Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: finchbeak Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 03:21 AM
What's with all the creationist advertisements on the scienceagogo front page?
Posted By: Kate Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 04:16 AM
I expect it's been "triggered" by the article on intelligent design on the front page...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 06:06 AM
The intelligent design can not be the criteria of accepting or denying faith.
We have written volumes of Maths describing the reality and still some say that the reality is not intelligent.We have grown up and so has the reality.Wait for the new reality.(someone quotes it often.. you are correct)
Posted By: Uncle Al Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 04:04 PM
Quote:
The intelligent design can not be the criteria of accepting or denying faith.
Faith, by definition, exists independent of observation. Faith demands unwavering failure of prediction as validation of continuing personal committment. Christ will return! That he never does is proof that he will. Ditto a billion starving Asians supplicating morbidly obese Buddha with lavish food offerings (that disappear down priets' throats).

All faith-based dogma will be (must be!) unsuccessful. If it is faith it is wrong. Test of faith!
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 05:34 PM
Well, the ads are gone now anyway.
Thank God, er, goodness. smile
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/23/05 09:01 PM
Oops - the creationist crap is back.
Does anyone have control over what ads get triggered?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 03:51 AM
Faith, by definition, exists independent of observation.
REP: Not true. Faith are of various types.
Faith which denies trueness of observation.
Faith which observes but one and the same thing again and again.
It is a very deep subject and the faith should ideally be prescriptive.Based upon individuals interest a particular method of faith should be prescribed.Science is also based on faith.Many believe simply because others believe in it.
==================================
Faith demands unwavering failure of prediction as validation of continuing personal committment.
REP:True.
===========================================
Christ will return! That he never does is proof that he will.
REP: During His times he generated deep trust.He trusted every one.He refused to believe in distrust.He knew what will happen but still he trusted.And this is called faith. For all practical purposes he is still with us.
==========================================
Ditto a billion starving Asians supplicating morbidly obese Buddha with lavish food offerings (that disappear down priets' throats).
REP:Lavish part was not necessary.Priests are also human beings.
======================================
All faith-based dogma will be (must be!) unsuccessful. If it is faith it is wrong. Test of faith!
REP:Science is also a part of it.It will be put extreme test when the Black Hole will be created in Lab just as faith in humanity was tested during the World War and Cold War..
There is no Sceintific reason to believe in Humanity as I was told that there is no goal prescribed by today's Science.
=====================================
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 04:43 AM
dkv - I'm glad to see somebody offering a deeper analysis of what "faith" might mean. I wish that more of my neighbors were willing to think about faith in the terms you outline.
You have to understand, though, that those of us living in the US are surrounded by very literal-minded Christians for whom the word "faith" means unquestioning belief in the inerrancy of scripture, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every day, we see people who deeply want to believe that Genesis is an accurate history and that "God" is a human-like (but perfect-in-every-way) being who directs individual human lives, punishing people who disobey. What's worse, this group of idiots is gaining a lot of political power very quickly. Many of them, Bush and his puppet-masters, for example, are politically very savvy despite their drooling stupidity, because they understand how to take advantage of people emotionally. I have had many conversations with fundamentalist Christians about this topic and I have always come away feeling overwhelmed by the utterly simple stupidity of their theology (for I hesitate to call it philosophy).
[By the way, I personally have never knowingly spoken about the meaning of "faith" with a fundamentalist Muslim, but it appears to me, admittedly from a distance, that many of them are similarly literal in their interpretations.]
dkv is quite right to remind us that, when we talk about destroying faith as a guiding principle, we may be falling into the same trap as our foes: a too-simple and too-literal interpretation of the meaning of "faith." The brand of faith against which I will always fight is this: unwavering, unquestioning, uncritical Belief in something, despite a lack of empirical evidence or empirical evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I have to report that I encounter this literalist brand of faith every day.
I disagree with you, dkv, when you say that science is based on faith. You are right that individual scientists often believe the ideas of others without having personally examined the research. However, we do so not with faith, but instead with a very defensible trust in our system of peer review. There are individual scientists with good reputations who are frauds, but there is very good reason to believe that these people are few and far-between; the peer review system is designed to be quite efficient and ruthless in ferretting these people out. If there is a scientist making claims that seem questionable to you, you can easily go and read their papers to judge for yourself whether their ideas should be taken seriously. That's scientific method; scientists trust one another (always tentatively), but we do not have faith in one another.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 07:21 AM
dkv - I'm glad to see somebody offering a deeper analysis of what "faith" might mean. I wish that more of my neighbors were willing to think about faith in the terms you outline.
REP: Thanks.
================================
You have to understand, though, that those of us living in the US are surrounded by very literal-minded Christians for whom the word "faith" means unquestioning belief in the inerrancy of scripture, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every day, we see people who deeply want to believe that Genesis is an accurate history and that "God" is a human-like (but perfect-in-every-way) being who directs individual human lives, punishing people who disobey.
REP: Every religion has this problem so need to blaim Cristians.We all have to realize this truth.
====================================
What's worse, this group of idiots is gaining a lot of political power very quickly. Many of them, Bush and his puppet-masters, for example, are politically very savvy despite their drooling stupidity, because they understand how to take advantage of people emotionally. I have had many conversations with fundamentalist Christians about this topic and I have always come away feeling overwhelmed by the utterly simple stupidity of their theology (for I hesitate to call it philosophy).
REP: Politics with Exclusive ownership of God is suicidal.Direct confrontation is inevitable when Faith A comes across Faith B.Obviously God didnot do so much of hard work to start a fight on its existence and defintion.( I have used religion to argue because we are discussing religion and not science.)
=============================================
[By the way, I personally have never knowingly spoken about the meaning of "faith" with a fundamentalist Muslim, but it appears to me, admittedly from a distance, that many of them are similarly literal in their interpretations.]
dkv is quite right to remind us that, when we talk about destroying faith as a guiding principle, we may be falling into the same trap as our foes: a too-simple and too-literal interpretation of the meaning of "faith." The brand of faith against which I will always fight is this: unwavering, unquestioning, uncritical Belief in something, despite a lack of empirical evidence or empirical evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I have to report that I encounter this literalist brand of faith every day.
REP: They need to be educated for their own good.
============================================
I disagree with you, dkv, when you say that science is based on faith. You are right that individual scientists often believe the ideas of others without having personally examined the research. However, we do so not with faith, but instead with a very defensible trust in our system of peer review. There are individual scientists with good reputations who are frauds, but there is very good reason to believe that these people are few and far-between; the peer review system is designed to be quite efficient and ruthless in ferretting these people out. If there is a scientist making claims that seem questionable to you, you can easily go and read their papers to judge for yourself whether their ideas should be taken seriously. That's scientific method; scientists trust one another (always tentatively), but we do not have faith in one another.
REP:Science allows you to examine itself and I think most religions allow this as well(of course using its language).
Science when encouters an evidence against a theory it changes its understanding but not its application achieved till now radically.
Religions also undergo this change(although no one will admit it openly.)Religions grow and this is reason why we have so many of them.
Most do not loose their applicability and this creates a superficial conflict.People practicsing it refuse to acknowledge the superior understanding of some religion over the other.Religion writers made this mistake and we are paying price for it. This event has nothing to do with what we were trying to acheive and that was to understand what God is saying.
Posted By: Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 03:11 PM
I agree with DKV that much of science is contingent upon faith( faith = "confident BELIEF or TRUST in persons, ideas, or things"). Faith in theories (theory = "systematically organized knowledge, esp. a set of assumptions or statements devised to explain a phenomenom or class of phenomena") exemplifies this contigency. You can not have science without some semblence faith. One silly example I like is someone who says that their "senses" tell them what is real. Then I say does the Earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the Earth? Your eyes see the sun move across the sky. But science tells us a different story. I have not travelled to outerspace to "see" the Earth travel around the sun and yet I "believe" in the science that contradicts my senses. I have faith that the Earth travels around the sun and I have faith that the sun will rise tommorow wink
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 08:43 PM
If you believe that faith in any way relates to science you are a fool: An uneducated fool. But a fool none-the-less.
Posted By: mochilero Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 09:59 PM
I have faith that science will win out over religion in the end.
Posted By: Nominal Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/24/05 11:08 PM
Many scientists also practice religion. I am sure, depending upon which religions, they must struggle with paradoxes. It seems more intelligent than not to keep your mind open to varying points of view. Mochilero, indeed, religion must stay out of public schools and government.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 12:03 AM
The fact that some scientists practice religion is as relevant as the fact that some physicians smoke cigarettes.

