybe more like 10 mins) reading one of my posts, and they get a little offended about being told their worldview is the primative anti-intellectual barbaric dogma that it actually is.

That’s not only cruel, it’s very juvenile – also an error.

The error (with all due respect) is yours I'm sorry.

What is cruel, is the pain of a mother who has just learned of her son being killed on the streets of blood, inspired by religious hatred. Cruelty is children who are labeled Catholic or Jewish or Muslim, by their parents before they have developed the rational acumen to even comprehend what religion is, or how it fits into the grand scheme of human affairs. Cruel is the providence, of the young adult who has had the curiosity for nature sapped out of them by being taught they are not part of nature but specially created; That unquestioning faith is good, while skepticism is bad. Cruel is being made to marry some one you don't love who may keep you locked away, and and only allow you out in public if you are with a man or a male child.

Cruel is the fate of somebody never being allowed too get near those philosophy books you love so much and never discovering that they themselves, are the next Spinoza, Kierkegaard or even Russel. Cruel is having ones genitalia mutilated or a child being all but discarded by society because he or (mostly) she, is born under inconvenient circumstances, which the moral edicts of her parents religion abhor. Cruelty is being indoctrinated with so much self loathing, that you believe you must cover yourself (for modesty sake), from head to toe, in shapeless garb with only a narrow slit for your eyes. Cruel is being stoned to death for uttering an unspeakable word or name. Cruel is a child being sodomized by a priest, not because his religious doctrine endorses it, but because of the loneliness of celibacy and the eventual, sudden watershed, of repressed sexual urges.

Let me tell you something right now, my maturity policing friend. I am a pacifist and an atheist. As passionate as my views are, I don't get into fist fights or throw stones and rocks. I don't own or use any weapons. I don't keep my girlfriend inside unless I go with her. I don't mutilate her genitalia. I don't burn books, push my moral dictates into the media or political arena or kill abortionists. Believe it or not I don't even strap explosives to myself and detonate them in a crowd.

How trivially easy it is to say that somebody is cruel, because their heartfelt words are brutally honest and denigrating to the religious faithful. It's easy to forget what cruelty really is, from our privileged vantage, while living in a healthy democracy, where the most cruel thing you are likely to see or hear, is a few harsh words.

My battles are entirely limited to words and that is the least I can do to advocate against religion. I believe as Douglas Adams has said, that there is no reason to ring fence religion and just respect it. It doesn't deserve my respect. It deserves contempt and plenty of it. Just remember sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you. Scientists are constantly criticizing each others theory and conjecture and trying to pick holes. That is healthy and constructive for science. Religion on the other hand vehemently abhors criticism and seeks to insulate the dogma from intellectual critique.

Atheists are not a violent hate mongering mob, as many religions have shown themselves to be. The three Abrehamic religions are the worst. We tend to react at a distance like this: We see the atrocities on TV and shake our heads in astonishment. Two news bulletins later it is all but forgotten. We are grateful that it is not going on in our backyard, but how long before it is? Islam is spreading and it wasn't like a hundred years ago, that the problems in Northern Ireland died down.

As Sam Harris has pointed out in The End Of Faith. Religious moderation is not the answer. The holly texts themselves are just so deplorably violent and moraly bankrupt. A moderate is failing to live by the letter of the scriptures, while the extremist is on the theological high ground. As a Christian, If your kids come home and tell you the have become Hare Krishnah for example, you are obliged to stone them to death. If you fail to do this, you are not a very good Christian. Meanwhile the moderates keep the nauseating dogma alive, and provide a subterfuge for the extremists.

(To be continued...)

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 09:31 AM

Continued from 'Common Sense Truth (4)'

You cannot trumpet the ‘virtues’ of science for having well-reasoned models, and conveniently dispose of ‘model’ when critiquing any un-scientific conception. Once you do that your intellectual integrity proves its mortality.

Oh!! Come on now Nephele!! :confused: You know very well that you are clutching
at rhetorical straws here. For starters all models do not correspond equally well or parsimoniously with reality itself. You can pretend all you like that we can never get a measure of parsimony or reality but you can only speak for yourself. I certainly can trumpet the ‘virtues’ of science for having well-reasoned models and I can also admonish un-scientific conceptions for having poorly reasoned models, if and when they do.

Express the difference of your taste if you like – but what more is there?

Um... lets see. Preventing the spread of religion. Getting religion out of schools. Applying pressure, to make parents giving children religious labels a politically incorrect Faux Pas. Encouraging people to form secular fellowship groups and charities to replace church communion and charities. To rid the church of it's undeserved tax breaks or provide the same tax breaks to secular community NGO's, etc etc... There's plenty to do and advocate for, like - where is the atheist section in this forum?

So what? Are you going to ‘challenge’ every one of them?

Nope. We have to pick our battles.

What kind of world would we be living in now, if each and every one of us allowed this kind of 'thinking' to pass for intelligent reasoning. You might guess we would still be living in the dark ages.

&nd what exactly do you ‘know’ of ‘Worldness?’

Nothing.

You think so little of Schopenhauer for example?

Yeah Ive heard of him. He's the one who's name starts with an 'S' :)

&nd are you so enlightened & have still not apprehended that we are very much in a Dark Age even now?

The darkest things in this age are nearly all products of religion.

Why so much Priestliness? What you hold ‘true’ today, is the carrion of tomorrow’s laughter.

I tire of this misconception that all, most or even a significant amount of what is known today will be torn down, replaced and subject to ridicule. That is not what happens in science, - nothing of the sort.

I don't think we would get that far. I don't think we would have discovered the wheel nor learned to light a fire and cook food. We would probably have gone extinct before religion was ever invented.

None of those things owes to reason in-itself. Nor indeed, has anything of worth man has achieved. Reason is the faculty of ‘after-thought.’

That is a very parochial perspective you have there Nephele. I understand that the context of discovery, is quite different from the context of justification, but the reason exists in nature, not in the mind of the beholder. The objective in science, is to build up an understanding of cause and effect relationships from nature. Reasoning, in hindsight, allows us to explain how it all fits together, so that would be the context of justification. When a phenomenon is discovered in nature it is supposed that there should be a reason for it. The reason is more or less the same as the cause, but reasoning can be and usually is a part of the hypothesis building and speculating phase of any theory. It also plays into comparing evidence and applying Ockhams' razor. Reasoning is simply finding or showing a reason for something. Reasons are built up in theories, but the real reason being mapped by our mind is out there, in the cause and effect relationships in nature.

Percival Lowell discovered Pluto and the main evidence that tipped him off, were minor disturbances in the orbits of the other planets. Lowell, had discovered an effect first as is often the case. He reasoned that these deviations of the other planets should be caused by something with a particular mass. He then collected the data to calculate the orbit, and in so doing he reasoned that the trajectory would follow such and such an ark. Armed with this information he could then calculate the position at a time in the future when he could train a telescope onto it. All the way through this discovery we see Lowell using reason as the principal methodology. So I am sorry, but I can't let you get away with divorcing reason from the process of discovery.

The inspiration in the moment may be inductive but the game-plan on what to figure out next and interpreting the implications are deductive reasoning. In the wash up, what is learned is what reasons lay behind a thing and what reason we have to believe a particular fact, such as that 'the mass of Pluto is 1.3 × 10^22 kg'.

Reason in a more general sense can (for me at least) also means, appreciating that there is a reason for things. It stands in contrast with faith because faith does not require reason. Faith to me is synonymous with 'believing you know something which you have no reason to believe you know.'

Do you think it simply a consistently recurring ‘accident’ in history that ‘wrong,’ ‘bad,’ ‘false,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘misguided,’ ‘naïve’ ideas have been the most fecund seeds & seed-beds of our greatest achievements? –and, conversely, that seldom is so much harm done than flows from the ‘well-meaning,’ ‘well-reasoned,’ ‘rational,’ etc..?

I don't actually see history that way. Most False or bad ideas are tossed into the wastepaper basket before their products see the light of day. Meanwhile most good or true ideas produce good results. You keep making me hear Supertramps' 'Logical song'. I didn't think I would be enjoying this thread so much a couple of days ago. :)

Helix42

12-06-2007, 09:37 AM

There is this weird view that somehow men of Christian faith and men of science cannot be the same, but if you take a look at history some of the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have also been Christians.

I don't think a belief in Jesus as savior is has anything to do with science or an endorsement of evolution or creationism. People simply pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. Many Christians will tell you they don't accept the Adam and Eve story as fact.

You are right that belief doesn't have anything to do with endorsements, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. It just strikes me as strange that we have this 'modern' idea that science and Christian faith are not compatible when most of the 'giants', upon whose shoulders modern science stands, where men of faith as well.

You are right that people do cherry pick from the Bible and this is also one of the greatest problems with Christianity in general. How is it that we get to decide what is truth and what is fiction? What is the rule you use for make that distinction? You are willing to take on faith that a man rose from the dead, but unwilling to accept that the same God created the universe in the manner described? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In for a penny in for a pound; it would seem that if you believe one thing you should believe another - if it is in fact from the same wholly reliable source.

Just something to think about...

Later

Helix42

12-06-2007, 10:07 AM

Doesn't it just boil down to ..If it makes you Happy, why should you worry about it?

Wayne,
No...

Lots of stuff makes me happy. Not all of it is good for me.

"These things that are pleasing you will hurt you somehow" Eagles, Desperado

Later

Goldy

12-06-2007, 12:53 PM

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 01:41 PM

You are right that belief doesn't have anything to do with endorsements, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. It just strikes me as strange that we have this 'modern' idea that science and Christian faith are not compatible when most of the 'giants', upon whose shoulders modern science stands, where men of faith as well.

Hi Helix,

Are you aware of the term NOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29) (non over-lapping magisteria). The late Stephen Jay Gould (Evolutionary Biologist - Essay Writer Extrordinare) was fond of it and may have even coined the term. I don't believe he was a practicing Christian, and in fact railed against fundamentalist creationism (for obvious reasons) quite vociferously.

If the bible did not make empirical claims about the nature of the universe, then I might be inclined to take NOMA seriously, but it does and I don't.

You are right that people do cherry pick from the Bible and this is also one of the greatest problems with Christianity in general. How is it that we get to decide what is truth and what is fiction? What is the rule you use for make that distinction?

A wonderful concession on your part and oh so painfully true. If a person is to take the entire bible, literally as gospel and live by the letter of it, I would suggest they are forced to accept some rather awkward contradictions. Even worse are the moral dilemmas imposed upon carrying out the atrocities demanded by the 'good' book. You might like to check out Sam Harris' The End Of Faith (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/), on this point. The example Harris gives is alarming to say the least:

If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . .(Deuteronomy 13:6)

You are willing to take on faith that a man rose from the dead, but unwilling to accept that the same God created the universe in the manner described? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In for a penny in for a pound; it would seem that if you believe one thing you should believe another - if it is in fact from the same wholly reliable source.

I could think of better things to call it than a "wholly reliable source" Helix. Like a pile of disgusting sadomasochistic, bullshit. You are right though. you either need accept or reject the whole lot.

Helix42

12-06-2007, 02:04 PM

Skepticus,

Hi Helix,

Are you aware of the term NOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29) (non over-lapping magisteria). The late Stephen Jay Gould (Evolutionary Biologist - Essay Writer Extrordinare) was fond of it and may have even coined the term. I don't believe he was a practicing Christian, and in fact railed against fundamentalist creationism (for obvious reasons) quite vociferously.

If the bible did not make empirical claims about the nature of the universe, then I might be inclined to take NOMA seriously, but it does and I don't.

Good for you! With what little I have read about it, I don't think much of it either. However I am not really sure I get what it has to do with what I said?

A wonderful concession on your part and oh so painfully true. If a person is to take the entire bible, literally as gospel and live by the letter of it, I would suggest they are forced to accept some rather awkward contradictions. Even worse are the moral dilemmas imposed upon carrying out the atrocities demanded by the 'good' book. You might like to check out Sam Harris' The End Of Faith (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chapter-one/), on this point. The example Harris gives is alarming to say the least:
The example is also wrong, but this thread is not a place for a long discussion about the applicability of Old Testament Law either. If we lived in a theocracy then more of the judicial law might apply, but we don't so it doesn't and the point is moot. This type of an attack usually involves some sort of misunderstanding on the part of the atheist concerning Christian doctrines.

I could think of better things to call it than a "wholly reliable source" Helix. Like a pile of disgusting sadomasochistic, bullshit. You are right though. you either need accept or reject the whole lot.The latter was the point. It is either true or it isn't there is no middle ground. God, quite deliberately, takes this away.

Have I been rude to you in some way?

Cheers

Helix42

12-06-2007, 02:15 PM

Goldy,

My point was that these scientific men of faith, whom while identifying with Christian faith, may have held widely varying beliefs about what is true and what is not in the Bible. If one takes a consistent literal view of the Bible, one may have more difficulty reconciling it with science than one that takes it less literally and more philosophically. This is the case with anything and point taken. I don't take everything literally. There is considerable latitude in the interpretation of many things, especially where it overlaps with science. However, the 'philosophical' should not contradict a straightforward reading. I was just clarifying that my point was that faith is not mutually exclusive with reason or science.

(chuckling) Same wholly reliable source according to whom? If you believe, then you would consider the Bible a reliable source for the information that you like (salvation, God's love etc.) The point being that, for the believer, the things that you don't like and the things that you do have the same source, therefore it seems silly to accept one and discount the other.

"Cherry picking" the Bible may not make sense, but it is what people do and have done since there was a Bible to cherry pick.I think they have been doing it before the Bible was compiled. Unfortunately most will never the see silliness of it and it is a source of many problems.

Later.

Helix42

12-06-2007, 03:35 PM

Skepticus

12-06-2007, 10:56 PM

Hi Derek.
Thanks for dropping in.

I must say, skepticus, I am impressed that such an abundance of knowledge can be stored in one tiny place, relatively speaking. That is, I am comparing the size of your head to the size of an automobile parked on a roof.
I dare say that if a further comparison were to be carried out, in particular regarding the amount of knowledge contained in your head as opposed to said auto, you would win, hands down. That is assuming that to have more of something, knowledge in this case, makes one a winner.

It also assumes that knowledge, is a concept that can sensibly be quantified in terms of euclidean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry) volume. If you would like to do anything other than rattle my cage, you might like to choose a specific point I have made or addressed, give it some careful consideration, and provide a specific response.

Evidently, skepticus, our species is indeed evolving. In the process, some individuals have gained the ability to store vastly greater amounts of knowledge in roughly the same size grapefruit sized cavity as the rest. They then use this superior intelligence to achieve monstrous heights in the art of condescension (whew! had to run a spell check on that one. Bet you wouldn't have! Am I right!?).

No. I'm afraid spelling skills are not my strong suit. Look Derek. There is nothing astounding, about the quantity of information I have called upon in this discussion. For starters, most of my argumentation, attempts to appeal to common sense. The specific evidence I could draw upon, to discuss the specific details of evolutionary theory are immense, but I don't need to have them memorised to use them. I have read many books on evolution and quite a few that specifically deal with the creation / evolution debate. I am not professing myself to be an intellectual giant, by simply by putting forward some of the knowledge I have acquired, such as it is.

What kind of argument is it, that claims a person is wrong about anything, on the grounds that they appear to have too much knowledge about it? An irrelevant and extremely backward one I would suggest. There are certain miscellaneous plaints which are made all too prolifically by the creationist front or their apologists, that are obvious diversions from the debate at hand:

That the atheist is using words that are too big.
That the atheist seems to smart to be correct.
That the atheists posts are too long.

All of these things, have nothing to do with the subject matter being debated, and only present a pretense at doing debate. They are also matters of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) rhetoric. If somebody makes a criticism, that is not directed at the content and substance of another persons' post, then it must be directed at the person. It is advisable that you should avoid joining that fray Derek.

I really do look forward to coming back to see how the last several pages unfold, however for now the time has come to begin my evening commute. That is, assuming my car is where I left it in the lot, and not hoisted to the roof of my building when I wasn't looking.

Not that I'm worried; I have faith it will be right where I left it this morning.

The point of my car on the roof example, was that the location of a car should not depend on faith or any kind of relativist interpretation. Your approximation of where your car is, built out of commonsense understandings of an objective reality, evidence and reasoning. When you confidently find your car where you expected it to be, it is not your faith that helped you. If you loose your car (as in when you forget where you parked it), your faith will not step in and fill the void left by the information you have forgotten. Faith is a redundant concept at best.

Skepticus

12-07-2007, 04:45 AM

Skepticus,

I read the excerpt from Same Harris' book you linked me too.

I would have to agree with much of what he says concerning the religious moderates. I can't say I would have use for much else.

His attack on faith in general is well off the mark and predicated on the assumption that all religious faith is misplaced. He also seems to have forgotten who "hobbled" the church in the West and allowed all his intellectual freedom.

Later

Ok. Thanks for that Helix. Could you perhaps, provide some links or references to more information, how his attack on faith is "off the mark", and also to "who "hobbled" the church in the West and allowed all his intellectual freedom."

I must say that your willingness to do constructive debate, and concede a point, is refreshingly honest and heartening from where I stand. You deserve my most sincere respect. I will have to concede that my angriness to all creationists, for unconditional rhetoric and sophism, obviously doesn't apply to you. If you will do me the honor, please disregard anything I have formerly said in broad generality, about such unreasoned disputation, as it so obviously does not apply to the likes of yourself.

For you as with Nephale, at this moment in time, If I knew where to send it, I could easily send a bouquet, as a gesture of goodwill. :) :) :) :) !!!!!!

Helix42

12-07-2007, 10:21 AM

Skepticus,

Ok. Thanks for that Helix. Could you perhaps, provide some links or references to more information, how his attack on faith is "off the mark", and also to "who "hobbled" the church in the West and allowed all his intellectual freedom."

I don't need to reference an outside source for Sam Harris' assessment of religious faith, one sentence will suffice. He predicates his entire argument, concerning religion, on the premise that all religious faith is groundless and false.

Granted I only read 10% of his total work, but from that sample, it was clear that he considered all religion equally false and unfounded. His argument is only worth the paper its written on if and only if, this presupposition is correct. If there exists a 'true' religion then everything he has written is worse than false. I'll try to find it at the library and read the rest. Generally, I don't spend much of my time reading works written by atheists (go figure) :).

As for who hobbled religion in west, any decent history book will do. The very idea of religious liberty or 'no state sponsored religion' was conceived by religious men. Who wrote the Constitution? Who formed our government? These men understood that a man should be free to believe as he wished, and by in large they were Christians. I have focused on American History with this, it is what I am most familiar with, but I think that if we were to look back, just a bit, we would see that intellectual liberty was birthed by men seeking religious liberty.

Before we get into a huge diatribe about the history of the church, I will grant that it is checkered at best. However, if you look at the history of the church you will also have to grant that many many fine things have also resulted from its existence. To do otherwise would be disingenuous at best. I would also point out that if you look at the history of any political entity run by humans you will likely find a similar pattern. It is more human nature that is the cause of monstrosity than religious faith. But - I will say something you may find surprising: Any adherent to any faith - be it humanism, naturalism or other religion who blindly follows any leader without knowing either what he really believes or why he believes it is likely to find himself in deep trouble or doing things that they would otherwise find repugnant.

I must say that your willingness to do constructive debate, and concede a point, is refreshingly honest and heartening from where I stand. You deserve my most sincere respect. I will have to concede that my angriness to all creationists, for unconditional rhetoric and sophism, obviously doesn't apply to you. If you will do me the honor, please disregard anything I have formerly said in broad generality, about such unreasoned disputation, as it so obviously does not apply to the likes of yourself.

For you as with Nephale, at this moment in time, If I knew where to send it, I could easily send a bouquet, as a gesture of goodwill. !!!!!!

Flowers are unnecessary - although I do like the way they smell; except lavender, I'm allergic.:D

If you will allow a bit of respectful critique, you will find that there are more people like me than you realize if you don't generalize your anger and stick to the points in contention. If you carefully look back you might find that you launched into a 20 page thesis discussing alternate epistemologies from a simple statement that was not (I think) intended that way. I believe that she was simply stating that from her point of view, creation was what she believed, and from yours naturalism makes more sense. This was more of a statement of belief than an attempt to set up a whole alternate reality. Occam's razor applies to things like this as well. [No, I will not grant a universal applicability to the 'razor', but I do find it interesting that Occam was a Christian] In any case, I think it is less that no one wanted to have a reasoned discourse with you and more that you just wore them out with an avalanche of words. I respond and continue to do so, because I am long winded and like the sound of my own clicking keys. I also don't have very many healthy hobbies :)

Oh, and please stop using the words 'common sense'. It doesn't exist, sense is not common and in any case you can't define what 'common sense' means, since no two people have the same concept of what 'common sense' actually is.

Later

Helix42

12-07-2007, 11:30 AM

Skepticus,

The point of my car on the roof example, was that the location of a car should not depend on faith or any kind of relativist interpretation.

The 'real life' or objective if you wish, location of the car is not dependent on any kind of relativism. But, that is not the question is it? The question is do I directly perceive its objective location (or existence)? And do I perceive it correctly? The relativistic interpretation is found in perception. If I am blind I don't perceive the car at all. Does that mean that the car doesn't exist? Not in an objective sense, but in terms of my perception it might as well not exist and I might argue a lot that it doesn't. Unless of course I get hit by it, but even then I don't necessarily perceive it as a car. Does this mean it isn't a car? No, nor does it make me less dead or wrong. If I am color blind I don't perceive the car correctly and might argue that a car you see as red I see as blue. Is the objective car different? That cannot be determined precisely, but I think that we would agree that it doesn't.

Your approximation of where your car is, built out of commonsense understandings of an objective reality, evidence and reasoning. When you confidently find your car where you expected it to be, it is not your faith that helped you. If you loose your car (as in when you forget where you parked it), your faith will not step in and fill the void left by the information you have forgotten. Faith is a redundant concept at best.
To the creationist, God created the heavens and the earth. When He was done He said that it was 'good'. This is the real objective reality instead of the perceived reality that you keep referring to. Adam and Eve, before the fall, perceived their world with perfect senses. They saw objective reality and they saw it in the same way (correctly). There was only one perception of reality and it was true. Then there was this little problem and everything changed. No longer were man's senses perfect and creation was cursed along with them. Objectivity of was lost and philosophy was born :) Objective reality still exists, but our perception of reality is no longer objective. Our senses can no longer discern 'objective reality' correctly. Does this mean that everything has become relativistic - of course not. Objective reality is still there.

What we have lost is precision. We still perceive reality, but we no longer perceive it correctly. With pure reason I can no longer determine if the objective car is red or blue. I can no longer be certain that I am perceiving the actual car or something else that looks or feels like a car. Pure reason and evidence fails me when I can no longer determine if the evidence I am observing is in fact 'objective'. You can use an argument by consensus and say things like, "most people see it at red so therefore we will stipulate that it is objectively red". But, you can see the fallacy here correct? We can no longer determine, with any precision, that what we see is what we get. However, good sense will tell you that if we can observe some things and make quantified predictions based on these observations that these observations do in fact point to an objective reality and are reasonably reliable. This is how we construct the thing you were referring to as 'objective reality'. We make observations, we make predictions based on those observations and then if our hand encounters our car keys we pat ourselves on the back for our objectivity. So, what do we have if we can't fully trust our perception of reality? We have faith.

Faith has two elements: belief and trust. When we make an observation we must believe that what we are seeing is an objective object and trust that our senses can be relied upon in an elemental way to give us at least rough information about this object. This is faith in its most fundamental form. Faith buttressed by experience and necessity. We have faith in our senses to provide information and that this information will be reasonably accurate. Faith is not redundant it is the only thing that really matters in your example. If you remove faith you remove any ability a sane man might have to interact with reality.

Later

Nephele

12-07-2007, 08:38 PM

:)

Now I have what I was looking for in this thread – a sort of psychologist’s Playbill giving a clear(er) synopsis of the performing characters.
The lines more neatly drawn, the stage set & the house lights turned to a slightly-brighter glow.

Now I feel more comfortable in my seat. I have a sense of what the performance is, what it is really about – even the most-tantalizing titles are usually so subtly-deceptive.

Enter Creationist number one: “I see God.”
Creationist two: “And I, too!”
…

The winglet curtains are drawn-back …

Yes, I find it amusing & entertaining. Like a good play of Beckett, with which it shares a good deal in common.

I am grateful for your replies given, Helix & Skepitcus.
How we define and employ our terms says a lot about the person.
To the latter I can say little more at this point than, this Epicurean spectator is outdone by your zeal and lavish bequest of time & energy.
With the good, healthy appetite of an Epicurean however, I selfishly enjoy the fruits of your time in the kitchen.

You have argued well with few-exceptions and, while I am admittedly nearly equally amused and bemused by such forceful swings of so colossal a hammer to strike flies on a sill, I recognize that such do not appear as ‘flies’ in your view or estimation, and you have applied such force as you have thought them altogether worthy.
For all the ‘evolutionary’ (or will you say, ‘devolutionary?’) forces of nature, of reasoning & unreasoning which have produced such flies, I am of similar mind and temper. Too much so perhaps, & enough to know what good grounds there are to distinguish between a theater and an amphitheater, and both from a battlefield.

That there should be no misunderstandings on this point, my dearly beloved husband holds his doctorate in Physics and makes his living as a physicist – and for mine & myself, my field is theoretical psychology, and we have done and do quite well.
The questions which have here most-interested me, dear Skepticus, pertain not to this old ground my husband & I have covered all-too-many times both in and after University, amongst ourselves and with others – but with what is behind those who here take up the contentiousness in so comedic a venue and circumstance.
That it be so taken up… Good. I am briefly entertained.

Whether you feel, think, reason, believe, whichever it be – you’re enjoying a delightful ‘sport’ of clubbing frogs in a barrel, or are engaging in a struggle for survival to stave-off the ‘un-making of the world,’ or in earnest combat against the insufferable, but long-suffered acts of cruelty and ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ perpetrated in the name of religion – it is equally amusing to me.
..However you rationalize and justify your Quixotic endeavors here.
These windmills are not dragons. They’re windmills – their worn & weathered sails still extended b’neath the same old Sun, turning inertly and no longer kissed by the wind which once got them spinning and creaking in the same rattling, scraping, clacking manner in the first place. Most, I dare venture, have no idea what those breezes ever even were – and they care less than they know.
Neither, I venture, will all your blowing against them in opposite direction slow them a whit, and all will (historically) eventually cease their relatively inane and collaboratively-diseased spinning by simple depletion of energy and the inexorable effects of nihilistic forces. (e.g. humanity will ‘grow-up’).

