EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[DarkSun]

OK, I just don't understand what your objection is. I thought it was pretty obvious that some people only believe things because they want them to be true.

Well, I've never met one of these people in my life, even on this site (from what I've been able to gather).

I could be wrong, though.

 

[DarkSun]

Adding God to any equation just makes it philosophical, we broke away from this 400 years ago.

No we didn't. :sarcastic

 

[darkendless]

No we didn't. :sarcastic

Half of all original theories were incorrect because the initial answers they got predated what the bible said so they reworked their theory until it worked by the bibles standards.

 

[DarkSun]

Half of all original theories were incorrect because the initial answers they got predated what the bible said so they reworked their theory until it worked by the bibles standards.

Oh, I didn't realise this ever happened. My bad.

So you're saying that we should reject Fundamentalism, correct?

 

[DarkSun]

Half of all original theories were incorrect because the initial answers they got predated what the bible said so they reworked their theory until it worked by the bibles standards.

Oh, I didn't realise this ever happened. My bad. I think I misunderstood your initial statement.

So you're saying that we should reject Fundamentalism, correct?

 

[darkendless]

Oh, I didn't realise this ever happened. My bad.

So you're saying that we should reject Fundamentalism, correct?

Im saying we should go by what our heart tells us, not what our beliefs do. Many scientists were never considered great because God got in the way, and men 200 years later took credit for it. Many pioneers in Earth Science suffered from this.

Fundamentalism is the enemy of the world, not just science.

 

[DarkSun]

Im saying we should go by what our heart tells us, not what our beliefs do. Many scientists were never considered great because God got in the way, and men 200 years later took credit for it. Many pioneers in Earth Science suffered from this.

Fundamentalism is the enemy of the world, not just science.

Well it looks like we agree.

But I would argue that the vast majority of people already do believe what their heart tells them.

 

[darkendless]

Well it looks like we agree.

But I would argue that the vast majority of people already do believe what their heart tells them.

These days of course. Hundreds of years ago one could argue that it would be dangerous to come to a conclusion that interfered with biblical teachings. The early studies of Pangaea (the earth being one large continent) only specualted about how the earth broke up to form the continents we have now. That is where the theory that it was the great flood that caused it. Sadly this theory hasn't died, even though we know that matter travels over the less dense mantle which, put simply, acts as a roller support to some degree that we see on bridges. It allows translation in one direction only, based on the movement of matter underneath it.

 

[Im an Atheist]

this thread is a continuation from another one (russia will be a muslim country), we are getting off the topic there so tada. who wants to go first?

i hope we all learn something (evolution is not real, what a releife :beach.

How can you say that evolution isn't real?

Do you have any proof that its not real?

And what evidence do you have that God created the earth over evolution and the big bang?

 

[Autodidact]

When people say, well there was NO god who got the ball rolling for evolution. They're doing it for the same reason.

You're saying that I don't believe there is a God because I don't want there to be? I find in general that I'm more likely to be right if I follow evidence and logic, and that there is no relationship between me wanting something to be true and it's actually being true, so no, I don't believe there is a God because there doesn't actually seem to be one, not because I don't want there to be one. Indeed, life might be simpler if there were.

 

[Autodidact]

How can you say that evolution isn't real?

Do you have any proof that its not real?

And what evidence do you have that God created the earth over evolution and the big bang?

You say these as if they are opposites or not consistent. They're not. There is no contradiction between the ToE, Big Bang theory, and the existence of God.

 

[MysticPhD]

Adding God to any equation just makes it philosophical, we broke away from this 400 years ago.

Science broke away justifiedly because of the arrogant authoritarianism of religious zealots. The schism has never healed and is the reason science defaults to the very NOT NEUTRAL . . . "No God" position in their theories. They literally created the concept of an indifferent purposeless "Nature" to avoid having to deal with the religious nuts of the world with their ridiculous and personalized attributes they assigned to our creator (Nature). Rather than acknowledge that it was a debate about the "attributes" and not about the "existence" of God . . . they pushed their non-neutral default AS IF it were the more scientific and neutral view. It is primarily this deception of scientific credibility to the "No God" position that lies at the heart of the current backlash and inappropriate attempts to infiltrate science curricula with Creationism or ID. IF science had retained a truly neutral stance . . . there would have been far less resistance than there is . . . and less fuel for the fundamentalist loonies to make trouble.

 

[MysticPhD]

You're saying that I don't believe there is a God because I don't want there to be? I find in general that I'm more likely to be right if I follow evidence and logic, and that there is no relationship between me wanting something to be true and it's actually being true, so no, I don't believe there is a God because there doesn't actually seem to be one, not because I don't want there to be one. Indeed, life might be simpler if there were.

The choice, whether subconscious or conscious, to adopt the non-neutral position requires a preference = want.

 

[MysticPhD]

You say these as if they are opposites or not consistent. They're not. There is no contradiction between the ToE, Big Bang theory, and the existence of God.

Agreed.

