[Morgoth]

Darkwatch;298768 said:

Doughboy

Sigh, that was almost as fun as when the original Bottle was still here. Or that guy who went haywire in the Israel thread, to Astra's great satisfaction

[Dolorous Menhir]

I miss doughboy. He/she was really easy to argue with.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Sindriss;298245 said:

0.01 at max would believe in ID, yet many americans seem to think it is true?

You've got to remember our roots, this country was started by people who actually got kicked out of Europe for being too religious. There's plenty of Americans who don't believe this, it depends on what part pf the country you go to. It's a big place, so it's inevitable that you can find someone who believes about anything.

[Morgoth]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;299348 said:

You've got to remember our roots, this country was started by people who actually got kicked out of Europe for being too religious. There's plenty of Americans who don't believe this, it depends on what part pf the country you go to. It's a big place, so it's inevitable that you can find someone who believes about anything.

Scientology the perfect example

[JoJo]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;299348 said:

You've got to remember our roots, this country was started by people who actually got kicked out of Europe for being too religious.

People like the Puritans weren't too religious, instead, they were religious in different ways from the majority.

Maryland was originally settled by Catholics at a time when it was only semi-legal to be a Catholic in England.

[Kurt Montandon]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;299348 said:

You've got to remember our roots, this country was started by people who actually got kicked out of Europe for being too religious.

Not really. Just by people who had a different brand of religion from their country's rulers. And, really, for the most part, this country was founded by people who were just really greedy, and looking to make a fortune in a new land. There were very, very few colonies founded in the U.S. that weren't financially motivated - and even those few were reliant upon the others to survive.

And most of the Founding Fathers (to use a very loose term) were more Deist than anything - George Washington, for example, rarely made mention of "God," preferring to refer to "Providence" or similar terms. Ben Franklin was a wishy-washy atheist most of his life, slid into more of an agnosticism, and eventually a vague Deism in his last years, when the notion of life-after-death no doubt held more appeal (not to mention absolution and forgiveness for his somewhat hedonistic lifestyle).

[Aimless]

Perhaps we would do well to distinguish between regular folks who are misinformed and lack experience with thinking critically and scientifically about things... and people who are, in addition to that, also real assholes.

Granted a person's niceness has no bearing on right or wrong, on facts and laws... but I strongly feel it should have some bearing on how agressively we respond to that person, what kind of language we use. But perhaps that depends on whether one wishes to be a scientist and a facilitator of learning, or just a science-activist. I dunno.

In the case of posters like Tsaritsa, I'd prefer to just repeatedly link to talkorigins and insist she go inform herself, in her own time. Let her talk about opinions in science if she wishes. I'd count it a worthy victory if she could be convinced to form a more informed opinion, at least. And then, perhaps, she would be more open to a discussion about philosophy and ideology.

Just my opinion

-- P

[Adjutant Stormy~]

That's nice and all, but browbeating people is so fun!!

Wailing on people not for their beliefs, but for being incompetent is one of my favorite pastimes!

[Cold Iron]

Evolution in action:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/15/f...ution-lake.html

[anakronisM]

If you look at Creation vs Evolution debate, both of them are theories that requires "faith". I don't believe we can prove either of them consequently. Creationist claim that Evolution has holes in its theory, and Evolutionist claim Creation has holes in its theory. Bla bla bla. Believe what u want, but i don't think u can prove your stance all the way. U can twist and turn science any way u want but it leads to some belief or faith even if you like it or not. That is something i hope people could agree on.

[Terez]

Creation has no holes in it. There has to be something substantial for it to have holes in it, and well...there isn't. No evidence whatsoever.

Evolution, on the other hand, has tons and tons of evidence that shows how it works. There are some holes in our understanding of it, but that's why we study it...so we can learn what we don't already know about it. But we know evolution happens. That much is quite proven - it's been observed in the lab, it's been observed in the world at large.

So yes, you're correct that all of the evidence for evolution leads us to believe that it works by natural selection. But this is hardly comparable to the belief that some sky god created the universe based on a self-contradicting story that's thousands of years old.

[anakronisM]

Still my claim is that if I would take evidence of evolution ( presuming u mean micro-evolution which is proven science no question about it ) it would go both ways according to Stephen Jay Gould for example, he said:

"Either half of my collegues are vastly stupid or it is fully possible to unite darwinism witn conventional religious beliefs - and just as possible to unite it with atheism."

Many scientists take both as intellectual possibilities for science and Nature.
I suggest you discuss that with them if u think Creation has no substance.

Also it's not very clear what u mean by "evidence of evolution" , I would be grateful if u specified that. Thank you

[stone monkey]

God did it really isn't any kind of good explanation for anything unless you're inclined to believe in a supernatural deity in the first place. In which case, it's the only explanation you'll ever need for anything and you might as well give up wanting to know about anything. Creationism has precisely zero substance because it's only based on faith. The question doesn't matter if "God did it" is the answer.