Fools can be found everywhere.

The difference between a scientist and a preacher is that a scientist doesn't claim to be talking for god.
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mung:
I have faith that the Earth travels around the sun and I have faith that the sun will rise tommorow wink
Mung - I don't think you're talking about faith. You're talking about holding a belief because of overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of that belief. That's very different from holding a belief for no good reason. In common English usage, faith means the latter.

Just for fun, let's turn to the shelf.
From the OED: faith /fayth/ n. 1. complete trust or confidence. 2. firm belief, esp. without logical proof or empirical evidence. 3a. a system of religious belief b. belief in religious doctrines c. spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from evidence or proof 4. duty or commitment to fulfill a trust, promise, etc; obligation; allegiance (e.g. keep the faith) 5. (attrib.) concerned with a supposed ability to cure by faith rather than treatment (faith healing)

With regard to definition #1: no good scientist should have complete trust in a theory or idea. Scientific beliefs should always be held tentatively, although they may be very strong when evidence is overwhelming.
With regard to definition #2: I think that no intelligent person should hold a belief without logical proof or material evidence. If a person does hold such a belief, then they should not pretend to be a scientist.
With regard to definition #3: this is an extremely broad and vague definition, but notice in part 3c the reference again to lack of evidence or proof.
Definition #4 is a specialized usage that doesn't directly apply to belief systems.
Definition #5 is a specialized usage that refers particularly to a practice that has been utterly discredited by science.

