He said that he didn’t ask for someone to post a comment telling him that he’s wrong implying that nobody should correct him, but did anybody see him ask for people to agree with him? Answer: NO!
Isn’t it adorable when men try to add inches to their e-penis by forcing their old-fashioned, sexist opinions upon everybody on the internet, regardless of whether the conversation is appropriate or not.
Too bad it ends up diminishing anything attractive or intelligent about the person posting such garbage. He tried to be funny, and failed so badly. Being hated by everyone he opens his mouth to is the only thing he understands.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of s**t she sees without fact checking anything. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total s**t (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her retarded status updates, but she’s about one dumb comment away from being deleted outright.
I had a male friend promoting that 813 years-thingie… And he’s usually a smart ass, so I guess that can happen to anyone. But atleast he lets himself be corrected. This girl’s reaction just made her go way down…
If you’ve already hidden all her status updates, how will you know the next time she says something stupid? Do you block her from your feed but stalk her page for the sweet sweet drama?
I think she’s better off without a friend like you.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
I’m unclear why. Are you on some sort of mission to convert dumb theists to atheism? Because while such people may be easily swayed, I’m uncertain if you’ll find them to be suitable playmates…
Exactly. Christians are in general arrogant and look down on others for “not having hope in life” or “not being enlightened”. I’m not saying I, as an atheist, is any better than any of you, I’m just saying that I’m not letting myself get fooled by ancient fairy tales.
Adding this, it’s not wrong to believe in something, but you can’t prior this belief over reality, as you have no proof, other than the Bible, which in fact was written by humans.
THANK-YOU. As a fellow atheist, I agree. When it comes to religion, to me it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you dont force your beliefs on people and as long as those beliefs don’t cause harm.
Seriously though. Are you saying that we can’t live our lives based on a belief in something unless it’s “real”, as in, right in front of your eyes? What about those who believed the earth to be round instead of flat, they had no proof until they proved it themselves, right? Some dedicated their lives to their theory without seeing that it actually was true. Is that so wrong? Isn’t it the same for many scientists? That’s why we have so many theory’s named after someone, and then someone else based their theories on the previous ones named, and so on until we arrive at something spectacular.
[I think I'm going to be flamed for making such a big deal out of light humor] Oh well!
I don’t quite think you understand the scientific method, anonymous person. Also, it’s apparent that you are not knowledgeable about the history of how the earth came to be known as being round.
Regardless, my purpose was to question believing something without “proof”. What is so wrong or foolish about it? Can’t you believe that one day you will become a successful business owner, prior to your business becoming one? Can’t a kid dedicate his life to basketball iin hopes of becoming a star because he believes he can? And what if he ends up not making it? All his effort is lost, but then what? He can find new hope and go on believing something else.
The point is you won’t find out if it’s true until you act upon finding out. The Christians believe in something, and unfortunately they will never be sure until they’ve died but what’s stopping them? What would they have lost? What’s illogical about it?
well, one difference is that the kid who believes he will grow up to be a basketball star is actually “hoping” to become one. he really *wants* to become amazing at the sport, but presumably he doesn’t tell people that he already *is* a star professional athlete.
similarly, i think it’s totally fine if people *hope* there is a god, so long as they don’t claim that there absolutely is one. frankly, i believe we are just completely unconscious after death, and heaven sounds a lot more appealing than that. so, i guess i hope that there’s a god.
however, so far i haven’t seen any evidence of god’s existence. to go back to your metaphor, i’ve never played basketball before in my life, and i don’t really plan to start. so, clearly there’s no “evidence” that i’ll ever become a basketball star. i could hope and believe that i’ll become an amazing basketball player without ever playing, but it would be pretty stupid of me. this is how i see believing in god without any evidence– it would be nice if he existed, but it’s completely foolish to really believe in it. in contrast, the kid in your example probably shows evidence he’ll become a professional basketball player– he’s probably already really good at basketball.
“but it’s completely foolish to really believe in it.”
-It’s foolish to believe in God, but believing is hoping as you stated before:
“…the kid who believes he will grow up to be a basketball star is actually “hoping”…”
And yet you hope there’s a God:
“i guess i hope that there’s a god.”
Did you just call yourself foolish?
“it would be nice if he existed”
-I would defend the idea, yup…
Good points, amary! But as ICWUDT pointed out, it contradicts a bit.
Most kids don’t just start out good at basketball right of the bat, the point is, if you believe it then you’ll find the evidence to make it so (he works at his sport to develope that skill). Of course, I can see here where you could argue that we then create “evidence”, even though it [the evidence] is not necessarily true. This is where my metaphor doesn’t work; however, in the God scenario, Christians believe there IS evidence of his exsistence whereas atheists say there isn’t, but how do you know that it isn’t? What if it IS and you refuse to accept it? The Christians are entitled to their belief in God and there’s nothing wrong with it. You and I may accuse them of being foolish just as much as they say we are foolish for not believing. After all who is the final judge?
I do have another general question… Why is being told there “IS a God” so offensive? Someone once told me they didn’t like being told that they needed to “be saved” (and accept God), otherwise they would go to hell, but if you believe there isn’t a hell, why be so offended? This has always puzzled me.
Hope and faith are not synonymous. If I lost track of my finances this month and come across something I want to purchase, I can hope I have enough money left to buy it or I can purchase it because I have faith that the money is there. Hope is more along the lines of “I’m not sure if god exists, but that would be awesome.” (Agnostic) Faith is more like “God exists, I’m sure of it.”. (Theist)
It’s the issue of falsifiability. I can check my account to see if I have the money left, but you cannot check anything to see if god exists. “God did it” should never be a good enough reason as to how something exists or happened and “God said so” should never be a good enough reason as to why you or anyone else should believe or do anything.
Um.. No. Santa Claus is based off of a wealthy priest of the 4th century who would go around giving gifts (usually money) in December (I think it was December 4th, but I’m unsure).
Yeah you are correct.. And to add to it, the priest’s name was Nicholas, Saint Nicholas to be correct.. And he was a priest in Turkey, in Ankara I believe.
To be fair (I’m not contesting the Saint Nick fact), I think Virginian meant Christmas, in which case, yes, humanity has celebrated winter solstice since before the rise of Christianity. However, not all solstice festivals are the same thing. So no, you can’t even say Christmas was a pagan tradition. You’d have to say what they’re celebrating.
They didn’t mean it was “flat” at all. Sure, they said circle, that’s only because they didn’t have a word for sphere in hebrew, so they settled for the next best thing.
They didn’t have the word “sphere” in hebrew. I’m well aware that it says circle and the common rebuttal that “oh! Circles aren’t spheres therefore they thought it was flat!” but the fact of the matter is they lacked the word sphere so they had to settle for circle.
They also didn’t have an exclusive word for “sphere.” They had Chuwg (circle) and Duwr (ball). It’s inaccurate to attribute either for the shape of the earth (yes, I know you’re going to object and say “ball would be a good description” but you can read Isaiah 29:3 for that), but one must be selected. Just because they went with circle doesn’t mean they thought it was flat.
@ICWUDT…how the f**k would you know why they chose “circle”?! Were you there when they wrote the bible? I don’t think so! Someone just claimed that was why they chose circle…so that people writing the bible wouldn’t be looked at as being stupid. In reality, the people who wrote the bible probably were nothing more than a bunch of stoners or schizophrenics (I probably misspelled that one) claiming to “see and hear God”.
Regardless of what you believe…you were not there when it all happened; therefore, you do not KNOW anything. So stop arguing the reason for them picking “circle” because you do not really KNOW why.
“Were you there when they wrote the bible? I don’t think so!”
-I don’t have to be. This is just common sense. People take too many Bible verses out of context to say they are speaking about a flat earth when that is not the case. One is in Isaiah mentioning a circle. This is not evidence of a flat earth because they lacked a word for “sphere” in Hebrew. The only possible words they could’ve used were “circle” and “ball.” The use of “ball” is used in a different verse and the context it’s in would not make sense to be attributed to earth, therefore the only logical word they could use was circle. This is simple and logical deduction to come to a simple and logical conclusion. Now, I’ll grant you the idea that this isn’t enough to say they *meant* a flat or round earth, but it certainly isn’t evidence of a flat earth altogether. So lets look at something more.
Lets again think logically. If the authors of the vast number of books in the Bible were saying the earth was flat, why can’t they get their facts straight? What I mean is in a couple verses, it references the “corners” of the earth (which again, is inaccurate for evidence of a flat earth, but we’re taking the skeptics advocate here). But it also mentions the “circle” of the earth.
Do circles have corners? No. Its contradictory to say such a thing.
In conclusion, the only logical explanation to their thoughts on the shape of the earth is that it was round because it fits with “circle” and the “corners” (North, East, South, & West) evidence we saw earlier. To say they thought it was flat is contradicting themselves.
“So stop arguing the reason for them picking “circle” because you do not really KNOW why.”
-I respectfully disagree.
No, it didn’t. If you’re thinking of the verse that includes “circle of the earth”, a circle is round and flat. In fact, the word also translated to “coin”.
And considering they didn’t have a word to describe a sphere, they went with circle. Just as in a birds-eye-view of the ocean/land, you would be able to map out a circle which indicates a spherical earth (this is indicated in Prov 8:27). If you look further in Luke (17:31, 34), you’ll notice Jesus speaks about day and night at the same time. This would imply a spherical-shaped earth in order to have these settings at the same time.
You must also take into consideration that certain verses which seem to indicate a flat earth (Psalm 75:3) are not to be taken literal. The Bible is not all literal (especially Revelation), it’s also allegorical, metaphorical, retoric poetry, etc.
never mind what the bible actually said, can any of you find a single credible source that says that people actually thought the earth was flat? its just an urban myth, the popular scientific opinion through out history has never been that the eart was flat.
I think American history textbooks noted that sailors thought they would fall off the Earth if they sailed too far from shore. Otherwise, I think America would have been found long before Columbus, Amerigo, and the other famous European explorers of the time.
Also, you cite the Greeks’ calculations, but then say they were lost, which basically defeats your argument. I just said “sailors,” and I was specifically referring to those during Columbus’s and Amerigo’s time, not every single person in history.
Wow, seriously, Wow. I am amazed at the ability of people who have already made their conclusion on a subject to revision the text to support their argument. None of the passages support your premise that the Bible said the earth was spherical before science. But you should seek employment as a scholar for the christian church since you have the same abilities of the best of them, which is to edit and redefine what was meant by someone that wasn’t there when the events occurred only heard a retold story for centuries, and if some scriptures didn’t fit the dogma at the time, to remove those books. Which is precisely why you shouldn’t use that book as a reference, it’s been too watered down. Just say something like the magic blueberry makes it all happen and we’ll see you for what you are, a crazy person. It’s people like you that jailed Galileo and then 400 years later said sorry and then claimed that what he said was in the bible all along.
If there is something wrong with what I said or faulty, then point it out, but your refusal and denial of it by insulting me saying “No, it’s wrong, you’re stupid and I’m right” does not negate what I said and only shows that you lack the ability to do so.
You are all being hung up on trivialities. So what if the bible says that the Earth is round? Many cultures say so. Does that make it’s outlandish claims any less false? Emphatically no.
When people start blowing each other up and going to war over Santa Claus, then you’ll have a comparison.
Curiosity and an enquiring mind is what allows us to make discoveries, things that religion actively stifles.
Well if an intelligent designer does exist, how do you know what his/her intentions were? If you don’t know what they were trying to do then how can you say that a flightless bird is a failure?
Still doesn’t explain why this entity couldn’t give whales gills or fish better eyes, both of which he already “designed”. I see no advantage of giving them something lower quality than he/she/it could of given. Did ID want to keep a record of all its failures?
And out of curiosity, I really want to know why an intelligent designer would make 400,000 different kinds of beetles.
“Still doesn’t explain why this entity couldn’t give whales gills or fish better eyes, both of which he already “designed”.”
-Did you completely miss the point of what we were saying? How can you say something is poorly designed unless you know the intentions of the designer?
“I see no advantage of giving them something lower quality than he/she/it could of given.”
-You may also not understand why some buildings have high ceilings. Sure, you can say there’s no designer because obviously that’s a poor structure. It wastes energy trying to heat/cool the room. Well if you happened to know that the designer was going for dramatic view rather than energetic efficiency, then suddenly it becomes clear. You have to know the intentions. Faulting something does not prove there isn’t a designer, it proves you don’t know the designers intentions.
“Did ID want to keep a record of all its failures?”
-How can you say it’s a failure if you have no idea what the designer was going for?
“And out of curiosity, I really want to know why an intelligent designer would make 400,000 different kinds of beetles.”
-One might assume God likes variety.
“This renders Joe’s argument invalid. If you want to question it, talk to Wikipedia (or a psychologist).”
-It doesn’t render his argument invalid. It doesn’t even have anything to do with this conversation. That has to do with interpreting evidence or reading only evidence that supports someones view, that has nothing to do with the rational conclusion of you saying something is poorly designed, therefore you would have to know the intentions of the designer. If this is invalid, please point out the error.
Also, wikipedia isn’t always the most reliable source as you may or may not know. One time I looked up world population percentage and it said China was 100%, and while that was rather amusing for me, I’ve never looked at wikipedia again for information.
When I said Joe, I was referring to the one above Robin. Sorry about the confusion.
Are you trying to say that whales are better off without gills and being half-awake their entire life? And what is wrong with better eyes? Most flying birds can see better than humans, and their brains are roughly the size of those of fish. If someone can give me one reason why having worse eyesight is advantageous, I’d be happy to see it, and maybe I’ll stop arguing about it.
“wikipedia isn’t always the most reliable source”
And that’s why I said “talk to Wikipedia.” But you could at least google the topic (perhaps even google scholar) and compare your results with Wikipedia’s. Besides, I was just pointing out the concept/theory; I didn’t intend for you to read every detail or piece of history on it.
“Are you trying to say that whales are better off without gills and being half-awake their entire life?”
-I’m saying you can’t criticize what you don’t know. Builders can build a house with high ceilings to create dramatic views, but its going to be more costly to heat and cool it. You can come in the house and say, “there’s obviously no builder, look at how high that ceiling is, its way too costly. No one of intelligence would do this.” Well, they weren’t going for cost effectiveness. They were going for dramatic views. You cannot criticize it unless you know what the intentions of the designer were. Your criticisms don’t disprove a designer, it proves you don’t know the intentions of the designer. I can keep using this example until you get it, but you’re not faulting it in any way. You just keep bringing up the same argument I’ve answered over and over as if its still valid.
“If someone can give me one reason why having worse eyesight is advantageous, I’d be happy to see it, and maybe I’ll stop arguing about it.”
-Its not always about what’s the best advantage. Can the whale still swim and breathe? Yes, so there’s no argument. Can animals still get around (or see to a certain extent)? Yes, so there’s no argument. Etc.
“And that’s why I said “talk to Wikipedia.””
-That’s not going to help anything. Wikipedia is a public database. That’s why someone was able to change the world population percentage of China to 100% in the first place.
“But you could at least google the topic”
-So could you, but you posted a wikipedia reference. Not something linked to a Google search.
“Besides, I was just pointing out the concept/theory; I didn’t intend for you to read every detail or piece of history on it.”
-I didn’t. I read about 2 sentences worth of information. If I can do that, then I’m curious to know what you read that inferred to you it was worth using against someone.
Let’s rewind to your original point – “There are also compromises that go with the intentions.” – What does god have to compromise? If he created the universe, he would have to create the physics too. He didn’t have to make himself compromise.
Back to your last post:
“You cannot criticize it unless you know what the intentions of the designer were.”
Then you cannot support it either…but I do know his intentions. He is omni-benevolent, is he not? Then would he not do everything in his power (which is everything, since he’s also omnipotent) for the benefit of life? Or just humanity? Why not both? Still, it’s a very good idea of his intentions (no pun intended).
“Can the whale still swim and breathe? Yes, so there’s no argument.”
So god’s just doing the bare minimum?
“That’s why someone was able to change the world population percentage of China to 100% in the first place.”
They do have protected pages. It’s not as bad as you thought. Look at their help page: “en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Help:Editing”
Also…you seriously discredit Wikipedia based on one error? Out of the millions of pages it has? That’s like discrediting your calculus teacher because (s)he made one mistake in his calculations, and everyone makes algebraic mistakes from time to time.
“So could you, but you posted a wikipedia reference. Not something linked to a Google search.”
Why can’t you do it?
“lmgtfy. com/?q=Confirmation+bias” <– There’s your Google search. Website sarcasm intended.
“[Your last argument]”
Joe said, “There actually is a lot of evidence for an intelligent designer if you really look for it,” and I’m saying that with this concept called “Confirmation Bias”, a lot of things can look like evidence for an intelligent designer, especially “if you really look for it.” I’m curious to know what you read that inferred to you there was no connection.
Last chance. Unless you really have something to say that argues against Confirmation Bias, my argument stays.
P.S. It’s not like you actually measured the accuracy of Wikipedia. Here’s something else for you to read: “news. cnet. com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html”
P.P.S. Some html works in these forums. I found that out long after this Failbook post was posted.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages! May we be blessed enough to go to its heaven and bask in the glory of the awesome beer fountain!
Ramen
True, but it’s good to evidence to back up ones belief. (I personally believe) It’s a matter of what conclusion (attempt at finding truth) requires the least amount of faith because it has the greatest amount of evidence for itself as being true.
It’s not so black and white as just “belief,” but rather, which opinion best supports accurate facts (and I stress *ACCURATE* as much as I can) and requires the least amount of faith to believe?
Weird because most Christians I know don’t give a crap about anyone else’s religions, and most atheists I know constantly talk about how stupid anyone who believes in god is.
I’m agnostic, so I have no dog in the fight. I don’t know and I don’t really care.
Perhaps you know a bunch of other atheists who you just don’t know are atheists because they don’t talk about it? Most likely. Also, maybe you just know some weird people. By the way there is no such thing as neither being atheist nor theist, either you have a belief or you don’t, being agnostic is not some magical third way out as a lot of people mistakenly assume, what YOU are is an idiot.
I don’t know if you’re Christian, but if so, that was extremely out of character…. I don’t mean to call you out, friend. It’s just that these are the people that we should have compassion for and love.. not call idiots, whether they believe differently or don’t believe at all.
so it is only ‘out of character’ IF jacob is a christian…. by saying that you pretty much just displayed the arrogant view that it is christians who have the monopoly on compassion and love which is in some ways is far worse than flat out calling someone an idiot for their beliefs. you also suggest that those who do not believe in god deserve your compassion as if they are in need of it… this too is an arrogant sentiment, so assess yourself before jumping on someone else for what they said
Untrue, there are many who admit “I just don’t know if there is or isn’t” and they suspend judgement. It’s like saying Jimmy Hoffa is at location A or B, and that’s that. Maybe you can just not know something, and not be called an idiot because you have the wisdom to admit it.
unless they definitely believe in a god, they are atheists. an atheist doesn’t mean that you definitely believe a god DOESN”T exit, it just means you don’t believe a god defnitely exists.
you can have agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists, and you can have gnostic atheists and gnostic theists.
Acually you are COMPLETELY wrong, an Athiest IS someone who believes there is definitely not a god.
You also don’t know what Agnostic and Gnostic means.
Agnosticism is the ‘middle ground’ as people are putting it, there is no way for you to know if there is or isn’t a god because there is no proof for eiher side.
Gnosticism is (essentially) the belief in an imperfect god (as opposed to the ‘perfect’ God of Christianity).
You can’t have a gnostic athiest nor an agnostic atheist because those phrases are contradictions.
I agree with your definitions, but I do believe there can be even more defining terms to what people believe. “asda” may be referring to The God Delusion where Richard Dawkins has a 5 tier way of defining beliefs as apposed to only 3 (theist, agnostic and atheist)
As an agnostic you don’t know if god exists or not, so you have to choose how you want to live your life. You can choose to live as if god is likely to exist so maybe you lean toward superstitions or other ‘paranormal’ ideas (things which cannot yet be explained). Or you can live your life leaning toward the idea that god does not exist, so therefore are less likely to be superstitious or credit anything paranormal to something supernatural.
“Magical third way out?” You must not have a very good (if any) understanding of agnosticism. I’m an agnostic because I believe there is no way of definitely knowing whether or not there is or isn’t a god, because there isn’t any proof of either. Do the research before you diss us.
Well, I hope that someday, you do! There’s a war going on for the hearts and minds and souls of the people, and, as Christians, I engage in this warfare every day. Just so you know, it’s people like you that I would lay down my life for! Have a great day, I’m praying and fighting for YOU!
How about you pray for yourself/family and stop worrying about what others believe in or not. It’s not up to you to change what others believe in so bugger off about this so called “enlightening”. Leaving people free to choose what they want to believe in without morons like you shoving crap down their throats is THE best gift any religious person can give to the rest of humanity.
Would probably end most wars too if people just stopped caring about others people’s beliefs. Religion tends to be a massive inferiority complex at the end of the day.
I wish so, but unfortunately most holy books, if not all, encourage “spreading the word of God”. In Christianity, not doing such a thing would be a sin of omission, and you will spend time in purgatory for it. So much for free will.
Ehhh, Athiests will continue to call our God and other religion’s Gods fairy tales, but then freak out if they get criticized at all. They call believers close-minded, but it seems to be them who label religions with blanket statements and the like.
Just let them be, and those with dignity will give you the same respect. Also, the Christian god is the only one that is capitalized (I’m not criticizing your beliefs, just correcting you).
Actually, I find it’s usually Christians who freak out when atheists start to use their own arguments against them, since so many sects of Christianity like to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to listen to.
There’s your problem, along with many others. Its not that it lines up with the evidence or not, its just that you don’t have anything to say against it, so you reject it and call the proposer stupid as if that’s justification for your means of rejection. If it’s error or invalid, then it should be easy to point out, but all you’re doing is barking without going through with the bite and I’m not impressed in the slightest. I’ve dealt with far too many people who do the same thing to even be remotely intimidated. I enjoy discussion to learn, but I can’t learn if you don’t take a similar role. If you do, then I’ll be here.
Are you trying to say there is evidence that the human population was only two people (or in the case of Noah, 8 people)? Due to advanced study of genetics, we are now able to estimate whether or not bottlenecks such as these happened: http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/3/238.abstract
Basically, if the human population was ever reduced to such a small number, we would see it in the genetic code, but we don’t. Also, it’s highly unlikely that 2 or 8 individuals had enough diversity in their alleles to be the ancestors of all human life. That population would have been wiped out within a few generations. I was going to put the wiki article on here, but it’s not well sourced. I’ll see if I can find a good one.
p.s. for those who claim wiki is completely unreliable: all you have to do is look at the sources at the bottom, most scientific/mathematical articles on wiki are actually very reliable because of the high amount of experts who edit them; they usually include the relevant sources/papers. I wouldn’t suggest using wiki as a source for a research paper, but it’s a good place to start if you don’t know anything about a subject.
No, I’m not trying to say that. if anything I would be implying it, but not explicitly stating it in this post.
Regarding genetics, one of the multiple problems is you’re presupposing that we can determine the past based on the present. According to the evolution theory, we have changed for the better, so it would make sense that we could track backwards in genetic strength to view past events. However, creation says the opposite, that we are getting weaker and degrading. If that’s true, then looking at genetics today to interpret the past is like looking at a wrecked car and concluding it couldn’t have possibly functioned as a transportation device. In simpler terms, we’re dealing with a matter of unequal information here similar to arguing that apples aren’t nutritious because of Woodstock. Apple nutrition has nothing to do with Woodstock so the argument is worthless.
And it is. For example, gatorade is okay to drink if you’re physically active, but should otherwise be substituted with a drink with less sugar and fewer calories.
Agnosticism is only a temporary position. If you don’t know, then you can find the answer. By willingly refusing to not find an answer, you’re automatically choosing rejection. A choice by default. And the only reason for that choice is the fact that you’re looking for God as much as a thief is looking for a cop.
I hope you find the answers you need, and if you’re truly looking for the truth, whenever you discover information, examine it closely. Think critically. Don’t stop just when you read something of what someone said. Critique it, and you’ll find answers. That’s what I did and it’s what I do today by discussing origins. Gaining more knowledge with each person I talk to. I found mine, I hope you find yours.
Um, there is such thing as permanent agnosticism, in which someone would say “the probability of g(G)od’s existence is 50/50,” or “you can’t prove the existence or nonexistence of g(G)od.” And sometimes people just don’t give a [thought], and therefore remain agnostic.
“there is such thing as permanent agnosticism”
-There’s also a such thing as geocentric orbit. Just because the idea exists doesn’t make it true.
“in which someone would say “the probability of g(G)od’s existence is 50/50,” or “you can’t prove the existence or nonexistence of g(G)od.””
-While that makes sense to a certain degree, it’s a bit self-defeating. To say you *can’t* know something is to say you can’t know your reasoning for saying you can’t know something. It’s self-defeating. This is not identified by me to be called permanent agnosticism but rather ornery agnosticism. Saying you *can’t* know something is illogical, saying you *don’t* know something is sensible, and you can re-read my previous post on that.
Yeah, you’re right. Except the “automatic rejection” part.
One thing that annoys me the most is when people try to use analogies to prove a point. They don’t prove ANYTHING; the only thing they’re good for is explaining a point. Just because two (usually) unrelated items are similar one way doesn’t make them related in any other form.
Agnostics may not be looking for g(G)od, but they’re not running away from him/her either, whereas the thief is trying to run away from a cop, so “as much as” should really be “more than”.
The agnostics who don’t bother determining whether g(G)od exists don’t “automatically choos[e] rejection”; they just don’t choose, and you can’t really blame them as there’s so much involved in the arguments, more than any other argument. Labeling them atheists is just as wrong as labeling them theists. It’s like saying (explanation) that watching someone being bullied and doing nothing is just as bad as helping the bullies, which basically says ten punches are just as bad as fifteen. I’m sure fifteen punches would give more pain and injury than ten would.
“One thing that annoys me the most is when people try to use analogies to prove a point. They don’t prove ANYTHING; the only thing they’re good for is explaining a point”
-That’s usually what it comes to. No one can explain how the relation is wrong, and thus, how my conclusion is inaccurate, so they eventually just attack the use of analogies altogether. The problem is, you’ve defined yourself too narrowly. I’m aware “analogies” don’t prove anything. Analogies are a representation, and the representation is the evidence. The analogy is just a way to define the representation. If you have a problem with the evidence, attack the representation, not the classification of it.
“Just because two (usually) unrelated items are similar one way doesn’t make them related in any other form.”
-Depends on what you’re relating and on what grounds.
“Agnostics may not be looking for g(G)od, but they’re not running away from him/her either”
-That’s not what I said. I said “looking for,” not “running away from.” Thieves aren’t looking for cops just as some agnostics aren’t looking for God. They may not know, but the information is out there. I found it just by typing 3 words into Google, and I wasn’t even that interested. If someone like me could find it when I wasn’t even aware of the whole origin crisis, then so can they.
“The agnostics who don’t bother determining whether g(G)od exists don’t “automatically choos[e] rejection”; they just don’t choose”
-And not choosing is rejection by default (which technically is a choice anyway) because the information is out there. All they have to do is Google some questions if they’re truly interested. But that’s the problem, they’re not interested because they don’t care. It’s not that they don’t know, it’s that they don’t care to know, and they better start caring because they’re going to be dead a lot longer than they’re going to be alive. Its worth taking the time.
“Labeling them atheists is just as wrong as labeling them theists”
-I’m not labeling them either of those. I’m saying there’s a choice and they’re refusing to make one for explainable reasons (regardless of how vast they are). Therefore, since they refuse to make one, its not that they don’t know, its that they refuse to know and they don’t want to know. That’s rejection. They may not know about the existence of God, but they certainly reject knowing which makes them willingly ignorant as Romans describes them.
“It’s like saying (explanation) that watching someone being bullied and doing nothing is just as bad as helping the bullies”
-By doing nothing, it can be viewed that you’re condoning bullying. You may not be helping, but you seem to approve by not doing anything like getting an adult or something. Just like agnostics may not approve of either side, but they’re certainly not looking into it to make a decision, so their rejection to do so is a decision on its own, and its a similar decision to the secularists: rejection.
Representations are not evidence. Showing that two arbitrary things are alike in one way doesn’t automatically mean they’re alike in any other way – it requires more evidence than it’s worth – yet too many people like to make this assumption and use it to prove things. That’s why I generally frown upon analogies.
“Just like agnostics may not approve of either side, but they’re certainly not looking into it to make a decision, so their rejection to do so is a decision on its own, and its a similar decision to the secularists: rejection.”
So they’re rejected from agnosticism? Then what are they now? If we were talking about indecisiveness in general, then yes, they’re no longer indecisive because they made a decision to stop looking. But this is not the case. Sorry, but you’re not explaining this “rejection” very well.
My philosophy is that the “next life” can take care of itself, and I’ll just do the best I can in this life. You can’t say “Its worth taking the time” because that only applies if they eventually believe in your kind of god. Otherwise, they wasted a significant amount of time.
“If you have a problem with the evidence, attack the representation, not the classification of it.”
I never did. Let me reemphasize: “They don’t PROVE anything.” Read my post more carefully.
About the bullying thing: Let’s consider a different scenario. Someone is giving out free cupcakes today at your school (No, they are not poisoned or such. They’ve been approved by the school). You’re a “bystander”. You decline the cupcakes, but you don’t stop them from giving cupcakes to other kids either. Therefore, you are condoning the free cupcakes. Can I say you helped giving out cupcakes, anymore than I can say the bystander helped giving out free punches? When something bad happens and someone doesn’t do anything about it, you use him/her as a scapegoat, but when something good happens and someone doesn’t do anything about it, you only give credit to the active participants.
It is possible that answering “I don’t know” is only temporary. I believe that to be true in most cases, those being ones that can be tested and eventually proven one way or the other. If it cannot be tested, then to provide an answer one way or the other would be either foolish, or an act of faith (belief that is not based on proof).
God – depending on how you choose define yours – is unfalsifiable, meaning he/she/it cannot be proven nor disproven because of how he/she/it is defined. However, if you are able to produce proof of his/her/its existence, please step forward and claim the Nobel Prize.
“I believe that to be true in most cases, those being ones that can be tested and eventually proven one way or the other. If it cannot be tested, then to provide an answer one way or the other would be either foolish, or an act of faith”
-Since God can neither be proven nor disproven, it’s a matter of which theory is best supported by the greater amount of evidence and therefore requires the least amount of faith to believe. The ratio of proven to disproven is the same. It’s a matter of discovering it. God still wants us to believe by faith, but he doesn’t want us to believe blindly which is why he has put forth enough to be convincing. In other words, there may not be 100% direct proof of God, but there are indirectly intellectual understandings that can be attributed as such due to their strength as a sound and rational argument (as well as direct historical evidence for the Bible which would be attributed to God).
Agnosticism is still a means of staying in the middle without picking a side in light of all the evidence that supports a particular side, and as such, without reviewing all/a majority of the evidence, it is a choice of rejection as Atheism is. Both sides require faith, it’s just a matter of which requires the least amount.
“God – depending on how you choose define yours – is unfalsifiable, meaning he/she/it cannot be proven nor disproven because of how he/she/it is defined.”
-I’m sorry, but since when does something have to be “falsifiable” to be even considered true?
“I’m sorry, but since when does something have to be “falsifiable” to be even considered true?”
It doesn’t, but for the love of pete WHY would you believe something with no evidence that cannot be disproven? I’m sure we can agree that any idiot can make up any claim their imagination will allow. But if they do and it both does not have concrete evidence and is not falsifiable then tell me why in the world SHOULD anyone even consider it? Especially if your common sense is already waving a red flag in your direction.
I say there’s an undetectable celestial teapot floating around in space, orbiting the earth. I can say I have a book from 2000 years ago that details the teapots origins and what it does for us. The book might even have a history of being 2000 years old. Does that make the words in the book true? No. Does that mean the teapot actually exists? No. Why should you believe it exists? You shouldn’t. Are there some people out there that do believe it? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t baffle me in the slightest. If you think that’s crazy, you should hear some of the crap those Creationist/Intelligent Designers believe!
“It doesn’t”
-Thank you, that’s all I care about. Something can be true without it.
“WHY would you believe something with no evidence that cannot be disproven?”
-Why would you discredit a viable answer on that grounds alone? This is one of the reasons science can’t answer everything, it automatically starts trying to answer the question without doing anything to truly answer it (otherwise known as an assumption).
“But if they do and it both does not have concrete evidence and is not falsifiable”
-We’ve already discussed falsifiable, it’s inaccurate to discovering truth. It’s gone as of now. As for concrete evidence, we’re still in that process of the discussion.
“I say there’s an undetectable celestial teapot floating around in space, orbiting the earth.”
-Exactly. It may not mean it’s true, but it’s not my job to disprove it. It’s yours to prove it or at least back it up enough to make it credible to a good extent.
“Does that make the words in the book true?”
-No, the concise information within and without it substantiates itself (assuming we’re still talking analogically here).
“…it’s not my job to disprove it. It’s yours to prove it or at least back it up enough to make it credible to a good extent.”
Yeah, so I’d like to see more evidence that God exists than a single book, which is mainly the point of all the arguments on this page. So all I have to do is show (incontrovertibly, of course) that the evidence that you provide is misinterpreted or false, and then you no longer have a reason to keep your belief in God. Your unfalsifiability will no longer keep you safe.
“See also: Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell’s orbiting teapot.”
-The difference is there’s no evidence for it (and I believe there’s evidence against it as well to be brutal).
“Yeah, so I’d like to see more evidence that God exists than a single book”
-We’ll have to start somewhere because just saying (essentially), “Prove God exists..” is like saying “What’s a car?” Well, what would you like to know? The history of the car? The transportation aspects of the car? The ‘anatomy’ of the car? You’re a bit too broad here. Narrow it down to something you’d like to know. Something that’s most important to you.
“So all I have to do is show (incontrovertibly, of course) that the evidence that you provide is misinterpreted or false, and then you no longer have a reason to keep your belief in God. Your unfalsifiability will no longer keep you safe.”
-Same for you and your belief in Sciencism
You need to get your information from science and scientists, not your local idiot preacher. The orbit varies by a great amount which proves your first statement wrong.
uhh… did you even read the guys post? as long as our orbit stayed within the habitable zone, which leaves a lot of room at any point in our current orbit on either side, we’d be fine. also, evo _is_ science in the same way that our theory of mathematics is science or the theory of physics.
you know what’s comical? the fact that you are so willing to believe everything that some random dude posts on FACEBOOK, and then probably accuse others with different beliefs of doing the same thing you’re doing.
just for clarification:
the habitable zone is just a zone in which LIQUID WATER should be present on a planet. the definition never states HUMAN LIFE. i believe the status poster (who also made a very unintelligent comment) that “we” would all burn or freeze. that is referring to HUMANS. so the comment made by this “great scientist” (heavy on the sarcasm) is completely void of meaning because the whole time he relates human life with the HZ.
Also the commenter states this information like it is fact. the proposes parameters of the sun’s HZ have fluctuated greatly.
read any freakin geology or astronomy textbook r tard.
however, the lady is just as dumb for posting that. that little change will NOT have an effect of global destruction.
Still, the distance varies that much and we’re still alive today, so it doesn’t matter whether or not he mentioned “habitable zone.” And I’m sure the correction dude had a source, or is otherwise supported by your “freakin geology or astronomy textbook.”
how can something change its own direction? isn’t that violating the law of conservation of momentum (including angular)? or Newton’s first law of motion: “…unless acted upon by an EXTERNAL force”?
Define a “small amount,” because yeah, being off by a few million miles wouldn’t do much, but being off by a ‘small amount’ (relative to distances between planets and such) like 50-100 million miles would be devastating.
I also don’t see how an earthquake could have any effect on a planet’s orbit. :/
And while devastating to complex life, a minor change in orbit would still allow life to exist, so long as it stays in the habitable zone (and the mechanism that changed Earth’s orbit doesn’t also tear it to pieces).
Actually people hate idiots more than smarty pants. Those “smarty pants” are the people making this world a better place, while people like you and the moron in the OP cause most of the problems to begin with. But hey, its all ok because you pray for us, right?
Fact: anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution or believes in the garbage the OP wrote is an utter moron and is contributing to making this world a terrible, terrible place.
Catch 22- I love smarty pantses. But smarty pantses also create some of the most destructive forces on earth. Which I do not like, because they are used for of course; Destructive purposes. And then Egocentric people want to use it to further their causes, or as a threat. Human beings are enough of a threat to other human beings without big scientific death bombs. I do wish we (ALL humans) would have, instead of focusing on warfar; focused our knowledge on healing.
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that even most deadly weapon known to man, doesn’t have the killing power of a belief. More people died in the crusades from swords, than people died from the a-bomb.
Yeah, but Christian Scientists are the ones who refuse to give their kids medicine when they’re sick because it’s against their beliefs… Which kinda rejects science in a manner of speaking.
Yeah… I’m a Christian, and a “fundamentalist” one at that, but I always think things through logically and practically, and I have never understood how people can come to that conclusion about vaccines…
Well if a god exists and he/she created time, space, matter and life out of absolutely nothing, then I’m sure bringing a dead guy back to life or making a virgin give birth is a pretty simple task for someone who created everything.
no, that’s Christian Science, not Christian scientists.
Christian Science is a brand name for a radical religion. An ideal Christian scientist would be Jon Lennox or Isaac Newton or probably your high school science teacher
Don’t forget Charles Darwin! He had a degree in Divinity AND he’s buried in Westminster Cathedral. So even good scientists can indeed also still have faith.
Darwin completely abandoned his belief in God after returning from the voyage of the Beagle (where the captain was trying to use him to reinforce traditional Christian ideas about the origin of the earth. see: catastrophism) and after the loss of his daughter. So no, he was not a Christian scientist. He was full-on atheist for the large portion of his life.
Also, having a Divinity degree has nothing to do with believing in God. Darwin only pursued this line of education because his father wanted him to.
I know what you really meant by this, and I know that there are scientists out there who are christian, but please don’t include isaac newton or any other scientist who lived before the 19th century in your list of christian scientists. Almost everybody in the Catholic dominated Europe of Newton’s time was a christian. If they weren’t Christian, then they were persecuted i.e. the European Jewish ghettos. If they were christian or at least raised christian, and they went against christian dogma or openly claimed to be an unbeliever then they were tortured until they recanted or burned at the stake if they refused to recant. So counting any scientist before the 18th or 19th century as a christian scientist is really disingenuous as they didn’t really have a choice in the matter.
p.s. sorry to get all ranty, I know you probably weren’t meaning it that way, and I do get your overall point. Just use modern christian scientists next time.
The thing about that is some Christians who find fault with what scientists claim to be true is then used to question everything science has done. I’d find that reasonable to a certain extent, but not saying “no” to everything science has done. Science has done a lot of great things and interesting researches that have helped and aided us, but they’re not right about everything, nor can they be because science can’t prove everything.
In short, it’s not due to Christian beliefs, it’s due to noticing false information through whatever means (I’ve found many things before, but I wouldn’t reject vaccines because I’ve researched it) and then using that information to question everything else of relation.
That’s human logic, not religious beliefs.
THANK YOU, finally a post I can relate to. At this point, I feel that athiests believe that science is all, and Christianity is something to be mocked completely and give it no credit. Why can’t there be both? I believe that there was evolution of some kind, and I believe that God created it all. There is evidence of evolution, although we weren’t there to witness it all, so how can we be positive of anything?
I also believe that there are “theories” for a reason. They’re not called “facts”, although many people believe in them as such. Human error is something to be considered when it comes to science, but often is dismissed.
You need to consider the evidence for evolution and ask yourself if it’s accurate. I thought they had some concrete evidence too and almost combined the 2 to become a theistic evolutionist. After I researched it, I noticed all the assumptions and fault conclusions that had been come to by scientists to prove old earth/evolution and abandoned it altogether. If I would’ve just read the first page of my Bible I would’ve noticed that God says he was the creator of all things in 6 days. Not 6 billion years (or 4.6), 6 days.
“although we weren’t there to witness it all, so how can we be positive of anything?”
-Exactly. We all believe something by faith. Evolutionists believe something they weren’t there to prove. Atheists believe something “isn’t” there that they can’t prove/disprove. And Christians believe something “is” there that can’t be proven/disproven. We all believe something by faith, nothing is exact/perfect science.
It’s because I know the Bible to be a collection of stories that were originally passed down from generation to generation verbally before written language. When we got the printing press, we were able to print the bible stories and have them all be the same from book to book, but at that point, parts of the stories have been left out or embellished, and most bible stories don’t make a lick of sense because they’re so corrupted.
If you honestly believe that the bible is God’s word, you have more serious issues than those you perceive scientists and atheists to have. We at least KNOW for SURE where our knowledge comes from.
I’m well aware of multiple things about the Bible. One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way.
However, I’m not going to be too dogmatic on that because that’s not as important as the following.
The Bible is composed of 66 books written by over 30 authors throughout all periods of times throughout all the eastern world which then went through a filtration process (which required scripture to follow 5 specific pieces of information to be God-breathed scripture) for centuries (not just an overnight deal) which then came together to be the Bible. After hundreds of years of people studying it more and more, we notice there has yet to be a contradiction in the scriptures themselves. As such, if this were a lie made up or an inaccuracy, then why would it be so consistent? This is what historians call “accurate” through all these factors and variables.
For all your claiming of doing research, you are ridiculously inaccurate in ALL of these “facts” about the bible. Where on earth did you learn these things?
The bible is INCREDIBLY contradictory, incomplete, translated differently depending on the time it was translated and what language it was translated into, and depending on the version you have you could be missing entire books.
Care to back that up? Be aware I’ve answered numerous alleged contradictions and errors. I’ve yet to come across one I couldn’t answer, so choose wisely, because I’ll only humor you for so many verses.
“One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way”
You say this as if you were there to know it and we all know that couldn’t be the case, as you’re speaking about thousands of years. Have you ever played the telephone game as a child? Just passing 1 statement… one STATEMENT verbally down from one person to another over the course of 10 minutes ends up with something unintelligible by the time their done in most cases. And they are putting forth a lot of effort to be as accurate as possible.
Now move on to what we know of humans. Important issues are overlooked by the news media because they understand that great deal of their viewing audience wouldn’t give a crap.. but if they put up a story about someone being raised from the dead and presented that as fact then WHOO BOY! Look at those ratings!!! I’d say it’s much more likely to be the case, based off what we all have observed as reality for the majority of the human race, is that if it brings profit or fame then it will live on.
What would be more newsworthy? Lazarus – the 10 millionth man to contract leprosy – has died today. …Or… Lazarus, the 10 millionth man to contract Leprosy was CURED by a miracle man!!!!!!! Hurray! If you believe you’ll be cured too! He said to burn cats to ward off disease and evil!! Don’t take baths because to bathe is to be vain and that’s a sin because he said so!!!
So people burned cats, and people stopped bathing in hopes to be cured of their diseases to appease the miracle man.. and in doing so the rats that carried the plague were able to survive and cause one of the most terrible disasters the world has ever known. Praise the miracle man.
“You say this as if you were there to know”
-Did you read what I said after that message you quoted? I’ll cite it for you: “However, I’m not going to be too dogmatic on that because that’s not as important as the following.”
I never claimed for 100% fact that it was true. That’s just common sense. The telephone game doesn’t apply because in telephone you’re saying it to 1 person whereas if you have hundreds of thousands (a few million if I’m correct) going through the same struggle, what are the chances that all of them will forget? If you pass the same story to the next generation and they’re all told the same story that the numerous amount of people went through, what are the chances then? They’re more slim, but not by much. Anyways, I’m through with this part since I’m not going to be too dogmatic, but this is just a bit of common sense here.
First you said: “One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story.”
Then when I quote you and provide feedback you say “I never claimed for 100% fact that it was true. That’s just common sense.”
So it was fact, but not 100% fact? I think what’s common sense is that if someone provides feedback that makes more sense than what you stated is to admit that you may have been wrong instead of contradict yourself.
“The telephone game doesn’t apply because in telephone you’re saying it to 1 person whereas if you have hundreds of thousands (a few million if I’m correct) going through the same struggle, what are the chances that all of them will forget?”
My point is that you are assuming 1 million people will all get the story right, or will be corrected by those that were right. That’s assuming 1 million people are all putting for 100% effort with 100% good intentions and have 100% memory capacity to remember 100% of the story and pass it on 100% accurately for hundreds of generations.
What I was saying is – from everything we know about society – is that it makes more sense for 1 million people to be told 1 story and then when they go to pass on that story a large % of them will exaggerate, another % of them will forget part of it, and another % of them will deliberately muck it up in order to try to bring attention to themselves. The more captivating the story – true or not – is what will be passed on. And that’s just the first generation… their children have to get it 100% accurate, and then their childrens children and so on and so forth. And on top of that, they have been translated from one language to the next, over and over again.
In another post of yours where you were arguing that the Bible stated the Earth was a sphere, except they had no word for sphere so they chose circle instead of.. I don’t know.. ball… you’re also 100% aware that in the translation, if there wasn’t an accurate word for what they’re trying to describe they’ll just pick the next closest thing that, now, thousands of years later, is entirely inaccurate. Since it was then translated from hebrew to a language that DOES have a word for sphere (ie. english), if they did actually know the earth was a sphere, why didn’t they then pick the accurate word?
So if you want to talk about common sense, think about this one for a minute and yours should tell you that it’s much MUCH more likely that the stories we see today are exaggerated, mistranslated and, in most cases (to put it in the language of today) complete bullsh*t. You’ve already admitted the mistranslated part, to admit the rest is probably pushing faith to the brink so I’m not expecting you or anyone else who tries to take the bible literally to be able to admit anything else, and that’s just fine if that’s how you wish to live your life.
It’s also why the whole Intelligent Design movement can be thwarted by (as it has been in the past) by nothing more than a childrens imagination. The Kansas school board was stopped by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the theme park they’re trying to build in Kentucky based off the literal translation of Noah’s ark can be built, then the Pastafarians can build their beer volcano and a stripper factory theme park as well, since both of them are claimed to be based off science.
“So it was fact, but not 100% fact?”
-It’s fact that we’re not dealing with 1 person but numerous amounts telling the same thing which would strengthen the accuracy of the story. But I’m not going to claim for 100% fact about how valid it was because I don’t know. Move on. There’s a reason I said I’m not going to be dogmatic on this. You’re pushing for an answer that you’re not going to get because I myself am unsure. I’m sorry.
“Since it was then translated from hebrew to a language that DOES have a word for sphere (ie. english), if they did actually know the earth was a sphere, why didn’t they then pick the accurate word?”
-Because in Hebrew it says circle, so the translators wrote it down as such. This has nothing to do with the translation, but the language. Besides, what you’re really attacking is why didn’t translators “interpret” it as sphere. To answer that question, it’s because it’s not their job to interpret the meaning behind what the Bible is saying. It’s their job to translate the words from 1 language to another so we can read it in common tongue. If they went around interpreting what they thought the Bible said, then I can guarantee you there would be much more mistakes than there are already due to scribal error (translations) from the original manuscripts (which all depends on the version you use).
“yours should tell you that it’s much MUCH more likely that the stories we see today are exaggerated, mistranslated and, in most cases (to put it in the language of today) complete bullsh*t.”
-Aside from the idea that I’m not well studied up on the history of the Bible as much as I am on the logic behind it, I would gladly say that out of every concise bit of information in the Bible, the history is no problem. If history can go through so many variables which would normally falsify and destroy anything that was indeed false, and yet the Bible is so concise, then this would be what historians call viable and accurate/truthful information. Obviously if it’s false then it wouldn’t hold up against all the variables of historical accuracy. The Bible is one of the most unique books on this planet if you study it.
“You’ve already admitted the mistranslated part”
-Depends if you’re mistranslating the information I’ve stated as you’ve been doing.
“I’m well aware of multiple things about the Bible. One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way.”
/snark/ This is why the game “telephone” is so incredibly boring, because everything passed by word of mouth is accurate and if there is a mistake along the way, we can be sure somebody who was there (centuries/millenia earlier?) will correct the mistake so no inaccuracies are recorded. /end snark/
You should research what a scientific theory actually is before you start claiming that facts are better: it’s called the scientific method and it goes like this:
Observe (i.e. facts)
Question (how do these observations (facts) come about?)
Hypothesis (an educated guess based on valid logic and what is already known about the phenomenon, not yet proven)
-null hypothesis= the position that your stated hypothesis is false, if your stated hypothesis isn’t supported, then you assume the null hypothesis
Testing/Experiment (find a way to test the hypothesis, this includes making more observations and writing down all the little facts that do and do not support your hypothesis)
Analyze/Synthesize Results
-if all the extra data/facts/observations support your hypothesis, you submit your research to a journal for publication
-a panel of experts in the field review your experiments/tests to see if your methods are valid and repeatable, is so then your paper is published
More Peer Review
-scientists in the field rip your paper to shreds, criticizing every tiny aspect of it, you must then do further tests to defend your hypothesis (not yet elevated to theory)
-you and other scientist independently perform more tests and experiments
-these repeated experiments continue to support your hypothesis
-many years (and debates/papers/experiments) later, your hypothesis is continually supported by the evidence
-furthermore, your hypothesis is able to explain many observations and synthesizes these observations (facts) into a coherent framework that can continue to be tested
Only at this point can your original hypothesis be elevated to theory. As you can see, theories are incredibly useful and important. They are much more useful than a series of disjointed facts.
Think about the very scientific, mathematic concept of the Fibonacci sequence. It appears in a large amount of forms in nature: pinecones, conches, sunflowers, roses, leaves, etc. It is science that discovered it; it was found to be fact through proper use of the scientific method. Personally, I believe it to be fact, that it exists, that far too many examples of it exist in the natural world for it to be poo-pooed. 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13… Mathematic beauty. However, I am also inclined to listen and consider the idea that some sort of sentient, thinking being set nature up to be that way; that things in nature are too oddly and interestingly perfect mathematically for there not to have been some planned creation of it. What I’m saying is that there CAN be a middle ground in the argument between science and creationism.
“It is science that discovered it; it was found to be fact through proper use of the scientific method.”
-I understand that science can be used to discover fact and is very useful, I’m not going to argue that, but what I will argue is the fact that science can’t answer everything. There are many people that get caught up in all the knowledge science produces and end up thinking it’s a universal standard to base everything off of, when in reality there’s 5 primary things that can’t be proven (to exist) by the method (when we obviously know it exists); 2 of which are detrimental and actually destroy the theory itself.
Couldn’t reply to your above comment, had to come here. (I’m sure you’ll find it as it seems to be your mission to find a both bastardizing and annoying way to rationalize your irrational beliefs – just like most bible scholars, sorry for the redundancy) Even though this will only be seen by ICWUDT I’m really writing this to all the kids out there who are confused about belief or the lack thereof. ICWUDT and people of there ilk believe that you can only have eternal life if you believe in what they believe in, there is no other path. So unless you subscribe to christianity you’re doomed to nothingness at best, hell at worst. But think about it, if they’re right and you convert, you’ll have to spend eternity with a bunch of asshats like this. I know I’ll be sleeping well tonight hoping for the nothingness to come take me away.
All I read was “I’m right, you’re wrong..and stupid.”
That’s a great argument for a 5 year old, but it doesn’t hold up against actual logic. If you have something to conflict with what I’ve said that disproves it in some way then by all means, tell me. However, this act of insulting shows nothing more than the fact that you can’t fault it because everything I’ve said seems to be accurate.
Am I right? Or do you have something to say worth saying?
Of course that’s all you read because that’s all you rigid mind is able to see. You have your conclusion – the Bible is true – and you cannot possibly conceive of the possibility that you are wrong. This started with you stating that the bible said that the earth was spherical before science did, and that is absolute nonsense. Then you couched it in, they didn’t have a term for sphere which is possible since most of the writers of the bible weren’t educated, as they were poor, but there were objects that were spherical and known to them which they could have used to refer to it other than circle, and there were people that lived in that time that were educated and did know what a sphere was. Ever heard of Euclid? Or is your education in just what the bible says, if so I’m comfortable in my 5 year old mentality that I’m still ahead of you. You quote Prov 8:27 … no it says circle not sphere, it could have said apple-like, I’d believe that, or a round gourd, they had them back then. And Luke 17:31, 34 has nothing to do with spheres. It’s not even the passage where jesus comments on night and day which is a stretch in itself to say the it says the world is spherical because night follows day. But I think I have it now, you don’t really believe this, do you? You’re a christianity troll aren’t you? I would sincerely like to apologize to all the asshats in the world for comparing this troll to you, I hope you can forgive me. The bible does state that you will be eternally damned if you change anything that is written in it, so enjoy that for yourself.
The more insults you throw, the less intelligent and mature it makes you look. You seem to have ignored my past comment. All I see is a distraction whenever you try to insult anyone instead of answer their comments. This just shows me that you have nothing else to say in response to what I’ve placed in front of you so you resort to other means to distract from your inability to do so. So if you would like to have a conversation, drop the insults and answer like a man, not a child.
“You quote Prov 8:27 … no it says circle not sphere”
-That was my point. I wasn’t using it as evidence that they said “sphere” because that would contradict what I said in my entire post. I used it because it can be used as a reference to a round earth. Any time you hear the word “circular” you need to consider what point of view the author is speaking from and if they’re speaking literal or poetical. In this case, the point of view is above the earth of God (literal). When you map out a circle from this point of view, does it necessarily mean it’s flat? No, if you look at any picture of the earth high above it you’ll be able to draw out a circle. In Isaiah it says the same thing. “It is he (God) who sits upon the circle of the earth.” Again, God’s point of view.
You can’t just go straight to interpretation as most atheists and skeptics tend to do. There’s much more to Hermeneutics than interpreting, there’s observation which is a key point. You must observe what the author meant by understanding their time period, customs, traditions, day-to-day activities, their current knowledge of certain things, etc. You essentially should know all about them in a sense.
I’m aware of Euclid, but he’s not the point. In hebrew they simply lacked a word for sphere, so they went with the best thing they had, circle. Again, this falls under observation. Why didn’t they use sphere and instead used circle? They didn’t have a word for sphere, everyone of that time must’ve known there wasn’t a word for it, therefore if they use something such as circle it wouldn’t raise any alarms to anyone because they wouldn’t see a circle in reference to the earth as saying it’s flat because they all knew it was round, and it’s not just this verse that explains it more in depth.
“And Luke 17:31, 34 has nothing to do with spheres”
-My point is it implies one as I said before. And it says “On *that* day (such and such happens)” and he then follows by saying “On *that* night (such and such also happens) speaking of the exact same time. If you read the verses before this one, we can see he’s talking about the same time by mentioning the day Lot left Sodom it was destroyed as well as the day Noah walked in the ark and the people outside it were destroyed. It speaks of the days of the people, then the *day* of judgment. Judgment does not take 24 hours to happen so people on the other side of the world can wake up and have their breakfast first, it’s instantaneous and happens all at once.
As I wrote in my original comment, science purported the FACT that the earth was spherical (and revolved around the sun, and is not the center of the universe) before the bible did (which is a strange statement because the bible never refers to it as a sphere, all of your blather about not having a word in hebrew is monkeyspunk they had the ability to express the concept of a sphere but chose circle instead) was correct. I’ve given up on feeding the troll anymore. If god exists it gave me 1. the ability to realize that some of the things I learned at one point were wrong and 2. the ability to move on and discover another way of thinking to get to the answers. Maybe it will do the same for you one day.