Evolution is an argument. It makes claims and backs these claims up with evidence and experimental results. There are always questions to be asked and answers to be sought. In short, it's science.

As for the macro/micro dichotomy, which a lot of creationist apologists seem to be unreasonably attached to, there isn't one. Lots of microevolution = macroevolution; it's fairly simple. The earth is over four and a half billion years old, there's been time for it - unless that is you're irrationally attached to Young Earth Creationism.

That Gould quote always makes me laugh; the inference I'd draw is that half his colleagues actually are being vastly stupid but only on this issue; but seeing as their brains have obviously been hijacked by a meme that makes them believe in non-existant things, you can hardly blame them.

Also if the existence of the deity makes no difference to the Theory of Evolution then, by Occam's Razor, if you accept the argument it's a postulate that can be safely discarded.

[eekwibble]

That quote has baffled me no end!

If half his colleagues believe this possible then what of the other half?
Do they think it's a load of old balls?
Are they the ones who are stupid?
If there is a 50/50 divide on the matter and it's not possible to prove whether Darwinism can be linked to either fundament doesn't it mean that the theory is unscientific and should therefore be discounted?

@SM - It's just taken me over half an hour to figure out what your last paragraph meant. Well done sir!
Still a little puzzled by the 'it' in 'it's a postulate'. What is? The existence or the deity?

Just for clarity; If I'm completely wrong and there is a God, He/She/It is a complete bastard and I'd rather go to hell than worship 'Them'!

@Doxa - I blame you for the 15 minutes of my life I spent/wasted watching that garbage on the first post.
Just kidding!

[anakronisM]

stone monkey;351642 said:

God did it really isn't any kind of good explanation for anything unless you're inclined to believe in a supernatural deity in the first place. In which case, it's the only explanation you'll ever need for anything and you might as well give up wanting to know about anything. Creationism has precisely zero substance because it's only based on faith. The question doesn't matter if "God did it" is the answer.

So you are saying that Evolution has more evidence and less faith involved?
And why would a person who believes in a deity stop wanting to know things? Cuz we somehow don't feel we need to know anything more than god exists or god did it?
I don't understand that thought, seems to me you reason that as sign of unintelligence?
I'm a seeker of truth and want to know all science can give me to understand this world better, don't go around this simply by calling everybody in lack of intelligence pah!

stone monkey;351642 said:

Evolution is an argument. It makes claims and backs these claims up with evidence and experimental results. There are always questions to be asked and answers to be sought. In short, it's science.

As for the macro/micro dichotomy, which a lot of creationist apologists seem to be unreasonably attached to, there isn't one. Lots of microevolution = macroevolution; it's fairly simple. The earth is over four and a half billion years old, there's been time for it - unless that is you're irrationally attached to Young Earth Creationism.

So anything is possible if we just wait a couple of billion years? I don't buy that magic though. That is faith to me.

stone monkey;351642 said:

That Gould quote always makes me laugh; the inference I'd draw is that half his colleagues actually are being vastly stupid but only on this issue; but seeing as their brains have obviously been hijacked by a meme that makes them believe in non-existant things, you can hardly blame them.

Also if the existence of the deity makes no difference to the Theory of Evolution then, by Occam's Razor, if you accept the argument it's a postulate that can be safely discarded.

Gould means the proven experiments of nature etc can go both ways, and half of his collegues agree. Doesn't that give a small hint to atlest consider again what is proven and does everything lead to evolution? Or is it simply not thinkable that it could come from a deity?
You're ready to call them all stupid on this one issue, you can twist and turn everything indeed. I wish the discussion could be more objective but you and me are always gonna see it from two perspectives, thus twisting all to the favor to our perception of reality. But i'm open for anything, hey i love science and space and all that, i'm just greatly influenced by creationist and christian thinking. But I for one try to stay objective and try to maintain science as best I can, I hate to be someone who casts "black shadows" over science, but i can't see that evolution is proven to the extent that science can't be anything but evolution. Many parts of evolution IS proven, and Creationism accepts many scientific facts in my opinion. Its like this whole debate is futile and there's something outside hidden that really matters. Gah :confused:

[Dolorous Menhir]

The fact that you've chosen Stephen Jay Gould as the source of your quotes tells me that you're well-informed about this topic - well enough informed to choose the scientist who made the most controversial and easily abused quotes about this topic. Gould was a very well respected evolutionary biologist, but he had some very unusual views (at least as far as the scientific community is concerned) about the intersection between science and religion.

This tactic you've chosen - to hold up a few of his words as "the viewpoint of science" and using them against pro-evolutionists is an unfair one. He's not representative.