So, according to the world's most highly regarded English dictionary, all common definitions of the word "faith" refer to holding a belief inappropriately.

From the AHD: faith n. 1. A confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance (keeping faith) 4a. Belief or trust in God. b. Religious conviction. 5. A system of religious beliefs. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So here we have a significantly fuzzier group of definitions, but the gist remains.
I can also report, from my everyday experience, that the word faith is usually used to mean belief without evidence. Or at least, that's what I usually understand it to mean. I think my trip to dictionaryland largely supports that interpretation.

So Mung: I don't think you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think you trustthat it will rise because you have very good reasons, both empirical and logical, for having that trust. The difference is enormous.
Therefore, I refuse to associate science with the word faith, because I think "faith" is misleading in that context. It is much more accurate and useful to actually describe why scientists hold beliefs: empirical evidence and logical conclusions lead us to tentative beliefs. I urge everyone to be very clear when discussing this topic. If you tell a non-scientist that science operates on faith, they will most likely think you are saying that scientists hold beliefs in absence of evidence or logic.
Posted By: Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 03:25 AM
Finchbeak-

I was not using the term "faith" in the religious sense, rather, only in the terms that I defined it in. Raising discussion was my objective; knowing that I was being facetious.
I am impressed with your time taken and your steadfast conviction. I did not say that science lacks evidence or logic; rather I know that science cherishes these principles. I think the definitions between faith and trust are closely tied. But I do understand what you mean by the two words having very different sense.
Believe me, I am not preaching LOL. I am not a creationist. I do not practice religion. I am interested in belief systems, how they originate and how people choose to pursue them. I meant not to knock science at all, or the people who are scientists. I have tremendous respect for those who seek knowledge and are open to ideas. This forum has helped me to restructure my beliefs because of thoughtful contructive criticism such as yours. As I am new to forums, I look forward to learning as much as possible in this construct and also to abide by it's etiquette. My understanding of a forum was "information exchange".
If I am incorrect then I am in the wrong place. Sincerely
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 04:16 AM
I don't think you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think you trustthat it will rise because you have very good reasons, both empirical and logical, for having that trust. The difference is enormous.
REP: Faith was reached only after going through the logical and empirical acceptance of the known(or standard) experience as understood under the logical framework of a religion.Few mastered it and others followed the masters on their path to relgious salvation.In science few become Einstein rest all believe what he says.

The framework of religion is different from that of science and therefore it appears as faith to the science.
=====================================
Therefore, I refuse to associate science with the word faith, because I think "faith" is misleading in that context.
REP: Fine. But I am afraid ,going by the definition,using faith for anything will be unacceptable.
======================================
It is much more accurate and useful to actually describe why scientists hold beliefs: empirical evidence and logical conclusions lead us to tentative beliefs. I urge everyone to be very clear when discussing this topic.
REP: Everyone is clear.I hope.
======================================
If you tell a non-scientist that science operates on faith, they will most likely think you are saying that scientists hold beliefs in absence of evidence or logic.
REP: They argue using their own accepted principles.
I consider my self a sceintist(without degree) and a religous man(without bible).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 05:54 AM
My last statement was not meant to encourage unsystematic approach towards knowledge learning or religious learning.
There is no magic here. I know what I know because others told me and I have just added few more words to it.
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 05:30 PM
Mung -
By all means, I am happy that you brought the point up. I didn't intend to come across as contentious; I apologize if that was the case. I certainly didn't get the impression that you had any creationist leanings.
The reason for my lengthy reply was to illustrate the importance of careful term definition. I think it's a very instructive example; to define "faith", you must examine your own belief system carefully. That's never a wasted effort.
Posted By: finchbeak Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/25/05 05:46 PM
dkv - I suspect there may be an interesting language gap at work. I am guessing that you're not a native speaker of English - and I mean no offense in that, it's merely an observation, based largely on your sentence structure and usage. If that's true, I wonder whether your experiences with other languages give you a distinctly different sense of the concept of faith. Or perhaps you are a native speaker of an "Indian-style" English dialect. In that case, I wonder what cultural influences are present in your English that are unfamiliar to American/British/Canadian/Australian speakers.
To be more succinct, I wonder what is lost in translation.
I appreciate your more complex definition, but I can say quite confidently that if you say the word "faith" to an American, he/she will understand you to mean "belief in the absence of empirical evidence or logic". Based on the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, I assert that a Briton will likely have the same interpretation. Perhaps we Americans and Britons (and Canadians and Australians) are too literal.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 08/26/05 05:50 AM
"belief in the absence of empirical evidence or logic".
REP: The apparent absence of empirical evidence is due to the nature of the subject itself.
For example
Homeopathy goes agianst the understood logical framework of Sceince.But the medicine works.
Millions believe in it.
And James Randy proved it that it doenst work!!
Some say that Placibo effect is the reason behind it... this belief is very powerful.Powerful enough to correct the system without external assitance.Suddenly the cells realize that they can fight the disease.
Isnt it strange that just because I believe that it will work... it works .
Such is the power.Science can deny that but
millions belive in it.
Small babies who do not understand what the medicine is, but get benefitted out it.How is that possible?
Hoemopathy can at best can be related to faith.
The religion works on same principles of faith..
And who knows whether Science it getting shaped based on our unconscious belief or the unconcious faith is getting shaped based upon the Science.There is no way we can prove it as the question itself is beyond the framework of our chosen subject.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 10/19/05 01:53 PM
All people who believe in God are stupid! Most of the ones I know admit that they are not 100% sure that a God or spiritual world even exists! Yet, they continue to waste their life praying, sacrificing potential sources of fun and risking their lives unnecessarily, with the hope, THE HOPE that they are granted access to a 'paradise' when they die. My message to any believers out there; this world is undeniably real, and there is no proof of a spiritual one. Accept what you have and be thankful for it!
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 10/20/05 07:03 PM
Not stupid ... brain washed.