“I just believe because I believe.” Do you not sense in this already the nine-tenths dead sigh of the mortally-exhausted?

*shrug* ..Ok. What is that to me?

Castigat ridendo mores.

Yes, that it be said, I am in such regards much more a fatalist a la Heraclitus than are others, such as yourself – to this too, I say, so what? I am as entertained watching the resistance of the ‘old guard,’ as I am the initiatives and offenses of the avant-garde.
The not-so subtle-fusions in you of the same Spirit & ideation of the Enlightenment and Renaissance combined, the apparent or seeming concern for all humanity and belief that the ‘advances’ of science and learning will, in the Spirit and cheerful hopefulness of Condorcet, Hobbes or thinkers of such ilk, result in the ‘improvement of mankind,’ are charming.
You will find me sitting quietly for the most by the side of Nietzsche saying: “Beware the ‘Improvers of mankind,’” and quite aware how resistant are the multitudes to improving anything.

For myself, I hold everything Judean in absolute contempt and oft’ repeat how man has not-yet been plagued by a more grotesque & insidious disease. The very-pinnacle of insalubriousness.
In fact, I can’t so much as hear or read the word ‘christian’ without it swelling my mind with the suffocating fourteen hundred year history revolving around Constantinople.
..But, I don’t blame herd animals for being herd animals, and I can certainly recognize one when I see one.

To invoke ‘common sense’ is fine, so long as it is invoked inter pares.
Otherwise, what is its utility?

Let me tell you something, my dear word-warrior, what you have been engaged in here has not been merely an attack on religion (to that end I keep either my silence or would join with you) – but when you cross by ad hominem to wound the dignity of another, it has become something else.
Yes, it is a ‘double-standard.’ I know it & I readily admit it.
I don’t say anything to christians who do that because that’s what I expect from them. I expect them to do pretty much everything I hold in contempt. I’m surprised when they don’t: and I have long since grown bored of the unreflective-resistance to learning & understanding anything, including decorum and ‘common’-decency.
When I see one who gives me every good reason to believe and regard s/he has a more developed view & understanding of things, a greater perspective with regard to a reality-based ‘world-view’ and that one condescends to ad hominem, the chances are better than fair I may lean forward and ask – ‘what are you doing?’

As well for the record, I’m also philosophically an atheist with ineffable regard for Nature, I see humanity for what it is, nothing more and nothing less:
While I am acutely aware of man as a transcending-animal as a type, he remains in my view neither more nor less than another animal.
I don’t believe in ‘creationism’ & I do contend that organisms have and do evolve by purely natural forces and processes – just as I believe & contend that ‘the Universe’ came into Being both through purely natural causation & through a creative differentiation by empirical observers.
In Being, it simply is what it is. We see fit to have a word for our awareness of it, and to conceive & speak of it as though it were a thing-in-itself.
Unlike Hegel, and many self-flattering & deluded-scientists, I no more believe or reason that ‘knowledge’ is the goal of man, or history or the Universe – or that it is apical in the human experience, than I believe or reason that Ptolemy was correct with regard to the ‘center of the Universe,’ or Judaism’s postulate that man is himself the ‘object & goal’ of history ( – ‘god’s plan’ ).

All interesting but purely fanciful notions.

So now – let us have it …
Deus ex logos . . .

..Or has Ovid said it better?
“Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit.”

( “Add a little to a little and there will be a grand heap.” )

*

shawnbslee

12-08-2007, 12:27 AM

Oy Vey......................!!!!

Nephele

12-08-2007, 05:38 AM

*

I’ve now twice done what I so detest doing – ‘running my mouth’ and babbling for all intents & purposes, when far-too-exhausted.

I ask all to please pardon my last Posts here – particularly this last.
I should never write when that exhausted and in that ‘frame of mind.’

After a few hours sleep and fixing some coffee, I’ve gone back and re-read this thread and am really surprised how on a second reading, taking it much more slowly and carefully, it creates a considerably different impression for me now.

I ought never have said anything here &, I’m sorry I have.
Skepticus has done, in my view, a remarkable job.
Yes, I was curious about some specific aspects of his thinking, and it was utterly disingenuous of me to have sought their answers through having ‘played’ the Sophist and sought them through a back-alley.
Skepitcus has made it almost brutally plain from his first words, I could have had my answers by asking my questions of him directly – and I have no doubt he would have done his honest best to provide me those answers – straightforwardly & rationally.
Sir, I apologize to you for my underhanded dishonesty in that regard.

Moreover, Skepitcus has been very even tempered &, I might at this point even say ‘patient.’
Numerous posters who have ‘replied’ specifically to his Posts pressed him to such ‘conventions’ – for lack of better term. One really can only be insulted so much before it becomes fair-play to return some venom for venom-received.

Skepticus has shown not one solitary sign of any need of any help from me or anyone else to present an exceptionally clear, well apprehended, well-reasoned case for all he has said & offered to the – indeed – open & public invitation to discourse the subject at-hand.
Honestly, I think it’s a study in-itself for such argumentation.

It does always pain me to see anyone’s dignity wounded – it doesn’t matter to me whom – I’m just acutely sensitive to it.
Perhaps, in cases such as this, that’s just a personal issue and it’s better for me to deal with it alone.
I think, Skepticus, as I tried to say last night, in exhaustion and so poorly composed manner, the reason I singled you out for that criticism, is that it was really the singular aspect of all you’ve said and done here that struck - & strikes – me as a ‘blemish’ to an otherwise brilliant piece of argumentation – particularly, given the ‘Forum’

I do have my view & perspective why I regard it a comedic waste of time & energy, but – let me say it, I don’t know what good ground you may have for investing so much of yourself in doing so. It may not be either comical or a waste of time.
If it proves to serve any value – I’ll like to see what that may be.

I would ask of you however, disregard all I’ve said hereto.
In my honest view, you’re doing a fine job – all things considered. You don’t need help & you don’t need criticized.

If some others here feel you have been & are taking a ‘lecturing’ attitude & disposition, I think you’ve already addressed that perfectly well – and that still remains to be addressed.
You’ve been straightforward, told it essentially the way it is, given supported & supportable statements – what more can you do?

I’m sorry I’ve said anything here… &nd I do hope I’ve not offended or insulted anyone. If I have, that was very far from my intent.

Best regards,
~ N.

*

Forgetmeknot

12-08-2007, 10:36 AM

I'm glad it didn't have to be shut down too, and there is a lot of reading and information being tossed about. Lots of knowledgeable people out there.

scotslad60

12-08-2007, 10:58 AM

Im glad too. I got bored when it stopped being a debate but Im glad it never closed.

Skepticus

12-08-2007, 10:43 PM

Skepticus,

I don't need to reference an outside source for Sam Harris' assessment of religious faith, one sentence will suffice. He predicates his entire argument, concerning religion, on the premise that all religious faith is groundless and false.

As do I. ;) and that stands to reason. Would you care to expand on any of the specific points he has made?

Granted I only read 10% of his total work, but from that sample, it was clear that he considered all religion equally false and unfounded. His argument is only worth the paper its written on if and only if, this presupposition is correct. If there exists a 'true' religion then everything he has written is worse than false. I'll try to find it at the library and read the rest. Generally, I don't spend much of my time reading works written by atheists (go figure) :)

If you're going to read something written by an atheist, I would recommend The God Delusion (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2007/GodDelusion_extract.pdf) by Richard Dawkins. That link claims it gives you an extract, but it actually seems to be the full book. Enjoy.

If you will allow a bit of respectful critique, you will find that there are more people like me than you realize if you don't generalize your anger and stick to the points in contention.

It is hard, because the points of contention differ from person to person.

If you carefully look back you might find that you launched into a 20 page thesis discussing alternate epistemologies from a simple statement that was not (I think) intended that way. I believe that she was simply stating that from her point of view, creation was what she believed, and from yours naturalism makes more sense.

The alternate epistemologies was actually in response to particular claims being made from the beginning of the thread, but in particular, the following, which I have pointed out in Common Sense Truth (2):

On this thread I have been told that my proposition: 'Believing something and simply stating you believe it, does not make it more probable or convincing.' is only true for me. Well I don't know how this could be possible, unless we call upon alternative logic, alternative epistemology, as well as alternative facts in an alternative reality. I would like to see that alternative logic, and alternative epistemology, that leads us to the alternative facts, that must be insulated in an alternative reality.

The challenge itself, came from scotslad60:

"Believing something and simply stating you believe it does not make it more probable or convincing" - To YOU!

Yes to me and to everybody else. This is an obvious, self evident proposition. My car is yellow, I can not in actual fact make it blue, by simply believing it is blue. The hue of my car does not change one iota, by the virtue of my belief it has, nor does it even become more probable or convincing to anybody else that my car is now blue. However you cut it up, this is not a proposition which can be denied without contending that our epistemological foundations are unique with respect to each other. If believing something and simply stating you believe it can make it more probable or convincing in scotslad60s' world, then he is obviously living in a different one which operates on a different epistemological basis.

If the person you are referring to is ForgetMeNot, you will find that she also chimed her agreement to the following from scotslad60:

ALL proof is what the individual percieves to be truth for them. Nothing else. No matter what the would-be intellectuals and scientists would try to make you believe!

Evolution or Creation? Whichever one you believe is the truth for YOU!

This was more of a statement of belief than an attempt to set up a whole alternate reality.

I don't think anybody is trying to set up an alternate reality, but it is an unfortunate consequence of claiming to have different empirical results for an external objective reality.

Occam's razor applies to things like this as well. [No, I will not grant a universal applicability to the 'razor', but I do find it interesting that Occam was a Christian]

If you are comparing contending hypthosies for their power to explain the observed evidence, then I don't know how you would improve upon the principal of parsimony as a rule of thumb. The idea which calls for the least assumptions (leaves less unexplained gaps) and/or agrees better with the evidence is the one which must hold the trump card. It stands to reason does it not? On the other hand, if you are washing your hair or writing a poem, there will probably be little use for Ockham's razor. So I would have to agree, that the razor is not applicable universally, in the trivial sense that it only applies to competing ideas.

Ockham was a Christian in a time and place where practically everybody was a Christian. Christianity was more of a social protocol that a chosen set of beliefs. The understandings of nature which have been most damaging to naive theology, had not yet been advanced by Galileo or Darwin so it was much easier to accept Christian doctrines. No surprises here. What wouldn't surprise me either, is if outwardly Ockham professed Christianity, while secretly doubting or disbelieving it.

Also, as with elsewhere, your 'appeal to authority' is just as bad as the appeal to consensus, that you declared you wouldn't get into. It's also something of a double standard, that I should not attempt to use the consensus for evolution in the scientific community, to bolster my argument, whereas here and elsewhere on this thread you have done the same, to attempt bolstering support for creationism.

There is this weird view that somehow men of Christian faith and men of science cannot be the same, but if you take a look at history some of the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have also been Christians.

Inversely, we could take the line that the number of great theological minds that also believe in evolution somehow lend credibility to the idea of evolution. I'm quite sure that if facts of reality, were to be adjudicated in the manner of a popularity contest amongst educated people, then the idea of special creation would fair much worse than would biological evolution. But the point is, it's all irrelevant. Scientific ideas must stand on their own merit. So too should any ideas that are being pitched as alternatives.

I respond and continue to do so, because I am long winded and like the sound of my own clicking keys. I also don't have very many healthy hobbies :)

You Too Huh? ;)

To be continued...

Skepticus

12-08-2007, 10:56 PM

Oh, and please stop using the words 'common sense'. It doesn't exist, sense is not common and in any case you can't define what 'common sense' means, since no two people have the same concept of what 'common sense' actually is.

Ok. I'll stop using the word 'common sense' when you stop using the word 'faith'. It's your funeral, but I wouldn't want to admit in public that I have no common sense. Are you saying that people do not agree on commonsensical observations, or that they don't agree on a definition of the concept itself?

In case of of the latter, it's easy fixed. I will agree to pin my definition on the one given by Wikipedia. That way you will at least know what I mean by 'common sense'. I will use only the first sentence here:

Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.

In case of the former, then it's a case of: 'Abandon all hope yea who enter here'. Denying the existence of common sense is almost as bad as denying the existence of reality itself in my view.

I don't know how many times I must attempt to illustrate this but here goes:

Supposing that a polite stranger knocks on your door and let's you know that you have left your cars headlights on. Do you understand him? Presuming he is speaking clearly in English, you do. You will both realise, without any need say so, that if this situation continues, that in a few hours you will have a flat battery. Your reaction if you have any 'common sense' would be to go out and switch your headlights off. The common sense, in this case is a common, even if unstated understanding, of the cause and effect relationship between your headlights being on and the amount of energy stored in your battery. You don't have to have a ticket in automotive, electrical engineering, to know that.

There is a reason that both you and the stranger know well enough, that your headlights being on, will flatten your battery. The knowledge that your headlights are on is a proposition which you will both share and the cause and effect relationship between the illuminated headlights and the battery going flat, is also common to you both. The reason you both know this is true, is because it is true in the common sense context, of what it means for anything to be true.

If you didn't have common sense, then you might question the meaning of the lights being on. You might even question the fact that they actually are on, because there is no way of being sure that anything is true in some esoteric epistemological sense. All philosophical bantering aside, you do know that leaving your headlights on is going to flatten your battery. You accept it as a plain old ordinary everyday mundane fact. Like when the phone rings, you don't open the refrigerator expecting to hear a voice coming from within. No! you don't. Instead you answer the phone. Why? Because you know that the ringing noise is emanating from the phone and you know that the phone is a communications device and when it makes this noise, it means that somebody is trying to contact you and that by answering it you may speak with them. Your ability to use the phone is ample demonstration that you accept a mundane everyday fact, for what it is and the common sense nature of what it means for it to be a fact.

To be continued...

Skepticus

12-08-2007, 11:23 PM

Now regardless of what you concede here about the meaning of 'common sense' can you possibly deny that there are countless multitudes of mundane everyday situations in which you can say (nay must admit) that you know certain thingst. I'd hate to see how messy your filling system would be, for instance, if you didn't know the difference between a filling cabinet and a toilet. Knowledge may to some degree be an imperfect contrivance of our mind, but in so many many cases, it is not imperfect enough to make a difference to our being able to disregard the uncertainty and treat a proposition as an absolute fact.

The earth is spheroid, the sun is hotter than the earth, my car is yellow. I am male. How can anybody suggest that these are not just plain ordinary facts? Sure our senses only make models of the real world, but those models are testable ones and their accuracy can be 100% for particular propositions. We may never know whether we have attained 100% with absolute certainty for any particular proposition, but the probability may be estimated as being beyond an infinitesimally small doubt. You are accepting things as fact every minute of every day of your life, no matter how you wish to deny it. You may not think of them as facts. You may take them for granted, but they are no less facts, of the external, objective world, just because you erect an imaginary screen in your head through which the facts emerge with the new label of faith. Nevertheless, regardless of what you call these ideas, you do treat them as facts. You would go and switch off your car lights, just as if you knew that it would cause the battery to go flat.

It doesn't escape my notice BTW, that creationists seem to have a convenient attention span for these philosophical quibbles. While the debate is focused on what the atheist can call facts, the accountability is to the fore, but it seems to slip into the shadows and doesn't rate a mention when creationists are making assertions of their own about the existence of their God, biblical interpretation, and um... how about the positive assertion that there is no common sense. That in itself is a claim being made as a fact.

Despite your observation that I have written so much to argue a point at cross purposes, my point was not at cross purposes and besides that, the response to my argument about common sense fact, has either been ignored or evaded, so far. The whole Richard Dawkins quotation provided has not been acknowledged by any creationist here. No wonder I have to write so much. I have to keep repeating myself. :(

There seems to be an unfounded assumption afoot, that if you can't know something, or prove it with absolute certainty, that you are logically obliged to fall back upon faith, as a default position. Along with this, I have noticed here, a predisposition towards using the word 'faith' as a synonym for 'belief'. Whereas I have emphatically denounced any dependence of faith in my own worldview I have been equally emphatically contradicted and assured, that what I believe does all come down to faith. The reason I have denied any need for faith, depends upon an important semantic distinction. Our differences in this point may largely dissolve and comedown to pure metaphysics if this is understood:

What I mean by 'faith' is unreasoned belief, or belief without reason. Understanding a cause and effect relationship and being able to make predictions based upon that relationship gives me reason to believe it. You see? If I can see how the cause and effect relationship stands to reason logically, I then have recourse to inevitability. I can see that the effect is an inevitable consequence of the cause, at least, given the evidence and the reasoning that applies to the current theory. Now. If the situation (such as your car battery going flat) is inevitable, then it doesn't require faith in the sense of 'belief without reason'. Whatever belief I may have, I didn't believe it without reason, I believed it because of reason. The reason proceeds the belief, just as the cause precedes the effect.

Firstly as an empirical observation, I may have noticed that all car batteries seem to consistently go flat if you leave the lights on. This gives me confidence that there is a consistent principal at hand. Later I might learn something about electricity and thermodynamics. I may understand then why car batteries go flat. As is so often the case, the principal at work is inevitable (within the bounds defined). In this situation I feel I have no choice but to believe it because it is not possible to come to any other logical conclusion, about what will happen if I leave my lights on.

The claim that my believing in an idea requires faith, is predicated on the broader definition of 'faith' being synonymous with 'belief', is it not? Clearly if you use my more specific definition of faith (belief without reason), then I may arrive at a belief but faith wont come into it. Well I hope that puts a clamp on the 'do I need faith' issue, but I fear I may have opened a can of semantic worms. Which definition is right or best?

To be continued...

Skepticus

12-09-2007, 12:10 AM

Words are ours to do as we choose, as long as we agree on definitions. I would argue that my definition is more useful as we already have a word for 'belief' and that is 'belief'. If we insist on using the word faith as a synonym for belief, then what word do we have left for the concept that is 'unreasoned belief'? Quite apart from this, as an atheist, I often find that debates with creationists peter out because at the end of the day creationists themselves, will bow out declaring that my faith is just what I believe and I don't require any reason to justify it. I find it hard to understand how anybody could do this, but leaving well enough alone, it does demonstrate that my definition of faith is universal enough and not anti-creationist, in that creationists themselves will use it this way.

Returning now to the problem of why anybody would deny certain knowledge of fact and fall back to faith instead. The reasons for denying absolute knowledge of fact have been done to death, so let's not flog the dead horse. The question now is, what makes 'faith' the natural contender. The simplistic answer is this: If you can't know something for certain, you can only choose to believe it or not believe it, as the case may be. Again this fall back position is safest when it chooses to use the softer, broader, definition of faith as a synonym for 'belief'. You may not know something for certain, but you may still establish a belief about it.

So what's wrong with this picture? Well as I have said, I don't use 'faith' as a synonym for belief. Falling back to unreasoned belief would be totally out of the question. Just because we don't know something for certain, doesn't mean that we can't be reasonably confident about it being true, false or whatever. Herein lies the real problem with the 'faith by default' argument: It assumes that each proposition we consider, must be decided in terms of absolutes. We must decide it is absolutely true or absolutely false, and if we can't do that, we must default to a whimsical, arbitrary, reasonless choice. Nonsense, we need to do none of the sort.

Faith by default, also bends over backwards to concede to the deeply esoteric and theory laden, epistemological objections of philosophy. It pretends that the only two alternatives we have, are certain facts or unreasoned beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is another alternative you know. The alternative is, ignore the pedantic quibbles of philosophy and get the job done, by testing ideas for their likely hood to be true. In the absence of absolute certainty, we can still reckon the probability of an idea and get an exceptionally high level of confidence using Ockhams' Razor, and statistical methods.

Relative probability of competing explanations, is a powerful force and case in point is the fact that science actually works. The computer you are using, the light-bulb in your room light or lamp. Your TV, car, and even your hot water system, are all obeying inevitable natural laws that were worked out by science. The countless multitudes of cause and effect relationships that need to be understood YES!!! UNDERSTOOD to be able to construct a computer are staggering. These things are not just designed by trial and error you know, the engineers have to have more than know-how they also need to know-why. They need to know that a particular device will behave in an inevitable way. They need to design the thing, so it has no choice but to behave the way it is expected. They need to know the fundamental laws and why electrons behave the way they do, and make the myriad of components that will manipulate those electrons in unison.

Do you see what I am saying? I am not just pointing out that they are clever (be that as it may), I am also saying that laws of physics are not capricious and they can be understood. Scientists can and do understand things. The whole technological world is built out of scientific knowledge. It's no use thinking that, someday they may discover a flaw in their digital electronics theory, as if, as soon a theorist writes an equation on the blackboard and spots the error, all of the computers in the world will suddenly shutdown. Existing technology is built out of existing knowledge, dependable knowledge about nature and how it works. They don't guess these things, it isn't trial and error. They have to learn what nature does and why. Eventually large quantities of these facts become irrefutable. You don't have to believe any single one, of these irrefutable facts, any more than you have to believe, that leaving your headlights on, will flatten your car battery, but for all practical purposes, thats close enough to certain, for all but a few devious pedants.

So far I have to contend that there has been no real debate at all. All there has been is rhetorical banter. This is a prerequisite maintained by creationists. "I'll have a debate with you" they say, "just so long as you don't use logic on me", or "don't debate facts" or you must accept that "there is no such thing as empirical truth", or "we can't be sure about anything, therefore creationism is the default conclusion". What utter rubbish!!

By maintaining a philosophical subterfuge, creationists are assured that the debate will never precede the the point of debating specific facts and having to hold their ideas accountable to honest reasoning. That would be tantamount to Intellectual honesty. It would also show Creationism up for the nonsense it is.

shawnbslee

12-09-2007, 01:20 AM

Wow!!................................

shawnbslee

12-09-2007, 01:22 AM

Skepticus

12-09-2007, 03:14 AM

I’ve now twice done what I so detest doing – ‘running my mouth’ and babbling for all intents & purposes, when far-too-exhausted.

Lighten up my dear. They are only words. I didn't think you sounded all that scathing anyhow. I can be MUCH worse. I did enjoy seeing some of the cards you laid on the table though, re. atheism, natural causation etc. Your cautionary words did give me pause, as you lent forward.

After a few hours sleep and fixing some coffee, I’ve gone back and re-read this thread.. ...it creates a considerably different impression for me now.

Since you have said this now, I have gone and done the same, I read the whole thread carefully again, only this time I seem to come off as a proper bastard. :D

I ought never have said anything here &, I’m sorry I have. Skepticus has done, in my view, a remarkable job. Yes, I was curious about some specific aspects of his thinking, and it was utterly disingenuous of me to have sought their answers through having ‘played’ the Sophist and sought them through a back-alley. ... ... Sir, I apologize to you for my underhanded dishonesty in that regard.

Well... I did think you were laying the old world verbiage on a little thick to be honest. It didn't bother me, I just had to keep a tab on my browser open to Wikipedia (as I usually do). I didn't feel I was being manipulated at all, so take it easy sister. I just thought perhaps you had a theatrical bent, and liked to let some of your characters play on the internet. I quite enjoyed the character actually. I actually entertained the notion that you were a philosopher. As it happens I know very little about philosophy and I was encouraged to do a little research on the fly.

The fly is a small insect with.... :cool:

I also thank you sincerely Nephele for your kind words of support. It means more than you may realise coming from a well educated intelligent person such as yourself.

I do have my view & perspective why I regard it a comedic waste of time & energy, but – let me say it, I don’t know what good ground you may have for investing so much of yourself in doing so. It may not be either comical or a waste of time. If it proves to serve any value – I’ll like to see what that may be.

If I can pass an email on to you, I'll let you know about it all. I'd truly be very interested to know what you think.

All is forgotten... except the good bits. :)

Skepticus

12-09-2007, 05:22 AM

If we use our own definitions we can make anything what we want it to be. can we not? Suppose when the end comes Creationism was right and you were wrong, where will these long drawn out, self serving essays get you?

Hi Shawn.

Have you ever heard of Pascals Wager? I couldn't put it better than Richard Dawkins has, so here:

PASCAL'S WAGER
The great French mathematician Blaise Pascal reckoned that, how-
ever long the odds against God's existence might be, there is an even
larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You'd better
believe in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternal
bliss and if you are wrong it won't make any difference anyway. On
the other hand, if you don't believe in God and you turn out to be
wrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makes
no difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believe
in God.

There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however.
Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of
policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act
of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the
Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I
believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me
actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's wager could only ever be
an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim
to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd
see through the deception. The ludicrous idea that believing is
something you can decide to do is deliciously mocked by Douglas
Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, where we
meet the robotic Electric Monk, a labour-saving device that you
buy 'to do your believing for you'. The de luxe model is advertised
as 'Capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in Salt
Lake City'.

But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the
one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him?
What's so special about believing? Isn't it just as likely that God
would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity?
What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as
the supreme virtue? Indeed, wouldn't the designer of the universe
have to be a scientist? Bertrand Russell was asked what he would
say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to
know why Russell had not believed in him. 'Not enough evidence,
God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal)
reply. Mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism
(let alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison in
the First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for his
cowardly bet-hedging? And, while we cannot know which way
God would jump, we don't need to know in order to refute Pascal's
Wager. We are talking about a bet, remember, and Pascal wasn't
claiming that his wager enjoyed anything but very long odds.
Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even
honest belief) over honest scepticism?

Then again, suppose the god who confronts you when you die
turns out to be Baal, and suppose Baal is just as jealous as his old
rival Yahweh was said to be. Mightn't Pascal have been better off
wagering on no god at all rather than on the wrong god? Indeed,
doesn't the sheer number of potential gods and goddesses on whom
one might bet vitiate Pascal's whole logic? Pascal was probably
joking when he promoted his wager, just as I am joking in my dis-
missal of it. But I have encountered people, for example in the
question session after a lecture, who have seriously advanced
Pascal's Wager as an argument in favour of believing in God, so it
was right to give it a brief airing here.

Now with regard to your first question. No, we can't make anything what we want it to be just by giving it our own definition. If you look in a dictionary or encyclopedia You may notice that many words have more than one meaning, they may each have different contexts also. If you read what I posted carefully, you will see that I am pointing out that the definition of 'faith' which is synonymous (having the same meaning) with 'belief', is not useful or what I mean, when I say I have no use for faith.