“science purported the FACT that the earth was spherical (and revolved around the sun, and is not the center of the universe) before the bible did”
-The Bible is already written, so everything that is (before and after) does not change. You say it as if the Bible is written after the science of today. That’s not the argument, the issue is whether or not the Bible prescribes a round earth or a flat one.
“all of your blather about not having a word in hebrew is monkeyspunk they had the ability to express the concept of a sphere but chose circle instead”
-Again, if I’ve made a mistake, point it out. Stop hiding behind assertions of “you’re wrong and stupid” because that doesn’t work. If this were a court of law you wouldn’t be giving a good impression. You’d be looking like a child to be honest. So let’s all grow up.
“If god exists it gave me 1. the ability to realize that some of the things I learned at one point were wrong and 2. the ability to move on and discover another way of thinking to get to the answers.”
1) What are you judging this idea of something being “wrong” from? What standard? Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you have some idea of what a straight line is. In a similar manner, you don’t know what is wrong unless you have some idea of what right is. What are you judging this sense of right and wrong on though? What standard? Just like the standard for saying a line is crooked is a straight line, there must be a standard for good and evil, right and wrong. What is it? Evolution doesn’t explain this. The Bible does. So I’m interested in your answer.
2) There’s many ways to get answers, but you’re missing the point that there’s only 1 truth. So you can find whatever way you want to discover the truth, but when you realize what the truth is, the way of discovering it wont matter. The truth is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I pray that you’ll discover this truth someday in time, because you’re not going to like the alternative.
How about the gospel of Judas? Or Mary Magdalene? Or any other gospel left out because it didn’t adhere to one mans thinking of the religion? What about the fact that Jesus himself was a jew, and never said otherwise; Except that he was the messiah? Why Judas be so hated? If Christ died on the cross for all of our sins- Why hate the man who gave him up? I mean… really, if Jesus was a prophet who lived a long life and died naturally- where would be his forgiveness? Why would he have to forgive us? He got staple gunned to a cross and suddenly a new world order came to play. Down the years it got convoluted to the Roman Catholic church who played for power for centuries; and then came Martin Luther who interpreted things differently; Henry the 8th couldn’t get laid until he got a divorce (after that a couple, and then head chopping)- Stricter religious folks didn’t think him being the head of church, or his daughter or her heir were strict enough. Went into a bunch of boats. Came to the Americas- Almost died. Indians fed them at a crucial time. Then became embroiled in Indian affairs- Boom sticks were crucial at that point (Not theology) Our European ancestors killed off alot of Indians (native americans for the folks who believe in p.c.) Small pox and other ailments (must have been gods will) A hundred years or so later came the salem witch trials. We all know how that went. After that, manifest destiny whereupon god wanted us to take over the continent. Then there was the civil war which both sides decided god was on their side (like so many other wars) Yay, the yankees won. Real westward travel begins. We kill off thousands, if not more Natives who really just don’t want to share their hunting grounds with whites who will kill buffalo and take the choice bits of meat and leave the rest rotting. We put them on reservations after backing out of hundreds of treaties. I believe a time or two we the “white christians” invited them to parley and then killed the chiefs who showed up.
“How about the gospel of Judas? Or Mary Magdalene? Or any other gospel left out because it didn’t adhere to one mans thinking of the religion?”
-What about it? It didn’t stand up against the 5 lines of scrutiny to be determined God-breathed scripture (therefore, it’s man-made and didn’t get in as God’s word). Plus, if you read some of the stuff, I’m actually glad it’s not in there, there’s some pretty weird stuff in all those man-made scriptures. Then again, that’s why it’s man-made and not God-made.
“What about the fact that Jesus himself was a jew”
-What about it? He had to be jewish to fulfill the law of the Old Testament.
“Why Judas be so hated?”
-You’ll have to be a bit more specific.
“If Christ died on the cross for all of our sins- Why hate the man who gave him up?”
-Why do other people hate Judas? Or Christ? I need a bit more clarification.
Ok, you don’t need to go all through history about yankees and whatnot. If you’re talking about the thousands upon thousands of death throughout the years due to religion then you really need to study history and consider all the millions of deaths that happened due to atheism (anti-biblical principles). Just the deaths in WWII outweigh all the deaths of religion I’d say.
I really want to quit this because I feel that I’m contributing to feeding you but explain to me, how the deaths in WW2 are being attributed to atheists? The Japanese were polytheists (definitively NOT atheists) and the German and Italians were Christian. I can feel reality warping again…………………….
I meant atheism in the sense of anti-biblical principles. That’s why it’s in parenthesis. Is polytheism anti-biblical? Yes, so it qualifies. And just because one calls themselves Christians doesn’t mean they are. Ever hear of a hypocrite? They’re quite common. Christianity has quite a lot of them which makes the true Christians look bad.
Claiming something is not enough. Actions are also required. Did they follow Christian principles? Of course not. Germany in particular killed millions of Jews. Christ says in proverbs he detests/hates the hands that shed innocent blood (otherwise known as murder).
Actually more people have died in the name of Christ (yes that includes all the people killed by Christians) than any other in the history of religion…and society in general…so…shhh.
Why the hell are you still here ICWUDT? You are one of the MOST ignorant people I’ve ever “met”. You’re talking about arguing with people about how the bible is all knowing and right and everything else is wrong. The bible does NOT PROVE ANYTHING!!! Therefore, you have not proven anything either! Nobody is going to believe your word, because your word doesn’t mean $#!+. I’m sure most of you played the game “telephone” and if you managed to make some desperate friends over the years ICWUDT, I’m sure you have played aswell. Well the point is, even with a group of 10, the last message will not be the same as the original message. Now times that by billions of people…and you wont have anything close to the original. People add what they want, and take away what they hate…and even if everyone was telling the same story, people have different interpretations and that’s how stories get changed as well. You can’t use the bible as your only argument, because it doesn’t have any facts…just stories/lies/illusions that were passed down.
Science has been proven…religions have not. So if you want to talk PROOF stick with the science. In your case, you don’t seem to know that much science so gladly STFU!
OK, that comment ^^ should have been a reply to an earlier comment. No idea why/how it ended up here, but anyways, ICWUDT, you’re still an idiot. Saying WWII (Germany/Nazis) did not kill for religious reason?! Ok…go explain that to all the JEWS who were killed/tortured. It [religion] may not have been the only reason people got killed…but yes, it did play a part! ZING!
Face it, the only thing you “know” is what you read in that little book of yours. You probably spend all day at home on the computer and completely unaware of what goes on in the REAL WORLD. I saw this bumper sticker that reminds me of you: “Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you’re an @$$hole”
“You are one of the MOST ignorant people I’ve ever “met”.”
-And you’re one of the most angry people I’ve met without reason. If I’m so obviously wrong, then what use is so much anger and aggression (aside from the fact you didn’t explain anything regarding evidence of any position to go with your anger)? There’s absolutely no reason for anger if you’re right. This only shows me that you have nothing else to resort to but this tactic instead of answering the objections I’ve brought up. You assert and assert but you haven’t studied in depth, have you? I’ve yet to see you back up your assertions, while on the other hand, I’ve answered all your questions so far (speaking of which, if I’m so wrong, why do you feel the need to respond to this comment having nothing to do with my position on origins over a comment I’ve answered specifically addressing it (such as the flat earth issue)? This is just more evidence to show your inability to answer my standpoint. You have shown nothing but childish tactics of fits of rage and I’m terribly sorry you’ve let your mind be corrupt in such a way, but you will not succeed here in the slightest unless you come to reason with this problem).
I do this to learn. If you’re going to act like a child and nothing more, then I’ve outgrown you and there is no use of this conversation. I pray that you will realize that anger is not a philosophy to live by. I pray that you understand anger only brings more anger and destruction with it. It never brings peace.
We’re through here.
Most people then imbibed on at least lead. Plates, cups, and bowls were made out of lead. It wasn’t until fairly recently people realized that lead was bad for you.
Uh, you can be a Christian and a scientist without being a Christian Scientist. As you’re well aware, Christian Scientists actually don’t know f**k-all about Christianity OR science.
As a Christian, it’s so embarassing when other Christians blithely make up facts or think that their ignorance is somehow more holy than taking an honest look at the world. Arguing theological points is one thing, but the science regarding earth’s orbit is about as cut and dry as it gets. C’mon guys.
How do you know she’s Christian?? She could be Jew, or Islamic… even Krishna, Buddist or Wiccan… what, you read God and assumed she was Christian?? That’s not cool, man…
Yeah, that’s true. But hers is such a common attitude in mainstream Christianity that I feel pretty safe with the assumption. If anything, my comment showed a negative bias toward them and not toward anyone else.
Hey, don’t mistake American Christians for European Christians. Cuz we Europeans (generally) take a more distanced approach to religion (nowadays). Whereas most American Christians I’ve met, well… I’m not gonna elaborate on this.
I’m very glad you chose to add the afterthought “(nowadays)” or I’d have to launch into a discussion of: pograms, inquisitions, crusades, holocausts, etc., etc., etc…. ad nauseum that I don’t recall happening on any American continent.
American Christians are just a radically mutated version of European Christians. Which is why they are in America. I mean; It might have taken them a while to realize hanging witches wasn’t the way, but I seem to remember about 500+ years of witch burning and heretic burning and slave ownership or other hanging in Europe’s past. I’m not religious one way or another- but saying that we’re so different is kind of funny. How super duper modern of you after centuries of Monarchy warfare. I admit, we’re not very refined over here. (at least the lower folks, I think that is a good thing, though if not primed with history, most are ignorant) I don’t claim that we are the best, but certainly we are not the worst. Honestly it’s egotistical at best to say one country is better than another.
Probably right with muslims since I haven’t met one yet personally… not yet with Jews… I know many Jews who uses God instead of Yahweh… as well buddists, wiccans, and Krishna…. and not forget santeros!! So “God” is not an statement for Christianity…
Ah but most Jews write it as G-d, not the full version with the “o”. Also we don’t use Yahweh at all or at least don’t pronounce it like that, that’s just an approximate anglicized version of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) which actually doesn’t have a pronounciation, either because it’s too sacred or it’s been forgotten (more likely).
We’re far more likely to use HaShem (השם) in normal conversation, but this depends on how religious your upbringing is.
Actually most Jewish people I know just don’t talk about their religion all that much, but I live in the midwest, there are not very many Jewish people here.
thats not true at all. Jews would never say that for that is attempting to pronounce Gods name using the Hebrew language. They’d say God or Adonai or Lord (most uncommon would be Lord most common being God). I know this for I’m Jewish and trying to say His name is very banned.
and what about Mormons? they say God. And i know a Muslim who is very orthodox and he says God.
You sir, are in imbecile.
I’ve never seen one Jew in my life time call god Yahweh in regular conversation. And all my muslim friends don’t say Allah because they get called terrorists[not saying that's ok but it happens]. However I would say likely you’re right, just not necessarily
You’re on the right track. I don’t know about Orthodox Jewry, but Reform Jews (like myself) generally don’t have a problem with saying ‘God’ in conversation, or keeping the ‘o’ in the middle of the word when writing it. In prayer, we say ‘Adonai’, at least at my temple.
The “don’t ever comment on my status telling me I’m wrong” tilts the probability strongly towards the Judeo-Christian sect. The “amen” from one of the respondents seals the deal as Christian.
They look American from the language. If she’s American and religious, that means it’s at least 10 to 1 odds that she is Christian. Christian is a fairly reasonable assumption, given those odds
So you not only assumed her religion but her nationality as well… that’s amazing…
Why don’t you complete the profile and add her age, sexual behaviour and Favourite TV Shows (Obviously not NatGeo or the Discovery Channel)??
Her nationality is obvious by the language, which I said. If you’re just looking to be offended, be my guest, but you’ll do yourself more favors if you turn on your brain in the process.
Not offended… yet amuzed… I was actually to keep on the joke but since you actually killed it making yourself serious… agh… I’m guessing, by your statement, you are also American and Christian… right? You know what, forgt it. It’s not funny anymore… Thanks a lot… partykiller… ¬¬’
I’m with judyjudy. “Ain’t” can be used, too, but it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who knows better. Anyone whose grammar I respect knows how to use subjunctive, and I’m grateful when I slip up and they point it out.
Well, technically it’s 1.05 to 1 odds, because it’s 95% likely she’s christian, but people don’t typically understand when you utilize accurate breakeven odds ratios. So take that for what it’s worth.
Your comment makes no sense. Accurate breakeven odds ratios? Really??
Anyway, I think you’re trying to say she’s got a 95% chance of being Christian, which is wrong, whether assuming she’s from the US or just the world in general (76% approx. in USA, 33% approx. in world). Also, assuming that value were correct, then you’re ratio of 1.05 to 1 odds is completely wrong: if there were a 95% chance of being Christian, 95 people out of every 100 would be Christian, which gives us a ratio or 95 to 5, or 19 to 1.
Don’t make up statistics. She may give the impression she’s Christian, but making up statistics and giving probabilities for something which is completely subjective (the probability she’s Christian based on the way she writes) is just dumb.
Given the fact that she is religious, which is obvious by the post, 95% of all religious people in the U.S. are Christian. The majority of the 24% of U.S. people who are not Christian profess some form of non-religious status, be it athiest, agnostic, humanistic, whathaveyou, which was culled from the assumption ratio due to the fact that she affirms her religious status.
According to your post:
100% = entire population of United States of America
95% = out of all religious people, these are Christians
24% = non-religious people, athiests, agnostics, etc
…? 95+24=119, not 100….
Check this website: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
Look at the “Top Ten ORGANIZED Religions in the United States, 2001″.
Nonreligious, Atheist, Agnostic have been dropped from this list. And still, Christianity is 76.5%….
Now, check the graph above, where it includes Nonreligious, Atheist, and Agnostic in the graph, as well as some other religions, equaling twenty so far. Christianity, once again, is 76.5%. Nonreligious, Atheist, and Agnostic all together equal 14.1%.
PS – Humanist is a separate religion.
PSS – Have you got something to back up your “proof”?
I never stated that 24% of people were non-religious. I stated that 24% of people were non-christian. Of that 24% the majority are non-religous, with a small portion of religious non-christian people.
You can’t add 95% of religious people are christians to the 24% of americans are non-christian because they are measures of a different base populations. The 95% is of religious Americans, the 24% is of all Americans.
first off, tl,dr, only read your calculation.
second, he is saying that 95% of religious people are christian, not 95% of americans. apparently 83% of americans are religious. 83% of 307M is 254.8M, so it is 95% of 254.8M
—extra calculations follow—
95% of 254.8M is 242.06M
242.06M christian
64.94M non christian.
24% of 64.94M is 15.59M
all=
242.06M christian
49.35M non-christian
15.59M non-religious.
No no, 95% Christian, 5% are not. Out of that five percent, 24% blah blah blah. It’s still correct math. As for the actual facts, I have no idea and I’m far too lazy to give a s—
By the way, the key to the misunderstanding of ratios is the betting aspect of the term “odds”. To create a breakeven scenario where the house would set “odds”, the factor of payout is inverse to other ratios. Conversationally people do not understand the difference and convert the concept to a flat percentage based ratio “X to 1 odds” which is mathematically incorrect in the context of a wager.
I misstated the ratio, conversationally, because it is how such things are commonly understood even though it is technically incorrect. You graciously assisted in the demonstration of misunderstanding, for which I give my thanks.
I see your point about the 95% religious people. Thanks for clarifying. I was in a bad mood and feeling like taking it out on nameless faceless internet people, rather than people I know, so I guess I was just looking for errors. Have a good life.
Ummm… you need to go check your figures again. Christians are only 75% of the population in America and Atheist/agnostic is between 10-15%. Jews are 3% and the rest are less than that.
So, if total population were 1000, by your percentages, 750 would be Christian, 30 would Jewish, and (being very generous) ~29 would be “religious other”.
Total religious = 750+30+29 = 809.
Chance of religious person being Christian = 750/809 = 0.927
That’s close enough to 95% for this discussion and is consistent with what Shushnik says, “Given the fact that she is religious, which is obvious by the post, 95% of all religious people in the U.S. are Christian.”
Jewish? Probably not, as the Jews I know do not write “God” on Facebook; they usually do something like “G_d” to show respect. Islamic? I have rarely heard a Muslim refer to God as “God” when the more common name is “Allah”. Krishna I know little about. Buddhists don’t generally recognize a God in the Christian way, their aim is to reach enlightenment using whatever path suits you best. And Wiccan I know little about as well. But, as you can see, a comment like “God is good!!” could generally be perceived as Christian.
This is true. As a Jew I know that usually Jews do write G-d or G_d because it’s not only to show respect but because He is sacred and shouldn’t be deleted or something that could happen through Facebook. However not all Jews know this but already the chances of him being Jewish are low (1: Jews are smart…. 2: Jewish population isn’t too high) but now the percentage of Jews that don’t say G-d or G_d makes that even lower, so he/she is most likely not Jewish.
‘Not all Jews know this’? Try, ‘not all Jews follow this particular convention’. Personally, I think God’s name could survive being deleted on Facebook. It’s a silly rule.
I can safely say that neither a Krishna, Bhuddist or Wiccan would say, “God is amazing” after spouting a completely bogus, supposed fact. Wouldn’t happen. Only followers of the Abrahamist religions are so blind in their faith as to be so stupid. No, I am not saying all members of all Abrahamist faiths are stupid.
Why are you talking about yourself? People use their own terms for their faith, but over the broad spectrum, certain patterns emerge. Many theists call their god, God, but that term is most often used by Christians (at least in the US, where this is most likely from). This does not mean that the poster could not be of a different religion, it just means that it is more likely. It is entirely possible you are right, but we are using somewhat standard generalizations to come to our conclusions.
Um…they’re talking about themselves because they’re responding to a post that claimed that ALL Krishnas referred to themselves a certain way as proof that this poster was lying about knowing any.
When someone tells you “You must be lying about knowing a so-and-so, because they ALL do this” it is perfectly valid to say “no, not all, I know a guy…”
You just reprimanded someone for pointing out that the conclusions above are gross generalizations, not reliable facts.
Krishnas and Bhuddists refer to “God” as the spirit of life and the shared consciousness of life in the Universe, not the creator/architect of physical objects. Wiccans are part of a loose-knit NeoPagan spirituality, some of whom would possibly attribute the placement of Earth as something the Goddess had a hand in, but most would not.
Right, what exactly are Krishnas? Do you mean Hindus? Or Hare Krishnas? I’m not sure if you’re just saying it wrong, since you were going along the line of mostly major religions. I’ve never heard of anyone refer to themselves as a “Krishna”. And I was born Hindu (as in my parents are Indian and Hindu, rather than them being hippie types and converting or whatever).
(S)he could perhaps be jewish, but probably not. Jews know better than to take their holy books literally.
Moslems, the cult of Hare Krishna, buddhists and wiccans have other names for their gods/supreme beings/forces of nature, so they’re all out of the equation.
Face it. If someone says something retarded and/or blatantly ignorant, and mentions the word “god” in the process, they’re probably christian.
I’m sure there are plenty of fundy Jews in Israel, just as there are plenty of fundy Christians in America, and plenty of fundy Muslims in Islamic countries. When a person lives in an area where their religion is in the minority, they don’t have as many people around them reinforcing their particular brand of beliefs, so I think we would be even less likely to see fundy Jews in countries where Judaism isn’t the norm.
That said, a fundy Jew is probably more likely to use “G_d” or maybe even “YHWH,” which still rules them out, and I agree that the woman here is probably Christian.
This is true. The Jews believe that G-d’s name is now a mystery because a long time ago it was only known by the Jewish High Priest or something and it was lost and now not known. Ad-nai and G-d “yood yood” and “yood hay vuv hay” act as a nickname you could say.
lmao…really? sounds like she could be any protestant denomination considering I have encountered this kind of mentality in Methodists, Lutherans, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc. Most protestant denominations have very few differences in what they accept as “canon”.
As far as my 2 cents, I grew up in a Christian home (the kind most of you here would make fun of) but I no longer follow that belief system. This sounds exactly like something many Christians I have known would say, but I would like to point out that I have also met many who love science and actually see it as confirmation of God hand in everything.
Hating on Christians as a whole is just as bad as having a Christian try to “save” you by shoving the Bible down your throat. Anyway, it’s nice to see someone put in their place for posting bs no matter who it is
Wicca generally believes there are more than one god, if only metaphorically. Actually, they put more stock in the female aspect, because the male usually dies at the end of the season to be reborn. Jews, I believe the sacred name for god is Yahweh (sp) Calling him got is a new testament thing. Islamics generally refer to god as Allah. Buddhist? From what I know about the faith, they generally don’t argue. Krishna? I have no Idea. I’m only 25. Give me a few more years and I’ll try to completely evaluate more faiths and religions.
The problem is not if she’s christian or not… but the fact that she is blonde and girl, ergo , a blonde girl, wich are oftenly dumbs, or like I like to call them, dumb blonde girls.
Because is clearly to me that you have no intention to learn spanish as well… not even if they’re more countries who speak spanish… and because I’m with Paz’ philosophy that language, as long is understood, it’s grammar and ortography are indeed, overvalued. Keeping the purism of languages avoid them to evolve. All the languages we speak in the world today are not by deviant versions of the languages spoken centuries before. So being a purist, or like you say, grammar nazi, is not only anoying, but incorrect and unnatural, sinces stops the natural evolution of alnguage as an anthropology entity.
Why speak Spanish when I can speak the language of my family and coworkers, German? Also, it is one thing to be a Grammar Nazi, but an entirely different thing to wish for someone to include nouns in his sentences.
English is already one of those most confusing languages in the world. We don’t need grammar and spelling that poor making it even worse.
You want a language that’s used more widely, particularly on the internet, learn French.
Better yet, learn Latin. That’s used as the basis for Spanish, Italian, French, and a few others – and is as a result is technically spoken in more countries (although not fluently) than Spanish or English.
Perhaps you have noticed that this Web site is in English. And perhaps you might also have noticed that Google Translate does a fair job of turning Spanish (and a number of other languages) into passable English. You might further note that Google Translate is a service provided free of charge.
Well, we are lucky in that luck is an assessment of results being in favor of the subject(s) -not a driving force of events- and that this planet being habitable is fortunate to us, since we exist as a result.
Of course, if we didn’t have the right conditions for life, we wouldn’t be having this discussion on this planet.
But odds are there are several billion more planets with the right conditions in the Universe. Sure, with our present technology it will take eons to reach even the nearest, but who cares how long it takes Little Miss I-Just-Made-This-Sh*t-Up to reach any place else, as long as she’s off *this* planet?
To be honest, it’s not entirely impossible that if the conditions of the universe changed, that some other form of life would have arisen. The universe did not form to permit life (otherwise, why are there vast spaces of uninhabitable regions?), life formed to fit the universe. See also: Douglas Adams’ mud puddle argument
I wish I knew who the people underneath the one with 17 likes was commending. I’m hoping it’s not the OP…
Also, “I don’t wanna know I’m wrong, don’t tell me I’m wrong!!!! I don’t care!!!” is something I heard all throughout high school in my small town. It’s pathetic.
Every Christian in Ohio is like this. “I’d rather believe something I read in an e-mail forward rather than those sinful science textbooks paid for by government grants.” And if they accidentally stumble on the truth their parents have spent their wholes lives covering up, they seriously turn into The Hulk (The green one, not the mustache one.)
I don’t expect anyone but the most die-hard tmbg fans to appreciate the sheer awesomeness of potblessed’s comment – regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
Check out the song “they got lost” by They Might Be Giants – the announcer makes the same mistake you did. When I first read your post I thought you might have been referencing that.
Ugh. I used to teach ecology & evolution to college students in Cincinnati. Can’t tell you how old that got real fast. I would get ‘I don’t have to do this assignment because I don’t believe in evolution.’ My counter: ‘You are required to learn communism in other classes, and religions other than Christianity in comparative religion classes. That does not require you to convert. Do the work or fail.’
See, that type of thing gets me all fired up. And remember the debacle in Kansas? When they tried to modify the scientific method so that it was less objective? There is a quote about “Those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Most people assume that this quote is in reference to history. It is not. The quote refers to human progress – history, true, but also scientific advancement. Religion is plain dangerous.
Naw, stupid is plain dangerous. Religion has nothing to do with it, other than being a convenient shield. Take away someone’s shield, and sure enough they’ll just find a new one if they can’t deal with reality.
I mean… you do realize that a disproportionate fraction of science you use daily was established by religious people, right? Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, Copernicus? Among many many others.
So… unless you’re going to name BOTH the guys who independently created calculus as the enemy of science, let’s all take a deep breath and realize that there are always idiots out there. I assure you, I have met atheist idiots and the only reason why they aren’t as annoying as the religious ones is that they’re so thinly distributed they don’t form action groups.
And when they do, we have people complaining about what’s on the penny or the dollar…
Religion has nothing to do with it? Yeah, I’m sure those kids killed of things like eczema and diabetes would be glad to know their parents were just stupid and it wasn’t the irrational religion belief in faith healing that killed them.
Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, etc were religious. They didn’t use religion to do science. They used science to do science. When religion meets science, it is a retardant and it is actually the reason why Newton didn’t do more than he did.
And wtf are you talking idiot atheists? Do you really think the removal of a blatent disregard for the establishment of religion clause of the first admendment isn’t worthy of complaining about?
Do you not realize that sort of thing is why Americans get laughed at?
Argh, that’s the point! This is so irritating – someone makes a perfectly valid point about how there are religious people who have brought about great advancements to society, and someone else goes, “yes, but they didn’t use RELIGION to do it, did they?” NO THEY DIDN’T AND THAT’S THE FREAKING POINT. I’m not even remotely religious but this still makes me so unbelievably annoyed.
I think you need to reread what the point of MY comment was in response to Z.
First he said, “Naw, stupid is plain dangerous. Religion has nothing to do with it.” Stupid is dangerous and so is religion.
Then he said, “I mean… you do realize that a disproportionate fraction of science you use daily was established by religious people, right? Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, Copernicus? Among many many others.” So what? Religion was irrelevant to them except where it stunted their continued progress like it did with Newton or in censoring like they did with Galileo. Bring up scientists who happen to be religious is worthless.
I have no problems with people believing in whatever deity they want, so long as they don’t try to impose the detrimental beliefs on others: faith healing, trying to get Creationism into schools, telling little kids they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe, etc.
Right, except the fact that most sane religious people would not say that imposing detrimental beliefs on others is a part of their religion. Why discount those people? Especially considering they are the overwhelming majority of the religious population. Why only focus on the lunatics?
Evil intentions combined with an ignorant population is the danger, and all that’s made up of people. Take just pure religion away, and all those things you’re saying (imposing detrimental beliefs, telling kids lies to make them do things etc) can and will still exist.
The point is for most people, religion IS irrelevant to what they do. Sure, religion possibly stunts progress in certain areas, but many other things do this as well. What these things have in common is an inability of people to think outside of themselves and separate themselves from their beliefs – understandably not an easy thing to do. But claiming this is limited to religious people is highly unfair and divisive.
Personally, I became an atheist because I thought it was synonymous with being against indoctrination. More and more, I realise that while I still technically fall under the definition of an atheist due my fundamental beliefs, this obnoxious attitude and ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, literally against anything that has the word “religion” in it, is not something I signed up for.
I’ll let you in on something. The insane aren’t as few as you believe.
Some 35% of religious people, at least in the USA, believe the universe is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs lived at the same time as human. 35% is the a majority of religious people because there are so many factions.
And I’m well aware some are not like that. I’m married to one of them.
I disagree with this statement: “Evil intentions combined with an ignorant population is the danger.”
People who are otherwise moral people do bad things in the name of religion and think it’s good because they think it’s divinely warrented… like the compulsory genital mutilation of infant boys. No one would do that if it wasn’t for religion. There’s absolutely no reason to.
Parents that believe in faith healing end up letting their kids die of things like eczema and diabetes, which is like tourture for weeks or months before they finally die.
It takes religion for that, not evil intentions.
I also disagree with this: “religion IS irrelevant to what they do.” It is completely relevent especially when you look at suicide bombers. Ever hear of an atheist suicide bomber? It’ll never happen. BTW, they think they’re doing the right thing. It’s not because of evil intentions (at least in their own minds).
“Sure, religion possibly stunts progress in certain areas, but many other things do this as well.”
Possibly? It does all the time. The condom stuff in Africa, the campaigns against education and medicine in the USA, etc…
Sure other stuff hurts us as well, but not nearly as badly. And it’s not like religion gets to claim “well, they’re bad too.” They’re supposed to be better than the rest of us, not worse.
“What these things have in common is an inability of people to think outside of themselves and separate themselves from their beliefs”
Okay… here comes a rant.
I don’t give a s**t what personal beliefs people have (as I said, my wife is a Christian). It really doesn’t bother me, but my wife doesn’t go around trying to impose her beliefs on others. She doesn’t think I’m going to hell for being an atheist. She’s never once asked me to start going to church or to pray with her. She thinks gay marriage is okay and simply being a good person is enough to get into heaven. She’s never let religion cloud her choices in any matter worthy of rational thought.
Atheists don’t fight against people like that. It’s fighting against leniant sentancing for people that kill their kids because of faith based beliefs, like the parents of the little girl that died of eczema and the other that died of diabetes. Each couple, between all four of them that were sentences, got less than 10 years… 10 years for the lives of two young children who were tortured to death.
I fight against the state (Kentucky) spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a literal interpretation of the Bible-based theme park when they haven’t even seen a feasibility study, and the feasibility study that’s said to be in existance was written by a friend of Ken Ham.
I fight against religion having a say in civil rights matters as it did in getting Prop 8 approved.
These are the things most atheist fight against… I have no dog in any of those races. I fight against that purely because religion is encroaching on free society and people are suffering for it.
Atheists are fighting to benefit other people… it’s the definition of thinking outside of yourself.
“I became an atheist because I thought it was synonymous with being against indoctrination.”
Most are against indoctrination, but that’s not a requirement for atheism. Only not believing in a deity is. Beyond that, atheists are as diverse a group of people as you could hope to find.
“this obnoxious attitude and ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, literally against anything that has the word “religion” in it”
Did anything I listed that are the biggest concerns of most atheists have anything to do with banning the practice of religion in any way? Or was it just banning religion’s ability to effect politics and civil rights and free society?
So I know is this nearly a month late, and you probably won’t see it…but I thought I’d reply anyway.
You know, the thing is that I completely agree with fighting for most of what you said. I’m on the same side in so many ways, and I believe in so many of the same things. The only thing that I absolutely refuse to agree with is your claim that it is RELIGION that is causing these things. This, to me, is just plain wrong.
You say that being against indoctrination is not a requirement for atheism because they are a diverse set of people. So why do you think religious people aren’t exactly the same, as diverse a group of people? Just because there are MANY insane religious people does not automatically mean that the majority are, and I think you will find that there are MANY insane people who are not religious as well.
More than anything, you seem to be equating ignorance with people who believe they have good intentions. When I talk about evil intentions, I’m talking about an agenda being very purposefully pushed forward by people who have a lot of power and money, who deceive an ignorant population into doing their bidding based on the belief that it is the right, or moral or, let’s say, holy thing to do. (And by the way, this happens across the board, religious to non-religious, left-wing to right-wing.) Someone who let’s their kid die because they believe in faith healing may believe they have good intentions, but in my view, they are just extremely ignorant. Pure and simple.
And by the way, your statement about the impossibility of an atheist being suicide-bomber is total sophistry. Anyone can be, and has been, a terrorist. Suicide-bombers are terrorists. What it sounds like you’re saying, “sure, our side has terrorists, but at least they aren’t SUICIDE-bombers. Those are the worst kind!” Give me a break.
Over and above all of this, I know for certain that finger-pointing is definitely not the way forward. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t specifically say that you wanted to ban the practice of religion, your attitude in terms of how you define things by saying stuff like, “Stupid is dangerous and so is religion” is what I find really hard to swallow.
Good for them! Evolution is full of holes. micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution. Evolution has done nothing to advance science. Through digs and research to prove evolution, ancient cities have been found proving the Bible correct.
btw, if she had put the word ORBIT in, she would have been correct.
Yes, you are correct in that micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Genetics and the fossil record prove macro-evolution.
Through digs and researcher, ancient cities have been found that are older than biblical history.
And, no, she would not have been correct if she had used the word “orbit”. The orbit of Terra varies by more than 1,000 miles every year. Any sizable impact, such as the one that created the Chicxulub crater would have destroyed all life on Terra and we would not exist.
I was going to comment but EvilDave took care of it.
Look, I get why you cannot accept evolution because it contradicts your chosen god/myth but please, for your own self-respect, don’t try to argue against it. Just say “It’s my faith.” and leave it at that. Because that’s what it is, faith. If you really wanted to observe evidence and accept (not believe) its conclusions we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
@evo is not science: You are an idiot. And that might be a massive over-estimation of your intelligence. I won’t bother to explain why, it would require using words with more then three letters.
They closed their tiny minds and turned away from the light. Like larval Morlocs, content to exist like parasites on the advances that human progress has brought.
I’m pretty sure the EXISTENCE and HISTORY of communism and religion is also not a matter of opinion. Unless you’re taking a really nihilistic or relativistic view on things.
I believe you have a confusion about the usage of “belief” in this context. I believe in communism, religion, and evolution- in that they all exist as important topics of study. This would in no way force me to have an opinion about any of them. In fact, one could imagine a biologist who doesn’t believe in evolution at all- but is satisfied in their work to act “as-if” evolution occurred and use that as an assumption that underlies their work.
People do this all the time for other things. Nobody “believes” that macro-economics works according to the silly rules that economists make. With that said, they have been derived and are useful for projecting things, so I’d be happy to use such rules in absence of better theory.
With that said, one would have to be a dummy to not believe in evolution in both senses. You can literally demonstrate evolution in a petri dish with bacteria in under a month. No joke. Just play with some staph. Just be careful not to make it a super-MRSA and get it in your eye.
Why the hell would a religious person even want a degree? I thought their lot on this earth was to get married at 17 and pop out fifteen kids and then die in the produce section of their local walmart from a brain aneurysm. ESPECIALLY A SCIENCE DEGREE!
But not before college. There is BYU over in Utah, you know. It’s a whole Mormon school. Not all Mormons can get in, of course, but they’re all told to get a good education.
“Do the work or fail.” is good. I also heard of another biology teacher who tells his class at the very beginning of the course every year that they don’t have to *believe* what they were being taught. They just have to *understand* it.
Evolution is the foundation of all biology. You can’t be a good biologist without believing in evolution, and I hope they either realize that or just become something stupid instead.
I can completely verify her claims are like onemillion persent trew! I climbed up on the roof of my dad’s shed which is like ten feet hi AND I TOTALLY BURNED UP!!!!!!!!1!1!!11!!!1111!
Bite me. Then I would die. My blood would be on your hands you heartless person. It’s so easy for you Internet losers to wish death on other people – why not try it in real life sometime? Oh, and it was humor, you retard! It was supposed to be satire of the idiot in the original post but idiots like you don’t get that, do you?
I spent 23 years in the US Army. I didn’t just wish death on other people, I delivered it. Are you asking me to schedule a delivery? Can you afford me?
Prove he exists before you start talking about what he thinks because I have a really hard time distinguishing between God’s beliefs and the beliefs of the people who are telling you what God’s beliefs are.
I want to be sure I’m getting it from the right source.
I really wish I could could comment on these people’s facebooks! Could say something like “Whoa, hold on there blasphemer, don’t you mean if the sun was 10 ft closer to the earth, since it’s the thing doing the revolving?”
No. That sort of ignorance needs to be quashed the second it’s stated, and with such viamence that if they refuse to change their ignorant beliefs, they’ll be loath to express it in public.
So we’re all in agreement. Show of hands for “to heck”? The hecks have it, motion passes. Moving on to the Girls shouldn’t fart when they don’t mean it. Show of hands.
Many, yes, but not all. Some people are religious because they fear death. Some are religious because they were taught to fear a lake of fire. Some need to feel like there is a powerful being looking after them. People believe in gods for many reasons.
Again, they just don’t know the answer to questions. They ask “What happens when you die” Someone answers “you go to hell and burn in a lake of fire!” and they believe it. Thats idiocy on itself, innit? If you need a powerful imaginary being looking after you, if you fear a lake of fire, or need guidance in life… Choose god instead of common sense
Also, there ARE many more people like her out there! They’re called “morons”.
–noun
1.
a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2.
Psychology . a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
There are even satanic morons, muslim morons, wiccan morons, and jewish morons! The world is actually FILLED with morons. Isn’t that interesting?
The idiot was corrected, as is right and proper. I feel I must note, however, that no earthquake (regardless of magnitude) could change the earths orbit at all. Internal forces would not add any net acceleration and nothing is being ejected from the earth, hence momentum is not changed (tangentially or radially).
Please feel free to ignore my unnecessary critique. Point is: stupid people be stupid. Think of this comment just more as a ‘in case you were wondering’ about the earthquake thing.
Actually, eathquakeS could do the job. While he is wrong saying one could, on a fault line when an earthquake occurs it can make this “–” go to this “_-” or “-_” because part of the earth is slid up or down in that area. So a few large earthquakes could toast us or freeze us.
How could this ever be true? The Earth isn’t completely round, it has mountains and canyons making it so the only habitable area of the Earth would be around 0.01%, the part in the middle of the burning and freezing areas. Also, it is not the closeness of the sun that cause the difference in heat between different areas of Earth, but if the sunlight is direct or indirect. That statement is completely stupid and anyone who believes it is DUMB!!
ahaha
Then how do you explain the fact that since moving to Denver I have been burned to a crisp. Obviously, the lord wanted us all to live at sea level. Mountains wer his mistakes, where he crumpled up the world a bit.
Sounds like the woman is religiously devoted. However, no matter how religiously devoted you are…there are some facts that are really hard to ignore. Like, for example, the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Technically, either calling the Sun or the Earth a fixed point works; however, the math for calculating orbits is a lot simpler when the Sun is called “fixed.” And of course, the Sun is also moving around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is moving along with the Local Group towards I have no idea what, and so on.
But believing that a distance of less than 3 meters between Earth and Sun matters, well… Euthanasia seems advisable.
Laptop – $900
WiFi service – $30
Warm, fuzzy slippers – $18
Comfy office chair – $220
Corner desk – $370
Reading some moron getting her a$$ put in its place – PRICELESS
That is so funny. I love when people post something just stupid on their facebook, for all their friends to see, and then get pissed when someone says something. “DID I ASK YOU?” A: Actually, sorta.
Amazingly, Fox had something about the Westboro Baptist Church recently that had facts in it. Except they referred to them simply as the Westboro Church, as though they wanted to distance the Phelps from Christianity.
Her principle conjecture is “God must exist because if Terra’s orbit were only 10 feet off in either direction, no life would exist here” which is demonstrably false.
That answer was simplifying a bit. The earth could not move to any place in that “habitable zone” and get a stable orbit like now. If the velocity or the mass of the earth did not change when it was moved to its new position, it would spiral into the sun or shoot out into space. The earth has found its sweet spot. Nothing magical about it though.
Not really, if it was closer at its current velocity, it would fall closer but gain momentum in the process and reach a new balance. If it didn’t, over the millions of years meteors would have owned us.
hey, did you guys know–if the Earth were ten feet closer to the sun then we would all burn up and if it were ten feet further then we would all freeze to death! Isn’t learning science amazing?
Life on Earth probably would not have happened if the Earth was much warmer or much colder.
And if Mars was at the right distance from the Sun and had all the requirements for life to evolve on it (like Earth) then we would live on Mars and this woman would be saying “Wow, Mars is at the perfect distance for us to live, good job god!”
The biggest mistake in her reasoning is not that she does not know the Earth could get miles closer to the Sun and we’d still live, but that she does not understand probabilities at all…
What’s the probability of us living on a planet that can’t support life? 0.
The probability of us living on a planet that can support life? 1 (or 100% if you don’t know how probabilities are normally expressed).
So even though we could not have lived anywhere else than a planet like Earth, it’s god’s magic that put us and Earth together. Right…
And also, there’s like what? 1 billion galaxies, with 1 billion stars each, with an average of 5 planets each? That’s 5 x 1 Billion x 1 Billion planets in the universe… I’d be impressed if all had life on them or even if NONE had life on them. The fact that some meet all the requirements for life is to be expected.
Put a cup on the ground, walk away 1 foot and throw 1 million coins in the direction of the cup but without aiming specifically at the cup. You’ll definitely have at least 1 coin land in the cup. The only way to have ALL coins or NO coins land in the cup is to do it on purpose.
Numbers are a bit off. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars in them. There is no evidence of each star having orbiting planets as we do not have powerful enough telescopes or equations to judge– we can only posit the existence of planets comparable to Jupiter’s mass.
Also, it’s entirely possible for no coins to land in the cup if you toss them one at a time. Each coin has its own probability in that case. If you chuck all of them at once, though, you’re right.
I’d be pretty impressed if someone was able to pick up and throw a couple of tons of typical metal coinage and also avoid crushing the cup in the process.
So, you’re saying all the planets are “one at a time”? I’m pretty sure they’re existing simultaneously.
The temperature of a planet is not purely based on the distance from the sun, anyway; other things to consider are the amount of radiation from the sun and the planet’s atmospheric conditions/properties (Venus is hotter than Mercury).
That assumes that one knows the prior probabilities, which we do not. Quite honestly, we can make no statements about the probability or improbability of life in the universe. We still do not even understand all the formative factors that have made life possible where we are, nor do we have any point of reference to figure out common factors with other areas that hold life.
With that said, given all the known info, it seems likely that at least some simple organisms exist elsewhere in the universe. But it would not necessarily be unlikely (P < 0.5) that no life occurred within the universe. For example, your cup example works great. But let's instead assume that you're throwing a million coins randomly but the cup is two football fields away. What now are the odds that any coin drops in there? Not high. Though non-zero, since maybe one rolls and bounces off another coin. Or, does a crazy particle-tunneling effect and appears inside the cup regardless of your throw. Which would be rather miraculous, if I do say so.
ahh yes, the angry ignorance of a religious fanatic. Just remember boys and girls. Superman has his weakness in cryptonite. Religious Fanatics weakness, cold hard facts….They Burn the ears!!!
You should study Anthropic Principles. These principles are necessary for life. It’s not that earth would be slightly different, it’s that the atmosphere or anything needed for life (like a planet) is so fine-tuned that it implicitly screams a designer made it.
You can’t evolve if there’s no earth. You can’t evolve if there’s no atmosphere. You can’t evolve if gravity is changed ever so slightly to where everything falls out of order. You can’t evolve if asteroids constantly pummel you into the earth (which is why we need Jupiter). All of these would kill you, and as we all know, you can’t evolve if you’re dead.
People have every basis for saying how perfect and fine-tuned this earth is, because it is. It has nothing to do with adaptation, because there would be nothing to adapt to; you’d be dead if a particular problem arose, thus Anthropic Principles are perfect examples against ideas such as yours.
Prove that evolution of life cannot take place without Earth. Prove that evolution of life cannot take place without atmosphere. Prove that evolution of life cannot take place if the gravitational constant is changed.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; furthermore, the latest discoveries in meteorites tend to indicate that amino acids CAN evolve in low gravity and vacuum.
And anyone who claims “Intelligent Design” is sciene is saying (1) “I’m too stupid to imagine random chance causing human life to appear over the billions of years this planet has existed,” and (2) “My god is an idiot.” The latter statement comes from the incredibly awful and vulnerable “design” of the human male reproductive organs.
I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right. If all I need to do is have you prove something wrong, I could keep you busy for a long time.
For example. I believe oranges have purple smurfs on the inside of them; but when you cut the skin, they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong.
I could keep you busy your whole life with that one.
Also, if gravity were changed ever so slightly, planetary bodies would fall out of orbit, atmospheres would drift into space, and ultimately the universe (which exists on the gravity constant) would collapse on itself.
Evidence also shows that when going through the process believed to start life that you get useless amino acids that can’t aid in life and 98% tar which kills it anyway.
Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life. This was tested, observed and repeated (even today) continuously.
1) It’s not that “I’m too stupid” to imagine random chance. It’s that it’s virtually impossible and therefore I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility. That’s just human logic. The chances of 1 protein molecule forming on it’s own is as likely as a blind man finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara desert… 3 times… in a row. And you need about 200 proteins for the simplest life! It’s inconceivable.
2) To say something is poorly designed is to imply that you know what “design” is. You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.
Secondly, sub-optimal design isn’t evidence of no design at all. Cars aren’t optimally designed, but they’re designed nonetheless.
Thirdly, to say something is wrongfully designed is to say you know the intentions of the designer. Designers don’t always go for perfection, sometimes they just go for something that fills a particular need. Which leads me to my final point that there are always trade-offs (which elaborates off of my third point in which you must know the designer’s intentions). Large cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they’re also more difficult to maneuver and consume more gas. Trade-offs can’t be avoided in this world. You must compromise certain things to reach the intended objective. For example, you can’t fault the design on a compact car because it doesn’t carry 15 passengers. The objective is to carry 4, not 15.
To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms unless you know the intentions of the designer.
It wasn’t directed at you so I honestly don’t care if you read it or not. But you should know that “tl;dr” is an implicit admittance that one can’t combat what I’ve written.
I’ve seen far worse comments and they were far more serious so forgive me if I don’t distinguish the difference through the medium that is the internet; absent of voice inflection and facial features to determine sarcasm.
“I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right”
Wow. Right out of the starting gate and already we’re encountering problems. If we’re talking about evolution, then we’re talking about science. And in science nothing is ever “proven”, nor could it ever be. The reason is the positive proof is only dealt with in mathematics. Science deals only in disprove things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory or even a hypothesis is it being falsifiable. This means that if the theory is false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. So yes, you *do* have to disprove the theory of evolution.
However, even though we can’t prove the theory, we can demonstrate that it exists and that it works. And this is done through volumes of evidence that supports the theory. Evidence such as:
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution.
“Also, if gravity were changed ever so slightly, planetary bodies would fall out of orbit, atmospheres would drift into space, and ultimately the universe (which exists on the gravity constant) would collapse on itself.”
Ah yes. The ole’ “universe is fine-tuned for life” argument. Sorry but the universe isn’t as “finely tuned” as you think. Work by Dr. Fred C. Adams has shown that 25% of random starting conditions would create universes capable of producing stars. And stars are are a fundamental source of energy as well as all higher elements necessary for life. Research by Dr. Roni Harnik, Dr. Graham D. Kribs, and Dr. Gilad Perez has shown that a viable universe with stars *is* possible even if the weak nuclear force, one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, was removed. Even if the universe was a random roll of the dice, a universe capable of supporting life is *not* that unlikely. Again all of this if from peer-reviewed and verified accurate research.
“Evidence also shows that when going through the process believed to start life that you get useless amino acids that can’t aid in life and 98% tar which kills it anyway.”
This is either you being vastly ignorant of the subject or you’re just flat out lying. In the Miller-Urey experiment, carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells. Glycine being the most abundant of the amino acids producted. Miller himself was quoted in an interview saying that “Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.” These are hardly “useless” amino acids as you call them.
“Intelligent Design is indeed science”
No it isn’t. And this was shown in a court of law when it was demonstrated during the Dover Trials that the proponents of Intelligent Design merely substituted the word “creationism” with “intelligent design” in the creationist book “People and Pandas”. It was the exact same book in all other aspects. Intelligent design is just creationism dressed up. It’s a scam promoted solely to undermine legitimate science. It doesn’t even count as an hypothesis because it isn’t based on evidence. It offers no mechanism. And isn’t even falsifiable. It is backed by nothing and produces nothing because it is nothing but untestable conjecture. None of it has been demonstrated to be right and lots of it have been shown to be wrong. So it’s useless in any field, because only accurate information can have practical application.
“Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.”
This is fallacy known as an ‘Argument from Analogy’. When constructing a logical argument, its best to not commit a logical fallacy when doing it.
“It’s not that “I’m too stupid” to imagine random chance”
Evolution isn’t “random”. Far from it. Natural Selection actually makes evolution extremely deterministic.
“I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility”
It’s not about *believing*. It’s about what is verifiably accurate. No belief required.
“The chances of 1 protein molecule forming on it’s own is as likely as a blind man finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara desert… 3 times… in a row.”
You’re now arguing probability after the fact. This is fundamentally wrong. The probability of *any* outcome after the fact is always 1:1. E.g. In a coin toss, the probability of it landing either heads or tails is roughly 50:50. If I flip it and it happens to land on heads, then the probability that it landed on heads is 1:1. The probability of being struck by lightning is roughly 1 out of 75,000; but for the people that were struck by lightning, their odds are 1:1.
Not to mention that you also seem to being arguing that just because it is statistically unlikely for something to occur means that is impossible for it *actually* occur. Again this is fundamentally flawed reasoning.
“design is empirically detectable”
This seems to be a reoccurring element in all your posts. You keep emphatically claiming the design is evident and yet you have not shown one piece of evidence in support of this claim. Why is that?
You keep stating that “I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right” but you don’t seem to be holding yourself to the same standards. How do you know that design is evident? What method are you using to determine this? By what criteria are you using to judge what is and is not design?
“To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms unless you know the intentions of the designer.”
And you cannot succeed in claiming what is design until you show how you know it is design or by what means are you determining design.
“in science nothing is ever “proven””
-Then apparently we can’t discover truth with it in which case it shouldn’t be used.
“One of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory or even a hypothesis is it being falsifiable. This means that if the theory is false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. So yes, you *do* have to disprove the theory of evolution.”
-That doesn’t make any sense. In essence, you’re saying that in order for it to be science, it must be falsifiable, in which case it must be able to be demonstrated as false, even if it’s true. But if something has to be falsifiable to be true, then the idea that something must be falsifiable must be falsifiable itself (which means there’s an exception) and therefore, not everything true needs to be falsifiable. So technically, if the idea that something must be falsifiable to be considered true then nothing can be true which means the idea of falsifiability cannot be true. In short, it’s self-defeating in every way.
“All of these are peer-reviewed…”
-Which doesn’t matter because there’s no unbiased peer when it comes to origins unless they’ve never heard of what they’re reading about.
“Even if the universe was a random roll of the dice, a universe capable of supporting life is *not* that unlikely.”
-Considering the fact that if you take *all* Anthropic Principles into account (not just the gravity) and do a calculation as to how that would show up randomely with all these principles intact for a planet supporting life, it’s a chance greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I don’t remember the exact number, probably about 10^140 chance of it happening. Virtually impossible.
“Again all of this if from peer-reviewed and verified accurate research.”
-Again, doesn’t matter.
“These are hardly “useless” amino acids as you call them.”
-Oh, but indeed they are. You can have amino acids, but that’s not the problem, the problem is he formed only left or only right amino acids through the process, and you need an equal amount of each for life (Example: ddd|bbb (left|right). However, I reiterate that even this isn’t as much of a problem as the toxin which you ignored. They may have created amino acids, and even though it was indeed useless as I stated, it was only 2% of the creation. The other 98% was a kind of tar which would kill off the 2% life anyway.
“No it isn’t… And isn’t even falsifiable [ID being science]”
-It most certainly is, because apparently you didn’t read everything I said involving it as science. Since I have better things to do than re-type something because you don’t feel up to reading everything, then you shouldn’t even be commenting. I’ll give you the opportunity to reread what I said. And again, it doesn’t need to be falsifiable to be true.
“When constructing a logical argument, its best to not commit a logical fallacy when doing it.”
-When writing potatoes, it’s best not to make lemons as the sun will explode. It must be true because I said it without anything to back up what I said.
“Natural Selection actually makes evolution extremely deterministic.”
-Natural Selection, selects. It doesn’t create, thus aiding in evolution. If a whole population has a dominant gene of long hair, then the recessive short gene gets “filtered out,” keeping the long-haired gene strong. Did we create a new population? No, we still have it (in this example, dogs), the dogs are still dogs though. They didn’t grow wings because there wasn’t anything to select from for wings. Secondly, Natural Selection is a misnomer and appeal to intelligence. Since “selection” is an intelligent process.
“No belief required.”
-I’m sorry, but do you believe there was something happening over billions of years, too small to see in a lifetime, is happening today? Yes? That’s a belief, that’s faith. Do you believe certain things happened in history that you were not there for? Yes? Then you have faith in the information you’re given/receiving. We all have faith in some way, regardless of what we believe to be true. Finally, this whole discussion we’re having just shows you implicitly admit you believe in something. Do you believe you’re right in this debate?
“You’re now arguing probability after the fact.”
-”If” that’s how life came to be. Since that’s what this whole discussion is about, there is no “after the fact” in this case which is therefore rendered invalid until we know what is.
“just because it is statistically unlikely for something to occur means that is impossible for it *actually* occur.”
-I’m aware of that, but after it exceeds a certain number, the chances are so slim that scientists say it’s “virtually” impossible. In case you hadn’t noticed, I say virtually impossible a lot. I know that there aren’t many things that are “literally” impossible, but I know they are statistically, highly unlikely and therefore “virtually” impossible.
“You keep emphatically claiming the design is evident and yet you have not shown one piece of evidence in support of this claim.”
-The person from the previous comment admitted it implicitly in his explanation. That’s the evidence. Even when he’s fighting and debating against it, he knows design is empirically detectable by saying something is poorly designed. Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is, as such, you don’t call something poorly designed unless you have some idea of what design/optimal design/perfect design is.
I’ll give you an A for effort though. You seem very intelligent to notice certain criteria.
“-Then apparently we can’t discover truth with it in which case it shouldn’t be used.”
Science only deals with empirical data, that’s data the that is gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. In other words, science deals only in truths that can be *demonstrated*.
“In essence, you’re saying that in order for it to be science, it must be falsifiable, in which case it must be able to be demonstrated as false, even if it’s true.”
Correct.
“But if something has to be falsifiable to be true..”
No it has falsifiable in order for it to be *demonstrated* true, in order for it to be science. Earlier when I was arguing against Intelligent Design, I said it was not science not that it was not “true”. I.D. isn’t science cause it isn’t falsifiable. It’s not falsifiable because it can’t be demonstrated only inferred; and if it can’t be demonstrated then it isn’t science. Now I hold that it *may be possible* that we were designed by some intelligence, but until this “fact” can be demonstrated empirically in some way it is *not* science.
“Which doesn’t matter because there’s no unbiased peer when it comes to origins unless they’ve never heard of what they’re reading about.”
Do you understand how peer-review works? I only ask because based on this comment, you seem to think that it involves merely reading a paper, and accepting it only if the understand and agree with the work being done. This is not the case. They check, double check, and triple check the data provided to see if any mistakes, misinformation, or miscalculations have occurred. They check to see if the results match with data from the experiment. If called into question, they can even repeat to experiment to see if those results will match the ones provide in the paper. They check to see if the experiments were based off a mistake in the hypothesis; or if the mistake was in the observation stage. Because of all this, the review process usually takes several months before its finished, and even then it can be sent back with corrections to be submitted again if mistakes are found. And they certainly don’t allow unqualified scientists who don’t know what they’re “reading about” to be part of the review process.
“it’s a chance greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I don’t remember the exact number, probably about 10^140 chance of it happening”
Great. So you admit that its possible that it could happen. So what’s the problem?
“Virtually impossible”
As I said in my previous comment, “virtual impossibility” =/= *actual* impossibility. More on this later.
“They may have created amino acids, and even though it was indeed useless as I stated, it was only 2% of the creation. The other 98% was a kind of tar which would kill off the 2% life anyway.”
Then you missed the point of the experiment. The significance of the Miller-Urey experiment was that it demonstrated that was possible to acquire the building blocks of life, the amino acids, from non-living material. Not that this was absolutely how it happened on Earth billions of years ago. We still don’t know how life got started on Earth or even know exactly what the conditions were like back then. The experiment only showed that the start of life is *possible* from non-life.
