Sorry Creationists ... Evolutionary gap in early land animal fossil record filled

[youfiad]

LMAO.

Yeah, I've seen that video. But I've been using the same argument since I was 12. And it wasn't even Dawkins to use it for the first time.

 

[youfiad]

I don't think he claimed to be the first. I've been using that argument since I was a young boy as well. From the age of 11 or 12 I debated my Catholic neighbor friend about religion. And the counter-argument from him and everyone else has always been the same. "No, because my [insert name of holy book here] says 'bla bla bla...'"

You can't use logic againsts those who are illogical. Becoming a non-believer was probably the most significant part of my life that I cherish more than any other part of my life. Life was so meaningless when I used to believe. Now, evern though there is no devine purpose, it is much more beautiful than before.

 

[Kulindahr]

Laughable. They can't demostrate their faith to a non-believer. They just tell us that we have to believe that their God exists. Ok, two can play that game. There is an invisible teapot revolving around the Sun.

People who say that sort of stuff are just ignorant. It makes absolutely no sense... Faith is believing something with no proof. Science is based on proof. They are completely different. I can demonstrate the electrons exist to anybody who questions their existence. There is consistency and reproducibility. Religion have never had either of those two qualities.

That is a kid's argument, I'm sorry.

The claim that science shows you the world as it truly is is a kid's claim. There's no way to prove it; it's purely a statement of faith. It's basically the same claim as the one saying that if something can be known, science can tell us.

The "invisible teapot" ploy is infantile, and will get from religious folks exactly the disdain it deserves. For starters, it was made up on the spot, with nothing at all to give it credence -- whereas, for example, the Abrahamic religions have thousands of years of testimony from people that it's true (if you could dig up a reference to an invisible teapot orbiting the sun from ancient Babylon, you'd have an equivalence).

BTW, I've almost never heard a believer "just tell us that we have to believe that their God exists". That's another caricature -- and it's easy to argue against caricatures.

The dispute is actually a lot like the difference between criminal court and civil court: for a criminal charge to succeed, the jury has to be unanimous, but for a civil suit to succeed, it only requires a majority or supermajority -- and you're saying that to win their case, the civil suit people have to get a unanimous jury. The thing is, the same parameters don't apply.


footnote: there is no such thing as "proof" in science, there is only "best conclusion".

 

[bankside]

Other mutually incompatible religions are, like the Abrahamic ones, supported by thousands of years of hearsay, archaeological artefacts, etc.

Science is the means of sorting conclusions into poor, better, best. In response to the dismissal of science as inexact and incapable of revealing reality, there are two answers. First, science generally claims to model things. Models are of necessity representative of reality rather than identical to it. Second, science benefits from an understanding of limits as explained in mathematics.

Scientific models may never approach exact unity with the things they purport to represent and explain, but as models are destroyed and rebuilt through thousands of iterations, they will approximate reality better and better, in a trend tending towards a limit of perfect representation.

And as to claims of religious testimony….the plural of "anecdote" is not data. What gives the testimony any credibility? Surely not repetition.

 

[Stardreamer]

Laughable. They can't demostrate their faith to a non-believer. They just tell us that we have to believe that their God exists. Ok, two can play that game. There is an invisible teapot revolving around the Sun.

People who say that sort of stuff are just ignorant. It makes absolutely no sense... Faith is believing something with no proof. Science is based on proof. They are completely different. I can demonstrate the electrons exist to anybody who questions their existence. There is consistency and reproducibility. Religion have never had either of those two qualities.

That is a kid's argument, I'm sorry.

Damn that is where my teapot got to, I knew I shouldn't have left it sitting on the transmat.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's highly debatable. Gregory Mendel's curiousity was not sparked by his religious faith. He was first and foremost a scientist by training. That goes with any other examle I can think of. Many scientists of the past have been religious (or so we are lead to believe by their life actions), but that doesn't mean that their scientific dicoveries were enticed by a diety. I am not buying that for a minute. I have religious professors, but their faith and their science are completely separate........

And I had plenty of religious professors who went into science because of their faith. Perhaps my favorite was one who'd wanted to be a minister, but then a verse from the Psalms caught him: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made." It sent him on a study of human anatomy and physiology and on into mammals and then biology. I had a physics prof who dove into science because the Bible said, "He makes His winds to blow", and he asked "How?" I've also had geology, botany, forestry, and astronomy professors who went into science because of their faith.