Faith is actually more often intended to mean more than just a belief. It usually conveys an element of trust or hope.

If you look up on Wikipedia, you will see that the second entry for the word faith is:

To believe without reason:

Believing impulsively, or believing based upon social traditions or personal hopes.

As I explained, even creationists use it this way, as in this:

Well skepticus, I do have my own opinion, thoughts, and beliefs. You obviously differ with yours, which is what makes us all different and our own people. But some of us, just believe...we don't need proof or any of that, we just do it because it is what we grew up around and what we feel inside. That's all I'm saying.

Here Forgetmeknot is clearly stating her belief does not require "proof or any of that", by 'any of that' I suppose she means evidence or reasoning. OK she didn't use the word 'faith' but the point is she could have and the message would be exactly the same. By the most specific definition, faith is unreasoned belief.

My point from the last post, is that it is disingenuous to use the word faith when you are simply referring to 'belief'. To repeat myself (what's news), because you obviously haven't followed the thread properly: Some people here have implied, that because nothing can be proven absolutely, we must then resort to faith based belief. If by faith, they mean unreasoned belief I disagree and have pointed out that a rational person would then fall back upon estimates of probability. In other words, figure out how likely the idea is instead of:

'I-dunno-nuffin' so 'goddidit'.

Shaun,

You should have checked a dictionary before posting this.
I don't know why I should repeat myself. Did I not make myself clear?
Please learn to reply to the specific post you are responding to. Some of us use the threaded tools and like to see messages properly nested.

Cheers

Nephele

12-09-2007, 06:13 AM

*

For comparative sake …

ALL proof is what the individual perceives to be truth for them. Nothing else. No matter what the would-be intellectuals and scientists would try to make you believe!

Evolution or Creation? Whichever one you believe is the truth for YOU!

If we use our own definitions we can make anything what we want it to be. can we not?

My own errors, respecting my initial approach to this thread resulted from a carelessness in approach.
A predisposed ‘openness’ to treat the whole interrogative on every level in an all-encompassing embrace. Nothing wrong with such a disposition in-itself I think, it is most-conducive to free, public & open debate and discourse carried forward by numerous individuals representing various views, values, perspectives & the like.
MY fault & failure followed from the ‘delay’ and time it took for me to really recognize what should have been clear from the very opening.
Skepticus is the one who recognized the specific critical form of the initial query and established a basis upon which the question of ‘contending’ doctrines can best be examined in a critical & meaningful light. At bottom, it might be cast as being between empirical science as bound to & by every form & facet of empirical reality, and revealed knowledge, which has no imperative connection with anything empirical per se, other than the physiological structures and elements of the ‘brain.’

The point Skepticus has now emphasized repeatedly here is essential & critical: the initial question itself – “Do you believe we all evolved from African races or do you believe in the creation theory?” – in fact raises a plethora of meaningful questions which go far beyond the two signified by the intended question itself.
What does one mean by ‘believe?’
How does ‘belief,’ however one may define the term & understand the signified ‘concept,’ have any meaningful value if it is divorced from such terms as ‘true?’ ..‘fact’ ..‘real,’ ..‘actual,’ &tc – insofar as such latter terms also have meaningful & mutually-understood value-definitions?
Assuming all such terms have and are given meaningful definitions, and that we agree upon them – even if not for love of knowledge & wisdom but for sake of a meaningful dialogue, then it is evident beyond any question that what is posed is a question between contending ‘ideas,’ ‘interpretations,’ ‘perspectives.’
It is not a question admitting of solely one or the other – only revealed knowledge or only empirical scientific knowledge.

This is the crux of the issue.

One giving voice to the ideas, values and perspective of ‘revealed knowledge’ is not arguing against Skepticus – but against thousands of years of amassed learning in Logic, philosophy, mathematics and empirical science.
It’s not that with ‘Cartesian-certainty’ it simply cannot be done – it is that it would be extremely difficult at-best and, at ‘worst,’ in such regard, it cannot be articulated without sounding ‘silly,’ ‘naïve,’ ‘inane,’ ‘groundless,’ or to some perhaps, even ‘psychotic.’

Why?
Well, Skepticus has here already enumerated the essential reasons why, and elaborated on numerous of them - & done so quite-well.

What is ‘common’ in both perspectives & dispositions?
Both are predicated on experience. In the one case, experience of empirical reality as we encounter it existentially, day to day, from the ultra-mundane to the most-momentous; and in the other, experience of certain psychical states.

Here is the second nexus.

When one says, for example: “All proof is what the individual perceives to be truth for them. Nothing else … If we use our own definitions we can make anything what we want it to be.” subjectively-defined ‘truths,’ do have a value, but the value is likewise subjective.
There is no way to make a ‘subjective truth’ an ‘objective’ one.
This is what Skepticus was pointing to as well in speaking of solipsistic argument, or of ‘alternate’ epistemological grounds.

The psycho-existential ground which necessitates a rational ordering of human experience simply in order to function at all, demands the viable prerequisite that the ordering principles are not ad hoc and purely imaginative nor purely emotive.
To generalize, the former would be some pure form of psychosis & the latter of some pure neurosis.
But the equilibrium is established through the 3rd critical faculty – the rational.

The fallacy of the sort of reasoning which states: “If we use our own definitions we can make anything what we want it to be – ” hinges entirely upon the term ‘anything.’ & that is the point which can be traced now through virtually the entire length of Skepticus’ Posts here.

The proposition can be made at-least partially true if it be modified as an affirmation: ‘If we use our own definitions we can make our conceptual constructs what we want them to be.’

But even this affirmation will prove essentially untrue as an ‘absolute generalization,’ because in practice, one will find rationality standing in the way; there will be too much which needs to be overthrown in order to construct a concept based purely on Will.
Some are more adept at it than others – ‘inspired artists,’ for example, but there are always limitations to how, even through subjectively-defined terminologies one can Willfully construct a ‘conceptual reality.’
There’s no need here to even begin enumerating all the epistemological reasons why.

To make the simple affirmation – ‘what is true for me, is true for me’ – is tautological.
A problem arises once one asserts that, ‘what is true for me is the ‘Absolute Truth.’

Now, as I see & understand it – ALL Skepticus has here said in essence is, that to ask whether organic forms are ‘created’ such as they are, or evolve, is a question which transcends the purely subjective psychical states of any individual mind(s).
It simply is not a question that a mind, alone-to-itself, can answer, if the question is asked in good-faith and one desires an answer corresponding to the reality after-which the inquiry is made.
One can subjectively affirm – ‘I have a psychical state which I interpret as divine revelation, which tells me that all organic forms were created & have not evolved and will not evolve’ – and that’s just fine & dandy: but it is not a subjective affirmation, it is a contestable assertion to say – ‘Because I have a psychical state which I interpret as divine revelation, which tells me that all organic forms were created & have not evolved and will not evolve, that is the way empirical reality is.’

What seems to baffle Skepticus, is that there could be even one who is altogether content to rest at-peace with the purely subjective ‘certainty’ of a self-contained, self-established affirmation of what is ‘true:’ in essence & effect: ‘I have a psychical state which I interpret as divine revelation, which tells me all I need to know & understand about myself, the world of experience, history, morality and everything else.’ – when knowledge & understanding beyond that limited scope is readily available and regularly increasing.

The challenge posed to creationists then, is to proffer some reasonable basis validating the assertive claims which derive entirely from ‘revealed knowledge.’
&nd that places the conundrum squarely in the epistemological quagmire theologians have been grappling with for roughly fifteen-hundred years.

While I myself appreciate & admire all the efforts here of Helix_, it is yet to be taken up in earnest by the Creationists here in full view of what the problems are and where they so firmly rest.

Creationism cannot & will not ‘win’ any debate on empirical grounds; it’s just not even possible. But that is not where its conundrum rests.
To this date, the only two remotely viable ‘arguments’ to my thinking, are ‘revealed knowledge,’ and ‘intelligent design,’ neither of which are sufficient, alone or together. The former is easily pinned to its subjectivity in psychical state(s) including the sum of its limitations, the latter is deflated by numerous counter-arguments, the best of which in my view, derive from the principles of ‘natural selection’ in evolutionary processes.
The ‘Ontological argument’ is a prima facie abortion of logic.

The only rational portal I can see for Creationism to maintain any reasonable argumentation, rests upon ‘revealed knowledge’ somehow transcending its innate-subjectivity.
.. But I don’t believe this is going to happen, and at-least one and a-half million years worth of reasons to believe that it cannot.

*

Nephele

12-09-2007, 07:28 AM

*

[W]here will these long drawn out, self serving essays get you?

Shawn, really do you not see how what Skepticus has written is not ‘self-serving?’
Self-serving would be to curl up on a comfortable chair with a hot cup of tea or coffee before a fireplace, crack-open a good book and advance oneself even further.
What Skepticus is doing here is a gift. &nd a generous one.
There are all across America and the world today, countless millions who dream of having enough money to pay tuition for the opportunity to be thrust into just such sorts of intellectual challenges & possibilities: and even those who make it, University students, no more or less than we, are not required to accept anything laid before them. It’s enough to show that one has understood what is offered.
Whether we, the readers, the open, the ‘Willing-to-learn’ are edified by new knowledge, insights, challenges, from whatever source, is wholly dependent upon ourselves.
Self-serving is what a good student does.

Lighten up my dear. They are only words. I didn't think you sounded all that scathing anyhow. I can be MUCH worse.

I don’t doubt it. ;) ..As can I.
Less anything ‘scathing’ but my self-deflection troubled me. Like a re-entry vehicle hitting the atmosphere at a very imprecise-angle.
That didn’t serve anyone anything of any value – save perhaps, ‘look, here’s how not to do this.’

..I read the whole thread carefully again, only this time I seem to come off as a proper bastard.

:) .. Perspectives are marvelous things…
I don’t see the ‘bastard’ bit – just a man doing his best to tell it like it is.

Well... I did think you were laying the old world verbiage on a little thick to be honest. It didn't bother me, I just had to keep a tab on my browser open to Wikipedia (as I usually do).

There are reasons for that, aside from a constant desire to write as well as I’m able, none of them intentional.
I’ve been pretty well secluded for some years now doing my work – in ‘quiet isolation.’ One forgets after a while how to communicate with others, & I’ve spent a long stretch of time with the classical literature of Continental Europe, so some of it ‘naturally’ bleeds into my own lines.

I actually entertained the notion that you were a philosopher. As it happens I know very little about philosophy and I was encouraged to do a little research on the fly.

That is my field really – where philosophy & psychology ‘overlap.’ (How I hate that expression & formulation!)
I’m sure you realize the limited value of “a little research on the fly” regarding any subject. But to be sure I’ve done my share of the same, when having some idea is so infinitely-preferable to complete darkness.

If I can pass an email on to you, I'll let you know about it all. I'd truly be very interested to know what you think.

I’d enjoy & appreciate that, thank you sir.
How about an initial email to - The_Greco_Roman@yahoo.com ..?
A brief one will serve well, as I don’t use that account, but we can then transition to my-own address.

I appreciate your, and everyone’s tolerance of an old blabbermouth philosopher… ;)
&nd for your kind words as well – my thanks.

~ N.

*

Goldy

12-09-2007, 06:12 PM

Despite the lengthy posts, the pontificating and put downs, it's been a valuable and entertaining read.

I snorted Zero Sprite up my nose over a Skepticus quip and and I ended up on the floor still laughing with the dogs happily wondering what the heck I was doing down there with them.

Now, it feels like this thread has been exhausted. I'm going in search of 'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency'.

Anybody have anything else to add?

Skepticus

12-09-2007, 10:05 PM

I snorted Zero Sprite up my nose...

Now, it feels like this thread has been exhausted. I'm going in search of 'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency'.

Anybody have anything else to add?

Yes. You may think it's harmless fun. It's just a little snort of Zero Sprite right? One day a friend offers you some full strength Sprite and before you know it your snorting Coke. Don't do it Goldy. Don't throw your life away like that. :D

I would hope you have already read Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but please yourself. :)

Helix42

12-10-2007, 10:19 AM

I would hope you have already read Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but please yourself. :)

Ah - the classics :)

Quickly I think I can clear up some of our semantics battles - or at least one of them:

Common Sense: I just really hate the term because of its abiguity. I prefer 'Good Sense' and Bad Sense, or it 'makes good sense' - etc. But, if you insist on using common sense I promise I will not say anything else about it and I will know what you mean.

We agree faith does not equal simple belief. It is more. Faith is not 'unreasoned belief'. Belief is an element of faith, but is not all of it. Faith, in its theological sense and as I defined it in my post, is a compound concept. It involves two elements: belief in a thing and trust either in that thing or trust in the correctness of the belief itself. Faith is an active word. James wrote "Faith without works is dead". Why would he write such a thing? Was it because he wanted us to know we had to believe and perform certain works to be worthy of heaven? No, it is because faith is active. If you believe and trust then this will be evident in what you do.

Do you believe in irrational and unreasoned things? Why then would you have faith in something irrational or unreasoned? You would not if you couldn't muster belief. You will not believe things that don't make good (common) sense.

Trust is also a compound concept. There are two elements to trust: Gift and trackrecord. I give you my trust but if your trackrecord is bad you will not retain that gift or you will not get it in the first place.

To have real faith you must have both belief and trust. This is the kind of faith that I am talking about when I say faith is 'underneath' everything that we do. I based this on the uncertainity of our perception of reality. That we must have this type of faith in the facts as they are provided by our senses. We must not only simply believe them (inactive), but we must also trust them to be reasonably accurate (active), otherwise we would do nothing. This is not an unreasoned belief. This type of faith is deep and profound. It impacts everything that you do.

Blind, or simple, faith is what you are talking about when you said 'faith'. It is unreasoned simple belief. It is not necessarily active and when it is it can be very dangerous. Many moderate Christians have, what I would catergorize as blind faith or at least an unreasoned and watery faith, that has no real meaning. These people can be lead by nose any which way the wind blows. They flock in droves to the 'mega churches' without the slightest idea of why they go or even what they really believe. Its quite sad from both of our points of view, but for different reasons.

Semantics aside, I will be glad to stipulate that facts are facts and dispense with the all the fuss about faith. However, I should point out that 'my car is yellow' is not a fact. It is an interpretation of a fact. The fact is that your car reflects a certain wavelength of light. You brain interprets data received from your eyes and calls it 'yellow'. If my eyes are defective I will not get the interpretive result 'yellow' regardless of how many tests we run.

Cheers

Helix42

12-10-2007, 03:41 PM

Sketicus,

Despite your observation that I have written so much to argue a point at cross purposes, my point was not at cross purposes and besides that, the response to my argument about common sense fact, has either been ignored or evaded, so far. The whole Richard Dawkins quotation provided has not been acknowledged by any creationist here. No wonder I have to write so much. I have to keep repeating myself.

If you are referring to the one about philosophical heckling a few pages back then I didn't bother to respond to the quote because I don't disagree. Dawkins is right - try not to faint. :eek:

By the way, the relativist is an equal opportunity offender, he will attack my side as much as Dawkins.

Continuing on about 'faith' and facts a bit more...

It would appear that we can both agree that we do not perceive objective reality in an objective way. Case in point: in a criminology class a man ran in knocked an actress out of her seat and ran out with her purse. Each member of the class was given a questionnaire to fill out describing the 'purse snatcher'. Out of 34 students only 3 described the man in any terms that might be even loosely described as accurate. Two of them were police officers and trained observers. Most of the students responded that they thought their descriptions were accurate. They believed their observations were factual, when the reality of it was that most of them were wrong. There is observational error, but when a trained person focuses his/her attention on an object they are capable of making reasonably accurate observations.

I think we can also agree that there must be a good sense framework from which to operate. That our senses can be relied upon, in most cases, to provide workable observational evidence about the objective reality in which we live. If we do not then there is little sense in bothering with much of anything. However, we still are in a situation where we do not always perceive things the way they really are. If we don't see things correctly then we must accept that we have faith (belief that it is correct, and trust it enough to act on it) that what we perceive is at least roughly correct. It may require very little faith, but it always requires at least a some. If you would prefer to substitute another term with the same meaning, trustworthy belief, or belief with the connotation of trust then I'm OK with that. This faith is not unreasoned or trivial, but based on experience and a long track record of things working in the same way. What I have been trying to get at is that faith is a part of who we are. It is not some superfluous concept that is not needed or desired.

Since we loose precision when observing the 'real world' I would contend that the error, however slight, is multiplied when we attempt to formulate an interpretation of our observations. This, to me, means that any human interpretation of an observation(s) is/are prone to error. Thus we are formulating and re-formulating our hypothesis and theories on a continuing basis. For instance take the Ptolemaic System. This geocentric cosmology reigned from the 5th century BC and was not fully laid to rest until Newton's Laws of Gravitation in the 18th century.

I have to run so I will not be able to tie this up - but quickly stated: the majority scientific opinion is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we evolved from molecules to man.

I don't think that happened. I can think of several possible things to challenge, but I will stick to two:

(I've never used this one before and I am still researching it so I may be making ass of myself)
1) There is insufficient time, even in 4.5 billion years for molecules to man evolution to occur.
Added 12/11: And I did. Never mind this - it was a vague memory from an article that I can no longer find - thought I would run down this path - turns out to be a dead end - so let's just take number two and work with that :)

2) There are no cases of observed information gain in the biological system. It would seem probable in the length of time we have been looking that we would have seen at least one instance of an increase in genetic information. To my knowledge none have been observed.

Later

.

Goldy

12-10-2007, 07:49 PM

[QUOTE]Yes. You may think it's harmless fun. It's just a little snort of Zero Sprite right? One day a friend offers you some full strength Sprite and before you know it your snorting Coke. Don't do it Goldy. Don't throw your life away like that. :D

Uh....I'm a recreational user......really.........just recreational......

I would hope you have already read Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but please yourself. :)

Hitchhikers Guide is a fond and smiling memory. I just finished a re-read of Stranger In A Strange Land....now I'm more inspired than ever to revisit the golden oldies on my shelf, but then I have a long list of recommended titles that are new to me......the booksellers will be delighted to see me. So much to do, so little time!

Skepticus

12-16-2007, 06:35 AM

2) There are no cases of observed information gain in the biological system. It would seem probable in the length of time we have been looking that we would have seen at least one instance of an increase in genetic information. To my knowledge none have been observed.

Why for goodness sake would you make such an absurd claim. Could it be you are parroting the standard creationist pap and drivel, which is asserted only for the obscurantist benefit of those who do not understand evolution by natural selection? Just read this (http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm) if you truly wish to understand the nature of information increase in the genome.

It is quite telling Helix, as you have admitted previously, that you don't read very much of what atheist authors have written. Perhaps, I can take it by extension that, nor do you go to public lectures on biology, or watch interesting documentaries explaining evolution. I can infer this Helix, from the kind of language you use and the kind of argumentation you proffer. As well as that, considering that most evolutionary biologists, correspond closely to the naturalistic / atheist worldview, anybody writing about nature (and biological evolution in particular) in the naturalistic paradigm, is invariably an atheist or (rarely) at least some variation on a pantheist or (even more rarely) deist of the NOMA persuasion. It then it follows that, you don't usually entertain the idea, of subjecting yourself to any attempt to understand the naturalistic explanations offered up by science. If you did you would mostly certainly be reading / listening to / watching the predominantly atheist perspective, of the naturalistic worldview.

I have no wish to condemn you on the grounds of scientific / naturalistic illiteracy, but it is hard (for you) to participate in a balanced debate when you only understand one side of it. In fact to use the term 'understand' is stretching the friendship way to far. The creationist ploy of creating misconceptions which oppose evolutionary biology, is not based on any kind of understanding, nor is parroting those misconceptions. Fundamentalist creationism, is a divisive anti-intellectual movement, which is not about any search for understanding of meaning in nature, but rather a political ploy, to assert a moral dictatorship by divine authority over the naive masses.

There is truly only one base of knowledge, about nature that needs to be understood by both sides of the debate, but only one side of that debate is basing it's arguments on anything close to understanding. The die hard tactic of regurgitating the same old perpetually refuted straw-man arguments, is only a ploy to impress the naive and scientifically illiterate, that there exists a healthy debate between two alternative scientifically credible (and objective) points of view.

Objectivity in creationism, is a convenience to be alternatively adopted or abandoned (in fact, disparaged) depending on which frame of mind suits the creationist line of argument. In previous posts you have produced argument, which would seem to reduced all human observation to imperfect, subjective approximations. The intention I take from this, is to stave off any attempt at objectivity and disregard it as futile. Since that line of argument was not working, at least not for Naphele and myself and perhaps not for Goldy either, you have tentatively agreed (or so it would seem) to put aside your qualms with debating 'the facts' as it were, and enter into the world of objectivity. I have to applaud this move and by no means is that intended to patronise you my friend. As I have already stated you have shown more honesty and good will, than I could ever expect to find in a hard line creationist.

I also recognise that the convenient shift from a subjectivist perspective to an objectivist one (or visa versa), is no more deliberate than an ambidextrous person wiping their backside with which ever hand they choose at the time, as it seems more comfortable. It is nothing more than a force of habit, which is reinforced by the creationist mindset. Nevertheless it mounts to 'anything goes, as long as the conclusion is the existence of a supernatural deity'. To continue along this line, I must caution you, or at least implore you, to not 'sell out' and revert to subjectivist argumentation, once you have been shown that the evidence from a presumed (however tentatively) objective reality, does not confer with the creationist model of supernatural creation, nor in any way draws biological evolution into contention.

Finally at the risk of (again) sounding patronising, I must some how try to remind you, that even where naturalistic, science based explanations for anything are lacking, that is no win for the Christian supernatural creation myth:

Firstly, just because something has no current natural explanation, doesn't simply follow that it must therefore have a supernatural explanation. As if supernatural causes, which by definition are inexplicable, could ever hope to stand in for natural cause and effect understandings. When we can show no natural reason for why something happens to be the way it is observed to be, it is not incumbent upon us to assume that there is no natural reason, or even worse, that the reason we conclude must be a supernatural one.

Secondly there is no objective way of inferring the existence of a supernatural causative agent. You can't explain something? Fine, but 'goddidit' is not an explaination. The incumbency is upon the creationist, to show that 'God' is the only logical alternative and that is not practically or philosophically plausible. You might just as well (or even better) say 'oh well, I cant explain that for now, but I mustn't assume it has no rational, naturalistic explanation. I had better wait for better evidence, or better still go and find better evidence that might solve the mystery'

God is many different things, to many different people. From the pantheistic persuasion to the fundamentalist in each and every religion, denomination, doctrine and sub doctrine. Even into the spiritualist, deistic and theistic 'pseudo freethinkers' who's exact religious views, do not correspond with any of the mainstream religions and denominations, the concept of 'God' is intrinsically subjective, ambiguous and therefore problematic. If you had a natural circumstance, that somehow could only be logically explained by appeal to a supernatural cause (something we have never had recourse to resort to), it doesn't simply follow that that supernatural cause is the God of any particular human invocation. The existence of an apparently supernatural phenomenon does not logically, have to be explained by any concept (popular or otherwise) of what we humans have commonly (or uncommonly) called 'God'.

I mention all this, to answer the common 'foot in the door' technique so commonly attributable to creationists. It is nothing less than pushing an unjustified barrage of baseless assumptions (the god of the gaps), into a gap of naturalistic explanation, to say "because you cant explain this, my goddidit". Some how refuting evolution, will not help to secure a necessarily supernatural explanation, let alone one procured by any sort of 'God' and least of all by your particular interpretation of God. It will simply put us back to a time when we wondered (those of our ancestors not given to jumping to supernatural conclusions) 'how does that happen and why should it be so?'.

For your information Helix, the mystery of living diversity and complexity has been solved for a good while. Darwinian evolution by natural selection, is far from a speculative hypothesis and has accumulated insurmountable evidence that simply makes it an inevitable conclusion, for anybody who understands it. It is not terribly complex but rather a simple and elegant explanation of life's diversity and complexity. If you are going to ply some leverage (however futile that may be), from postulating arguments against it, I might recommend you do so from the perspective of somebody who has learned about the topic you are attempting to refute and understands the reasoning (and potential misconceptions) of the argument you might put forward.

It is not becoming of you, to proudly proclaim, that you don't make a habit of understanding the evidence and rationales of those whom you choose to debate and contradict, except in the trivial sense, that at least you are being honest about it. The latter sense, is the only reason I give you the time of day. I still get the feeling you are trying to be honest with yourself, even if not actually succeeding in being honest with others.

I will offer you this link to a down loadable copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker' (http://uath.org/download/literature/Richard.Dawkins.The.Blind.Watchmaker.pdf). I hope you make good use of it. I will try to reply to the foremost bulk of your post some time soon, but I have been doing some catching up on the domestic front lately. Good luck and keep an open mind eh? ;)

Regard Skepticus.

Skepticus

12-16-2007, 09:59 AM

Oh I should also offer you a link to:

Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

I just found it and it looks very informative. I have to go back and read it some more.

And yet another great critical thinking resource is The Skeptics Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/)

Cheers Skepticus

Helix42

12-17-2007, 01:00 PM

I will offer you this link to a down loadable copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker'. I hope you make good use of it. I will try to reply to the foremost bulk of your post some time soon, but I have been doing some catching up on the domestic front lately. Good luck and keep an open mind eh?

The link takes me back to the "Information Challenge" more later...

Skepticus

12-17-2007, 11:23 PM

Sorry That should be "The Blind Watchmaker" (http://uath.org/download/literature/Richard.Dawkins.The.Blind.Watchmaker.pdf)

benventure

12-18-2007, 12:24 AM

if you have EVER poo'ed your pants
that is evolution

then again
whats the point in this discussion
two sides arguing how right they are and how wrong the other is
there must be more out there than this

scotslad60

12-18-2007, 11:05 AM

I say that poo'ing your pants is Creation though!! :p lol

Helix42

12-18-2007, 11:35 AM

We may not really get anywhere - but it is fun none the less. Well, for me anyway.

And you two poopy pants seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of it too.

How many miles per gallon do you suppose you could get out of poo'ed pants anyway?

:)

shawnbslee

12-18-2007, 11:25 PM

Depends how much poo you got in em!!

scotslad60

12-19-2007, 11:22 AM

Plus, if you have enough then you also get Methane gas which could power your car for miles......... :p

shawnbslee

12-19-2007, 09:59 PM

That explains how witches flew on their brooms, thanks scot!