“It most certainly is, because apparently you didn’t read everything I said involving it as science”
Oh? lets see then
“Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life. This was tested, observed and repeated (even today) continuously.”
Nope, not here. All I see are baseless assertions without evidence to support them.
“You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.”
Not here either. Just more unsupported conjectures.
“The platypus is also evidence “of” God, not against. The fact that there’s absolutely no transitional fossils of this mammalian creature that defies what the average mammal does (birthing young in eggs rather than fully developed) is more than enough.”
More assertions. Also no evidence in support of evolution is *not* evidence for the existence of god. Even if you could disprove evolution, this does not increase the validity of Intelligent Design, as this would be a false dichotomy. It might be that there both wrong and its something that we haven’t discovered yet.
All your other posts seem to either be talking about the bible or a repeat of your “cars and planes are designed” analogy. I didn’t include your lengthy “optimal/sub-optimal/cars/planes/” posts because they’re just more arguments from analogies. The reason being is because you still haven’t answered *how* you know that humans are design? What method or criteria are you using to determine that humans are designed? Until you can do more than just state “design is evident” then you cars and planes/ optimal and sub-optimal arguments are meaningless.
However, if I have overlooked something then please show me. I’ll gladly take a look at it. I just don’t see it. If you don’t want to write it again then just use the copy & paste function.
“it doesn’t need to be falsifiable to be true.”
Yes, but it does needs to be falsifiable to be *science*.
“When writing potatoes, it’s best not to make lemons as the sun will explode. It must be true because I said it without anything to back up what I said.”
Alright, then I shall elaborate on what I said. You stated “Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.” This is an argument from analogy, other known as False Cause or False Equivocation. An argument from analogy goes like this:
X has attributes of A, B, C
Y has attributes of A and B
Therefore, Y has attribute C
This is a fallacy. Just because Y has been demonstrated to have attributes of both A and B does not mean it has attribute C. It must still be demonstrated to have attribute C before you can equivocate it to have C. In you argument you’re stating:
Books have information and authors
Cells have information
Therefore, cells must have an author
Furthermore DNA being said to be information, a code, or a blue print is only an analogy or metaphor to help explain how DNA works. In a argument, analogies are used to explain premises of that argument. You, however, are substituting the analogy for the premise of the argument. This is why it is a logical fallacy.
“It doesn’t create, thus aiding in evolution. If a whole population has a dominant gene of long hair, then the recessive short gene gets “filtered out,”
Recessive genes aren’t filtered out. Natural Selection only filters out genes that inhibit an organism’s ability to reproduce, such has being sterile or dying before being able to reproduce. If the organism dies then it can’t pass on those genes and are thus filtered out of the gene pool. Since neutral genes, genes that due not improve or inhibit an organism’s ability to reproduce such as genes that determine hair length, then they get passed on and continue to remain in the gene pool, regardless if those genes are active or dormant.
“..appeal to intelligence. Since “selection” is an intelligent process.”
No. Again you are committing false equivocation here. “Selection” in the scientific process of evolution does not mean the same thing as it does in the informal, everyday usage of the term.
“do you believe there was something happening over billions of years, too small to see in a lifetime, is happening today? Yes? That’s a belief, that’s faith”
Firstly, no I do not “believe” in evolution. I *know* evolution to be a fact. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been demonstrated to have predictable effect in guiding this variance. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development. It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition. As I said in my previous comment, no belief required.
Secondly, even if I said yes to your question and said it was belief it still wouldn’t necessarily be on faith. Not all beliefs are faith based beliefs.
“Do you believe certain things happened in history that you were not there for?”
Again no. I *know* there things that happened in history that i was not there for. I know I was not there for the Lincoln assassination. But I know it happened based on the evidence.
“Then you have faith in the information you’re given/receiving.”
No. Its based on evidence. Evidence that can be evaluated and determined whether or no it supports the claim. Evidence that we have no reason to think is wrong and every reason to think is right. When new evidence is discovered that demonstrates a previously held position to be untrue, and that evidence is sound evidence, then we re-evaluate our position according to the new evidence. Once again no faith required.
“We all have faith in some way, regardless of what we believe to be true.”
No. My knowledge and beliefs are based on what we can *demonstrate* to be true.
“I’m aware of that, but after it exceeds a certain number, the chances are so slim that scientists say it’s “virtually” impossible”
But you don’t seem to understand that “virtual impossibility”, or as mathematicians call it “statistical improbability”, does not mean it can’t happen. Only that odds of it occurring are so highly unlikely that it “might as well as” be considered impossible. But they will also tell you that it still has a chance to occur. Otherwise the odds of occurrence would be at 0 and not 10^140. Probability only tells us what is more likely to happen, not what *will* happen.
“The person from the previous comment admitted it implicitly in his explanation. That’s the evidence”
I saw nothing in the previous comment to yours that indicated evidence that we are designed. Unless your referring to MsBuzz, the first comment you responded to, when she says “it was created”. Because that is just more baseless assertions without supportive evidence to corroborate it.
“he knows design is empirically detectable by saying something is poorly designed”
Again, how does he know? What method or criteria is he using when determining this?
“Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is”
Then how can you claim we’re designed? What would a non-designed human look like? How would it function differently? What differences would there be between a designed human and a non-designed human? Like I said in the previous comment, I don’t see you holding yourself to the same standards.
“you don’t call something poorly designed unless you have some idea of what design/optimal design/perfect design is.”
Then you can’t call humans designed without knowing what a non-designed human would be like.
“Science only deals with empirical data”
-Funny, that’s what I’ve been saying all along about ID being a science. It’s observable, experimental and repeatable.
“No it has falsifiable in order for it to be *demonstrated* true in order for it to be science”
-Which, again (aside from the fact that science isn’t the ultimate source of truth and that’s all I’m interested in), if it is true, then it can’t be falsifiable. You’re already making judgment calls before even understanding if it’s true or false. That’s the problem today with scientists. I see it all the time. They’re not logically deducing the illogical, they’re completely rejecting it without considering it’s possibilities. Also, demonstration is not the same as reality. We can’t demonstrate everything, it doesn’t mean the things we can’t demonstrate are false. The question is where does demonstration end and common sense begin? A thousand years ago we couldn’t demonstrate the things we could do today, and a thousand years before that the same thing. Does that mean everything we do today is false? No, common sense has to take hold. Also, you didn’t comment on everything I said about falsifiability falsifying itself which alone defeats the idea. I’d like to hear your comments on that.
“Do you understand how peer-review works?”
-Yes, but that’s not the problem. They can check, double check, they can check 5 million times, but if they are biased in their thinking or assumptions, they’ll come to the wrong conclusion. Is it possible to come to the wrong conclusion of the same data? Yes it most certainly is. Just like 2 people can look at a fossil and 1 say “wow, look what evolution did” while the other says “wow, look what the flood did.” I’ll give another example. One day, some students go out to a pond to find out how high a frog jumps. They find a frog and scare him. The frog jumps 50 inches into the air. They write down everything, cut off 1 leg and scare the frog again. This time he jumped 40 inches. They cut off another and he jumps 30 inches. They cut off the third leg and he jumps 20. Finally, the last leg is chopped off. They scare him but he didn’t move. They were baffled. They assumed, according to the data that he’d jump 10 inches. So they had to figure this out. They came to the conclusion, that with each leg cut off of the frog, he jumps 10 inches less, but when you cut off the last leg, the frog goes deaf.
What happened here? They got the wrong conclusion. It seems valid based on all the data and assumptions, but they missed the real truth of the matter that the frog just lacked the capability to jump anymore. This is what happens today. They can be peer-reviewed all they want, but if they come to the wrong conclusion each time, then it means nothing. And since nothing of origins is unbiased, it all goes back to what they were taught, which eventually adds up to circular reasoning. Teaching people to look for the wrong thing and then using that as evidence that it’s true.
“Great. So you admit that its possible that it could happen. So what’s the problem?”
-The point is it’s virtually impossible to happen on it’s own. If there’s less of a chance of this happening than the number of atoms that even make up the entire universe of planets, then it’s virtually impossible. This is your faith, and this is why you seem comfortable in the fact that “Oh, it’s still possible, even though slim.” Well I’m sorry, but I don’t have that amount of faith to believe something of such absurd proportions. You might, but I never will.
“As I said in my previous comment, “virtual impossibility” =/= *actual* impossibility.”
-And as I said in my previous comment that you obviously did not read, I never said virtual was equal to actual impossibilities. That’s not what I believe and that’s not my argument if you consider reading it again. You might as well be setting up a strawman.
“Then you missed the point of the experiment.”
-Then the experiment is worthless. It doesn’t matter if you get amino acids from non-living material (aside from the fact that they manipulated it against nature which would be an intelligent intervention and only prove creation if anything). If that material can’t do anything for life (since it’s useless as just one out of 2 necessary pieces of amino acids), then the idea of “life” coming from non-living material is invalid. The amino acids are useless and the 98% tar created from non-life to “life” will kill it anyway. They can call it a success if they want, but in reality, its a failure. If they had made both kinds of amino acids, they “might” have an argument, but there’s still the problem of the 98% toxin killing it off.
“Oh? lets see then”
-I’ve already written it in the previous comment to that. I’m not going to re-type it all out because you didn’t want to read it the first time. Also, if you didn’t read it the first time, what incentive is there for you to read it this time? Let alone me type it out again.
“Nope, not here. All I see are baseless assertions without evidence to support them.”
-Oh the irony, because I don’t see any evidence stating I’m wrong. Just the assertion that I’m wrong. If I have faulty evidence, then you should be able to point out the fault. So where is it?
“Not here either. Just more unsupported conjectures.”
-Read the above/previous comment.
“X has attributes of A, B, C
Y has attributes of A and B
Therefore, Y has attribute C”
-Ah, yes. I remember this argument. Aside from the fact that you messed it up (Y would have attributes of A and B, not C. And Y would be equal to X), something to be understood is the validity of what’s being said. Are we dealing with definites? Or attributes? For example, take the following into account:
All cars have wheels.
Airplanes have wheels.
Therefore airplanes are cars.
The definite is cars/airplanes. The attributes are wheels. The transportations are not defined by their wheels, the wheels are attributes of the definition. The above is false because in reality, the attributes should be defined, not the definites by the attributes:
Wheels are on (and part of) cars.
Wheels are on (and part of) planes.
Therefore wheels are on (and part of) cars and planes.
Definites also implicitly admit the existence of certain attributes. In this case, If I said “car” to someone. They’d think of engines, steering wheels, and most importantly, driving wheels. Now lets correctly rearrange your syllogism:
A, B, & C are attributes of X.
A, B, & C are attributes of Y.
Therefore A, B, & C are attributes of X and Y.
What’s even better is if you have 2 definites that are attributed to each other. This makes a much stronger argument. This is what validates my argument.
So lets go back to what I said. 100% of books have authors (books are the definite just as authors are. If I say “books” you think of authors, and if I say “authors” you think of books. They’re mutual), the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets (books). Therefore, this would logically indicate an “author” for life since we see the “books” that are written.
“Recessive genes aren’t filtered out.”
-I know, that’s why I put quotations around “filtered out.”
“If the organism dies then it can’t pass on those genes and are thus filtered out of the gene pool.”
-Which is very important. It would be confusing to see certain animals exist today and, oh I don’t know, defy evolution seeing as they should be non-existent by evolutionary processes. Might want to look into the Pacific Golden Plover sometime. I’d say that’s a good place to start.
““Selection” in the scientific process of evolution does not mean the same thing as it does in the informal, everyday usage of the term.”
-That’s why it’s a misnomer. I rest my case.
“all been demonstrated to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.”
-I’m sure, but remember what I said earlier about different conclusions to the same evidence? You may think you *know* something to be true and that there’s evidence to support it, but I believe the same thing by the same evidence. Now you must begin the arduous task of deciding which supports what and why with the greatest accuracy.
“I *know* there things that happened in history that i was not there for”
-Not all history, yet certain things in history must happen in order for us to be here. I’m not talking about history man was here for, not history that you personally weren’t here for, but history no man was here for. Beginning of the universe, beginning of the earth, beginning of the solar system, beginning of _blank_. Everything we weren’t here for, you have faith came into existence even though you weren’t here. We all believe something based on something. And just as I’ve said 2 times before, you can believe on evidence all you want and there’s nothing wrong with that, but we *can* get the wrong interpretations from the same evidence.
“But you don’t seem to understand that “virtual impossibility”, or as mathematicians call it “statistical improbability”, does not mean it can’t happen”
-Yes I do, I understand it, and that’s exactly what I mean when I say it. That’s why I don’t say it’s “literally” impossible. I say it’s “virtually” impossible. Do I not make myself clear?
“I saw nothing in the previous comment to yours that indicated evidence that we are designed”
-He denied design by commenting on it’s vulnerable (poor) design. That’s the implication. You can’t say something is poorly designed unless you have some idea of what designed/optimal design/perfect design is. You don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is and you don’t call something evil unless you know what good is. You have nothing to judge it off of, this is what gives validity to the sass-back comeback of “How would you know?” You have to have some idea of what *is* to put in any valid input. I’m not sure how much clearer I can get.
“Then how can you claim we’re designed?”
-Read the above/previous comment.
“Then you can’t call humans designed without knowing what a non-designed human would be like.”
-And yet, everyone tries to disprove the design of humans by pointing out flaws in design which gives validity to what I’ve been saying in the past 2 comments.
“Funny, that’s what I’ve been saying all along about ID being a science. It’s observable, experimental and repeatable.”
Yes, you do keep saying. But what you don’t do is show evidence to support what you are saying. You mere proclaim it to be true without evidence to back it up. That’s why it is *not* science.
“aside from the fact that science isn’t the ultimate source of truth and that’s all I’m interested in”
No one ever said it was. It is merely the best method that we currently have available to us on discerning what can be demonstrated as true. Unless you have an alternative method that produces better results you would like to show us? Do you?
“You’re already making judgment calls before even understanding if it’s true or false”
No I’m not. You have not shown I.D. to be science, you have merely proclaimed it to be science. And *again* I have NEVER said I.D. was true OR false. I said it wasn’t falsifiable. If it isn’t falsifiable that it is not science, REGARDLESS of whether or not its true. If I make the claim that a tea pot is orbiting the sun between the mars and jupiter, then we can check every orbital body that exists the two planets to see if it is a tea pot or not. This makes the claim falsifiable; we can demonstrate whether or not there is a tea pot. If, however I say that the tea pot is too small for telescopes or any instruments to detect it, then the claim is NOT falsifiable because we have no way of demonstrating if there is or is not a tea pot there. Even if there is a tea pot there, if I have no way of demonstrating this to you, then my claim that there is a tea pot is unfalsifiable and not science. If I.D. is a science, as you proclaim it to be, then please demonstrate it.
“They’re not logically deducing the illogical”
How in the hell do yo deduce the illogical?? Can A be both A and not A at the same time? Can it be neither? No its not logically possible. They are mutually-exclusives states Can you give an instance where this is possible?
“We can’t demonstrate everything, it doesn’t mean the things we can’t demonstrate are false”
Once again, I have NEVER argued that non-demonstrated things are false. I have only argued that they are *unscientific* and not *science*. There is a difference.
“The question is where does demonstration end and common sense begin? A thousand years ago we couldn’t demonstrate the things we could do today, and a thousand years before that the same thing. Does that mean everything we do today is false? No, common sense has to take hold”
Common sense also once told us that because we see the sun moving in the sky, then it must be going around the Earth. But we know this is not the case. Common sense once told us that because we see a flat horizon, then the Earth must be flat. Again we know this to not be the case. Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge. But by being able to demonstrate things, then we can check to see if our claims, or common sense, is correct.
“you didn’t comment on everything I said about falsifiability falsifying itself which alone defeats the idea. I’d like to hear your comments on that.”
The reason I didn’t comment on that was because it was a non issue. That entire argument was predicated on, as you said in the first post, “But if something has to be falsifiable to be true..” Which is something I never said or even argued from. I was arguing that *scientific* truths, truths that can be demonstrated, are falsifiable. Not *all* truths. Let me try to put it another way to make it more clear:
Not *all* truths are falsifiable
However all *scientific* truths are falsifiable
Evolution is a scientific truth, so evolution is falsifiable
If you think evolution is wrong, then falsify it.
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable
If it is not falsifiable, then Intelligent Design is not *science*
“but if they are biased in their thinking or assumptions, they’ll come to the wrong conclusion”
Which is why it is reviewed by more than one person to prevent this from happening. Can you give a instance where an Intelligent Design paper was reject based solely on the biased opinion of the scientists reviewing it?
“Is it possible to come to the wrong conclusion of the same data”
But we aren’t looking at the same data. I’ll explain more on this later on in this post.
“Just like 2 people can look at a fossil and 1 say “wow, look what evolution did” while the other says “wow, look what the flood did.”
Difference being evolution can demonstrate how that fossil came to be, where as a global flood as never been demonstrated to have occurred, only assumed to have occurred based on the claim of a book.
“The frog jumps 50 inches into the air. They write down everything, cut off 1 leg and scare the frog again. This time he jumped 40 inches. They cut off another and he jumps 30 inches. They cut off the third leg and he jumps 20. Finally, the last leg is chopped off. They scare him but he didn’t move. They were baffled. They assumed, according to the data that he’d jump 10 inches. So they had to figure this out. They came to the conclusion, that with each leg cut off of the frog, he jumps 10 inches less, but when you cut off the last leg, the frog goes deaf.
What happened here? They got the wrong conclusion. It seems valid based on all the data and assumptions, but they missed the real truth of the matter that the frog just lacked the capability to jump anymore.”
Why wouldn’t the data conclude that a frog can’t jump without legs. On what basis are they concluding the deafness of the frog is connected to him missing legs. I’m sorry but this analogy is just terrible and makes absolutely no sense to me.
“This is what happens today. They can be peer-reviewed all they want, but if they come to the wrong conclusion each time, then it means nothing.”
Again can you give me an instance of this occurring?
“If there’s less of a chance of this happening than the number of atoms that even make up the entire universe of planets, then it’s virtually impossible”
If there is a chance of it happening, however low those odds may be, then it is completely possible.
“This is your faith”
No it isn’t. I’m not saying this how it happened. I’m saying you cannot take a valid option off the table because you think unlikely odds make it statistically improbable, which is what your doing.
“Well I’m sorry, but I don’t have that amount of faith to believe something of such absurd proportions.”
Its not about faith or believing, its about you not wanting to admit to it being possible because of your preconceived notion that god exists. I have no such preconceived notions. I’m perfectly fine god being cause of our universe, if that is indeed the case. I’m also fine with our universe coming into existence without a god, again if that is the case. I only care about which one can be demonstrated to be the right one based on evidence and not because of a belief that stems from an assumption.
“And as I said in my previous comment that you obviously did not read, I never said virtual was equal to actual impossibilities”
I did read it. And yes that is exactly what you said in the very first post i replied to. You said “It’s that it’s virtually impossible and therefore I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility”. I’m not putting words in your mouth. This is exactly what you said. You equated “virtual impossibility” with being impossible.
“You might as well be setting up a strawman.”
Which is exactly what you’re doing to me every time you say I “have faith” or “belief”, when i specifically told you in the last post that I do *not*. And yet you do it several times in this post. For last time, I do not have faith or belief in evolution or in any other scientifically held position. If you continue to perpetuate otherwise, you will not only be constructing a strawman argument against me, but you will also show yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
“Then the experiment is worthless. It doesn’t matter if you get amino acids from non-living material (aside from the fact that they manipulated it against nature which would be an intelligent intervention and only prove creation if anything). If that material can’t do anything for life (since it’s useless as just one out of 2 necessary pieces of amino acids), then the idea of “life” coming from non-living material is invalid”
Are you seriously saying because one experiment did not answer all the questions that it is meaningless and invalid? Come on now. What they do is take significant knowledge gained, that amino acids can come from non-life, and then conduct more experiments based on that knowledge, evaluate more hypothesis, make more observations in many other research experiments. The information from those experiments will in turn aide in other experiments. Acquiring knowledge is usually a VERY slow process. If you seriously think because one experiment didn’t answer all of your questions it then makes it invalid, then you have no idea how science works.
“I’ve already written it in the previous comment to that. I’m not going to re-type it all out because you didn’t want to read it the first time. Also, if you didn’t read it the first time, what incentive is there for you to read it this time? Let alone me type it out again.”
Which is why I said to Copy&Paste it. Seriously it take less then 30 seconds. If you have the time to write out this lengthy of a response to me, then you can spend 30 seconds to copy & paste something. Unless its not there to begin with that is…
“because I don’t see any evidence stating I’m wrong. Just the assertion that I’m wrong. If I have faulty evidence, then you should be able to point out the fault. So where is it?”
Umm… I never said you were wrong. Only that you made a claim without evidence to support the claim being made. I never said the claim itself was wrong. Might wanna work on your reading comprehension skills.
“Are we dealing with definites? Or attributes?
I’m saying that you are falsely equivocated attribute C to definite Y without just cause.
“100% of books have authors (books are the definite just as authors are. If I say “books” you think of authors, and if I say “authors” you think of books. They’re mutual), the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets (books). Therefore, this would logically indicate an “author” for life since we see the “books” that are written.”
Again no you can’t say there is an author to life based on that alone. You are falsely equivocating authors with information. Just cause all books have authors, and all books have information does NOT mean that all information comes from authors. That’s the fallacy.
“-I know, that’s why I put quotations around “filtered out.””
If you knew then you shouldn’t have used filtered out at all since they are not filtered out in way from the gene pool.
“It would be confusing to see certain animals exist today and, oh I don’t know, defy evolution seeing as they should be non-existent by evolutionary processes. Might want to look into the Pacific Golden Plover sometime”
Alright, I looked it up and read about it. I even watch the short film by exploritory films about it. I don’t see how it “defies” evolution. What exactly is the problem you’re seeing? That it knows what direction to fly in? Many birds have been demonstrated to be able to detect Earth’s magnetic field and determine magnetic north, homing pigeons for example can do this. Is it that it can fly longer then it should have energy for? By flying in a v formation they can reduce the air resistance for the ones in the back, allowing them to reduce their effort and reserve more energy. They could also glide along the air currents, again reducing the efforts and saving energy. So how exactly does it “defy” evolution?
“That’s why it’s a misnomer”
How exactly does a word having a different contextual meaning make it a misnomer? The word “theory” means something different for a police detective then it does for a scientist. Does it that make “theory” a misnomer? No. So please explain how it is a misnomer.
“You may think you *know* something to be true and that there’s evidence to support it, but I believe the same thing by the same evidence”
No, as I said above, we’re not looking at the same evidence. Facts are objectively verifiable and thus indisputable data. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, depend instead on subjective impressions of personal preference, erroneous assumptions, and assertions of logical fallacies. Sure we could rationalize on a few of the facts differently. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate, or can be accounted for by only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot imply two mutually-exclusive opposing positions. In my first response to you I gave list of evidence that supports evolution, I’ll give them to you again. (see how easy it is to copy & paste?)
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
Have you looked at all of these evidences? Have you evaluated them? How do these fit the I.D. model?
“And just as I’ve said 2 times before, you can believe on evidence all you want ”
And I have told you I do not “believe” when it comes to science.
“but we *can* get the wrong interpretations from the same evidence.”
We *cannot* get the two mutually-exclusive interpretations from the same objectively verifiable facts.
“That’s why I don’t say it’s “literally” impossible. I say it’s “virtually” impossible. Do I not make myself clear?”
But you did explicitly say it was impossible because it was “virtually impossible”. I showed this earlier up above in a previous comment in this post. I quoted *exactly* what you said. So no, you are not being clear.
“He denied design by commenting on it’s vulnerable (poor) design. That’s the implication. You can’t say something is poorly designed unless you have some idea of what designed/optimal design/perfect design is”
And yet *you* keep claiming that we are designed and that design is evident. You. Not him. You. I’ll even quote you again from the first post I replied to:
“This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.”
Notice where you said “what I said about Intelligent Design” and “because design is empirically detectable.”
I have several times now, how do *you* know that we are designed. On what basis are you determining this. What standard, what method, what criteria are *you* using when determining that we are design. You have replied to me twice now and still have not answered these simple questions. Can you?
“this is what gives validity to the sass-back comeback of “How would you know?”"
I’m asking on what basis are you proclaiming that we are designed. What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? I’m starting to think that you don’t answer it cause you can’t answer.
“Read the above/previous comment.”
Your previous comment did nothing to answer the question. You only made a cop-out, and tried to ridicule it as a “sass back comeback”.
“And yet, everyone tries to disprove the design of humans by pointing out flaws in design which gives validity to what I’ve been saying in the past 2 comments”
Obviously not everyone since yet to do it even once. Again I can’t disprove if it isn’t falsifiable. You haven’t given me anything to disprove. You merely proclaim “We are designed and our design is evident”. Now stop dodging the question and answer, on what basis do you determine we are designed. What evidence has led you to this conclusion.
*I got to this part and stopped reading because the rest of this is pointless otherwise and this matter needs to be settled first.*
“I was arguing that *scientific* truths, truths that can be demonstrated, are falsifiable. Not *all* truths.”
-Then you need to find out what you believe to be true and why. If science isn’t reliable in finding truth (universally),
“No one ever said it was”
and yet you believe something as life altering and detrimental to life after death based on it, then you need to look beyond science to find that universal truth. There’s only one truth my friend, regardless of if it’s scientific or not, and if you’re hindering/restricting information to find the truth (in this case, based on science alone) then you are doomed to gain a false concept and thus, a false truth.
You say science isn’t the ultimate source of truth, yet you defend it against arguments bent on discovering truth and truth alone (in many cases it actually happens to be based on science, but not all). So what are you defending? Truth? Or something you intentionally know is doomed to make false truths?
“and yet you believe something as life altering and detrimental to life after death based on it”
I’m going to start with this point since you said you didn’t read my whole post. I told you in 3 different posts now that I do NOT have any belief in regards to scientific positions. And yet you *keep* stating that I do. STOP STRAW MANNING ME. And you say I’m arrogant? How arrogant do you have to be in order to state what it is other people “believe” *despite* being told otherwise. You have shown yourself to me to be completely devoid of any intellectual honesty.
Now, on to the matter at hand.
“Then you need to find out what you believe to be true and why.”
Then please tell me what this supposed better way of discerning truth is. Since you proclaim to know what this “one truth” is, then tell me how it was that you came about at discerning it.
“If science isn’t reliable in finding truth”
Science DEMONSTRATES truth. But you since you supposedly have better, then please share with the rest of the class what it is.
“There’s only one truth my friend”
How do you it *is* true? What did you use to determine this? You keep proclaiming truth but you give me nothing in regards has to HOW you came about this truth. You keep saying that we are design. How did you determine this? You like to use the analogy of “you cant call a crooked line unless you know what a straight line is.” So then tell me, what would a non-design human look like. How would it function? How can you call humans design without know what a non-design human would be like. This is the problem. You don’t hold you own claims to same standard that you impose on others. That’s intellectually dishonest.
“if you’re hindering/restricting information to find the truth (in this case, based on science alone) then you are doomed to gain a false concept and thus, a false truth.”
Then tell me, *what* is this other method. Again you keep stating it, but you don’t tell me what it is.
“you defend it against arguments bent on discovering truth and truth alone”
I defend science against arguments that proclaim to be science but don’t follow the scientific method in order to be science. I defend it against arguments that proclaim to be true, but give me no reason or evidence as to *why* or *how* its true. If you proclaim something is truth but don’t tell me how you know it’s true, then I have no justifiable reason to accept your claim as truth.
“So what are you defending? Truth?”
I’m defending the best method that we currently know of at *discerning* truth. But again since you claim to know a better one, then please tell me what it is.
“Or something you intentionally know is doomed to make false truths?”
Can you demonstrate what truths science has demonstrated to be true but you think is false?
“I told you in 3 different posts now that I do NOT have any belief in regards to scientific positions. And yet you *keep* stating that I do. STOP STRAW MANNING ME.”
-No, you “assert” that, but you most certainly do have a belief. Not only implicitly, but you’ve admitted it recently explicitly. Implicitly, you admit it by arguing your point against mine. You “believe” you’re right, just as I believe I’m right. If you “know” you’re right, then express the death blow and stop dragging this out. Otherwise you implicitly admit it. Since you’ve said nothing against this but rather keep asserting “science this, science that” then I can assume you have nothing to combat against it other than caps and asterisks. Explicitly, you just admitted/agreed to science isn’t 100% reliable in discovering truth. If it’s not, then the information coming from it has an extent of belief in it.
This is “good” science. Something empirically defined by tests/observations. Unless I’m mistaken in my evidence, then this stands to reason that you do indeed have a belief and you can deny it all you want, it doesn’t change reality.
“And you say I’m arrogant? How arrogant do you have to be in order to state what it is other people “believe” *despite* being told otherwise”
-Simple, I can do it because I’ve got something to back me up, I’ve had something to back me up, and after several comments, I still have something to back me up until you combat it otherwise. What do you have to negate this evidence? I can be *told* over and over, but telling something is not the same as proving/defending it.
“Then please tell me what this supposed better way of discerning truth is”
-I already have. Re-read carefully. And no, I’m not going to copy and paste because this isn’t about convenience as much as principle. If you’re not going to take the time, I see no reason to waste mine for you.
“Science DEMONSTRATES truth”
-And we can’t always *DEMONSTRATE* it. It doesn’t mean that a specific truth doesn’t exist. Sometimes common sense has to take hold and you have to think intellectually without demonstration.
“You keep saying that we are design. How did you determine this?”
-Implicitly, it’s admitted through people’s objections of “poor design proves no design” arguments. I’ve explained that already.
Explicitly, 100% of books have authors, books contain information, the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedias, therefore it seems logical to say there’s an “author” for life.
This is “good” science. Tested, observed, and what’s better is it’s repeated all the time. If you’re using science, then you’re on my side.
“So then tell me, what would a non-design human look like.”
-Humans are naturally shown to be designed, so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive.
“How can you call humans design without know what a non-design human would be like. This is the problem. You don’t hold you own claims to same standard that you impose on others. That’s intellectually dishonest.”
-No, you’re just simply confused and living by false information, but that’s why I’m here. To clear up the misunderstanding.
This is only a problem because you’ve switched the equation. The original equation is “If you can identify something as a wrong answer, then you must have some idea of what the right answer is.” It’s not the same working the equation backwards, because working it backwards instantly defines everything else (excluding the right answer) to be wrong.
In conclusion, I’ll end in an analogy. 2+2=3 is wrong, I know this because I have an idea of how to find the right answer. 2+2=4 is right, and therefore everything other than 4 as the answer is wrong. It doesn’t work the same way as if you have the wrong answer.
“I defend science against arguments that proclaim to be science but don’t follow the scientific method in order to be science.”
-Good news, I’ve never proclaimed to attack science or be “for” science alone. I’ve been for truth and against error. What you’re doing is “bad” science and is error. I utilize the method and it’s properties, but I get a completely different answer than you, yet it’s still valid according to scientific standards. This is why we can’t rely on science alone, we need to express methods to things outside of science. And of course, as you know, science can’t answer everything which is probably why we get different results with the same method. It’s not universal nor exclusive enough.
“I’m defending the best method that we currently know of at *discerning* truth.”
-And since it’s faulty and doesn’t guarantee truth, what’s to defend? It can be the best all it wants, but if it has error in discovering the truth, what are you defending? How can you say it’s the best method if you don’t even know if the information you’re getting is true or not?
“Can you demonstrate what truths science has demonstrated to be true but you think is false?”
-Again, demonstration isn’t always needed, just a side note there. Regardless, science has had it’s many errors and has had to be corrected countless times all throughout history. I believe it’s biggest goof so far that they’ve yet to see is evolution. This actually is the one constantly corrected because they apparently can’t get it right, but that’s part of the reason we’re in this little discussion isn’t it? Also, if you remember my comment about the students examining the frog and testing it’s jumps based off of cutting it’s legs off, you’ll notice that they got the wrong conclusion but they still followed the methods of science. According to the method, their results were accurate, but we all know it’s obviously wrong. Ultimately, this is what science comes down to, results then guesswork of the meaning of those results. To be fair, a majority of the guesswork is so narrow that it usually points the results to a simple conclusion, but in the things we don’t know (such as origins) it’s a dangerous minefield to be in and you have to be careful with the results.
Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.
I know this discussion is long over, but if you have email notifications on then I just have to give thanks to Ben for staying so incredible patient in this discussion and showing any person just reading through that it is possible to do this without name-calling.
I do think the biggest problems in the discussion is that ICWUDT (I do like the alias ) thinks (s)he is discussing some sort of ultimate truth (which is impossible to discern since we don’t have any methods of finding it yet and it comes down to faith) and you are following science which is quite obvious that ICWUDT don’t know the basics of which is shown in how (s)he keeps avoiding all your questions.
I always find it amusing when someone is saying ID is science and tries to use some sort of part science, part logic and a big part of faith to show it. I have full respect for someone who believes in creation or ID and says they believe it because they believe in a god or something similar. I really don’t know why they keep trying to call it science though.
I ended up in a similar discussion about evolution with someone who was trying to disprove evolution by using science which of course just ended with this person not answering anymore… http://failblog.org/2010/11/09/epic-fail-photos-classic-literature-fail/
if you want an enormous conversation to read and a few smiles along the way
“I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right.”
If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim. If you’re going to claim that god exists, you also have to come up with proof of your claim. Thing about evolution is no one has been able to come up with anything to prove it wrong yet. Have they proven that it doesn’t explain everything? Sure. But what is claimed has never been proven wrong.
It’s all a simple misunderstanding anyway. Creationists or those who believe in Intelligent Design are saying apples. Evolution by Natural Selection is saying oranges. Evolution does not, nor was it ever meant to, explain the origin of life. They can co-exist just fine.
“For example. I believe oranges have purple smurfs on the inside of them; but when you cut the skin, they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong.
I could keep you busy your whole life with that one.”
Really? Since the smurfs only turn to seeds once the skin is cut, then gimme an x-ray machine and I’ll prove you wrong instantly. Now prove to me that god exists. I’ll give you equally testable proof of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
“Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.”
One of these statements were true, and that’s the second one. The others were either false or horribly illogical. Just because we know books have authors and that the genome has enough information that we can write several books about it does not equate the cell having an author. I could say that because the amount of jolly pirates in the world are decreasing and the world is getting warmer then that means a lack of pirates is causing global warming and we can combat it by wearing eye patches and drinking rum. They just don’t have ANYTHING to do with each other. Books have authors because that’s the only way books come about.. someone wrote it. Just because you or anyone else is bewildered by the sheer amount of information in the genome, or are beside themselves in awe at the complexity of the human eye DOES NOT MEAN that just because you or anyone else cannot personally explain how it came about does not mean no one else can and it DOES NOT MEAN the ONLY explanation is there was an intelligent designer.
If so he sure messed up with those poor color blind guys.
“If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim. If you’re going to claim that god exists, you also have to come up with proof of your claim.”
-”Scientific fact” and “fact” are not the same thing since science can’t answer everything. Including that it has faulty assumptions and discredits information from the start before even testing anything. And I’m aware of the burden of proof. It’s my burden to support my side. It’s not your burden to disprove it. Just as it’s your burden to support your side, while it’s not mine to disprove. If it’s true, then prove so, and if it’s true then it should be able to stand up to criticism.
“Thing about evolution is no one has been able to come up with anything to prove it wrong yet”
-Duh. If someone has to prove the other person wrong, then we can make up loads of crap and say it’s true because you can’t prove them wrong. For example: I believe there are purple smurfs on the inside of oranges, but when you cut the skin they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong. I could keep you busy your whole life couldn’t I? After all, it’s proven right because you can’t prove it wrong. I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right.
“Evolution does not, nor was it ever meant to, explain the origin of life. They can co-exist just fine.”
-No, because they contradict each other. The Bible says one thing happened, evolution says the exact opposite in most areas.
“then gimme an x-ray machine and I’ll prove you wrong instantly.”
-X-rays blow tiny holes right through what it’s examining. That’s how it produces (negative) images and you would still be cutting through the skin. Still waiting. Prove me wrong.
“I could say that because the amount of jolly pirates in the world are decreasing and the world is getting warmer then that means a lack of pirates is causing global warming and we can combat it by wearing eye patches and drinking rum.”
-How do they relate though? There’s a difference between coincidence and necessary factors. Books are a necessary factor to authors and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. People are not called authors unless they wrote a book and books are always written by authors. This is not a coincidence, this is necessary. Whereas pirates can completely be non-existent and the temperature would still fluctuate because it’s not connected in such a way.
“They just don’t have ANYTHING to do with each other. Books have authors because that’s the only way books come about.. someone wrote it.”
-There you go, you just proved what I stated above.
“Just because you or anyone else is bewildered by the sheer amount of information in the genome, or are beside themselves in awe at the complexity of the human eye DOES NOT MEAN that just because you or anyone else cannot personally explain how it came about does not mean no one else can and it DOES NOT MEAN the ONLY explanation is there was an intelligent designer.”
-It has nothing to do with “awe.” It has to do with what we notice makes up certain things by what characteristics.
Books have information
Authors write books
Life has information
Therefore life has an author
“If so he sure messed up with those poor color blind guys.”
-Are you saying something is poorly designed? Or sub-optimal design? Or imperfect design? I’ve got more but I’ll stop there. I’m curious on your thoughts.
“”Scientific fact” and “fact” are not the same thing since science can’t answer everything.”
Does that mean that science is wrong? Absolutely not. It’s starting to sound like the only reason you discredit evolution is because it doesn’t answer every single little thing you expected it to. It doesn’t answer how life began. It doesn’t explain gravity. It doesn’t explain particle physics. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. It explains how things evolve, and nothing more. By that same reasoning I could say the bible is false because it doesn’t explain why humans and other animals, for (comical if not immature example), fart.
“No, because they contradict each other. The Bible says one thing happened, evolution says the exact opposite in most areas.”
How does the bible and evolution contradict one another? Remember.. the story of creation has NOTHING AT ALL to do with evolution.
“-X-rays blow tiny holes right through what it’s examining. That’s how it produces (negative) images and you would still be cutting through the skin. Still waiting. Prove me wrong.”
No they don’t. They produce light that is not absorbed by soft tissue and is passed through atoms (which can cause the electrons to shift aside and collide with other atoms to create ions, which is what causes radiation poisoning, but doesn’t destroy the atoms nor create any sort of holes) and it is absorbed by hard tissue (bone) which is what causes the resulting image.
But in any case we’re both arguing the same point. Whoever speaks and claims their words are fact has the burden of proof. The difference between your example (or any example used where you just make up whatever you please) and evolution is that evolution has produced mountains of testable evidence to support its claim. You have produced nothing to support your smurf theory.
Lastly, read what you said here: “How do they relate though? There’s a difference between coincidence and necessary factors. Books are a necessary factor to authors and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. People are not called authors unless they wrote a book and books are always written by authors. This is not a coincidence, this is necessary.”
Now read what you said here:
“Books have information
Authors write books
Life has information
Therefore life has an author”
Worded properly your last line should have read “Therefore authors write life” but that would make your reasoning sound as crazy as it is. As you can see in one moment you write a paragraph REPEATEDLY stating that by definition authors write books, books are written by authors, you cannot have one without the other. Then you try to state that because life has information and books have information then both have an author? Life isn’t a book.. at least I know I’m not. Books can’t type or think therefore you must not be a book. Therefore, using your own reasoning, since you’re not a book then you don’t have an author, and neither do I.
This must be why they decided to go with Intelligent Design instead of Intelligent Authoring. Since authors only write books and designers can design anything then their analogy would be able to include life too. Guess we’ll just have to agree to be victims of semantics and loose definitions of what constitutes as proof and what doesn’t.
You can go with your god theory, and I’ll go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, they both have equal amounts of proof that are both just as conclusive as the other. I like mine better because there’s no such thing as hell, just flat beer and ugly strippers. And that thing where you can still redeem yourself after you die instead of burning in a lake of fire for all eternity just because you didn’t believe in one specific thing.. even though you were a good person? His Most Noodled and Meatily Orbed One sounds like a loving god. Yours sounds like someone’s made up story used to fear monger ancient peoples who didn’t know any better into believing whatever they wanted in order to control them.. and made sure to put that faith clause in there so there’s no way to really know if they’re telling the truth or not unless those poor ignorant people die.
One day I hope you will also be touched by his Noodley Appendage. May the Sauce be with you, forever and ever.
“Does that mean that science is wrong?”
-Did I say that? No, I said it’s not the same thing, then listed the variables of what can throw it off.
“It’s starting to sound like the only reason you discredit evolution is because it doesn’t answer every single little thing you expected it to”
-Don’t turn this back on me. You started this with challenging me stating “If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim.” I’m simply criticizing your assertions to see how valid it is as any person would.
“It explains how things evolve, and nothing more”
-Since evolution has it’s roots in science, then I can logically attack the roots or anything connected to the roots as long as it relates.
“How does the bible and evolution contradict one another? Remember.. the story of creation has NOTHING AT ALL to do with evolution.”
-Umm, yes it does. For example, it has birds before fish and reptiles.
“The difference between your example (or any example used where you just make up whatever you please) and evolution is that evolution has produced mountains of testable evidence to support its claim. You have produced nothing to support your smurf theory.”
-Wasn’t my point. Its not about evidence, its about proving something wrong which is illogical as I’ve explained. You can have all the evidence in the world, but it’s only in support of something if it goes without unbiased criticism (or someone from an opposing view point criticizes in since in the case of origins there are none who are unbiased unless they don’t know or don’t care which wouldn’t make them viable as critics). As far as I’m concerned, no one has evidence until we discuss the information and criticize each other’s data. Since we’re in opposition, we should get somewhere.
“Worded properly your last line should have read “Therefore authors write life” but that would make your reasoning sound as crazy as it is.”
-All you did was reword what I said. Authors write life is the same as life having an author.
“Then you try to state that because life has information and books have information then both have an author?”
-Life and books both have information. Books have authors so what does that imply? This has been my argument from the beginning.
Books Life
—— —-
Author (X)
or
Books = Information
Information = Intelligence
Books = Intelligence (in this case, an author)
Life = Information, therefore;
Life = ?
“This must be why they decided to go with Intelligent Design instead of Intelligent Authoring”
-The analogy doesn’t define the theory. The analogy is an example to express that life has a designer.
“After all, they both have equal amounts of proof that are both just as conclusive as the other.”
-We’ve only just started getting into certain lines of evidence, what makes you think this is all there is?
“I like mine better because there’s no such thing as hell”
-And thus is you’re downfall. Its not that you’re open to information. This isn’t about a battle with the mind, but with the will. That’s the problem with many people, they don’t care if it’s right or wrong, they just don’t like that it gets in the way of what they “want” to do. Its more of a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
“And that thing where you can still redeem yourself after you die instead of burning in a lake of fire for all eternity just because you didn’t believe in one specific thing.. even though you were a good person?”
-You have a very warped concept of Biblical teachings my friend. Hell is quarantine of self-torment, for those who choose it, to filter them out of the good of God’s creation. All actions have consequences, good and bad. If you want to reject biblical teachings and live a sinful life, then go right ahead, you’ll get what you ask for. If you want to live a life of acceptance and repentance, then you’ll get what you ask for. It’s the same for either side, the difference is the kind of consequences that result. In hell you’re paying a debt you cannot fully pay off which results in the self-torment of that debt for eternity. What you’ve done will be used to torment you. I could probably find a book on it somewhere in my library. On the opposition, if you claim Christ as your savior, the sinless life he lived will be attributed to you which is to say you are sinless as well by him. Its your choice.
Remenants of microscopic bacteria have been found on Mars, and you can’t prove there is no life on Jupiter as you can’t see all the way to the surface. There could be something swimming through those gas clouds. Just as I can’t prove there is no God. It’s nearly impossible to prove a negative. Just because said “life” doesn’t resemble life on Earth, doesn’t mean it isn’t life.
If you’re talking about that rock that NASA had a while back, that’s been discredited, by themselves to be quite brutal. They only said it “could” have been a bacteria because the government was going to cut off funding, so they needed something to show that they needed money to keep research going. After they presented this and their funds were released, they came out a short while later saying it wasn’t a bacteria but a mineral or something, but thanks for the money, we’ll hold onto that. “The love of money is the root of all evils” as Timothy says, and if that bacteria convinced you, then I’d say that verse is right on.
Also, as I mentioned above, I don’t need to prove you wrong (In reference to your post, I don’t need to disprove that there’s life on Jupiter) you need to prove you’re right. If all I need to do is prove you wrong then I can keep you busy you’re whole life. For example, I believe that the opposite side of the sun from our perspective is completely missing, instead it’s replaced with a giant light bulb, and whenever we send satellites to view the other side, it sends a false image back. Prove me wrong. See what I mean? I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right.
Well it seems I’m no longer able to hit the reply button in our conversation above. So I shall continue here.
“-No, you “assert” that, but you most certainly do have a belief.”
Hmm. So now you’re saying that you know more about me, someone you have never met or interacted with outside of these post, than I do about myself? Wow. That seems very, oh what’s the words I’m looking for here… oh yes, arrogant of you, doesn’t it? Can you also tell me my hopes and dreams and aspirations? lol
“but you’ve admitted it recently explicitly”
No, I haven’t. I have never used the word “belief” except when address your use of the word in your straw man against me. Please show otherwise, if you can.
“If you “know” you’re right, then express the death blow and stop dragging this out.”
I have. Twice now I have given a list of evidence that supports evolution. I’ll give it again.
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
You, however, have not given one iota of evidence to support I.D.
“you just admitted/agreed to science isn’t 100% reliable in discovering truth”
Science demonstrates what is true. You can “discover” as many truths as you think there are, but unless you can demonstrate them to be the truth, then neither I nor anyone else has any justification to accept them as truths. E.g. If I discover that there is no god at all behind the cause of the universe or that Jesus never existed, unless I can demonstrate this to be true then neither you nor anyone else has any justification to accept this as a truth. That’s point. You can claim the truth all you want, but until you can demonstrate it, then its meaningless.
” This is “good” science. Something empirically defined by tests/observations.”
And what tests/observations have been done to empirically determine design?
” I’ve got something to back me up”
No you don’t. Your only evidence is that: 1) I somehow implied it, which is just conjecture on your part and 2) that i explicitly stated it, which I never have. Quote me where i have, if you can.
“I already have. Re-read carefully.”
No you haven’t. You said there was one truth and I needed a new way to discover truth. I asked what that was, and you said nothing.
“And no, I’m not going to copy and paste because this isn’t about convenience as much as principle. If you’re not going to take the time, I see no reason to waste mine for you.”
Thats because you can’t copy it. Its not there. Otherwise you wouldn’t be bickering over having to take 30 seconds to do it. If read all of your posts multiple times. And it is simply not there.
“And we can’t always *DEMONSTRATE* it. It doesn’t mean that a specific truth doesn’t exist”
I never said it doesn’t. But unless you can verifiably demonstrate it as truth, then I have no grounds to accept it as truth.
“Sometimes common sense has to take hold and you have to think intellectually without demonstration.”
I already dealt with you common sense argument. You would know this if you had read my other post in it’s entirety and not just stop at the beginning as you did. But I have no problem copying it for you. So here it is again:
-Common sense also once told us that because we see the sun moving in the sky, then it must be going around the Earth. But we know this is not the case. Common sense once told us that because we see a flat horizon, then the Earth must be flat. Again we know this to not be the case. Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge. But by being able to demonstrate things, then we can check to see if our claims, or common sense, is correct.
“Implicitly, it’s admitted through people’s objections of “poor design proves no design” arguments. I’ve explained that already.”
Implicit arguments are meaningless as people can derive different implied meanings from the same source. If you can’t demonstrate it, then I have no reason to accept your claim as truth.
“Explicitly, 100% of books have authors, books contain information, the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedias, therefore it seems logical to say there’s an “author” for life.
This is “good” science. Tested, observed, and what’s better is it’s repeated all the time. If you’re using science, then you’re on my side. ”
1) Logical arguments are not science, good, bad, or otherwise. Also this argument is still a fallacy. You are falsely equivocating authors with information. Just cause all books have authors, and all books have information does NOT mean that all information comes from authors. That’s the fallacy.
2) How has this been tested. When was this observed.
“If you’re using science, then you’re on my side. ”
The problem is you’re not using science. Science is falsifiable. I.D. is not falsifiable as it has never made a claim that can be demonstrated.
“Humans are naturally shown to be designed, so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive.”
If *you* say that I can’t call a line crooked without knowing what straight line is as a reference, as you have stated, then you can’t call design, without knowing what non-design is as a reference. Funny how when you use an argument then it’s “science”, but when I use the exact same argument against your claims, well then all of a sudden its faulty and wrong.
“The original equation is “If you can identify something as a wrong answer, then you must have some idea of what the right answer is.” ”
No, I was using your crooked line, straight line reference. Not the poor design argument. Pay attention.
” 2+2=3 is wrong, I know this because I have an idea of how to find the right answer. 2+2=4 is right,”
No. We know its right, because 2 has been assigned to a specific amount. And 4 has been assigned to a different specific amount. And when we placed we place the amounts assign to 2 with another amount that is also assigned as 2, we find that they match the amount that was assigned as 4.
“Good news, I’ve never proclaimed to attack science or be “for” science alone”
Never said you did. I only said that you were proclaiming something to be a science when it doesn’t follow science’s criteria to be a science. Again you are straw manning something I never said.
“What you’re doing is “bad” science and is error.”
Until you demonstrate this, demonstrate how it is bad science and how it is in error, I cannot accept this claim to be true
“I utilize the method and it’s properties”
No, you just make conjectures without evidence to back them up. Again what evidence is there that supports I.D.?
“but I get a completely different answer than you, yet it’s still valid according to scientific standards.”
Your answer isn’t falsifiable. Falsifiability is a necessary criteria in scientific standards. So no, it isn’t valid at all. Please demonstrate how I.D. is falsifiable. Not that it’s true, *only* that is falsifiable.
“And of course, as you know, science can’t answer everything which is probably why we get different results with the same method.”
Again we aren’t using the same methods. Science requires evidence, demonstrability, and falsification in it’s methods.
“And since it’s faulty and doesn’t guarantee truth,”
Again you have not shown *how* it’s faulty. Also science only deals in truths that can be demonstrated.
“It can be the best all it wants, but if it has error in discovering the truth”
Everything has errors. Nothing outside of mathematics can be guaranteed. Its the best cause it produces the best results with least amount of errors. Again if you have a better method, then provide it.
“How can you say it’s the best method if you don’t even know if the information you’re getting is true or not?”
We know its true because we can D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-E it to be true. Also how do you know that the information that leads you to the conclusion of design to be true? Can it be demonstrated?
“Again, demonstration isn’t always needed”
If you want other people to accept you claims as truth, then yes, it is.
“Regardless, science has had it’s many errors and has had to be corrected countless times all throughout history.”
That’s the beauty about science. Its self-correcting. When new information comes that shows past information to be wrong, it corrects it. When Einstein came along and showed things to be wrong with Newton’s gravitational theory, guess what? We fixed it. How is that a bad thing? Science has never proclaim absolute knowledge about absolutely anything.
“I believe it’s biggest goof so far that they’ve yet to see is evolution.”
Then since evolution is falsifiable, then please falsify it. Disprove it. Show that its wrong. I’ve asked you this once before and you still haven’t done it. Stop talking about it, and do it.
“This actually is the one constantly corrected because they apparently can’t get it right”
Again science is self-correcting. We base our conclusions on the evidence. When evidence is come along that contradicts the conclusions, then we alter that conclusion based on the new evidence. If the conclusion can’t be altered, then we throw it away for a better one that can account for all the evidence. Much like how we threw out the geocentric model and replaced it with the heliocentric one because it fit best with the evidence we had. Again, how is this bad?
“Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did. We only strive to answer as much as we possibly can.
“So now you’re saying that you know more about me, someone you have never met or interacted with outside of these post, than I do about myself?”
-I don’t need to “know” you, and the fact is we’re interacting, period. It doesn’t matter about the medium of interaction. It’s quite simple to determine what I have presented, if you have a problem with it in the sense that it’s wrong or faulty in some way, then please point it out. Until then, it stands for what it is.
“No, I haven’t. I have never used the word “belief””
-Again, you don’t have to. The definition of belief is what you’re acting on.
“Twice now I have given a list of evidence that supports evolution. I’ll give it again.”
-This is what I meant when I said that you can get the wrong interpretation of the same evidence. In some cases, it’s just plain wrong. Speciation is a big one, and I see you listed it. You take speciation to mean an eventual grand-scale evolution from something that once was something (for example, a dog) into something it’s not (like a flying kangaroo). All we see is small changes. Yes, we have all variations of dogs, but they’re still dogs. There’s nothing showing it’s turning into something else other than a dog.
I see you also mention ERV’s as the first on the list. With more and more study, the more active we see these alleged pseudogenes. And even though they’re in the same place as monkeys, that only shows we need them in the same place.
I could go all day, but we’re going to try and avoid 10 page comments.
“You, however, have not given one iota of evidence to support I.D.”
-I’ve given it several times involving an author for life, the ability to detect design, etc. You just reject it.
“Science demonstrates what is true.”
-Wasn’t my point.
“You can claim the truth all you want, but until you can demonstrate it, then its meaningless.”
-That seems contradictory. If it’s true, but you can’t show it’s true, then it’s meaningless (which tells me, if it’s true, but you don’t know, then it’s false). I’m just saying, sounds odd. More importantly, can it be demonstrated that something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable to be falsifiable?
“And what tests/observations have been done to empirically determine design?”
-Seriously? I stated tests and observations right before I said that.
“No you don’t. Your only evidence is that: 1) I somehow implied it, which is just conjecture on your part and 2) that i explicitly stated it, which I never have. Quote me where i have, if you can.”
1) You’re implying it right now through this discussion. You “believe” you’re right, and I “believe” I’m right. If you don’t believe you’re right, then why are you arguing with me? If I’m wrong in my logic, then explain, but rejection and assertion doesn’t displace it.
2) I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did”
So if it can’t answer everything, then how do you know it’s accurate in answering the random questions that people utilize the theory for? You can’t, so you take the answers by faith, and I’m only just getting started with this.
“Thats because you can’t copy it. Its not there.”
-So now, instead of harping on me about not simply copying and pasting it, when I add that it’s about principles you’re just going to arrogantly assume it’s not even there because you honestly couldn’t be bothered from the beginning to read something in it’s entirety? Or at least carefully? You’re not looking to correct me or defend yourself, you’re just looking to be right, regardless of if you’re wrong.
“Otherwise you wouldn’t be bickering over having to take 30 seconds to do it.”
-If it takes 30 seconds, then why didn’t you go back either? Stop wasting both of our times…
“Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge.”
-I never said it was. I said common sense has to take hold *and you have to think intellectually* [if something cannot be] demonstrated.”
I’m not going to say demonstration doesn’t help–it does–but for the things we can’t demonstrate, we need to think intellectually and use common sense if we want to gain even the tiniest iota of truth.
“Implicit arguments are meaningless as people can derive different implied meanings from the same source.”
-So if the information I gain when someone says “poor design proves no design” implies to me that they must know what design is in order to call it “poor” design just as someone must know what a straight line is in order to call one crooked, how am I wrong? Where’s the error in implication by their objection?
“Logical arguments are not science, good, bad, or otherwise.”
-Science presupposes logic and math (it’s one of the things it can’t prove).
“That’s the fallacy.”