On top of that, a good case can be made -- several of them made it -- that science sprang up in Europe specifically because of Christianity, which had a God who wasn't whimsical, but who was faithful, and so people expected He would have the world running in a dependable, orderly, predictable fashion. That confidence was a prerequisite for any science, because with a (belief in a) whimsical world, there'd be no point in investigating. I know there have been at least two books publishes arguing that, and I tend to agree.

 

[Kulindahr]

This silly post made me LOL.

Until there is evidence that something or someone exists, and if so, what it/their name is/are, you're out of gas. All you have are assumptions based on ancient man-made fables.

All you have is an assumption that they're man-made.

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO.

Have you read The Dawkins Delusion?


I find Dawkins not very rational in his reply there. There are obvious differences between the penny-ante gods of pantheons who are just part of the order of things and a God who is the source of the order of things. The former may be powerful, but they hardly count as candidates for a Creator -- and a deity who isn't the Creator isn't worth bothering with.

 

[Kulindahr]

True. But if you choose to enter into a scientific debate using nothing but fairy tales, be prepared to get an intellectual beatdown.

But atheists pounce and attack believers who are using nothing but science. It's why many people, not unreasonably, call atheism a religion: there's apologetics and evangelism and hatred for those different.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think he claimed to be the first. I've been using that argument since I was a young boy as well. From the age of 11 or 12 I debated my Catholic neighbor friend about religion. And the counter-argument from him and everyone else has always been the same. "No, because my [insert name of holy book here] says 'bla bla bla...'"

I haven't heard that "argument" all that often. In fact I've been pointing out to Christians since before high school that it's a really stupid approach -- it's worse than a lawyer arguing against some scientific hypothesis by claiming it wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can't use logic againsts those who are illogical. Becoming a non-believer was probably the most significant part of my life that I cherish more than any other part of my life. Life was so meaningless when I used to believe. Now, evern though there is no devine purpose, it is much more beautiful than before.

That sounds just like a religious testimony.


What the frak did you believe before that made life "meaningless"?

 

[Kulindahr]

No such thing as proof in science? When you thought you heard it all. Science is all about proof and discovery.

I should have known you'd object. Thinking there is proof is a misunderstanding of science:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

source

 

[bankside]

Have you read The Dawkins Delusion?


I find Dawkins not very rational in his reply there. There are obvious differences between the penny-ante gods of pantheons who are just part of the order of things and a God who is the source of the order of things. The former may be powerful, but they hardly count as candidates for a Creator -- and a deity who isn't the Creator isn't worth bothering with.

If there were a non-creator deity, I would encourage you to show at least as much interest in it as you would a remarkable new species of octopus from the depths of the ocean, as opposed to just not "bothering with" it.

A bunch of minor gods with supernatural abilities should be at least no less interesting than angels, for example.

Also, there is no substance to the idea that the potential for creation must come in the form of just one being. You dismiss out of hand a number of potential gods based on an arbitrary distinction.

As for Dawkins in that clip, he does seem to be more interested in getting a zinger in with what amounts to a "Tu quoque" argument. He could have just said (what he does say in his written work) that he would have been mistaken and accepted the new evidence in proportion to its reliability. But that's not as flashy of an answer for a slightly theatrical occasion. He ignores her question in favour of making the (valid) point that her own spirituality is hardly grounded in the realm of certainty - a point you reject, incorrectly, for the reasons I've noted above.

 

[Kulindahr]

Atheism isn't a religion though. And believers use science? Yeah I've heard that a thousand times. Hatred? What hatred? And what evangelism? Many atheists see a problem with the religious misusing and distorting science. The god myth is one of the biggest fairy tales of all time, and some insist in trying to bring it into science. They are mistaken.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about proof.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Science does indeed have proof. I guess Christians will go to any level to distort science. And a source from a psychology magazine.. come on now. That's an op/ed piece. You can do better then that. That just proves my point. And speaking of evangelizing, how many posts does one need to make in a row?

Thanks for the article quoting Stephen J. Gould saying there is no proof in the real world. That means there's no proof in science. He notes that evolutionists don't see the world as holding "eternal truths", which is what proofs give.