Helix42

12-20-2007, 04:53 PM

That explains how witches flew on their brooms, thanks scot!Hmmmm fart power - you may be onto something...:cool:

Another question: How much exlax would need to be consumed to get to the grocery store and would you feel like shopping when you got there?

Helix42

12-21-2007, 08:49 AM

You guys are risking really pissing off Sophocles and Leviticus with this tangent you've wound up on - - they don't take kindly to the flies buzzing out of control like this.Flies? I wonder if they could somehow provide power?

Helix42

12-21-2007, 08:58 AM

Skepticus,

Why for goodness sake would you make such an absurd claim. Could it be you are parroting the standard creationist pap and drivel, which is asserted only for the obscurantist benefit of those who do not understand evolution by natural selection? Just read this if you truly wish to understand the nature of information increase in the genome.You and Dawkins misread the statement or you wish to obfuscate the simple with a complex response. Dawkins does a marvelous tap dance around the question, but provides no direct straightforward answer. Neither have you. The funny thing is Islamic mullahs do the same thing. When they are confronted by contradiction in the Koran, they produce pages and pages of material that appears to explain the discrepancy, but they never really answer the initial charge in a straightforward way.

What was asked is “give an example” of information gain the system. Not how information might be introduced into the system. What is being asked for is a modern example of information gain that we can see and observe. Billions of generations of bacteria have been cultured in the lab. Fruit flies are grown in nearly every high school biology class. Billions of animals bread as livestock and pets. Surely in all this there is one case that you can point to and say: “See this animal, bacteria, protozoan, has developed as a new species, or at least here is a new structure that previously didn’t exist.” You should understand that adaptation and natural selection within a species are not being questioned (microevolution). It is the idea that this leads to speciation and adequately explains complexity, diversity and origins that is being questioned (macroevolution).

It is funny to me that the very ones who claim that atheism and enlightenment go hand in hand are the very ones who exhibit some of the strongest prejudices. You make many rash assumptions and generalizations, and you engage in ad hominem attacks which I don’t feel I have given you a basis for. Perhaps I am wrong? In any case, it is hard to see atheism as a higher consciousness when you seem to be as prone to generalizations and dogma as any fundamental religion.

I have provided you with a simple opening statement. Yes it is a typical start for creation based argumentation, but it is quite simple. If, as you have claimed, evolution is a proven fact, then the refutation should be simple as well. It isn’t. This points in the general direction of the conclusion that evolutionary theory might be less solid than you are claiming. This isn’t the magic bullet that shoots Darwin in the head, just an indicator that things are not as ‘factual’ as you would like for everyone to believe. The mockery, derision, prejudice and generalizations are also beneath someone who is confident that they hold the truth. If this is a misconception and such an example exists simply provide it and the debate point is closed down quickly and quietly. I could do nothing except say “Oh, that’s interesting” and move on to something else.

Continued...

Helix42

12-21-2007, 09:09 AM

Continuation:

You make the claim that fundamentalist creationism is a divisive anti-intellectual movement. Well, in some cases you would be absolutely right. I think that for years creationists were their own worst enemies. We have latched onto many things in the mistaken attempt to discredit evolutionary ‘evidence’. The prevailing thought was that the creationist had to have different evidence than the evolutionist. Unfortunately and to the detriment of any real discourse, this sort of thinking still exists in a lot of places. However, as more and more evolutionary biologists, chemists, physicists, geologists and other scientists join the ranks of the creationist we have begun to realize that evidence is, after all, evidence and facts are facts. In other words there is not evidence ‘for creation’ and evidence ‘for evolution’ there is just evidence. Evidence must be dealt with in its totality and this usually just means divorcing the ‘facts’ from their evolutionary interpretations. Then, with most things, it is simply a matter of interpreting the facts is a way that matches both the evidence, as observed, and the account given us in the Bible.

Further along these lines the idea that there is more than one base of knowledge is idiotic. I have never argued such and have little doubt that it would be rapidly pointed out to me if I did. As a matter of fact I have stated exactly the opposite in no uncertain terms. All of the observational science must be dealt with. The lack of a concrete example of information gain or any modern examples of macroevolution is a problem for you. It is hardly insurmountable, but it does suggest that there might be more to it than chance and natural selection can produce on their own. For you to deny this and engage in ad hominem attacks serves my purposes much better than anything that I might say.

If you will look carefully at some of my prior arguments you will see what I was trying to get at was your misuse of the term ‘faith’. You wish me to take the definition of ‘unreasoned belief’ as the scope of the meaning of the word. There are types of faith to which this definition applies, but the scope of the word, especially in its theological uses, is far greater than ‘unreasoned belief’. It is a compound concept and involves both belief and trusting that belief. My argument is, simply put, that since we cannot objectively observe the thing you have called ‘objective reality’ that we must have a degree of faith in our observations. Otherwise, we would never act on any observation nor would we be able to engage in any sort of meaningful communication.

I must believe what I see is real and I must trust that belief is correct, in other words, I have to have faith that what I see is what I get. This faith is buttressed by the reliability of my experience with it. In example, I sit down in a chair. I see the chair, I can touch the chair, but these senses can be unreliable, so I have to believe that I am seeing what is actually there, and I have to trust that belief enough to act on it by sitting down. My experience with previous observations buttresses this faith (call it a trust level). So, this faith in my own observation of the chair is quite reasonable and well founded. No one thinks this process through; it’s just something that we do without thinking. So I was arguing against the idea that all faith is unreasonable and unfounded. It is so much of a part of our everyday lives that we ignore it, so much so, that people like you, Dawkins and Harris want to start denying its existence.

I have not conveniently shifted from subjective to objective; on the contrary if you will go back and look you will see that it is not only deliberate, but necessitous. We must put aside the subjective nature of our senses and agree that we can, to a fair degree of precision, determine what is ‘really there’. Otherwise, we might as well stay in bed as to dream would be as good as reality. The only way to carry on any meaningful discussion assuming only a subjective reality is to take the solipsist approach and talk to ourselves. There wasn’t any value in continuing to contend with you about the nature of something that you have a great deal of difficulty fully understanding (faith not reality). I am not saying that I am smarter than you are; just that I am more open to fully exploring it because I am not trying to find a way to disregard it. I think we can both agree that subjectivism doesn’t get either of us anywhere useful.

The presence or lack of an explanation does not necessarily negate the opposing position. It merely begins to erode the probability of your position being correct in the end. I do not need to put God in the gaps. He doesn’t need a gap but goes quite nicely wherever He wishes. Since we do not have direct access to the past we must form opinions and arguments for what we believe happened in the past. In other words, we must interpret the evidence, as we see it, as best we can. Because a naturalistic explanation is lacking is not sufficient reason to assign a supernatural cause. Conversely because you have a naturalistic explanation is not sufficient reason to exclude a supernatural cause either. We may fully understand the natural process by which a thing happens, but natural processes are not necessarily without design by virtue of them being ‘natural’. Nature itself may be designed and as a creationist I would argue that it is in fact designed. The intertwining of various processes and fundamental laws of this universe are so profound it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where design is excluded.

History has shown that many men, who believed that God created the universe, also were some of the greatest natural scientists. These men wanted, not only to know, that God did it, but how God did it. They explored His creation with an unbridled sense of wonder at what had been done. They classified animals and plants, invented the idea of genetics (inheritance) discerned the movements of the planets and the stars, described gravity and motion, mathematics and logic. Faith didn’t hinder these men, in fact in some cases if drove them. They understood that the God of the Bible was a God of order and they wanted to observe and document that order. If that contradicted church philosophy then they were willing to look at that philosophy and try to harmonize it with what they observed. Sometimes the church was less willing to reevaluate its teaching, but in the end truth always wins out.

I used to think that the mystery of diversity and complexity had been solved. “Evolution happened, get over it and let’s move on” was something I said quite a bit. Really, up until fairly recently. Then I got over myself and started really looking around. It isn’t as settled as you might like to think. There is quite a bit of evidence that does point to design, and I mean real design, not some apparent design caused by survival pressures and random mutation.

When it comes to reading arguments for atheism, I simply don’t have time to read as much as I would like. So, instead of reading Dawkins and other atheists (not necessarily including scientific works, your beliefs concerning the religious convictions of most biologists aside) I have spent most of my time reading the Bible and other commentaries concerning this particular worldview. I believe this is a true view of the world. Why would I spend a great deal of time studying what I believe is false? When I worked for a bank we didn’t study counterfeit bills to pick out the counterfeits. We studied the real thing. When a counterfeit bill was presented, we could quickly detect the fraud. Why? Because we were intimately familiar with the true bill. If you tried to do it in the reverse then you would have to study every type of counterfeit ever printed in order to spot one. That would not even be possible, and someone would always be coming up with a new one. It is the same with nearly anything. If I know what I believe and why I believe it then I can counter arguments brought against it from any source. If I try to study every argument put up against it, then I would never have time for the truth. However, when a particular argument is presented I try to give it a good faith hearing. This could mean reading the Blind Watchmaker or the God Delusion or Letter to a Christian Nation. Or, it could mean reading Christian criticism of these works that present the argument and the particular author’s refutations.

Thanks for the link to the Blind Watchmaker I am around chapter 3 I think. It seems to at least be a good read.

Regards Helix.

Goldy

12-23-2007, 10:01 PM

...It is a compound concept and involves both belief and trusting that belief.....

I must believe what I see is real and I must trust that belief is correct, in other words, I have to have faith that what I see is what I get. This faith is buttressed by the reliability of my experience with it. In example, I sit down in a chair. I see the chair, I can touch the chair, but these senses can be unreliable, so I have to believe that I am seeing what is actually there, and I have to trust that belief enough to act on it by sitting down. My experience with previous observations buttresses this faith (call it a trust level). So, this faith in my own observation of the chair is quite reasonable and well founded. No one thinks this process through; it’s just something that we do without thinking. So I was arguing against the idea that all faith is unreasonable and unfounded. It is so much of a part of our everyday lives that we ignore it, so much so, that people like you, Dawkins and Harris want to start denying its existence.

Sorry, Helix, but that all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

If I see and feel the chair, I will sit on it with confidence, having confirmed it's existence with my senses and ability to reason. There is no belief or faith about it. I would be most amazed, if after having seen and felt the chair, my butt hit the floor and I would recognize immediately that something was awry with my perception. I would not assume for a second that God or any supernatural force moved or made the chair disappear.

Our senses and ability to reason are tools we can use to determine facts, estimate probabilities, etc. in the world around us. We do not "believe in" or have 'faith in' our senses and ability to reason any more than we have "faith" or "belief" in hammers and tape measures.

Our senses and ability to reason allow us to discern certain things in our world, our imagination allows us to have faith in other worlds

Skepticus

12-29-2007, 10:39 PM

Flies? I wonder if they could somehow provide power?

Well if you were a spider or some other kind of fly eating carnivore, you would no doubt enjoy the benifits of 'fly power'.

TrueBlue2

12-29-2007, 11:22 PM

I just had to say great post Goldy. Right on.

Skepticus

12-30-2007, 01:15 AM

Sorry, Helix, but that all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me...

...Our senses and ability to reason allow us to discern certain things in our world, our imagination allows us to have faith in other worlds

Brilliant Goldy!! :D

tmar

12-30-2007, 07:06 PM

Did you know that there is a new species of Rattle snake. It no longer rattles because that endangered its species.

JustCoexisting

12-31-2007, 07:32 AM

Continuation:

I must believe what I see is real and I must trust that belief is correct, in other words, I have to have faith that what I see is what I get. This faith is buttressed by the reliability of my experience with it. In example, I sit down in a chair. I see the chair, I can touch the chair, but these senses can be unreliable, so I have to believe that I am seeing what is actually there, and I have to trust that belief enough to act on it by sitting down. My experience with previous observations buttresses this faith (call it a trust level). So, this faith in my own observation of the chair is quite reasonable and well founded. No one thinks this process through; it’s just something that we do without thinking. So I was arguing against the idea that all faith is unreasonable and unfounded. It is so much of a part of our everyday lives that we ignore it, so much so, that people like you, Dawkins and Harris want to start denying its existence.

Sometimes the church was less willing to reevaluate its teaching, but in the end truth always wins out.

Why would I spend a great deal of time studying what I believe is false? When I worked for a bank we didn’t study counterfeit bills to pick out the counterfeits. We studied the real thing. When a counterfeit bill was presented, we could quickly detect the fraud. Why? Because we were intimately familiar with the true bill. If you tried to do it in the reverse then you would have to study every type of counterfeit ever printed in order to spot one. That would not even be possible, and someone would always be coming up with a new one. It is the same with nearly anything.

Regards Helix.

First off, lets talk about your chair analogy.
So, you only believe the chair is there because you can touch it and see it. Because this chair exists and you can feel it and see it you must automatically close your mind and not accept anything that you cannot see.

Say you were blind?
You would have to trust that the chair was there.

So, how do you stay alive? Because I do it by breathing oxygen. Thats right. Clear, intangible oxygen.

Of course I know the oxygen is there even though I can't see it or feel it because science has led me to believe that all humans need oxygen to survive.

Secondly, I think your church views depend on what church you went to. Not only Catholic or Protestant, but which particular one. I'm Protestant but I have been to many different churches. Some of them are terrible, and I get nothing out of the service. The church I'm at now is awesome, and I always learn a lot. Maybe your close-mindedness had you stop searching for a church that would suit you. Keep looking.

Lastly, your counterfeit analogy was not so good. I'm not even sure what you were trying to relate.
Obviously we would study the real dollar bill.

Once again, maybe people wouldn't be counterfeiting money if they were a little closer to God and knew that stealing broke one of his ten commandments.

^.^Thank you.
Shalom and Namaste!

Helix42

01-03-2008, 04:37 PM

Sorry, Helix, but that all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.fair enough...:cool: You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

If I see and feel the chair, I will sit on it with confidence, having confirmed it's existence with my senses and ability to reason. There is no belief or faith about it.I can fool your senses with simple tricks. I can make you see things that are not there. Your senses are not fully reliable. I assume that you had been to a magic show and realize this. So, you use input from your senses and then reason, based on experience, to determine that you either can or cannot trust what you have observed. However, because you know that you cannot always perfectly trust what you see and touch, some uncertainty remains. You must then believe what you have perceived and trust your experience and reasoning enough to act. This belief and trust is a type of faith.

I would be most amazed, if after having seen and felt the chair, my butt hit the floor and I would recognize immediately that something was awry with my perception.Of course, any reasonable person would immediately wonder about the accuracy of their perception, that is part of the point! However, that doesn't mean that you don't act in faith based on a belief in the accuracy of your perception to begin with. The example focuses on the uncertainty of your perception and the act of belief that is required for you to act on your perception. The amount of uncertainty is so small that the example requires a little imagination.

I would not assume for a second that God or any supernatural force moved or made the chair disappear. Of course God would not be needed nor anything supernatural. Nothing supernatural is required for faith either. Faith is not necessarily an unreasoned belief in things that cannot be seen. What I am concerned with is the attempt to narrow the definition of faith so that it excludes reasoned belief. It is an attempt to change the language so as to make the word faith means a ridiculous unreasoned belief. Then apply that definition to all religious faith in order to make all faith seem unreasoned and ridiculous. The idea that faith is simply unreasoned belief is simplistic and ignorant. A lot like trying to stuff all religions into the same bag.

Our senses and ability to reason are tools we can use to determine facts, estimate probabilities, etc. in the world around us. We do not "believe in" or have 'faith in' our senses and ability to reason any more than we have "faith" or "belief" in hammers and tape measures. What happens if your tape measure is inaccurate? Have you ever measured something several times and still cut the board wrong? You misread the tape the same way several times in a row. If you make much sawdust this has happened to you. Why did you cut the board? You had faith in your measurement and the accuracy of the tape. You believed that the tape is accurate and your ability to use it. You trusted that you had done it right and acted on that faith. Perhaps, as I have occasionally, you have found that faith misplaced.

Our senses and ability to reason allow us to discern certain things in our world, our imagination allows us to have faith in other worldsOf course our senses do these things and our reason, but we still have to believe that they are accurate. This belief and trusting it is one of the definitions of faith. Imagination, reason and faith have led to some of the greatest discoveries about our world. Faith doesn't require the supernatural nor is it restricted to belief in things that cannot be touched and seen. Faith is a broad big word, not a little restricted one.

I am surprised that we have gotten so wrapped around this particular axle. I wonder why that is?

Later

Helix42

01-03-2008, 04:55 PM

Hi,

First off, lets talk about your chair analogy.
So, you only believe the chair is there because you can touch it and see it. Because this chair exists and you can feel it and see it you must automatically close your mind and not accept anything that you cannot see.I think you have confused me with the other guys... I believe in many things that I cannot see...

Say you were blind?
You would have to trust that the chair was there.Of course you would - I was trying to get at the idea that we always have to have some belief and trust in what we see (or feel) otherwise, we would stand really still and try not to move much for fear of running into things.

So, how do you stay alive?The grace and good pleasure of God.

Secondly, I think your church views depend on what church you went to. Not only Catholic or Protestant, but which particular one. I'm Protestant but I have been to many different churches. Some of them are terrible, and I get nothing out of the service. The church I'm at now is awesome, and I always learn a lot. Maybe your close-mindedness had you stop searching for a church that would suit you. Keep looking.What made you think I don't like churches? I am a member of a church and have been for the last 20 years or so. Not the same one, but one none the less. Thanks for the encouragement though.

Lastly, your counterfeit analogy was not so good. I'm not even sure what you were trying to relate.
Obviously we would study the real dollar bill.This was a response to Skepticus inferring that I don't read enough things written by atheists. I was just indicating that when I want to know something specific I read it, but in general I read the Bible and commentaries that relate to specific topics of interest. A bit of unsolicited advice - if you are claiming to be a Christian, and you want to stay that way, then try very hard to understand both what you believe and why you believe it.

Once again, maybe people wouldn't be counterfeiting money if they were a little closer to God and knew that stealing broke one of his ten commandments.I wasn't talking about literally counterfeiting money, but I would agree with you.

Cheers

tmar

01-03-2008, 06:40 PM

Since I believe in both it is hard to imagine why so much crap going on. First Adam and Eve were created.... enough said... second where did the women come from that wed Cain... My contention is that they were from this earth evolved as such. There are two stories and both parallel each other. So Adam and Eve were introduced to this planet via God. It doesn't say that they were alone; Christians assume that.

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 04:15 PM

Helix, here is where I believe the present discourse about the word 'faith' began.

Skepticus,

I read the excerpt from Same Harris' book you linked me too...

His attack on faith in general is well off the mark and predicated on the assumption that all religious faith is misplaced.

Then later...

I don't need to reference an outside source for Sam Harris' assessment of religious faith, one sentence will suffice. He predicates his entire argument, concerning religion, on the premise that all religious faith is groundless and false.

As do I. and that stands to reason. Would you care to expand on any of the specific points he has made?

Then further down the track:

Oh, and please stop using the words 'common sense'. It doesn't exist, sense is not common and in any case you can't define what 'common sense' means, since no two people have the same concept of what 'common sense' actually is.

Ok. I'll stop using the word 'common sense' when you stop using the word 'faith'.

After a long protracted battle over semantics, I eventually negotiated for my right to use the term 'common sense' in a meaningful way. Then we returned to 'faith' again.

There seems to be an unfounded assumption afoot, that if you can't know something, or prove it with absolute certainty, that you are logically obliged to fall back upon faith, as a default position. Along with this, I have noticed here, a predisposition towards using the word 'faith' as a synonym for 'belief'. Whereas I have emphatically denounced any dependence of faith in my own worldview I have been equally emphatically contradicted and assured, that what I believe does all come down to faith. The reason I have denied any need for faith, depends upon an important semantic distinction. Our differences in this point may largely dissolve and comedown to pure metaphysics if this is understood:

What I mean by 'faith' is unreasoned belief, or belief without reason. Understanding a cause and effect relationship and being able to make predictions based upon that relationship gives me reason to believe it. You see? If I can see how the cause and effect relationship stands to reason logically, I then have recourse to inevitability. I can see that the effect is an inevitable consequence of the cause, at least, given the evidence and the reasoning that applies to the current theory. Now. If the situation (such as your car battery going flat) is inevitable, then it doesn't require faith in the sense of 'belief without reason'. Whatever belief I may have, I didn't believe it without reason, I believed it because of reason. The reason proceeds the belief, just as the cause precedes the effect.

Firstly as an empirical observation, I may have noticed that all car batteries seem to consistently go flat if you leave the lights on. This gives me confidence that there is a consistent principal at hand. Later I might learn something about electricity and thermodynamics. I may understand then why car batteries go flat. As is so often the case, the principal at work is inevitable (within the bounds defined). In this situation I feel I have no choice but to believe it because it is not possible to come to any other logical conclusion, about what will happen if I leave my lights on.

The claim that my believing in an idea requires faith, is predicated on the broader definition of 'faith' being synonymous with 'belief', is it not? Clearly if you use my more specific definition of faith (belief without reason), then I may arrive at a belief but faith wont come into it. Well I hope that puts a clamp on the 'do I need faith' issue, but I fear I may have opened a can of semantic worms. Which definition is right or best?

Indeed, and not much seems to have changed. As long as creationist banter focuses on semantics and philosophical quibbles, the debate perpetually avoids broaching truth or facts in the truest sense.

Continued...

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 04:24 PM

Down With Faith (4)
Words are ours to do as we choose, as long as we agree on definitions. I would argue that my definition is more useful as we already have a word for 'belief' and that is 'belief'. If we insist on using the word faith as a synonym for belief, then what word do we have left for the concept that is 'unreasoned belief'? Quite apart from this, as an atheist, I often find that debates with creationists peter out because at the end of the day creationists themselves, will bow out declaring that my faith is just what I believe and I don't require any reason to justify it. I find it hard to understand how anybody could do this, but leaving well enough alone, it does demonstrate that my definition of faith is universal enough and not anti-creationist, in that creationists themselves will use it this way.

Returning now to the problem of why anybody would deny certain knowledge of fact and fall back to faith instead. The reasons for denying absolute knowledge of fact have been done to death, so let's not flog the dead horse. The question now is, what makes 'faith' the natural contender. The simplistic answer is this: If you can't know something for certain, you can only choose to believe it or not believe it, as the case may be. Again this fall back position is safest when it chooses to use the softer, broader, definition of faith as a synonym for 'belief'. You may not know something for certain, but you may still establish a belief about it.

So what's wrong with this picture? Well as I have said, I don't use 'faith' as a synonym for belief. Falling back to unreasoned belief would be totally out of the question. Just because we don't know something for certain, doesn't mean that we can't be reasonably confident about it being true, false or whatever. Herein lies the real problem with the 'faith by default' argument: It assumes that each proposition we consider, must be decided in terms of absolutes. We must decide it is absolutely true or absolutely false, and if we can't do that, we must default to a whimsical, arbitrary, reasonless choice. Nonsense, we need to do none of the sort.

Faith by default, also bends over backwards to concede to the deeply esoteric and theory laden, epistemological objections of philosophy. It pretends that the only two alternatives we have, are certain facts or unreasoned beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is another alternative you know. The alternative is, ignore the pedantic quibbles of philosophy and get the job done, by testing ideas for their likely hood to be true. In the absence of absolute certainty, we can still reckon the probability of an idea and get an exceptionally high level of confidence using Ockhams' Razor, and statistical methods.

Relative probability of competing explanations, is a powerful force and case in point is the fact that science actually works. The computer you are using, the light-bulb in your room light or lamp. Your TV, car, and even your hot water system, are all obeying inevitable natural laws that were worked out by science. The countless multitudes of cause and effect relationships that need to be understood YES!!! UNDERSTOOD to be able to construct a computer are staggering. These things are not just designed by trial and error you know, the engineers have to have more than know-how they also need to know-why. They need to know that a particular device will behave in an inevitable way. They need to design the thing, so it has no choice but to behave the way it is expected. They need to know the fundamental laws and why electrons behave the way they do, and make the myriad of components that will manipulate those electrons in unison.

Do you see what I am saying? I am not just pointing out that they are clever (be that as it may), I am also saying that laws of physics are not capricious and they can be understood. Scientists can and do understand things. The whole technological world is built out of scientific knowledge. It's no use thinking that, someday they may discover a flaw in their digital electronics theory, as if, as soon a theorist writes an equation on the blackboard and spots the error, all of the computers in the world will suddenly shutdown. Existing technology is built out of existing knowledge, dependable knowledge about nature and how it works. They don't guess these things, it isn't trial and error. They have to learn what nature does and why. Eventually large quantities of these facts become irrefutable. You don't have to believe any single one, of these irrefutable facts, any more than you have to believe, that leaving your headlights on, will flatten your car battery, but for all practical purposes, thats close enough to certain, for all but a few devious pedants.

So far I have to contend that there has been no real debate at all. All there has been is rhetorical banter. This is a prerequisite maintained by creationists. "I'll have a debate with you" they say, "just so long as you don't use logic on me", or "don't debate facts" or you must accept that "there is no such thing as empirical truth", or "we can't be sure about anything, therefore creationism is the default conclusion". What utter rubbish!!

By maintaining a philosophical subterfuge, creationists are assured that the debate will never precede the the point of debating specific facts and having to hold their ideas accountable to honest reasoning. That would be tantamount to Intellectual honesty. It would also show Creationism up for the nonsense it is.

To this I simply add, nothing has changed.

tmar

01-04-2008, 04:31 PM

Skepticus you are going to have to condense your writings.... man reading this I almost fell asleep... like being at a laundromat where you don't need any quarters... ha! ha! I say both

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 06:07 PM

And then on and on continues the same inane, sophist rhetoric by Helix:

Quickly I think I can clear up some of our semantics battles - or at least one of them:

Common Sense: I just really hate the term because of its abiguity. I prefer 'Good Sense' and Bad Sense, or it 'makes good sense' - etc. But, if you insist on using common sense I promise I will not say anything else about it and I will know what you mean.

Did you notice it the first time around? The words 'good' and 'bad' are subjectively loaded and as such are open to interpretation. Consequently the terms 'Good Sense' and 'Bad Sense', are even more ambiguous than 'common sense' which at least is quantifiable.

We agree faith does not equal simple belief.