-And I explained the fallacy, and how it’s a fallacy itself. It’s inaccurate, so I corrected it. If I’m wrong, then please, point it out and I’ll be sure to review it. If you want to read it, it’s easier to find than other information, just look for the syllogisms.
“The problem is you’re not using science [...] I.D. is not falsifiable as it has never made a claim that can be demonstrated.”
-Really? Even though science is about testing, observing, and repeating while ID specifically does that? Books have information, books are written by authors, information is in cells therefore life has an author. This is tested & observed (people write books, books have information, that’s the test and observation) then repeated over and over all year, every year.
“then you can’t call design, without knowing what non-design is as a reference.”
-I’ve already explained this. The correct answer is the standard or the reference just as the straight line is the reference, or 2+2=4. These are correct, therefore if a line is crooked in any of the millions of ways it can be distorted, 2+2=less than or greater than 4. It doesn’t work the way you’re trying to do it because you’re trying to make the wrong answer the standard, when the wrong answer can never be the standard because there’s only 1 right answer (thus, the standard) while there’s an infinite amount of wrong answers.
Would you know instantly that 9327520+2938767=12392875 is right or wrong? No, but once you analyze it, you’ll notice it’s wrong, how do you know it’s wrong? Because you know how to figure out the right answer. If you already know the right answer, then everything else is assumed to be the wrong answer. What you’re doing is saying I must know the wrong answer in order to know the right one. No, if I know the right one, then everything is instantly assumed wrong. If I’m given a wrong answer, and I know it’s wrong, then I have some idea of what the right one is. If 2+2=4, then I know 2+2=3 is wrong along with any other number. I didn’t need to get every answer wrong until I found the right one.
In conclusion, I can know if something is designed (right) without considering anything “un-designed” (even though that includes anything without the features of said designed object as being “un-designed”), but if someone wants to point out that something is poorly/wrongfully designed (wrong), then they must have some idea of what something “designed” is.
“No, I was using your crooked line, straight line reference. Not the poor design argument.”
-They’re one in the same.
“Never said you did.”
-Then what’s your purpose for being here? If you’re defending science as you said in your previous post, and I’m not attacking it, why did you reply to my post in the first place?
“I only said that you were proclaiming something to be a science when it doesn’t follow science’s criteria to be a science.”
-Even though ID follows testing, observation, and repetition?
“Until you demonstrate this, demonstrate how it is bad science and how it is in error, I cannot accept this claim to be true”
-Much like the way I’ve *been* waiting for you to demonstrate how I’m wrong or faulty in my logic for the past few posts? Nonetheless, the evidence supporting evolution does not in fact support it but rather goes against it, can be explained, be completely disregarded, or any combination of the 3.
“We know its true because we can D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-E it to be true.”
-That’s what the students did in my example with the frog! They got the wrong answer! So again, ***How can you be sure that the answers you’re getting are true?!***
“Also how do you know that the information that leads you to the conclusion of design to be true?”
-When it holds up against any scrutiny and objection. Evolution, is being objected to, it’s being scrutinized, and it’s not holding up. What makes it worse off is it’s constantly being changed while the Bible has been the same for many more years than evolution has been around. Just that alone says a lot.
“We fixed it. How is that a bad thing?”
-Depends on what you mean by fixing it. If all the evidence points to the idea that it is indeed fact and there’s no glaringly scrutinizing evidence against it, then that would be a great thing to fix it, but if you’re fixing something that’s false, then it is indeed a bad thing. As I said, you can get the complete wrong interpretation from the exact same evidence as someone with the right interpretation. If you have the right idea, then go ahead and fix it, if you don’t, then stop fixing it because there’s nothing to fix!
“then please falsify it. Disprove it.”
-Remember from the first comment? I don’t need to prove it wrong, you need to prove it right. I can provide extremely conflicting information; besides, proving something wrong is relative (apparently), and unnecessary. Certain people accept certain information based on how involved in their belief they are.
“You take speciation to mean an eventual grand-scale evolution from something that once was something into something it’s not”
No, I don’t. Speciation is nothing more than when a population group within a particular species is no longer able to breed with its parent species and produce fertile offspring, due to genetic drift. That’s it.
As for you example of a dog turning into a flying kangaroo, this would actually defy and disprove evolution.
“All we see is small changes. Yes, we have all variations of dogs, but they’re still dogs”
Terms like “dogs”, “birds”, “fish” and “lizards” are not terms for classifying species. There are many different species of birds, such as Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) and crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). And yet there still birds. Even “crow” isn’t a species classification as there several species of crow:
Corvus corone
Corvus caurinus
Corvus bennetti
Corvus enca
And many, many more
Crows would actually be a very good example of speciation. As for dogs, the modern day dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a subspecies of Canis lupus which comprises of wolves. But a wolf is not a dog although they are in the same species. There are also other subsets of Canis lupus that are also not dogs but are the same species. If you’re gonna argue against speciation, *at least* learn how species are classified.
This is problem with people like you and the I.D. proponents. You don’t understand basic Taxonomy. If you did you would know that one of fundamental principles of Taxonomy is that all descendant species will always belong to whatever categories their ancestors did, no matter how much they are modified. There reason is cause there are existing branches that split into successive subsets that are each monophyletic, sharing a common line of descent from which they can diverge but *never* detach. Which is why humans are still apes. And apes are still monkeys. So a human is both an ape and a monkey. And birds are still dinosaurs. Even if a dog, for whatever reason, evolved into something resembling a human, it will STILL be a dog.
“I see you also mention ERV’s as the first on the list. With more and more study, the more active we see these alleged pseudogenes. And even though they’re in the same place as monkeys, that only shows we need them in the same place.”
1)ERV stands for Endogenous Retrovirus. Meaning that that we got these genes from viruses; we didn’t start out with them. How do we know this? Because these genes came from RNA sequences, which is what viruses use and copies them onto the hosts DNA. And if the hosts reproduces, then those genes are passed down to its descendants.
2) The significance of ERVs is not whether those genes are active or not, its there coded sequence and location on the gene that’s important. We share 16 ERV genes in the *exact* same location with chimpanzee alone, and that’s just for the K class ERVs. We have a total of 98,000 different ERV genes, all of which are in the *exact* same location as they are in our modern day ape relatives. This can only be explained by us sharing a common ancestor with them from which these genes were passed down from. Unless you wanna argue that 98,000 different virus infected both humans and apes in the exact same gene location in our DNA that is.
“I’ve given it several times involving an author for life, the ability to detect design, etc. You just reject it.”
Because you haven’t told me HOW we can detect it. What’s your criteria, you’re method or you’re standard for determining design. That is what I’m asking for.
“Wasn’t my point.”
I know it wasn’t your point. Your point was science isn’t reliable in “discovering” truth. Mine was that science is for “demonstrating” truth. Newton discovered the laws motion, but unless he demonstrated them empirically then his discovery of them of them would be of no use to anyone else. THAT was my point.
“If it’s true, but you can’t show it’s true, then it’s meaningless (which tells me, if it’s true, but you don’t know, then it’s false)”
A rock is still a rock even if there is no one there to call it a rock. But unless I show you what a rock is, the word “rock” and the definition associated with it is meaningless. Likewise, truth is truth even if no one knows its the truth. But unless that truth can be demonstrated as a truth, then we have no basis or justification to accept it as a truth.
“More importantly, can it be demonstrated that something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable to be falsifiable?”
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re asking here. I’ll be glad to answer it, its just that the way its set up is a little confusing. Are you asking if I can demonstrate my claim that truth must be demonstrable and falsifiable? Or are you simply asking if my claim that truth must be demonstrable and falsifiable is a falsifiable claim itself?
Also I just want to stress that I wasn’t arguing that it cant be a truth if you can’t demonstrate it. Truth is truth regardless of who knows it (just a like a rock is still a rock even if no one calls it a rock). Only that we can’t *accept* it as a truth, or science, unless it can be demonstrated.
“Seriously? I stated tests and observations right before I said that.”
You only stated that they were done. But nothing about who did them, when they did them, or what they did them. That’s what I want to know.
“You’re implying it right now..”
Implications and inferences are aren’t good arguments as its possible to derive different inferences from the same source. If I say “This drink is sweet” it’s entirely possible to derive two different meanings to it. 1) being that the drink has a sweet taste to it. 2) being this drink is awesome, or good tasting. And in written form its especially hard to derive which implication is correct. Where as if you heard me say it, you could easily tell which by the emphasis I put on the the sweet. If I say “SWEET!” or “ssswwweeeeeeeeeet” then you would know I meant it as in the drink tastes good. This is why implied arguments are bad cause it can cause you to easily straw man what someone is saying.
“I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.” ”
Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine. Those are your words the last sentence you wrote from the post I couldn’t hit the reply button to. So care to try again?
“So if it can’t answer everything, then how do you know it’s accurate in answering the random questions that people utilize the theory for”
For the questions we can answer, we can demonstrate how we know. For the questions we can’t, we simply say “I don’t know” and wait until we can answer them. Are you saying its wrong because it can’t answer every single question that anyone could come with yet?
“So now, instead of harping on me about not simply copying and pasting it, when I add that it’s about principles you’re just going to arrogantly assume it’s not even there because you honestly couldn’t be bothered from the beginning to read something in it’s entirety? Or at least carefully? You’re not looking to correct me or defend yourself, you’re just looking to be right, regardless of if you’re wrong.”
I have looked. I’ve read each and every one of your posts multiple times and I did not see it. Which is why I asked you to quote it for me. But each time you only cop-out by claiming its on principles that you can’t be bothered to do it. If its there, show me.
“If it takes 30 seconds, then why didn’t you go back either? Stop wasting both of our times…”
Again, I have read all your posts multiple times and didn’t see it. Show me.
“I said common sense has to take hold *and you have to think intellectually*”
But if you can’t demonstrate it, how can you know if what your common sense is telling you is correct and accurate. That’s the problem.
“but for the things we can’t demonstrate, we need to think intellectually and use common sense if we want to gain even the tiniest iota of truth.”
But if you can’t show or demonstrate that its the truth, then you have basis to accept that it is the truth. That’s my whole point.
“So if the information I gain when someone says “poor design proves no design” implies to me that they must know what design is in order to call it “poor” design just as someone must know what a straight line is in order to call one crooked, how am I wrong? Where’s the error in implication by their objection?”
As I said above, arguments from implications are bad because multiple implications can be derived from the same source. So you have no way of discerning whether or not the information gained is accurate or not, and so it can easily lead to you straw manning their positions.
“Science presupposes logic and math (it’s one of the things it can’t prove).”
1) You are aware that logic and logical arguments are two different things, right? Yes the scientific method is based on logic, but science does not use logical arguments as evidence. I could give you a logical argument for the existence of someone like Spider-man to possibly exist. But that doesn’t mean he does or ever will. It also doesn’t mean he ever could exist as my logic could be based on inadequate information.
2)Of course it can’t prove it. I already told you in the very first comment I wrote to you that science doesn’t “prove” anything, It only disproves things. Positive proofs exist only in mathematics, not science.
“-And I explained the fallacy, and how it’s a fallacy itself. It’s inaccurate, so I corrected it. If I’m wrong, then please, point it out and I’ll be sure to review it. If you want to read it, it’s easier to find than other information, just look for the syllogisms.”
The reason its a fallacy is that not all information comes from authors. Newton is author of the laws of motion, but he didn’t author the information. He merely reported the information he observed. So just because cells have information does not mean that they have an author. Its a false equivocation between authors and information.
“Really? Even though science is about testing, observing, and repeating while ID specifically does that?”
What tests have they done? Who did them? What observations did they test? This is what I’m asking for, but all I get from you is the same false equivocation fallacy again and again. You even repeat it in the very next line.
“is is tested & observed (people write books, books have information, that’s the test and observation)”
But not all information comes from books now does it? Nor does all information come from an author.
“It doesn’t work the way you’re trying to do it because you’re trying to make the wrong answer the standard,”
Ok, just for the sake of the argument, on the basis the humans are designed, using this as the standard, then what would a non-designed human look like? How would it function differently?
“Then what’s your purpose for being here? If you’re defending science as you said in your previous post, and I’m not attacking it, why did you reply to my post in the first place?”
To correct you on your misunderstandings about science (such as you think science has to “prove” things when it doesn’t do that) and how it operates (such as falsifiable claims and demonstrations of truth in order to be accepted as truth).
“Even though ID follows testing, observation, and repetition?”
Again, what tests? Who did them? What observations did they test?
“-Much like the way I’ve *been* waiting for you to demonstrate how I’m wrong or faulty in my logic for the past few posts? ”
I showed how you were wrong on what speciation was. I showed how you were wrong in your use of the term “dog” as classification of species. I showed you how you were wrong in your understanding of ERVs.
“Nonetheless, the evidence supporting evolution does not in fact support it but rather goes against it, can be explained, be completely disregarded, or any combination of the 3.”
And as I showed up above, you misunderstood what the evidence is and how it supports it.
“That’s what the students did in my example with the frog! They got the wrong answer! So again, ***How can you be sure that the answers you’re getting are true?!***”
You’re student example is a terrible example. 1) Did they do the test on multiple frogs and different types of frogs to see if this was the case for all frogs 2) Did they experiment as to why the loss of legs caused deafness 3) Why would they need to cut off the legs in the first place? There are much easier and much more accurate methods to measure the frog’s jump. Its easy to derive muscular power output. Then they could easily correspond that data to the average height of his jumps to get how much each leg is responsible for jumping. All of this with maiming any frogs. If you’re gonna use an example of scientific method, at least use a proper one.
“When it holds up against any scrutiny and objection”
But aside from you false equivocation fallacy, you haven’t shown me what information it was that lead to your conclusion so that I can scrutinize or object to it. What is it?
“Evolution, is being objected to, it’s being scrutinized, and it’s not holding up.”
Its held up for over 150 years. Its met every objection and scrutinization that’s been presented. Even Dr. Behe’s objections to it were shown to be fallacious in court of law during the Dover Trials. Under oath, he admitted that under his definitions, astrology would be considered a science. No one has every evolution it to be false, so if you think you can, then be my guest.
“What makes it worse off is it’s constantly being changed..”
Again, why is that bad?
“Bible has been the same for many more years than evolution has been around. ”
And yet there are numerous translations (NIV, KJV, NKJV,etc), alterations to original manuscripts ( such as earliest copies of Mark do not contain chapter 16: 9-20), and there are over 35,000 denominations of christianity, all of whom differ on their interpretations on what the bible says or means. Just that alone says a lot.
“but if you’re fixing something that’s false, then it is indeed a bad thing.”
And you know its false how?
“you can get the complete wrong interpretation from the exact same evidence as someone with the right interpretation.”
As I’ve said before facts are objectively verifiable and thus indisputable data. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate, or can be accounted for by only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot show two mutually-exclusive opposing positions.
“Remember from the first comment? I don’t need to prove it wrong, you need to prove it right”
Remember my first comment? Science doesn’t and can’t prove anything. It only disproves things. Evolution is a scientifically falsifiable claim, meaning *if* it is indeed wrong then it can be demonstrated to be wrong. So do it. Falsify it.
“I can provide extremely conflicting information”
And if its falsifiable, we can see if it accurate or not.
“proving something wrong is relative (apparently), and unnecessary.”
In science, its very necessary. So necessary, in fact, that its a necessary criteria in order for it to be a science.
“Certain people accept certain information based on how involved in their belief they are.”
How much you believe something has no determining value in whether or not its true.
I mean this with all sincerity, Ben, you are my hero. I can’t wait to tune in tomorrow for the next chapter (and to find out why all the atheists killed all those people in WWII).
[ I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did”
Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine. Those are your words the last sentence you wrote from the post I couldn’t hit the reply button to. So care to try again? ]
I now see where you got that from. So I retract the statement above. However I don’t see how my stating that science doesn’t ever answer absolutely everything is me *explicitly* stating anything in regards to belief? Cause I never said that Science is the best method period, only the best method we *currently* have. If a better method is discovered and it can get better results, then we will use that instead.
I already commented on it, so just disregard it when you come to it on my post.
“However I don’t see how my stating that science doesn’t ever answer absolutely everything is me *explicitly* stating anything in regards to belief?”
Because since you agree that it can’t find the answers to everything through it’s methods, then that means it has it’s faults and cannot be relied on fully and solely. If it has faults, how can you know it’s true in the results that *only* use science? This requires faith to believe it’s true.
Secondly, can it be determined that science discovers truth by using the scientific method? No, so it defeats itself by it’s own criteria (self-defeating).
It might be the best method we have, but it’s not good enough, and it’s being taught as fact in the school system. If it’s not fact, then we need teachers saying “this is our best guess when science examines it” and expose students to all possibilities exclusive from *science* since science is only one aspect of the information.
“Because since you agree that it can’t find the answers to everything through it’s methods, then that means it has it’s faults and cannot be relied on fully and solely.”
Just because we can’t answer a question now, doesn’t mean we won’t be able to answer it later. You seem to be under the impression that because science cant answer something now, that automatically means that it won’t ever be able to. This is simply faulty reasoning. Our understanding of how things work grows just as much as our technological ability to test them. The fact that we can’t test and demonstrate something now, doesn’t mean we won’t be able to later.
“If it has faults, how can you know it’s true in the results that *only* use science?”
Everything has faults. But its the best method we know of that can produce the most right results with the least amount of errors. And the errors that do come about, we correct them as how understanding gets better. Again, I ask you, do you know of a better method? If so, then what is it? If you don’t then we have to continue to use the best method we have currently at our disposal.
“Secondly, can it be determined that science discovers truth by using the scientific method?”
Anyone can make a discovery. Science is about demonstrating if the discovery is true. If you make a discovery, but you have no way of demonstrating this discovery to anyone else, then what basis do they have to accept what you claim to have discovered to be the truth?
“It might be the best method we have, but it’s not good enough,”
Then please, tell us better way to do it. Enlighten us. If you don’t know a better way, then we have to continue to use it, as it is the best method that we have available to us at this time.
“..and it’s being taught as fact in the school system”
Because it is fact. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within breeding populations of species over the span of generations. And given enough time, the build up of allele frequency changes will lead to the build up of significant superficial changes within certain populations. This will lead to genetic drift within the gene pool which will cause speciation and the emergence of diverging species. This has been both tested and directly observed.
One of the most recent cases of speciation was observed in 2009, when two new species of horned lizard (Phrynosoma cerroense and Phrynosoma blainvillii) emerged from their parent species (Phrynosoma coronatum). The study was conducted by Dr. Adam Leaché and Jimmy McGuire, who is an associate professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley. The study was publish in the scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”.
See unlike you, I can give *specific* scientific studies that were done to back my claims up. Can you do the same for your I.D. “discoveries”?
“If it’s not fact, then we need teachers saying “this is our best guess when science examines it”
I’m glad we agree on speciation to a great extent.
“The significance of ERVs is not whether those genes are active or not, its there coded sequence and location on the gene that’s important”
-That’s why I talked about it’s activity and location, covering my bases.
“We share 16 ERV genes in the *exact* same location with chimpanzee alone, and that’s just for the K class ERVs. We have a total of 98,000 different ERV genes, all of which are in the *exact* same location as they are in our modern day ape relatives.”
-I know, I explained in a simplistic manner in my previous post as to why.
“Because you haven’t told me HOW we can detect it”
-By using the brain God gave us for this specific purpose. There’s no ultimate 1 sentence explanation to discover all truth throughout all reality. It’s a combination of hundreds of criteria. If you think something is true, then expose it to any bit of criteria that effect it. Obviously the origin of something is not the same as what 2+2 equals so there’s different criteria. Have I, or have I not explained myself clearly and logically on an author for life and design? If I haven’t, then explain where it doesn’t make sense and I’ll be sure to correct or explain it.
“A rock is still a rock even if there is no one there to call it a rock. But unless I show you what a rock is, the word “rock” and the definition associated with it is meaningless. Likewise, truth is truth even if no one knows its the truth. But unless that truth can be demonstrated as a truth, then we have no basis or justification to accept it as a truth.”
-All I’m saying is it sounds weird and a bit odd, I’m not necessarily challenging it, but it does sound a bit cold in a way.
“Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re asking here.”
-Yeah, I figured that might happen. To be honest I had trouble understanding it after rereading it a few times. Essentially it’s an A, B, A pattern of a question. I’ll emphasize with caps and lowercase:
CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable BE FALSIFIABLE ITSELF?
Or to put it another way, I’m asking if the idea that *something must be demonstrated in order to be true must also be falsifiable* *can be demonstrated to be falsifiable itself.*
If it can, then it negates itself (because the falsifiable would be falsifiable). If it can’t, then it fails to hold up against it’s own criteria and is therefore false.
“Only that we can’t *accept* it as a truth, or science, unless it can be demonstrated.”
-I’m glad we understand that. So we’ve agreed that science can’t answer everything and that it’s not the sole source of truth. Now we agree that science rejects that which it can’t demonstrate even if it’s true.
As usual I’m confused seeing as I get something different from every person.
Now, as I said before, demonstrations can go the wrong way. So are there variables science looks at in order to make sure it’s gaining the truth? Otherwise it seems mostly like guesswork.
“You only stated that they were done. But nothing about who did them, when they did them, or what they did them. That’s what I want to know.”
-Forgive me, but why the heck would that matter? It’s more important that these are methods science uses and we got a scientific answer based on it. If you can find a book without an author then be my guest, but so far we’ve seen every book to have an author.
“Implications and inferences are aren’t good arguments as its possible to derive different inferences from the same source.”
-Which is why I asked for you to point out any other implication that could logically be received from the statement. Aside from that, what is wrong with the implication I received? You seem to be doing this dance around of not answering direct questions.
““This drink is sweet” it’s entirely possible to derive two different meanings to it”
-There’s a difference between implication and interpretation. When someone says some explicitly about something (such as, this tea is sweet) you don’t get the *implication* about whether they mean something is awesome or if it’s flavorfully sweet. You *interpret* it from what they said. Implication is a hidden meaning without explicitly saying it. When they said something was sweet, they weren’t implying it, they were inferring it to which you then interpreted it in 2 ways.
“Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine.”
-Read more than just my post, you’ll notice yours right after mine.
“Are you saying its wrong because it can’t answer every single question that anyone could come with yet?”
-No, I’m saying it’s wrong because people *believe* it can answer every single question anyone can come up with (I’ve talked to a lot of them, so if I compare you to them, it’s only because the few have ruined it for the many (in addition to the idea that some can’t get the facts straight so I get a different answer with every person)). Along with the fact that it contradicts it’s own method and therefore is false, so it may be able to find truth by chance, but it can indeed go wrong, and go wrong it has.
“I have looked. I’ve read each and every one of your posts multiple times and I did not see it. Which is why I asked you to quote it for me.”
-To be honest, with everything we’re talking about, my mind has gotten side-tracked and I’m unsure what we’re discussing here. If it’s truth/falsifiability then I’ve explained that above; but I think it’s something about a new method other than science to which I’ve said taking all the criteria anything is related with and scrutinizing the *truth* in question to see if it holds up. If it’s neither then I’m uncertain.
“But if you can’t demonstrate it, how can you know if what your common sense is telling you is correct and accurate.”
-That was the problem, I was thinking of demonstration in a different context than what you were, thus all of this confusion. False alarm. At least we’re making progress and getting on the same page now.
“As I said above, arguments from implications are bad because multiple implications can be derived from the same source. So you have no way of discerning whether or not the information gained is accurate or not”
-As I said above, implications are not the same as interpretations of the inferred. To add onto that, if you get 2 implications, that doesn’t mean only 1 is right (unless they contradict each other), that just means you have 2 extra pieces of information. That only applies to interpretation, and even in interpretation, there are few cases where more than 1 interpretation could be applied accurately, but not many.
This is what I want you to do. Explain my evidence. Explain my logic. Explain how it’s faulty if you can. I enjoy conflict and rational conclusions from it. It’s how we learn.
“I could give you a logical argument for the existence of someone like Spider-man to possibly exist. But that doesn’t mean he does or ever will. It also doesn’t mean he ever could exist as my logic could be based on inadequate information.”
-That’s what I’ve been saying all along about science. It’s primarily guesswork which turns out to be inadequate because the logic behind it is wrong. It’s not that you shouldn’t use logic, it’s that you should make sure your logic is correct. The only way to do that is trial and error by expressing it to as much criteria as possible.
“science doesn’t “prove” anything, It only disproves things.”
-Then you’re in a world of trouble with all the things discovered by science. If it’s just to disprove things, then as *I* said from the first post, nobody should be trying to disprove the other person. It needs to be based on what can you prove! If all we need to do is have people disprove everything then we can keep people busy for the rest of their lives and generations to come.
“Newton is author of the laws of motion, but he didn’t author the information”
-Yes, but where did that information come from? Did it come from an intelligent God who designed the universe? Or did it come from impersonal and non-intelligent big bang?
So my logic still stands to reason.
“What tests have they done [ID]?”
-The one I keep telling you about. It’s empirically detectable that design exists in nature (implicitly and explicitly).
Implicitly through people’s attacks on the idea that something is poorly designed.
Explicitly through logical placement of the simplest cell (life) having enough information for 1000 encyclopedias. Encyclopedias are books. Books have authors. Authors are intelligent. Therefore it stands to reason that there must be an author (intelligence) for life.
“but all I get from you is the same false equivocation fallacy again and again”
-It’s only a fallacy to you because you don’t accept the explanation to the fallacy. Until you can fight the criticism off, my information stands.
“But not all information comes from books now does it?”
-All information comes from intelligence. Books and authors are just an example of that.
“then what would a non-designed human look like?”
-I’ve already explained that, and for both our sakes, this one time and one time only I’ll copy and paste the information for you:
***Humans are naturally shown to be designed [as I've said through my examples], so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive. [Emphasis added]***
And again, that’s basically anything other than a human, but you’re asking in in a way as if there’s a specific answer, like “what isn’t the answer to 2+2?” Well, the correct answer is 4, so anything other than 4 isn’t the answer. I’d have to pick a random number out of the sky and it would be wrong to 2+2=?. I’m sorry but we’re not going to both come to 5039 being the wrong answer as if it’s the specific answer. All numbers are *specifically* the wrong answer other than 4.
“You’re student example is a terrible example. 1) Did they do the test on multiple frogs and different types of frogs to see if this was the case for all frogs 2) Did they experiment as to why the loss of legs caused deafness 3) Why would they need to cut off the legs in the first place?”
-Well lets examine how terrible it is. Now, before we start, this experiment is just a random experiment, much like science today does random experiments (not to be any inflection on you, I just find it interesting that our tax dollars in america are going to good causes during a time of debt such as examining the mating life of a type of bird…). It may not make sense, but hey, it’s scientific and uses all the characteristics of science.
1) Yes, they scared a frog by yelling at it (which I’m sorry if I didn’t add that earlier in the experiment, they yelled at it to scare it), the frog jumped the same amount of inches (50 the first time, then 40, and so on) based on X amount of legs.
2) Yes, when the frogs hit 0 legs, they yelled at it but it didn’t move. They thought it would jump 10 inches according to the data but it just stood there, so they concluded the frog went deaf.
3) Unimportant, my example is based on wrong conclusions, not why do we do experiments.
This is scientifically verified by everything, yet they got the wrong conclusion instead of rightfully concluding it didn’t jump because it had nothing to jump with. It’s not impossible. You can get the wrong interpretation from the same evidence.
“But aside from you false equivocation fallacy, you haven’t shown me what information it was that lead to your conclusion so that I can scrutinize or object to it. What is it?”
-That’s rather amusing. You’re essentially saying, “Aside from the evidence you’ve shown me, you haven’t shown me evidence…”
“Its held up for over 150 years.”
-It’s just *existed* for 150 years. The bible has held up for thousands. Only one is right, and if we’re just going off of common sense here, does it make sense to believe something constantly changing to try and maintain accuracy over the span of 150 years over something that hasn’t changed for thousands *because* it’s accurate already?
“Again, why is that bad?”
-Because you’re looking at it out of context. I explained it more in depth in the previous post and I just explained it again right above this comment about the 150 years thing.
“And yet there are numerous translations”
-Because there’s many ways to translate the same word. Also, some are in old english, some are in more modern english.
“alterations to original manuscripts ( such as earliest copies of Mark do not contain chapter 16: 9-20)”
-And I’ve considered that a long time. From all the research I can uncover, there are 3 possibilities here.
1) Mark wanted to intentionally end the gospel in an open-ended fashion
2) It was never finished
3) The last page was lost prior to the recopying of scriptures
Much external evidence negates the idea that Mark wrote this controversial piece of scripture, therefore one would logically conclude that Mark wanted to leave it open and someone took the liberty to fill in a few verses. The good news is we are able to note that these writings are not originally part of Mark and whatever credibility Mark has should not be attributed to these final verses. We should therefore compare it with the rest of scripture. If it holds up and maybe turns out the someone else of the Bible wrote it or something, then there would be no reason to doubt it. If it doesn’t, then we can discard it.
“And you know its false how?”
-Because it doesn’t hold up against a lot of criteria which is detrimental to the theory.
“So do it. Falsify it.”
-So can the study of science itself be falsified? Please note, I’m not attacking science here, I’m attacking the idea of falsifiability.
“How much you believe something has no determining value in whether or not its true.”
-Tell that to the previous people I’ve discussed with. I said the same evidence and they all reacted differently. Some thought it was worth looking into and left, others got angry and upset and suddenly started insulting me (as a majority of them do. It’s nice to have an intelligent discussion with someone such as yourself).
“How exactly are we agreeing in any extent?”
-You disagree that speciation leads to grand-scale changes which is what I believe. Since we both agree, there’s nothing more to discuss. You can go on about dogs always being dogs all you want, and I’m well aware of that argument and how difficult it is to explain myself thoroughly without crossing over that path, but that wasn’t the point I was making. Sure, if evolution is true we evolved from the first cell, so technically all life is a “cell” in a sense, but I was making the point that there’s nothing showing dogs growing wings or apples developing the anatomy of an orange. If anything we see creatures mutating with something they already have. People have sometimes had 4 legs due to mutation, but they already had the information to make legs. Where was the evolution? How do we get from a single cell to man? Speciation certainly doesn’t show it.
“Which is only a response as to *why* they’re possibly there, not *how* they got there”
-How is that an issue? If evolution is true, then that would be a good point, but if it’s false and creation is true, there is no dilemma. To make an argument, there must be a solid foundational ground to discuss on. Since there is nothing of common ground here, there’s nothing to discuss in *how* they got there.
“One explanation is that we both share a common ancestor from which these genome sequences we’re passed down to us”
-And another is that we share a common designer who made us similarly.
“The problem with this is that what your brain tells you subjective as it is the result of your own”
-That’s for experiences, not for logic and reason. Interpreting the same experiences differently based on ones personality is ineffective when it comes to objective definites of logic and reason. Coping with being shot in the arm is not the same as defining something with a specific answer.
“I wasn’t asking for one “ultimate” explation. I was only asking for yours. What is your criteria? What is your standard?”
-I already said that in great depth after the sentence you copied and pasted to answer to. Like I said, there’s hundreds of criteria and it’s all different depending on what you deal with because not all truths are related other than the fact that they’re all truth. You seem to imply that there’s some ultimate expression of finding it all. There’s only exposing an idea to all the criteria that effect it.
“No you haven’t. You haven’t because you haven’t given me the justification for you reason that all information comes from authors.”
-Yes I have. I said previously that not all information comes from authors. The only thing that an author for life makes sense with is the fact that information comes from intelligence. Nothing says all information comes from *1 source* of intelligence over all others as you keep attacking at. Just that all information comes from an intelligence in general.
“Evolution produces new information in the gene code all time, all without any intelligence required to do so.”
-First off, if you mean evolution as in small-scale variations, then I agree. The main point of this is, where did life come from in order to do this in the first place? If it came from nothing/unintelligent processes, then you’d have a point. If it came from an intelligence, then it just shows life is a process of intelligence and anything done by this intelligence is the same. Again, going back to the top of this post, we’re not on a common ground here so the argument is null.
“So your reasoning of “author for life and design” is faulty.”
-Currently, my argument still stands and I will be waiting for anything you have to offer in regards as to how my argument is faulty.
“Something being unfalsifiable says nothing about either it’s validity or truth.”
-Thank you, that’s all I was pointing out. I wasn’t attacking science itself, just the idea of falsifiability. It can be scientifically acceptable all it wants, but if it’s not an accurate way to discover truth as I’ve shown then I cannot logically accept it.
“Falsifiability is not a claim or statement where it must be subjected to its own reasoning.”
-If it wants to be true, then yes it must be. And again, it can be selectively chosen to be that way all it wants to be scientifically acceptable, but it’s not accurate in discovering the truth which is what is most important to learn. If you start with a false assumption, you’ll get a false answer.
Now that this falsifiability is all out of the way, I’d like to go back to the original statement I made in which I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right. Since falsifiability cannot be used to accurately and truthfully defend the evolutionary position, we are now to a point where scientific theories (such as evolution) must be proven to be truthfully accepted and does not need to be proven wrong. If it cannot be logically explained to be dependable, then I would rightfully question its position as being taught as fact in the educational system.
“Every theory that is accepted by science is constantly and consistently retested”
-So just like my frog example, it gets more and more accurate that frogs go deaf after the last leg is cut off.
In short, no, science apparently does not go off of external variables to possibly understand if their conclusions are accurate. Repeating the same method ensures you’ll get a more accurate reading by averaging the results, but if you do nothing to change the method for more accurate results, then what’s the point? You could be doing it wrong every time and you never know. That’s not accuracy.
“I’m saying that “information” doesn’t require an “intelligence”, as I showed above.”
-But that’s on the premise that life came from unintelligent processes. If your premise is wrong, then so is your conclusion.
“I was saying that my words had no implications whatsoever in regards to my having a “belief” or not in scientifically held positions.”
-First, it doesn’t have to be in a scientific position to be truth. I’ve shown that through multiple lines of evidence.
Second, you haven’t shown at all that you didn’t imply something. I’ve explained every argument against that.
Finally, there’s nothing left to defend against the idea that your trust in the theory is indeed a belief.
“The difference is that what you claim to be implicated is merely your interpretation of the meaning of my words.”
-While you make a valid point, I still don’t see the error. If I’ve made a false interpretation, then how have I done so? You really should explain these things along with your assertions so we don’t have to go another round to get it all out. These conversations are long enough as it is, lets not play 20 questions.
“So instead of correcting them on how *they* view science, you question the science itself?”
-Actually I’m not sure why I said that, but thank you for correcting that. However I did also mention that science can’t prove itself by the scientific method to show truth and is technically false since it fails to hold up against its own criteria.
“I’ve explained how you didn’t understand speciation. I’ve explained how you didn’t understand ERVs. I explained how you didn’t even understand basic species classification. I showed how evolution adds new information without any intelligent beings needed, falsifying your “books and authors” logic.”
-And I’ve re-explained it as stated above in this post. It’s when we come to a defining moment/conclusion that we see who in the end is correct such as we have with falsifiability (in my opinion anyway, I honestly don’t see the recovery for it, but I urge you to make a good effort if you so choose to).
“How does it still stand? You have established that god is the one who created it. And as I showed above intelligence is not necessary for information.”
-You just don’t get it. If this universe is a result of the intelligent, then that means the processes that take place could not happen unless an intelligence preceded it first. Your examples of non-intelligent processes could have a hidden premise of intelligence for its existence which would nullify your results and confirm mine.
“[Design is] Detectable how?” [Added for context]
-I’ve gone over it far too many times and this is the last time I will state it so remember it well.
1) Implicitly through people’s objection of poor design
2) Explicitly through the analogy that information requires intelligence (books have authors)
“It was thanks to research from “random experiments” in evolutionary biology…”
-Let me stop you there to say, evolution has had *no* benefit to society. Absolutely none. What has been helping is the anatomical/genetic/etc studies and similarities that animals share (which does not explicitly support only evolution) to develop the information we have today.
“You still didn’t say how many frogs and many types of frogs they used. You need more than just one. Which was the point of my question.”
-Doesn’t matter, this is all theoretical and the kind of frog doesn’t change the results. If you cut off all the frog’s legs then according to the results it becomes deaf.
“No, I mean did they experiment to discover the mechanism that connects the legs to hearing. Cause real science wouldn’t just stop with “well he didn’t move that means he must not be able to hear””
-That’s not the point. Did they or did they not get a different conclusion than what we would logically conclude actually happened? Yes. That’s the only point I’m making is the fact that you can get the wrong interpretation. Sometimes it doesn’t occur to people that there’s more than meets the eye and therefore it causes them to get a false conclusion. To these students, the obvious didn’t occur to them and it happened to them. Anyone is capable of making mistakes. Scientists are no exception. Stop fighting this subject. You’ve been going against this analogy for far too long after I’ve expressed the point.
“Your example shows wrong conclusions based on faulty reasoning”
-EXACTLY! Thank you! I couldn’t be more proud.
“Tell that to the Catholics, they seem to find no problem in both believing the bible and accepting evolution”
-And yet the first page of Genesis conflicts evolution. So Catholicism is false. You either believe one or the other, not both. They’re mutually exclusive.
“Changing accordingly as new information presents itself is far better than one book that just proclaims to be right and never changes.”
-If it proclaims it’s right and it is right, then what’s the problem? Why choose something constantly changing because it can’t get things right the first time over something that already has gotten it right the first time?
“Exactly how does their “reactions” affect the validity of your claims?”
-Reactions are the best method to discovering the truth behind someones beliefs. But my argument was based on the acceptance of information based on how much someone believes in something. One who is unbiased is likely to accept information from either side more willingly, whereas one who is in depth to one side usually is less willing to accept information from the opposition. I don’t expect for you to start believing creation nor do I think you expect me to start believing evolution, but I feel it’s important to be educated on both sides so I like to hear what others have to say and see how it holds up to my own information. And who knows, anything can happen in these discussions.
“You disagree that speciation leads to grand-scale changes which is what I believe.”
Uh no. Speciation *is* grand-scale changes. The problem is you have a misconception as to what “grand-scale changes” are. You think that its a dog becoming a kangaroo, which can’t happen because they are on two separate evolutionary branches. Evolution does not allow one species on one branch to become something on another branch. You’re simply showing you ignorance as to what the basic fundamentals of evolution actually say and instead create a straw man of what you think it says. Please, read the actual research and studies from the researches in the field.
“You can go on about dogs always being dogs all you want, and I’m well aware of that argument.. ”
Obviously you aren’t if you think “dog” is a species classification.
“I was making the point that there’s nothing showing dogs growing wings..”
Why would they? They had no need for them. Evolution has no goal, nor is it a ladder. If they can successfully reproduce, natural selection won’t effect them. If they can’t successfully reproduce, then they either evolve enough to where they can or they go extinct. That’s it.
“If anything we see creatures mutating with something they already have.”
That what evolution does, it adds or takes away from already existing features. They don’t just spontaneously sprout new vestigial organs or appendages.
“People have sometimes had 4 legs due to mutation, but they already had the information to make legs. Where was the evolution?”
Mutation itself is not evolution. Evolution requires natural selection with it.
“How do we get from a single cell to man? Speciation certainly doesn’t show it.”
Have you read any actual research studies that were published on the subject?
“How is that an issue? If evolution is true, then that would be a good point”
Because the actual significance of the ERVs is in HOW they got there, not what they do after there already there. Its the means by which we obtained them.
“-And another is that we share a common designer who made us similarly.”
But we did NOT always have them. They came from retroviruses. So your design argument fails. If we had always had them, then your argument would mean something.
“Like I said, there’s hundreds of criteria and it’s all different depending on what you deal with because not all truths are related other than the fact that they’re all truth.”
And yet you STILL won’t give the criteria that you used to determine design. What is it?
“..is the fact that information comes from intelligence.”
And I already gave you an example of evolution producing information WITHOUT intelligence. So you argument is null and void.
“where did life come from in order to do this in the first place?”
Then you problem is with abiogenesis not evolution. Evolution only comes into effect after life is already started.
“If it came from nothing/unintelligent processes, then you’d have a point.”
It did. Frameshift mutation *is* an unintelligent proceess.
“Currently, my argument still stands and I will be waiting for anything you have to offer in regards as to how my argument is faulty.”
I gave you a specific example of new information been created without intelligence (frameshift mutations). Your “reasoning” does not stand.
“It can be scientifically acceptable all it wants, but if it’s not an accurate way to discover truth as I’ve shown then I cannot logically accept it.”
Then tell us a better way to do it. You can criticize all you want, but unless you offer a better way that gets better results, then you criticisms mean nothing as its still the best method we know of.
“If it wants to be true, then yes it must be.”
Again its not about being “true”. Its about what is scientific and what is not scientific. If you say the I.D. is science, which you have, then it *must* be falsifiable. If it isn’t falsifiable than it is *not* science.
“we are now to a point where scientific theories (such as evolution) must be proven to be truthfully accepted and does not need to be proven wrong”
You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics. Only math can make proofs, not science. I don’t know how many times I have told you this.
“Repeating the same method ensures you’ll get a more accurate reading by averaging the results”
Who said anything about repeating the same thing? When new information is found, they get tested with new experiments and new methods. When we get the results then they are compared to see if the results match what is predicted by the theory. Which is why Newton’s theory of gravity was changed to Einstein’s general relativity theory, because Newton’s theory couldn’t predict mercury’s orbital pattern, where as Einstein’s did. This is what is meant by testing theories. Again you fail to understand basic science principles. I mean seriously, this is stuff I learned in first year in high school.
“But that’s on the premise that life came from unintelligent processes. If your premise is wrong, then so is your conclusion”
Then again your problem is with Abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started.
“First, it doesn’t have to be in a scientific position to be truth.”
Never said it. I was questioning I.D.’s validity at being a science, not on where its true or not.
“If I’ve made a false interpretation, then how have I done so? You really should explain these things along with your assertions so we don’t have to go another round to get it all out. These conversations are long enough as it is, lets not play 20 questions.”
I have told you specifically that I have no “belief” at all in matters of science. But you keep on that I do because of your subjective interpretation of what you “think” I actually mean.
“However I did also mention that science can’t prove itself by the scientific method to show truth and is technically false since it fails to hold up against its own criteria.”
I also said that science can’t “prove” anything at all.
“You just don’t get it. If this universe is a result of the intelligent, then that means the processes that take place could not happen unless an intelligence preceded it first.”
And evolution says nothing about how the universe started. A god, or intelligence, could have created life itself. But if he/she/it did, then they used evolution to create the diversity of life that we find.
“Your examples of non-intelligent processes could have a hidden premise of intelligence for its existence which would nullify your results and confirm mine.”
So first it was “all information comes intelligence”. Then when I gave an example of information coming from non-intelligence, all of a sudden there’s a “hidden premise of intelligence” to it. LOL. You go ahead and keep moving that goalpost there, sunshine.
“I’ve gone over it far too many times and this is the last time I will state it so remember it well.
1) Implicitly through people’s objection of poor design
2) Explicitly through the analogy that information requires intelligence (books have authors)”
I’m asking for the criteria that determines what is designed.
“What has been helping is the anatomical/genetic/etc studies and similarities that animals share (which does not explicitly support only evolution) to develop the information we have today.”
And it is these similarities that was predicted by the theory of evolution itself. If we all share common ancestor, then we share similar features. Some more than others, like mammals share hair and live birth with other mammals, but not with reptiles. And you share more traits with members of you family then you do with people outside of your family. Darwin himself noted these similar features when he first proposed the notion of common ancestry. Of course I doubt you actually read his work either.
“Doesn’t matter, this is all theoretical and the kind of frog doesn’t change the results. If you cut off all the frog’s legs then according to the results it becomes deaf.”
It does matter if you argue that its using scientific methods, since real science would conduct the experiment with more than just one frog (or even type of frog) to see if the same is true for all frogs.
“That’s not the point. Did they or did they not get a different conclusion than what we would logically conclude actually happened? Yes. That’s the only point I’m making is the fact that you can get the wrong interpretation”
That is the point. As science would go on to discover if there is a mechanism that links legs to the ability to hear to make sure the conclusions were right. Science doesn’t just stop with the first conclusion it gets.
““Your example shows wrong conclusions based on faulty reasoning”
-EXACTLY! Thank you! I couldn’t be more proud.”
Thank you for quote mining my statement and taking it out of context. Had you read the whole thing, I explain that the faulty reason came from their faulty unscientific methods. Thank you for showing your intellectual dishonesty.
“And yet the first page of Genesis conflicts evolution. So Catholicism is false. You either believe one or the other, not both. They’re mutually exclusive.”
And how do you know that genesis isn’t an allegory for primitive men in a primitive time? How do you know the bible itself isn’t just a man-made book? You also just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.
“If it proclaims it’s right and it is right, then what’s the problem?”
Cause we don’t know that the bible is right. How do you know that it is?
“-Reactions are the best method to discovering the truth behind someones beliefs.”
Or you could, you know, ask them and let them tell you. Crazy notion I know.
“I don’t expect for you to start believing creation.”
If the evidence led me that way I would. I have nothing against there being a god or us being a product of that god. But I simply see no evidence to support that conjecture.
“but I feel it’s important to be educated on both sides so I like to hear what others have to say and see how it holds up to my own information”
So then would you be for the education of alchemy as opposed to chemistry? Or geocentric as opposed to heliocentric? Or how about intelligent falling as opposed to gravity? All ideas are *not* equal.
“Uh no. Speciation *is* grand-scale changes”
-Oh, I’m sorry but I don’t recall seeing the speciation of dogs lead to anything but.. dogs. It’s inaccurate to say speciation *is* grand-scale changes. All speciation shows is we get different variations of the same animals. We have arctic foxes and fennecs. Both adapted to completely opposite environments, but they’re both still foxes. Nothing shows they’re changing into anything more than that.
“The problem is you have a misconception as to what “grand-scale changes” are.”
-Oh I have a great understanding. Now, you’re free to believe it means speciation, but that doesn’t show anything of how we got from cells to human beings. That shows we get different variations of the same kinds of life.
“You think that its a dog becoming a kangaroo, which can’t happen because they are on two separate evolutionary branches”
-I was just using it as an example. I made it very clear in my previous post that I understood the argument you were making. I was just using that example to show that there has to be radical changes to change something into something it isn’t (and yes, you can say “oh it’s always a dog technically” and that’s fine, but there comes a point when it’s different than the dogs of today, that’s the only point I’m making).
“Obviously you aren’t if you think “dog” is a species classification.”
-I never said it was a species classification. We get species within this categorization, but I’ve never referred to “dogs” in general as being a species.
“Why would they? They had no need for them”
-Not my point. There’s has to come a time when the first cell(s) eventually change into man. As such, we should be able to see such radical changes.
“If they can’t successfully reproduce, then they either evolve enough to where they can or they go extinct.”
-If they can’t reproduce, then they’re dead. There is no evolution. That’s one of the problems with evolution is it doesn’t explain a lot of animals in the world. The chicken egg and the pacific golden plover are just a couple of them if you’re up to studying it some day in the future.
“Its the means by which we obtained them”
-I agree.
“But we did NOT always have them.”
-That has nothing to do with countering what I said.
“If we had always had them, then your argument would mean something.”
-Doesn’t matter when it comes into existence. I’ll give you so much as to say it would aid your case, but it doesn’t go against mine in the slightest. Since this can be used for both our standpoints, we need to appeal to something beyond this.
“And yet you STILL won’t give the criteria that you used to determine design. What is it?”
-”Still?” I’ve given it to you time and time again. If you don’t care to read it, I don’t care to explain it.
“And I already gave you an example of evolution producing information WITHOUT intelligence. So you argument is null and void.”
-And I countered it. My argument still stands.
“Then you problem is with abiogenesis not evolution”
-We’re not discussing origins in this respect. We’re discussing the origin of information. If you’re going to use something as evidence that unintelligent processes produce meaningful information, then you need to make sure your premises are accurate. In this case, the premise is where did the information come from that you claim is an unintelligent process to create more information? Was it caused by an unintelligence? Or the contrary? Since we do not know (but that’s what we’re here to find out), you cannot use it as evidence. Your argument for unintelligence producing information is in error.
“Then tell us a better way to do it. You can criticize all you want, but unless you offer a better way that gets better results, then you criticisms mean nothing as its still the best method we know of.”
-So if you know science can be false, you’re saying it has to be trusted because it’s the best method currently? Well I’m sorry but if that’s the case then the best isn’t enough. For all you know you’re believing a lie for stubborn reasons.
Aside from that, I’ve explained to you multiple times that you should expose an idea to as much criteria as possible (anything that can effect the results) to discover truth.
“Again its not about being “true”. Its about what is scientific and what is not scientific.”
-Wow, just wow. So evolution doesn’t have to be true, just be “scientific.” Still want to say you don’t have a belief?
“If you say the I.D. is science, which you have”
-After seeing what you’ve shown about science, I don’t think I want it to be. But then again, I get a different explanation from each person about what science *truly* is, so I’ll keep an open mind.
“You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?
“Again you fail to understand basic science principles.”
-That’s what happens when you get a different opinion from everyone. I’ll give you as much as to say that I’m not as understanding about certain parts of science as some other people (such as yourself) may be, but saying I fail to understand it doesn’t really say anything to me anymore. If you can all get on the same page, then I’ll listen. This isn’t to be a reflection on you, I simply think others have ruined it for you to be taken seriously on this matter.
“I have told you specifically that I have no “belief” at all in matters of science.”
-I respectfully disagree on the basis of what I’ve already written.
“And evolution says nothing about how the universe started.”
-That has nothing to do with this part of the conversation. This is explaining that information comes from an intelligence to back up my analogy of life having an author just as books do.
“all of a sudden there’s a “hidden premise of intelligence. LOL. You go ahead and keep moving that goalpost there, sunshine.””
-So instead of answering my objection or refuting it’s validity, you decide to divert away from that with meaningless notions. You need to be very careful when doing that, I’ve had a lot of experience in detecting someones inability to answer me directly.
My argument still stands. Since we’re trying to discover where we came from you cannot use something that is premised off of where it came from. That’s circular reasoning.
“I’m asking for the criteria that determines what is designed.”
-I explained that in the analogy of books to authors.
“And it is these similarities that was predicted by the theory of evolution itself.”
-Similarities can be predicted however they want, but similarities *themselves* do not aid your position more than mine, nor mine yours.
“If we all share common ancestor, then we share similar features.”
-But it does not prove common ancestor *over* a common designer. They are equally proven by similarity.
“It does matter if you argue that its using scientific methods, since real science would conduct the experiment with more than just one frog (or even type of frog) to see if the same is true for all frogs.”
-Considering that I can manipulate my example since it’s theoretical and thus tell you that it’s the same with all frogs. Scientifically proven, frogs go deaf.
“That is the point.”
-Good, then we’re in agreement that science can get false conclusions.
“Had you read the whole thing, I explain that the faulty reason came from their faulty unscientific methods.”
-A couple comments ago (2 statements above this explanation) you said my example didn’t use the scientific method of conducting the experiment with more than one frog. I said they did, they got the same result. This is ridiculous, why are you wasting our time with this nonsense of “did they check all the frogs in the universe?” That has nothing to do with my argument.
“And how do you know that genesis isn’t an allegory for primitive men in a primitive time?”
-Because there’s nothing indicating it. Also, the first page of Genesis is completely opposite to evolution in at least 20-30 ways. For example, birds were before reptiles.
“How do you know the bible itself isn’t just a man-made book?”
-Because it best explains the evidence outside of itself along with the concise amount of information within itself through the multiple variables that historians would deem to test it’s validity (meaning, through all that it’s experienced in it’s formation, such as all periods of time, many places around the world, several authors, etc. Through all these variables, the Bible is still concise in it’s information. Historians would deem this true if it had all these characteristics).
“You also just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.”
-No I didn’t. I saw a contradiction, I pointed it out. You’d have to interpret Genesis differently than what it says. If you’re going to point the finger at anyone, point it at the Catholics.
“Or you could, you know, ask them and let them tell you.”
-People don’t always answer truthfully (like you don’t agree that you’re theory is a belief), so a reaction is needed because the truth of what someone thinks is much more likely to come out through a reaction than if you simply ask them.
“So then would you be for the education of alchemy as opposed to chemistry? Or geocentric as opposed to heliocentric? Or how about intelligent falling as opposed to gravity? All ideas are *not* equal.”
-There’s a difference between discussing the possibilities of what the truth is (without 100% knowing it) and discussing something that’s been proven false (but if you want to discuss the history of it, then I see no harm in introducing the history to students). If there’s anything to support something like geocentric orbit, then I’d like to hear it, and if it had a good argument that couldn’t be refuted, then I would feel that it should be introduced (but it’s known to be false, so of course this is going to sound ridiculous because there isn’t much of an argument to support geocentricity. Common sense of gravitational force is enough to disqualify it.). Creation and evolution are far different.
“Oh, I’m sorry but I don’t recall seeing the speciation of dogs lead to anything but.. dogs.”
My word, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. I said that speciation is when a particular population of a species is no longer capable of breeding and produce fertile offspring with the parent species from which it came. Speciation has not occurred yet between dogs since they can still breed with one another. There is a difference between different “breeds” and different “species”.
And again, “dog” is not a classification of species and yet here you are once again using it to argue against speciation.
“We have arctic foxes and fennecs. Both adapted to completely opposite environments, but they’re both still foxes.”
But they aren’t the same species. Fennec foxes are Vulpes zerda, where as the arctic foxes belong to Alopex lagopus. As with the term “dog”, “fox” is NOT a classification for species. Once you again you display your ignorance on the subject.
“Oh I have a great understanding”
As I just showed up above, no you most certainly do not.
“I was just using it as an example”
And a very poor one at that, since it is something that evolution *specifically* says cannot happen. If you gonna use an example, then use a relevant one.
“I made it very clear in my previous post that I understood the argument you were making.”
And yet, with each one of mine I have to correct you on your misunderstanding and misconceptions on it.
“I was just using that example to show that there has to be radical changes to change something into something it isn’t”
But radical changes aren’t always necessary. All it takes to be a new species is enough genetic drift with certain populations of a species to keep it from being able to breed with other populations. That’s it. Sometimes radical changes accompany this, sometimes they don’t.
“I never said it was a species classification. We get species within this categorization, but I’ve never referred to “dogs” in general as being a species.”
But you keep using the different breeds of dogs to argue against speciation when speciation has not occurred in dogs yet. You’re arguing a straw man you created. If you’re gonna argue against speciation then use the correct taxonomic classification for species.
“Not my point. There’s has to come a time when the first cell(s) eventually change into man. As such, we should be able to see such radical changes.”
Again, have you or have you not read *any* actual studies or research published on the subject?
“The chicken egg and the pacific golden plover are just a couple of them if you’re up to studying it some day in the future.”
I already looked into you pacific golden plover and saw nothing that defies evolution, so you gonna have to be a little more specific than that, sport. And how exactly is the chicken egg a problem for evolution?
“That has nothing to do with countering what I said.”
If your arguing that we were both designed with them in the same places, then it does since it wasn’t always there but acquired much later on. Either we both share a common ancestor or 98,000 different viruses just happened to infect both of us with the same sequence in the same location.
“Doesn’t matter when it comes into existence. I’ll give you so much as to say it would aid your case, but it doesn’t go against mine in the slightest. Since this can be used for both our standpoints, we need to appeal to something beyond this.”
No it can’t. Since you’re arguing that we were both designed with them, then the fact that we didn’t always have them actually hurt your case.
“”Still?” I’ve given it to you time and time again. If you don’t care to read it, I don’t care to explain it.”