There are a lot of very smart people who, from the time they were born, were taught certain things that just are not true.

It is very hard for them to break free of those prejudices.
Posted By: Jack J. Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 10/24/05 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
All people who believe in God are stupid!
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Not stupid ... brain washed.

It is very hard for them to break free of those prejudices.
First: Does your science define the most rude argument as winning? That sounds a lot like fundamentalist dogma.

Second, empirical data suggests that religion gives a selective advantage, as all successful communities (nations) have a religion. To date, there are no successful atheist countries (though there are those in China trying to substitute Communism for the prevailing Buddhism
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 11/21/05 03:45 PM
"...all successful communities (nations) have a religion."

Therefore proving that brainwashing works.

"there are no successful atheist countries"

Wait and see. My progress to complete atheism was a slow one. I killed off and debunked parts of my belief one at a time. All in all it took me around two years to go from believing in God 100% to 99%. I held on to this 1% for a further few months just in case this world is all some charade, a primitive creation by a 'God' for his other primitive creations to live in. Then one day I thought; if the rules of science in 'God's' realm were more advanced, how did 'he' get knowledge of them to be able to mimic them? The question brought about another question; if the realm of 'God' has rules, which it undoubtedly does, else it wouldn't be able to exist, that means that 'God' can be EXPLAINED by science. Science to me is the study of rules that produce everything; therefore, there is nothing that cannot be explained by these rules. Hence my disbelief in the unexplained. The word should really be changed to unexplained-yet.
Then there was the whole notion of who created 'God'? Finally, I thought; if there is a God, this guy must be an idiot. He creates life, and a way to explain it, and then he tells the people that the explanations are wrong and that they should believe a story, a STORY. It is these fools that he takes into his kingdom. What?s he trying to create, a kingdom of morons?
Actually, it really wasn?t any of these things that converted me to true atheism, it was just one thing, one thing that no theist can explain. One thing that anyone sensible wouldn?t even attempt to explain, it?s a question; who created God. The answer, allegedly given by the bible, which I have no intent on reading, unless to humour myself, is that he was always there. I?ve said the following time and time again and I hate to repeat myself, but this is the final time; IF ?GOD? WAS ?ALWAYS THERE? THEN WHY WASN?T EVERYTHING ALWAYS THERE?!

Back to my point at the very beginning, wait and see, the more answers we get from science, the less valued the made- up stories will get.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 11/21/05 03:53 PM
Reading over my post, I realise that it was directed only at one religion. Well, it goes for all religions. May they all burn in a volcano.

Furthermore, here's a question for you, Philege the foolish; Now, before I start, don't gloat that I am accepting 'God' as factual, I'm just speaking your language. Anyway, here comes the question; Have you ever thought that maybe God's real aim is to collect the ones that DON'T believe in him as they are obviously much smarter since they don't believe in something without proof?
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 11/21/05 08:30 PM
Rob,

Why are you so full of vitriol for believers?

Rob - He creates life, and a way to explain it, and then he tells the people that the explanations are wrong and that they should believe a story, a STORY.

REP: Rob, do you have the time to expand upon this? I'm particularly interested in where you think God has told you that your explanations are wrong.