I let that slide the first time around and I agree...

It is more.

Not because it is more because it is less. It's common and more specific definition, is with respect to 'religious faith' and that on prima facie account is reasonless. It is also widely accepted with this deffinition by the religious community.

Faith is not 'unreasoned belief'. Belief is an element of faith, but is not all of it. Faith, in its theological sense and as I defined it in my post, is a compound concept. It involves two elements: belief in a thing and trust either in that thing or trust in the correctness of the belief itself.

Well I am sorry to disappoint you, but the word wasn't raised in the context of 'your definition', in your post, was it? It came up because I posted a link to Sam Harris. You failed to address any points he made gave the whole article a glib hand waving dismissal, and preceded to prattle on about the misuse of your favorite weasel word. He (and by extension I), raised the word in conversation, the obvious relevance it has, is in the context that is used by the person using it. There are other definitions as you so rightly point out, but I don't like them and you weren't the one speaking when the word was used. The definition of the word, in the context it was used is still a valid one, and furthermore it is eminently more meaningful when used this way.

Faith is an active word. James wrote "Faith without works is dead". Why would he write such a thing? Was it because he wanted us to know we had to believe and perform certain works to be worthy of heaven? No, it is because faith is active. If you believe and trust then this will be evident in what you do.

Irrelevant drivel, inciting speculation about the absurd and meaningless rantings of a mad man.

Do you believe in irrational and unreasoned things?

I would hope not.

Why then would you have faith in something irrational or unreasoned?

I wouldn't I have no use for faith. I have told you that.

You would not if you couldn't muster belief. You will not believe things that don't make good (common) sense.

I don't know what this is supposed to prove but it is obviously non sequiter drivell.

Trust is also a compound concept. There are two elements to trust: Gift and trackrecord. I give you my trust but if your trackrecord is bad you will not retain that gift or you will not get it in the first place.

Trust is a concept that quite meaningfully stands alone and has no use to be tainted by incoporatining it into faith.

<snip='to more inane blathering'>

</snip>

Semantics aside, I will be glad to stipulate that facts are facts and dispense with the all the fuss about faith.

And yet...

However, I should point out that 'my car is yellow' is not a fact. It is an interpretation of a fact. The fact is that your car reflects a certain wavelength of light. You brain interprets data received from your eyes and calls it 'yellow'. If my eyes are defective I will not get the interpretive result 'yellow' regardless of how many tests we run.

I thought you said that you were going to shut up about this. If I were colour blind, I could park my car on a busy street and ask fifty random pedestrians, "what colour do you think my car is?" Do I have to trust them? Would they have a motive to lie to me? Alternatively I could use a piece of electronic equipment to measure the wavelength of light (colour) being reflected by my car. Yellow is what yellow does, it doesn't have to do it to my eyes directly. When I hear other people talking about the colour yellow I will obviously have the doctor check me out for colour blindness. I will still be as certain as anybody that yellow exists. In the same way, anybody can be quite certain that 'colours' exist that are outside of the visible spectrum. Reasoning will get us just as close to certain knowledge, as direct perception anyhow. What was the significance of the colour blind person?

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 06:59 PM

This is a summary of the debate about the meaning of the word 'faith' as it has transpired so far. The reason I wanted to start from the very beginning, is no only to show the progress (or lack thereof) we have made. But to point out something important. At the very beginning of this debate about the meaning of the word 'faith', the word was employed to represent a concept. The word was used in context of 'unreasoned belief' I would like to voice a strong contention, that this IS the more widely accepted meaning of the term. In any case, when a word has more than one possible context, the choice of which context is going to be used, is entirely up to the person who is using it. The listener or reader, is not at liberty to take the word and attempt to place a contextual constraint upon it, on behalf of the speaker/writer. Your whole protracted battle here Helix, has been a tenacious effort to impose a specific context on what the speaker/writer.'should' mean when they use the word.

Another point I have made which you have not responded to, is pointed out at the beginning of my post 'Down With Faith(4)' "Words are ours to do as we choose, as long as we agree on definitions. I would argue that my definition is more useful as we already have a word for 'belief' and that is 'belief'. If we insist on using the word faith as a synonym for belief, then what word do we have left for the concept that is 'unreasoned belief'?"

It should also be noted, that using the word 'faith' as a synonym for 'belief' also increases it's ambiguity, by generalizing the concept to mean anything. Absolutely any idea from the most cockamamie delusion, to the most conclusive fact of reality about which we can all agree, can be called a belief, entirely without contradiction or irony. If an article of 'faith' is merely a 'belief' then faith attaches to anything and everything. Let's remember what you had to say about ambiguity now Helix.

"Common Sense: I just really hate the term because of its abiguity."

When a term is used to describe a concept that attempts to derive confidence in a matter of truth/fact, you're all over it like a maggot on a warm turd, for being ambiguous.

When I use a term in a valid context, which improves it's meaningfulness, but that casts in a negative or pejorative light, as in '(reasonless) faith' (ie. lacking reason), what do you have to say about ambiguity then. Let's see:

"This belief and trust is a type of faith..."

"This belief and trusting it is one of the definitions of faith. Imagination, reason and faith have led to some of the greatest discoveries about our world. Faith doesn't require the supernatural nor is it restricted to belief in things that cannot be touched and seen. Faith is a broad big word, not a little restricted one."

Notice first that you have continently avoided use of the adjective 'ambiguous', for which you have already denoted in the pejorative. Instead it is festively described as 'broad and big' and to hammer home the point you have illustrated the opposite of this virtuous quality, by describing it with the loaded adjectives 'little' and 'restricted'. The opposite to 'broad and big' is not concise or specific mind you, because it is now more important to emphasis, that the horrible little, deplorable, restricted, nasty, meaningless, opposite quality, doesn't cover enough scope.

On one hand, it seems that you think a term should be celebrated, when it's definition is broadened, with the implication that it means so much more. Increase the scope of the definition, to encompass more things and you pretend it becomes more meaningful. On the other hand if the term is a threat to abject sophism and obscurantism, (as in 'common sense') the ambiguity of the term is an abhorrent imposition on meaningfulness. Every trivial nitpicking detail about its meaning and usage are held to account, because nothing should be allowed to improve our ability to reach agreement about what we can confidently and rationally estimate as being truth in the factual sense. If your motive was to be an dishonest, obscurantist, huckster, then this would be a good ploy. Discredit anything that tends to lead to improved knowledge, understanding or meaning and celebrate anything which leads to inevitable ambiguity, obscurity and uncertainty. Discredit a term as 'ambiguous' which isn't, in order to discount it as irrelevant and redefine another so that it is actually ambiguous, to the point of becoming meaningless and applaud it a meaningful and useful word, which characterizes the epitome of rational thought.

By this process, of swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat, what is normally considered a rational thinking process (common sense), is construed as irrational. While the concept that is normally considered irrational (faith) is construed as rational. The obvious motive is to obfuscate rational discourse, by deliberately miss-characterizing both rational concepts and irrational ones. Attempting to make them equally rational and irrational, means nobody is privileged with tools that could be used to verify the truth value of an idea, or expose its absurdity.

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 07:17 PM

Helix. You have even gone so far in attributing unbounded virtues into the word faith, as to associate it with reason, by generalizing from its newly appropriated synonym of belief. The logic is that beliefs are often believed for good reason, and belief is just faith. So faith gets to soak up the respectability of reason. This is precisely why it is a nonsense to equate faith with belief. We already have a word for an idea or thought which might be considered true, that word is a 'belief'. but considering that any idea or thought might be considered true, it is a very broad ambiguous word. Faith is useful for categorizing that set of beliefs which tend to be believed without any consideration of reason Again religious people themselves, commonly use 'faith' in that very context, to denote their religious beliefs and especially that quality of those beliefs which they claim supersedes, transcends and requires no reason. It is quite simply common place to extol faith as a virtue in the absence of reason, and more specifically in spite of reason.

What I am concerned with is the attempt to narrow the definition of faith so that it excludes reasoned belief. It is an attempt to change the language so as to make the word faith means a ridiculous unreasoned belief. Then apply that definition to all religious faith in order to make all faith seem unreasoned and ridiculous. The idea that faith is simply unreasoned belief is simplistic and ignorant. A lot like trying to stuff all religions into the same bag.

Well Helix. A "ridiculous unreasoned belief." is precisely what some people contend religion is. I don't think that because of it's association with the word faith though. I think that because it it is so completely without support from reasoning and empirical evidence. It also proposes many ridiculous.things.

Whether you like it or not, faith IS a word used ostensibly by both believers and un-believers to signify a belief that is not dependent on reason. Often it is used to signify something that is deliberately believed in spite of reason.

Helix, it is you who is attempting to "change the language". If you really believed that 'religious faith' had anything owing to reason, you would be better off arguing those reasons. If you could argue a successful case based on reason (rational, logical empirically based reason) maybe I would agree there was something in, but then I would no longer choose to call it 'religious faith', I would call it 'religious belief' or 'Religious truth'. It would go from what is by definition unreasoned to what is reasoned. Rather than legitimizing religious belief by showing your reasoning, you have instead attempted to legitimizing religious belief by sneaky word games. It really doesn't matter what the word faith implies for 'religious belief' it's what evidence and reasoning religion has to support its claims that matters.

We also have to realize here, that Helix's attempts to impose constraint on the context of a word as used by another person. The insistent banter, that the word should mean 'reasoned belief' as apposed to 'unreasoned belief' is not just a condition self-imposed upon helix's own personal choice, but a condition which Helix continues to inflict as a condition of the rest of the world. As I pointed out; from the beginning of this discourse, I choose the context of the word 'faith' by reference to Sam Harris and by my implicit and explicit approval of the context. Moreover, there was no room for misunderstanding about the intended meaning, so the utility of the term to directly convey meaning is conserved. Since this is what words are for (to convey meaning), all that matters, is that we all understand what is meant. Helix could have simply accepted the intended meaning, as the context was obvious enough. But there is a difference between the word 'faith' being used in the context of 'irrational or unreasoned faith' and the concept 'irrational or unreasoned faith' having any intrinsic meaning whatsoever.

What is actually happening here, is that Helix is not satisfied with undermining the pejorative context of 'faith' that implies irrationality. Helix intends to destroy anything that associates religious faith with irrationality and any construct of language, which imparts meaning in language, to differentiate the rational from the irrational. The ultimate goal is to destroy the very concept of irrational faith, so that Helix can claim, that there is no such thing. By torturing the meaning of words, Helix hopes to destroy the intrinsic concept of irrational, so that 'religious faith' can pass by unimpeded for want of a concept to criticize it with.

Skepticus

01-04-2008, 07:47 PM

I'm sick of talking about 'faith' I want to talk about another word, the word 'equivocation'. Now just so Helix doesn't take the liberty of misconstruing the intended (or permitted/legitimate) meaning, I need to define MY usage of the word. I am sticking a high voltage, electrified, 20 foot high, razor wire fence around the word, so that Helix can't come and meddle with it to alter the definition. I am also posting a bright red lettered sign on sign on the fence.

The word used within this perimeter, is the exclusive property of Skepticus Maximus. Trespassers will be shot on sight.

If you don't like that Helix, then it's just tough luck, I have decided that I no longer entertain your sniveling, sophist banter, about how you dislike a word, or how others should use it, in X or Y manner. You no longer get to play language police with me. That's a responsibility you can't handle and don't deserve. Now 'equivocation' is defined in Wikipedia as:

Equivocation, also known as amphibology, is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

I note again that I made my intended meaning of 'faith' clear and that Helix is the one attempting to distort the meaning for the obvious purpose of equivocation. Another explanation I found for equivocation echoes my sentiments very well:

Equivocation ((http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html))

The logical fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time. For example, someone asserts that I have “faith” in science, and then implies this is the same as religious faith. This argument (that I have to refute with the same friend, periodically), seems to be saying that since I have not personally performed every single scientific experiment ever performed, by every scientist, in the history of the world – since I haven’t personally performed them all - I can’t know for sure that they have been performed at all. Therefore if I believe what I read about science, I must have “faith” in science. This is the same as religious faith, and therefore science is my religion.

Of course, the correct word to describe my view of science is “trust”, not “faith”. I have trust in science because (1) I have evidence that science works (look at all the products of science around you), and (2) there is evidence that science is self-correcting, and that if some scientist just made something up to con the rest of the world, another scientist would eventually expose the fraud. Of course, I can’t prove that all scientific experiments actually took place as described, and perhaps that’s where my friend’s confusion lies. But I do have evidence; therefore accepting science is not faith. The fallacy is to say that trust, based on evidence, is the same as blind faith based on no evidence at all. The ploy is to use the word “faith” for both of these definitions, but then to imply they both mean religious blind faith.

Again we have the problem here with the more ambiguous definition of faith, that it also encompasses trust. Any belief that is based on trust (as apposed to blind faith), is also an article of faith. So what does faith end up meaning? Everything and nothing. If every idea, concept or belief is predicated on faith then faith becomes useless as a language construct to differentiate concepts. It is obvious that this is Helix's full intention, except that 'religious faith' is now legitimized under the auspices of a reasoned belief. Now that tells us something has gotta be wrong. Creative semantics can not be used in place of logical, evidence based, reasoning. and religion will never be rational. Calling faith rational is like calling physical violence a gentle massage, because they both involve physical contact.

!!!! Faith = unreasoned belief = religion = baseless irrational dogma !!!!

Beloved

01-04-2008, 07:48 PM

My guess is you don't know that much about evolution. Do you think creationism should be taught in public schools? What do you think of the science of DNA?

If Creationism is a theory why not teach it in public schools like the evolution theory. Let the students decide after hearing them all.

Beloved

01-04-2008, 07:52 PM

EEK, How did I get here, maybe a push of the button, or just to slow in answering. Bye

Skepticus

01-05-2008, 01:50 PM

If Creationism is a theory why not teach it in public schools like the evolution theory. Let the students decide after hearing them all.

Hi Beloved.

If you are referring to theory as in a 'scientific theory' then you should read this (http://www.thoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12154#post12154):

The 'theory' of creationism is in no way a scientific theory. Another problem is that it is not a schoolchild's job to engage in critical analysis of competing ideas. In science the task of critical assessment of competing ideas is called 'peer reviewed research' in fields as complex and technical as biology, you would not expect to make a contribution until you get to the post doctoral level. To make valid and meaningful assessments, a student needs to be brought up to speed on the current crop of understandings. What is true about nature, is not going to be discovered, by the whimsical, ill-informed, personal choice of a school student.

What is or should be included in the school curriculum. is based on the knowledge discovered by formal tertiary research and properly adjudicated by peer review. Since creationism simply doesn't exist at the tertiary level, isn't a science and doesn't do formal research or produce knowledge, it can't offer anything to lower levels of education. Between the schoolchild's curriculum and the cutting edge of research, where new discoveries are made and speculative hypotheses are tested, exists a body of very solid knowledge, that is critically assessed and constantly challenged by new research. The job of school science education, is to impart a reasonable amount of that knowledge and to give children critical thinking skills. They perfect and practice those critical thinking skills, if and when they continue on to higher levels of education.

Students do need to be taught the empirical methods of inquiring into nature and they need to be taught about peer review and how scientific ideas are competently adjudicated. 'Scientific' creationism does not follow these methods and is not subjected to critical analysis by it's proponents. It is not based on evidence and reason. By the standards of legitimate science, creationism is a totally discredited pseudo-science. When an idea in legitimate science is falsified (by science itself) it rightfully falls by the wayside. Creationism, is unwilling to be shown (or already aware) that no evidence agrees (or ever did agree) with its claims. It doesn't stand corrected but tenaciously persists, using strawman arguments, misquotes, misconceptions, fabricated evidence and bad reasoning.

Creationism is an unreasoned, supernatural belief system, being insidiously marketed as an 'alternative theory' in schools, to parents and teachers by politically motivated religious zealots. The intention is to bypass the rigorous formal academic processes of tertiary science and gain access to young minds by infiltrating the curriculum directly. School children can not decide for themselves what ideas being presented to them are most plausible, until they develop critical thinking skills. Creationists know this very well and prey on these developing minds to exploit the shortfall in critical thinking and indoctrinate them.

The worst problem with creationism though is that it is just so incredibly dishonest. It is a zealous politically motivated anti-intellectual cult, not an alternative idea to evolution. The light in which a biologist might for example, study the relative merits and short comings of punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism for instance is not how creationism is addressed. Creationism is coercive and cynical to the MAX. Creationists develop the art of sophistry to a highly tuned art and use every divisive ploy at their disposal to subvert rational inquiry. Their plan for the unsophisticated minds of children, is to turn them against intellectual inquiry, free thought and reason, especially in science.

The moral imperative, comes from biblical literalism, with its absolute moral authority and dogmatically asserted value system. The emotional blackmail that results from a fear of burning in hell for eternity or the saccharine bribery of eternal bliss in heaven, may be a lamentable outcome to observe in the adult religious fundamentalist, but to allow them into the school classroom to indoctrinate children with their dogma under the aegis of democratic fairness is unforgivably abhorrent.

Creationism is not science, it is non-science
(nonsense).

I found a very interesting and well measured article this evening Beloved. It gives a very honest but fair summary of the nature of the creation vs science debate, but it is somewhat more conciliatory towards creationism than I tend to be. It looks at some of the arguments, as well as a measured evaluation of the social impact of creationism. If you have children I implore you to go and read it. (http://www.scifidimensions.com/Jun00/real_tech_creationism.htm) If you don't have children, I implore you to go and read it. (http://www.scifidimensions.com/Jun00/real_tech_creationism.htm) Here is what it has to say about the issue of creationism in schools:

When I say to creationists (and even to some of my friends and colleagues) that education is not a democratic process, I sense that I hit a sore spot. By undemocratic I mean that education is not about teaching alternative opinions for the sake of variety or representation. It is about teaching the best of what we currently know. The fact that what we now know may turn out to be wrong is just the nature of things. We will change what is taught if and when we will know better. It is interesting to me that American parents do not seem to think twice before questioning what teachers teach their children, as if they knew better. Since teachers are (supposedly) trained for that specific job, it would be like advising a brain surgeon on how to cut your brain if you have no degree in medicine. I doubt that many people would run that risk! But the idea of “equal teaching” somehow strongly appeals to the American ideal of fairness. After all, what is wrong with teaching alternative theories, if they are out there? The problem is that such practice is very much unfair to our children, unless the two theories are genuine alternatives being considered by the scientific community. We do not teach creation science (an oxymoron, by the way) for the same reason that we do not teach that the Earth could be round or flat, or that our planet may be traveling around the Sun or vice versa. We do not teach all these things (or creationism) because we know better. Not doing so would be a great disservice to our children.

Another thing to ponder, is whether you would like to see
equal time given for science in churches and Sunday-schools.

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v82/65/42/18708009/n18708009_31701971_9598.jpg

Beloved

01-05-2008, 04:39 PM

thanks for the article, I think it could be applied to the evolution theory as well. I personally don't believe that evolution is proven by science either. Ideally education begins in the home where we teach our children our values and morals. My children knew right away that evolution was false because of their relationship with God. I am not a scholar but I hold true to my own opinion. Blessings!

JustCoexisting

01-06-2008, 08:33 AM

I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Scientists now only want to find more and more information to prove to everybody who believes in creation that they are wrong.

Why? I believe that God created this earth. I believe that he put Adam and Eve in his form to walk the earth with every animal, with night and day, with every ocean...

I also think that humans along with other species have evolved. There's no doubt in that.

So the real question that everyone wants to know the answer to is how did we get here.

Evolution say's the BIG BANG.
Creation says God.

Both of them have an equally low amount of evidence, besides the fact that God's Creation is in the first book ever written, and Evolution's Big Bang theory was only suggested a few years ago.

So Okay, you believe in the big bang theory.
So all of the worlds matter was condensed in infinite space and then one day BANG out of nowhere we now have planets, stars, life, water, the sun, the moon, animals...

Whoever thought that one up probably thought it was a pretty damn good idea.

However, if they really wanted to be convincing... I would trust that they could come up with a little bit of a better explanation.

Where did the matter come from in the first place would be my first question.

Oh, and if anyone gives me a scientific answer on this I'm going to find a way to shoot it down.

Sorry, as I told you before... I think God created- and then life evolved.

^.^Eternal Peace to all who read!

Skepticus

01-06-2008, 06:55 PM

thanks for the article, I think it could be applied to the evolution theory as well.

Well... I don't know what you mean by "it". The article made a large number of good points, so what specifically in it, would you say could also be applied to evolution theory?

I personally don't believe that evolution is proven by science either.

I trust then, that you are not at all well educated about it and have not looked at the insurmountable evidence, that demonstrates it to be the only feasible idea, that explains the evidence for complex life in the natural world. Of course creationists will claim that 'Goddidit', and if that is so, then he definitely did it in such a way, as to make evolution by natural selection seem like an inescapable conclusion. Now all we have to do is explain what created god.

You are talking to somebody who has studied evolution and the mass of evidence supporting it and knows as well as anything can be known, that it is an inevitable conclusion of natural history. It not only seems to be so, it seems to be inevitable and just as certainly proven as the fact that the earth is a globe. Don't tell me that you also think the world is flat do you? In order to 'believe' that evolution is proven by science, you would have to know something about it and the evidence that supports it. You would also have to understand something about the nature of scientific proof, and how we can reach such confident conclusions. What relevance can your belief that science has not proven evolution have, if you have no comprehension of it and have not considered it? What can I say to such a non-response? Perhaps I should send you some ear plugs, so you don't get sand in your ears, when you bury your head in the sand.

Ideally education begins in the home where we teach our children our values and morals.

Yeah, its good to teach morals at home, but some folks use it as an opportunity to indoctrinate their defenseless kids, with emotional blackmail about cruel sadistic tortures like burning in hell for eternity and bribery with eternal life in heavenly bliss. And you know, instead of learning to do good because they understand the virtue of being nice to people and because they learn empathy from within (even chimps do that), they find themselves being good just because they are trying to appease some vindictive petulant God, who seems more concerned about obedience than compassion. Besides, I don't think morals are the kind of things that a person should wrote learn, like the times tables.

My children knew right away that evolution was false because of their relationship with God.

Oh dear :( Which God did they get sucked into? Was it that barbaric warrior God of Islam or the absurd Jewish abomination to decent human values? Wait a minute... I know!!! It was probably the sadomasochistic, misogynistic, self-aggrandizing, petulant, petty, capricious and absurd God of the Christian Bible. Shit, I hope not. He's one of the worst ones you know. You realize, if they take their bible seriously, they will be expected to kill other people and for nothing more serious, than defecting to another religion and inviting them along. They will probably believe that their God (so desperate for adulation and approval) rewards them for believing in him and obeying him above just being a good person because it is the right thing to do. That will make them feel pious and sanctimonious towards other people who don't share their beliefs. They may become convinced that 'believing' is the highest virtue and because they are convinced that everybody who doesn't believe as they do, is going to hell, that they have a moral duty to 'share' their primitive, deluded fantasy.

No doubt their self righteous piety will create many moments of angst. By assuming they are speaking for a just and divinely sanctioned, moral dictatorship, they will arrogantly seem imply, that others are living in a moral vacuum. Also their unwillingness acknowledge the slightest inconsistency of their irrational creation myth, will set them up as willfully ignorant, but their willingness to counter valid criticisms with absurdities and evasive sophistry, will create the effect of treating their counterpart as an idiot.

And if you're trying to teach them morals at home, you can forget it. They will probably only accept the outmoded bronze age moral dictatorship of the Bible. That will be a problem in the real world, where respect and fairness are understood not dictated; Where women are no longer treated as second class and subservient. In the real world they will be expected to respect the living kingdom and the environment, because mankind does not have dominion over the biological kingdom. We must understand and respect nature. They probably won't be real nature lovers either. They will probably insist that everything in nature is somehow put here for the benefit of man. This selfish and parochial attitude will more than likely get them into trouble in latter years.

A more pressing concern, is that things like religious belief don't magically fall out of the sky. Children don't suddenly wake up one day, believing there is a omnipotent supernatural deity, who must have created the entire universe and populated our planet with life. They especially couldn't contrive the absurd claim that the existence of a deity rules out biological evolution. I take it they were sorta youngish (you said they "knew right away"), well I'm guessing they weren't teenagers. So.. The chance that they had an even modest comprehension of evolution is next to nothing. The claim that a relationship with God inspired the conclusion that evolution is false, is ridiculous beyond the realm of absurd. That kind of thinking is inspired by grownups who have interpreted the Bible literally and fabricated a pop-up book mentality, straw man characterization, of evolution.

I guessed earlier that your chidren's God, was the Christian one. I'd be willing to bet a very large pot on that one. Now I will tell you straight, that they have most definitely been indoctrinated. I believe they have been indoctrinated into Christianity, at least to the extent that I believe you and your family are living in the western world and (from your writing), that you are a westerner. Now assuming that is true (and if not, all bets are off), then here's how I know. When a child begins believing in a god of some kind, it is not likely to be a god from outside their own culture, in fact it is vanishingly unlikely. Gods popular in one culture do not appear to children in another. Why? Well, you might ask God that very same question, but my humble guess is that god doesn't appear to children at all, 'relationships' with gods take the form that comes from the people they know.

I don't think that children have divine revelations, I don't think they arrive at the conclusion that god exists by themselves at all. It must be adults that teach children to believe in god, not just a generic brand god, but a god that comes with all the trappings of a particular religion and denomination and even sub-set of specific beliefs like 'the existence of god disproves evolution'. When children come out with stuff like that, it has absolutely got to be indoctrination. Somebody in your family, school or otherwise close to those children, has been filling their heads with religious dogma.

You want to be careful that they aren't doing anything else. Some of those deluded, sexually repressed, religious nuts, are more perverted and depraved than XXX porn stars. It's hard not to despise people, who claim to have moral dominion over mankind, then when they fail to live up to their own standards, then it's all "Oh... But Christians aren't perfect just forgiven" Well, tell my buggered Catholic choir boy ass that, you sick, disgusting, perverted, low life, dirt-bag, piece of shit, in a ladies dress... Sorry... Not you. :o I went off on a tangent.

Continued....

Skepticus

01-06-2008, 07:11 PM

Now lets see. If Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world... and God is everywhere, then why isn't the Christian god providing revelations and giving signs to people equally in all parts of the world? Why is a child in china so vanishingly unlikely to run in and say "Mommy!! I think that god really loves me, because Jesus has come into my heart and I am filled with the holly spirit. Can we go to church on Sunday"?