All you have given is the “design is evident” and the “books and authors” arguments. The former is merely unsupported conjecture, since you have yet to show any empirical evidence to back it up, and the latter I exposed as faulty as I showed you a specific example of information coming from non-intelligence.
“And I countered it. My argument still stands”
Your only counter was “there may be a hidden premises to it”, which is just pure unsupported speculation on your part.
“If you’re going to use something as evidence that unintelligent processes produce meaningful information, then you need to make sure your premises are accurate. In this case, the premise is where did the information come from that you claim is an unintelligent process to create more information? Was it caused by an unintelligence? Or the contrary?”
Since no intelligence was observed when the frameshift mutations occurred, then we have no reason to say that it was caused by an intelligence. And to say there was is just speculation on your part.
“So if you know science can be false, you’re saying it has to be trusted because it’s the best method currently?”
What’s the alternative? Go back to previous methods that are even worse? If you want us to use a better one, then tell us what it is.
“Well I’m sorry but if that’s the case then the best isn’t enough. For all you know you’re believing a lie for stubborn reasons.
Aside from that, I’ve explained to you multiple times that you should expose an idea to as much criteria as possible (anything that can effect the results) to discover truth”
And yet you still don’t give a better method or state what specifically your criteria is.
“Wow, just wow. So evolution doesn’t have to be true, just be “scientific.”
Evolution is the best explanation that fits all the data, facts, and observations. If a better one comes along that can explain better, then we will change to that one. Just like we did when we changed from Newton’s theory of gravity to Einstein’s general relativity, because it is a better explanation that fits all the data.
“After seeing what you’ve shown about science, I don’t think I want it to be. ”
Good then we both agree, I.D. is not science. It doesn’t explain all the data, it has no falsifiability, and it has no predictive capabilities.
“But then again, I get a different explanation from each person about what science *truly* is”
That’s what you get when you ask random people on the internet their opinions instead of actually studying the subject and reading actual research done by actual researchers in the field.
““You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?”
You have got to kidding me…
“That’s what happens when you get a different opinion from everyone.”
Then stop asking for “opinions” and go do some actual research. Read the papers being published. Go take a biology class. Stop trying to debate people’s opinions on science, and go learn what the science actually says.
“I respectfully disagree on the basis of what I’ve already written.”
Fine. Disagree. I have no problem with that. But to use that as basis for an argument for you what you think I mean is nothing short of a straw man.
“-I explained that in the analogy of books to authors.”
Criteria – noun
1) a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based
2) a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
If you seriously think that an “analogy” is a criteria for anything, then you’re in worst shape then I though.
“Considering that I can manipulate my example since it’s theoretical and thus tell you that it’s the same with all frogs. ”
If you have to manipulate it, then it was poor example to to argue from to begin with.
“-Good, then we’re in agreement that science can get false conclusions.”
Yes it can. And when new information comes up that shows it faulty, you know falsify it, then we either change it or get a better one. Again just like we did with Newton’s and Einstein’s theories.
“Because there’s nothing indicating it. Also, the first page of Genesis is completely opposite to evolution in at least 20-30 ways. For example, birds were before reptiles.”
Genesis completely opposes it self. For example:
GENESIS 1:11-12 and 1:26-27: Trees came before Adam.
GENESIS 2:4-9: Trees came after Adam.
GENESIS 1:20-21 and 26-27: Birds were created before Adam.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:19: Birds were created after Adam.
GENESIS 1:24-27: Animals were created before Adam.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:19: Animals were created after Adam.
GENESIS 1:26-27: Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:21-22: Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
But as I’m sure many writers will tell you, it’s so hard keeping continuity between the first 2 chapters of the same book. LOL
“People don’t always answer truthfully (like you don’t agree that you’re theory is a belief), so a reaction is needed because the truth of what someone thinks is much more likely to come out through a reaction than if you simply ask them.”
And you know they’re lying how exactly?
“If there’s anything to support something like geocentric orbit, then I’d like to hear it, and if it had a good argument that couldn’t be refuted, then I would feel that it should be introduced ”
Then do tell, what empirical evidence do you have that supports I.D. (and if you thnk your “design is evident” or “books have authors” analogy arguments count as empirical evidence, then you have no idea what empirical really means)
““dog” is not a classification of species and yet here you are once again using it to argue against speciation.”
-Again, I never said it was. I said the speciation *of* dogs. Not, the *dog species.*
“But they aren’t the same species”
-But they’re both still foxes…
“”fox” is NOT a classification for species. Once you again you display your ignorance on the subject.”
-Never said it was. You’re assumption from the beginning of this *species* talk has been that you think I’m talking about variation within a species or something. You’ll have to clear that for me as I’m not certain, but rest assured, whatever you’re assuming is causing you to receive false conclusions.
“And a very poor one at that”
-Because you’re taking it too literally. This is why people get a false understanding when they read the Bible (as I see you’ve cited in this post and will explain further on). If you prefer I can replace “kangaroo” with “creature with a tail, pouch, and looks like a giant mouse with wings.”
“But radical changes aren’t always necessary”
-They are if you believe evolution is how man god here! You seem to imply that I believe radical changes mean something like punctuated equilibrium. That’s not the case. I’m well aware things make small changes, but all those small changes lead to.. small changes. Nothing shows they change into anything other than their basic form. 600 generations of fruit flies in a lab resulted in.. guess what.. fruit flies. We didn’t get anything beyond their basic form.
“But you keep using the different breeds of dogs to argue against speciation”
-I’m not arguing against speciation. I’m arguing against the idea that speciation proves grand-scale evolution.
“I already looked into you pacific golden plover and saw nothing that defies evolution, so you gonna have to be a little more specific than that, sport. And how exactly is the chicken egg a problem for evolution?”
-Well to give you the gist of the information (there’s whole books on this stuff, but I’m going to give you the bullet points and you’re free to research it now or later (or never), I’m not going to ask that you research it now if you prefer not to) we’ll start with the Plover first. This is a bird which constantly flies back and forth to Hawaii and Alaska throughout it’s life, and it’s got quite a magnificent way of doing it. First, it has to fly in a group (1 bird breaks the wind while the others fly in it, and change out so often), because the energy it would take to fly back and forth would take all it’s energy and it still wouldn’t make it (therefore it would die and couldn’t evolve, had to get it right the first time). And second, it has to know where it’s going. If it’s off by 1 degree it would be hundreds of miles away from it’s target (therefore, dead and can’t evolve). This is enough for now.
The chicken egg is similarly interesting. First, it has very small holes (or “pores”) in the egg which allow the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. It has to get this right the first time or it’s dead and can’t evolve, thus chickens wouldn’t exist. Second, after some time of it’s development, it grows what is known as an “egg tooth.” This grows on the top of the beak and is used to break through a thin wall for more air (if you’ve ever cut a boiled egg in half, you’ll notice this pocket in the egg) and it needs that air when it reaches that stage of development (side-note, everything is done very precisely; the chick doesn’t have days to do all these things, sometimes it has mere hours so it has to work fast or it dies). But in order for it to get that air, it has to be developed in the right position in order to break through the wall. If it’s randomly upside down, it’s dead. With all of these complexities taken into account and understanding the need for them, it’s quite clear it had to get these right on the first try.
I think 2 points are a good amount for each example.
“then it does since it wasn’t always there but acquired much later on”
-No, you still don’t understand. I’m sure I’ve said before (but I’m not 100% certain so I wont be too dogmatic on it) that you ignore the fact that the process can still be used for creation. You seem to think that a population (with these common similarities) diverged and evolved into something different but kept these similarities which are to prove evolution. That’s fine. I see them as a result of a similar process but not by a common ancestor of evolutionary means. However, a common designer. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.
“Either we both share a common ancestor or 98,000 different viruses just happened to infect both of us with the same sequence in the same location.”
-Again, this is a matter of unequal presuppositions which render the argument invalid. If evolution is true, then you would have a point. If creation is true, then the *random* but similar locations are not so random after all.
“Since you’re arguing that we were both designed with them, then the fact that we didn’t always have them actually hurt your case.”
-Well first off I’d probably argue the idea if we always had them or not, that’s interesting to me as to how that was concluded. Primarily, you seem to forget that God can create the appearance of age/time. He does it all throughout the first chapters of Genesis. And finally, your presupposition that it would harm my argument is false. Regardless of if we had them or they developed, I don’t see how that’s plausible as an argument against my case.
“All you have given is the “design is evident” and the “books and authors” arguments. The former is merely unsupported conjecture, since you have yet to show any empirical evidence to back it up”
-Design is evident by the implicity of objection. Read in the context to avoid this confusion. I’ve yet to see you show me the fault in it all. If my logic is not in support of the evidence, then explain. Until then, you’re argument of “it’s unsupported conjecture” is unsupported conjecture. If you would like me to explain the evidence again so you can analyze it, I will gladly reproduce it (and if I can find it, I’m sure I could cite the person who said it).
“the latter I exposed as faulty as I showed you a specific example of information coming from non-intelligence.”
-[Read below]
“Your only counter was “there may be a hidden premises to it”, which is just pure unsupported speculation on your part.”
-It’s not that there “may” be a premise. There “is” a premise. It’s not hidden. I’ve yet to see you combat it other than say it’s wrong. Since we’re here to discuss origins, you cannot use the premise that we are the result/origin of unintelligent causes to prove your case (just as I cannot use the premise of an intelligence to prove an intelligence. It would be like me saying, “There is an intelligent designer for the beginning of life because life was made by an intelligent designer in the beginning.” That’s obviously absurd. It’s circular reasoning, and it’s the premise you’re taking when explaining your evidence.
“Since no intelligence was observed when the frameshift mutations occurred, then we have no reason to say that it was caused by an intelligence.”
-[Read above]
“And yet you still don’t give a better method or state what specifically your criteria is.”
-It was mentioned in that paragraph.. and I told you, the criteria is different with most truths. You can’t use the same criteria from what 2+2 equals in comparison to how fast things orbit the sun. But to add to it, you cannot disqualify information from the beginning (as science does). Science automatically disregards anything supernatural, miraculous, or anything beyond the natural (to put it bluntly), so of course you’re going to get naturalistic results. That’s all that’s considered. Anything separate from natural is automatically disregarded.
“Evolution is the best explanation that fits all the data, facts, and observations”
-After filtering the information that’s not considered due to the false understanding of finding truth.
“It doesn’t explain all the data, it has no falsifiability, and it has no predictive capabilities.”
-1) It explains the data. That doesn’t have to be part of science.
2) It doesn’t have to be predictive to be true.
3) If you’re going to believe falsifiability is still accurate after everything we’ve discussed, then you are blinded by your beliefs, and that, my friend, is what makes it Sciencism. If everything you’ve said is true so far, then you’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that science is a religion more than a means of finding truth.
“That’s what you get when you ask random people on the internet their opinions instead of actually studying the subject and reading actual research done by actual researchers in the field.”
-Researching it just yields in opinions from others writing the information (where do you think the research comes from?), exactly what I’m already getting.
“““You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?”
You have got to kidding me…”
-Oh, no, this is actually my favorite part about discussions like this. You see, what you’ve just done is create a self-defeating argument (as you do quite often, especially with “falsifiability”). I like them so much because they just fit perfectly with everything like a jigsaw puzzle. In this case, you say that nothing can be proven outside of mathematics. What you failed to realize is that your statement must be proven true in order for the former to be true. If you cannot prove it is true, then your statement is false. If you *can* prove it true, then your statement has falsified itself. Either way, it cannot be true. Putting it into perspective, you might as well say “I can’t speak a single word in English.” Well, you just did, therefore it’s false.
“Criteria – noun
1) a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based
2) a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
If you seriously think that an “analogy” is a criteria for anything, then you’re in worst shape then I though.”
-Analogy – A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.
My analogy is not the criteria, it is the similar representation of the criteria.
“If you have to manipulate it, then it was poor example to to argue from to begin with.”
-If there’s nothing to fault the end result of it, then there’s no harm in adding something useless to it, just as you added this nonsense of “did they test on multiple frogs?”
If you’re just going to add random/useless criteria, then you can fault anything. I would grant you this if it faulted my end result, since it does not, it’s invalid.
“Yes it can [...]”
-Then evolution could be false and you’re taking it for granted.
“Genesis completely opposes it self.”
-Yes, I’ve heard this many times, and I actually explained it earlier, but that was a side-note, not necessarily an escalated argument as it is now. So, lets look at this.
1) Trees before Adam/Trees after Adam
In Genesis 1, God is creating things all over the earth. In Genesis 2, God creates more things only in the Garden of Eden.
2) Birds before Adam/Birds after Adam
[Read above]
3) Animals before Adam/Animals after Adam
[Read above]
4) Adam and Eve created same time/Adam created first, then Eve sometime later
This is one of the more interesting ones I like to tackle. The mistake your making here is that Genesis 1 talks about what God did for the week (day by day) while Genesis 2 talks about what happened specifically on one day of creation. So Genesis 1 says Adam and Eve were created the same *day* while Genesis 2 says Adam and Eve were created at different *times* of that day. They’re concise.
The real problem regarding this controversy of alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 is that Genesis 1 gives the headlines while Genesis 2 goes back and gives the details (like a newspaper) and people take it as a contradiction instead of one chapter giving more information to support the other. That’s all it is. Genesis 1 talks about the week. Genesis 2 talks about the days of that week (particularly day 6).
“But as I’m sure many writers will tell you, it’s so hard keeping continuity between the first 2 chapters of the same book.”
-Common sense should kick in and tell people, “how could the author contradict himself in just the first 2 chapters?” and then they might find the answers. But many people are far too content with it being wrong that they fail to look into it for a more reasonable answer (such as yourself it seems). The author didn’t screw up, you did.
“And you know they’re lying how exactly?”
-Because they’re reactions yield different information than what they claim.
“and if you thnk your “design is evident” or “books have authors” analogy arguments count as empirical evidence, then you have no idea what empirical really means”
-Since empirical evidence is based off of experiment/observation, then both of my examples fit that description. The experiment regarding information for life (books have authors) is tested by finding if informational books do indeed have intelligent authors. This is tested and observed as well as repeated. The “design is evident” is more difficult since it’s an implicit argument and is primarily reliant on observation and I’ll wait for you according to my earlier post of if you would like me to explain the evidence again or not.
“Can you comprehend anything that you read?”
-I feel the same way about you and falsifiability or the belief of science or “truth.” Seems we’re both guilty.
“And what exactly is a fox?”
-An animal that has boundaries just like every other animal. They can be subjected to change, but you’re still going to get an animal. While I’ve heard much on a taxonomical classification for it, there’s far too much controversy to fully know. You’ve brought up a lot of information and I’m looking forward to researching it, but unfortunately I cannot continue because the Bible is not specific in this aspect (in fact, it’s rather broad when discussing kinds of animals). This is more of an issue of studying beyond the Bible which I will do in the future.
“But fennec and arctic foxes are NOT varieties of the same species.”
-What I said wasn’t as much of an argument as it was a question. I don’t know what you’re assuming here and we can’t continue until we get on the same page.
“But we weren’t doing that, were we?”
-When discussing origins, technically that’s the underlying basis of the whole thing, yes.
“we talking about speciation as a whole. And as a whole, radical changes are not *required* for speciation to have occurred”
-And do you or do you not believe that through these small-scale changes (such as the different variations of dogs from Great Danes to Poodles) we arrived at grand-scale changes (such as cell to man)?
“Changes in their “base form” is not required for different species to emerge.”
-I have no problem with species, that’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m against the idea that species eventually turns into grand-scale changes rather than the small-scale change it is.
“Speciation *is* grand scale evolution”
-Pardon me, but I don’t see much of a difference between all the species of elephants. I’m not seeing anything showing that they’re developing fingers, wings, or a reptilian tail. I see elephants.
“This combined with their group flight pattern will reduce their energy consumption even further.”
-That wasn’t my argument. The argument is how did they know they needed help and couldn’t make the flight on their own? How’d they know exactly where to go in order to land on Hawaii? They can’t roam around, they barely have any energy left once they make it there regardless of weather conditions. If they’re off by 1 degree then they’re several hundreds of miles off and die. How does evolution explain this?
“But of course we already know that many birds use the sun like a compass, as well as being able to detect the Earth’s magnetic field which helps in giving them a map of where they are and were they’re going.”
-Again, that doesn’t explain how they knew where Hawaii was, that’s still an issue. And now another problem has arisen. If they use the magnetic field as a compass, then does it make sense to say the earth went through magnetic reversals (which is an argument used to deny the evidence saying the magnetic field was stronger and if you go back millions/billions of years, eventually it’s too strong and kills life, so scientists came up with magnetic reversals)? If the EMF reverses, suddenly the birds are going the wrong way and they don’t get to Hawaii (and die, therefore not evolving).
“Before going into a discussion about the chicken can I at least ask, have you done any research into the chickens evolutionary development? Have you ready any research papers on the subject?”
-Before I answer that, why did you feel it necessary to answer my information on the golden plover, but you wont explain anything on the chicken? What’s with the double standard I’m sensing here?
“Ah yes, the old irreducible complexity arguments.”
-Not necessarily. Yes it has to have the right things in the right places, but it also has to use these things the right way. So IC is only part of the argument.
“Are you next gonna try to use flagellum or immune system as evidence of irreducible complexity arguments?”
-Nope, don’t need to.
“But never have we once observed an intelligence guiding these viruses to place them in the same location and the same sequence.”
-Do you expect to see a bright light come through the ceiling? This is very ridiculous reasoning. If you don’t observe it, it doesn’t make it false. That’s why observation is accompanied by testing and repetition to get a more accurate conclusion. This also falls under the same premise of where the universe came from that we’ve been talking about.
“And what empirical evidence do you have to back up this speculative notion?”
-Hmm, I didn’t speak very clear on that part and I thank you for pointing that out. What I’ve shown doesn’t necessarily definitively prove that random process are all intelligent, but it also doesn’t definitively prove they are unintelligent. It’s an unpredictable variable. What I should’ve said (and actually what I think I meant to say but didn’t come out that way) is that random processes *may* not be always random.
“Yeah god is funny like that. He seems to take pleasure in deceiving people.”
-Actually, he told us in Genesis. He’s not deceiving us, he told us from the beginning what he was doing. Everything else is just putting the puzzle pieces together. Otherwise, I’m unsure we would have the conclusions that I’ve brought up in this particular piece of the conversation.
“Just look at 1 corinthians 1:27 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”. Yep, he loves us so much that he wishes to deceive us.”
-Just like everything else about the Bible, you’ve taken this out of context. This is speaking about those who think they’re wise in the sense of *there’s no God* kind of mentality. Not the wise in general, but specifically what someone was said to be “wise” about.
“And yes, god “could have” created the appearance of age, but to say that he did is purely speculative…”
-So now you’re attacking the Bible and what it says happened. So why do you not trust what it says happened in Genesis?
“You merely have a baseless assumption that god put them there, with nothing to back it up.”
-I don’t need anything to back it up. This is one of those cases where it doesn’t matter if it’s true or false, it still fits. So I fail to see what the logic is behind this.
“You haven’t present any evidence. Analogies are not evidence.”
-I never said they were. Analogies are *representations* of the evidence, they are not evidence themselves. If you have something against it, explain the fault. Until then, it still stands.
“And your argument of ” “it’s unsupported conjecture” is unsupported conjecture” is itself unsupported conjecture. See I can turn words around on each other too to form meaningless sentences.”
-You would have a point if that’s all I said, but you failed to address the message preceding it that backs up my statement. I’ll give you an A for effort for trying to discover a self-defeating argument though. Almost worked. The more you practice, the better you’ll be able to detect it.
“So which is it? Is there a premise or is it that it “could have” a premise? And if there is, is it hidden or is not hidden? You don’t seem to be able to keep you story straight anymore.”
-I applaud you. Very good, but you took it too far with the “not keeping my story straight anymore” statement. It’s still accurate because there’s still the premise. I may not have been accurate in saying if it was or could be existent, but they don’t conflict each other to the point that my argument can be nullified. So, argument still valid, I await your explanation of if it’s true or false by what evidence.
“Cause you have yet to give any evidence to support it. You merely state your assummption”
-You seriously think it’s an assumption that the universe came into existence by some means? Do explain.
“I am asking for your *specific criteria* in regards to design, and once again you fail to give it.”
-The longer it’s pondered, the more criteria that come to mind. I can’t list it all currently, but as I’ve said before, the primary criteria we are dealing with here is that which encompasses my analogy of books and authors. I’m still waiting for my *non-proof* analogy to be explained. If it cannot be done within the next couple posts, I will conclude that it’s accurate, because this back and forth with the same results isn’t going anywhere for you. I’m not expecting you to admit it’s right, because based on your profound belief in sciencism, you’re bound to not accept anything conflicting it.
“Science only disqualifies that which gives no evidence to support it.”
-You mean, that which isn’t falsifiable right? Evidence is completely different.
“Because there has *never* been anything observed to exist but the natural. What would “supernatural” consist of if it’s not natural?”
-Natural exists in the universe, since the universe did not always exist and came into existence, anything that existed before it to cause it was a supernatural cause since it has to be stronger to create the natural (thus escalates to *super*natural). We all believe in something supernatural, you just might disagree with the definition.
“Because only the natural has been observed to exist.”
-Again, observation alone is not enough. False assumptions bear false conclusions.
“But you give no empirical evidence to support your explanations.”
-Can you empirically support this assertion?
“Where in the hell did I ever say it had to be predictive to be true. I said it had to be predictive to be scientific.”
-Again, you more than willingly admit science is separate from truth and if you’re not wanting to find the truth of origins but would rather take conclusions based on faith, then go right ahead and believe in sciencism, but I’m in this for the truth.
I can’t go further. This is no longer a battle for what is true with the mind, but which do you find most appealing and acceptable by your own will.
I pray you’ll get out of this false understanding. You know it’s separate from truth, you admit it several times, I just hope you find your way out of it.
As I was about to begin this reply to your most recent post, I was reading over what you wrote a second time. I knew exactly what I was going to say, everything from what you wrote about speciation, to your mistaken assumptions, to even your convoluted view of science and truth. And just as I was about go up and hit the reply button, I noticed this little gem of a comment from you:
“..if you’re not wanting to find the truth of origins but would rather take conclusions based on faith, then go right ahead and believe in sciencism..”
Despite being told *countless* times now that I have no “belief” or “faith” in regards to matters of science, you once again taken it upon yourself to tell me what it is I believe. And with that, any respect I had for you, for being an honest debater or even a decent human being, just flew right out the window. You continue to straw man arguments of both positions I have specifically told I do not hold as well as ones I have never even stated in any form. I don’t if its because you are not capable of comprehending the notion that someone does not need faith or what, and to be perfectly honest I could care less at this point.
You have shown yourself to be devoid of any intellectual honesty or integrity. So now there is no longer any reason for me to continue this discussion with someone who is incapable of arguing from positions that I *actually* hold. So farewell and best of luck on your search for truth.
Heh, I guess I should’ve kept reading before posting my earlier comment
I agree that the reply button and how the comments keep nesting on the cheezburger networks is slightly illogical, but then again this maybe isn’t the best place for these discussions… and yet it’s so easy to get dragged into them.
I’m not quite sure why I feel the need for yet another comment, but I’m still quite impressed by both of you for keeping this discussion for as long as you did. Kudos. I don’t want to start it up again, I just want Ben to know that when viewed from the outside it’s quite obvious that ICWUDT either dodges your questions in an intelectually dishonest way or maybe ICWUDT really really doesn’t understand how science works, what empirical criteria is, what a scientific theory is or why science is used all over the world.
I know this comes out as sort of disrespectful of ICWUDT and I’m sorry about that. I do respect your persistence and in some cases I actually think you want to understand what Ben is saying. I would suggest that you actually read up on the scientific method and evolution, then there could be really interesting discussions.
“Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
And that gives you the right to fill in the gap with made up stories about a omnipotent force that made everything up?
Isn’t it more logical to believe that a giant man in the sky with a white beard snapped his fingers like Shaq in the movie Shazam, and the earth just poofed out of nowhere with buildings and people and houses and cars and food and water? Come to think of it, God is sounding more and more like Santa Claus..
actually, you’re defining “perfect for us” as a situation in which life for all members of our species is lived until our chromosomes finally stop replicating and we die of age. however, without a constantly expanding world with unlimited resources, we would eventually out-reproduce the rate of “natural” death, causing overpopulation, which leads to over consumption of resources and space. This leads to death due to starvation.
From starvation could come any number of other causes for death… this is where Darwin’s famous law would take over. It would literally be survival only of the fittest, leaving the rest to die (as it is with our current conditions). This could be considered both the closest to “perfect” as is achievable, as it creates a society which is always increasing in all areas, and it can also be considered the farthest from “perfect”, as it does require the elimination of “weaker” members.
POINT BEING: there’s no way to define anything as perfect. everything has (a) flaw(s), and nothing can be proven 100%. (the one exception to this is any concept, such as mathematics, that are created by those trying to validate it. This is because limits on imagination literally are set by ourselves, and any ideas created within our minds are not subject to any outside limitations.)
Super String theory would suggest we exist because we are tied to the sun. If we move away from it it would change to keep us alive; If a God was part of the equation and wanted the continued existence of his “creation” . In a universe where science and physics still require an explanation of a divine nature. However acurate measurements are available through scientific method, and to believe it is a mere 10 feet would seem highly improbable. But hey if “God” did it who am I to argue.
Sorry, I believe in Silly String Theory. It’s the only one that’s demonstrably awesome. If that runs into problems, I’m jumping over to String Cheese Theory.
If you believe in the scientific method, you can not believe in the stories of the bible because all the supernatural events in the bible are demonstrably false, therefore you can not be a christian, therefore you can not be a christian who believes in science. QED.
I believe in a higher power that created everything, but I also believe in evolution and do not believe that the Bible is everything. Am I a christian?
Progressive Creationist would be the correct term, but you should know that the Bible and evolution mix like oil and water. They’re mutually exclusive and directly contradict each other. As far as I’m concerned, it’s either one or the other.
being an atheist, i think i’m safe in pointing this out: some sects of some religions interpret the bible in different ways, point in case is Catholicism- Catholics are still christian, because they believe that Jesus Christ did exist as the Messiah (Messiah can be defined in a mulitude of ways). I know for a fact that some variations of Christianity do not take the bible as the literal written word of god, but instead as life lessons and moral-based stories.
Oh sure lets all make up some random crap call it fact ant get pissed when some one says we are full of it… This particular chick should realy go back to the kitchen…
I’m not afraid of dying. I don’t think we go straight to a “heaven” and I don’t believe in hell, but I do believe that there is somebody who created this place. I don’t think it was MADE for us, but I do think he knows us and listens.
Well lady who posted that stupid status, you didn’t ask but HE DIDN’T WANT YOU TEACHING PEOPLE THIS STUPID what you call FACT! I want to punch her so badly.
“Well, from the Organised Superstition fairy of course, sweetheart… And if you ever question me or my wisdom I’m sending you straight to an Exorcist, kid!”
La la la la la la la la la
I can’t hear you. I’m praying.
Please don’t disturb my delusions with tiresome facts
La la la la la la la la la
Are you still talking? Shut up.
La la la la la la la la la
Comparing your (nonexistent) “religious persecution,” which is really just backlash from Christians being d*cks to everyone for such a long time, to racism is not going to endear you to anyone, poppet.
It’s more fair to make generalizations about someone based on their religious preference since, you know, you DO have a choice in that. It is fair to say that people who choose to support the theory that some dude in the sky went “ABRACA-FREAKIN-DABRA,” might not have the best grasp on, you know, science.
I’d rather be delusional than a closed-minded dumbass who generalizes a certain belief system based on a few people, at best. I know plenty of stupid athiests, and some pretty cool ones. I don’t base anything on beliefs, just the person themselves.
Although the dude was right about the orbit and whatnot, did I just read that a “moderately-sized” earthquake could throw off the Earth’s orbit by 10 feet? He does realize that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, which occur entirely on the Earth’s very thin crust, right? Earthquakes affect only a small part of the Earth, there’s no way they’re moving it 10 inches, much less ten feet. Heck, by that logic, shouldn’t our orbit be totally destabilized by the moon?
Technically, anyone can. Jumping into the air moves it about a fraction of an atoms size if you want to get all techy. Then again, my physics teacher was a little nuts…
Dude, if you absolutely MUST block out the whole name, at least color code it! We don’t know (if we had no past knowledge) who he was talking to when he said “haha nice *black*”
1.) It was my first submission to failbook so I really didn’t think about it. 2.) Yes I did notice this later and I wish I blocked it differently.
3.) He was saying nice to Braxton, the guy who proved Michelle, the girl, wrong. The person saying Really? That’s crazy! Is one of Michelle’s dumb friends who read it and immediately believed it as fact and was like AMG NOWAI!
He was talking to the man who owned the girl.. I know these people and I go to school with them. that girl is the most idiotic person I know and puts a bad image on Christianity. I’m Christian, but I do not believe her ridiculous comment.. kudos to the man who put her in her place.
Even if she WAS right, then it still could have no relation to “God´s perfect plans”. It could be totally coincidental. I mean, The Guy created the appendix and the platyplus, you can´t say He was all that bright…
The appendix helps fight off infections my friend; assuming you’re implying that it’s vestigial. Yes, you can remove it, but you have a much better chance of living longer with it.
The platypus is also evidence “of” God, not against. The fact that there’s absolutely no transitional fossils of this mammalian creature that defies what the average mammal does (birthing young in eggs rather than fully developed) is more than enough.
Finally, no, it is virtually impossible to be coincidental that anthropic principles would come to be by chance. Study Anthropic Principles if you will.
Well, I invite you to study the Joke Principle, as I was making fun of the appendix (which people only seem to acknolegde it when it actually f**ks up) and the platyplus (which can be considered quite an strange animal).
And no, the platyplus is NOT an evidence “of” God. (And it´s not an evidence of a lack of God, again, I was joking) Just because there´s no transitional fossils of them, it doesn´t mean the whole evolution theory can be discredited. I´m no biologist, but the fact that it seems to be the crossover between avians and mammals kinda says something about it.
I´m gonna be honest with you, I had no idea of what Anthropic Principles were, so I googled it, read some articles mentioning it, and all I can say is “HELL, NO, BIATCH.”
If you’re joking, then don’t make so obvious that you’re truthful rather than facetious. Sarcasm can’t be detected well through text, so you’ll have to compensate accordingly.
I never said evolutionary theory can be discredited based on that one bit of evidence, but it certainly doesn’t help it that they can’t find transitional forms for a good percentage of animals today. You’ll have to clarify on what you mean about said crossover between avian/mammals and what entirely it supposedly explains.
And what exactly did you read regarding Anthropic Principles. What was the confusion so I can fix it for you.
Why would an “intelligent” designer put the prostate (which commonly expands) around the urethra? That’s just messed up.
Also, please look into the conditions necessary for fossils to form. You’ll learn that not every carcass of every animal could have been fossilized. No matter how many fossils we dig up, we probably won’t know about 90% of all of the species of land animals that have ever existed just because not enough of them died in the right places.
In addition, you should know that evolution deniers complained about the lack of transitional fossils between whales and what scientists posited to be their land-dwelling ancestors. They thought it was ridiculous to believe that whales could have evolved (pshaw!) from land mammals. And then, the right fossil was found from the right time period, proving that whales have a land-dwelling ancestor. When they were proved wrong by evidence, the deniers just picked another animal without transitional fossils. Get it?
To say something is poorly designed is to imply that you know what “design” is. You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is.
Secondly, sub-optimal design isn’t evidence of no design at all. Cars aren’t optimally designed, but they’re designed nonetheless.
Thirdly, to say something is wrongfully designed is to say you know the intentions of the designer. Designers don’t always go for perfection, sometimes they just go for something that fills a particular need. Which leads me to my final point that there are always trade-offs (which elaborates off of my third point in which you must know the designer’s intentions). Large cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they’re also more difficult to maneuver and consume more gas. Trade-offs can’t be avoided in this world. You must compromise certain things to reach the intended objective. For example, you can’t fault the design on a compact car because it doesn’t carry 15 passengers. The objective is to carry 4, not 15.
To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms against “poor” design unless you know the intentions of the designer.
All I was saying in regards to transitional fossils is it “doesn’t help” evolution if they can’t find them. Never once did I say it disproves it or anything in relation to that. Their theory implies it and as such, they must find them in order to bring convincing evidence of their theory. If they don’t find any then you might as well be saying “apples are purple in some cases” and never get a purple orange. Oh but it still happens!
Just as a side-note, I find it a bit humorous that evolution says fish came on land, but then a land animal evolved back into fish… Just find that interesting.
It’s one thing to be sub-optimal in design, and another to just have it wrong. I don’t think any car is designed on purpose with a part that is meant to fail. There’s a ton of space in the body for the prostate to be–why the heck would someone place it around a collapsible tube like the urethra? Is the designer “testing” us by making it harder for us men to pee when we get older? It isn’t just “not optimal,” it causes a problem. It has nothing to do with niches to fill or intended objectives–it is an unnecessary problem without benefits that could easily have been avoided had we been designed in the same manner that cars are designed. If there is a “designer,” he is either lazy or a jerk, especially if we’re significant to him, or even designed “in his image.”
Not finding fossils doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt the theory. There is already a mountain of evidence proving evolution to be true–asking for transitionary fossils for each and every species is nothing but nitpicking by those who are determined to be against it. It has been proven to such a degree that more fossils would only be “icing on the cake,” or else pursued for the sake of trying to prove the theory wrong (finding a creature that should not have existed at a certain time, like a modern rabbit skeleton found in 200 million-year-old rock). We’re past the stage of trying to prove that evolution has occurred. It’s a scientific fact.
Again, you’re just proving my point about design, you can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfection is and you must know the intentions of the designer, but apparently we need to add onto this. Tell me, if you were to copy something over and over again, would the copy be just as good as the original after 1000 scans? No, it would be worse. The fact that God made everything perfect in the beginning with Adam and Eve, and they eventually had kids who had kids and so on, I’m surprised we’re here today to talk about it. If we find problems today, that doesn’t call for the question of “why did God make it this way?” it calls for “how did it get this way?” God did not make the world as damaged as it is, God created a perfect world and man wrecked it. What you’re saying is the equivalent to taking a picture of a wrecked car and sending it to the manufacturer yelling at them “WHY DID YOU MAKE A WRECKED CAR?!” They didn’t. They made a fully functioning car and someone else destroyed it.
“Not finding fossils doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt the theory.”
-I’ve been saying that the whole time, but eventually it will diminish if nothing is found. Just like my example of finding purple apples/oranges. You can say it exists at rare times, but if you don’t ever see it, why believe it? Eventually it’s influence degrades over time.
Interesting, what is this “mountain” of evidence? I’ve heard that term quite a lot. Let’s expand on it.
There’s been quite a lot of common animals found in “old” layers. That’s why evolutionists had to come up with something to explain it. Such as alligators/crocodiles. “Oh they were like that for millions of years, that’s why we have them today, they didn’t evolve anymore.”
Aside from that, there’s every reason “not” to report something that harms the assumed credibility of evolution. People who have been in the line of fire to find evidence in support of evolution are in risk of losing their jobs if they find evidence contrary to it. If people find anything against it, they wont even report it for fear of losing not only their jobs, but funding as well as some becoming outcasts due to it (if memory serves me correctly from past research) and therefore not very easily finding another job.
“It’s a scientific fact”
-News flash, science can’t answer everything, so saying it’s “scientific fact” doesn’t hold too much water since it’s not a universal standard.
Man, if you really want proof against the idea that we were intentionally designed this way, just look at our spines. We are NOT designed to be bipedal, and our bodies fight it and break down because of it all the time. It’s fascinating when you really study it.
Really? You do know that our bodies were meant to be quadrupedal, right? This isn’t even about fossil evidence (though it overwhelmingly supports it), it’s about the confusing curvature of our spines and the vast amount of hip problems humans suffer as a result of adapting to bipedalism. So I guess your argument would have to state that a designer designed us as quadrupeds and then we messed it up by standing on our feet… or would you just ignore the quadrupedal evidence altogether and say that the designer created us the way we are now and boo to science? Because I really don’t follow your logic at all.
“You do know that our bodies were meant to be quadrupedal, right?”
-No, that’s your assumption. In order to “know” what our bodies were meant for, you’d have to be there in the beginning of human existence to discover it.
It’s true we have problems today. Backs ache, things start creaking, we eventually go from young and “invincible” to old and vulnerably “bruisable.” It’s important to know that with all the problems we have in this world, God did not create it this way. You’re looking at a wrecked world (one that we created to be honest) and saying God made a mistake or using that as evidence that God didn’t create this world and/or doesn’t exist. This is not the way God made it. God made a perfect world and man wrecked it. What you’re doing is essentially looking at todays world in the sense of looking at a wrecked car, taking a picture and sending it to the manufacturer (creator) and yelling at them about why they made a wrecked car. After all, that’s just stupid! Well, they didn’t make it that way. They made a perfectly functioning car just as God made a perfectly functioning body and we wrecked it.
Not only that, but lets use common sense here. If you copy a copy and copy that copy then copy a copy of that copy and so on, is the 1000th copy going to be as great as the original (for example, you and I compared with Adam and Eve)? No, it’s going to be worse. If we find that we’re having problems today, that would logically indicate that we’re the copies of the original people in the beginning and simply aren’t as perfect as them.
Last two sections are very important. But you’ll probably discount it on some ridiculous ground, so it’s kind of pointless to science at you. Just… please drop that bulls**t car analogy. It’s wrong and stupid.
So basically you’re saying that G-d would have made us quadrupedal then. The spine is meant to be like a suspension bridge, holding everything up horizontally, and our ancestors “f**ked it up” by standing upright a very long time ago. It has nothing to do with age or deterioration. It has everything to do with the basic function of the spine and how we go entirely against it by standing upright. This explains the S-shaped curvature, as well as big toes, foot arches, and enlarged leg joint surfaces. I don’t have to have “been there” to see that our bodies are adapted, not designed. So unless you think Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Australopithecines, your claims don’t add up.
And please drop that car analogy. It’s not doing you any favours.
@TealDear
Wow, that’s just way too amusing. “Drop that bulls**t car analogy. It’s wrong and stupid”
-Ok.. How is it wrong and stupid? Just because you insult it doesn’t make it wrong. I could say you don’t exist because you’re stupid. Do you suddenly disappear out of existence? No, so explain yourself if you have the explanation.
“So basically you’re saying that God would have made us quadrupedal then.”
-No, you’re saying that. If I’m implying it, then by all means point out where the implication is. You constantly saying/asserting it doesn’t make it true and makes for a terrible argument fit for a 3 year old. I’ve explained why things can be what they are today but you ignore it and continue to go on saying everything supports your idea after I’ve already answered why it seems that way. If you have nothing to add because there’s nothing to add, then silence yourself and be on your merry way.
If something is wrong, explain it. Don’t assert it. If this were court, you would’ve lost a long time ago.
@Godhatesyou
Same to you. If you’ve got an argument to refute what I’ve said, then make it clear and explain yourself. If you have nothing but insults then I would “logically” conclude that you have nothing to say and divert away from that.
One who simply insults another as an argument is only an implicit admittance that they have nothing to say in response to what I’ve explained.
In short, it’s a cop-out to defend oneself of their beliefs, and I’m sorry you have nothing to defend yourself with other than insults.
Cars are designed though, and yet less complex than any living thing, so it stands to reason that life is designed and therefore has a designer as well. I never said cars lived and procreate.
I know you didn’t say they did, but that’s why your analogy breaks down.
Cars are designed how *WE* want them to be.
The mutations that cause evolution are random. We didn’t get to choose to be smarter. Elephants didn’t choose to be bigger, and cheetahs didn’t choose to be faster. The selective pressures of the region made it so that the smarter apes survived, the bigger elephants survived, and the faster cheetahs survived.
If nature had selected for the stronger apes to survive, rather than the smarter ones, we wouldn’t be here today.
That is so much different from how new cars produced, I really don’t see how you people continue to use that s**tty car analogy.
“Cars are designed though” YES
“and yet less complex than any living thing” YES
“so it stands to reason that life is designed and therefore has a designer as well” NO
The ability to live and procreate absolves living things from the requirement for a “designer”.
That’s a very arrogant statement isn’t it? How is it that once it comes to reproduction, the analogy is false? First, the analogy still fits even with that feature considering it’s being produced continually by factories and they are all still individually designed. Second, using the first explanation, how can you be sure each and every one of us isn’t designed just because we reproduce? That isn’t evidence against a designer, that’s evidence for one since everything with information has had some origin of intelligence.
But according to Wikipedia, the anthropic principle seems to actually argue against your point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). Then again, I didn’t read past the first few lines coz tl;dr and also – Wikipedia, right? Who knows.
Anyhow, I thought the whole anthropic principle thing really just meant that the reason we’re here is because we are; there’s no big explanation, if it were some great, fantastical reason for us being here then we wouldn’t be, very simply. Or something?
I’ve been in this same situation, correcting completely made-up “facts” on social networks, and have lost “friends” (yes, teenage American girls) because of how angry the truth made them, no matter how polite I was about it. Most of what these girls would post were common legends that were easily corrected using snopes.com.
dont read this!!!! sciene is poison god made evrythign so stop feeding what the devil gives you if u read your BIBLE it tells you everything you need to know
every1 should make a promise to go 2 chruch on sunday it will change ur life
I’ve been staring at my screen for 5 minutes trying to decide what I can possibly say that will make you realize what an idiot you are. Sadly, my words cannot do this comment any justice..
Yes, it will add 2 hours of misery to an otherwise average week, and remove 2 hours that you could have spent doing something productive or relaxing. That’s definitely a change.
Going to church, and getting to know the people there, are the things that convinced me that christianity is based on falsehoods and hypocrisy.
How old are you? Seriously, you sound like an immature little kid. Let people believe what they want to believe. If you are were truly confident in your religion, you wouldn’t need to try to turn other people to it.
Katy. You are an embarrassment to Christians everywhere. I’m assuming you’re not TRYING to sound like a a-hole, but you’re seriously coming across as one. You won’t change anyone’s mind about going to church sounding like a petulant child. In any case, churches will not change people’s lives. Someone has to make the conscious choice to better themselves and become a good person. Church is more of a support group in making that change. But not a necessity.
Yay, just what people need, more fodder for believing that everyone who isn’t an atheist is a complete idiot.
I’m not religious, but I love theology and religious studies. And I’ve met MANY highly intelligent deeply religious people. But people continue to believe that morons like this are representative of an entire group of people. Sigh.
“And I’ve met MANY highly intelligent deeply religious people.” Only because they were brainwashed from childhood. If religion weren’t spoon fed to people while they’re as young and gullible as possible a “highly intelligent deeply religious person” would be virtually impossible to find.
Brainwashing is actually the perfect term for it! Have you seen video footage of fundamentalist Muslim schools where the young boys are rocking front to back constantly while nothing but the Koran is drilled into their minds every day–no math, no history (at least not any TRUE history), no science….just the Koran and hatred of the great Satan (the USA). At least most Christians only get their dose for an hour or two each Sunday. And some also have Saturday nights, Wednesday nights, and summer bible school to reinforce the brainwashing. Yay.
If anything, that should show you what happens when you’re taught the wrong thing. Since science cannot answer everything and the results are taken by faith, it’s quite accurate to say science can and does get a false conclusion. As such, I question why certain science should be taught in school (certain science, not science in general. Don’t get me wrong here, I enjoy science as much as the next person (until it comes to chemistry..ugh..), but there are things in which they are simply wrong about).
I don’t know about that. I came to Christianity “because” of the evidence for it. Even though I was taught it throughout my life, I was as close to agnosticism as anyone could be but still being a Christian in the smallest sense. I dreaded going to church and eventually I didn’t know what to believe. All I did was research it and I’ve found my calling. To answer questions and objections people have towards it because I was once like them. Unknowing.
All it takes is some research, but for those who don’t care to and would rather object and rebel against it, be my guest. For those who want answers to questions, I’m a database for them. I don’t know everything, but I can answer a majority of the questions people normally ask.
Close to agnosticism, nowhere near atheism. If you’re going to insult me, at least get your information right.
Also, if I haven’t done the research, explain where I lack it. I’m tired of everyone just asserting something and expecting it to be true. If all we have to do is assert something for it to be true, then I can say you’re a purple banana and *poof* all the sudden you are one.
No. You thinking you know better than hundreds of years worth of research because you read the bulls**t put out by AiG and DI that has no scientific merit is arrogent.
Every single one of their arguments (i.e. the arguments you’ve been cut/paste here) have been bedunked as completely unfounded hokum.
“You thinking you know better than hundreds of years worth of research because you read the bulls**t put out by AiG and DI that has no scientific merit is arrogent.”
-After you read the following below, you’ll see why I’ve lost the small amount of respect for you I had.
“Every single one of their arguments (i.e. the arguments you’ve been cut/paste here)”
-Now that takes the cake. If you can cite where I supposedly copied the arguments from these websites that I, in fact, typed up by hand from my own knowledge on the subject through research which didn’t even include AiG or DI, then I would be extremely impressed.
I agree with you Molly. It makes me nauseous when people act like this. It makes religious people look bad. My parents are Roman Catholics and really amazing people that are well educated. Very open-minded and respectful of other religions and beliefs.
Thanks for the supprt everyone. Thanks Dryer(Spiffycamel) for posting this. Sorry if I was in any way inaccurate on the first two points. I got my information at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=582 and at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=398 I figured they were reliable being from cornell. The third point is what came to mind when I first read the comment and I put it in because 1)I wanted to make three points haha and 2)I didnt want to be too mean because I really don’t know the girl well. I hope everyone had a great winter solstice, and I hope you all have a wonderful Festivus.
I live at 6,000 feet above sea level. We’re more than a mile closer to the sun at high noon, so people burst into flames all the time up here! Especially when they climb tall ladders. God is truly amazing.
To be fair to the poor idiot, I was actually taught this in public grade schools back in the mid-80s. It was, of course, later expanded upon to reflect more accurate science (i.e. it was the oversimplified version they gave us as young kids). But if you don’t take the right classes later on in high school, it is entirely possible that a person might still believe this, religious silliness notwithstanding.
isnt he wrong aswell? as an earthquake wouldnt move the whole earth ten feet… plus she tried to state a fact thn said isnt god amazing..a contradiction in itslelf.
What an idiot. I hate how people ignore science and replace it with religious views that make no sense. I love how this girl also got mad at him for correcting her. What an idiot.
She meant the orbit, I’m sure. That is actually fact. If the orbit was off by so much….. and so on. That goes to show how great our God is! PG, PG, PG!!!
Brandy, let me start off by telling you that I am also a believer in God. He is a friend and teacher and father figure to me. However, I also have many friends and family who are atheists. I know that repeating things such as, ‘God is good!!’ with smiley faces is exactly what an athiest laughs at. It completely shuts them off. I know you probably don’t mind it, but if you truly want to help people understand Him, being in-your-face about it has the opposite effect on what you’re trying to accomplish. Look up facts and if they are curious, tell them about your experiences with Him that cannot be explained by their facts and logic. I’m sure you know what I mean by that. He will shatter logic sometimes to show the lukewarm and call them back to Him. You’re right though, He is good.
NOT true. The orbit is the big ol’ ellipse our Earth rotates around the sun. As you read above (or did not read), the ACTUAL ORBIT OF THE PLANET could be a few dozen MILLION miles off and we’d be fine. If you need extra proof: If we orbited 10 foot further away, then the back side of the Earth at night would be 10 foot further, and the warm part in the say would be 10 foot further. Now ask yourself this: Is the Earth more than 10 foot wide? Yes? And yet there’s a 10 foot margin of life-or-death? No. Because if it was that tiny, then everyone on the backside of the Earth would be freezing to death in the cold inhospitable coldness of space.
Do /not/ say something is fact without ANY proof, evidence, or even SUGGESTION that it might be right. Who says that it’s fact? Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of science? No. I know it’s a no, because anyone that knows more than high school anything knows it’s wrong. You’d have to be quite literally RETARDED to believe that.
The Earth rotates. The Earth is more than 10 foot wide. Anyone with a brain larger than a walnut could figure out on their own that what they were hearing was point-blank retarded.
Stop getting your scientific facts in the way of my religion! The world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the world is only 6,000 years old, all humans and animals were created exactly as they are now and have never changed at all!!!!!
I lol’ed. Hard. The fact that according to your “bible” (A known acronym for “Book intended (for) brainwashing lesser entities” the first human was a grown up man, and the 2nd generation were born as babies, shows SOMETHING changed from the moment of creation
Must you stick to retarded views until a senile old man with a pointy hat decides he must accept change or lose followers to scientific advance? (As was done with earth not being flat and the sun not turning around earth)
Evolutionary change requires vast amounts of change to turn something into something it’s not (Like a dog into a fish).
Creational change simply shows that variations are possible but not enough so to turn something into something it’s not (We get all variations of dogs (Poodles, Great Danes, Bulldogs, etc) but all the variations of dogs aren’t turning into fish or birds. They’re dogs…)
Evolution change represents different aspects than to what Creational change represents. As such, as I said before and will reiterate, the debate is which is true and by what do they represent?
Science is based on evidence, not debate. We’ve known evolution is true for a long time now. We have the evidence, you don’t.
Anyone who thinks there’s really a debate anymore about evolution is just flat out stupid. The evidence from ERVs to paleontology, to geology, etc. only makes sense in the light of evolution. Creationism does not.
“Science is based on evidence, not debate”
-And debates are how we get information from both extremes to see which on holds up best against scrutiny and supports the most/best amount of evidence.
“We’ve known evolution is true for a long time now”
-Depends what you mean by evolution. Do you mean evolution as in long/grand-scale changes over billions of years? Or short/small-scale changes over the short periods of time we’ve been able to study it?
“Anyone who thinks there’s really a debate anymore about evolution is just flat out stupid”
-All I’m doing is thinking critically. The more critical I thought, the less evolution made sense. Sure, through grade-school it makes sense because they brainwash you from day one. In kindergarden they teach you about how dinosaurs lived “millions” of years ago. So you already think it’s true whenever you learn more about it and we’re only taught one side of the argument. As far as I’m concerned, since science can’t know our origins due to our finite capabilities as human beings, we should be given the opportunity to learn the evidence of both sides and have the students decide which seems best.
“The evidence from ERVs to paleontology, to geology, etc. only makes sense in the light of evolution. Creationism does not.”
-ERV’s (or “pseudogenes”) have been shown to have more and more uses the more we study them. In fact, a study was shown that when taken out of lab mice that they died soon after (about a week if memory serves correctly). Not only that, but the very reason that they persist in existence just shows that they implicitly have a use (since manufacturing on the molecular level is very energetically costly, if evolution were true, our bodies would get rid of useless data. The fact that they persist just shows they’re active). These pseudogenes have been shown to act as backups or decoys for the primary genes. It draws infections towards it so the original information is safe, and even if the original gene is destroyed, the pseudogene takes it’s place. It’s quite amazing.
Even though these ERV’s are in the same places as monkeys, this only shows we need them in the same place. Similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestor. It can just as easily prove common designer.
So what does evolution make sense of that creation does not? I’ll be sure to answer your questions and/or objections.
“And debates are how we get information from both extremes to see which on holds up best against scrutiny and supports the most/best amount of evidence.”
No. You use peer-reviewed journals based on scientific experiment. It’s not a matter of debate. You either have the evidence or you don’t.
“Depends what you mean by evolution. Do you mean evolution as in long/grand-scale changes over billions of years? Or short/small-scale changes over the short periods of time we’ve been able to study it?”
Word salad…. there’s only one kind of evolution. The billions of years one which shows through multiple disciplines of science that all life decended from a common ancestor about 3.5-4 billion years ago.
“All I’m doing is thinking critically.”
No, you’re not. You’re ignoring observed and established scientific fact so that you can keep your beliefs in the Bible. That’s the opposite of critical thinking.
“since science can’t know our origins”
ROFL. Yes, we can thanks to genetic markers.
“we should be given the opportunity to learn the evidence of both sides and have the students decide which seems best.”
I’m all for that so long as you come up with actual evidence. “God did it” is not a valid argument in science.
“ERV’s (or “pseudogenes”) ”
ERVs are NOT pseudogenes.
“since manufacturing on the molecular level is very energetically costly, if evolution were true, our bodies would get rid of useless data.”
That would be true if it weren’t for the randomness of mutations. The junk DNA that doesn’t have a real effect means it’s less likely for a mutation to happen in the genes essential to create a living creature, so while it is costly to have a 3 billion base pair long DNA strand, it means the ~150 mutations we get during the combination of our parents genes are unlikely to be in places of importance. This makes having junk DNA a benefit, not a detriment despite the energy cost because you’re more likely to even be born.
“The fact that they persist just shows they’re active”
Incorrect conclusion based on false premise.
“It draws infections towards it so the original information is safe, and even if the original gene is destroyed, the pseudogene takes it’s place.”
Complete hokum. ERV insertions are random.
“Even though these ERV’s are in the same places as monkeys, this only shows we need them in the same place. Similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestor.”
More hokum. Gene placement is generally irrelevent (with the exception of certain motifs) especially since ERVs are generally inactive, it doesn’t matter at all where they are.
Not only that, but it this also doesn’t explain things liek BDVs which go much further than just the “great” apes. BDVs are found in the equivalent places in guinea pigs, elephants, squirrels, and many, many other creatures we’re cousins with, but we diverged from MUCH further back.
Even assuming you were right about ERVs (you’re not), that doesn’t explain BDVs or NIRVs.
“It can just as easily prove common designer.”
ROFL. No, it doesn’t. ERVs are caused by viruses that infect gametes. We know how they got there. You’re suggesting that is less reasonable than your deity put all of there on a whim and we’re completely wrong about the *observed* ability for viruses to infect gametes.
We would have to be completely wrong about everything we know about viral infection for your assertion (which has no evidence) to be correct against what we know as fact (based on mountains worth of evidence.)
“You use peer-reviewed journals based on scientific experiment. It’s not a matter of debate”
-Peer review all depends on the peer that’s doing the reviewing, and since it’s impossible to be unbiased on an issue of origins unless you have no knowledge of either arguments (which would render them invalid as a peer-reviewer), any peer-reviewer is going to be biased on what the paper is already about (evolution) and they wont allow creationists to be the peer reviewers because they’ve already decided creationists are wrong which eventually comes to circular reasoning. Peer-review papers don’t mean much my friend. It’s about what the evidence best supports, not who supports it.
“there’s only one kind of evolution”
-Considering evolution simply means “change” then no, it can have many meanings (about 6 when it comes to origins), but if you’re talking about biological evolution, then it’s narrowed down to 2. Either small change only, or big change through small change.
“You’re ignoring observed and established scientific fact so that you can keep your beliefs in the Bible.”
-And how am I doing so?
“Yes, we can thanks to genetic markers.”
-And what do genetic markers show that you believe is evidence for evolution?
““God did it” is not a valid argument in science.”
-If you can find where I said those words then be my guess, but I’ve never fallen back on that idea unless I’ve explained it logically as to why.
“ERVs are NOT pseudogenes.”
-Good, I’m glad you agree, because you see, I get far too many people saying ERV’s support evolution, then go on about pseudogenes as if they’re the same thing and it disproves everything I said. So for the benefit of this conversation, I’m glad we have established they are distinct from each other. I find it far too difficult to get an accurate story line from people who can’t get their stories straight.
“The junk DNA … [is] a benefit”
-Ergo, it’s not junk since it’s useful. That’s all I’m making a point for. Also, the more we study “junk” DNA, the more uses we find it has. Even removing them from mice resulted in death shortly after by a few days to a week. It’s far from junk, it’s quite useful.