I have no problem believing that, in terms of Origins, everything from the moment of the Big Bang to the present is explainable by science.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted By: Chris Maxwell Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 11/21/05 10:05 PM
ok you people think God dont Exist well i tell you something " First Evolution , You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "?Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
its %80 Right and %20

"the Right Part is that we did did come from Single organisms and we did need Natural Selection to become what we are today" , the Wrong part is that is Darwin did'nt know that for life to Exist you need a Jump start from something from the Unkwown (God) yes God is not the Man you think he is ,Genesis is only Symbolic God could not tell inferior beings about they Origins " ,

Religion offer very simple answers - science offers new possibilities Did we indeed rise out of that primeval goo by coincidence or are we result divine intervention?.Remember Science is only Possiablity , its only hard work of inferior
being who just Discovers something , maybe Evolution was Discover by a Bloody Cave man lol who knows all i'm saying is i would just go with the Flow (God's Journal AKA bible)
Posted By: Chris Maxwell Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 11/21/05 10:14 PM
And Rob God is not an Idiot you are an Confessed
inferior Being and God did Explain the Origins of life you foolish " (read the Bible)
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/06/06 07:12 PM
One quick question for you; have you had ANY sort of education in science? In fact -knock off the "in science".
Posted By: soilguy Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/09/06 07:22 PM
"Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and..."

It does nothing of the sort.

"Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time."

There are some parallels with animal husbandry, but I wouldn't call natural selection the equivalent of breeding domestic animals. Also, what do you mean by "inferior species"?

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level."

Then it should be easy for you to name a few of these tens of thousands.

"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams..."

A bacterium weighing less than 10 grams?!? Lies I tell you!

"And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day."

Is that right? Can you explain how the eye, ear and heart are irreducibly complex?

"Religion offer very simple answers..."

You know something? I think we've found common ground here.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/10/06 05:06 AM
Great answers soilguy ... great answers. And in response to the last part of your posting:

***********************************************
"Religion offer very simple answers..."

You know something? I think we've found common ground here.
***********************************************

I bring you these wonderful quotations:

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler
~ Albert Einstein

For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong. For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong.
~H.L. Mencken

Or to quote Shell Oil Company:
"The stone age didn't end because the world ran out of stones."

These people seem bound and determined to take us back there one ignorant step at a time.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/10/06 01:38 PM
START THE REVOLUTION!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/10/06 05:33 PM
Rob,
What exactly do you find revolting?
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/10/06 05:56 PM
I agree Rob. The problem is that we are outnumbered. Always have been ... likely always will be.
Posted By: soilguy Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/11/06 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I agree Rob. The problem is that we are outnumbered. Always have been ... likely always will be.
But that won't stop us! We're scientists, dammit!
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/11/06 09:42 PM
Yeah! We have antimatter on our side! What do they have? -No fear of death. That just makes them easier to kill. HA HAA!

(No offence, Blacknad)

"What exactly do you find revolting?"
If you don't know me by now, you will never never never know me.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/12/06 05:25 AM
Well there is absolutely no one on the serious science side in the last 24 hours except me and one person who claims to have actually published in a peer reviewed journal but doesn't know how to write an actual citation ... ho hum ... so I'm back here again with the rest of the lab rats.

No fear of death Rob? Come off it. They are the ones who are truly terrified. That is why they invent their invisible purple rhino clones. It creates a little closet in their minds where they can shut all of their fears away and not think about them ... well until one day the grim reaper stares them straight in the face. Then they are the first one's making deals with god, the devil, the tooth fairy, anyone that will listen to them. They are chimeras without substance just like all who wave the flag or other emblems in public.

From my experience in life those that truly believe in something have one thing in common. They don't feel compelled to advertise it in public.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/12/06 12:43 PM
I "truly" believe in the laws of physics -opposed to anything and everything else, and practically all I've done on this origins board is "advertise" that belief.
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/12/06 01:08 PM
(No offence, Blacknad)

Rob, no offense taken - you're right.

The phrase 'turn the other cheek' is perhaps a little redundant when it comes to antimatter.

Blacknad.
Posted By: soilguy Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/17/06 05:22 PM
We may be outnumbered, but it was encouraging to read Judge Jones' ruling on the Dover ID case. (If you haven't seen it, a PDF version is available here: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_docs/kitzmiller_342.pdf)

Clearly, an intelligent layman can listen to both sides of this story and come to an intelligent decision.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/17/06 11:43 PM
Clearly. The most amazing thing about the story though was the fact that the self-righteous right-wing Christian fundamentalist wackos immediate tried to crucify the judge. And the judge was appointed by George W. Bush. Oops!

Justice has been redefined from something that is just ... to something that agrees with the philosphical idiocy of the most extremist fringe of the right-wing.
Posted By: soilguy Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/18/06 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Justice has been redefined from something that is just ... to something that agrees with the philosphical idiocy of the most extremist fringe of the right-wing.
Hey, I like that. I might save it for future use.

