Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Audie]

Interesting reaction, unrelated to what I wrote.
I wonder what your real agenda is?
Antagonize people to create maximum controversy?

Something like this:
1 - Pose as someone of the other side
2 - pretend to be insulted
3 - insult people to invite them to join in
4 - go back to the own camp and say: See what they are like?

Speaking of unrelated!

My entire "agenda" there was to say what I said in the first place,
that "creationism" is not a theory.

you certainly have a wild imagination.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Unfortunate ball and chain belief based on ancient mythology.

Maybe, but it's still the fundamental doctrine for the majority of conservative Christians, especially in the central United States.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sure get away with making a lot of mean comments about people here. I wish I could get away with saying people posting here are "cowardly" and "incompetent".

That was not about people here. That was about takes and frauds that call themselves "creation scientists" . When someone claims to be a scientist, but then swears not to use the scientific method that person is a fraud.

So in cosmology and theories about the Universe which cannot be put into "testable form" are bad science? I think what this really comes down to is subjective judgments on your part, that is opinions, on what is "good" science and what is "bad" science. You just think your opinions are better than certain other people.

By definition those ideas are not theories. Perhaps you should learn a bit more before attacking others.

Intelligent design may be bad science but it's a pretty creative idea. I tend not to think it's true because the design of my own body has so many flaws and imperfections that give me so much pain it's hard for me to accept my body's design was done on purpose.

It may be a "creative idea", but it is not science. It appears that your rant was based upon your ignorance of the subject.

 

[ecco]

Once you start attacking widely held religious views you actually provide them with a cover to create conflict from.

Or do the left volunteer to play the role of the enemy of God, the enemy fundamentalists so bitterly seek and need?

"Create false dichotomies in order to stir the pot: like insist Real Christians do not, should not believe in evolution"

I do not see why one should react to that.
If that is what they believe fine with me.
And one should never stop opponents making a fool of themselves

This obsession about what other people believe is shared by left and right

You stated that the left attacked religious views. I responded by showing that it is the Religious Right that stirs the pot by creating false dichotomies.

You think creating false dichotomies is fine?

I don't obsess about what other people believe except when what they believe in is lying.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, time is completely arbitrary. Man chooses when time starts and stops. Time is not a property of nature. Time doesn't exist anywhere in nature. It's purely an invention of man's imagination like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Time is a measurement. Clocks wouldn't work otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dont see that cowardly applies, but incompetent? Maybe.
I would not use the word, I'd go with "dishonest".

Show me a a creationist who is well informed and intellectually
honest and I will show you someone in line for the Nobel,
as possibly the greatest scientist of all time.

Actual scientists out their ideas to the test when they believe them. They formulate a testable hypothesis. And after they have personally tested their idea they publish in a well respected professional journal so that others can test their ideas.

When was the last time you saw a creationist with the courage of to do that? Claiming that one is a scientist and yet being afraid to publish is a sign of cowardice, among other flaws, in my book.

 

[Audie]

You stated that the left attacked religious views. I responded by showing that it is the Religious Right that stirs the pot by creating false dichotomies.

You think creating false dichotomies is fine?

I don't obsess about what other people believe except when what they believe in is lying.

A debate forum is about debate. If someone does not like that
and finds it is obsessing, they should (please) go away.

IF the creos would keep their idiocy to themselves, and, neither
try to attach it to the public school system OR infect their own
children with it, then I'd have little to say.

 

[Brickjectivity]

All science, mathematics and logic does ultimately rest on unprovable axioms. They're very, very far down, though, and appear to be true as far as we can test them.

I read in the book Bozosapiens an interesting observation. Philosophy rests upon axioms and not on experience. You can do a lot with it, but it is limited. It uses language to make logical constructs. Science is something different and uses experiences and test for failure of ideas. Philosophy does not. Therefore Philosophy relies upon axioms, but Science only borrows them while making guesses. It then either verifies those or tosses them. Practicality, consistency and hard work substitute in Science where Philosophy throws itself upon the mercy of axioms.

 

[Audie]

Actual scientists out their ideas to the test when they believe them. They formulate a testable hypothesis. And after they have personally tested their idea they publish in a well respected professional journal so that others can test their ideas.