“Incorrect conclusion based on false premise.”
-So what is the false premise and why? Every time I find a false premise I show it and explain it. Why haven’t you done the same?
“ERV insertions are random.”
-So wait, you’re saying pseudogenes and ERV’s are the same now? This is why I said they were the same in the beginning to see your reaction, hoping to get an accurate understanding as to if you think ERV’s are different or similar, but now I don’t know what to think, nor do I think you know either.
“equivalent places in guinea pigs, elephants, squirrels, and many, many other creatures we’re cousins with”
-Again, it doesn’t prove common ancestor alone. Similarity proves both our sides which is why we need to appeal to evidence outside of similarity. No one is going to get anywhere with similarity alone.
“NIRVs”
-Sounds buddhist.
“You’re suggesting that is less reasonable than your deity put all of there on a whim and we’re completely wrong about the *observed* ability for viruses to infect gametes.”
-What makes you think God just put them there? What disqualifies him from using this process?
“We would have to be completely wrong about everything we know…”
-Oh, yes you’re wrong about a lot, but more importantly you’re going on your finite knowledge of who God is and what God could or would be able to do and seeing something completely different which contradicts your idea of God so therefore, instead of concluding that you have a false premise, you conclude there is no God instead and you’re right. Considering the fact that we are finite and limited with a 3-pound brain, you need to be very careful before you start to dismiss something infinite smarter than you.
As far as I’m concerned, we’re done here. Based off of what I read regarding the inflection you put off through your choice of words depicting frictional attitude I can tell you’re not here to gain knowledge of my side as I am of your side which can only mean we’re wasting each other’s time. As such, I bid you farewell and hope you come to the realization that some things regarding what you believe to be evidence for your side can be the result of false assumptions and therefore false conclusions as I have demonstrated.
“Ergo, it’s not junk since it’s useful. That’s all I’m making a point for. Also, the more we study “junk” DNA, the more uses we find it has. Even removing them from mice resulted in death shortly after by a few days to a week. It’s far from junk, it’s quite useful.”
No scientist has ever said it wasn’t useful. Quite the opposite in fact. The term “junk dna” was coined in a paper written in 1972, “So much junk dna in our genome”, written by Dr. Susumu Ohno. In the paper he writes that term “junk” comes from the fact that these sequences are non-coding, meaning the base pairs are not translatable. He then goes on to cite at least 3 different uses these sequences have in our genome, in the exact same paper. What he does *not* do, however, is write them off as being useless or unimportant.
Of course you would know this had you read any *actual* research papers or studies done by actual researches in the field. But once again you display your vast ignorance on the subject. Next time try reading what the *actual* evidence says.
Let’s assume you’re right. Then God must have planted Carbon-14 in the earth, and made its half-life to suggest that the earth is billions of years old. So, either you’re wrong about the earth being only 6000 years old, or God intentionally rigged the decay of isotopes to trick us. Which would you prefer?
First, the half-life of C14 is said to be about 5000 years, that’s your first false premise. Second, C14 is said to be measurable up to 60,000 years, then it’s too finite to count, so the oldest anything can be using Carbon dating is 60,000 years, not billions, that’s your second false premise.
To defeat your point, C14 is constantly in production today and it’s number is increasing all the time. Why is this important? Because C14 is said to take 30,000 years to reach an equilibrium point (just as much C14 is decaying as is being produced). Since it hasn’t because it keeps rising, that means it hasn’t reached equilibrium which would stand to say that the atmosphere is not more than 30,000 years old. What’s more is scientists say it’s only 1/3 of the way through it’s cycle. This would stand to reason the atmosphere is no older than 10,000 years old. This is no problem for the creation view, but it’s every problem for the evolutionary view which requires billions of years.
Since we can see this would show the earth is young, not old, your argument saying I’m wrong about the earth being young/6000 years is false. Even if it wasn’t, your second conclusion is also false. God told us exactly what he was doing in the beginning. Just because he may create something mature doesn’t show at all that he’s lying. He told us exactly what he was doing from chapter 1 of Genesis. God said he created a man; not a child, but a fully mature man (probably about 20-30 years old) even though he was seconds old. Did he deceive us? No, because he told us exactly what he did.
In conclusion. Not only is everything false (your premises and logic along with your conclusion (since false assumptions bring false conclusions)), but it proves the contrary.
So, I’ve got this star that’s a few million light years away. Care to tell me how its light travelled all that way, in spite of the constant speed of light, in your young earth model?
As the previous comment, I’ll discuss the false premises in your post first.
First false premise you have is that light is a constant when it actually isn’t. It can be slowed to a complete stop and accelerated 300 times it’s assumed constant. It can be warped by gravity (as well as time itself, this is why satellites need a special timing system since they’re further away from the earth’s gravity so time is different). Also, if the universe is curved and warped rather than perfectly straight, then if you take the Euclidean calculations of universal distances and transfer them to non-Euclidean measurements (such as Riemannian math which is curved) then even the farthest starlight can reach earth in about 15.71 years.
Second false premise, just because something is assumed to be millions of light years away, does not make it that old. You seem to misunderstand the fact that God included maturity in his creation. When he created Adam he didn’t create an infant, he created a man even though he was seconds old. He also created light before creating stars/suns so there’s no reason he didn’t already have the light in place.
To use these premises, we’ll look deeper into some information. How did they get that the light was millions of light years away? The most reliable method scientists use is parallax trigonometry. This is to say they take measurements of a star from the extreme ends of the earth’s orbit (taking a measurement from 1 month, then wait 6 months later to get to the opposite side of earth’s orbit and take the same measure) the theory is they’ll get an interception of these 2 lines-of-sight and using trigonometry calculations of 186 million miles (base of the triangle; being the earth’s orbit from one end to the other; 2 AU’s) and whatever the angle of the base to the star was.
It sounds all well and good, but here’s the problem. Let’s take your “constant” light again for a moment and say it’s at a set speed. If you do the calculations, you’ll notice that to measure just 1 single light year is as equal as having 2 observation points 10 inches of part (this representing the opposite sides of earth’s orbit for measurements) and looking at a dot 5 miles away (this representing the star we try to measure). That’s a ratio of 1:31,605 (2 AU’s:1 LY)! This is just 1 light year. That would make a pretty skinny triangle. Now I’ll say you can maybe measure 100 light years. I’ll say 1000 if everyone stops crying. But there is no way anyone can measure millions and certainly not billions of light years.
In conclusion, I’m not going to argue that the stars aren’t millions and billions of light years away. Who knows, they might indeed be that far away, but the way we measure that is faulty and to say the light being that faulty age does not mean it’s that old since God created maturity. Since we don’t know if the universe is straight or curved yet, as such, we can’t be certain if light takes millions of years to reach us, or if it simply takes almost 16 years at most.
There’s a lot we have to learn, but what we do know is that nothing validates old age, but everything validates young age.
“First false premise you have is that light is a constant when it actually isn’t”
Yes it is. Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second (that’s 186,000 miles per second or 671 million miles per hour or 12 trillion miles a year). Light *always* travels this speed through empty space, or vacuum.
“It can be slowed..”
True. When light travels through an atmosphere or a transparent medium, it does indeed slow down.
“..accelerated 300 times it’s assumed constant”
Ok. Wow. This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read.
While it its possible to accelerate light *when it travels through a medium*, it CANNOT be accelerated pasted its (c) constant that it travels at in a vacuum. And in fact it is impossible for it do so. If the spatial distance between between event A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by (c), then we have frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. if, however, something were traveling faster than (c) relative to an inertial frame of reference, then it would in essence traveling back in time relative to another frame. This would violate causality as an effect would be perceived *before* its cause. And this has never been observed to be possible. So no, you cannot accelerate light faster than its constant (c).
“It can be warped by gravity..”
Technically gravity has no affect on light itself. Gravitational fields warp space and the light photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field.
“as well as time itself, this is why satellites need a special timing system since they’re further away from the earth’s gravity so time is different”
The reason satellites need a special timing system is because of the *speed* at which they are traveling not their distance from Earth’s gravity. As Einstein’s theory of relativity shows us, time for an object slows the faster that it moves in space. The satellites are moving at rough 70,000 miles per hour. This is sufficient to cause their internal clocks to be off by a fraction of a nano-second compared to our time.
“if you take the Euclidean calculations of universal distances and transfer them to non-Euclidean measurements (such as Riemannian math which is curved) then even the farthest starlight can reach earth in about 15.71 years.”
Please show your math, because I’m calling b.s. on this.
“just because something is assumed to be millions of light years away..”
Mathematical calculations are *not* assumptions.
“does not make it that old”
It does since light does indeed travel at a constant in vacuum of empty space.
“God included maturity in his creation.”
Unsupported biblical conjecture.
“He also created light before creating stars/suns so there’s no reason he didn’t already have the light in place.”
More unsupported biblical conjecture.
“..186 million miles (base of the triangle; being the earth’s orbit from one end to the other; 2 AU’s)”
Just a slight quibble here. They actually only use 1 AU for the actual measurement for the base of the triangle, not 2.
“whatever the angle of the base to the star was.”
Again slight quibble. They’re using angle of the parallax displacement of the star’s *apparent* position.
“If you do the calculations, you’ll notice that to measure just 1 single light year is as equal as having 2 observation points 10 inches of part and looking at a dot 5 miles away.”
Where are are you getting this apparently arbitrary distances from? In this representation, its the distance of the dot (what you say is 5 miles away) that we are trying to calculate.
“That’s a ratio of 1:31,605 (2 AU’s:1 LY)”
Again please show your math because these numbers are WAY off. How in the hell is 2 AU’s a ratio of 1 LY??? 1 light year is 12 trillion miles. Light travels across 173 AU’s a day!
“But there is no way anyone can measure millions and certainly not billions of light years.”
We can, we have, and we do.
“In conclusion, I’m not going to argue that the stars aren’t millions and billions of light years away”
It seems you can’t argue much of anything, as your *apparent knowledge of astronomy is just as poor as your knowledge of biology.
“Since we don’t know if the universe is straight or curved yet, as such”
Actually we do know. The universe is both flat and curved. If you would like learn more about how we know this, then I invite you to read the works of theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss.
“we can’t be certain if light takes millions of years to reach us”
We can. The math does not lie.
“if it simply takes almost 16 years at most”
Until you show your math, this is just laughably absurd.
“what we do know is that nothing validates old age, but everything validates young age.”
And yet, you have not presented one piece of evidence that supports. You again just keep asserting it.
If light can be altered by gravity, then it’s not constant. Time is also altered by gravity. And as I said in the previous comment, certain parts of space (as well as light) are curved, some may be straight. Light could be far, or it could be closer than we think. We don’t know. What we do know is that different mathematics yield different results. They’re both viable, but only if we know *exactly* what we’re dealing with. Space is full of mystery, and I enjoy studying it.
“it CANNOT be accelerated pasted its (c) constant that it travels at in a vacuum”
-If it can be altered by gravity, it could be faster (very rare) or slower. It’s not constant. Taking into account that gravity can effect it, depending on star size can have very significant effects in the long run as it leaves the star alone, regardless of what it encounters on the way.
“So no, you cannot accelerate light faster than its constant”
-You might want to read the science articles that I might arrogantly assume you would take all information of things like this from. You can do a Google search and find it on the first page I’m certain.
“Technically gravity has no affect on light itself.”
-It’s nice to learn something new every day. My point is it’s still effected in the presence of gravity.
“Please show your math, because I’m calling b.s. on this.”
-I’m not a mathematician, but I can give you the sources. Primarily by Niessen, Richard who reviewed several articles came up with the 15.71 after looking through the following information:
1) Harold Slusher – “Age of the Cosmos” 1980.
2) Wayne Zage – “The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,” Mathematics Magazine 53, 1980, pg 289-293
27 binary stars were observed and it appears light travels in curved paths through space.
“Mathematical calculations are *not* assumptions.”
-When it comes to parallax trigonometry of star distance, I’m quite certain it is.
“It does since light does indeed travel at a constant in vacuum of empty space.”
-You missed my point entirely. I urge you to go back and re-read it carefully.
“[+More] Unsupported biblical conjecture.”
-Unsupported as in, I didn’t provide a verse? If you want I verse, the part concerning light before the sun/stars is in the very 3rd line/verse in Genesis (Gen 1:3). Then it says he created the sun, moon and stars in a later verse. The part concerning man is Genesis 1:27. 6th day of creation, fully mature man. Could walk, talk, and get married all on the first day of his life.
“Where are are you getting this apparently arbitrary distances from?”
-Converting 1 light year into the miles travelled in that year gives an equal equation/ratio (unit-wise) of AU’s to LY’s in order to gain an accurate measurement.
“Again please show your math because these numbers are WAY off. How in the hell is 2 AU’s a ratio of 1 LY??? 1 light year is 12 trillion miles. Light travels across 173 AU’s a day!”
-That’s not what I meant by the ratio. I mean the distance of earth from one side of the sun to the other (2 AU’s) compared to the distance of 1 light year (1 LY). The ratio is 1:31,605 but to gain a better understanding, this is approximately 186million:5,878,625,373,184 (all in miles) This is to say 5.8 trillion miles divided by 186 million miles is 31,605. Thus, giving the ratio of 1 to 31,605 and 10 inches between 2 observational points looking at something about 5 miles away (or 16 inches apart and about 8 1/3 miles away).
“We can, we have, and we do.”
-Then you must know something I don’t, do explain.
“It seems you can’t argue much of anything, as your *apparent knowledge of astronomy is just as poor as your knowledge of biology.”
-I find it funny that everyone says something like this before I even have a chance to respond to your criticism. How arrogant are you? You might as well be talking to a mouse if you just want to be right about everything without conflict.
“We can. The math does not lie.”
-I’m not saying math lies. People do though. All the time as a matter of fact, but I’m not saying scientists are intentionally lying, rather they’re using a faulty method which gives them false information to where they think it’s true. Just like you can think you’ve got the right answer in a math class (I’ve been through it a lot) but you never know if you’re wrong until it’s pointed out and why it doesn’t work.
“Until you show your math, this is just laughably absurd.”
-Until you give me a chance to reply, you might as well not comment to a lone sentence of no other importance rather than to soothe your ego.
“you have not presented one piece of evidence that supports. You again just keep asserting it.”
-And you’ve just asserted that I’ve been asserting as well as yet to give me a chance to respond (until now).
I enjoy conversation like this because I learn what other’s think and their knowledge on the subject. I read a lot of books, but I still don’t know everything on every subject, nor will I ever be able to. That’s why I do this, but you’re arrogance and ego leaking off of nearly every sentence is becoming unbearable. If you can converse without.. *that..* then please do. If not then I’ll gladly speak to you if you have a translator for rudeness.
“If light can be altered by gravity, then it’s not constant”
As I said in the last post, gravity *only* affects the space on which light travels on. The *speed* at which light travels is NOT affected by gravity in the slightest. It remains at its constant. Photons have no mass, so they are not affected by gravitational fields, only the space on which they move through is.
“Time is also altered by gravity”
Time is also relative to the observer. This means the speed of light always remains constant in relation to the observer that is observing it.
“If it can be altered by gravity, it could be faster (very rare) or slower. It’s not constant. Taking into account that gravity can effect it, depending on star size can have very significant effects in the long run as it leaves the star alone, regardless of what it encounters on the way.”
You might wanna read posts as a whole before starting your comments. It will greatly help when you begin your criticisms. As I said before, gravity does *not* affect the speed of light.
“You might want to read the science articles that I might arrogantly assume you would take all information of things like this from. You can do a Google search and find it on the first page I’m certain.”
I could only find two relative articles on the subject, so if neither of the articles I’m about to mention are the ones you’re referring to so please refer me to the one you mean.
The first one is a wikipedia article on “Faster-than-light”. However the article specifically says that this is a still a hypothesis, meaning it hasn’t been demonstrated at this time to be practically possible. Even tachyons which are said to be able to achieve ftl speeds are still hypothetical as no evidence for their existence as been demonstrated. The article also specifically notes “This is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since:
* Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information.
* Light travels at speed c/n when not in a vacuum but traveling through a medium with refractive index = n (causing refraction), and in some materials other particles can travel faster than c/n (but still slower than c), leading to Cherenkov radiation”
The second article was about photon tunneling. This seems to be the most promising in regards as to which article you were referring to. I would like to read more on this before commenting in detail, but I do have an initial impression on the subject (which is just from a quick overview of a view articles on the subject mind you). First I never could find how *exactly* they achieved the tunneling process itself. But based on the descriptions of the results and observations, it seems just be a variation on the “wormhole” or “warp drive” concepts in which it is the space around the object moving and not the object itself. So it wouldn’t be a violation of the speed of light rule as its space that’s doing the actual moving, that is if this is actually what happening during photon tunneling. I could be wrong in my initial impression though.
Second, Aephraim Steinberg, who is a quantum optics expert at the University of Colorado, states that this does not violate the theory of special relative, which is where the speed of light constant rule comes from, cause this is merely giving the appearance of ftl travel.
“It’s nice to learn something new every day. My point is it’s still effected in the presence of gravity.”
No it isn’t. As I’ve said numerous times now, gravity does not affect the *speed* light photons at all. Only the space through which they travel.
“Primarily by Niessen, Richard who reviewed several articles came up with the 15.71 after looking through the following information:
1) Harold Slusher – “Age of the Cosmos” 1980.
2) Wayne Zage – “The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,” Mathematics Magazine 53, 1980, pg 289-293″
I’m not familiar with Niessen or Zage, so I won’t comment on there work until I’ve had time to look over it in more detail. (However I do find it odd that you would get your source from Niessen since he has no mathematical or astronomy degrees *at all*. This evident in his article when states that Alpha Centauri is the nearest start to us. Its not. Proxima Centauri is. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away, while Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years. So doubt Niessen can be held as a “credible” source)
Slusher, on the other hand, I can comment on. His book “The Age of the Cosmos” is filled with fallacious arguments. One example of this is in his chapter regarding Olber’s paradox. He dismisses the expansion of the universe as the solution to the paradox by stating “However, the expansion of the universe has been challenged on a number of counts.” That’s it. He gives no mention as to examples of these challenges, who they are made by, or any information on them. He merely dismisses the expansion of the universe and reaches his conclusion of the universe being young, without any supporting evidence as to *why*. This is an extremely dishonest tactic.
“When it comes to parallax trigonometry of star distance, I’m quite certain it is.”
Parallax triangulation is a very well understood process and very accurate. And when distance errors do occur, which is usually a result from small angular parallaxes, we have equations to compensate for them.
“Unsupported as in, I didn’t provide a verse?”
No. Unsupported as in you gave no evidence as *why* we should hold the verse to be true.
“I find it funny that everyone says something like this before I even have a chance to respond to your criticism. How arrogant are you?”
You wanna talk about arrogance? How many times have you arrogantly proclaim that I have “faith” in my “belief” of evolution and science in general, when I specifically told you I do not? And yet continued to argue that I do! That’s arrogance. How many times have you arrogantly proclaimed I.D. to be science and *not* provide any evidence to support it? How many times have you arrogantly stated humans as being *designed* and not tell me how it was that you reached this conclusion? How many times have you arrogantly argued to people that “you can’t claim poor design without knowing the intentions of the designer” or “you can’t call a line crooked without knowing what a straight line is”, but when I ask you then what does a non-designed human would look like or how it function differently, you are surprisingly silent? Why is that? Why can you not answer these questions? Why don’t you hold your own claims to the same standard that you impose on others?
“-Until you give me a chance to reply, you might as well not comment to a lone sentence of no other importance rather than to soothe your ego.”
When you argue math and not show the entire process you used to get your results, then I’m going to call you on it. Show the entire process the first time, then I won’t have any need to comment.
“And you’ve just asserted that I’ve been asserting as well as yet to give me a chance to respond”
The point was that you gave no evidence for the assertion in the first place. You merely proclaimed it to be so.
“you’re arrogance and ego leaking off of nearly every sentence is becoming unbearable”
Pot. Meet kettle. You have displayed your arrogance numerous times, stemming from the very first post from you that I responded to. I even gave some of these example above.
“If you can converse without.. *that..* then please do”
Perhaps you should follow your own advice before advising others.
“However I do find it odd that you would get your source from Niessen since he has no mathematical or astronomy degrees *at all*”
-Because, after all, all truth is dependent on degrees. I’m aware it would give more credibility, but you don’t need degrees to think about these things. If he’s wrong, then feel free to contact him if you can and show him where. I personally haven’t researched *everything* in excessive depth because I can only read so much so fast, which is why I’m here. I now have a lot of information to study about light travel (which is only 1 out of 2 false premises to the point of my primary argument in the first post that you’ve gotten distracted from it seems) that rather interests me should I choose to get greater involved in the topic.
“His book “The Age of the Cosmos” is filled with fallacious arguments”
-And if in a latter year I happen to have an interest in Astronomy as I had in high school, then I’m certain I’ll read it and decide that for myself.
“Parallax triangulation is a very well understood process and very accurate.”
-I’m sure it is.. for a certain amount of light years. That’s why I’ll say it’s accurate to about 100 lights years at best, and I’ll give you 1000 just to cover all bases, but there’s no way it covers millions and certainly not billions of light years as I’ve explained. The way of measuring one light year is about 31,605 times that of the diameter of our orbit. That would make a very skinny triangle (the base being 1, the 2 sides reaching out being 31,605). This is just 1 light year. So again, I’ll say they can measure 10, maybe 100, and just in case, 1000, but there’s no way it can measure millions or billions. If you’d like to explain how, that’d be lovely.
“Show the entire process the first time, then I won’t have any need to comment.”
-That wasn’t the point of my comment. I had already heard previously about what you said, and since the sentence had no other informational meaning other than to restate the same informationally meaningless comment you had already said before, for the purposes of saving time, you might as well not state it again to waste both our times (typing it out and reading it just as I’m typing this pointless message and you’re having to reading it).
“You have displayed your arrogance numerous times”
-Because I’ve been backing my side up, you merely deny it. But I’ll cut you some slack as this could be viewed mutually from both parties.
“..but you don’t need degrees to think about these things”
This is true. However it does help in knowing whether or not what you are thinking about is accurate or not. For instance, if Niessen had actually studied astronomy he wouldn’t have made the amateurish error of mistaking Alpha Centauri as being the star closest to us. He would have known that Proxima Centauri is actually our closest neighboring star. Of course had he submitted he work to peer-review, then the mistake would have been caught early on. But as we know, creationist and I.D. proponents don’t like that nasty peer-review. LOL. Darn those scientists, correcting mistakes and what not; making sure that the information being provided is accurate and correct. So you’ll forgive me if I prefer to get my information for people who have actually studied the subjects they talk about.
“This is true. However it does help in knowing whether or not what you are thinking about is accurate or not.”
-That’s essentially what I said, you even took this from the same sentence explaining what you just said:
“***I’m aware it would give more credibility,*** but you don’t need degrees to think about these things”
Other than the above, unless you’ve got anything else to say from my previous comment involving the math I’ve done with parallax trigonometry and if it’s faulty or not, then I’d say we’ve concluded this part.
“That’s essentially what I said, you even took this from the same sentence explaining what you just said:
“***I’m aware it would give more credibility,*** but you don’t need degrees to think about these things” ”
And in the following sentences I wrote after that, I showed how some of what he “thinks” is just flat out wrong. Had his “thinking” been based on actually studying astronomy, then he would have known it was wrong.
Seriously, give up. You’re like an atheist stalker.
How could it be read incorrectly? Is there a definitive list on all things literal and metaphorical in your bible?
Why does Jesus have two geneologies (only one of which makes him the Messiah)? Why is the creation story told differently twice in the same book? Where’d Cain’s wife come from? Why is there evil in the world?
I mean, I almost want to call Poe’s Law on this. It’s like you took every tired theist argument in existence and brought them here, then got all pick-and-choose with your arguments, hand-waved the others, and claimed victory.
You’re either a very stupid theist or a very smart atheist.
I’m simply correcting everything that’s false. Are you saying we shouldn’t know the truth and I should instead allow you to live in falsehood? Interesting…
Jesus doesn’t have 2 genealogies. You’ll have to explain why you assume that if you want a specific answer.
The creation story is set up like a newspaper (If I understand your question correctly). The first chapter gives the headlines of what happened in the 6 days of creation, and the second chapter gives the details. They’re not contradictory, they support each other and give more details as to what happened. For example, It says in chapter one that God created man and woman on the same day. In chapter two it says they were created different times. Is this contradictory? No, it supports both of them. They were created the same *day,* but they also were created different *times* of that day.
Adam and Eve had many kids. Cain married one of them.
The “why” questions when it comes to God and his judgment are rather difficult for us to understand because we’re not God. Our most intelligent men of today do not even meet up to the level of intelligence for God to be considered stupid. Something very important that we must understand is that there are compromises for a specific design. In the case of evil in the world, let’s think of other possibilities.
1) God could create us without capability of sin. This would rid us of free will. This would make us robots in a sense and any relationship we had with God would be meaningless. In the beginning he made Adam and Eve innocent, but gave them the option to choose good or evil. So far, we can see evil is our fault.
2) God could intervene and negate evil. For example, if someone accidentally fell off of a 10 story balcony, then he would have to intervene and have them be safe rather than dying from impact. In this reality, God would be a terrible father to us. There would be no good or bad consequences to actions and as such, people would just become more sinful and destructive to themselves and God.
3) God could remove the bad people. The problem here is there would be no one left because no one is good. We all sin and we all commit evil acts. All evil (big or small, regardless of how evil one person is to another) is destructive and wreaks havoc.
God’s desire is that we would obey him, that it might be well with us (Deut 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way and then we blame God for not doing anything about it.
If I’ve made any mistake or error as you imply by throwing in Poe’s law, then by all means, point out the error. However, what I see is a person who would rather say I’m wrong and waste time asserting it rather than explaining why. This only indicates to me that you lack the ability to do so, and I wish you the best.
Good to know. I’m just looking for people to back up what they say/believe. Are you saying people shouldn’t challenge others on the basis of finding the truth?
Christians, all of your blather about anything doesn’t change your fundamental fail. To be a Christian, you have to accept the idea that the torture and crucifixion of an innocent human being was a righteous act.
Your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God created a situation in which the ONLY solution was to slaughter someone? You see, if I were an all loving being I wouldn’t REQUIRE the torture and murder of my own son (or myself in human form..again..the differences in which flavor or Christianity you choose amuse me) in order to provide salvation.
No matter how you want to spin it, your God, if he exists, set it up so that the only way he would provide salvation to humans is if a crucifixion occurred. Sorry, that is a fundamental failure in basic morality or logic.
Oh, and on top of all that you have zero evidence to back up your claims. Merry Christmas (which is a pagan holiday btw, Jesus wasn’t born on Dec 25th even if you believe the bible)
“To be a Christian, you have to accept the idea that the torture and crucifixion of an innocent human being was a righteous act.”
-That’s called sacrifice.
“Your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God created a situation in which the ONLY solution was to slaughter someone?”
-No, “we” created that situation and implicit solution with it. Luckily for us, God has a back-up plan every time we do wrong. Christ is the final line though, and it was only by God’s grace and mercy that he sacrificed himself for his creation. It saddens me to see that so many people die “for” their god(s) when God has already died for them.
“You see, if I were an all loving being I wouldn’t REQUIRE the torture and murder of my own son (or myself in human form..again..the differences in which flavor or Christianity you choose amuse me) in order to provide salvation.”
-It’s good to see that you’re human then, but the fact of the matter is, human sacrifice was the only appropriate sacrifice. Anything less wouldn’t be appropriate. We sinned, therefore we needed a sinless substitute to take our sin debt for us and pay it for us. We also need a willing sacrifice because it’s immoral to sacrifice an unwilling person. Jesus lived a sinless life, was born without sin nature, and willingly died for us so we might be justified in him.
“Sorry, that is a fundamental failure in basic morality or logic.”
-Again, good to see you’re human and thus finite as we all are.
“Oh, and on top of all that you have zero evidence to back up your claims.”
-That’s a pretty arrogant claim to say before allowing anyone to answer your objections.
“Merry Christmas (which is a pagan holiday btw, Jesus wasn’t born on Dec 25th even if you believe the bible)”
-While it’s unknown why the early church decided to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25, the most probable cause is that some pagans around them would much more easily come to Christianity if the time of celebration of the year were similar, so they adopted a similar day.
Regardless of this, does it really matter what day we celebrate the birth of Jesus? No, not as much as we celebrate God’s gift to the world in the form of Jesus, our savior, period. Jesus was probably born in spring, there’s many lines of evidence to support this, but what’s important that we celebrate his birth. There’s nothing theologically necessary to support the exact day just so long as we celebrate.
It’s funny you want to say WE are the faulty ones, yet if we are to believe what you believe, your God CREATED us this way and knew in advance everything that would happen, and decided to do nothing about it, but instead chose to be bloodthirsty and make the most “appropriate” solution a human sacrifice. Again, you’re not winning any points with your comments because God is the one who is supposed to be the one who creates what is “appropriate”.
By your own admission, he arbitrarily decided that human sacrifice would be “appropriate” when he could have chosen ANY OTHER ACT as “appropriate”. Therefore, by your own admission, your God is a bloodthirsty savage who enjoys torture and crucifixion. Thank you for proving my point.
And again, I’m still waiting for actual EVIDENCE that Christianity is actually true.
“It’s funny you want to say WE are the faulty ones, yet if we are to believe what you believe, your God CREATED us this way”
-He created us *with the choice* of good or evil. It was entirely up to us.
“and knew in advance everything that would happen, and decided to do nothing about it”
-Yes, he knew everything in advance. Perhaps that’s why he had a plan to bail us out and redeem ourselves every time we failed, hmm? Adam and Eve failed, so God set up a plan for us to redeem ourselves (after the flood, we were to build a government and expand, instead we built a tower (The Tower of Babel) to be confined in one place), when we failed that plan, he had another, and another, and another. Now, we’re at Christ’s first coming (after this, the last will be Christ’s second coming in which there will be no more chances, God has given us plenty). We can choose to accept the free gift he’s given us or not. Personally, I don’t see the point in turning down a free get-out-of-jail-free card.
“but instead chose to be bloodthirsty and make the most “appropriate” solution a human sacrifice.”
-Yup, it’s pretty sad that we let it out of control and get to that point isn’t it?
“Again, you’re not winning any points with your comments because God is the one who is supposed to be the one who creates what is “appropriate”.”
-Again, you’re not winning any points by assuming you’re right before even allowing me to respond to criticism. But that’s human nature I suppose.
“By your own admission, he arbitrarily decided that human sacrifice would be “appropriate” when he could have chosen ANY OTHER ACT as “appropriate”.”
-He could’ve chosen anything, but then you’d be going on about the fact that it’s not a necessary sacrifice! You see how nicely woven this is? This is why it’s important to do things right. Does it not make sense that the sinless must be paid for sin? I would think so, it doesn’t seem to make sense paying sin with sin (paying debt with debt). That’s like paying a loan with a loan. You didn’t get anywhere, you’re still in debt. God had to do things very specifically. If I’m wrong in my logic here, please point it out.
“Therefore, by your own admission, your God is a bloodthirsty savage who enjoys torture and crucifixion.”
-No, by simple logic, we know exactly the worthy sacrifice he sent and the grace and mercy it showed to submerge himself down to our level in order to save the unworthy sinful creatures he created.
“And again, I’m still waiting for actual EVIDENCE that Christianity is actually true.”
-Then why are you fighting the above subject? I can show that you’re wrong and everything you object to (so far) is shown to knit together, but if that’s not going to be evidence to you, then what exactly is? More importantly, if the above conversation wont prove anything, why are you arguing against it?
“He created us *with the choice* of good or evil.”
No, it’s quite clear from your theology he created us sick (original sin) and commands us to be well. That’s pretty sick.
“Yes, he knew everything in advance.”
So, not only does he make us “sick,” but set up Adam and Eve with the knowledge so they’d end up that way and then punished them for it? That’s even worse.
That’s like putting a plate of cookies in the middle of the floor full of toddlers and then spanking them all when they take one.
“Does it not make sense that the sinless must be paid for sin? I would think so, it doesn’t seem to make sense paying sin with sin (paying debt with debt). That’s like paying a loan with a loan. You didn’t get anywhere, you’re still in debt.”
No. As I explained before, that entire bit of the story is disgusting. No moral person would find that reasonable.
“No, it’s quite clear from your theology he created us sick (original sin)”
-Original sin resides with Adam and Eve and as such, everyone after them would have this *original sin.* We were discussing the original sin itself and the choice Adam and Eve had to choose it.
“but set up Adam and Eve with the knowledge so they’d end up that way and then punished them for it?”
-No, again, they had the choice to choose good or evil and they chose evil. Just because God knew the future event that would come to be, it does not dictate ones actions. When I see my little cousin eyeball a jelly sandwich (which he loves) I know he’s going to ask me to make him one. Surely enough, he does. Did I make him take it based on the idea that I knew he was going to do it? No. He chose by his own free will, and it’s ultimately our free will that decides what happens. God has ordained the future to where our choices are like second causes. He may know the future, but it doesn’t dictate our actions. Rather, it’s the opposite.
It’s amazing to consider that he’s been able to provide a back-up plan for whenever we fail to do what he asks of us. I’d get on board before the ship sails my friend.
“As I explained before, that entire bit of the story is disgusting. No moral person would find that reasonable.”
-It doesn’t matter if *you* see it the wrong way it’s intended. I’ve explained the previous persons misunderstandings already. You’re free to view it however you want, just like you’re free to disbelieve gravity, but once you step off that cliff, you’re going to realize just how real it really is and how futile your disregarding of the fact is as well.
“We were discussing the original sin itself and the choice Adam and Eve had to choose it.”
Not really. If God knows everything, he set them up to fail just so he could punish them.
In addition, sorry, even if that story weren’t a myth, I’d still not be responsible for the sins of my ancestors. That’s complete nonsense told to control people.
“No, again, they had the choice to choose good or evil and they chose evil. Just because God knew the future event that would come to be, it does not dictate ones actions.”
God still would have created them that way on purpose… he set them up to fail. There’s no way around that if he knew what was going to happen. He should have made a snake that couldn’t talk, or not put the apple tree there… one or the other.
And where the hell was God while the snake was tempting Eve? If he knew everything was happening, why didn’t he step in and gone, “Noooooooo. *kick the snake away* Bullocks, bullocks, bullocks, bullocks! I’m God. Eating from that tree will kill you. And if a snake comes along, don’t listen to him because he’s a lying little s**t.”
“He may know the future, but it doesn’t dictate our actions.”
ROFL.
“I’d get on board before the ship sails my friend.”
LMOAROFLCOPTERLOL.
“It doesn’t matter if *you* see it the wrong way it’s intended.”
I’m just not as good at mental gymnastics as you are. My mind can’t twist enough to make something so insanely immoral into something good.
“just like you’re free to disbelieve gravity”
No, see, gravity can be proved to exist, unlike your deity.
Here’s a challenge:
Name a moral thing said or moral thing done by a person of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.
Name an immoral thing said or done because of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.
“If God knows everything, he set them up to fail just so he could punish them.”
-You go ahead and believe that, but I’ve made my point clear regarding your false understanding of it. If you don’t have anything to say about it, then we’re done and this part of the conversation is concluded.
“I’d still not be responsible for the sins of my ancestors”
-You’re not, you’re born with a sin nature. You’re responsible for your own sins and you will be held accountable for them unless you give someone else the payment.
“God still would have created them that way on purpose”
-Yes, he created them *with a choice.*
“he set them up to fail”
-No, Adam and Eve *chose* failure.
“He should have made a snake that couldn’t talk, or not put the apple tree there”
-Then you would argue that they had no free will because they wouldn’t have the choice of evil. If there weren’t an evil in the midst of good, all there would be is good, ergo, no choice but good, ergo, no free will. You see how nicely woven everything is? But hey, that’s how we learn.
“If he knew everything was happening, why didn’t he step in”
-If God interfered with our choices, what free will is there? If he saved us from consequences, what’s there to stop us from doing the wrong thing and what benefit is there in doing the right thing? Again, look at how nicely woven this web is. I’m not sure about you, but I find it quite fascinating how intricate this is. I’d say God knew what he was doing in the beginning.
“I’m just not as good at mental gymnastics as you are.”
-No, you’re just confused and haven’t studied the word as much as you should.
“My mind can’t twist enough to make something so insanely immoral into something good.”
-Where have I turned the immoral into good?
“No, see, gravity can be proved to exist, unlike your deity.”
-Regardless that I personally find it hard to believe that there *isn’t* a God due to what I’ve found over the years, that wasn’t my argument. I said you’re free to “disbelieve” something (to not believe or disregard something regardless of if it’s existence is valid in reality or not), but once you go against the reality of it, you’ll only prove it’s existence.
“Name a moral thing said or moral thing done by a person of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.”
-It’s not the argument of whether you can do something someone else can. We’re all capable, but it’s more of what you *shouldn’t* be able to do (if there is no God and thus no standards), and yet it’s shown we can.
For example, we all have a sense of absolute right (and absolute wrong) in the world (in fact, it’s self-defeating to say otherwise). If there is no God, and therefore no standard, then there’s no absolute rights and no absolute wrongs. Everything is relative. However, we condemn people for doing the *wrong* thing. We say it’s unfair, unjust, and not right. If this were the reality of the world, then teachers should be able to grade on whatever they choose because there’s no such thing as a universal understanding of unfair, unjust, or right/wrong. If you do a project of your choosing over the growth of octopi, then the teacher can grade based on the color of your folder if they so choose to since it’s all relative. His right/wrong is not your right/wrong, but we understand there’s a universal standard, then this cannot be the case and it’s obviously ridiculous to think otherwise.
If there is no standard, then your question is false from the beginning (which is to say, you admit the existence of absolutes/rights and wrongs/morals just in the implication of your question). You show this by assuming there are morals that distinguish someone of faith than to a secularist (in other words, there’s a standard), but if there are no distinct morals, then it’s all relative in which case your question is meaningless because your morals would not be equal to mine so there’s no controversy regarding what you morally can or can’t do compared to what I can or can’t do.
For example, I find it wrong to steal from my neighbor because I’ll most likely get caught by the police, and people won’t trust me as much, something I’ll absolutely need in the future.
It might not be the best one, but you get my point: people can have morals with just reasoning.
If g(G)od existed, I’d rather be forced to do the right thing than be given the choice to refuse the right thing and then get punished in hell or purgatory for accidentally going the wrong way. And did you notice the moral differences in your religion between past and present, e.g. attitude towards slaves? How can there be a moral standard if it changes with time? Don’t tell me that you’re no longer bound by the Old Testament because the church says God did lay those laws on his people in the past, and I’m wondering why he would change the rules (morals). Unless the New Testament didn’t actually disapprove of slavery, in which I would question how that would be moral today.
“Have you heard of secular morals? They do exist.”
-Your example just proves universal morals. It’s wrong to steal.
“people can have morals with just reasoning.”
-You’re example proves otherwise. There’s always a reason. Yours was that you would get caught and suffer negative consequences. People don’t do the wrong things for no reason, there’s always something people think of in order to justify doing the wrong thing.
“I’d rather be forced to do the right thing than be given the choice to refuse the right thing and then get punished in hell or purgatory for accidentally going the wrong way.”
-Then you would be a robot, subject to what God told you and he could tell you to not care about the wrong which would negate your statement. There are compromises to a particular design, and the one God wanted required an all or nothing scenario.
You also have a false concept of free choice. You have the will to choose good or evil, right or wrong (etc.), but all choices have consequences. Good choices have good consequences and vice versa. If you choose bad choices, then you’ll get what you’ve asked for. It’s not so much punishment as reaping what you’ve sewn which might as well be punishment since that’s certainly what it would feel like. You’re aware of your options, it’s your choice where you will end up, so choose wisely because you’re going to be dead a lot longer than you’re going to be alive.
“Don’t tell me that you’re no longer bound by the Old Testament”
-Depends what you mean by that. If you mean the Old Testament is technically worthless then you’re wrong, but if you mean that the Old Testament law no longer bears weight on us by means of where we end up after death, then you’re absolutely right. Christ said he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. Christ lived the perfect life for us so we, as finite and imperfect human beings, didn’t have to since we lacked the ability to do so in the first place. This does not nullify the Old Testament, but makes it’s power of where we end up after death null and void so long as our faith is with Christ. It’s still a useful tool to learn from and abide by, but if we fail in upholding it, it’s not the end of the world for us.
“Your example just proves universal morals. It’s wrong to steal.”
lol I just said it’s wrong to steal, but wtvr. So what? I was using the more general definition of ‘secular’: unrelated to religion. My point was, yes, saying “because g(G)od says it’s morally wrong” is a reason, but MY reason didn’t include g(G)od.
“People don’t do the wrong things for no reason, there’s always something people think of in order to justify doing the wrong thing.”
First, that’s a comma-splice. Second, and more importantly, since when was everyone moral? Some people do weigh the benefit of the crime to outweigh the punishments, and, as it turns out, such people exist. Even with religion, people manage to justify such things to themselves. And then there are the immoral people, who find nothing morally wrong with stealing. They’re not necessarily ignoring g(G)od; they could just be unreasonable.
Besides, can’t I be good for goodness’ sake? Again, I’m not saying the religious can’t be that way, but I usually find that not to be the case (after all, you do believe in a threatening hell and a rewarding heaven).
Lastly, there are plenty of situations when the ‘right’ decision is anything but obvious. What if, after critical thinking, I still in the end make a wrong decision, when I think it’s right? Am I going to be punished?
“Then you wold be a robot….”
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Would you rather be forced to do the right thing all the time, or commit countless sins, most of which you don’t know about or intend to commit, and burn for countless years? I mean, it’s not like you’ll feel pain for eternity while doing what’s right.
Another thing about the robot: That’s not true. In almost all cases, there isn’t just one right and one wrong choice, but rather numerous or countless of each. You will still have choices.
I didn’t quite word that right: by “Some people do weigh the benefit of the crime to outweigh the punishments,” I meant “Sometimes some people feel that the benefit of the crime outweighs the punishments….”
I don’t know if my comment can be seen yet since it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation,” because my above comment doesn’t make sense without it.
No it’s not. If all I had to do was endure a Jesus’s life and become a (supposed) right had of the supreme ruler of the universe, I’d do that.
If he went to hell for us, that’d be a sacrifice.
“No, “we” created that situation and implicit solution with it…”
Ummm… he’s God, he’s supposed to be able to do anything. He should have just snapped his fingers.
“It’s good to see that you’re human then, but the fact of the matter is, human sacrifice was the only appropriate sacrifice.”
No. No human sacrifice (or animal for that matter) is never a appropriate action.
“We sinned, therefore we needed a sinless substitute to take our sin debt for us and pay it for us.”
No. I never asked for that (not that the Jesus story ever did… I bet you couldn’t even tell me what year he was supposedly born in), but I wouldn’t have allowed it to happen in the first place. I’m more moral than that. I don’t accept being indebted to someone for something they chose to do nearly two thousand years before I was born.
Sorry, assuming the story is true, I still wouldn’t accept the debt my ancestors would owe. It doesn’t work that way.
“That’s a pretty arrogant claim to say before allowing anyone to answer your objections.”
Prove what year Jesus was born in, and I’ll start going to church again.
“While it’s unknown why the early church decided to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25″
Actually, it is quite well known. Thanks to the political climate at the time and the Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the empire. Just as you explained yourself, Christianity started to adopt pagan festivals and rituals and symbology to make it easier to get pagans to convert… it was a political choice to make it in December, not a religious one.
And it goes way beyond that. Why do you think we have Christmas trees dispite the book of Micah specifically saying don’t have them? Why do you think the main holidays fall on the solstices and equinoxi (equinoxes?). Christmas is celebrated at the Winter Solstice. Easter is celebrated at the spring equinox. Do you realize that EASTER is the same pronounciation of Eostre, the pagan god of firtility and THAT is where we get rabbits and eggs from, because they’re symbols for that god and firtility?
The 3 kings part of the story… do you realize that’s refering to the 3 stars on Orion’s belt (which were called the 3 kings) and it is a reference to thier placement near the horizon that they came to “greet” him?
“Regardless of this, does it really matter what day we celebrate the birth of Jesus? No, not as much as we celebrate God’s gift to the world in the form of Jesus, our savior, period. Jesus was probably born in spring, there’s many lines of evidence to support this, but what’s important that we celebrate his birth. There’s nothing theologically necessary to support the exact day just so long as we celebrate.”
Honestly it DOES matter. We don’t know the day he was born, or the year. There are no contemporary writings of the guy, and every miracle attributed to him was done by someone else first… virgin birth, healing the blind, raising the dead… done by gods long before Jesus.
It should make you question the validity of his very existance, let alone if you make that assumption, you still need to prove he actually was the son of God.
Seriously, that just shows a complete lack of awareness for your religion.
“No it’s not. If all I had to do was endure a Jesus’s life and become a (supposed) right had of the supreme ruler of the universe, I’d do that.”
-You say it as if it’s easy and simple to do. Have you lied before? Yes, we’ve all lied one time or another, therefore we are not like Jesus in that alone. If you’ve broken the Old Testament law in one way or another, then you cannot be of any use as a sacrifice because as I said before, it’s like paying a debt with a debt.
“If he went to hell for us, that’d be a sacrifice.”
-That would contradict the sacrifice. He “paid” for our sins. Taking our sins upon him, a sinless substitute. He lifted us up by raising himself up, similar to pulling someone up once you’ve gotten onto the high ledge. He walked the path for us so we wouldn’t have to do it considering none of us “can” do it. His sinless life pays for our sinful lives. When we give him our sin, it doesn’t taint him, it cleans us.
“He should have just snapped his fingers.”
-He could have indeed, but then there would be no negative consequences to our actions which would result in us being more sinful and destructive than ever. That’s not the reality God wanted. If he did, he would’ve created it that way in the first place. You’d also probably be attacking the idea that God’s a wimp and bad person allowing us to do the wrong things without us paying the consequences.
“Prove what year Jesus was born in, and I’ll start going to church again.”
-There’s no theological reason to *know* his exact birth. Just as it’s not necessary to know his exact death (even though evidence would say it was probably April 3rd, 33 AD). What’s important is what it meant to the world.
“Christianity started to adopt pagan festivals and rituals and symbology to make it easier to get pagans to convert”
-I’m aware they adopted the day of year to help convert pagans, but what others were adopted might I ask? This is interesting to me.
“Why do you think we have Christmas trees dispite the book of Micah specifically saying don’t have them?”
-Oh I’m well aware of what it says, but it seems to me you have a different understanding. Could you site the verse and we’ll see if it fits your claim.
“Do you realize that EASTER is the same pronounciation of Eostre, the pagan god of firtility and THAT is where we get rabbits and eggs from, because they’re symbols for that god and firtility?”
-I’m aware, but what you seem to be unaware of is that the origin of something does not always dictate it’s future meanings. Times change, just like when gay meant happy and cool meant not hot. Back then, it may have had pagan meaning. Today, it’s the day of celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The importance of Easter is to focus on Christ. Are we focusing on/thinking of the pagan traditions of the past when we say “Easter”? No, when someone says Easter, if anything, Christianity comes to mind in some form. Tubal-Cain was an artificer of brass and iron (Genesis 4), does that mean whenever we make brass or iron that we’re secretly worshipping Tubal-Cain or one of the first times of brass and iron? No.
The origins are not as important as the focus.
“he 3 kings part of the story… do you realize that’s refering to the 3 stars on Orion’s belt (which were called the 3 kings) and it is a reference to thier placement near the horizon that they came to “greet” him?”
-Same as what I listed above, but if you truly study the star of Bethlehem you will find some of the most extraordinary things you can find in the stars. The man on the website I’m about to list has researched the star of Bethlehem for several years (if not a few decades) and you would be amazed at what he’s discovered. I urge you to research his work. The 3 kings are but one of the puzzle pieces put together. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/
“There are no contemporary writings of the guy”
-And there’s multiple reasons for that. For one, the population was illiterate so it wasn’t necessary. Second, they thought Jesus would return soon after he rose to heaven. After a bit of time went by, they realized they needed to write it down and it wasn’t until the early church started sending letters to each other that it forced them to write it down (communication). There’s much more to that, but its been a while since I reviewed it so I’m uncertain about a few things.
“and every miracle attributed to him was done by someone else first”
-They each are distinguished though. They may be similar in some aspect (just as the flood of Gilgamesh was to the flood of Noah) but they have they’re differences that distinguish them as original. Again, here the origin is unimportant. What matters is do they distinguish themselves from each other enough to be original.
“It should make you question the validity of his very existence”
-Oh, you need to do a lot better than that to make me question the evidence stored for Jesus. Even historians believe he existed. That’s not the question. The question is whether or not he did what is said he did, and I believe he did.
“Seriously, that just shows a complete lack of awareness for your religion.”
-And your anger and arrogance leaking off of every sentence just shows the hostility of yours. I’ll be praying for you.
“I’m surprised you don’t know that “Jesus” isn’t his real name”
-Jesus was called by many names: Yeshua, Immanuel, Christ, Messiah, and so on. Just because I use the name “Jesus” out of the number of names doesn’t make me wrong. I also don’t see anywhere in the comment you posted that indicates I didn’t know. Just as usual you’re just trying to pick a fight that you can’t win because you lost once you replied. Regardless of how old you really are, I encourage that you do a little growing up. Stop corrupting yourself and you might enjoy life a little (if not a lot) better. Consider kindness over anger and you might have better relationships between people. I converse with Ben on this comments section because he’s calm and we can have an intelligent conversation. You on the other hand have no desire to do so but rather just throw insults left and right, in which case I have no desire to converse with you unless you have a change of heart and return with a more mature stature.
Strengthen your will against your problems. Deny the necessity to be negative and think more positively and you’ll have a much more fulfilling experience in life.
Depends what language you’re speaking in. Whether it’s Greek, English, whatever, there’s different names for the same person. Just like the english name “Phillip” is still Phillip in Spanish, it’s just pronounced “Felipe.” There’s also names that are only symbolic, such as Immanuel which literally translates to “God with us.” Jesus was Immanuel as well.
Oh, like this?
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”
- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
Not only did you misinterpret it from the version you got it from (for example, it doesn’t say rape because it doesn’t mean rape), you really should study the culture of that day. If you make the correct observations, you will come to the correct conclusion.
The most important observation that not many people understand is the fact that we are not bound by the Old Testament law. The law was to show that we are incapable (as finite, sinful, imperfect human beings) of keeping it’s commands. This is what required a savior so we would be justified by faith (in Christ) rather than a law we are doomed to fail trying to obey.
“The most important observation that not many people understand is the fact that we are not bound by the Old Testament law.”
What about the ten commandments? Sorry. You don’t get to cherry pick the bits you like, especially when Jesus said to keep all the old laws.
“The law was to show that we are incapable (as finite, sinful, imperfect human beings) of keeping it’s commands. This is what required a savior so we would be justified by faith (in Christ) rather than a law we are doomed to fail trying to obey.”
Your brain can do the most amazing mental gymnastics. I love reading you stuff just to see the convoluted reasoning you come up with just so you can keep your beliefs.
“What about the ten commandments? Sorry. You don’t get to cherry pick the bits you like, especially when Jesus said to keep all the old laws.”
-I’m not cherry-picking. You are right that Jesus said to keep the old laws by saying he didn’t come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. The point of Jesus was so that we would be justified by faith, not by the law. It doesn’t make the law nullified, but rather, it’s power over us is nullified provided we are justified by faith in Christ. It should still be followed and obeyed as Jesus followed and obeyed it, but the good news is we’re not bound by the perfect following of it 100%. We’re doomed to fail it, that’s what called for a savior. The only difference is when we fail, our justification is Christ.
“Your brain can do the most amazing mental gymnastics. I love reading you stuff just to see the convoluted reasoning you come up with just so you can keep your beliefs.”
-You know what I read there? “You’re stupid, deal with it.”
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. If this were court then you would’ve just lost the jury/judge at this point. They don’t work off of insults, they work of the evidence to back up their claims. If I could just claim something and have it be true then I could just say I have billions of dollars and never have to work again. So if I’m wrong in my *mental gymnastics* as you so call it, then please do point out the error.
“You are right that Jesus said to keep the old laws by saying he didn’t come to abolish the law, but fulfill it.”
So, he should be stoning gays and killing disobedient children…
“The point of Jesus was so that we would be justified by faith, not by the law. It doesn’t make the law nullified, but rather, it’s power over us is nullified provided we are justified by faith in Christ. ”
What the hell does this even mean? It’s gibberish.
“It should still be followed and obeyed as Jesus followed and obeyed it, but the good news is we’re not bound by the perfect following of it 100%.”
What the hell are you even babbling about here? There’s no where Jesus says we’re not supposed to follow it 100%. You’re just making crap up now.
“We’re doomed to fail it, that’s what called for a savior.”
Oh great… they we’re all sick and commanded to be well bit again…
“The only difference is when we fail, our justification is Christ.”
That’s right. Forget personal accountability… we get to blame it on Jesus.
Reminds me this story of a kid that wanted a bike, so he prayed for it, but then he realized God didn’t work that way so he stole one and prayed for forgiveness.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to remove personal accountability for morality as you are here. If you do something wrong, it’s your own damn fault. Isn’t that what you’ve been saying this whole time, that’s it’s personal choice? How the hell do we get to just blame Jesus now after the fact?
“If this were court then you would’ve just lost the jury/judge at this point. They don’t work off of insults, they work of the evidence to back up their claims.”
Ummm… that is what I was saying… you’re twisting around everything to an untenable assertion without evidence. You’re the one who wouldn’t stand a chance in court, because your explanations hold about as much water as a fish net.
“So if I’m wrong in my *mental gymnastics* as you so call it, then please do point out the error.”
I have been. Your mental gymstastics is how you’re dismissing everything or coming up with an absolutely absurd explanation for something immoral to be moral because it’s something your diety did… like human sacrifice of Jesus and Jephthah’s daughter, or the genocide of entire civilizations which included taking slaves and raping the virgins.
“So, he should be stoning gays and killing disobedient children”
-No, because due to his sinless sacrifice, they can be forgiven for the wrong things they’ve done according to Old Testament law. When men brought a woman who had disobeyed the law to Jesus (basically to challenge him), they said she went against the law, so what were they to do? Jesus said a phrase you might be familiar with, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” They eventually left because none were without sin.
“What the hell does this even mean?”
-I don’t answer questions to those with negative attitudes. If you honestly want an answer to your question, you don’t need the rude adjectives.
“There’s no where Jesus says we’re not supposed to follow it 100%”
-Did Jesus say that? No. *I* said we’re not bound by the *perfect following of it 100%* because Jesus fulfilled the law for us. So long as we put our faith in him, we are justified by that faith and no longer by the law.
“You’re just making [-] up now.”
-I know it’s a bit difficult to understand, but the Bible is not a kindergardener’s story book. It’s not meant to be fully understood in a few pages and taking a few minutes to read it. There’s a lot of information it covers, that’s why it’s usually at least 1000 pages in any translation.
“That’s right. Forget personal accountability… we get to blame it on Jesus.”
-How is that blaming it on Jesus? Jesus is our fallback for when we fail (which we are doomed to do so). And it has nothing to do with personal accountability. Yes, we’ve done wrong. Everyone has done wrong. It doesn’t mean we don’t know it or don’t accept the reality of it, it means we’re all going to pay a debt we cannot fully pay for eternity. Unless… we find a substitute. God was gracious enough to provide us with one.
“You’re the one who wouldn’t stand a chance in court, because your explanations hold about as much water as a fish net.”