I currently live in one of the redder states. We have a boneheaded state senator who's introducing another [I]review of science education[I/] bill this year. Thankfully, his previous bills have all died in assorted committees, but he's tenacious. It's my hope that the Jones decision turns out to be potent ammunition.

Luckily, nothing ever happens in soil science that provokes The Guardians Of Morality to call for a laymen's review of theories and principles. I just hope no one commences a study on the feasibility of whether "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground."
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/18/06 06:57 PM
I am continually amazed that it is my generation now running the planet, a group of spoiled boomers who spent their adolescence watching the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, and doing more drugs and having more sex than all previous generations combined ... pretending they are something other than what they actually are. Just a bunch of hypocrites.

Who do they think they're kidding.
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/19/06 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I agree Rob. The problem is that we are outnumbered. Always have been ... likely always will be.
I read an article, last night, comparing the catacombs the early few Christians met in with internet forums where modern Atheists now meet.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/19/06 07:25 PM
Modern Atheists? Huh?

Intelligent people have been meeting for millenia.


The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.
~Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057)

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eyes of Reason.
~ Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard 1758


Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
~ Samuel Clemens writing as Mark Twain

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool.
With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan

Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion,
as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
~ Ambrose Bierce

Justine you may ask why it is that some of us find it so easy to reject the infalliable scripture upon which your religion is founded. Here's just one of many many examples:

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb? At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2)
vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1). So much for perfection.

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 8:1-2)

Whom did they see at the tomb? The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12)

Were they standing or sitting? Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12)

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

If the stories were consistent, one could write one long, continuous narrative, incorporating all
four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering
or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument, which
is quite irrelevant, since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event cannot be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an
accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/19/06 07:27 PM
Hey Morgan, where do you get all these great quotes from?
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/20/06 07:25 PM
Is Christianity my religion DA? I seem to recall posting that I felt the Bible was as irrational as our superegos.

I thought I said I was Pantheist or Panentheist, but hadn't yet decided. (That really covers quite a bit of territory.)

I admire those of you who can so easily pin yourselves down. What a comfort for you. To put yourself in a box and put it away. Congratulations. Life must be a piece of cake after that.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/20/06 07:29 PM
I keep a file of them for special occassions.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/21/06 03:01 PM
"I admire those of you who can so easily pin yourselves down. What a comfort for you. To put yourself in a box and put it away. Congratulations. Life must be a piece of cake after that."

Is this sarcasm?
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/21/06 05:40 PM
It appears to be sarcasm but Justine appears to have taken at least two different sides here so I remain confused as to whether there is, or is not, an actual opinion. I was as sure she was a Unitarian Universalist from what she wrote as I am now convinced, or perhaps unconvinced that she is a "Pantheist or Panentheist" whatever that actual is intended to convey.

One thing for sure no matter the label. Humans can either believe in reality or fantasy just as they can either deal with reality or try to push it away with alcohol, marijuana, or heroin. From the number of people addicted to religion and alcohol it would appear that most people live lives of pain, insecurity, and fear.

I'd no more take away their churches than I would become a prohibitionist. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out hypocrisy when it rears its ugly head. Do what you wish but don't try to label it social drinking.
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/23/06 05:51 PM
I'm not Unitarian, but I like them. I'm not Christian, but I love a lot of them. I'm really searching for the truth. I'm not Anti-Theist. Pointless existance doesn't feel like the truth to me. I may be Atheist but I'd rather be Panentheist.

There's the prime movement. I believe in that. The push of the Big Bang.

Some of the discussions from previous strings have lead me to the ideas that there could be one very ancient mind existing as innumerable perspectives in space. Existing as awareness and as particles.

Perhaps this group mind is evolving by relationships. That this mind is learning to be kind to itself (this includes taking care of the environment) so the mind or humanity as a whole can can live in peace and health and balance.

I'm hopeful for a world where science continues to find cures and methods of living in balance with nature to reduce human suffering. I'm hopeful that people will recognize their own worth and interdependence and really care about everyone on the planet. And really be very kind to the people closest to them as well.

And then the ancient mind would be mostly content, except for the occasional natural disaster (hopefully science will be able to predict and prevent overwhelming human tragedy) And suffering would be lessened to a smaller scale. Just enough to compare with the overwhelming contentment.

I'd very much like this Ancient Mind to not only be incarnated as all of reality, but also be a mysterious guide that works in incomprehensible ways to provide synchronicity, luck, omens and so forth to help those pieces of itself...individuals.... toward understanding the nature of it all.