When was the last time you saw a creationist with the courage of to do that? Claiming that one is a scientist and yet being afraid to publish is a sign of cowardice, among other flaws, in my book.

They know they cannot get nonsense published, so, they make up a story about how it is the WWCOSSTSSTTOB that will not let them publish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person, intelligent or not, may be ignorant of what a scientific theory is. Perhaps, regarding things scientific, they are just uneducated.

However, many people would be just as upset being labelled ignorant as they would be being labelled uneducated or unintelligent.

That being said, most people who still insist that "ToE is only a theory", are neither unintelligent, uneducated nor ignorant. Therefore, there must be another option. Perhaps, they are just liars defending the faith.

Possibly. My rating of "intelligent" was based upon the poster's history. Until this one issue began over an error that the poster made her posts were well thought out.

And yes, in regards to not understanding the word theory ignorance of the term was rather obvious.

 

[Audie]

I read in the book Bozosapiens an interesting observation. Philosophy rests upon axioms and not on experience. You can do a lot with it, but it is limited. It uses language to make logical constructs. Science is something different and uses experiences and test for failure of ideas. Philosophy does not. Therefore Philosophy relies upon axioms, but Science only borrows them while making guesses. It then either verifies those or tosses them. Practicality, consistency and hard work substitute in Science where Philosophy throws itself upon the mercy of axioms.

I doubt you read all of that in any book, Bozo-book or otherwise

 

[Subduction Zone]

They know they cannot get nonsense published, so, they make up a story about how it is the WWCOSSTSSTTOB that will not let them publish.

Yet they should know that a paper unjustly rejected would do wonders for their cause. And we are right back to a mixture of incompetence, not being able to write a publishable paper, and cowardice, fear that if published they would be shown to be wrong.

 

[Cassandra]

You stated that the left attacked religious views. I responded by showing that it is the Religious Right that stirs the pot by creating false dichotomies.

You think creating false dichotomies is fine?

Fine with me. It is their war not mine

If they say: "Real Christians do not, should not believe in evolution". that is only an in-group fight between Christians themselves. That may cause a split among them and other Christians that is actually very healthy for both. If non-Christians start to fight Christians over evolution, that easily leads to a split between Christians and non-Christians, because then it becomes an in-group vs out-group fight.

I don't obsess about what other people believe except when what they believe in is lying.

That is recipe for endless conflict
For there is no judge here whose verdict both accept

 

[dfnj]

Time is a measurement. Clocks wouldn't work otherwise.

If no one reads the clock, the clock doesn't exist. Time only exists in your mind.

 

[Audie]

Yet they should know that a paper unjustly rejected would do wonders for their cause. And we are right back to a mixture of incompetence, not being able to write a publishable paper, and cowardice, fear that if published they would be shown to be wrong.

Seeing how much was made of "no intelligence allowed", I guess
they would find some use for a good paper turned down for ideological reasons.

Not that it will happen, as a good creopaper would perforce
herald in a vast revolution in all of the hard sciences.

 

[Audie]

If no one reads the clock, the clock doesn't exist. Time only exists in your mind.

obi-wan? you feeling ok today?

 

[dfnj]

obi-wan? you feeling ok today?

I've had better days.

 

[Audie]

I've had better days.

A touch of hyperassertosis perhaps.

I suggest some herbal tea.

 

[Cassandra]

If no one reads the clock, the clock doesn't exist. Time only exists in your mind.

The concept of time only exists in your mind.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

R Really! I stated fact life interconnected. Did I or did I Not.,? I throw a rock into the air and it falls to the ground another Fact,? Do I need an explanation narrative for the rock to Fall? NO. Do I need a narrative to Know that life is interconnected No.
You are absolutely not even remotely Feynman. Because feynman readily admitted that scientific theories are not proof and they are always proven over time to be wrong. They are our narrative at the time in which we exist. And all of this is determined not by us but by nature. You are playing make believe you are objective and nature is subjective that is mid level lab drone science. Horrid inexcusable philosophy dressed as science in Fact.

So since we are on Darwin there is a fundemental problem with this first drawing that was never corrected In Any Darwinian narrative. What exactly is the big problem? It should be easy to spot.

I am guessing that you get easily distracted by shiny objects.