-More assertions, not seeing any explanations of the complications.
“Your mental gymstastics is how you’re dismissing everything or coming up with an absolutely absurd explanation”
-What am I dismissing? What have you brought up that I haven’t answered? Why is my explanations absurd? How does it not hold up?
“like human sacrifice of Jesus”
-How does a sacrifice of God in the flesh of a human being not make sense with payment of human sins?
“and Jephthah’s daughter”
-There’s a lot to go through when understanding this part of the Bible. Yes it’s true that Jephthah vowed he’d sacrifice the first thing to go through his door if God gave him victory in battle and his daughter was first to walk through. However, there’s no indication afterwards that says she was sacrificed as a burnt offering. If anything, from Judges 11:37 it tells us she may have been granted to live, but roam (some people indicate through other lines of evidence that she may have been given to the tabernacle as a servant). Something you must understand is the Bible doesn’t approve of everything it records. Some things are to be examples of bad examples to show what happens when you do the wrong thing. Some is just history of man, and more. What we are to learn from the story of Jephthah is that he serves as an example to never make foolish vows/oaths. God tells us multiple times that he specifically forbids human sacrifice through many verses such as Jeremiah 7:31.
“or the genocide of entire civilizations”
-If you take time to read your Bible, you’ll notice God gives plenty of warning to these nations that he will judge them for what they’re doing. He gives them plenty of time to repent and turn to him. He tells them what they’re doing wrong and how they can redeem themselves. They chose not to through the multiple warnings he gave them (sometimes God waited hundreds of years for repentance), so God finally went through with the judgment he promised would happen if they continued in their ways. Where’s the absurdity in this? This is perfectly sensible and reasonable.
Yeah, and that justifies everything. You can study a map for years and still not understand a thing about it unless and until you can answer questions like “Where am I according to this map?” and “What’s the perspective of this map?” If it’s a map of the stars, you need to know the latitude, longitude, and orientation (North?) from which the map was made, as well as your position on the Earth in order to reach that reference point.
Here’s some of my studying: truth-saves . com. It used to be my “Website” until it prevented me from posting any comments.
And in the end, even though I put myself in the argument previously- This is why we have religious wars. Because ultimately, people like to fight verbally. And when it isn’t satisfactory– Pull out the guns. Let’s see who has the biggest. In religious arguments its basically the same thing. Nobody is right or right with religion. It’s all a matter of belief. It really shouldn’t be something fought over- it should be personal.
well folks, a happy new year…i was just browsing thru the section wen i saw dis discussion and well ….i see some ancient argument still being fought out!!
period!!
for the record, i find religious righteousness creatively obnoxious and seriously nauseates me. Like people coming up and saying, The Lord is great and beautiful, look at the nature the flower blah blah blah…..
to them i wud like to say, that yeah i see the nature i see your flower. but i also see an african child sitting on a rehab center with a worm eating his eye out!! My my is God benevolent!!!! my head bows down to this Astral presence.
I wonder, if this is His benevolence what might his malevolence be!!
And what this about Eve failing!! Don’t you have sex!! Like Eve is someones ribs!! period!!!
some one commented that there is proof that actually Science’s proofs are false. Will you please respond to that!!!
religion gives faith true, gives a purpose to life again true. but it is like cancer. religion is sumthing we should be wary of. Coz’ anytime some one starts to shout about there God, someone else is bound to start My God’s better and loves me more!!!!
“yeah i see the nature i see your flower. but i also see an african child sitting on a rehab center with a worm eating his eye out!! My my is God benevolent!!!! my head bows down to this Astral presence.”
-Yes, I remember taking a picture of a wrecked car and sending it to the manufacturer with a note exclaiming, “Why did you make a car this way?!”
Confused? So am I when I read your comment. What you’re essentially saying is God created an imperfect and wrecked world. This is not the way God made it. God made a perfect world, and although manufacturers aren’t perfect, they make fully functioning cars to the best of their abilities. The fact that this world is not as perfect as it was just shows it was wrecked by someone (Adam and Eve). Don’t point the finger to the maker, it’s not their fault, it’s ours.
“some one commented that there is proof that actually Science’s proofs are false. Will you please respond to that!!!”
-Gladly. Science has given us knowledge for a lot of things, but it cannot be 100% reliable. The results and conclusions are taken by faith just as any other belief because science contradicts itself. If science were able to discover truth all the time, then it would be able to use the scientific method on itself to test if the idea that science discovers truth, is true. Since it cannot, it’s self-defeating, and any conclusions drawn from it’s methods are taken by faith as if they are true. Furthermore, science disregards information before even testing it which is illogical. It never was *science,* it was *sciencism* (the religion of science). I’m not saying science can’t answer anything, but it certainly is not reliable and the knowledge gained from science cannot be trusted off of science alone. It has to be exposed to new criteria beyond that.
Afterthought: Perhaps I should’ve just suggested that you read Richard Dawkins or something. Oh well.
1. If you don’t remember, somewhere up there you were saying how the Intelligent Designer must make compromises–hence, imperfections.
2. Science may not be 100% reliable, but it’s pretty close. In any case, it doesn’t mean religion is any more reliable.
3. “Furthermore, science disregards information before even testing it which is illogical.” Since when did science disregard information before testing? If you have an example, are you sure it wasn’t disproved with experiments before being discarded? If you’re talking about simplification, they do eventually add the other information back in, unless they’ve shown that it’s irrelevant to the situation. (The ideal scientists, anyway.) e.g. Gauss’s Law
4. Experimental results are “taken for faith” because it’s the best the scientists got, and they ARE willing to change their minds if contradicting evidence arrives. In other words, they’ll admit they’re wrong if you can prove it (not saying it’s easy to admit), whereas most religions tend to say they’re absolutely right, no matter what confronts them.
5. There is a proper term for your “sciencism”: scientology.
6. astericks for quotation marks? No big deal, but it just bothers me.
If you think the scientific method is faulty and unreliable, I’d like to see your alternative. And (ideal) scientists don’t say that something was proven true; they say something has yet to be proven false.
I’ll get to this tomorrow, hopefully. Don’t think I gave up.
6) Yeah, sorry, I thought you were trying to express sarcasm because you were discussing how hypocritical it is. nvm then. And yes, I misspelled asterisk, embarrassing, moving on.
1) My point was that you said “God made a perfect world,” even though you admitted he had to make sacrifices. I’m not confused because he is “beyond all comprehension”; I’m confused because he settled for something (compromise) that we CAN understand; we make compromises every day.
2) What grounds exactly do you have to say that science is unreliable in certain areas? Which is a more reasonable conclusion: accepting that the data on radioactivity (and all the other forms of evidence) does not lie and things are as old as the evidence shows, or assuming some great entity which requires more explanation than it can explain formed everything that way only 6000 years ago, with, for example, all the photons already headed for Earth? You can stick with the latter, but I accept the former.
3) Then they had a perfectly good reason to discard the “information.” They did NOT just disregard it; when they falsify something, they prove it to be FALSE, and, like everything else they do, they disprove it a bunch of times by a bunch of people (independently) in a bunch of places.
4) Once it works with the current experiment, make another one aimed specifically at the new hypothesis. Did you think science just sits on its work?
Besides, I can just turn around and ask you that. How do you know you’re not making the wrong interpretations of the Bible? How do you know you’re not turning it into another wrong interpretation? Apply your answer to both the Bible and science.
5) It’s related to YOUR version of science. Regardless, I was trying to be sarcastic there, as you consider them both “religion.” And please note there’s a difference between the scientists who do their job, perform experiments (repeatedly), and make the conclusions, and the people (atheists) who use those data to discredit religion. I’m not saying they’re mutually exclusive, but they’re not the same thing (in fact, quite a few scientists are religious).
Go ahead and have the last word; I’m going to be busy with school for a while, and at least one other person already discussed what I was planning to discuss. Just because I don’t reply doesn’t mean I’m incapable of responding.
1) Depends on what context you take it from for the most part. The context we’re talking about is God made a perfectly functioning world just like manufacturers can make a perfectly functioning car. There were compromises for the creation that they each wanted. God sacrificed a few characteristics because he wanted something else which would lack those characteristics (for example, he wanted whales who breathed above water. Who knows why. I think God wanted something different compared to the other fish who breathe through the water), just like the manufacturer for a car may build a compact car meant for 4-5 people. You can’t fault these and say there’s no designer because the whale isn’t optimally designed with gills for better breathing or the car didn’t have a manufacturer because the car doesn’t seat 15 people. This is not what they were going for, as such you cannot fault it and say its imperfect thus it doesn’t have a designer because you don’t know their intentions. Nor does this prove that God is imperfect because he had to sacrifice characteristics.
2) “What grounds exactly do you have to say that science is unreliable in certain areas?”
-Well, for one thing it dismisses things before examining them. It also can’t prove the existence of mathematics and logic since it presupposes them (which is a circular reasoning tactic they take for granted). It can’t prove that science discovers truth by the scientific method itself which would show science is self-defeating. Another thing is falsifiability is false and its one of the bases that science holds to. So for the most part, the results that give a certain conclusion are taken by faith because all the assumptions presupposed are faulty.
“Which is a more reasonable conclusion: accepting that the data on radioactivity (and all the other forms of evidence) does not lie and things are as old as the evidence shows”
-Radioactivity has 3 assumptions (2 disastrous ones that discredit it altogether) that render it invalid. I’ve mentioned it before in a former post. Even if they *were* accurate, you have to keep in mind that God created things with maturity without time. For example, when God created Adam, he didn’t create a child. He created a full grown man, possibly looked like he was in his 20′s or 30′s yet he was seconds old. So the earth may have the appearance of billions of years old. There’s no accurate way to determine that based on radioactive dating, but even if there were accurate evidence stating so, it doesn’t mean it literally is that old, it means it has the appearance of that age.
“or assuming some great entity which requires more explanation than it can explain formed everything that way only 6000 years ago, with, for example, all the photons already headed for Earth?”
-How does it require more explanation? I’d like to hear this. But in regards to light from stars already to earth, this goes back to the maturity-without-time argument. Even if stars are that far, it doesn’t make it that old. Secondly, the way they measure starlight is beyond stretched. The parallax method is the primary culprit, and it sounds like a good method. Take one measurement from one side of earths orbit, do the same thing 6 months later, and calculate the interception. Sounds great, but just to measure 1 light year is equal to having 2 observation points 10 inches apart (representative of the diameter of earth’s orbit) looking at a point 5 miles away and calculating the interception lines (representative of 1 light year). That’s just 1 light year. Its a ratio of about 1:31,600. So I’ll say they can measure 10 light years. Maybe 100. Heck, I’ll give you 1000 if it’ll make you happy, but there’s no way they can get millions and billions of light years.
3) “They did NOT just disregard it; when they falsify something, they prove it to be FALSE”
-Really? I got a completely different explanation from Ben about what falsifiability was. But then again, I get a different explanation from everyone because everyone changes the story whenever I get close. So explain what falsifiability is in your words. What’s your definition of it in its totality?
4) “How do you know you’re not making the wrong interpretations of the Bible?”
-Because it stands up to criticism. Your interpretations of the information in which your conclusion is, “It evolved,” does not.
5) If science looks at the evidence in a specific lighting rather than an unbiased one (that 1 specific lighting being a naturalistic explanation for everything), then yes, it is a religion since the results are taken by faith (seeing as they look at it 1 way rather than all ways to find the truth). They’re making judgment calls before even examining anything. I’m not necessarily saying scientists are doing this on purpose, but they’re taught this way, and with each passing generation, we pass the baton onto the next so they’re raised to deceive themselves by the deceived as well. Its a never-ending cycle unless enough people stand up and point out, “Hey! This is inaccurate!” We need to seek the truth. We have brains for a reason and we’re limiting ourselves and our vast capabilities of logic and reason to an idea that’s inaccurate. Its ridiculous to see people limit themselves.
“I’m going to be busy with school for a while”
-As am I, my friend. Spring just started.
“Just because I don’t reply doesn’t mean I’m incapable of responding.”
-I never said it did.
Actually, you kind of did say that. Search for the comment where you said, “…you should know that ‘tl;dr’ is an implicit admittance that one can’t combat what I’ve written,” (I assume your browser has a “find” feature) and your comment after that. I can reply to this, but I’m not going out of my way to do so. It may have to wait until summer.
“Actually, you kind of did say that”
-I have about a page’s worth of information, it would be helpful if you referenced what you were responding to. However, I was referencing the “tl:dr” comment itself, not the idea of if you say nothing at all.
another thing: he just happened to give a bad example. What about natural disasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes? Are we responsible for those? Is it our fault for not preventing the disasters?
Considering that there weren’t all the individual tectonic plates that there are today as well as the canopy which would increase air pressure significantly during the first heaven/earth system (we’re living in the 2nd heaven/earth system which occurred after the flood), then yes, we are responsible because they never even would have existed if God didn’t need to rid the world of the evil of man in the first place. I’ll be glad to go into specifics if you like, but that answers your questions.
Do you realize you just made yourself a hypocrite? If you consider science unreliable, why are you using tectonic plates to support your argument? If you say that’s not science, I’m going to slap you silly. (don’t take that seriously)
Second, your flood point assumes that everyone agrees with it. You’re defending the Bible with a statement only believed to be true because it was stated in the Bible (a circular argument). Not everyone believes in the biblical flood; you need to support your argument with something that everyone agrees with.
Even if that did happen, the Bible said God caused the destruction because everyone but Noah and his family were evil (something about having affairs with devils). The people who died in the natural disasters I mentioned did not deserve what they got, like those in the Book of Genesis.
Furthermore, after the flood, God (Jehovah, same thing) said, “I will never do it again–I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things…” (Genesis 8:21) (my version specifically says ‘paraphrased,’ but that shouldn’t matter much). Yet, we still have floods and such that take thousands of lives each year, and that’s just people.
Btw, how did he manage to collect all those hundreds of thousands of beetles all over the world, let alone insects? Vertebrates alone already consist of approximately 40,000 species. And why did he save the mosquitoes?
And to people that think I have no life: I do have a life; it’s why I took 2-3 days to reply and haven’t read most of the comments (in the middle).
“If you consider science unreliable, why are you using tectonic plates to support your argument?”
-Because that’s where earthquakes come from. That’s good science. I never said science can’t answer *anything,* I said it can’t answer *everything.* There’s a right way to evaluate scientific results, and a wrong way. Sometimes there’s no way at all, if using science alone, which is what makes the results an act of faith to believe.
“Second, your flood point assumes that everyone agrees with it. You’re defending the Bible with a statement only believed to be true because it was stated in the Bible”
-No, I’m answering your question on a biblical basis because that’s what you were expecting by the way you phrased your question. I told you that what I presented answered your questions, but if you would like to get into specifics of what it all means, how, why, etc, then I’ll be glad to explain. You did not question me, but instead criticized it for being inaccurate. The english language is a powerful tool my friend.
“The people who died in the natural disasters I mentioned did not deserve what they got”
-Ever hear the verse similar to the idea that the actions of the father have lasting consequences on the later generations? The ruin and wrecked world we live in is the consequences to the actions of the people in Noah’s time. So yes, people today may not deserve it, but who’s to blame for that? God bringing justice? Or man whose negative actions had negative consequences?
““I will never do it again–I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things…” [...] Yet, we still have floods and such that take thousands of lives each year, and that’s just people.”
-You’re right. But who’s to say it’s God causing the floods? Your verse only makes sense if God is behind all the floods since he says “*I* will not bring a flood again,” instead of “floods will never happen again.”
“Btw, how did he manage to collect all those hundreds of thousands of beetles all over the world, let alone insects?”
-Insects do not qualify as creatures to take on the ark. That which has life is classified as anything with blood, breath in its nostrils, and (inconclusively) a soul. This also means plants were not taken on the ark.
“Vertebrates alone already consist of approximately 40,000 species.”
-Who says God took “species?” I’d like to see where the Bible says this.
Oh boy, another bible-thumping moron getting butthurt when their OMG I LOVE YOU JESUS I KNOW YOU DID THIS bulls**t claim is proven wrong. This is why I choose agnosticism.
Agnosticism is not a choice. There are no middle-grounds in truth. Agnosticism is merely a temporary grounds on which to remain for a short period of time until you make a decision of what you believe most to be true based on studying the evidence. If you never do, then you’ve inadvertently chosen rejection by default.
I’d choose wisely. Study the information for both sides carefully, but make a decision. You may not know, but that just means you need to discover it.
Yes it can be. There are “permanent” agnostics who claim “no one can prove or disprove the existence of g(G)od,” and agnostics who don’t give a [thought]. You don’t have to make a decision.
If U saw WID up T (reply to a previous comment of your’s), you can ingore this.
we atheists and you christians have more in common than you think, there are around 2800 different gods worshipped around the world , i dont believe in 2800 of them you dont believe in 2799 of them , so we are almost in agreement, now think why you dont believe in the 2799 and apply that logic to the 1 remaining and perhaps we can agree completely.
“we atheists and you christians have more in common than you think, there are around 2800 different gods worshipped around the world , i dont believe in 2800 of them you dont believe in 2799 of them”
-True (to a certain extent), but you’re taking a false account of all of the estimated 2800 gods into your calculation. Your implication is that it’s possible to believe all 2800 of them. However, gods contradict other gods. When 1 god says there aren’t any others but them, then that calculation of yours drops to 2798. If one god is the most powerful and none surpass them, it drops 1 more, and so on.
There is no agreement between religions. If there were, you would have a point. You may not believe in *any* god, but it’s impossible to believe them *all.* As such, 2800 is a very very far stretch and cannot be used as any logical argument against anyone of any belief. If you get a calculation of the religions with gods that can coexist and not contradict each other, you let me know. Until then, this argument is flawed. Your source you received this argument from is a bit in error. While I can’t remember their name, I’ve heard this argument before. Probably from Hitchens if memory serves me correctly.
“If one god is the most powerful and none surpass them, it drops 1 more, and so on.”
You are postulating the existence of multiple gods, a christian would deny that and state there is only 1.
Reducing the argument to as low as 100 deities (or even 2) who are worshiped the original statement still holds true, if you apply the same logic you use not to believe in the other 99 to your own god then why believe in that particular one?
It surely comes down to a lack of any proof?
To be clear i am not making any personal attack and mean no offence.
“Reducing the argument to as low as 100 deities (or even 2) who are worshiped the original statement still holds true”
-I’m well aware, but keep in mind that I never said it wasn’t valid or didn’t hold any meaning. Rather, the calculations were a bit extreme and needed to be fixed accordingly. The meaning behind the analogy is an interesting concept, but it all boils down to *which is true on the basis of what has more information in support of it’s message and therefore requires less faith to believe?*
“To be clear i am not making any personal attack and mean no offence.”
-None taken. I enjoy criticism. Not only do I read books on the subject, but I discuss it with others to expand my understanding. Criticism usually comes with it. I’ve just learned to turn it into a positive outlook in which to learn more, and it’s been stimulating conversation for critical thinking about origins for many.
Fair enough, I’m sure we are both awarre we will never agree.
Your position is one of “i believe it because i believe it” i.e. faith
Whereas mine is show me proof or i disbelieve.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. I’m just like you in a sense, but everything requires a certain amount of faith. The goal is to find something that evidence best supports and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe. I didn’t believe until I started researching it. 3 little words on Google and now I am who I am today from it.
I don’t believe because I believe (which is circular reasoning and is therefore false so I wouldn’t say that at all to be honest [I steer clear from self-conflicting arguments]), I believe because the information is best supported by a greater amount of evidence and requires the least amount of faith to believe it’s true. Still requires faith, but a small amount compared with other theories in my opinion.
That was my point though religion is not backed by evidence and is based purely on faith .
The person who started this thread is a good example of faith based reasoning.
He has faith that his oddball statement regarding solar distance was true and used this as an affirmation of religious belief.
When shown this was untrue we had an initial reaction of “how dare you disagree” regardless of any evidence shown him i bet he still thinks it’s true.
I can agree completely that if you think something may be correct then search for fact based evidence to either suppport or negate that idea.
Have to admit though i am perplexed as to how following that path led you to religious belief as i can’t find even one piece of evidence to support the existence of a deity of any sort.
Well ICWUDT and i certainly disagree i just wasn’t being rude to him/her.
ICWUDT obviously believes ancient mythology to be true whereas i do not believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, whales that swallow people before regurgitating them,ancient desert dwellers who built a boat with animals aboard that came from continents they didn’t even know existed and included by definition species which we are still discovering now.
Nor do i believe in a megolomaniacal deity who despite being the epitomy of love ,commits genocide, is so insecure it supposedly has to create creatures purely to worship it and makes contradictory statements.
I do not believe in virgin births, people walking on water, dead people coming back to life after days of being dead etc. etc….
I do believe in the power of prayer but only insofar as in its power to assist the religious conmen prey on the gullible.
I find it unbelievable that it is now 2011, the majority of people have had some sort of education. yet vast numbers cling to these and similar ancient fairy stories.
Use your brains and get a life, you are NOT going to burn in some poorly defined hell for eternity for not believing in santa claus or any other fictional creature.
“Well ICWUDT and i certainly disagree i just wasn’t being rude to him/her.”
-Of course not, but I tend to find a passive aggressive factor in most comments.
“whereas i do not believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, whales that swallow people before regurgitating them”
-Because you’re taking a naturalistic standpoint. No wonder people get so confused and only find answers to fit with a naturalistic idea. Because that’s all they’re looking for. Also, it doesn’t say “whale” in the bible. Its a decent guess, but we don’t know what swallowed Jonah other than it was a “giant fish.”
“ancient desert dwellers who built a boat with animals aboard that came from continents they didn’t even know existed”
-Aren’t you assuming the world of today was the world of the past? Landscape and all?
“Nor do i believe in a megolomaniacal deity who despite being the epitomy of love ,commits genocide, is so insecure it supposedly has to create creatures purely to worship it and makes contradictory statements.”
-Depends what you’re using as evidence to support your idea that God commits genocide and in what context do you say that in.
God created us because he wanted to. Nothing else as can be determined. As his created beings, he would like to have a relationship with us, but he’s not going to force it if we don’t want it.
“I do not believe in virgin births, people walking on water, dead people coming back to life after days of being dead etc. etc….”
-In short, you don’t believe miracles. So, why? I’m curious.
“I do believe in the power of prayer but only insofar as in its power to assist the religious conmen prey on the gullible.”
-You’re entitled to your opinion, there’s not much to comment on since this is more subjective than objective in its validity (i.e. it depends on the person)
“I find it unbelievable that it is now 2011, the majority of people have had some sort of education. yet vast numbers cling to these and similar ancient fairy stories.”
-I’ve had an education, and been self-educated in all possibilities as to what the truth is through various opinions rather than the one side that public schools teach. I’d say that’s an education anyone should ask for; instead of indoctrination, teach both sides or teach none. They’re both valid. After all, I became a creationist in light of the evidence, even after high school (directly out of high school to be brutal), I stumbled upon a website and that led to more information and eventually I saw too much evidence that was difficult to be answered from the opposition and it was too overwhelming to be ignored (in my opinion).
“Use your brains and get a life”
-That’s exactly what I did. Not only did I get educated through the system, but I educated myself. Something not many people tend to do. I wanted to learn, and learn I did.
“you are NOT going to burn in some poorly defined hell for eternity for not believing in santa claus or any other fictional creature.”
-You have a very false concept of Christianity then my friend. Far too much falsehood here to discuss in one comment. I’m surprised you fit that all into 1 sentence to be honest.
Yep. Shows the lengths to which people will go to convince themselves that they’re “right,” even when they clearly are not. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
@ICWUDT: not the place for your arguments. This is a comments section where most atheists don’t feel like explaining their points (for their own reasons), especially to someone who still thinks the Earth is only six thousand years old and what not. Hence, the insulting, weak replies to your comments.
I suggest you start a forum or join an existing one, and then link to it here so whoever’s interested can visit. Perhaps you could use the website blank above the ‘Your comment’ box.
“not the place for your arguments. This is a comments section where most atheists don’t feel like explaining their points (for their own reasons)”
-So, in other words: “You’re not going to get the answers to your upbringings here, but trust me, they’re out there! Go find them!” I guess this is one of those insulting, weak replies you were talking about. If the answer is somewhere else, then direct me to it. If you don’t have an answer, don’t respond. If you’re wrong, then accept it and move on, but I’ve yet to see anyone here to effectively answer my questions and thus negate my major objections against their beliefs. We go around in circles several times because that’s all there is to do. There are no answers from you or anyone. You just don’t want to admit it which is the cause for the circular logic. That’s fine, I’m not the one living in denial, but if you want to, then go right ahead.
“especially to someone who still thinks the Earth is only six thousand years old and what not”
-Do you have anything to object to it? I’ve answered people’s reasons for rejection of it several times to no avail on their part. I’m eager to hear what you have to say on it.
“I suggest you start a forum or join an existing one”
-Why, when there’s plenty of people who add their 2 cents here? I’m simply questioning them on it and asking them to explain why they come to their conclusions. There’s obviously a cause to their thinking. To say their isn’t is contradictory and self-defeating.
“for their own reasons” include, but are not limited to:
1) they explained it a million times already
2) they have a life
3) they don’t have a point to explain
all of which can and may result in “insulting, weak replies to your arguments.”
“‘You’re not going to get the answers to your upbringings here, but trust me, they’re out there!’”
Exactly. Who’s going to know such a chain of arguments exist in some random comments section (although Ben did make quite an argument)? Besides, I can’t edit any mistakes I made in something I already posted here, which sucks.
Why are you leaving it to me to find a forum? I didn’t start the fire.
“I’ve yet to see anyone here to effectively answer my questions and thus negate my major objections against their beliefs. …There are no answers from you or anyone.”
First of all, that’s why I suggested a forum, so people who search for those things can find it (I’d be surprised if this showed up on the first page of a google search like “debate on religion”), and you would have more of a challenge.
Second, did you forget everything up there? I gave you answers, Kemanorel gave you answers, Ben gave you answers (you have yet to give a reply to his last assertions concerning special relativity), and I’m about to give more answers (my last, though–I won’t have any more time to be on this page). There are definitely answers from me and anyone else. You even sometimes said, “Don’t insult me when you haven’t even given me a chance to reply,” and then you still don’t reply–I mean, that was your chance.
“Do you have anything to object to it?”
Yes, though someone beat me to it. But that’s not why I said that in the first place; atheists don’t agree that Earth is 6000 years old (I meant to say “for example” after mentioning that), so seeing another person still thinking that makes most of them think something like “Wow, really? What an idiot…” (again, a reason for the insults), and either don’t know how to combat it or have gone over it for too long, and aren’t going to waste any more effort in this random COMMENTS SECTION.
“Why, when there’s plenty of people who add their 2 cents here?” (should be “there are”)
Because there will be plenty more people if you (or I, but I’d rather join someone else’s) start a formal talk page, or join an existing one.
You seriously believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, there are numerous text books which i could suggest you read just for starters but what would be the point you are blinkered and would dismiss all the evidence as the work of the devil no doubt.
Scientific theory is based on evidence not on faith,as an example your comments are being read by people all over the world thanks to the application of scientific theory.
I feel sure you must beleive in the theory of gravity, if not try jumping off a tall building, the hand of god will not reach out to save you, you will crash into the ground at a speed proportional to the mass of the earth which is deforming spacetime.
I have just realised that you may indeed have faith that gravity does not exist and although i find your irrational beliefs somewhat annoying , i wish you no harm so please , i implore you not to go out and look for a tall building to test your faith.
“You seriously believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry”
-When in doubt, do both.
“there are numerous text books which i could suggest you read just for starters but what would be the point you are blinkered and would dismiss all the evidence as the work of the devil no doubt.”
-There are also numerous places of information where I could direct you as well. It doesn’t make either of us right. What determines that is the logic behind what we cite. I don’t usually cite websites of information because its not needed, but feel free to if you so choose to do so.
“I feel sure you must beleive in the theory of gravity, if not try jumping off a tall building, the hand of god will not reach out to save you, you will crash into the ground at a speed proportional to the mass of the earth which is deforming spacetime.”
-Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy science, but there are some things in which science is simply wrong. Science is not a universal method to discovering truth. It has its faults which tamper its results and as such it cannot be relied on for everything. Its assumptions produce false conclusions and its interpretations bear the same results. Science of origins is much different than science of constants. Gravity can constantly be tested, observed, and repeated to exist. Our origins cannot; it was a historical event and all historical events are unrepeatable. What we do have are tests we can observe and repeat and thus attribute to origins to give us an accurate understanding.
“I have just realised that you may indeed have faith that gravity does not exist
-No, I have a problem with where people believe the origin of gravity was or came from. Your essentially saying I have a problem with the existence of human beings. That’s not correct, I have a problem with the origins of human beings.
“and although i find your irrational beliefs somewhat annoying…”
-The Bible says we are the salt of the earth. Do you know what salt does when you rub it in a wound? It irritates it. Our society is wounded and collapsing under this idea of evolution (which, by the way, holds no improvements in anything of real world application; its just a dead idea that doesn’t go anywhere) and in accordance with your saying of me being an annoyance to you and the Bible saying I’m the salt of the earth, I’d say I’m doing a good job.
I’m kind of laughing that you only realize that now–I thought ICWUDT made that pretty evident up there. But yeah, I agree. It’s why most atheists feel they’re wasting their efforts arguing the evidence against faith, because it’ll only end in stalemate (the devil part).
“It’s why most atheists feel they’re wasting their efforts arguing the evidence against faith”
-When it comes to origins, we all believe by faith. Its more of a battle of which explanation of origins best explains the evidence/information and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe.
By faith, I meant religion, particularly its assertions about the world. And I don’t “believe” in the evolutionary version of our origins; that’s 100%, absolute certainty. I’m only 99.99% certain, and it gets closer to 100% as science advances. That remaining .01% is the room for incontrovertible (99.99% incontrovertible, at least) evidence against it.
“And I don’t “believe” in the evolutionary version of our origins”
-Oh you most certainly do. You and I both get different interpretations from the same evidence. We both believe our interpretation is correct, therefore, we both take them by faith, but only one is correct and better supported than the other.
“that’s 100%, absolute certainty
-Then give me the death blow to my belief in opposition to it my good sir!
I’m sorry, I meant “belief is 100% certainty regardless of evidence for or against it.” Well, belief by faith is (the actual definition of faith this time). I don’t take evolution by faith; I have plenty of reason and evidence to back up my “belief,” as you like to call it. Whereas religious books say “we are absolutely right,” science says “there is always a possibility that we’re wrong (however big or small it is).” And our evidence is not exactly–oh heck, this argument is pointless.
“I don’t take evolution by faith; I have plenty of reason and evidence to back up my “belief,” as you like to call it.”
-And I have plenty to back up mine.
“Whereas religious books say “we are absolutely right,” science says “there is always a possibility that we’re wrong (however big or small it is).””
-Considering the Bible and its counter-part, evolution/old age earth/abiogenesis/etc (anything contradictory towards the biblical account), a better way to state your objection is that the Bible “hasn’t changed in thousands of years since its creation” while evolution “has changed countless times in the short 150 years or so its been in existence/popular.” Now the issue is why has evolution changed so much and the Bible hasn’t at all? Common sense would tell us, that since the Bible still remains standing today (even without change) that its accurate and doesn’t need to change, whereas evolution may not be right and is constant need of updates to keep up with it. I don’t know about you, but I find that pretty remarkable.
“And our evidence is not exactly–oh heck, this argument is pointless.”
-Yeah, tends to get that way when I start winning. I mean, I could be sarcastically arrogant here and say I was winning from the start and you’re just figuring it out now, but that’s not me.
That is not what I meant at all. I meant this was a pointless topic to begin with. If you want me to finish what I was saying, I will, but it’ll have to wait until summer, or at least spring break. And who said you were winning–besides you and your “sarcastic arrogance”?
“That is not what I meant at all. I meant this was a pointless topic to begin with”
-Then why did you continue it if it was pointless from the beginning? It seems that you bring certain things like this up only when you’ve tried to defend the idea that’s opposing yours.
“And who said you were winning–besides you and your “sarcastic arrogance”?”
-Aside from the above situation? No one says that, its implied. Ben was the only person who I got a good conversation out of him as opposed to any others and I couldn’t continue with him because we were discussing the truth in science and he explicitly admitted that science and truth were mutually exclusive. Any discussion afterwards would be fruitless.
1. Believe: to have faith in something.
2. Faith: acceptance of a statement, regardless of the evidence.
3. I accept science because of the evidence.
4. Therefore, I don’t believe in science.
Just to clarify, nowhere in this string of comments did I say your acceptance of religion is 100% faith-based.
“No one says that, its implied.”
*that.
*It’s
You don’t know that. Saying it’s implied that you are winning is even more arrogant. Debates are like the game Othello (Reversi): the person who went last almost always seems to be winning.
faith is not evidence you have no evidence whatsoever for a creationist explanation as none exists , if i am wrong and you can show me evidence do so .
An ancient text written by an unknown author containing mere hearsay is not evidence.
You refute evolution and think all present creatures and plants have always existed , dear o dear , all modern breeds of dog are descended from wolves which have been selectively bred(a form of human intervensionist evolution) to produce all the dog breeds we see today,
The potato when first found in n america was the size of a pea but has been selectively bred to produce modern potato varieties. I am just scratching the surface here .
Have you ever looked at a seed catalogue and seen “new variety for this year” well that variety of whatever plant did not exist last year never mind thousands of years ago!!!!
“faith is not evidence”
-I never said it was, but I’m confident that my belief system requires less faith than yours.
“if i am wrong and you can show me evidence do so”
-Gladly, but where would you like to start? As I’ve said before, you’re asking a very broad question, you need to simplify it a bit. You asking for evidence is like me asking you what a car is. You have no idea what I’m asking about cars. Am I asking for the history? The designs? The manufacture of? The transportation abilities? How its built? Narrow it a bit please.
“An ancient text written by an unknown author containing mere hearsay is not evidence.”
-It’s not written by “an” author, it’s written by about 40.
“You refute evolution and think all present creatures and plants have always existed”
-Depends what context you take that in. If you mean “all present animals and plants” as in the exact species, variations, etc we have today, then no, I don’t. However if you mean the basic forms/kinds of creatures (such as dogs, cats, elephants, etc) that variated, then yes I do. I’m still researching as well.
“all modern breeds of dog are descended from wolves which have been selectively bred(a form of human intervensionist evolution) to produce all the dog breeds we see today”
-Yes, we have all forms/variations of dogs. Guess what? They’re still dogs.. They aren’t growing wings, producing poison, nor changing their tail into a spiked club. Something I’m curious in, now that you brought it up, is if dogs are all descended from wolves, can we not remove genetic material until we get its ancestor it descended from? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
“The potato when first found in n america was the size of a pea but has been selectively bred to produce modern potato varieties”
-Still a potato.. Growth does not prove evolution. Even so, it can only grow so much before its worthless. There are limitations. There’s been many experiments done to improve such things, and once they reach a particular maximum, it starts going downhill. We may be able to alter many things, but we’re never going to get a potato the size of a house and we’re never going to see a potato produce peas and carrots for stew.
ICWUDT sorry if i said a whale re jonah when i should have said a large fish, mmm that makes all the difference!!
You ask if i believe in miracles, no i don’t.. biblical miracles? turning wine into water? requires sugar and yeast its called fermentation.An electric light bulb would have been more impressive ,surely if someone created the universe he could have managed that, even a box of matches would have been a better call.
Modern day so called miracles? Lets take an example.
Mr X is a religious fellow, which religion is immaterial,he is an accountant in London.
The poor chap is diagnosed with an untreatable deadly disease . Less than 1 person in a million survives the disease.
At the time of his diagnosis 500,000 people worldwide have the same disease.
Following diagnosis he has to give up driving and takes the no.19 bus to work every day, he also prays 5 times a day to his god that he be saved.
At the end of 6 months he is still alive, his doctors tell him he has gone into complete remission and is inexplicably cured. Nice one Mr x we are pleased for you.
Of the 500,000 patients he is the only one who is now not dead.
A miracle! a miracle! cry the religious ,he prayed and was saved.
Hang on though, of all those patients around half at least would be religious , so would have prayed, of the rest a fair few clutching at straws may have tried a prayer or two.Lets say 300, 000 prayed , still only one survived.
To connect his survival with praying is a non sequiteur and of no statistical significance.
It would make slightly more sense to attribute his survival to frequent travel on a no.19 london bus, as of the 500,000 original sufferers he is the only one to have used that form of transport and the only one still alive.
Miracles? humbug… a miracle is something for which you do not at the moment have a satisfactory explanation, no more no less.
“sorry if i said a whale re jonah when i should have said a large fish, mmm that makes all the difference!!”
-I point it out because that’s the primary reason you get the wrong conclusions is by your faulty assumptions/presuppositions. We don’t know if it was a whale and it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t. The event was a miraculous one just like water into wine or the virgin birth.
“You ask if i believe in miracles, no i don’t.. biblical miracles?”
-And why is that?
“turning wine into water? requires sugar and yeast its called fermentation.”
-That’s the naturalistic explanation, not the miraculous. This is why you get wrong conclusions because you automatically presume only the natural can happen. God did these things on purpose to show he doesn’t need time to create maturity. He can skip the intermediate steps if he pleases. He reveals that all throughout Genesis as well: Creating man seconds old but with the appearance of age (possibly in his 20′s or 30′s).
“An electric light bulb would have been more impressive ,surely if someone created the universe he could have managed that”
-Why would he need to create light when he is the light? Secondly, the water into wine was meant to reveal who Jesus was to his disciples, not everyone at the wedding.
“Of the 500,000 patients he is the only one who is now not dead.”
-Considering the fact that there wasn’t disease in the original creation and was mans fault from the beginning, God didn’t have to do anything at all. Disease was not what he wanted for us in the first place, but we allowed it to enter the world. Its not his problem, but he still intervenes because he still cares, regardless of how corrupt we become. Its part of his nature.
Don’t bother. I started going back and forth with this guy for a couple days and concluded to stop responding. I went back and read a few of his posts and others replies to them while I was bored at work and found you getting caught up in the same crap myself, Kemanorel, and Ben did. This is not a personal attack on ICWUDT, it couldn’t possibly be, since he isn’t saying anything that every other creationist says during a ‘debate’.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that if you do combat their arguments beyond a shadow of a doubt they will just reword it. They will claim the bible is the perfect word of god but when you debate the story of Noah’s Ark for example they’ll try shoving that satellite photo in your face even though they know if the Ark had been discovered it would have been the biggest news story the world would have ever known. You can show that the math in the bible for the dimensions of the ship and the doorway couldn’t have possibly fit certain animals, even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred. (That’s why they can’t believe in carbon dating.) Of course when their evidence doesn’t stack up they will say the bible isn’t a literal translation so all the work you put in to researching the actual truth will just go down the drain.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve attempted to ‘debate’ with a creationist and ended up having to just stop. They think that’s them winning the conversation, when in reality, I just got so flabbergasted by what they were purporting as truth and then the ‘evidence’ they provided to support it (if they bothered) while simultaneously disregarding ALL evidence to the contrary (ie. geology has proven there was no global flood and no archaeologist has ever found the ark through it’s been searched for.. er.. religiously) all the while claiming that they have looked at both sides with unbiased ‘logic and reason’. With those types of claims and conclusions you can also safely conclude you are not dealing with someone who is in their right mind.
Even if you are able to get one of them to admit that their logic and reason is flawed, you will still have 1 remaining hurdle that you will never be able to win an argument against – faith.
Faith cannot be argued against other than to point out that to rely on it is intellectual bankruptcy (to quote Dan Barker). Here’s a few more of his quotes.. and ICWUDT has done them to you too:
“You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say God is love, they will claim that *you* are taking things out of context!”
He tried using this cause/effect thing on me:
“Some theists, observing that all ‘effects’ need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.”
But ultimately, ICWUDT is being ruled by his own fear and nothing more:
“It’s not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown.”
So some people just can’t handle the answer being “I don’t know.” They feel much more comfortable believing there’s a zombie sky-jew watching over them, smiting their enemies, directing their life, who loves them and will allow them to live eternally in paradise if they do nothing more than turn away from their own reason and logic and believe in that one damn book.
Being told that you are in control of your own life, no one will ‘get the bad guy’ in the end, there’s no invisible friend that knows you and completely loves you unconditionally, and when you die you don’t go anywhere.. you’re just dead.. even when we’re talking about a 3 year old kid that was killed needlessly by a drunk driver….. well that’s just too damn sad and scary.
I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but I figured it should be said just in case. I enjoy reading your posts.. but you sound like you’re a busy guy, and I wanted to make sure you understand that you will never change his mind so to try is just an absolute waste of time. ICWUDT knows he will never change your mind and knows he wouldn’t change mine, Kemanorel’s or Bens. The difference between him and us is he’s trolling. He’ll go on for as long as you let him, because he knows that as long as he has faith to fall back on, he can NEVER be proven wrong.
(oh and ICWUDT – don’t bother responding to this. I am not talking to you.)
“This is not a personal attack on ICWUDT, it couldn’t possibly be, since he isn’t saying anything that every other creationist says during a ‘debate’.”
-So, since we’re all saying the same thing, that makes it false? If I’m understanding you correctly, then the aforementioned is true, in which case, you are also false.
“I’m sure you’ve noticed that if you do combat their arguments beyond a shadow of a doubt they will just reword it.”
-Depends on the context you take “reword” to mean. If you mean reword as in changing my arguments to where its no longer the same argument as before, then I should see tons of comments pointing out where I’m contradicting myself. However, if you mean reword as in strengthening my arguments with more information as the discussion goes on, then you’re absolutely correct. That’s how we communicate my friend. The english language is a powerful tool. Use it wisely.
“They will claim the bible is the perfect word of god but when you debate the story of Noah’s Ark for example they’ll try shoving that satellite photo in your face”
-Never once have I referred to that. If you’re intimidated from discussing certain things because of what other people have said, then either you know they’re right, or you’re assuming we’re all the same and conclude that you don’t need to challenge a particular person because you’ve already got your answers which is a faulty conclusion to begin with before even discussing any information (interesting, I’ve been saying this quite often about making faulty assumptions and thus getting false conclusions).
“You can show that the math in the bible for the dimensions of the ship and the doorway couldn’t have possibly fit certain animals, even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred.”
-Depends what animals you’re referring to and at what age. If you’re speaking of adults, you “might” have a point (not a very strong one, but you would have something started there), however if we’re looking at children, then that’s a completely different story and this has no valid meaning whatsoever.
“even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred.”
-Fun Fact: All animals existed before the flood, otherwise Noah wouldn’t have anything to take onto the ark.
“Of course when their evidence doesn’t stack up they will say the bible isn’t a literal translation”
-Just as there are times to translate particular meanings behind historical events, so are there times to translate the Bible literally or analogically/metaphorically/rhetorically/poetically/etc. If you get a false conclusion, you don’t stop there, you look further. That way, when someone points out that you didn’t look deep enough, you don’t turn it on them about changing it. It doesn’t mean they changed it, it means you were content with saying it was false rather than looking for truthful answers. We should always be looking further for more information until there’s nothing left to explore. That’s how we discover truth.
“I just got so flabbergasted by what they were purporting as truth and then the ‘evidence’ they provided to support it (if they bothered) while simultaneously disregarding ALL evidence to the contrary”
-I never disregarded it. You stopped before we could ever possibly into it (as do many others). If that was where I was wrong and it so obviously disproves what I believe, then you should have had no problem bringing it up as the death blow to my belief, but you didn’t. You decide to stop, and then at the right time, you basically say “This guy is nuts, out of everything we discussed that he answered my objections towards, he’s wrong here, but I’m done talking now.” Well you should’ve brought it up when we “were” talking. Don’t hide in the shadows. I’m here willing to take on anything you have to offer, but don’t try to sucker punch me and say it wasn’t you when I notice who hit me. That’s cowardice.
“Even if you are able to get one of them to admit that their logic and reason is flawed”
-I’m begging for people to point it out to me! The problem here is you seem to assume the role of the victorious after you’ve commented against me before I’ve had the chance to respond to your criticism. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. What makes me wrong (or you right) is when one can show another where they are wrong (or where the other is right) and have it withstand the criticism thrown back at it. Mine has sustained such criticism. If you disagree, then by all means, please, I beg you, criticize it. Critique it. If I can’t make a sensible argument back, then obviously I’m wrong/you’re right.
“Faith cannot be argued against other than to point out that to rely on it is intellectual bankruptcy”
-Couldn’t have said it better myself dear friend. You and I both have faith that our beliefs are true. This is a battle of which information upholds whom’s belief better and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe it to be true.
““You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say God is love, they will claim that *you* are taking things out of context!””
-Actually, if you’re taking things out of context, then not only will other verses affirm it by compounding together to form a more accurate interpretation of what we’re reading, but the verses you’re using against the Bible will be misunderstood and easily explainable once read more generally. Too many people read one verse and say that proves something. No, you need to make sure you know what the Bible is saying. Read the verses around it, not just that one verse in the middle. I could tell you a story about how a man cut open a woman’s stomach. You would think, “Oh, he murdered her, that’s awful,” but what if I said that the man was a doctor and the woman was pregnant. The baby stopped breathing so the doctor had to cut her open to get the baby out. Suddenly you think the man’s a hero. Context is everything. Read very carefully.
““Some theists, observing that all ‘effects’ need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.””
-Actually, an uncaused cause is a necessity. If there’s a never-ending chain of causes from the beginning of the universe to what was the cause of the universe, then the chain doesn’t make any sense because where did it start? There needs to be a beginning to the chain of causes, but the beginning cannot be caused because then the Law of Causality would state that there must be something preceding that. Essentially, doing the math the only explanation is that there must be something without beginning/cause that was the beginning of the Law of Causality. This way it doesn’t violate it’s own law and it also explains the existence of the law and where it came from.
You believe in uncaused caused energy (i.e. the Big Bang)
I believe in uncaused caused God.
“ICWUDT is being ruled by his own fear and nothing more”
-I became a creationist in light of the evidence. Not because I wanted to be one. I didn’t even know what a creationist was until I researched so much information that I came across the word for my classification.
“So some people just can’t handle the answer being “I don’t know.””
-No one knows for 100% certain, but just because there’s a hint of doubt does not make that doubt the overwhelming factor. If you believe something to be true by a percentage of 99, does that mean one is out of their mind for taking that last 1% by faith? No. 99% is more than enough convincing, and it doesn’t take much faith to believe the 99% is true over the 1% of being false.
“and will allow them to live eternally in paradise if they do nothing more than turn away from their own reason and logic and believe in that one damn book.”
-God wants us to believe by faith, but he doesn’t want us to believe by blind faith. There should be good reason for why you believe something, and that’s why he gave us more than enough information for those who believe to be confident in their belief. If he wanted mindless puppets, he would’ve created us without free will. He wants us to accept a free payment that he’s giving us at his own expense, the cost of his only son. If you want to spit in his face at it, then ok, but we’re all in debt to sin, and we’re going to pay it one way or another. I’ve accepted Christ’s free gift so I wont have to pay a debt I cannot rightfully pay in full. Would you like the same free gift? Don’t worry, you don’t need to go the India or anywhere. You can do it right where you are. Its quite simple too, like pushing the “Accept” button on the ATM.
“ICWUDT knows he will never change your mind and knows he wouldn’t change mine, Kemanorel’s or Bens. The difference between him and us is he’s trolling.”
-Nope, in the long-run, I’m just helping. Not only you, but myself. I like understanding how you think, but its hard to gain a grasp when you all have different ideas of the same thing.
“He’ll go on for as long as you let him, because he knows that as long as he has faith to fall back on, he can NEVER be proven wrong.”
-Everything has been purely intellectual. I will admit I don’t know everything just like you don’t. In that respect, we both rely on faith. The difference is I back up my arguments with logic and reason, not “Goddidit” as many put it. If I’m not, then obviously it should be easy to point out.
“oh and ICWUDT – don’t bother responding to this. I am not talking to you.”
-Translation: “You’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you why, you just have to accept it (by faith?)”
You’re free to do what you want, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase, “actions speak louder than words.”
Clearly, this ICWUDT “person” has NO life-lol. I mean reading this sh*t was absolutely comical! This person probably sits in front of their computer 24/7 just waiting for the e-mail response notification so that they can copy and paste more religious bs. -That’s where all their “research” comes from (sitting on their prob 400lb @$$ googling crazy religious arguments and c&p them on here) NOBODY with a life knows that much about every argument that can be made esp on a subject with little to no ACTUAL FACTS. Debate me all you want ICWUDT, but evidence says you are one pathetic lonely f*cker who clearly has no job, no life, no friends, sits in their momma’s basement in front of their computer waiting for the next person to respond to your crazy rants. I don’t care if your psycho religious…more power to you…I’m not religious, that really isn’t your concern. So when you decide to reply to this, don’t bring up religion because that’s not what this comment is about. It’s about the fact that YOU SIR HAVE NO LIFE. The amount and extent of your comments is all the proof I need to declare you have no life. Perhaps if you got off your @$$ and got a job, you’d have less time to worry about what everyone else believes that don’t concern you and you can positively contribute back to your society. I’m tired of my hard earn tax dollars going to your welfare check because you would rather sit at home and troll than go to work!
“This person probably sits in front of their computer 24/7 just waiting for the e-mail response notification so that they can copy and paste more religious bs”
-You’re free to believe what you choose to, I don’t need to prove myself to you. But I’m interested where you believe I’m copying and pasting these things from. Cite it if you will.
“That’s where all their “research” comes from”
-Let’s take your advocate here and say I’m Googling everything. Does that make the information wrong? What’s your reasoning behind this, because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.
“NOBODY with a life knows that much about every argument that can be made esp on a subject with little to no ACTUAL FACTS”
-Sure they can, and thank you for complimenting me on my intellectual capacity. If there’s “no actual facts” then please point out where I’m wrong and I’ll be sure to correct it or strike it from the record altogether.
“Debate me all you want ICWUDT, but evidence says you are one pathetic lonely f*cker who clearly has no job, no life, no friends, sits in their momma’s basement in front of their computer waiting for the next person to respond to your crazy rants.”
-You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well. But my phone has internet connection so it alerts me whenever I get emails and I can respond quite quickly. I don’t like keeping people waiting because I don’t like waiting for others. Its a courtesy thing.
“It’s about the fact that YOU SIR HAVE NO LIFE”
-Interesting. Its a “fact?” What evidence do you have to support this fact?
“The amount and extent of your comments is all the proof I need to declare you have no life”
-How does it prove this exactly? This is very interesting to me how you came to this conclusion.
“you’d have less time to worry about what everyone else believes that don’t concern you”
-It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it. This isn’t a matter of “your beliefs aren’t mine so we have to change that.” This has to deal with life and death and where you’re going afterwards. If you want to challenge that, then by all means, challenge it. If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.
“I’m tired of my hard earn tax dollars going to your welfare check because you would rather sit at home and troll than go to work!”
-You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger. I hope you don’t treat everyone this way.
Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life. See, a person who has a life would maybe reply a couple of times and leave things at that because they know there are more important things in life like having a job and taking care of their family for 2 examples. People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions. I mean you’ve been back here almost everyday since this fail has been posted. WHY?? Because you have NO LIFE! Now I’m going to be all retarded and reply like you do…
“because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.”
-Yes, Google is a wonderful search engine to many sites with information about any given subject or question. I never claimed it to be a bad site. It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.
“You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well.”
-You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs. It’s okay, you can go back and re-read. Ha, sorry that was irrelevant. Low blow by me. Oops.
“It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it”
-Huh?? Why does it scare you that people die everyday? Dying is part of life. Everyone will die someday. A true believer would not be afraid of death . Where do people end up that they don’t want to be? How would you know where any given person ends up when they die? A true believer knows “only God can judge me” and unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.
Why do you care so much what other people believe in? You should only be concerned with your beliefs. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs doesn’t me it’s a personal attack against you. So relax. Maybe if you got laid once in a while you wouldn’t be so uptight. Calm down, open your mind, you might actually make a friend or two then.
“If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.”
-Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs? They are MY beliefs not yours!! Why would I need to prove any credibility to MY beliefs? I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.
“You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger.”
-How am I not making myself look good? Because I don’t appreciate having to put in hard long hours at work while people are sitting at home trolling and receiving welfare checks? Well excuse me. I’m a good hard working citizen who gives back to their community instead of takes. I believe people should earn what they get and not take things for free. I didn’t realize that made me such a monster. Sorry I guess. Btw, I am a woman. Just want to clear up the “sir (or madam)” issue. Care to clear up your gender? And how does any of this make me “blinded by anger”?? How was I showing anger? I simply stated that you have no life, which is pretty obvious based on what I stated before. I backed up my assumptions, there was no anger. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m angry. I may not like you, but I don’t wish anything bad against you. I do hope you find that life you are looking for. If that’s a religious life than good for you. I don’t want a religious life, and you need to just accept that and move on. If you can’t move on…then it will prove my point even more that you have no life.
I think you believe ALL atheist are evil. While some might be, just as some Christians might be evil…not ALL are evil! You need to open your mind and learn to be more accepting. If Jesus can be, so can you. Since you like to be on the computer so much, maybe you should check out http://www.indeed.com it can help you find a job in your local area. So instead of getting your panties all knotted up over what other people believe and continuing to be a menace, you can go to work and bring good to your community. Good luck with getting that life.
Honest words from an Atheist…
“God bless to you too”
“Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life”
-It couldn’t be that I’m technically required to be around a computer due to school work and will be around one in the future for my job I’m training for? No, couldn’t be that with the technological age we’re in today. (:
“People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions”
-Its not about opinions. Its about discussing facts and which supports what. If you don’t want to discuss this, then you’re right, there’s nothing to talk about between you and I. I’m interested in finding truth. Are you?
” It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.”
-So where am I copying and pasting my arguments from that you claim I’m taking?
“You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs.”
-No I saw, but you restated some of your insults twice other than a weight joke so I just assumed you accidentally missed out on that. (:
“Why does it scare you that people die everyday?”
-It doesn’t. Its the aftermath.
“How would you know where any given person ends up when they die?”
-Because I believe the information best supports my side of the argument, so that would indicate anything of synonymous relationship to it is true.
“unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.”
-I’m not judging, I’m stating what is fact based off of the information we have. If one doesn’t claim Christ as their savior, they’re not saved (hence the word “savior”). That’s not judgment, that’s understanding. Its because of Christ that we’re able to pay a debt that we’re incapable of paying ourselves. If we don’t accept payment for our debt, then we have to pay the consequences (this can be related to jail, bail, the courts, etc).
“Why do you care so much what other people believe in?”
-What someone believes in for the limited time here on earth is nothing compared to the aftermath of when someone is dead. You’re dead a lot longer than you are alive. I’m sure you know that just as well as I.
“Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs?”
-You came to me, not the other way around. You’re challenging me more than I’m challenging you, but feel free to assert something so we can discuss it if that’s your preference. (:
“I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.”
-Of course you can, but if its not true, then why believe it? People have beliefs because they “believe” it to be true, not necessarily that it is true. That’s fine and dandy, but I’m going to follow something that has the most credibility to its name and therefore easiest to believe to be true.