I also find your willingness to write off both science and religion as nothing but differing versions of faith tired and boring. That's a very lazy point of view, and it's not a defensible one as far as I am concerned. It is also often adopted by those who prefer faith and want to deny the legitimacy of reason to their intellectual opponents.

[Obdigore]

doxa;351579 said:

If you look at Creation vs Evolution debate, both of them are theories that requires "faith". I don't believe we can prove either of them consequently. Creationist claim that Evolution has holes in its theory, and Evolutionist claim Creation has holes in its theory. Bla bla bla. Believe what u want, but i don't think u can prove your stance all the way. U can twist and turn science any way u want but it leads to some belief or faith even if you like it or not. That is something i hope people could agree on.

Doxa, it sounds as if you are arguing that Evolution is a different system of 'beginning' than Creation/Intelligent Design.

Evolution is a proven fact, it happens. If you want I can go dig up links to studys of evolution happening.

What you are arguing that has holes, is what happened before the evolution. Big Bang/Big Suck/Intelligent Design/Flying Spagetti Monster...

As noted previously in this thread, a 'good' scientist, using the scientific theory, does not take things on 'faith' or 'belief'. (S)He might Hypothisize towards an end, but will never base arguments on assumptions.

[stone monkey]

doxa;351810 said:

So anything is possible if we just wait a couple of billion years? I don't buy that magic though. That is faith to me.

Well, let's try an analogy; if, once a year, you add a single piece of paper that's 1/10 mm in thickness to a stack; after a billion years that stack will be 100 kilometres high. Small things add up. That's not faith, it's arithmetic.

@eekwibble - Sorry about that, bad grammar. The existence of the deity is the postulate that can be discarded; the argument is the Theory of Evolution.

[anakronisM]

Dolorous Menhir;351811 said:

The fact that you've chosen Stephen Jay Gould as the source of your quotes tells me that you're well-informed about this topic - well enough informed to choose the scientist who made the most controversial and easily abused quotes about this topic. Gould was a very well respected evolutionary biologist, but he had some very unusual views (at least as far as the scientific community is concerned) about the intersection between science and religion.

This tactic you've chosen - to hold up a few of his words as "the viewpoint of science" and using them against pro-evolutionists is an unfair one. He's not representative.

I also find your willingness to write off both science and religion as nothing but differing versions of faith tired and boring. That's a very lazy point of view, and it's not a defensible one as far as I am concerned. It is also often adopted by those who prefer faith and want to deny the legitimacy of reason to their intellectual opponents.

I don't want to abuse his quotes to have some "tactic" against pro-evolutionists. Even though my intentions are much more open-mindedly, I realise it becomes a tactic and a thing one must deal with if you are pro-evolutionist. I merely just want to point out that scientists claim science and religion as a possible relation. If Stephen Jay Gould was completely wrong about his collegues or about the scientific community or isn't a representative then I stand corrected.

I'm trying to somehow keep a different point of view, from the outside looking in. I'm trying to find an impartial view of this debate, but maybe i can't find it.

If that makes me look like i'm denying the legitimacy of reason i've truly failed.

Obdigore;351817 said:

Doxa, it sounds as if you are arguing that Evolution is a different system of 'beginning' than Creation/Intelligent Design.

Evolution is a proven fact, it happens. If you want I can go dig up links to studys of evolution happening.

What you are arguing that has holes, is what happened before the evolution. Big Bang/Big Suck/Intelligent Design/Flying Spagetti Monster...

As noted previously in this thread, a 'good' scientist, using the scientific theory, does not take things on 'faith' or 'belief'. (S)He might Hypothisize towards an end, but will never base arguments on assumptions.

Yes there's proof of evolution happening as the adaptation to the environment and stuff but there's many forms of evolution and what you are referring to before evolution is what I call "cosmic evolution" or "cosmic chronology". Maybe i'm the one with the wrong definitions but Define what u mean with evolution first and this would be less confusing

[Dolorous Menhir]

doxa;351835 said:

I don't want to abuse his quotes to have some "tactic" against pro-evolutionists. Even though my intentions are much more open-mindedly, I realise it becomes a tactic and a thing one must deal with if you are pro-evolutionist. I merely just want to point out that scientists claim science and religion as a possible relation. If Stephen Jay Gould was completely wrong about his collegues or about the scientific community or isn't a representative then I stand corrected.

I'm trying to somehow keep a different point of view, from the outside looking in. I'm trying to find an impartial view of this debate, but maybe i can't find it.

If that makes me look like i'm denying the legitimacy of reason i've truly failed.

Fair enough. The only thing I would say was wrong about the above quote is the part where you say "scientists" rather than "scientist". Gould's views are hotly disputed, and that's why I argue against his use as a representative of the community.