Answer: For the same reason your children didn't run up and say "Mommy!! Allah is the one true god and Mohamed is his prophet. God is good!! Can we go to a mosque on Sunday?" They might do that one day, but that is just because Islam is being spread in the West due to social migration patterns and the increasing profile and backlash from the 'war on terror'. If one true god existed before globalisation due to communications, transport and world trade, then you should expect there would be some evidence, that the news about this God had spread without the need for man made migration transport and communication.

You don't even have to look at the scientific evidence for God (which doesn't exist) to see that the world looks exactly as it should, if god were a man made' fictional character and religions were just man made myths. They appear separately formulated in each isolated community, and they migrate and spread only to the extent that human contact and communication permits. Just a little geography, history and sociology exposes the intellectual poverty of the whole raving shitfest.

If there is one true god, why doesn't it provide equal access to all cultures communities. and social minorities? Why only one book? Why a minority of so called chosen people? Is god a racist. There's a nice wholesome moral standard your boys can learn, racial elitism. They can put that in the bag along with xenophobia, hypocrisy, violence and ignorance.

I know a Mormon couple, and by a strange coincidence, it turns out that their children are also Mormons. My word, it's a small world isn't it? God does work in mysterious ways, like either genetic inheritance of religious preference or cultural indoctrination of children by the Immediate social hierarchy. What right do people think they have, indoctrinating their innocent children with their own particular brand of ignorant, superstitious dogma? What about the child's rights? If you believe that a child has a right to decide what religion to follow if any, how can you explain the overwhelming tendency for children to follow the predominant religious bias of their own culture. Even worse, an even stronger tendency exists, for a child to follow the religion and denomination of their parents.

How dare we speak of a child's right to adopt a religious belief, when we are so obviously giving them our own biases. The rights which religious people so arrogantly assume they have to indoctrinate their children, are clearly predicated on the primitive and barbaric notion that Children (as with wives) are personal belongings. This is violently reinforced by the sociopathic christian preoccupation with obedience, sin and punishment. Just as Christians consider themselves possessions of God, they tend to reflect this dominant megalomania over their children. This shows flagrant disregard for the child's future psychological independence.

I am not a scholar but I hold true to my own opinion.

I like to hold true to well reasoned estimate of facts and reserve opinions for things that actually are a matter of opinion, like: 'chocolate topping tastes better than strawberry.' A statement such as 'a supernatural being created the universe' isn't that kind of idea. It either is true or it isn't true. I like to know these things, but I don't try to pretend that scientific knowledge is infallible. If I seem certain on some things, it's only provisional on the existing evidence, and because the evidence leads to no other conclusion. If theres room for speculation I like to heartily acknowledge it and vary my opinion to suit plausibility. If we hold to our opinion too strongly however, we are not being open to self honesty and self correction when a more plausible idea, or better evidence comes along.

Creationists often like to pretend that something is a matter of opinion when the subject they are discussing is actually a matter of fact. This is a sophist anti-truth seeking missile, fired to derail the argument, usually used when in discourse with somebody who knows what they are talking about and knows how to do debate. By pretending that the subject is a matter of opinion, the creationist can submissively stick to something they actually believe is an absolute fact. We can all agree that something is a matter of opinion, when we don't have any way of resolving the truth. But when something actually is a matter of fact which can be resolved with honest reasoning, we can either choose to acknowledge it and face the truth or stick our head in the sand and refuse to be drawn by reasonable debate to the conclusion.

The thing is, that this is quite a cunning bit of evasiveness. It demonstrates that the creationist has enough intelligence, to honestly and rationally seek truth without derailing discussion. It takes no more effort or intellect to reason with proper logic, than to deploy the many divisive and diversionary tactics used by creationists. Creationists failure to debate honestly and reasonably is not due to a lack of intellect. They often have plenty enough intelligence, but what they do lack is honesty.

The cognitive dissonance, that attends any inconsistency in their belief, is too difficult to cope with, it threatens the emotional investment they have in an imaginary superhero, who they believe loves and protects them and an eternal life in paradise that will continue beyond the grave. The fact that there is no evidence of this and that it is an unreasonable expectation, is not a truth they want to know. Their refusal to give this up, in the case that it just isn't true, is what fuels their dishonesty, both with themselves and with others.

Regards Skep.

Goldy

01-06-2008, 09:14 PM

Oh dear :( Which God did they get sucked into? Was it that barbaric warrior God of Islam or the absurd Jewish abomination to decent human values? Wait a minute... I know!!! It was probably the sadomasochistic, misogynistic, self-aggrandizing, petulant, petty, capricious and absurd God of the Christian Bible. Shit, I hope not. He's one of the worst ones you know.

Darn near had a repeat of the Sprite-up-the-nose incident, Skeppy! :D:D:D

You must realize that you are wasting water on dead flowers here, but I admire your dedication anyway.

Beloved

01-07-2008, 08:33 AM

Bravo Skep, you have studied well and i must applaud you for such a well thought out answer. But I'm not looking for a fight so have a very nice day.

Helix42

01-07-2008, 09:46 AM

Skepticus,

Equivocation, also known as amphibology, is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

This was not my intention at all. However, I do appear to have gotten wrapped around the axle and done it anyway. Guilty as charged I suppose, but I wasn't trying to be deliberately obfuscational. I would agree with most of what you wrote. Surprised? You really shouldn't be.

With the exception of parts like this:

!!!! Faith = unreasoned belief = religion = baseless irrational dogma !!!!

I haven't had time to read everything yet. I'll get back to you with more later...

Later

Skepticus

01-07-2008, 02:11 PM

Bravo Skep, you have studied well and i must applaud you for such a well thought out answer. But I'm not looking for a fight so have a very nice day.

Thanks for the sugar Beloved. I think what you are not looking for, is the truth. So you have a very nice day also, and here's your ear pugs:

http://www.ringing-ears-tinnitus.com/ear_plugs.jpg

Skepticus

01-07-2008, 02:45 PM

I believe in both creationism and evolutionism. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Hi JC,

I don't know if we should be so confident about evolution anymore. Theres some important new evidence in. Apparently Beloved has a couple of kids who have a relationship with god and because of this the KNOW evolution is false. (http://www.thoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?p=27365#post27365) :rolleyes:

Scientists now only want to find more and more information to prove to everybody who believes in creation that they are wrong.

Wow!! I would love to read the scientific research papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_paper) which publish research on that issue. What publication were they in, can you give some references. :rolleyes:

If only it were that simple JC. Science, studies natural phenomenon, using empirical methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_methods) to understand nature. Some would suggest that since god is supposed to be a supernatural being, that using empirical methods to prove its existence is impossible. A deistic god (one who created the universe then let it run it's own course), I would agree, is impossible to test. The god of theology however, meddles around with nature, communicates with people and in some doctrines is claimed to perform miracles. So that kind of god, having access to and influence on the natural world, would permit us to test the claimed effects at least.

Science is concerned with inventing new vaccines, probing deep space, solving turbulence in fluid dynamics and making a better microprocessor for that box of electronics you are using to surf the net. Science as a general enterprise, isn't much interested in the muddleheaded fallacies of the uneducated and willfully ignorant individuals who take the bible to a literal extreme. I on the other hand am. I am curious to know why some people believe the crazy things that they do. I am concerned that it does do harm to them and others. And I am concerned that they infect other people (especially children) with those irrational beliefs.

But do you really think that they built the Mount Willson Observatory or the Arrecibo Array, so they could peer out into the depths of space and say "Ahhhh... Nup, there's no God out there. Better phone the Pope, so he can tell all the Christians they can stay home on Sunday"? Science my dear, does not precede from a preconceived conclusion and then search for evidence to support it. That would be Creation 'science' which is pseudo-scientific junk.

Why do creationists seem so paranoid about anybody questioning their belief? It seems to me that they don't want to test it and know if it is plausible. Isn't the truth what really matters? The other problem with supposing there is an overt attempt to prove to creationists that they are wrong, is that no matter what kind of reason or evidence is submitted to them they will refuse to acknowledge and invent cunning ways to avoid any conclusion that they might be mistaken, deluded or lying.

If you will go back to the start of this thread you will see that the question of evolution or creation was posed by a creationist. The open invitation to discuss the question indicates a willingness on the part of creationists to question the issue, but if the only conclusion a creationist is willing to accept, is that they are right, it is not only dishonest to pretend openness, but it is a futile exercise to discuss the matter. If the only purpose of the exercise was to just to collect an inane list of statements like "Me too - I think Goddidit" then creationists need help.

Being willing to question our beliefs is of signal importance, as is being willing to alter them if we find they are mistaken / misguided / not quite right / totally false. I can't understand why anybody would want to believe something that is just plain and simple factually wrong. I mean help me out here, who's gonna say I believe X, Y & Z, I know it can't possibly be true, I know everything points to it being false, but I believe it. I think the answer to that lies in the psychology of religious conviction. It teaches people to believe without reason and often before they have developed any reasoning skills. As a result they sometimes never do. I think religion is like a box with a one way trap. You get in through the trap but you can easily get out.

Why? I believe that God created this earth. I believe that he put Adam and Eve in his form to walk the earth with every animal, with night and day, with every ocean...

Well... That's all very well and good if it's true, but is it? You state the belief with conviction but without reason.

I also think that humans along with other species have evolved. There's no doubt in that.

So the real question that everyone wants to know the answer to is how did we get here.

Evolution say's the BIG BANG.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evolutionary biology, says nothing about the cosmological origins of the universe.

Creation says God.
Both of them have an equally low amount of evidence,

Uh let me see now.... The entire enterprise of cosmological physics and every thing we know about the large scale structure of Universe, leads to the conclusion of the big bang, including:

The Einstein Field Equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) of General Relativity, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)
The Cosmological Redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift)
The background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)
I could go on but I am getting tired.

There is approximately 0 evidence for god(s), so that would put your probability ratio out by ...um... about 100% Not a bad guess if you have never read anything, communicated with anybody moderately intelligent, listened to a radio program, watched a documentary, looked anything up or never observed anything about the subject.

More importantly the Big Bang was a hypothesis predicted by prevailing theory, well ahead of the massively successful empirical evidence which confirmed it. It's a waste of my time trying to write a history of the theory for you when you could just so easily go and look it up. Honestly have none of you people ever heard of Google and Wikipedia? If you go and learn a little about these things (and heaven forbid that you should buy a book. like The Mind Of God by Paul Davies), then you might find yourself in a position of being justified in commenting about how plausible these ideas seem to you.

Continued...

tmar

01-07-2008, 05:07 PM

Google... wasn't he a french peeping tom... ha! ha! Wikipedia.. isn't that the rules on how to play Wii... You have answers and theories.... Was the big bang the first bang or one of many?

Skepticus

01-07-2008, 08:51 PM

besides the fact that God's Creation is in the first book ever written, and Evolution's Big Bang theory was only suggested a few years ago.

ROTFLMAO...

Oh!! Shit that was good. I needed that, thanks JC. Now, let me get this straight. You think a primitive ancient bronze age creation myth, should be more accurate than the sophisticated detailed results of modern science, because... ah... Knowledge gets worse as time goes on? So if you get a tumor on your brain, that causes some psychiatric problems, it would make more sense to have an excocism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism#Exorcism-related_deaths) to cast the evil spirits out, than it would, to have a modern medical procedure, involving neurosurgery to have the tumor removed?

Do you really think the bible was the first book ever written?

So Okay, you believe in the big bang theory.
So all of the worlds matter was condensed in infinite space and then one day BANG out of nowhere we now have planets, stars, life, water, the sun, the moon, animals...

One day? Again your naive effort to understand this, without even reading a basic beginners article on the subject is blatantly obvious. Matter, didn't just appear one day days are only measurements of the period a planets rotation for starters. Secondly space and time (spacetime) itself came into existence with the big bang.

Whoever thought that one up probably thought it was a pretty damn good idea.

Yeah... it all just popped into the head of one person, thats how science is done. It was all a matter of a couple of moments thought and nothing has ever been done since :rolleyes:

However, if they really wanted to be convincing... I would trust that they could come up with a little bit of a better explanation.

Where did the matter come from in the first place would be my first question.

Well my first question is why don't you go and read up about it? It's not like anybody is trying to keep it a secret from you. Why should anybody want to spoon feed you, there are stacks of books, magazines and websites that provide information on how this discovery came about. My next question would be, why do you assume that there is nor can be any answers to this or any other question, when you haven't done any research to know there is no good answer?

The big bang was the first place, it was also the first time, energy and the first matter. It was the moment that everything began. there was no moment before and no place in which it happened.

Oh, and if anyone gives me a scientific answer on this I'm going to find a way to shoot it down.

Oh that's veeeery intelligent. JC You'll shoot it down why? You have obviously decide that it's better to have a closed mind and proceed from the assumption that it's wrong before you know anything about it. And what kind of answer would you expect to be used to describe a subject that is studied by science a religious answer perhaps? If a theoretical physicist who has studied for a decade to earn a post doctoral degree, doesn't get to tell the universe how it must work, what makes you think you are going to be able to tell it.

Sorry, as I told you before... I think God created- and then life evolved.

You think?.... You claim to think, but when you blurt out a preconceived assumption and demand that it is correct without an understanding of the subject matter you are passing judgment on, you can hardly claim to be thinking, unless you mean wishful thinking. What you really need to learn, is some critical thinking. I have an Idea. Why don't you forget about the big bang for a while and do some reading about biological evolution, since that doesn't offend your sensibilities? Perhaps you will learn a bit about nature, and the way questions about it are answered in science.

Skepticus

01-07-2008, 09:06 PM

If you must insist to continue playing Big Bang cosmology off against Big Goddidit cosmology, then you need to learn to be even handed about the assumptions of both explanations. Firstly, even if the Big Bang were completely falsified, is an extreme non sequitur fallacy to assume the only alternative is The Big Goddidit. Secondly, Goddidit has exactly the same problem that you have contended for the Big Bang. Creation Ex Nihilo out of nothing. Sure it seems like magic for the universe to spontaneously appear out of nowhere. Miraculous it may be, but perhaps not. If anything will discover a non-miraculous explanation, science will.

As it stands, the big bang theory does not depend on any kind of magic. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean It can't be true. I don't understand how a stage magician does those things called tricks, which seem to be impossible either, but I know they do have a non-supernatural explanation. I can't assume that because I don't understand what is going on, that there is no rational explaination. The Big Bang may seem like a magic trick to you, but that is only because you don't know how it is done. Cosmologists themselves had to work out how the magic trick was done. The puzzle is not yet complete, but the illusion is worked out. A magicians trick once it is shown to us is trivial and easy to understand, ('Oh! that's where he hid the coin') but theoretical physics is a deep, complex, technical subject, that in fine detail is hard to understand. Nobody ever said the universe had to be a simple thing or easy to work out. To understand how the 'trick' is done is not as easy as 'where did the disappearing coin go' in the magicians trick.

Your obnoxious, truculent demand to know how the trick is done and with out using a scientific answer, 'or I'm gonna find a way to shoot it down', makes you sound like a petulant four year old child who needs a nap (or perhaps a slap). If you think being absurd and ridiculous, will make a good substitute for a rational refutation, then you are only fooling yourself. If you find a way to shoot down a good scientific idea, then it will have to be by replacing it with a better one. Anything else just doesn't count. Nobody is going to be able to explain something to anybody who refuses to listen and think. Who's problem is that? Nobody is going to be able to explain a scientific subject to anybody in anything other than scientific terms. Again, who's problem is that? If these conditions don't suit you, then apparently reality doesn't suit you. Truth doesn't suit you.

Finally your main complaint with the Big Bang, that it relies on getting something from nothing, is exactly the same, as the problem with the Big Goddidit, because nobody can explain where God came from. I could just as easily demand an explanation for that, and add, that it had better not be a supernatural explanation or I'm gonna shoot it down. I needn't bother as you have already done it for me. You wouldn't accept the Big Bang theory because it seemed like magic. So if you try to pull a God out of a hat, like a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, without being able to explain the trick in natural rather than supernatural terms, you are subject to a double standard.

Given that the universe exists, and we are here to talk about it, it seems self evidently true, that something had to come from nothing. if not the universe then whatever caused it to exist. The particular solution offered by creationism, by proposing a creator, only pushes the problem back one step further and leaves us with a creator that we can't explain. Worse yet, the creator is deigned to have magically created the universe. Now we have miracles to explain, but miracles can't be explained. They are by definition events that are impossible. You don't call something a miracle, if there is a rational explanation for it. It has to be something that is impossible in order for us to call it a miracle.

What the creation myth assumes right from the start, is that miracles are possible. You learn to believe this before you have the critical thinking skills to understand that it's absurd. If miracles (events that are impossible) are possible then nothing is impossible. But why then, did we need a god to explain the existence of our universe in the first place? If nothing is impossible, then neither is a universe that comes from nothing. There is the possibility however, that the universe could have a rational explanation, and not require us to jump to supernatural conclusions.

We have made a mistake. If it seems absurd, then a moments thought will show that it isn't. The assumption, that something coming from nowhere, is impossible, must be false. Why? Because the universe does exist. Because we exist. Something had to come from nothing for anything to be here at all. To put that another way, if everything must be caused by something something else, then we have to accept an infinite chain of cause and effect relationships. Either that or something existed for an eternity in the past and then began the chain of causes that led to the universe we observe. If something existed for an eternity in the past, then that thing itself is a causeless cause. It comes from nothing, there is no explanation for it, it is just there. The same is true for an infinite chain of causes. If this chain has no finite origin, the whole thing must be causeless, it comes from nothing. Each thing in turn comes from another, but because it goes on forever, there is no ultimate cause.

There is really no way to avoid the conclusion, that something must exist or have begun to exist without cause. We could suppose that an intelligent being existed forever and at some point in time created the universe. But what was this being doing and thinking for an eternity before it decided that now was the time for creation. It seems rather arbitrary to suppose that the universe began when a preexisting being (call that god if you must) decided that now is the time to create the universe. This also fails to explain, how an intelligent being got to be intelligent, or how the actual creation took place. I'm afraid it still looks like magic.

If we want to explain the universe without any magic tricks, we have to assume that something came from nothing and starting with intelligent life, is only going to force us explain things that are harder to explain, than the questions that we started with. I am going to tell you that cosmology does answer the question this way. That is, it assumes that there are no magic tricks and searches for natural rational explanation. Cosmology has done an astounding job of providing explanations. The secret to the trick involves the nature of time and space. I am not going to write a layman's explanation because there is plenty of material out there. I will advise you though, that trying to understand the Big Bang without understanding of general relativity, will not work. Any account which fails to explain the idea that Einstein brought into the world will just confuse you.

Relativity is not all that easy to contemplate, but it is the indispensable key to understanding the Big Bang and how we can be so sure it happened. When you want to ask meaningful questions, with an attitude of honest, rational curiosity, I will be glad to help. Don't assume that what you don't know, or don't understand has no rational answer. Please. Humility and curiosity will get you everywhere.

Here's a couple of links to get you started. Don't forget Wikipedia and Google.

Relativity and the Cosmos by Alan Lightman (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/)
The General Relativity Tutorial (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/)

I do wish you well JustCoexisting.

TrueBlue2

01-07-2008, 10:30 PM

Skepticus, I have only known one other person in my life who had such a mastery of the language as you continue to exhibit in this thread. You are obviously a brilliant and extremely well educated individual who really knows your stuff. I am jealous of your talents, I really am. Reading this thread is entertaining only because I can marvel at how easily you can articulate your argument in such dramatic fashion - even if you are very sarcastic at times. I would never attempt to debate you.

How about if I agree that God is not something that can be proven by empirical scientific methods? After all, the most fundamental building block of all Christian religions is faith, which by definition is the evidence of things not seen. If God, or by extension Creationism, could be proven empirically then it would remove the need for faith, and we wouldn't have any atheists among us would we?

But just because we can't prove Creationism scientifically doesn't mean there isn't evidence that God is real. In fact, I would argue that almost everything in nature testifies of his existence. One can start by gazing into the heavens some night. And, in fact, it appears that the only absolute truths in the universe are those we find in nature - such as the law of gravity.

On the other hand you argue for scientific truths as though they were absolute, when in fact, you KNOW they're not. It would be more accurate to state that science is a truth in process, where we acquire a little knowledge here, and a little there, constantly seeking to gain a little more clarity to whatever the subject matter in question is. So, while it cannot be denied that evolution is real, the extent and limits of its reach is very debatable. For example, we know that if we cross a horse and a donkey we get a mule, but the mule is always sterile - a limit that I would argue was placed there by God. So, knowing that limit is real, it really stretches the imagination for me to believe that man evolved from an amoeba. In any event my argument is that evolution is anything but absolute.

And, finally, just because you choose to place your trust in science and man doesn't mean you should try and rob others of their faith in a supreme power. Not only is it an exercise in futility, but it's a bit arrogant on your part to assume that your belief in a 'truth in process' is greater than the absolute truths of the God of this universe - whether you believe in him or not.

But I suspect you're amusing yourself as much as anything, and that even you must stop and wonder once in a while as to whether or not the existence of a Supreme Being just MIGHT be real.

Skepticus

01-08-2008, 12:36 AM

Skepticus,
This was not my intention at all. However, I do appear to have gotten wrapped around the axle and done it anyway.
Later

Never mind. At least you're honest. ;)

Talk soon. Skep

tmar

01-08-2008, 09:40 AM

First of all the big bang started so long ago that we can not understand. There was nothing but particles when it started with gas being trapped by dark matter that engulfed it. As the gas accumulated and finally erupted by a spark (God) it sent ripples through everything causing particles to be charged. This started the whole process over again and again and again in each of the known galaxies. The process is still going on.

Helix42

01-08-2008, 11:32 AM

The Big Bang is a major bunny trail down which I will not hop any further than this:

It is predicated on several arbitrary assumptions. That the universe is unbounded and the earth is in no special position for starters. There are alternative cosmologies that, while not perfect, do explain red shift and cosmic background radiation in terms of Einsteinian Relativity. If you start with a different set of arbitrary assumptions the math produces a very different result.

Later

Helix42

01-08-2008, 11:36 AM

Skepticus,
I have a proposal.

From this point forward lets limit our posts to one 10,000 character post. The limit of the thoughts.com editor. If we do that we will be forced to be concise and limit each discussion to one or two points. I think it will make our posts more readable and it will certainly make it easier for me to keep up.

Cheers

airsjc

01-08-2008, 11:49 AM

Evolution is full of wholes while creation is the way to go.

Skepticus

01-08-2008, 02:49 PM

Skepticus, I have only known one other person in my life who had such a mastery of the language as you continue to exhibit in this thread. You are obviously a brilliant and extremely well educated individual who really knows your stuff.

Thanks TB2, I really do enjoy keeping myself educated, but I really worry that I fall short in the language skills a bit, because I would like to write and be published soon. So thanks for the compliment. :)

How about if I agree that God is not something that can be proven by empirical scientific methods?

That's fine with me, you don't mean to say I have to agree do you? :p Well actually, I don't have much problem with a god that leaves no foot print in the sand so to speak. In fact, not so long ago I considered myself a pantheist, until I realized I was messing with words, so that I wouldn't have to admit that I was a godless atheist. But a god who leaves no footprint in the sand, neither answers prayers, performs miracles, nor provides revelations ect ect... A god who winds the universe up and leaves it to run it's course without tampering, is not the same as the anthropomorphic being who seems so horribly preoccupied with petty day to day human affairs. The only reservation I have about the non-interventionist god, is that it's a redundant extra assumption, and if there were no evidence in the empirical world then I would have no need for it. That god, like any god would be an unwarranted assumption.

After all, the most fundamental building block of all Christian religions is faith, which by definition is the evidence of things not seen.

I don't see how 'faith' is evidence of anything TB2. If by "things not seen" you mean, things not observed with our eyes, then no. But I don't think that's what you mean. If you mean evidence of anything not empirically detected, then sorry, no again. Anything not empirically detected is not evidence is it? So to transpose that, it would be the 'evidence of not evidence' or in better English, 'the evidence of non-evidence'. I think we're torturing the language here, again, to find some virtue in faith. I can't help you out TB2. To me it is simply, things that are believed without reason (evidence also being the subject if reason).

If God, or by extension Creationism, could be proven empirically then it would remove the need for faith, and we wouldn't have any atheists among us would we?

That's fine, and as I said to Helix, I wouldn't then call it 'religious faith', it would then become 'religious belief' or 'religious fact'.

But just because we can't prove Creationism scientifically doesn't mean there isn't evidence that God is real.

One does not have to find absolute proof, for there to be some evidence. If no evidence exists then the idea is implausible. On the other hand if evidence is found where it is expected, then we have improved the plausibility. It's because there isn't evidence that a god is real, that we can't confirm Creationism.

In fact, I would argue that almost everything in nature testifies of his existence. One can start by gazing into the heavens some night. And, in fact, it appears that the only absolute truths in the universe are those we find in nature - such as the law of gravity.

On the other hand you argue for scientific truths as though they were absolute, when in fact, you KNOW they're not.

I reserve the right to tentatively consider something a fact, if, and only if the evidence for it is overwhelming. If there were evidence found to overturn it I would do so in the blinking of an eye. I'm not contradicting you TB2 (that I might come across as pragmatic), but I would honestly like to see where my worst case scenario is, If you have one in mind. If I talk about fact, it should be considered shorthand for 'any proposition, which no reasonable person would dispute, if they knew all the reliant evidence and were capable of drawing a logical conclusion', but since I don't want to say that every time I might use the word fact, with the unstated implication that (as everybody knows so there's no point prattling on about it) there is no such thing as perfect absolute fact (I think)

I have been over all this before so many times, to avoid the pedantic philosophical objections to having license to consider something a relatively certain fact. It seems you have to bend over backwards so far, to make concession to this point, that creationists are not happy until you begin disappearing up your own ass. It's such a labored point that you never get to actually do any debate about actual empirical evidence in specific situations.

If you ask me, it is creationists who blurt out statements of absolute certainty, about what seems not just baseless or improbable but often absurd while contradicting knowledge that is (if only they knew why) practically irrefutable and based on mountains of hard evidence. And it's not for science that I find this objectionable, it is for nature, reason, truth and honesty. I don't claim to be the sage nor sentinel over these things, but I do hold them in high esteem as a matter of principal.