We know you don't like to admit it, but some of the world's best scientists are, and always have been, religious people -- Jesuits make superb scientists (to the point that the Vatican hasn't always been happy with them). Many believers do science, and do it very well -- as evidenced by the list of Nobel Prize winners in science, many of whom have been people of faith.

It's just that there is a loud section who -- I liked your word choice -- "use" science. They don't do it, because they don't understand it, but they treat it as a tool (only as a tool) for "proving" the Bible (which is not only an abuse of science, but of the Bible). I actually pity them, because they don't know what learning is; they treat it as items to be slotted into a framework that tells them how great they are serving God -- and never ask if they're wrong about anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

If there were a non-creator deity, I would encourage you to show at least as much interest in it as you would a remarkable new species of octopus from the depths of the ocean, as opposed to just not "bothering with" it.

A bunch of minor gods with supernatural abilities should be at least no less interesting than angels, for example.

Well, if they had a physical location, e.g. Olympus, that we could go to, I'd have the same reaction as if they were an alien race dropped in for a visit. In fact, I'd have to wonder if a story I once read were true, that the various pantheons were extraterrestrials stranded here by some botched expedition, doing the best they could for themselves, occasionally trying to marry in with the natives.

Also, there is no substance to the idea that the potential for creation must come in the form of just one being. You dismiss out of hand a number of potential gods based on an arbitrary distinction.

An axiom from a mathematics professor I had: All numbers between one and infinity are ridiculous.

Since the universe is coherent and not chaotic, it's only reasonable that it has but one source. The other option is infinite sources, so the differences (potentially) average out into a sameness. That seems more complex and problematic to me, so I choose the first option.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not the kind of proof I'm talking about. I'm talking about facts. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Well, facts -- to borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan, "bilyuns and bilyuns" of those.

And I know you don't like it to admit either, but some of the best scientists were either agnostic, atheist or simply non-religious.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Any God who only let His followers use their brains to investigate His Creation would be something of a jerk -- it would bother me if there weren't any agnostics or atheists doing good science.

 

[bankside]

Well, if they had a physical location, e.g. Olympus, that we could go to, I'd have the same reaction as if they were an alien race dropped in for a visit. In fact, I'd have to wonder if a story I once read were true, that the various pantheons were extraterrestrials stranded here by some botched expedition, doing the best they could for themselves, occasionally trying to marry in with the natives.



An axiom from a mathematics professor I had: All numbers between one and infinity are ridiculous.

Since the universe is coherent and not chaotic, it's only reasonable that it has but one source. The other option is infinite sources, so the differences (potentially) average out into a sameness. That seems more complex and problematic to me, so I choose the first option.

You've forgotten the axiom that "great minds think alike." Perhaps the coherence of our universe is the result of a consensus of equally divine and utterly independent beings. Or perhaps they haggle over it and might not even be finished yet. This might just be a draft, subject to ratification in their various parliaments.

That sounds fanciful to me, but I am at a loss as to how to separate it from the idea of one creator god. It sounds equally fanciful to me, and I don't think it is at all "only reasonable that it has but one source."

 

[frankfrank]

42........

 

[Kulindahr]

Kind of like your assumption that, say for example, Hunahpu-Gutch and the 12 other Mayan gods who created humanity are man-made?

It's written, the first men were made of mud and wood, but it was a divine cluster-fuck, because these men had no souls and couldn't speak. For the god's next attempts to make men, they used yellow and white corn, which proved to be much better ingredients for making men.

It's WRITTEN dammit, so it must be true. Don't assume it's a man-made story. I mean, how could this have been written by men if men hadn't been created yet?

It's written, so it must be evaluated. That account fails on two parts: a multiplicity of deities, and their incompetence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you serious? The criteria for "bothering" with a god is if he claims to be a creator? That's it? What kind of rationalization is that?

It's not a rationalization at all, it's an application of a logical criterion: any 'god' who isn't the creator is just another part of the universe, perhaps worthy of investigation, but hardly of reverence. -- respect maybe, if this deity is present and active and doing things to help people.

In the Hindu religion, for example, there are many creation stories.

And that's one good reason to toss out Hinduism as worth consideration.

Here's one... (And by your logic, we'd better start "bothering with" Vishnu, because these holy texts claim he's the source of creation.)

Don't misrepresent what I said. The texts only make him worth checking out. Since Hindu texts can't even agree on who was the creator -- Brahma, Vishnu, whomever -- they flunk out.