These are my highest hopes, not quite beliefs. I would also like each individual perspective of this mind to remain an entity throughout lifetimes (reincarnation) I like the whole idea of reincarnation...but again I don't really know. I don't really know anything at all. I can only think about possibilities. And practice kindness.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/24/06 12:45 AM
Justine ... the lack of a sentient deity does not have an equals sign connecting it to pointless existance. That argument holds no water. And you are clearly intelligent enough to see past it. I can't think of an atheist I know leading a pointless life or scared of the lack of a hereafter. In fact from my experience atheists are more likely to make someting of their lives as they can't just say ... "well I didn't commit any horrible sins so I've a guaranteed place on cloud 9."

Neither does a prime movement equate with a sentient entity pushing a button or flipping a switch.

You need to consider that "if there is a mind" then malaria is a product of that mind. So is AIDS. So is leukemia. So is your every thought and feeling so you really don't count except as a taxpayer.

I'd suggest you reconsider that new-age nonsense as it is just another form of packaging the same tired concept that "you are not responsible", "someone else is pulling the levers", and "give us your devotion and money."

If you can't practice kindness without some higher being telling you to do so you should check into a clinic and ask for help dealing with your angst and hostility. Sorry if that is harsh but reality need not be warm, fuzzy, and cuddly.
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/24/06 03:15 PM
You're right, I don't need a higher being to practice kindness. Kindness is the point...higher being or not. I think it is the point of the "thinking" self-aware mind...to be kind and stay within the delicate balance of nature by choice, not just instinct.

Enlightnment along side of kindness...reaching a point of knowing when being strict, blunt or even uninvolved is the kindest thing to do in order for someone else to learn to be kind and responsible themselves.

Kindness isn't just warm and fuzzy and cuddly. Not that I don't love the warm, cuddly parts.

I even find that you are mostly kind, DA. For all your bluntness, because your prime mission is to educate...and that is kind; not warm and cuddly.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/24/06 08:23 PM
Justine wrote:
"I think it is the point of the "thinking" self-aware mind...to be kind and stay within the delicate balance of nature by choice, not just instinct."

Only if you define "to be kind" as to create smallpox, create AIDS, create malaria ... and visit them upon the helpless. This is new-age nonsense parroted without use of the gray-stuff you have between your ears. Try saying something that comes from your own ability to think. It is mindless blather.

If you think there is a higher being then point to physical evidence of its existance. Explain where it come from. Explain how you know what you know about it. Apply some cognition.

If you can define Enlightenment by all means do so. Your enlightened scholar is my flagrant act of taking advantage of the hard of thinking. If you think there is a definition of the word that isn't fluff I'd like to hear it.

And yes I am being blunt and trying to educate. Because what I reading is all lacking in substance.
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/26/06 04:33 PM
Alright let me section off perspectives because I can't take one definite side, right now, I'm just throwing ideas out here. I don't know the answers.

The first perspective is the idea that there is no God of any kind. There is only what we can observe. Alright, in this case I believe the enlightened mind is someone who is kind and realizes they are interrelated with everyone and everything on earth and chooses to fascilitate harmony. And humanity has to evolve to this point. We as a whole are very unkind, now. Is it crazy, to hope that we will evolve into something better than what we are, now?

==============================================

Ok, now a totaly seperate perspective a seperate discussion. Is there a seperate God. Where is the proof? You asked.
It is uncomprehensible to us. If it exists, it prefers to be anonymous. Why would it prefer to be anonymous? So we can learn through our experience of seperation from it in this reality.
===============================================
A third perspective WE are an evolving God. Maybe God doesn't come all put together...It has to make itself. So we've got billions of pieces to resonate together. Awareness is seperated and instinctually workes in harmony...but when the self-aware "thinking" mind was added, all these "individuals" have to evolve into realizing that we, all together, are GOD...not a perfect GOD at this point. We have to evolve or die. If we die. GOD is suspended until another planet somewhere developes thinking creatures that get a shot at becoming something wonderful.


=================================================

Hey, another perspective....Don't read this one DA...this one is for lurkers that may be interested.

We are an evolving God. But there is a portion of God that is fully perfected and just waits for all the individual pieces to come to the understanding that they, too are God. We are equal to everything that has awareness. Most people are walking around deluded that they are something other than the stuff of pure awareness because they spend too much time "thinking" about themselves.
The perfected parts of God work in reality through synchronicity, chance, intention, etc.
Humans continue to suffer because it is part of what we have to go through to give up the delusion of personal power and also to give up attachment. Attachment to other people, attachment to our own properties like health, skills, personality. When we give it all up and only recognize the power in interconnection and only identify ourselves with pure awareness or the identy we are when we aren't "thinking" then we are on our way to understanding who we are as a whole. And in reality is where we get to physically exist so we have to figure out how to live with each other and the environment or else we will always suffer. Parts of GOD are always suffering as long as anything suffers.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/26/06 04:49 PM
Section 1:
I'll go along with your definition of the enlightened mind. I would hope everyone would. But there is no universal or even majority defintion of that word or the definition you constructed. But to your definition I would add an understanding of Boolean logic, alegebra, and to discern spin from reality.