One other thing I should point out, is that if anybody believes I am mistaken in fact, they are at liberty to challenge the specific fact being presented, rather than constantly laboring the point about the know-ability of certain facts in my general discourse. It's a little weak I think, as, if I am willing to back up my claims, my counterpart should be willing to pick a specific objection and back their refutation.

It would be more accurate to state that science is a truth in process, where we acquire a little knowledge here, and a little there, constantly seeking to gain a little more clarity to whatever the subject matter in question is.

Precisely TB2 and I am glad to hear you say it. I would hope I never gave an impression to the contrary. :)

So, while it cannot be denied that evolution is real, the extent and limits of its reach is very debatable.

Good then. We will finally have some interesting discourse about actual empirical matters of substance. How can I ever thank you TB2? :)

For example, we know that if we cross a horse and a donkey we get a mule, but the mule is always sterile - a limit that I would argue was placed there by God.

What makes you think that TB2? Are you aware of a process called speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)? See, I don't know where you are with biology, but natural selection and basic genetics are kind of prerequisites. A better starting point, would be a basic Introduction to evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution).

Skepticus

01-08-2008, 02:51 PM

So, knowing that limit is real, it really stretches the imagination for me to believe that man evolved from an amoeba. In any event my argument is that evolution is anything but absolute.

Well, I don't understand where your problem is, except to say, you are trying to stretch your imagination across an empty expanse which should contain knowledge. when you put some knowledge in there you don't have to stretch the imagination so far, the gaps get smaller and the stretching gets easier.

See here we have an example of the problem I mentioned earlier. this area we are on, is not speculative by a long shot, from my own, moderate experience, I can say with confidence that you do indeed have this thing around the back of your neck.

I would ask you what the hang up is with infertile mules? But it would be pointless if you don't understand natural selection and speciation. If you arbitrarily select characteristics of various animals and deem them inexplicable, because you don't understand how it works, then you are just making banal assertions without any basis in the theory.

Of course evolution has limits. Electricity has limits. Gravity has limits. They're expected to have limits. The limit you are pointing to is the infertility of a hybrid and it is perfectly consistent biological evolution. It's not clear that you are saying it is an inconsistency, but then I don't understand the appeal to Goddidit. It's like pointing out that cows can't fly and saying Goddidit.

TB2, do you really expect to find valid discrepancies with evolution, with out learning about it? Do you really think that the best way to learn about it, is to point out discrepancies that don't make sense, because you have misconceptions, due to a basic lack of knowledge and understanding. I really honestly mean no offense TB2, but it is just a matter of practicality.

And, finally, just because you choose to place your trust in science and man doesn't mean you should try and rob others of their faith in a supreme power.

Now look TB2. Just go back to the beginning of the thread for a minute. Open your eyes nice and wide and have a look at how this thread began. It was an open invitation to make comparisons between the African Eve and Creationism. It is a contentious issue and it was started by a creationist. For the most part I don't consider what I have to say about the subject to be a matter of opinion. I'm not about to pretend that something is a matter of opinion when it is not.

I have explained this before also. I don't believe debate has to be a contentious activity and I am inclined to resent the suggestion that I am the one in here making it so. If different parties intend to honor rational discourse and are seeking the truth, then they are all on the same side, reaching mutual agreement. Now I don't think anybody needs faith and I will say so. I am not trying to steal it. And that is an uncalled for accusation. Whether somebody has faith is entirely up to them, I can not steal it is their free choice. How the hell can I steal it? It isn't a physical object. If somebody relinquishes it they must do it of their own accord.

I can't make creationists relinquish faith and nor would I want to. A creationist would think that though, because it is just like the dictated morals business. Thinking that moral values should be dictated rather than understood and adopted. The point of secular values, is that they can't be forced upon anybody but must be adopted by free will, and if somebody wants to renounce their faith theres nothing I can do but stand on my seat and applaud.

And you think you have a monopoly over the right to be offended because I argue that religious faith is irrational. well... I have had it imposed upon me as something that my beliefs must be subject to as well, which I resent. I won't labor that point as the apology has been offered and accepted. The point is I have a right to place reason before belief and to disregard faith. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the creationist worldview can give no offense to the atheist. wrong again.

If I have tried to insist that somebody else must do the same I would like to know where. I have only advocated for reason, but even that must be accepted on a voluntary basis. The problem is some people adopt reason and join in, pretending that they are willing to question their beliefs (the spirit the thread was started in), but when the going gets tough and reason gets to close to uncomfortable truth, the creationist will bail out.

Not only is it an exercise in futility, but it's a bit arrogant on your part to assume that your belief in a 'truth in process' is greater than the absolute truths of the God of this universe whether you believe in him or not.

That my dear fellow, was the greatest accomplishment of hypocritical ignorance so far. We have toiled over words for umpteen hours, strenuously negotiating terms, to agree on what can be said about truth and the one thing that we have agreed mostly on, is that claiming absolute certainty in any absolute truth was for nobody to say. Nobody was pushed harder into that corner than I. For the creationists part, the lions share of effort has been consumed contriving ways to minimize what can be said for certain about truth, or at least what I could say for certain about it, in what seemed like a desperate effort to avoid acknowledging truth via reason.

And to set the record straight again. My loyalty is with nature, truth and honesty. Not science, by what inane madness do you pretend to set science up as a belief system? Do you not believe in science? Do you believe it doesn't exist?

As for futility, if people were willing to arrive at truthful conclusions via honest debate, then the debate would never turn bitter and truths would be learned through each trying to understand the other. That would not be futile. If the inhabitants of this forum, are not capable of debate with people of other world views, with open minds, the perhaps the owners should put up a sign saying Warning do not feed reason or truth to the creationists. And tell certain dopey creationists, not to post contentious questions that they can't handle an answer to. Then you can all sit around listening to yourselves agreeing with each other.

I have never believed (or claimed) that what I know was absolutely certain. The key to remaining free from delusion, is to never be so certain that your belief can't be shifted. But here you are comparing my beliefs which I have never asserted so forcefully to your beliefs which you blatantly state are absolute truth, while accusing me of arrogance. You complete and utter Hypocrite.:mad: Well... You have said all that needs to be said to demonstrate that your worldview is a box of imaginary tricks from which you could never escape. the doors in religious fundamentalism do not open from the inside.

ut I suspect you're amusing yourself as much as anything, and that even you must stop and wonder once in a while as to whether or not the existence of a Supreme Being just MIGHT be real.

Of course I do. How could I not? how could I contemplate how plausible I find such a being, if I didn't set it in some hypothetical context against the evidence. It feels for me, like what it would feel to you contemplating the tooth fairy.

In a similar vein my atheism for your god, is similar to your atheism for every other god. As Dawkins said: Everybody is an atheist, with respect to most of the gods man has ever worshiped, some people just go one god further.
[/QUOTE]

TrueBlue2

01-08-2008, 08:21 PM

Hey, I feel lucky I got off as good as I did! :) Like I said before, Skepticus, I do not dare debate you, and especially not on your turf. You are like my hard disk with this vast store of scientific knowledge, and with a memory that never quits. If I were to read every word of every link that you left at my disposal I would still be in kindergarten in comparison to your own expertise as it pertains to evolution. However, I was glad to see you acknowledge that evolution has its limits. My point in using the mule metaphor was to indicate that (hold my breath), to the best of my knowledge evolution has never been shown to cross from one species to another. Is that not correct? And if we can't observe such a process happening today why are we to believe that somehow it happened in the past?

Oh, and why should this argument take place strictly on the turf of empirical research and science? As valuable as that is there are yet better ways to ascertain truth (as blasphemous as that sounds). I'm thinking of history here - particularly eyewitnesses to history. For the sake of argument let's assume that you belong to a group of people that claim that the holocaust is mythic (there are some that claim that even today). So you gather up your volumes of research, along with your tremendous gift of persuasion through reasoning and intellect, and present your case to an unbiased judge and jury. But, fortunately for me, there are those still alive today who were eyewitnesses to the holocaust. I'll bet you YOUR annual salary that I win the case, though my powers of persuasion are far less perfected than your own. But if that same scenario occurred five hundred years from now. long after the memories of the holocaust had faded away, and it seemed like just a mythic tale, well I wouldn't stand a chance!

My point is that I have this little history book here called the Bible. In it there are examples of several eyewitness accounts to seeing God, including one from Moses and one from Christ. Are we to deny their testimonies just because they lived hundreds of years ago? (I already know what you're going to say).

And personal experience plays the trump card over scientific research as well. Personal experience with God tells me he's real, Based on real life experiences that have occurred on a personal level, my faith has been expanded to pure knowledge of his existence. It's not based on theory, hypotheses, faith, empirical research, or scientific analysis. It's based on first hand experience! It's because of that experience that NO amount of reasoning to the contrary could convince me otherwise. Sorry, my friend. I know that doesn't lead into further debate.

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Hey, I feel lucky I got off as good as I did! :) Like I said before, Skepticus, I do not dare debate you, and especially not on your turf.

Well don't debate then. Perhaps you prefer to engage in friendly discourse, examining the truth about reality, without being evasive and with a willingness to allow the truth to be what ever it is, occasionally challenging discrepancies as they arise etc etc.:cool:

You are like my hard disk with this vast store of scientific knowledge, and with a memory that never quits.

It's not as good as you may think TB2, but I have had an avid interest in nature for over 20 years, so i have collected a bit along the way I s'pose. What you tend to remember (well for me anyhow) are the principals, the way things work, as apposed to the the specific facts and figures. Stats and facts aren't nearly as interesting and you can just look them up anytime.

If I were to read every word of every link that you left at my disposal I would still be in kindergarten in comparison to your own expertise as it pertains to evolution.

Not that I don't appreciate the compliment; I do, but TB2, we haven't really even begun discussing any details of the principals of evolution. You're blowing smoke up my ass, makes me feel like you are either going to ask to borrow a large amount of money, or could it be that the concession to my vast wealths of information will be used as an excuse not to learn, because it is all so hard?

However, I was glad to see you acknowledge that evolution has its limits. My point in using the mule metaphor was to indicate that (hold my breath), to the best of my knowledge evolution has never been shown to cross from one species to another. Is that not correct?

No. That is not correct. The horse and donkey gives an excellent example of speciation. Did you read the link on that? The mule is infertile, because the horse and donkey have effectively speciated. Their ability to inter-breed is almost lost. Mules are not always infertile BTW. It is a modern day transitional form that doesn't fit well within either species. The speciation of the horse and donkey is also reinforced by their reluctance to interbreed. When they are paired at a stud, they may go six years or so before they will mate.

The phrase "evolution has never been shown to cross from one species to another" doesn't make sense. Evolution isn't a thing that crosses from one species to another, it is the process by which they develop. Genes are the currency of evolution, and they are what we should be thinking about, to describe speciation. Here we have an animal (the mule) which is a cross between one species and another (a hybrid). It demonstrates that species are not always completely separated. Your observation of the mules stubborn reluctence to interbreed (which maybe where the reputation comes from), seems to assume that evolution produces new species by crossing one species with another. Sorry, but that isn't how it works (well not usually).

New species arise in evolution by divergence. That is, a species will diverge into two separate breeding groups if conditions permit. The horse and the donkey are separate species that share a common ancestor. It is that ancestor that produced the two new species. Nothing jumps any gaps or suddenly produces a new species in divergence, although hybridization (particularly in plants) can produce new fertile varieties, that may interbreed with each other but be (or eventually become) infertile with either or both parent species. This is a rare exception, not the norm.

The process of speciation, is usually initiated by environmental factors, a carnivorous bird species for example may find a new niche, say, an abundance of crickets, while its normal staple might consist of flying insects. Some of the members of the species may happen to be better at cricket catching than others, or they may just be worse at catching flying insects. Less agile fliers may find that they can compensate by spending more time on the ground, they will use less energy flying, but perhaps they might need sharper eyesight to spot crickets in the undergrowth.

So, lifestyle habits begin to appear, which separate individuals into two slightly different groups within the same species. They can still freely interbreed and will still look the same but they just have natural variations in lifestyle skills, but nothing stops those trade-offs from accumulating. The cricket eaters, may find that nesting in lower shrubs is better adaptive behavior because crickets live on the ground and they will have less distance to travel, or may be able to see food from the nest etc etc.. Now, they may be more vulnerable to predators down there but the advantages may still pay off.

The birds that are slightly better at catching airborne prey, might prefer to nest in higher trees with flowers that attract insects, or other habitat features that provide those insects with food and shelter. The airborne hunters may prefer mates with good flying skills, because airborne hunting goes with treetop nesting as well as catching flying insects. While the ground dwellers, might prefer mates with good eyesight for spotting prey in the undergrowth and because they have more need to spot predators as well. These lifestyle adaptions, and trade-offs can accumulate, because there is nothing to stop them. For instance, the ground dwellers may be better off if they have bland mottled colours that blend in to the undergrowth for camouflage. The tree dwellers however, trying to select fast, agile mates, may invest more in matting rituals and showy plumage.

Continued...

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 11:33 AM

An advantage builds up for each group to be able to tell the difference between a ground dweller and a canopy dweller because they would prefer a mate that has the same lifestyle (this is not a conscious choice, but I will get to that) all the other trade-offs, pay dividends in survival and fitness. The whole species now, is not just exploiting one ecological niche, it is exploiting two niches. The individual is not just more or less fit, for one particular niche, they are more or less fit for one or the other niche. A bird that happens to have intermediate traits in many or all of the trade-offs, will not fair well in either one niche. Moreover the environment (food chain, nesting habitat, matting grounds, weather etc..), may continue to change, and cause more difference in the niches.

A niche is just a set of conditions in the environment, that set up a potential habitat and lifestyle for a biological organism to adapt to. There is nothing to prevent those conditions from changing either. So, in our example, the weather may change for instance. Say the crickets prefer warm tropical weather, and that weather begins to move away from the geographical range of our birds. The crickets will probably gradually drift away towards the tropics, and other features of the original habitat may change. The ground dwelling birds may drift with the crickets also, as that maybe the best feature of their habitat. Now the two populations tend to become isolated geographically.

The treetop birds may adapt more readily to the colder climate because they already have faster metabolisms. Faster metabolisms do go with more active animals, they may also tend to become smaller as colder climate animals often do. The ground dwellers having less agility and reliance on agility, may grow larger as the warm tropical environment of the cricket favors the larger body mass. The species has become two sub species.

All of these characteristics that separate the two populations, must be saved some how. The bird species must have some way to store information about what is a colourful feather and what is a bland one. What is a big body and what is small. What is a fast metabolism what is slow. Without a record keeping system, how will a birds offspring know what adaptations it has to inherit? Well that's what genes are for. Not just for the adaptations though but for every minute detail of the birds characteristics. The genes control the developing embryo and specify it's development in minute detail. It's genes are given to it by its parent birds. It already knows how to become a ground dweller or a tree dweller as the case may be, because in every cell of every organ in its tiny little body, there is a copy of a recipe for how to make something similar to, but not exactly the same as its parents.

Instructions for making plumage feathers, can be handed down through the generations, as can instructions for making smaller bodies or larger bodies as well as faster or slower metabolisms along with a multitude of other 'trait' variations which may be physical or behavioral. As I mentioned, these traits may 'gang up', in mutually supportive teams, the real teams though, are teams of genes. Genes which tend to produce larger birds, may be more useful in body of a bird with mottled drab feathers. So the genes for mottled feathers go with the genes for big bodies and also with genes for slower metabolism. Each individual in each generation gets a mixed bag, half of them from its mother and half from its father. This is why we resemble our parents so much, but without being identical to either of them.

With variety in place and a mechanism to carry traits from generation to generation, with variation and non-random mixing, we find that each individual is unique, but tends to resemble its 'bloodline'. It can have trait differences, that do not (usually) jeopardize it's life from the start, like a 'hopeful monster' and it's life will be a test of those genes. The genes (or more correctly gene combinations) which encode for an individual which is well adapted to it's environment, will tend to prosper. It may be extra good at finding food, building nests and charming mates. It may be healthier more caring for its young, it may have better eyesight or other senses, stronger bones, longer legs, or sharper claws. Whatever traits might be good for it's survival, it might have them, or at least a slight tendency towards them.

The inevitable consequence of all this variation along with preferred conditions for survival, is that some individuals will be more successful than others. There is nothing stopping one of our birds from having a set of traits halfway between the two breeding groups, but it gets progressively less likely. Why? because genes that encode for treetop living will become less prevalent in the ground dwellers and visa versa.

A set of genes that made the ground dweller too colourful may get it eaten. It needs camouflage remember, it's living in a higher risk predation zone. Predators like colourful feathers that show through the bushes. Birds that get eaten don't have many offspring, well not from that day on at least. Genes which encode for feathers that made the tree dweller too dull, might cause its owner to miss out on getting a mate. Birds that don't get a mate don't have many offspring. So you see, the genes for one set of traits do not mix well with the genes for other, which ultimately lead to them being weeded out, by simple virtue of the fact that they lead to less offspring. It's as inevitable as water running down hill.

Continued...

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 12:26 PM

This weeding mechanism, you may have already guessed by now, is called natural selection. It was the great magnus opus of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, neither of whom knew about genes, but by careful study of comparative anatomy and population dynamics, predicted that a mechanism for heredity was necessary and that variation and relative mortality, explained the adaptive variation between similar species. They both (independently) realised that natural selection acting on heritable variation, along with slightly different lifestyle adaptions in a sub-population, would lead to new species by divergence.

Several thousand of generations later, our birds are now living in quite separate environments, they still resemble each other, such that you can see their kinship but they are no more inclined to mate than an Amish man and a Hells Angel biker chick, their lifestyles are too different, their courtship dance has nothing in common, they don't find each other attractive, their reproductive organs don't line up quite right, and some, most, or all of their offspring will be sterile.

From the first generation, in which the first few individuals started exploiting the new food source, the twinkling of a new niche had opened up. Once there is more than one niche there is potential for divergence, not just within the species, but of the niche itself. One species may never split into two because of this alone but when several aspects of the niche begin to correspond to a slightly different lifestyle of the animal, there may be a snowball effect. the animal begins to adapt to other things, which go hand in hand with the new lifestyle.

It's not just food that can trigger the first wave of adaption either. A seabird which usually nests in rock crevices, may discover that it can burrow with its beak into a soft cliff face and make a nice nesting hollow. If this is to much of a jump. It may find an old rabbit dig and use that instead of a rock crevice. The following year it returns but can't find a deep comfortable dig, so it goes with the best one it can find. The first digging behavior may be simply to improve the cramped dig. The seabird is quite accustomed to using its beak as a tool because it hunts for shellfish on a reef that is exposed at low tide and digs for cockles in the sand. The bird finds the nest hollowing behavior an easy adaption and even uses its webbed feet to paddle the excess soil away.

Meanwhile the nutrient rich soil is falling on the sand below and changing the environment of the little sand plants. The birds in the rock hollows are meanwhile are fighting to protect their limited turf because, lets suppose the male has to find the nesting site and that is the selling point for the female (typical :rolleyes:). Other males are still looking for a site and fights erupt over territory.

The cliff is a rich potential resource, and with a little digging provides a comfortable abode for the male, who easily able to attract a mate. He too has to defend his abode, but not so much, as the soft cliff is a reasonable distance from the rocky escarpments which are the busy side of town. The males which do happen to challenge his turf may also learn the new behavior and find a rabbit dig that can be improved. and a new colony begins.

Digging into the cliff can cause a problem though. In a few generations the cliff top is so undermined it collapses pilling tonnes of rich topsoil on the beach, the next matting season the birds just keep digging, and a seed which has washed up from an island nearby finds its way onto a fertile beach. You can see what happens. Changing environmental niches, create problems and opportunity everywhere. The web of life changes, each creating change for the other. In the grandeur of this our lives are but a fleeting moment. In that fleeting moment some of us may glimpse the magnitude of it and pause in reverent awe. Life does not need an orchestrator or an administrator. It orchestrates and administers all on it own.

And if we can't observe such a process happening today why are we to believe that somehow it happened in the past?

Because we understand how the evolutionary mechanism works, there's no 'somehow' about it. Because its outcomes are inevitable. Because the Horse/Donkey divide, is a modern example of the process in action. Besides which we do have other modern examples. Aside from all that The massive amount of evidence from the fossil record, supports the kinship tree which has been developed by comparative anatomy 100%, and since then, modern gene sequencing has confirmed with staggering certainty, beyond lowliest conceivable shadow of a doubt, that each species of life on earth has a common ancestry. But don't take my word for it, look it up. Talk Origins FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)

tmar

01-09-2008, 01:07 PM

Skepticus you are a work of art. So we will look you up when God arrives to claim what his his.

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 01:45 PM

The Big Bang is a major bunny trail down which I will not hop any further than this:

!!! GOOD !!! Stay the F**K out of it then. It will be a pleasure to demolish this ignorant blather without having to counter any more of your know-nothing, diversionary hot air venting.

Oh... And here some ear plug for you too

http://www.ringing-ears-tinnitus.com/ear_plugs.jpg

It is predicated on several arbitrary assumptions. That the universe is unbounded and the earth is in no special position for starters.

Nice how you just blurt out an implication that the earth should be in any special position, without specifying any reason why. You follow this up by not explaining what short comings this has for the accepted model. You then go on to not explain how a unique location of earth could conceivably improve upon what is understood.

I found this comment on Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169192) in one minute flat and AFAIK it is popular consensus.

Big bang theory works equally well with spatial finite and spatial infinite.

There is a popular misconception that BB theory says the universe began "as a point" or as something finite and pointlike like maybe a garbanzo bean or a peanut. But that is not what it says. BB theory could have an infinite-sized region of initial singularity----that is one possibility.

So what the F**K would Helix know.

There are alternative cosmologies that, while not perfect, do explain red shift and cosmic background radiation in terms of Einsteinian Relativity.

General Relativity itself predicts the big bang, and Einstein himself considered the cosmological constant, (which he introduced to 'fix up' the anomaly that space would expand) the biggest mistake of his career.

If you start with a different set of arbitrary assumptions the math produces a very different result.

OH!!! I see. That's why you've shown us your maths. It might also explain why you have gone to university, led an exemplary physics career, written several papers on these new result and received a Nobel Prize. :rolleyes:

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 02:14 PM

Evolution is full of wholes while creation is the way to go.

Your brain is full of "wholes"[sic]. Please go away.

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Skepticus,
I have a proposal.

From this point forward lets limit our posts...

[CENTER]Helix I have a proposal for you:

Forgetmeknot

01-09-2008, 03:32 PM

There should be NO personal attacks. We are all here to voice our opinions, if you disagree with someone's opinion, fine. We don't all have to agree, but lets grow up a bit here people!

usapegasus2007

01-09-2008, 03:42 PM

[CENTER]Helix I have a proposal for you:

Idf you can do that I'll pay to see it...:eek::cool:

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 06:38 PM

...but lets grow up a bit here people!

Yeah, you mob. You heard the lady, just grow up. :p

The two words 'factual theory' actually do not go together. Facts are proven, HOWEVER theories can be proven OR disproven. They are not firm, and can be changed. Theories are supposition.

Just because something is supported by facts does not mean it is ENTIRELY true. Evolution may be the only thing that seems correct to you, but to others it might not be as correct as it is to you.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

W hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 06:43 PM

Damn ten word limit. Damn ten word limit. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Forgetmeknot

01-09-2008, 06:54 PM

Skepticus, I'm not going to read all of that. I have my opinions, you have yours. The difference is I voice mine in a respectful manner.

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 06:55 PM

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

And here's your ear plugs.

http://www.ringing-ears-tinnitus.com/ear_plugs.jpg

Skepticus

01-09-2008, 07:01 PM

Skepticus, I'm not going to read all of that. I have my opinions, you have yours. The difference is I voice mine in a respectful manner.

Well don't forget your ear plugs. Don't want sand in yer ears.

http://www.ringing-ears-tinnitus.com/ear_plugs.jpg

Skepticus

01-10-2008, 10:31 AM

Skepticus, I'm not going to read all of that. I have my opinions, you have yours. The difference is I voice mine in a respectful manner.

If you call lying or equivocating, failing to stand corrected and running away from truth 'respect', then you surely are the most respectful person here.

The two words 'factual theory' actually do not go together. Facts are proven, HOWEVER theories can be proven OR disproven. They are not firm, and can be changed. Theories are supposition.

But NO!! you don't just voice your 'OPINIONS' you make outright statements of fact that are ............... Then you fail to stand corrected. ...... So don't lecture me about your humorless, prudish, self important, pious idea of respect. To me, you have ...........................

Forgetmeknot

01-10-2008, 11:21 AM

Skepticus, let me say this one more time NO personal attacks.

thoughts_staff

01-10-2008, 04:00 PM

We would like to post a reminder that everyone is going to have their own opinion, and we are all welcome to express our opinions in a respectful way, but it is not acceptable to post personal insults. This applies to everyone so please keep it civil…

Thanks!

Questioned_Man

01-10-2008, 06:51 PM

Skepticus,

More than once many individuals have asked you to be respectiful and have tact. They have done so in response to not only rude individual personal attacks,or widespread whole group attacks, but also your droning out their arguements each senence at a time with a paragraph of your own arguement or the same amount of words used for bashing in the individuals integirty instead of their arguements integirty. Not to say, yet, that your arguemets are bad, but just that this is a fourm called "thoughts," which is here for everyone to express their opinion. This is not your argueents own monopoly of space or monopoly of ideas.

In my opinion this was an attempt at the begining of the end of rudeness by you and anyone later who might want to rude to those involved in this forum of Thoughts. I hope that I can ask that we end the begining of the end of the lack of tact in this forum. Or at least let us begain, the end of, the begianing of the end. To start here are a few point to consider:

1) So far this thread is for the arguements and thoughts, for and against creation theory and evolution theory.
1A) The arguemets themselves can be wide ranging from finding faults in science or religion as a whole and making any arguement within that given sphear of thought apear like a stickman's arguement. (Stickman arguements are, by the way, watered down arguements in their weakest posible point of view.) The arguements can also be very narrow ranging from the vidility of a single piont in either arguement for or against creation theory or evolution theory.
1B) The thoughts on either side of the theories don't have to be in arguement for or against structure. Such as if someone says that they believe in evolution or creation theory and that it doesn't matter other peoples opinions or beliefs. Some might even say that they believe this way but can not account for one phenomon or another that supports the other side. This is a forum of thougthts where arguements are very welcome, because they can shed light on understanding and different perspectives. However arguements are not above opinions and other general thoughts. These to have the same influence as arguements have.