 

[darkendless]

Science broke away justifiedly because of the arrogant authoritarianism of religious zealots. The schism has never healed and is the reason science defaults to the very NOT NEUTRAL . . . "No God" position in their theories. They literally created the concept of an indifferent purposeless "Nature" to avoid having to deal with the religious nuts of the world with their ridiculous and personalized attributes they assigned to our creator (Nature). Rather than acknowledge that it was a debate about the "attributes" and not about the "existence" of God . . . they pushed their non-neutral default AS IF it were the more scientific and neutral view. It is primarily this deception of scientific credibility to the "No God" position that lies at the heart of the current backlash and inappropriate attempts to infiltrate science curricula with Creationism or ID. IF science had retained a truly neutral stance . . . there would have been far less resistance than there is . . . and less fuel for the fundamentalist loonies to make trouble.

I agree, but i dont see how a neutral position is much different to a "no-god" position. In both instances god is not added into the equation. Its the churches job to worry about God, sciences to worry about things we can calculate, measure, and explain

 

[MysticPhD]

I agree, but i dont see how a neutral position is much different to a "no-god" position. In both instances god is not added into the equation. Its the churches job to worry about God, sciences to worry about things we can calculate, measure, and explain

It would be very different . . . it would remove the imprimatur of science from the "No God" position. Currently it is widely believed that science has shown there is no God (rightly or wrongly) . . . hence the push for rejection of science by the fundies even in the face of logic and evidence. This "deception by default" is unconscionable. Science should NEVER endorse ANYTHING without sufficient evidentiary validation. That is what the "No God" default does.

 

[Luminous]

Science broke away justifiedly because of the arrogant authoritarianism of religious zealots. The schism has never healed and is the reason science defaults to the very NOT NEUTRAL . . . "No God" position in their theories. They literally created the concept of an indifferent purposeless "Nature" to avoid having to deal with the religious nuts of the world with their ridiculous and personalized attributes they assigned to our creator (Nature). Rather than acknowledge that it was a debate about the "attributes" and not about the "existence" of God . . . they pushed their non-neutral default AS IF it were the more scientific and neutral view. It is primarily this deception of scientific credibility to the "No God" position that lies at the heart of the current backlash and inappropriate attempts to infiltrate science curricula with Creationism or ID. IF science had retained a truly neutral stance . . . there would have been far less resistance than there is . . . and less fuel for the fundamentalist loonies to make trouble.

The thing is that: science and religion are nonliving parazitic entities (thoughts). like you said, science is better off without religion. but for this reason the high positions in science are held by the non-religous, atheists, or agnostics, etc. science does not have the "no god" position because it has no position at all, only people have position, and most people that respect science cannot fathom to deal in the religious/nonscientific. ithink.

 

[Luminous]

It would be very different . . . it would remove the imprimatur of science from the "No God" position. Currently it is widely believed that science has shown there is no God (rightly or wrongly) . . . hence the push for rejection of science by the fundies even in the face of logic and evidence. This "deception by default" is unconscionable. Science should NEVER endorse ANYTHING without sufficient evidentiary validation. That is what the "No God" default does.

i dont think its much of shown there is no God, as much as acknowledging the equal/greater weight of more natural more likely paths of creation. Science classrooms do not teach that "there is no god and this is why"(though some inaproprietly might), though the data and conjecture may go against some religious views. science just kinda says: "and forgetting about religion: this is how its mostly seen to go, and that shows that that is how it mostlikely went, and this math shows that this is how it mostlikely is". the "mostlikely" is implyed by the fact that we are all agnostic.

 

[MysticPhD]

The thing is that: science and religion are nonliving parazitic entities (thoughts). like you said, science is better off without religion. but for this reason the high positions in science are held by the non-religous, atheists, or agnostics, etc. science does not have the "no god" position because it has no position at all, only people have position, and most people that respect science cannot fathom to deal in the religious/nonscientific. ithink.

There would be far less controversy if what you allege about science were actually true. Unfortunately, the whole creation of "Nature" (as an alternative "god") to avoid all the religious crap is taking a position by default. That is simply not scientific and should not be tolerated. Science has no idea whatsoever what Nature truly is or why . . . any more than we ever knew about God. Every sentence that uses the words Nature or natural could be said with the same scientific precision using God or designed . . . without ANY change in validity.

 

[MysticPhD]

i dont think its much of shown there is no God, as much as acknowledging the equal/greater weight of more natural more likely paths of creation. Science classrooms do not teach that "there is no god and this is why"(though some inaproprietly might), though the data and conjecture may go against some religious views. science just kinda says: "and forgetting about religion: this is how its mostly seen to go, and that shows that that is how it mostlikely went, and this math shows that this is how it mostlikely is". the "mostlikely" is implyed by the fact that we are all agnostic.

The "most likely" is unsupportable scientifically . . . just preferential (as you say by atheists/agnostics). Mathematics is an entirely artificial language we created in our minds to investigate various aspects of our reality. It has been an enormously useful predictive tool . . . but it in no way reflects what actually takes place in reality. The concept of randomness and probability refer to our ignorance of what is taking place in reality . . . but provides a way to predict what might happen using our mathematical tool. This gives a false impression of scientific validation of our ignorance through the use of mathematical jargon. IT is still ignorance and no basis for determining "most likely" about the existence of the "source" . . . only about the outcome of some inscrutable process.