Section 2:
"Ok, now a totaly seperate perspective a seperate discussion. Is there a seperate God. Where is the proof? You asked.

It is uncomprehensible to us. If it exists, it prefers to be anonymous. Why would it prefer to be anonymous? So we can learn through our experience of seperation from it in this reality."

This is nonsense and you know it. To say "it prefers to be anonymous" is equivalent to saying "I haven't a single shred of evidence to support my belief system." Because you know darn well any half-way intelligent person is going to ask you how you know it prefers to be anonymous.

And thank you but we can learn through our experience without it existing so it is equivalent to the theoretical vacuum. If it exists it has no effect so it doesn't exist since no effect can be determined. That, Justine, is the definition of non-existence.

Section 3:
"We are an evolving god."

This is pure unadulterated fluff. We could just as easily be an evolving invisible purple rhinoceros. We aren't invisible yet but we are getting there. We aren't purple yet but a lot of us are already pink so we're getting there. Come on ... you can do better than this. This is just new-age nonsense.

We are what we are what we are. Period. Godlike? Come on now ... to say that we, collectively, are god, is just to spin-doctor the word. That is not what the word means and it is disingenuous to redefine the word to mean something completely different than it has meant throughout all of human history.

PS: Last time I checked the collective we did not invent smallpox.

Section 4:
Do you read what you write?

Here's what you wrote in 3: "A third perspective WE are an evolving God" and in 4: "Hey, another perspective ... We are an evolving God." Do you see a little problem here?

It is not just another repackaging of new-age spin doctoring and packaging ... it is the exact same words.

I once again challenge you to use your own brain rather than parroting what you've read.
Posted By: Justine Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/26/06 06:41 PM
The 4th perspective was like the 3rd except there was an amount of God already perfected with the rest of us on our way to perfection. It's along the lines of budhism. It's not meant for you.

What's wrong with parroting what I've read? That's what you do. You are like a textbook with an attitude.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/26/06 11:41 PM
An amount of god? God ... the word as defined in the dictionary ... have you read it? If you want to use the word use it properly. You can not just grab a word with a specific meaning and redefine it as it suits you to mean something else. The word "God" is a noun and is defined pretty much as: "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force." The Borg collective is not a supernatural being. Find another word.

What is wrong with parroting. I don't know ... what is wrong with being strung out on heroin? If you have a brain and choose to not use it how you get there pretty much doesn't matter does it.

The point is I am trying to have a conversation with a sentient being not a tape recorder. If I wanted the author's opinion I'd ask the author. If you, Justine, wish to converse with us then do us the courtesy of being Justine and not a mouthpiece.

Is there a collective? Is there a sentient god? Is there an invisible purple rhinoceros? The point is that if you are going to put forth the proposition that one of them exists then have some rational basis, some evidence, something verifiable, you can point to. I read it in a book is equivalent to I heard Paris Hilton say it.
Posted By: RM Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/27/06 12:00 AM
This is for all the fools that can't allow themselves to not believe in a god or life after death:

Tell this god of yours that there are too many religions available for you to pick one because it may be the wrong one. Tell it, that you refuse to speak to it or pray to it because as a god who put you on earth to learn and strive to survive and improve society, asking for divine help kinda defeats the purpose of that intention. Tell it that it 'blessed' you with a mind that can evaluate evidence and tell it that you can't be blamed if in your life you never came upon any evidence. Ask it why you should improve society if you're gonna live in paradise anyway. Ask it why it always seems to reflect the society that worship it. Why is there no global society with a global god? What about aliens -what about the beliefs of aliens? Maybe they have found the right religion. Ask it how the heck wer'e supposed to know about this true religion? Ask it why people born into a life where killing and stealing is the only way to survive are condemned by no fault of their own to an eternity in hell. Ask it why children that go to private school and die at the age of 13 before commiting any 'sin' can go to heaven when other kids get shot whilst dealing drugs and go to hell for being killers. Ask it to explain chaos theory to you. And ask it how you have managed to become so stupid.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Creationist advertisements?? - 01/27/06 01:42 PM
Here are a couple of quotes that I think drive home the point:

The first from Marily Vos Savant

"Most people find the source of moral authority in their religions, but I don't. That's because there would be multiple authorities, many of them in conflict and most of them biased. Speaking only for myself, I find the source of moral authority in the lessons of history - the principles that arise out of the mass of good choices, bad choices, and all the rest in between.

History is written by a multitude of narrators, most of them biased. But at least we don't see them as authorities - or shouldn't anyway. This is one of the reasons that a study of world history from diverse sources is so important
for young people. Not only do we learn from the mistakes of others, but we also learn that it is wiser to enthrone and follow principles than it is to enthrone and follow people."

The next from H.L. Mencken

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."

and the last from Stephen Roberts

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums