To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[JBeukema]

Theists and atheists are equally as deluded as each other. Neither can prove their position. Hence, the only logical, intelligent path is agnosticism in which nothing either way has yet to be proven but I am open to proof of either position at any time if some should become available.

I believe there is no god.

You make a gnostic claim.

What definition of 'god' are you using and why do you believe this? Do you have any evidence?

I belive many things on the basis of evidence.

Your evidence for this belief?

 

[PoliticalChic]

For example, the topic of evolution, regularly discussed on the board, is largely based on faith as well...

I just dont see that. Evolution relies on tons of physical fossil evidence, many different types of dating evidence and geological evidence that posits geology in terms of billions of years of age rather than the naive religious date of 6,000 years. there is no 'faith' involved here and faith as a concept is unknown in the scientific realm.

Did you see post #52?

 

[JBeukema]

Agnostics think it is unknowable.

That's not accurate.

Strong agnostics believe something is unknowable

weak agnosticism simply means it is unknown

Obviously, getting this technical gives us:

weak agnostic theism (don't know, believe it exists)

strong agnostic theism (can't know, do believe does exist)

gnostic theism

gnostic atheism

and, of course, both stong and weak agnostic atheism

 

[JBeukema]

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.

Yes! Please do.

Certainly.

1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:

a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.

b. Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only , there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.


d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)

The point? Much of the theory is unproven.

There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'


Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Debunked- and you told someone to go back to read that lame attempt?

 

[JBeukema]

Ever heard of nylonase, PC?

 

[JBeukema]

pseudogenes

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojw77qSE5R4[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjthKYwR3a0&feature=related[/ame]

OH NOES! SCIENCE!


RUN, PC, RUN!

moron

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvTmgCk1Lo[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

Stupid thread is stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes! Please do.

Certainly.

1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:

a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.

b. Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only , there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.


d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)

The point? Much of the theory is unproven.

There is no such distinction as 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'


Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Debunked- and you told someone to go back to read that lame attempt?

Your ignorance is showing....again.

Item #1 above is from Nature magazine... “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.”

In case you are unfamiliar with it...

"Nature is one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, first published on 4 November 1869. It is the world's most cited interdisciplinary science journal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)

Now I understand why neg rep is your favored avenue of debate.

 

[JBeukema]

Item #1 above is from Nature magazine... “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.”

Do you even understand what that means?


It's highlighting the complexity of life and evolution and the problems inherit in the concept of 'species'.

 

[JBeukema]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Do you ever feel the need to inquire as to the source of the universe...

Lambda-Colt or M-theory?

 

[JBeukema]

Pretty empty rebuttal to

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

This made zero sense to me, Political Chic. Care to expand the thought in your own words?

Sure.

While science can explain some things, it cannot explain others. Folks like the scientist in the quote above admit that, essentially, that makes science a kind of religion, and largely requires that essential feature of religion, faith.

Folks like you who puff themselves up and chaff at such an idea are less informed than they think they are.

If the shoe fits...

science couldn't explain fire! ALL HAIL GOD!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Item #1 above is from Nature magazine... “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.”

Do you even understand what that means?


It's highlighting the complexity of life and evolution and the problems inherit in the concept of 'species'.

Glad to see that between post #164 and #172 you've changed your mind...what did you do with the diaper?

 

[logical4u]

The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?

Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

"Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?"

now...who else, today, believes that THEY know what is BEST for folks?

rush limbaugh
bill oreilly
ann coulter
glenn beck
sarah palin
millions of conservatives....


and...you!

you can deny it now (in your best interest) but I've read enough of your posts to KNOW that your basic premise in your war against all things liberal is that YOU KNOW you are RIGHT, you KNOW what is BEST for America and all of its' citizens

I can only conclude that you have a totalist philosophy, by your definition

It is possible that PC is simply waiting for a liberal to offer proof (scientific or not) that any of the ideas that are being implemented as "best for the people", actually improved life or quality of life.
Liberal programs that were "best for the people"
national standards for education
medicaid
welfare
social security
war on poverty
nationalized health care

Have any of these, worked? Did they eliminate the problems as promised, or simply increase the amounts of people willing to hand their lives into politicians' control?

This country is the "best" evidence that people allowed liberty (with "moral" constraints) will improve their lives and thru their examples, their childrens' lives. Those people, that built this wonderful country (not saying there are no mistakes or problems), were and are mostly of Christian denominations.

While most Christians will do nothing (physically or legally) to stop atheists from believing, atheists and some people of other faiths will go to great legal lengths, and even resort to physical violence to stop Christians from free speech, practicing their faith, or even believing.

Our Bill of Rights (in the Constitution) lists those rights as "given" by our "Creator". If men, changed that "Creator" to "government", can't the government take away what it gives?

 

[JBeukema]

Item #1 above is from Nature magazine... “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.”

Do you even understand what that means?


It's highlighting the complexity of life and evolution and the problems inherit in the concept of 'species'.

Glad to see that between post #164 and #172 you've changed your mind...what did you do with the diaper?

 

[JBeukema]

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice essentially the same morals are held by virtually all groups of humans, including non-christians, PC?

There is a case to be made for a sort of duality between the physical brain and the sentient mind which emerges from the various physical processes taking place within it.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice not only morals are held be non-christians as well, PC?

Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you even understand what that means?


It's highlighting the complexity of life and evolution and the problems inherit in the concept of 'species'.

Glad to see that between post #164 and #172 you've changed your mind...what did you do with the diaper?

That the best you can do, you little twerp...

had to complely reverse yourself, huh?

I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.