2) Plagues of "Genneralization" and "Stickman" arguements.
2A) Skepticus you're not the only one to do this, but as far as I can tell you've done this more than anyone else. That is that you take a point and weaken it. You don't fight an argument at it's full potiental. For exampe you take the evidence of personal experence and make it sound like a phenonom of delerious thoughts. Only madmen think in this form. Then you pair this arguement with anyone who is part of this group either a madman or dulisional enough to believe these madmen. You've generalized all of Christians many times, and rarely have you looked at each counter point to your points at full strength. Hiding behind personal attacks to indirectly attack the arguement and sumerizing what a person said wrong so to miss the point they try to make are both ways to create stickman arguements. And these methods only show that you can't cope with an arguement at it's full potiental.

3) I am not asking you to step down from your arguements or your zeal for evolution. You have made many execlent points, and seem to excel in the navagation of science and evolution ideals. Thus you could be an execlent person to converse with because of how well you naviate the maze of science. Much like Dificult Soul is execlent to converse with because she make a person think or Cmull and Cubear because of their navigation of the bible to argue for Johova witnesses make them great to converse with about Christinity.. You could be a great person to converse with. Just wish you didn't have a rudeess overshadowing your points.

Thus I hope for the end of the begianing of the end to begain.:)

JustCoexisting

01-11-2008, 04:20 PM

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500]"Hi JC,Wow!! I would love to read the scientific research papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_paper) which publish research on that issue. What publication were they in, can you give some references. :rolleyes:"
.[/URL]

FIRST OFF
Actually, no I can not give you any references.
If you paid attention, maybe you would realize that "REFERENCES" really don't mean shit when it comes to this type of situation.

I was speaking from my heart about how I truly feel, which is, that God created this earth.
So there's oh so important reference; Me.

SECONDLY:

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500]."Science is concerned with inventing new vaccines"[/URL]

WOW!
Well here's your turn to not know anything.
If you did, you would understand that vaccines are KILLING US.
The chemicals that are forced into our body are neurotoxins. (You can use your beloved Wikipedia for that one, okay Skeppy?)
Those vaccines create a discord in the body, throwing us chemically out of balance not to mention physically and mentally damaging us.

Vaccinations are a scam. They may have been created to assist the common person, however they have so many dangerous side-effects that the average person can not function properly after a vaccination. So why do people still get shots? Because the medical field and FDA loves the money. People's bodies are thrown out of balance. They are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD at a young age and put on expensive medication with other dangerous side effects.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVE EXAMPLES SKEPPY, DON'T WORRY I GOT YOU COVERED.

My friend has been taking Adderol for his ADD since he was in the fourth grade. Adderol results in loss of appetite and depression. He is now in tenth grade and still takes his adderol. He admits that he likes it better when he does not have to take his pills. He is a happier person without them. The foods that he eats relate directly to his moods.
Campbell's soup. It has the chemical aspartame which has been proven to directly relate to cancer.

So why do people still buy these products? Because the government has allowed certain food corporations to put things in our foods, despite the fact that they are dangerous to our bodies. Oh, so THEN once everyone is out eating chemical twinkies, they find themselves growing fat or depressed. Our bodies are fragile. We can not handle all of the chemicals that we put in them. We are what we eat. When people get depressed they go to the medical centers for man made medications as opposed to holistic healing or just research about how you can change what you eat, and ultimately change yourself. No, people go and buy "medications" with other side effects, thus beginning a downward cycle of ignorance.

I know I got off topic.
I just thought I would let you know about the vaccinations, therefore proving to you that your precious "SCIENCE" is killing you. ;)

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500 "Science as a general enterprise, isn't much interested in the muddleheaded fallacies of the uneducated and willfully ignorant individuals who take the bible to a literal extreme. I on the other hand am. I am curious to know why some people believe the crazy things that they do. I am concerned that it does do harm to them and others. And I am concerned that they infect other people (especially children) with those irrational beliefs." [/URL]

It seems to me that by your "BEING CONCERNED WITH IRRATIONAL BELIEFS" is doing nothing for you but making you closed minded. It's okay, you probably got shots. You probably drink milk.

I mean so what, your a realist? Big frickin' deal. Go you, you rock, your right, everyone else is just an ignorant uneducated fool.

So tell me this Skepster,
What do you think about people who grew up in poverty, with no opportunities for education or a job. The only way they live their lives is by what their parents taught them. By appreciating everything they have, staying humble, and loving our great creator.

I suppose you think they are idiots too then.

HA. Thats a kind of conceded thing of you to think then isn't it?

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500] phone the Pope, so he can tell all the Christians they can stay home on Sunday"? Science my dear... [/URL]

Well dearie,
I'm not Catholic and I don't support the pope.
Everyone is equally close to God. The pope is no closer to God than you, or me.

However, I think it's quite cute you would take a stab at the pope thinking it would affect me and that I would stand up for him, "The Pope is honorable blah blah blah..."

You could have asked what my "religion" was beforehand, saved yourself the embarrassment of trying to be a dick...and failing.

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500]Why do creationists seem so paranoid about anybody questioning their belief? It seems to me that they don't want to test it and know if it is plausible. Isn't the truth what really matters? The other problem with supposing there is an overt attempt to prove to creationists that they are wrong, is that no matter what kind of reason or evidence is submitted to them they will refuse to acknowledge and invent cunning ways to avoid any conclusion that they might be mistaken, deluded or lying.[/URL]

No no no, I think your the one confused. I think your the one who doesn't want to be proved wrong.

Thats why you went to all the trouble of SHOOTING DOWN every thing that I said right? To prove to yourself, or to others, that everyone who believes in Creationism is ignorant?

You really made me laugh out loud with this one Skeppy. :rolleyes:

There is 0 evidence for Gods? And your saying that I'm the one who has never read a book? You are narrow minded, and I can only pray that someday you will open your eyes to the truth.

[QUOTE=Skepticus;28500] is approximately 0 evidence for god(s), so that would put your probability ratio out by ...um... about 100% Not a bad guess if you have never read anything, communicated with anybody moderately intelligent, listened to a radio program, watched a documentary, looked anything up or never observed anything about the subject.[/URL]

Oh, so a few more things before I loose you here Skep,

1) Yes, I talk to intelligent people all the time! It's GREAT!
2) Yes, I've watched a documentary, it was about JESUS CHRIST and all of the evidence that he walked on this earth! It's really GREAT!
3) Hmmm....I guess I've PROBABLY observed something on the subject considering that I'M POSTING ON THIS THREAD!!! WOOO!!
4) I can type using big words too, but astonishingly enough it doesn't make me feel smarter, or like a better person. It also doesn't make me right or wrong or better or worse than anyone else. Boo hooo :(
5) Too bad you think I sound like I'm four years old when I asked for a good debate and said I would shoot you down. I guess you got pretty heated when you heard that because you went pretty out of your way to find all of those lovely sources I never looked at, Skeppy...you da MAN.

Thanks for your time Skeps.
I really APPRECIATE you LOOKING from MY point of view.
It's really OPEN MINDED of you SkepSkep.

Love Love Love Love Love Love Love
and eternal peace to you,
Meg
^.^

scotslad60

01-11-2008, 04:30 PM

Everybody needs to CHILL out and stop acting like children on here or the thread will be locked down people!

If ya cant say something nice, dont say anything at all. Disrespect (from any member) will mean that post is removed.

JustCoexisting

01-11-2008, 05:03 PM

Your right I just should be given a chance to defend myself.

Peace.

Questioned_Man

01-11-2008, 06:39 PM

Sorry scotslad. Skepticus, if I was rude I'm sorry.

scotslad60

01-16-2008, 01:49 PM

Problem derek?

scotslad60

01-16-2008, 02:12 PM

I thought there was some genuine problem Derek. Apparently not. Cool.

Peace

AmericanAlien

01-16-2008, 02:39 PM

scotslad60

01-16-2008, 02:45 PM

Your a bit late there Aliene lol but, personally, Im not accepting either. Not only that, I dont even care.

I came from God and have Spirit within. Thats good enough for me!

dnsmith1

01-16-2008, 04:44 PM

tmar

01-16-2008, 04:55 PM

dnsmith I was that way for a while but after searching I found that there was a greater plan. Yes there was an intelligent design.

usapegasus2007

01-17-2008, 11:33 AM

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that evolution (nature) can be nothing more than a higher power's manner to create? Evolution appears to be factual, but was it all a big boom? or was it intelligent design?

I agree that both could take place... I think God got the ball rolling and then moved on, he’s like a artist making paintings, and believe me he damn well didn’t get it right with us.:eek:

One thing though I wouldn't call it INTELLIGENT DESIGHT. If you look at this word of ours I wouldn’t call the thought put into it intelligent at all.

:cool:

shaylyn_h_v

01-17-2008, 01:01 PM

I think we are here... be happy.

Helix42

01-18-2008, 04:45 PM

your thread has a hint of subtle racism as in "Do you believe we all evolved from African races ". I am a Christian but their is no denying that evolution is based upon scientific fact. The Garden of Eden was located in Mesopotamia which is in modern day Iraq. So if you can't accept that humans evolve from Africa I guess you are willing to accept that we all came from the middle east.Well then if there is no denial why all the debate? Skepticus claims that it is a denial of fact as well. That is nothing more than misconceived propaganda. Evolution is based on observation. But these observations say nothing about the past until we interpret them. Evolution is an interpretation of fact not a fact itself. These same facts can be interpreted in a different manner.

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that evolution (nature) can be nothing more than a higher power's manner to create? Evolution appears to be factual, but was it all a big boom? or was it intelligent design?It isn't that we can't accept evolution it is that we do accept that the Bible as divinely revealed truth. If Genesis is true then evolution, or at least macro evolution, must be false. So, we view the same set of observations in different way. A good place to start, if you are interested in the other side of the argument is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

In any event, it is not a denial of rational thought as some would have you believe.

Later

Helix42

01-18-2008, 04:52 PM

Scots - I wouldn't mind seeing the image. Its hard to tell what sort of thing he's proposing - I just wanted to shorten things up a bit... If Sketicus has something else in mind I'd like to know what it is.

BTW - He cannot offend me so unless his imagery is more offensive than the one he displays on every post he makes whether it is directed at me or not.

tmar

01-19-2008, 11:03 AM

tmar, please share more with us from your conversations with the father and son...

Are you jealous? I believe in both evolution and creation and if you want to know the whole of my belief it will be out this year. The father has asked me to write and it is done and will be out this year.. Derek I know you won't read it... it is poetry and a story of First and his children.... :)

SRD

01-24-2008, 09:11 AM

Do you believe we all evolved from African races or do you believe in the creation theory?

Personally evolution does not really exist in my mind. I follow the creation theory which says we were all created by God, in different races.

I accept the creation theory however, I also believe we all came from one parent, Adam and Eve. I do not totally disregard the evidence of science for it gives credence to my understanding that mankind could not simply had evolved. The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial differences are trivial. Contrary to popular belief or desires, the differences in the various "races" are not at all extreme. This "scientific theory" gives credence we all derrived from the same parents. I can not explain the reason or dimesions of the variation of pigment and features but from the "inside" of humanity, we are basically the same even if we look different outwardly.

I believe that we are created by a Supreme Intelligent Being called God. I believe that the human anatomy is designed so eloquently and manificiently that I think it will have to take a lot of "faith" to imagine that we all just "happened" independent of thought or purpose. The Big Bang theory implies an explosive event, and I can not fathom that out of this "explosion" ---ORDER was produced. It is as if a bomb went off and out of the debris - a fully functioning computer just simply emerged. We would never fail to give credence or credit to the fact that when we see a beautiful home--we know without a shadow of doubt that we are looking at the finish product of a blueprint which is simply the "thoughts" of an architect and we see the results of his "work" that first began as an ideal.

When I look at this planet that has everything that mankind need to survive, (food, water, ingredients for medicine,) and when I look at mankind--the way the body functions like a highly sophisticated computer complete with a control center located within our brain, I know without a shadow of doubt that there is an intelligent mind behind this creation and that I am looking at the blueprint of the thoughts of God and the "works" of his hands.

Helix42

01-24-2008, 03:42 PM

SRD - nice post - I enjoyed reading it

Helix42

01-24-2008, 03:43 PM

Skepticus,
If you are still monitoring this thread, I apologize for not having responded directly to you I haven't had time to read everything you wrote. That's why I asked that we try to limit the post size a bit. Apparently you didn't like that idea...

Later

benventure

01-25-2008, 12:37 AM

holy shiite is this debate really still alive?
do people really still think that they come from some supernatural thingy that no one can explain becasue its sooo awesome?

UGH

you come from the earth
the earth has made you
and when you die
you become the earth
the earth is 'God'
maaan

hhehehe

big bang wasnt an explosion
is was just
bang
theres everything
nothing exploded
its sort of like
nothing....then
Somthing
that somthing being everything
and for the fools...or whatever
who think otherwise
give me a good reason why id come from a invisible being thats soo great it cannot show itself to anything
a being soo mighty that it chose this single earth to create life, in all the infinate universe
earth.
and do it, you who have faith in nothing
without the use of your book

ps i dont mean to step on feet, but it is a debate
and i win debates...if i remember i entered them

benventure

01-25-2008, 12:39 AM

actually sctratch all that
i hate this type of debate
because it will never be answered...
the only thing that comes from this is anger and hostility
regardless of what you think

SRD

01-25-2008, 01:40 PM

SRD - nice post - I enjoyed reading it

Thank you - Helix42.

SRD

01-25-2008, 02:11 PM

actually sctratch all that
i hate this type of debate
because it will never be answered...
the only thing that comes from this is anger and hostility
regardless of what you think

Hello Benventure:

Actually God is not so silent as you suggest for the earth and all its complexity speaks volumes of his existence independent of the "Book." We have a mind and we are expressing thoughts which in itself is invisible until we put it in print or speak it outloud. Every conversation or form of communication began with a thought and that "thought" first was invisible for no one saw it until it was revealed either through the spoken word or printed word. However, you and I produced thoughts from within our being everyday and we can think all sorts of things without anyone elses knowledge until "we" decide to reveal it through speech. And because our thoughts are invisible --should we dismiss its existence because no one can see it when we first entertain an ideal?

The Bible reveals that there is an invisible God and that he spoke the world into existence. I accept this testimony as credible for I know that there are many examples of the "invisible" as existing independent of its physical properties for instance---oxigen, gravity, airborne bacteria, our thoughts and so forth. Although we can not grasp it with our hands--it does not negates its reality or existence.

benventure

01-25-2008, 11:58 PM

SRD
i will not counter your attack
however you put it..it is an attack
on my own 'disbelief' in this 'GOd' fella
for i am God, my own God
i am I
and you are I
we are one

thats all i care to say

TrueBlue2

01-26-2008, 07:20 AM

I accept the creation theory however, I also believe we all came from one parent, Adam and Eve. I do not totally disregard the evidence of science for it gives credence to my understanding that mankind could not simply had evolved. The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial differences are trivial. Contrary to popular belief or desires, the differences in the various "races" are not at all extreme. This "scientific theory" gives credence we all derrived from the same parents. I can not explain the reason or dimesions of the variation of pigment and features but from the "inside" of humanity, we are basically the same even if we look different outwardly.

I believe that we are created by a Supreme Intelligent Being called God. I believe that the human anatomy is designed so eloquently and manificiently that I think it will have to take a lot of "faith" to imagine that we all just "happened" independent of thought or purpose. The Big Bang theory implies an explosive event, and I can not fathom that out of this "explosion" ---ORDER was produced. It is as if a bomb went off and out of the debris - a fully functioning computer just simply emerged. We would never fail to give credence or credit to the fact that when we see a beautiful home--we know without a shadow of doubt that we are looking at the finish product of a blueprint which is simply the "thoughts" of an architect and we see the results of his "work" that first began as an ideal.

When I look at this planet that has everything that mankind need to survive, (food, water, ingredients for medicine,) and when I look at mankind--the way the body functions like a highly sophisticated computer complete with a control center located within our brain, I know without a shadow of doubt that there is an intelligent mind behind this creation and that I am looking at the blueprint of the thoughts of God and the "works" of his hands.

This IS worth posting again in the hopes that others will see it and read. I agree.

SRD

01-26-2008, 08:17 AM

This IS worth posting again in the hopes that others will see it and read. I agree.

Thank you, TrueBlue. :)

SRD

01-26-2008, 08:26 AM

SRD
i will not counter your attack
however you put it..it is an attack
on my own 'disbelief' in this 'GOd' fella
for i am God, my own God
i am I
and you are I
we are one

thats all i care to say

Hello benventure:

It is never my intention to attack anyone. You are entitled to your "beliefs" and I respect your "God given" right to reject HIM. For even when you say you don't believe in God, it still is a "belief system" that is operating out of your heart and based on some form of reasoning. So, actually you do not have "disbelief" but another kind of faith. But again, I do not ever intend to attack you or anyone else for that matter.

tmar

01-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Evolution and Creation are both needed. Evolution is more survival while creation is more spiritual and goes beyond the set parimeters that evolution has.

Helix42

01-28-2008, 08:43 AM

Evolution and Creation are both needed. Evolution is more survival while creation is more spiritual and goes beyond the set parimeters that evolution has.

There are two types of evolution. One is micro-evolution. Micro evolution is the changes within a species. The rattleless rattlesnake you mentioned earlier would be an example of this type of evolution. It isn't a separate kind of animal, but changes within an animal in response to survival pressures. In other word, animals were created to be dynamic and adaptive. So, there is great variation within a kind of animal, like dogs. There is no dispute about this type of evolution. It is readily observable.

The second type is macro-evolution. This is an extrapolation, so to speak, of micro-evolution, that these changes within a species lead to speciation and increased complexity over a vast period of time. This is where the controversy lies.

So, in a way I would agree with your opening statement to a degree. Both are present. The creationist simply takes issue with concept of macro-evolution.

Later

eeerm

01-28-2008, 08:53 AM

I think both happen(ed).
Something was created then things evolved from that thing.

tmar

01-28-2008, 01:04 PM

I don't and I believe in creation as eeerm I think both happened but there was a cross breeding that occured and an advancement of our gene pool. That is why I can accept both which from what I see is a good thing.

Helix42

01-30-2008, 01:18 PM

Skepticus,

Equivocation was not my intention. I was not attempting to turn the discussion away from anything; it just seemed to be the direction that was taken. I will be happy to talk about any evidence that you wish to talk about. You have so far not wanted to talk about any evidence. You have exhausted lines and lines of text in ad hominem attacks and the same sort of equivocation that you have so loudly accused me of. If you have any honesty in you then Mr. Kettle you will admit that, in this matter, you are as black as the pot.

You continue to say that I wish to divert the argument away from any real discussion about the evidence. I do not wish this. Anything that you would like to talk about, just bring it up. As a matter of fact, the only time I can recall that either of us wanted to talk about evolution is the time I asked you to produce an example of information gain. You refused to answer the question. Instead you simply ridiculed me and circumnavigated directly responding to the question by offering a lengthy explanation of how information might be added to the genome. You then resumed with a series of baseless accusations, ridicule and personal attacks. So, I'll ask again: Is there a modern example of information gain in the evolutionary system?

By the way, I asked this as a test of how honest you are. You and I both know that there are no living examples of information gain. I would argue that this is because it doesn't happen, and you would take the opposite stance. I already knew this. What I wanted to see is whether or not you have enough confidence in your position to admit it. I will freely admit that a lack of modern information gain does not negate the theory of evolution, but it does provoke some thought. Because it would seem that in all the selective breeding, cross breeding, and research breeding that goes on at least one case of speciation should be documented in the hundreds of millions of generations that have been produced in this manner. Especially if the abiogenesis arguments are to be taken seriously.

Later

ifeelcrazy

01-30-2008, 01:29 PM

Helix42

01-31-2008, 09:13 AM

I believe in both...but with the whole evolution thing, i can't get passed that we come from apes. I just don't see how this is possible. And besides, if we did come from apes, why are they still around and why haven't they evolved into humans? Please tell me if i'm wrong or if this sounds dumb or if you have an answer for me, because i would really like to know. Thanks :)

Hi welcome to the thread - sometimes I feel crazy myself :).

The creationist answer would simply be that we didn't come from apes this is why apes are still around. Apes are apes created as apes and humans are humans created as humans. That doesn't mean they don't change, just that one kind of creature does not become another kind due to an aggregate of these changes.

But to be fair, in evolutionary theory the original doesn't have to disappear. Sometimes it does, but this is because its niche in the natural economy is gone or has changed to the point where it can no longer survive. Sometimes the newer or 'evolved' species simply crowds out the older form because it is better suited to survival.

In the case of apes though we are thought to have a common ancestor from which we both evolved. This common ancestor has disappeared. It is the famous 'missing link' that, in my opinion, will continue to remain missing because it doesn't exist.

This answer is a bit simplistic, but it will have to do for now. If you want to know more about creationism Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org) is a good place to start.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Why do you believe in both? What do you believe about creation and why do you believe it?

Later

ifeelcrazy

01-31-2008, 01:53 PM

Thanks Helix :) That's awesome! Well, i mainly believe in creation because I believe in God and growing up I was taught creation through Genesis. Also, when I was in college, I studied the human body which confirmed my faith in God. For example, women's aerolas' get darker when they are pregnant because it protects itself from the sun so the baby isn't harmed while breast feeding. Also, men have nipples because a fetus' gender isn't determined till about the 6th week, which i believe is when the soul enters the body. So there are many reasons why I believe in creation, but I guess I also believe in evolution because we have evolved as humans to adapt to our current way of life. But, i don't know, I'm definitely swinging more towards creation as far as how the earth was made and how we were made :) This is a very interesting topic :)

tmar

01-31-2008, 04:31 PM

tmar

01-31-2008, 04:32 PM

Don't we love to kill germs... ha! ha! it's in our genes

benventure

01-31-2008, 08:37 PM

joie7170

01-31-2008, 08:40 PM

I definitely believe in the creation story.

Sorry, vanity or not... i'm just too pretty to have come from an ape (hehe...) just kidding.

Anyway, I believe in the story of Genesis. I will not try to prove it via scientific explanation or what not, because it just can't be proven that way.

I know some people call it dumb and/or stupid, but it really is just faith that leads me to believe in Creation.

When you know the Maker, it's easy to believe it when He says He made something. :)

joie7170

01-31-2008, 09:10 PM

SRD
i apologize for my....ermm...oddities, i can become quite eccentric sometimes.
But alas, here i am ready for a nice little debate...
Im not sure how to quote, but i dont need to.

First of all I'd like to adress the "Big Bang" issue. Though its very hard to grasp, it is NOT, was Not, a giant explosion that created a computer. The Big Bang was more of a Big Expansion...hrmmm...somthing like that. Its like there was this tiny little point, in nothingness, that suddenly expanded into the universe, but expanded instantly.
Of coarse that didnt create everything, all the mass was spread out over the universe, and eventually cooled and collected together to create the suns and planets we see today.

This is still somehow confusing, benventure. First, what caused this tiny little point (which is, as you said yourself, in "nothingness") to suddenly "expand"? There must have been a force of some sort that caused this instant expansion. What force could've originated out of nothingness? I'm not a scientist, and i'm not even good in science, but potential energy will remain as potential energy unless something, a force of some kind, converts it into kinetic energy.

So if you leave a tiny little point of whatever in nothingness, nothing happens to it unless an outside force of some sort causes it to happen.

Second, what was that little point made of? What could of composed it that its mass could spread out over the universe, creating such a variety of elements - fire, water, earth, air, not to mention all the minerals, the variety of everything even under a prolonged period of time? It really is hard to believe that something so complex could come out of a tiny little point. That tiny little point seems so supernatural.

Third, I don't see how this mass that was spread all over the universe could cool and collect together to form the sun. How can you cool something and create heat... create fire? In the first place, cold being the absence of heat, in a place of nothingness where there is only cold, how was heat formed?

Lastly, where did that tiny little point that created the universe come from? It just popped out of nowhere? Or was it always there?

I would rather believe that an all-powerful God created the whole universe than believe that a tiny little point and an invisible force was the origin of all nature, of all life. Maybe it's naive for me to believe in the Creation Story without scientific explanation, but science, in all its wisdom and glory, hasn't really come up with an explanation to fully dispute it without question. So I'm going to be a stubborn creationist until then. ;)

As for Adam and Eve...is virtually impossible, that one man and one woman created billions, considering that their children would have to mate with themselves and so on
Wed die of disease
And begining with only two, man is a terrible survivalist, and if God created these people and stuck them into the 'real' world then they would have most assuredly died either from weather, disease, or just some animal. The same would go with Noah and his boat, but thats beyond the point.
Now, evolution!
We did evolve, this is evident in the making of children foremost. When a fetus is..young, it has gills...
one point...dispute that
Dispute the fact that the Banabos, spelling, is almost a 99% perfect genetical match with humans
Banabos is this type of chimp that is VERY human-like, look er up
When you see all the things on this planet that has things for mankind to survive, your completely missing the point. We formed around it, we needed drink, we formed liver, we needed air, we made lungs. Man created medicine.
As for our 'amazing brains' read up on some animal brains, and how well they have evolved to fit their niche.

Does it take intelligence to create intelligence?

I can't say anything about your Adam and Eve or Noah argument except that how can you believe that a single cell organism could evolve into every living, breathing creature in this universe (every single of us humans included) and not believe that all mankind came from two complex complete healthy human beings perfectly capable of reproduction? That really baffles me.

As for the fetus with gills, on the lighter side, maybe God figured that the fetus would be submerged in liquid (I assume) so the poor thing would need gills to breathe. *shrug*

You say that man is a terrible survivalist to dispute Creation, but then say that man created medicine (to survive) to support Evolution. Not only that... man also created lungs, liver and whatever... It's amazing how all this can come from a single celled organism and millions and millions of years of missing links and mysterious evolution.

It's amazing that all life all the universe can come from a tiny little point, but can't come from an all-powerful God. *shrugs*

If you ask me where God came from and how I know He exists, well... how do you know where that tiny little spec of whatever came from and how do you know that it ever existed?:o