Automating the fight against creationism

[Midnight Pete]

No, it wouldn't.

Seems like you're just contradicting me for the sake of it now.

 

[freethinker44]

How do you know there isn't a anti-atheist bot already in use?

I would think that creating such a program would cause the end of this technological age as it would feed back on itself with infinitely increasing circular logic which would eventually consume every database and crash every system on earth.

Then once again, religion will throw society into the dark ages.

This is just a worst case scenario though, it might just fry the creators processor and hard drive first, but why take the risk.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Silly atheist, we theists don't believe in gravity!

Are you an "intelligent Fallist" or do you believe that his world just sucks?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Is there one atheist on the planet who hasn't read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin? IMO you would be remiss in your atheism if you didn't read Darwin.

I haven't.

And evolution has gone waaaaaay past darwin.

Come on Pete, i know you're smarter than this.

-Q

 

[Midnight Pete]

I would think that creating such a program would cause the end of this technological age as it would feed back on itself with infinitely increasing circular logic which would eventually consume every database and crash every system on earth.

Then once again, religion will throw society into the dark ages.

This is just a worst case scenario though, it might just fry the creators processor and hard drive first, but why take the risk.

Ridiculous notion, anyway. A machine preaching the Gospel.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I haven't.

And evolution has gone waaaaaay past darwin.

Come on Pete, i know you're smarter than this.

-Q

Agreed. I'm smarter than this.

But Origin of Species is the foundational text of evolutionary theory is it not?

 

[Father Heathen]

They mean almost the same thing. They might as well be.

No, they might as well not because there is nothing to suggest that they're mutually exclusive. The ONLY thing evolution conflicts with is the literal interpretation of creation myths. One can be a believer and still have an acceptance and understanding of science, because the superstitions of ancient goat herders do not have a monopoly on god.

 

[Father Heathen]

Agreed. I'm smarter than this.

But Origin of Species is the foundational text of evolutionary theory is it not?

Science isn't rigid and stagnant like religion. Science seeks to examine the available evidence and using logical deduction to come to an educated theory. As new evidence comes to light, the picture becomes clearer. Our knowledge and understanding increases and adjusts as we learn and discover more. Religion closes its eyes tightly and screams "God said it, I believe it, that settles it. H'yuk."

edit: or I should say fundamentalism in particular rather than religion in general.

 

[Father Heathen]

Seems kind of lazy.

What's lazy is people who can't be bothered to actually learn anything about what they're trying to debate.

How do you know there isn't a anti-atheist bot already in use?

Because a mindless automaton imitating a mindless automaton would be redundant.

 

[Midnight Pete]

No, they might as well not because there is nothing to suggest that they're mutually exclusive. The ONLY thing evolution conflicts with is the literal interpretation of creation myths. One can be a believer and still have an acceptance and understanding of science, because the superstitions of ancient goat herders do not have a monopoly on god.

I consider myself to be the kind of believer you describe. Neither a Luddite nor a Puritan.

 

[Willamena]

Science isn't rigid and stagnant like religion. Science seeks to examine the available evidence and using logical deduction to come to an educated theory. As new evidence comes to light, the picture becomes clearer. Our knowledge and understanding increases and adjusts as we learn and discover more. Religion closes its eyes tightly and screams "God said it, I believe it, that settles it. H'yuk."

edit: or I should say fundamentalism in particular rather than religion in general.

Actually, theory is derived from induction, not deduction.

 

[outhouse]

Pete you dont get it, even your own pope says not to use the bible literaly. Your own pope says the science behind evolution is good. Like it or not your religion is evolving as everything does because it has to to survive.

If i was a creationist I would send you a PM and tell you to pipe down your giving us a bad name lol you need to understand that there is direct link to the belief in creation and ones education. Its why your getting hammered in every thread.

science doesnt care about your religion, its your religion fighting science

 

[Midnight Pete]

I am not fighting you.

You are fighting me.

 

[fantome profane]

But Origin of Species is the foundational text of evolutionary theory is it not?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean the historical foundation, then yes I think you are right. Although the idea of evolution did exist long before Charles Darwin, the theory as we know it has it “origin” in “Origin”.

But if you mean the scientific foundation, then no. The foundation of a scientific theory is not found in a text, any text. And it is not based upon the personality on one man. That to me is the major difference between science and religion. The foundation for a religion can be a specific text, or the teaching of a specific person. But this does not work in science. The foundation of any scientific theory must be the evidence, the physical, empirical, observable evidence. And that is what is the foundation for the theory of evolution.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Depends on what you mean. If you mean the historical foundation, then yes I think you are right. Although the idea of evolution did exist long before Charles Darwin, the theory as we know it has it “origin” in “Origin”.

But if you mean the scientific foundation, then no. The foundation of a scientific theory is not found in a text, any text. And it is not based upon the personality on one man. That to me is the major difference between science and religion. The foundation for a religion can be a specific text, or the teaching of a specific person. But this does not work in science. The foundation of any scientific theory must be the evidence, the physical, empirical, observable evidence. And that is what is the foundation for the theory of evolution.

Thank you for your well-thought-out answer. Much appreciated!

 

[BruceDLimber]

Evolution is not atheism.

They mean almost the same thing. They might as well be.

Meaning no offense, NONSENSE!!!

I'm a Baha'i (and therefore eminently theistic) and have NO PROBLEM WHATEVER accepting and believing evolution!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[painted wolf]

Midnight Pete is God's "true follower"(tm) and can tell who is and is not a fellow "true follower"(tm)

Clearly, acknowledgment of science rules one out of the club.

wa:do

 

[MW0082]

They mean almost the same thing. They might as well be.

Says who...?

 

[Tristesse]

Agreed. I'm smarter than this.

But Origin of Species is the foundational text of evolutionary theory is it not?

It's not. Darwin didn't come up with evolution, evolution was proposed long before darwin. He just came up with the mechanism that drives evolution, natural selection.

 

[Autodidact]

They mean almost the same thing. They might as well be.

I hope you're not serious. It makes me sad that people are this ignorant--or dishonest, as the case may be.

Pete: do you know what science is? Evolution is science. Science is not atheistic, it's just science.