Let’s play in the fantasy world for a bit (since you like to do that so much;)) Let’s say you are around a computer for school or job training…perhaps you should focus on the school or job training and not worried about posts on a failbook site hmm? I think I’m going to stick with you not having a life and trolling from your momma’s house because you have NO JOB and NO LIFE! Don’t like my conclusion? Ask me if I give a damn…I’ll go on living my life just the same while you will have a conniption fit over it and get all defensive. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. Unless you are a total ignoramus (for the sake of this convo, let’s say you aren’t…at least not a TOTAL one) nobody KNOWS for sure what happens after death…that’s why some people believe in heaven and hell, some in reincarnation and some believe nothing happens (those are just some examples). If there was any defiant knowledge, there would only be one conclusion. Who are you to say that your way is the one and only right way?? If you believe in your way, and that’s what works for you…then so be it. But your way doesn’t work for everyone and those people have found a way that works for them…why do you feel the need to discredit their beliefs? If you don’t believe it’s true, then don’t follow their beliefs…simple as that! Please explain to me where I once challenged your beliefs? Read my posts…I made numerous statements saying I don’t care what you believe it, believe what you want (I’m the one being accepting). YOU actually said you were out to challenge my beliefs. My post haven’t been about religion…they’ve been about you not having a life. I backed that statement up, as well as you backed it up for me. So in your last rant, you admit you agree people can believe what they want. So stop with this religious nonsense. As far as you following what’s credible, go a head you follow what ever your little heart desires. Nobody is trying to change your beliefs, so be respectful and do the same. AGAIN, I’m not here to discuss religious beliefs because that is something personal and has to come within the person. A belief is something that can’t be taught or argued, it is a feeling within yourself in what you feel is right and wrong. If you have to be taught what to believe in and what provides the most credibility or facts then that is not TRUE beliefs. Look within yourself to find your beliefs not on failbook-LMAO. After writing that I found it hilarious that you’re soul searching and preaching on failbook!!! You thing are a FAIL
Have yourself a nice day now troll. I look forward to reading more of your comical rants that show your lack of life. My friends and I find this hilarious
“Let’s say you are around a computer for school or job training…perhaps you should focus on the school or job training and not worried about posts on a failbook site hmm?”
-In a class where there’s 20 students and the professor checks each ones edit individually to make sure a 40 second clip is accurate to the tee, there happens to be a bit of time. That’s why I cut out if you were curious.
“I think I’m going to stick with you not having a life and trolling from your momma’s house because you have NO JOB and NO LIFE!”
-And again, you’re free to believe that if you want. Its not the reason I’m here, so if it makes you happy to think I’m that kind of person then by all means, go ahead, but that’s not why I’m involved in this discussion. If you have something worthwhile to say then I’ll gladly be open to discussion, but I’m here to discuss and learn others viewpoints on origins and how we can determine the truth behind it. If you want to battle with personal-life trivials then I’m sorry but I’m just not as interested as much as you are.
“I’ll go on living my life just the same while you will have a conniption fit over it and get all defensive.”
-[Read above]. I don’t recall ever getting defensive. I recall offering for you to continue without hindrance (if you wanted), but as I listed above, I’m not very interested in discussing personal lives. You have yours, I have mine. I know nothing of yours so I can’t logically make a conclusion about you. Maybe personality, but that’s about the extent of it.
“Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true.”
-Never said it did. Where are you getting this interesting conclusions?
“If there was any defiant knowledge, there would only be one conclusion”
-That’s what I thought, but then I started to realize, there’s more than one conclusion you can make from the same information and it eventually becomes a battle of which conclusion best explains the same evidence which can then become a matter of will rather than mind (i.e. people will sometimes reject something not for its logical explanation, but because they just don’t like it. Will takes over where the Mind should be).
“Who are you to say that your way is the one and only right way??
-Who are you to challenge me without challenging me? That is, you keep playing 20 questions and beating around the bush rather than just confronting me. You say things like “What makes you right? How are you sure? I think you’re wrong…” If you asked objective questions rather than subjective then the things you ask now would implicitly answer themselves. Either you’re afraid or you don’t care. I’d like to think you don’t care because with all the bark you’ve given I would assume there’s a bite behind it.
“But your way doesn’t work for everyone and those people have found a way that works for them”
-Depends what context you mean that in.
“why do you feel the need to discredit their beliefs?”
-I don’t, I challenge them to see how trustworthy they are. I’m in search of knowledge, but I want what I learn to be true. I don’t care for false information, its just taking up space.
“Please explain to me where I once challenged your beliefs?
-Aside from the fact that you’re implicitly challenging me by conversing, that’s not even what I said. I said “You’re challenging me *more* than I’m challenging you.” I’m not challenging your beliefs, but I’m less aggressive and forward about it whereas you’re quite the contrary.
“YOU actually said you were out to challenge my beliefs”
-No, I said if you want to declare something specific as fact, then I will challenge it (in the correct context anyway).
“you admit you agree people can believe what they want. So stop with this religious nonsense.”
-Sir (or madam)… This “rant” wouldn’t even be going on if you didn’t say anything. Shutting me up requires mutual effort, but if you want to discuss something (which you implicitly state by joining this little debacle from the start), then I will gladly be here to answer your questions. If you just want to say where I’m wrong then I’ll point out your flaws. If you want to rant and rave as you’ve been doing then I will have to terminate this conversation unless you become a bit more mature (starting with taking off caps and curse words for emphasizing insult. If you want to emphasize a point for increased validity, then I understand, but its not an appropriate medium to converse).
“Nobody is trying to change your beliefs”
-Never said they were, but if they want to challenge me then I will gladly accept the challenge.
“If you have to be taught what to believe in and what provides the most credibility or facts then that is not TRUE belief”
-I’m a bit confused. If what I’m reading is correct, you’re saying if its taught, then its not true? You might have to clarify that.
“I look forward to reading more of your comical rants that show your lack of life. My friends and I find this hilarious”
-Any time!
To clarify what I meant by if a belief is taught it’s not a true belief, it means that a belief is something that you feel within yourself not something that you can be talked into believing. It doesn’t mean the information is false…but telling/teaching someone to believe something is more brainwashing than an actual belief. Take for example, I grew up being taught Catholicism. I went to church every Sunday and religion school once a week. They taught you must follow certain beliefs and lifestyles to be Catholic. What they taught me didn’t feel right so I chose not to believe in the Catholicism. However, if I claimed to believe in Catholicism because that’s what I was told was right, but didn’t actual feel inside that it was right…then that would not be a real belief. Now am I saying Catholicism is all wrong? For me, yes, but for someone who truly believes in it, no, it’s perfect for them. Much of our beliefs comes from life experience and how we view life and the world. And isn’t it a beautiful thing we are not all robots who share the exact same life experiences? There is a wide variety of lifestyles and beliefs that go along with it. Embrace the differences in cultures and learn to be more accepting.
Now on a different note…I’m a little worried about you my friend. Do you get out and have fun at all? You seem to be very uptight and serious. Lighten up a bit. Tell me what sort of things you like to do for fun outside of studying religions. I don’t know if you’re male or female. I am female. I did clarify that in one of my posts, I’m not sure you got that since you wrote “sir (or madam)” again. Do you like to party? Play board games? Shop? What makes you truly happy outside of religion? I like talking to you…I may not agree with what you say, but what fun would life be if everyone agreed about everything?? Tell me though what kind of things you like to do for fun (remember….religion isn’t part of that answer…I already know you like religion ) I look forward to your response!
“Now am I saying Catholicism is all wrong? For me, yes, but for someone who truly believes in it, no, it’s perfect for them.
-Interesting, it makes sense to a certain extent up until about this point, then it kind of cuts off. A belief can be true, but there’s only 1 truth. There’s no “my truth is there is no gravity” while your truth says there is. One of us is wrong (in this case, me). So for the majority, beliefs may be false if there’s a similar understanding for those beliefs just like there’s different interpretations of similar information/evidence and thus differing conclusions, but that doesn’t make them all wrong nor does it make more than one truth.
“Embrace the differences in cultures and learn to be more accepting”
-Depends on the context of accepting. I’m not looking for people to bash or anything. Its not like I go to the grocery store and look for an Indian couple to attack their beliefs when they’re looking for hamburger buns (*Doo Doo Chhh*). I have nothing against people and if they want to believe something as true, then I have no problem with that, but if they’ve never heard both sides of the story then I feel its necessary to bring up the conflict provided that they claim their belief is true or their interested in the opposition themselves. Otherwise, I don’t even confront them about it. I have a friend who follows Islam. She doesn’t really believe it and was curious about many things. When we got on the subject I started asking questions about what she followed to a point where she didn’t want to talk about it anymore. That’s fine. If someone would rather block themselves off from conflict, that’s their choice and I wont force anything on them, but I can be friendly even with people such as that. You seem to think I’m a total douche about it or something, lol. (:
“I’m a little worried about you my friend”
-Ditto >.>
“Do you get out and have fun at all?”
-Yup, you just don’t see me.
“You seem to be very uptight and serious. Lighten up a bit.”
-Because we were discussing a serious topic. And I do lighten up, lol, that’s where the faces and little remarks come in, such as in the last post at the very bottom with the smiley.
“I don’t know if you’re male or female. I am female. I did clarify that in one of my posts, I’m not sure you got that since you wrote “sir (or madam)” again.”
-Male. You said yours earlier? Hmm.. I must’ve skipped over that… From your posts I wouldn’t conclude you were a woman, but I guess that proves the idea that false assumptions produce false conclusions. I’m just as guilty as the next person and so on I suppose.
“Do you like to party? Play board games? Shop?”
-Depends. I don’t mind things like graduation parties or personal gatherings of friends (sometimes family I suppose.. Even that’s a stretch), but I don’t prefer clubs or concert masses. Board games are fine, haven’t played one since Thanksgiving. Still have an old Stratego board game. Not a big shopper. A couple guys and I from the dorms just randomly go to Walmart or Target a couple times of the week.
“but what fun would life be if everyone agreed about everything”
-Imparting knowledge has its benefits, but that makes me sound rather old I bet.
“I look forward to your response!”
-You got really cheerful really quickly. Kind of scares me lol. Not to say its a bad thing but I’ve never seen someone turn around that quickly.
Cheerful? Meh. Slightly bipolar? Probably lol I’m trying to be nice here. How about we make a truce and agree to disagree (at least when it comes to religion)? Lol, I thought you were female…I’m not sure why I came to that conclusion…it’s just funny how we both mixed up each others gender. “A couple guys and I from the dorms…” so I take it you are in college. What is your major? Religious studies? If not, it should be! Well that’s all I got for now. Enjoy the weekend.
Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life. See, a person who has a life would maybe reply a couple of times and leave things at that because they know there are more important things in life like having a job and taking care of their family for 2 examples. People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions. I mean you’ve been back here almost everyday since this fail has been posted. WHY?? Because you have NO LIFE! Now I’m going to be all retarded and reply like you do…
“because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.”
-Yes, Google is a wonderful search engine to many sites with information about any given subject or question. I never claimed it to be a bad site. It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.
“You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well.”
-You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs. It’s okay, you can go back and re-read. Ha, sorry that was irrelevant. Low blow by me. Oops.
“It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it”
-Huh?? Why does it scare you that people die everyday? Dying is part of life. Everyone will die someday. A true believer would not be afraid of death . Where do people end up that they don’t want to be? How would you know where any given person ends up when they die? A true believer knows “only God can judge me” and unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.
Why do you care so much what other people believe in? You should only be concerned with your beliefs. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs doesn’t me it’s a personal attack against you. So relax. Maybe if you got laid once in a while you wouldn’t be so uptight. Calm down, open your mind, you might actually make a friend or two then.
“If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.”
-Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs? They are MY beliefs not yours!! Why would I need to prove any credibility to MY beliefs? I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.
“You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger.”
-How am I not making myself look good? Because I don’t appreciate having to put in hard long hours at work while people are sitting at home trolling and receiving welfare checks? Well excuse me. I’m a good hard working citizen who gives back to their community instead of takes. I believe people should earn what they get and not take things for free. I didn’t realize that made me such a monster. Sorry I guess. Btw, I am a woman. Just want to clear up the “sir (or madam)” issue. Care to clear up your gender? And how does any of this make me “blinded by anger”?? How was I showing anger? I simply stated that you have no life, which is pretty obvious based on what I stated before. I backed up my assumptions, there was no anger. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m angry. I may not like you, but I don’t wish anything bad against you. I do hope you find that life you are looking for. If that’s a religious life than good for you. I don’t want a religious life, and you need to just accept that and move on. If you can’t move on…then it will prove my point even more that you have no life.
I think you believe ALL atheist are evil. While some might be, just as some Christians might be evil…not ALL are evil! You need to open your mind and learn to be more accepting. If Jesus can be, so can you. Since you like to be on the computer so much, maybe you should check out http://www.indeed.com it can help you find a job in your local area. So instead of getting your panties all knotted up over what other people believe and continuing to be a menace, you can go to work and bring good to your community. Good luck with getting that life.
Honest words from an Atheist…
“God bless to you too”
Side note…if this ends up being a multiple reply, sorry my internet was all messed up
Haha, wow…
People are so nice on here. Never understood why (esp over the internet) if someone doesn’t like what someone else said/doesn’t agree…why not just “x” out of the site and move on? There really isn’t all this need for hatred. There are places around the world where people are forced into believing something, and if they go against it, they are killed. Be happy you have the option to just ignore what you don’t like. I think that about sums up my two cents.
Good idea. Yeah, ICWUDT keeps finding new toys to play with. I’m guilty too. I have to say his debating style/choices have rekindled the atheist in me and I’m ordering myself a couple of books by Dan Barker and Carl Sagan. I had been leaning toward agnosticism since there’s a part of me that thinks that if someone goes around saying that “God” does not exist then they must have proof of that claim, and since something that doesn’t exist can’t leave proof one way or another then that statement is just as much of an assumption as assuming that a “God” does exist.
But yet there is no proof that anything has ever come about from supernatural means.. and pretty much everything that had been chalked up to the supernatural in previous ages has since been shown to have a natural explanation so it makes it hard to understand how ANYONE could still prefer to believe in magic anymore. And I can’t help but look at all the things that people, fundamentalists or not, have done in the name of their deity or religion that it makes me wish the whole thing could be done away with. It’s not that there aren’t any good things that come from religion.. there are.. but I believe those same good things could come about from different sources as well.
well i guess every atheist should really say theyre agnostic if you want to be pedantic.
As if evidence were produced we would change our minds,wherein lies the difference ,show the religious evidence to refute a claim and they refute it.They cant even accept the anomolies in the bible where a god of love wipes out its own creations for not doing as theyre told etc.
If someone says the andromeda galaxy is made of pizza boxes, i cant say its definitely untrue no matter how unlikely, as i cant prove it but id be 99.99999999 sure so guess id have to be agnostic regards that statement.
Science’s very goal is to find answers, which it does pretty much everyday. If science had every answer, it would stop. That it hasn’t found a particular answer *yet* does not prove anything in any way, shape or form.
“I do think the biggest problems in the discussion is that ICWUDT (I do like the alias) thinks (s)he is discussing some sort of ultimate truth (which is impossible to discern since we don’t have any methods of finding it yet”
-Why thank you (also, if you’re curious, I’m a guy), but I do have a disagreement with your statement that we can’t discern ultimate truth. To say such a thing, I would have to ask, “is what you just said ultimately true?” If not, then what you said is nullified. If so, then obviously you disproved your own statement by saying it’s true when you state there’s no ultimate truth.
You have to be careful with those self-defeating arguments. I’m good at picking up on them. (:
“I always find it amusing when someone is saying ID is science and tries to use some sort of part science”
-I’ve come to the realization that I prefer not to label ID as science anymore since I’ve noticed that science, by the scientific method, is self-defeating like the argument I just went over above. ^^^
Since science cannot use the scientific method to find out that it discovers truth, it is therefore not useful in discerning absolute truth (which I proved exists above ^^^). Ergo, we need a new method.
“I ended up in a similar discussion about evolution with someone who was trying to disprove evolution by using science which of course just ended with this person not answering anymore…”
-Oh, trust me, that doesn’t happen with me unless we are simply going in circles and cannot agree.
Hmm, I was really not intending to go into any kind of debate here but both yesterday and today have been quite slow days at work and I kept reading the comments on this enormous thread… and well, here I am
So how come you didn’t reply to my posting instead of down here? Or is it nesting problems again (all to common on cheezburger). If it’s not possible to press reply because the postings have gone on for too long, just reply to the last of the postings and the answer will (usually) nest below the last one, it’s easier to keep track on what’s happening then. Not so much of a problem now since we’ve just started another thread here, but so you know for future reference.
I did say that we can’t discern ultimate truths yet, not that we’re never going to be able to. Many things can be true to the best of our knowledge (as my statement), but we don’t have any methods of saying that this will always be the case since science is always moving forward we will always find better and more accurate ways of measurement.
I’m glad you don’t say ID is science any more.
I do think you still haven’t quite grasped what science really entails though, just based on all the discussions I’ve read through here. Or you know fully well what it means and you just enjoy trying to make everyone that tries to explain it to you confused by mixing up their words in logic argumentations about how they express themselves.
I don’t like when people put words in my mouth so I will try not to do it to you, but I need some clarification here. Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because:
1. It does not tell us the ultimate truth.
2. It cannot (as of yet) give us answers to every question we have at the moment.
3. It does not take into consideration anything that is not testable or falsifiable (e.g. supernatural causes).
4. You believe that all scientists are biased (because they’re scientists), at least in the areas where you dispute science.
5. You believe that scientists base some of their research on faulty assumptions and therefore arrive at faulty conclusions.
Have I understood what you’ve been trying to express somewhat correctly, or is this just what I’ve been reading into your comments?
After reading this page I think that you would never be the one who suffers a loss of words
I’ll include the other comment here as well so we don’t have to keep talking in two different threads…
Ok, maybe not so much dodging the questions as (at least this is what it looks like to me) using semantics and logical arguments as to not have to answer the questions and rather focusing in how people ask the questions then the actual questions. Hmm, no, that is more or less dodging the questions in my world
I’m guessing that in some cases you are so set on this critical reading of questions that you’re not even aware you’re doing this. The point I’m trying to make is that for someone who just stumbles in here and reads the discussions it comes off as slightly arrogant and it looks like you’re aiming for a rhetorical way of winning the discussions rather then to actually stay on topic.
I’m guessing this is because you have a different outlook on what a correct assumption is, but it seems to me that you use different criteria throughout this page. In some cases you use an argument like (quote from memory) “god put a mature mountain in place, therefore it’s possible that scientists think it’s older then it really is” and in some places you use scientific criteria for your arguments. I would say that it’s a bit dishonest to mix these up since one of them require faith in a deity.
Also you say that evolution is incorrect, if you can prove that by using the scientific method then you would be world famous and probably be considered one of the greatest scientists that exists today. As long as you can back it up by scientific evidence and not by a logic/faith-based discussion on a lol-site
Now I think I have to stop writing and do some actual work for a while… I probably won’t be replying again until next week sometime, I usually don’t hang around on lol-sites during the weekends, only on slow days at work
By the way, if there’s any grammatical errors or things you don’t understand because of the way I express them, just ask and I’ll try to clarify. English is not my native language so I’ll use that as an excuse.
“So how come you didn’t reply to my posting instead of down here? Or is it nesting problems again (all to common on cheezburger). If it’s not possible to press reply because the postings have gone on for too long, just reply to the last of the postings and the answer will (usually) nest below the last one”
-Yup. I’m aware, but it’s better to just reply than constantly scroll up and down a page or 2 to get back to the comment.
“I did say that we can’t discern ultimate truths yet, not that we’re never going to be able to”
-Then how can that statement be of any valid use since it’s not discernible as an ultimate truth?
“Or you know fully well what it means and you just enjoy trying to make everyone that tries to explain it to you confused by mixing up their words in logic argumentations about how they express themselves.”
-I indeed know fully well what science is and its method, but I allow people to explain it so we’re on the same page of what science is since I get multiple explanations of the same thing. At that point, I simply point out the flaw in their thinking. They’re already confused, it has nothing to do with me, I’m just pointing it out where they don’t see it.
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
-You already started with a false premise. I don’t disagree with all science has done. Science has indeed had many accomplishments, but the method itself is false and I disagree with science determining things we don’t know (such as origins) since we have to rely solely on the method itself for information because we can’t apply common sense as well to the data. In the present, science is a great method. In the historical event of origins, not so much.
I’ll give you an example. One day, some students decided to experiment with frogs. They were testing how high frogs could jump and recording the data for interpretation later on. They went to a pond and yelled to scare a frog into jumping. The frog jumped 5 feet high. They cut off a leg and scared it again, the frog jumped 4 feet. They cut off another leg, it jumped 3 feet. The third leg goes, it jumps 2 feet, but then they cut off the last leg. They yell at it to jump, but the frog doesn’t move. They try again but the same thing happens. It jumped 0 feet. They analyzed this data and finally concluded their results. They said that with each leg they cut off, the frog jumps 1 foot less (good observation). However, whenever the frog gets to 0 legs, it goes deaf (Oooh, bad conclusion). You can get completely different conclusions from the same information. In this example, we obviously know that’s a ridiculous conclusion because we add common sense into the mix and its obvious that its hearing has nothing to do with its jumping. The fact that it has no legs to jump with does. Origins are different. Since we have no recollection of what happened along with variables associated with it, we have to rely on the method alone more than common sense. We don’t have any knowledge to associate one with the other for common sense to work as we do with frogs and their ability to jump not being connected to their hearing. Therefore, I started looking at the method itself and found out how it doesn’t work. The answer of evolution to our life’s origin is like the conclusion that frogs can’t hear once they’ve lost all their legs. It’s the fault of man putting too much faith into a method that’s inaccurate.
“maybe not so much dodging the questions as (at least this is what it looks like to me) using semantics and logical arguments as to not have to answer the questions and rather focusing in how people ask the questions then the actual questions. Hmm, no, that is more or less dodging the questions in my world”
-If the question is in err then what use is my answer to an invalid question? It’s worthless. Let’s fix the question to make it valid and then I’ll be more than happy to answer it.
“for someone who just stumbles in here and reads the discussions it comes off as slightly arrogant and it looks like you’re aiming for a rhetorical way of winning the discussions rather then to actually stay on topic”
-If staying on topic to people is discussing invalid information then ‘staying on topic’ isn’t an accurate way to have a discussion to discover the truth.
“Also you say that evolution is incorrect, if you can prove that by using the scientific method then you would be world famous and probably be considered one of the greatest scientists that exists today”
-Using the method to disprove the method has already been done; it’s self-defeating. Since the validity of the idea of evolution is crutched on the method being true, taking away the foundation is all that’s needed for everything built upon it to crumble away.
Hmm, weird. It seems my comment I posted two days ago didn’t get accepted, or maybe it’s still awaiting moderation so there’s a risk for double posting here. If that happens, I’m sorry beforehand
Luckily for me I have the comment on notepad where I usually paste it to read through just to check for errors before posting, so here we go again:
“Then how can that statement be of any valid use since it’s not discernible as an ultimate truth?”
-Why does it have to be an absolute truth? See, this is why I mean you’re making the discussion about semantics. If you believe there is a way of discerning an absolute truth then I would like it if you explained it to me rather then just saying my sentence is logically unsound. I think we should always strive to get as close to the truth as possible, but that’s all we can do. If it was possible to get to an absolute truth then we wouldn’t need to have this discussion, then everyone in the world would know what it is.
I don’t claim to know for example how life originated since there’s not enough data and evidence to discern that yet, but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.
If you know how science works, then why would you keep making claims about how the method of falsifiability should be falsifiable? Isn’t that “common sense” as you call it, that if you can prove that a theory is incorrect then the theory doesn’t hold?
My own quote:
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases. Am I still off with everything I said on the subject?
As for your example with the frog, I would say it’s a very bad example. Partly because the people who conducted this experiment would have to be completely devoid of common sense as you say. Partly because they would first have to create a theory on what they are researching and what they expect to find (as you say, they believe that the frog would jump a bit less for each leg being cut off). When they noticed the results differ from their theory they would have to investigate the reasons why it failed. You don’t just take a conclusion from thin air and say the frog is deaf.
If their first guess would be that the frog is deaf, then they would have to stipulate WHY it would be deaf. How the legs would be connected to the hearing and show the evidence for it.
If they still somehow would come to the conclusion that the frog was deaf, they would submit this incredible finding to the science community where other people would go through their experiment and see if their conclusions are correct or not.
Of course this premise is so stupid that it would be impossible to show any link between the inner workings of a frogs hearing and it’s legs so they would have to reformulate their theory or abandon it and start over.
“If the question is in err then what use is my answer to an invalid question? It’s worthless. Let’s fix the question to make it valid and then I’ll be more than happy to answer it.”
-Sure, I can agree here, but somehow in most of the discussions you were involved the questions never met your standards even when it was obvious that you understood exactly what the people who asked you things meant with their questions. Couldn’t you give them a bit of leeway and show them how to pose the question to actually get a straight answer
“If staying on topic to people is discussing invalid information then ‘staying on topic’ isn’t an accurate way to have a discussion to discover the truth.”
-Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth? Can’t a discussion have a value in and of itself? Instead of just discussing the semantics of posing a perfect question can’t even an imperfect question deserve an interesting answer? I know I’m going of on a slight philosophical tangent here, but I like discussions
“Using the method to disprove the method has already been done; it’s self-defeating. Since the validity of the idea of evolution is crutched on the method being true, taking away the foundation is all that’s needed for everything built upon it to crumble away.”
-Sorry, I’m not sure I follow here. How has it already been done?
Do you mean that evolution would not be valid because you don’t accept the premise of the scientific method?
Odd, I think the same occurrence happened to me, I just never reposted.
“Why does it have to be an absolute truth?”
-Because otherwise it’s worthless. If there is doubt or contradiction as to whether or not it is true itself then there’s no reason to believe it holds any validity to the conversation and is therefore discarded. It’s this kind of philosophy that allows us to delve deeper to discovering the truth about more and more criteria of reality. Kind of like Inception one might say! o.O
“but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.”
-False premises produce false conclusions.
“If you know how science works, then why would you keep making claims about how the method of falsifiability should be falsifiable? Isn’t that “common sense” as you call it, that if you can prove that a theory is incorrect then the theory doesn’t hold?”
-It is common sense. You see, it’s self-defeating because if it’s true, then it falsifies ‘itself’ and is therefore invalid and discarded, but if it’s false, then there’s no point in believing that it’s accurate and is discarded anyway. Either way, it’s inaccurate.
“As for your example with the frog, I would say it’s a very bad example. Partly because the people who conducted this experiment would have to be completely devoid of common sense as you say.”
-Exactly! The difference when it comes to science of origins and science of present-day testings is that we throw common sense into the mix which guides the method. We know the frog example is ridiculous because common sense tells us what would cutting off something’s legs have to do with it’s hearing? However when we take that common sense out of the equation (since it’s more void when discussing a one-time event that we can’t replicate) and rely only on science, we have a problem. Science itself cannot give us the answers, we need more than that. The scientific method on its own is self-defeating, but if you add something to it, the formula changes.
“Couldn’t you give them a bit of leeway and show them how to pose the question to actually get a straight answer”
-That’s where I test the strength of one’s character and faith towards their own belief. If someone truly believes they’re right, then they’ll find a way to point it out respectfully without getting defensive in insults rather than in discussion.
“Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth?”
-As opposed to finding lies?
“can’t even an imperfect question deserve an interesting answer”
-It can indeed have an interesting answer, but what use is it in reality if it’s an inaccurate question?
“How has it already been done?”
-The idea that science discovers truth cannot be determined by the scientific method itself.
“Odd, I think the same occurrence happened to me, I just never reposted.”
So maybe failblog has grown tired of our conversation and tries to get us to quit
I am glad you’re back to continue this discussion though.
““Why does it have to be an absolute truth?”
-Because otherwise it’s worthless.”
So you just skipped the part where I ask you to describe a way to show that something is an absolute truth.
““but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.”
-False premises produce false conclusions.”
What’s the false premise here?
“-It is common sense. You see, it’s self-defeating because if it’s true, then it falsifies ‘itself’ and is therefore invalid and discarded, but if it’s false, then there’s no point in believing that it’s accurate and is discarded anyway.”
How does it falsify itself if it is true? That’s the point of science, if it is true then no one would be able to falsify it.
“However when we take that common sense out of the equation (since it’s more void when discussing a one-time event that we can’t replicate) and rely only on science, we have a problem.”
Once again you disregard all else I said about your experiment. Even if you take common sense out of the equation this experiment will never yield the type of results you are implying. If you scroll up to my last comment and read the actual reasons to why it would not work instead of just focusing on the rather insignificant part where I said the experiment wasn’t plausible because I don’t think there exists people who are this devoid of common sense…
I also have to say I don’t quite grasp what you’re saying in you parenthesis, it might just be that it’s monday morning, but if you could explain I’d be glad.
“If someone truly believes they’re right, then they’ll find a way to point it out respectfully without getting defensive in insults rather than in discussion.”
In some ways I agree with you here, I do think it’s good if people are forced to take examine why they think like they do on a regular basis and if you get challenged it’s a good reason to start breaking down your arguments to see what really works.
However I also know that some people just don’t have the sort of reasoning that we demand from them. Even if they truly believe in what they are saying it is near impossible to express it in a way that you or I would deem sound in our way of thinking. I do agree fully though that in a discussion the civil thing to do is to keep from insults
““Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth?”
-As opposed to finding lies?”
No, as opposed to just talking. Don’t you think that sometimes it is possible to gain knowledge,insight,understanding or just entertainment from nothing else then talking to someone? If you have a casual discussion about politics for example (happens almost daily at my place of work) then it’s mostly based on opinions that people hold on how a society should be governed. This can’t lead to any truths even though I prefer when people have some sort of facts to back up their opinions, but in the end it’s still opinions.
I find it most intriguing trying to understand why someone thinks the way they do and not only what they think. Since so much of the dialogue on the internet and in some parts of the media is based on stereotypes and a strong unwillingness to see where the other side is coming from it makes me feel I rather want to understand why people hold their views then the actual views.
As you can see I still find it interesting to have these types of debates about different things though
“-It can indeed have an interesting answer, but what use is it in reality if it’s an inaccurate question?”
As I just said, there can be a value in the discussion itself. Sometimes it is possible to actually narrow down the subject to be able to find that correct question after a bit of dancing around
“-The idea that science discovers truth cannot be determined by the scientific method itself.”
I don’t see how this is relevant. Unless you can show a way that is possible to use to discover ultimate truths then it is impossible to show anything as true.
As I and many people have pointed out several times, science shows the closest we can get to the truth with the most advanced methods that exist today. Tomorrow we will be slightly closer and so on.
I’d like to go back to my previous comment since there are some things I find interesting for the continuation about this subject that you never answered. I asked for your views on science, and I gave a list of 5 things I had gotten the impression that you expressed. I’m still curious as to whether I am correct in my assumptions or if I was wrong. If I got the wrong idea there’s a risk that I will misinterpret what you’re saying.
At first you said I had the wrong premise which I later explained was rather a wrong way of expressing myself. But we never got back to my assumptions after that. You also added that “I disagree with science determining things we don’t know (such as origins)”. It doesn’t. There are a couple of hypothesis about abiogenesis that touch this subject, but there is still insufficient data to say anything clearly. Science does not claim to know about origins.
You also never addressed my comment about you mixing science arguments with faith based arguments.
There, I think that about covers it and now it is time to go for lunch. Take care!
“So maybe failblog has grown tired of our conversation and tries to get us to quit”
-I suppose so!
“So you just skipped the part where I ask you to describe a way to show that something is an absolute truth.”
-Whenever something can withstand criticism and doesn’t contradict itself, then I would logically conclude it’s true. The reason I ignored it is because your question for asking it was faulty as I pointed out.
“What’s the false premise here?”
-Saying it’s impossible to prove. Now I’m never here to prove my side 100% because the point of the Bible is not meant to prove itself. It’s meant to put forth information convincing enough to allow those who follow its teachings to follow with confidence. There’s always something that someone will find to deny it. Then again, that’s life. If someone doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll find any reason to deny it, even if it’s irrational.
“How does it falsify itself if it is true?”
-Simple, however I need your personal definition of falsifiability because I always get a different one depending on the person.
“That’s the point of science, if it is true then no one would be able to falsify it”
-So if it can be false, then what’s the point in believing it’s true?
“Even if you take common sense out of the equation this experiment will never yield the type of results you are implying
-Of course it does. Obviously if it doesn’t move then it must not have heard you. See the relation? That’s the only point I’m making is that you can get the wrong conclusions based on something that seemingly fits the evidence. Lack of common sense will aid in this error.
“No, as opposed to just talking.”
-If you’re talking about who could win in a footrace; Superman or Flash, then no there’s nothing wrong with that. Since we’re discussing origins and where we came from, we’re not looking for superstitions or comic book tales, we’re looking for the truth of where we came from. Should that happen to relate to a comic book tale then that’s another story. I’ve not got anything against talking about random things, but when we’re trying to discover the truth of where we came from, then yes, absolute truth must be a factor taken into account.
“Don’t you think that sometimes it is possible to gain knowledge,insight,understanding or just entertainment from nothing else then talking to someone?”
-Assuming they’re telling the *truth,* or at least a story of truthful characteristics/morals (not necessarily about them), then yes. As for entertainment, there’s a reason they call it an “amusement” park. Muse means to think, add an ‘A’ to it and it becomes the opposite (thus, ‘amuse’ means to not think). Just a little fun fact there.
You can gain knowledge multiple ways, through the truths that people tell, the mistakes they made, etc. I’m not saying there’s only 1 way to gain information and that’s only through absolute truth. I’m saying, when discovering the truth of our origins, we need truthful information, not life stories or people’s opinions.
“Unless you can show a way that is possible to use to discover ultimate truths then it is impossible to show anything as true.
-Taking your advocate, then your statement here is false and thereby dismissed.
“I’d like to go back to my previous comment since there are some things I find interesting for the continuation about this subject that you never answered. I asked for your views on science, and I gave a list of 5 things I had gotten the impression that you expressed.
-I’m well aware, but I also pointed out that you started with a false premise before asking your 5 questions which renders them obsolete until the premise (or the questions) is/are fixed.
“At first you said I had the wrong premise which I later explained was rather a wrong way of expressing myself. But we never got back to my assumptions after that.”
-Because if you’re wrong in your assumption then you’re wrong in your questions that are based on the assumption. False assumptions produce false conclusions as I’ve said previously. There’s no need to answer something built on a foundation that can’t sustain itself.
“You also never addressed my comment about you mixing science arguments with faith based arguments.”
-Where have I mixed science and faith based arguments?
“Whenever something can withstand criticism and doesn’t contradict itself, then I would logically conclude it’s true. The reason I ignored it is because your question for asking it was faulty as I pointed out.”
What you’re proposing as true sounds to me to be only semantics. That would imply that as long as you make your statement without fault you could express anything as being true. I would say you need data to back up a statement, not just sound reasoning.
You know I regard science as the ultimate tool we have for coming as close as possible to the truth, but you also know I don’t agree with you in saying it’s possible to actually reach any ultimate truths. Especially when we are discussing topics like origins where we don’t have enough data yet to be able to do a full analysis and from there make conclusions.
“Simple, however I need your personal definition of falsifiability because I always get a different one depending on the person.”
I don’t quite understand how there could be different definitions of falsifiability, but ok.
If something is theoretically possible to falsify it is falsifiable. In science that means that if anyone finds any evidence to disprove what you are working on, then it is easy to show it was incorrect. If no one ever finds a way to falsify what you are working on it is true to the extent of our current measuring capabilities.
“So if it can be false, then what’s the point in believing it’s true?”
Because if no one can prove it to be false then it is as close to the truth as we can possibly get.
“That’s the only point I’m making is that you can get the wrong conclusions based on something that seemingly fits the evidence.”
But as I stated, even if someone reaches the wrong conclusion in one single experiment there is no way it would pass all the tests that science puts it through after the initial error. You can reach an incorrect conclusion in any part of life, be it religion, debating etc., but in science there’s a number of checks to make sure it never gets further then that single instant.
“Since we’re discussing origins and where we came from”
I didn’t know that was the topic of the entire conversation, at least for me it is partly about finding out how different people reach their conclusions about different aspects
“I’m saying, when discovering the truth of our origins, we need truthful information, not life stories or people’s opinions.”
Hey, I actually agree with you here too bad we have very different opinions on how to get to that truth though…
I do have to add though that I’m not overly concerned about finding out about our origins, of course it would be very interesting to know how it all started, but I doubt science will have progressed that far in my lifetime to actually give any conclusive proof so I don’t give it much thought in my daily life. To me it’s more important what I can do with what I have then to dwell on topics that is impossible for me to know. Of course with the exception of the occasional philosophical digress
“Taking your advocate, then your statement here is false and thereby dismissed.”
Also just semantics, yes you can logically deduce that the sentence is faulty, but if there is no way of proving an ultimate truth, how would it be possible to phrase it any differently? That’s why I have been asking you all the time to define a method of discerning ultimate truths so I could use it in phrasing my questions or putting forth my thoughts to you in a way that you would accept and continue the discussion instead of just picking apart my wording.
“Because if you’re wrong in your assumption then you’re wrong in your questions that are based on the assumption”
My assumption was that you found some science to be inaccurate because of the 5 points I listed. Is that what you meant?
“Where have I mixed science and faith based arguments?”
My example was that in one discussion you said the science behind measuring geological age was sound, but since you believe that god could have put them on our planet already old you dismissed the subject. This to me is such a giant leap that it makes it problematic to have a normal conversation, even if it would be possible to prove something without the shadow of a doubt, then you can just say
-sure, but that was only because god put the evidence there…
(This is just my recollection of the discussion so if it’s not exactly what you said I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.)
“What you’re proposing as true sounds to me to be only semantics. That would imply that as long as you make your statement without fault you could express anything as being true”
-As I previously said, “Whenever something can withstand criticism AND not contradict itself” I would assume it to be true. Not just non-contradictory. If you have criticism, let’s hear it.
“but you also know I don’t agree with you in saying it’s possible to actually reach any ultimate truths.”
-If that’s so, then your statement isn’t truthful, in which case it is disregarded. See how easy this is? Ultimate truths exist. We use them day to day. To deny them is only to affirm their existence. It may be difficult to find them (which I might disagree with to multiple extents based on the subject at hand), but that doesn’t mean they’re non-existent.
“Especially when we are discussing topics like origins where we don’t have enough data yet to be able to do a full analysis and from there make conclusions.”
-So then you agree that evolution is a belief like any other since you would say there’s not enough data to make such a definitive conclusion. I agree. Next on the list is which of the theories on origins is the most viable and most convincing, holding the most evidence to support it’s idea?
“If something is theoretically possible to falsify it is falsifiable. In science that means that if anyone finds any evidence to disprove what you are working on, then it is easy to show it was incorrect. If no one ever finds a way to falsify what you are working on it is true to the extent of our current measuring capabilities.
-I agree on a majority of it, but I need a bit of clarification. Can something that is true be falsifiable? Does something need to be falsifiable to be considered true or scientific?
“But as I stated, even if someone reaches the wrong conclusion in one single experiment there is no way it would pass all the tests that science puts it through after the initial error.”
-Sure it can, if science eliminates answers before testing for a conclusion. For example, if I were to ask you the answer to 2+2, but the answer isn’t 4, what answer would you give? 5? Well if 4 isn’t correct, then 5 could be it. So could 3, or 17, etc. When you eliminate answers, you’re doomed to get false results. This is what science does. When looking for answers to origins, I find it strange that they don’t consider anything other than a natural answer. They wont accept an answer of intelligence behind everything (for whatever reasons, I can name a few), only the unintelligent. They force an answer into the peg hole because they’ve eliminated others beforehand.
“too bad we have very different opinions on how to get to that truth though”
-If you have a way to get a truth, then good for you, that’s great. I’m interested in any methods that can be used to discover truth.
“I do have to add though that I’m not overly concerned about finding out about our origins”
-Discovering who we are dictates what we do in the grand scheme of things. Origins aren’t always important, but what we do and where we’re going because of those doings are. Origins are just fascinating for me on their own.
“but if there is no way of proving an ultimate truth, how would it be possible to phrase it any differently?”
-Simple. If there’s no ultimate truth, then your objection against what I said is meaningless as an objection.
“That’s why I have been asking you all the time to define a method of discerning ultimate truths so I could use it in phrasing my questions or putting forth my thoughts to you in a way that you would accept and continue the discussion instead of just picking apart my wording.”
-Aside from the fact that I’ve already said that it shouldn’t be self-defeating and withstand criticism, what if I couldn’t come up with a method? What would that indicate to you?
“My assumption was that you found some science to be inaccurate because of the 5 points I listed. Is that what you meant?”
-No, your assumption was that I believed “science is wrong (in all cases).”
“My example was that in one discussion you said the science behind measuring geological age was sound, but since you believe that god could have put them on our planet already old you dismissed the subject.”
-That’s not a mixing though. That’s one over the other. Using science to say “this is why you’re wrong” or any other way to prove an old earth versus a young earth view is to say one side is right, not both in whatever ways. I will gladly take by faith that the Bible is correct in this particular instance since there’s nothing really conclusive we can use to give a 100% accurate date if God can create anything with the appearance of age (maturity). There’s nothing truly contradictory (P.S. That was just one of the arguments against the old ages we get).
“As I previously said, “Whenever something can withstand criticism AND not contradict itself” I would assume it to be true.”
Sorry, I guess I was too tired when I read that
“If that’s so, then your statement isn’t truthful, in which case it is disregarded. See how easy this is? Ultimate truths exist. We use them day to day. To deny them is only to affirm their existence”
But all I’ve been saying is that my statement is as true as it is possible to get for the time being. I have also never said that ultimate truths don’t exist, just that we aren’t able to discern them just yet (and now we’re talking about finding these truths through the scientific method in natural sciences).
“So then you agree that evolution is a belief like any other since you would say there’s not enough data to make such a definitive conclusion”
What? Why would you involve evolution here? I thought we were talking about origins? In science origins have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution only starts after life has begun. It says absolutely nothing about how life started. This has been pointed out in discussions above in this thread, and seriously, you claim to know what evolution is about, I would say this shows that you really don’t. Please don’t mix abiogenesis (which there isn’t enough evidence to have a clear idea of what actually happened, only speculations and qualified guesswork) and evolution. In the scientific world they have nothing to do with each other.
And no, I would not say that it requires any “belief” in evolution. There is plenty of facts to show that it is a viable theory. This discussion has been ongoing for a very long time above and I don’t think it’s necessary to go through all the different aspects of evolution once again. If you don’t believe in evolution, that’s fine with me, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. The reason I get involved in these discussions are because people often try to either say that the theory of evolution isn’t true and use science to disprove it (which still hasn’t succeeded) or portray it as a belief which is just as futile since a belief doesn’t require proof whereas science does.
“Next on the list is which of the theories on origins is the most viable and most convincing, holding the most evidence to support it’s idea?”
Since there is no conclusive evidence of how life started yet I would still say that there is no way of knowing. I think that abiogenesis might be true but I have no idea. I have never seen any evidence presented that the bible would be true so before that happens I don’t think that’s a viable option. That’s why I keep saying I don’t know. I’m not disregarding any possibilities but unless there is some sort of evidence I’m not going to say anything for certain.
“Can something that is true be falsifiable? Does something need to be falsifiable to be considered true or scientific?”
Of course something that is true can be falsifiable. Otherwise what would be the point of science? If something is true then it isn’t possible to falsify though, but it is still falsifiable.
Something needs to be falsifiable to build a hypothesis in science. If it isn’t possible to falsify a given subject, then it wouldn’t be possible to test the validity and therefore it wouldn’t be science.
“Sure it can, if science eliminates answers before testing for a conclusion. [..] When looking for answers to origins, I find it strange that they don’t consider anything other than a natural answer”
Science never eliminates any answer beforehand. The possibilities just have to be falsifiable.
Science has never stated that it is impossible for a creator to be behind origins of life, but since there is no way of testing or proving this, it doesn’t belong in science. That’s all. You can probably find scientist saying that there is no creator, but that is them speaking as individuals. Science in and of itself does not say it is impossible that there is a creator.
Why do you find this strange? Science has a very defined method it uses, anything that falls outside of the method is not applicable. Wouldn’t you find it odd if someone proposed that you should add a couple of books to the bible written by me, just because they would be a logical continuation of the original story? If you don’t find that odd, then give me an adress where I can send in my contributions
“If you have a way to get a truth, then good for you, that’s great. I’m interested in any methods that can be used to discover truth.”
As I have said before, the scientific method is the way to get to the truth (and you don’t need to point out that I have said we can’t show the ultimate truth with this method, that doesn’t mean we don’t find ultimate truths with it, just that we can’t show them to be ultimate truths )
“Discovering who we are dictates what we do in the grand scheme of things.”
Yes, agreed. I don’t think it is necessary to know how life started on this planet to know who we are though. I think the important part is how we live our lives, how we treat other people and that we do the best we possibly can with the short life we have.
“Simple. If there’s no ultimate truth, then your objection against what I said is meaningless as an objection.”
Once again, I have never said that ultimate truths doesn’t exist, just that we don’t have the means to discern them (as such) yet.
“No, your assumption was that I believed “science is wrong (in all cases).””
Which I rectified in the next comment, explaining I mistakenly translated my Swedish sentence in my head, from my comment:
“My own quote:
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases. Am I still off with everything I said on the subject?”
“That’s not a mixing though. That’s one over the other.”
I don’t quite agree here. Considering that most of the discussions are about science and that it seems that you in some cases believe what science has discovered but in some cases you don’t. In the cases you believe in science you argue from a position of science but if something doesn’t correspond with your view of the bible then the bible supersedes it and all of a sudden the scientific method is not good enough to use.
I have full respect for your belief system and I have no problem that you want more answers then science is able to give for the time being, but to pick and choose which parts of science to use just feels wrong to me. Either you acknowledge that science is a good method of moving towards the truth and to discover how the universe works, or you don’t. If you don’t think science has the best method, that’s fine, but don’t use science when it benefits you purpose and then shift to faith in the discussions when science doesn’t work for you
Hmm, I think that came out a bit more harsh then intended. As you probably have noticed I find it interesting to discuss these topics with you so don’t read too much into that last paragraph, I just think that science and religion does not work well together. Not saying that I dislike religion or anything, just that it has no place in science
On a slightly different tangent. We have been discussing science and methods and semantics for quite some time here. I am quite curious to what makes you so sure the bible is correct? What is it that gives you this (seemingly) absolute faith in that the earth is young, a creator is behind everything and that all the evidence (from science) that shows otherwise was just planted there to fool us (or some reason I don’t know/understand)?
I also wonder what made you choose Christianity as your religion? I mean you are almost as much atheist as I am, I just believe in one god less then you. Considering the other two Abrahamic religions have the same basis and worship the same god, how do you know the Christian one is the correct one?
“Sorry, I guess I was too tired when I read that”
-We all get that way occasionally.
“I have also never said that ultimate truths don’t exist, just that we aren’t able to discern them just yet”
-Then how can you discern if your statement is true as you imply it is? Again, really simple stuff here.
“I thought we were talking about origins?”
-We are. In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.
“It says absolutely nothing about how life started.”
-It has to deal with where humanity arose, so technically it does.
“I would not say that it requires any “belief” in evolution. There is plenty of facts to show that it is a viable theory.”
-And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything. If we don’t, then you’re just as wrong as I am and this conversation is fruitless.
“people often try to either say that the theory of evolution isn’t true and use science to disprove it (which still hasn’t succeeded)”
-Probably because they’re ‘using science’ in the wrong context. Using the method which is flawed will definitely not get them anywhere in trying to disprove anything to them or others since the method is flawed itself. That’s the context I use it in as I’ve said before.
“Of course something that is true can be falsifiable.”
-So what if falsifiability is put on trial here? If the idea that something has to be falsifiable to be science can be falsifiable itself, then what validity is something to be set in the standard of being falsifiable to discover truth? After all, even if truth can be falsifiable, how can we be sure anything is true?
“If something is true then it isn’t possible to falsify though, but it is still falsifiable”
-So there cannot be self-evident truths? It all has to be falsifiable in some way? Still trying to understand the concept here.
“Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases.”
-There are many things science is good for and I will agree with. In present applications (and multiple future uses) it is very useful and a great aid in advancing. However, it does have it’s falsifying factors as we can see when we try to apply it to origins.
“In the cases you believe in science you argue from a position of science but if something doesn’t correspond with your view of the bible then the bible supersedes it and all of a sudden the scientific method is not good enough to use”
-That’s called conflict. Yes, I believe the Bible cover to cover. I still have a lot to study and understand, but for everything I’ve studied so far, it’s pulled through every time. This is going to raise conflict with other theories. If there were only one theory, then, granted, I might not think so hard on the subject, but it is because of these conflicts that allow us to critically analyze the 2 thoughts and thus become more deeply understanding of the propositions to come to a more accurate decision. That’s not so much mixing faith with science as rising conflict between the two and discovering which is right (and sometimes both can be right or both can be wrong, but it’s because of the friction they create between each other that allows us to discover that).
“Not saying that I dislike religion or anything, just that it has no place in science”
-You mean to tell me you’re eliminating answers before coming to a conclusion when presented with a problem? Strange, I think I addressed that issue and you disagreed with it didn’t I?
“I am quite curious to what makes you so sure the bible is correct? What is it that gives you this (seemingly) absolute faith in that the earth is young, a creator is behind everything and that all the evidence (from science) that shows otherwise was just planted there to fool us (or some reason I don’t know/understand)?”
-I find more evidence for it which is what drew me in, then faith took over and that was the nail in the coffin. I don’t think I could’ve started with faith, but I knew I wasn’t going to be able to survive on the evidence alone. That was just the platform to jump from.
I also wouldn’t say that the “evidence from science was planted there to fool us.” I would say we’re fooling ourselves with the evidence that supports another theory. This is what I was referring to just moments ago about the evidence better supporting another idea, not science. You and I can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. It’s part of the example I gave with the frogs and science students.
“I also wonder what made you choose Christianity as your religion? I mean you are almost as much atheist as I am”
-For the previous reasons above, but no, I am not. There are multiple gods throughout the world, but not all are synonymous and it’s impossible to believe all of them, therefore, it’s not that you believe one less than I do, it’s that it’s impossible to believe them all as you imply through saying “I believe one less than you.”
“Then how can you discern if your statement is true as you imply it is?”
-You get the same simple answer as before, it is true to the extent it is possible to discern for the time being. As no one has yet provided any method to discern an ultimate truth that can show without a shadow of a doubt that it is an ultimate truth, then how could I state that what I say is absolutely true? It would have to be a method that is accepted by everyone; otherwise it would only be true to some people. If it is only true to some people then how can you call it an ultimate truth?
For example, in math it is possible to have ultimate truths. 1+1 is always going to be 2, for every person who has the capacity for understanding how addition works. It doesn’t matter if you’re religious or atheist; there is no possible way to interpret it where the result wouldn’t be 2.
“We are. In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”
-No. It does not go further. The theory of evolution starts when life already exists. It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.
“It has to deal with where humanity arose, so technically it does.”
-Yes, it deals with how humans evolved from other animals. It says nothing about how the first life on earth came into being. In what technical way is it the same thing? It shows what kind of species came before humans and what came before them and so on back to the first single-cell life on this planet. Maybe we are just using the same terms in different meanings. When I speak of origins, I mean the origins of life on this planet, which science so far only has a hypothesis to, abiogenesis.
“And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything. If we don’t, then you’re just as wrong as I am and this conversation is fruitless.”
-I said that about the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Not about evolution. Please don’t mix the two together, that just shows you don’t understand science. Why do you keep trying to mix a scientific theory together with a scientific hypothesis? This I find a bit dishonest in your way of debating, when you constantly try to tell me why evolution can’t be correct by stating things that have nothing to do with evolution. I said earlier that we don’t have enough information to make a theory of abiogenesis, that’s why it’s still at the hypothesis stage. Evolution we have plenty of evidence of. I wrote a long paragraph about this in my last comment, what part is it you don’t understand? If there is a theory about a specified field, then why is it so hard to understand that anything outside of these specifications does not belong to the theory? I agree that they are connected in the sense that without life there is no evolution, but that does not change the fact that the origin of life is outside the boundaries that concerns evolution.
“Probably because they’re ‘using science’ in the wrong context. Using the method which is flawed will definitely not get them anywhere in trying to disprove anything to them or others since the method is flawed itself.”
-Thank you. Then I hope you can convince other creationists or ID followers to stop doing this .
I also still don’t understand in what way the method is flawed, and I’m afraid that we might not ever reach a point where you manage to explain it in a way that I would understand, given the many times we’ve tried this already
“So what if falsifiability is put on trial here? If the idea that something has to be falsifiable to be science can be falsifiable itself, then what validity is something to be set in the standard of being falsifiable to discover truth?”
-I’m not quite sure I follow what you’re trying to say here. I feel like you’re trying to say that you should use a method on a method to show that the method is applicable or something like that. To me that sounds like circular reasoning, you can have a method of making food (read the recipe, mix the ingredients then cook), but how would you apply the method onto itself? This just sounds ridiculous so I hope I have misunderstood what you meant as I seem to keep doing
“After all, even if truth can be falsifiable, how can we be sure anything is true?”
-If no one manages to falsify it of course. If you have an ultimate truth as a scientific theory, then there would be absolutely no way to falsify it.
“So there cannot be self-evident truths? It all has to be falsifiable in some way?”
-Exactly. In science there can’t be any self-evident truths. What you perceive as self-evident might not be to me. Self-evident truths hinges on the perception of the individual. Science is how you work towards objective truths. That gives the same results no matter who performs the experiment. No matter what person you are, where you come from or what place you’re at you would get the same results from doing the same experiment.
“There are many things science is good for and I will agree with. In present applications (and multiple future uses) it is very useful and a great aid in advancing. However, it does have its falsifying factors as we can see when we try to apply it to origins.”
-But how can you agree with anything that has sprung from science if you consider the method faulty? Sorry, what do you mean when you apply it to origins? Since we haven’t gotten far enough in the search for how life started I don’t quite know how you would apply it?
“Yes, I believe the Bible cover to cover”
-Do you believe it literally or metaphorically, or is it a mix of both?
“That’s not so much mixing faith with science as rising conflict between the two and discovering which is right”
-Ok, I actually understand your reasoning here
I don’t agree with the conclusions you draw, but that’s another thing. How do you test the validity of what is written in the bible?
“You mean to tell me you’re eliminating answers before coming to a conclusion when presented with a problem? Strange, I think I addressed that issue and you disagreed with it didn’t I?”
-No, not at all. Why would I reject any possible answers? Did you not understand my explanation? My quote: “Science has never stated that it is impossible for a creator to be behind origins of life, but since there is no way of testing or proving this, it doesn’t belong in science.” What it means is that if you have a possible answer to a question you just have to be able to set up an experiment that is falsifiable. Are you saying that is possible with religion?
“I find more evidence for it which is what drew me in, then faith took over and that was the nail in the coffin. I don’t think I could’ve started with faith, but I knew I wasn’t going to be able to survive on the evidence alone”
-This is a discussion where I feel intrigued to learn more, I hope you don’t feel I get too personal or anything, but I find it very interesting trying to understand how people with other worldviews then me thinks.
What kind of evidence is it? You don’t have to go into specifics if you’re not comfortable with it even though I wouldn’t mind anecdotes as well
“You and I can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. It’s part of the example I gave with the frogs and science students.”
-But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty, and if that’s the case then it gets reworked or discarded. Your example with the frog is still not a good example considering it would never get any further then the initial ‘not so smart people’ who conducted the experiment. What part of my explanations about how your example is incorrect is it you don’t understand? Do we need to take it once again or could you just point to how you think it is a relevant example?
“For the previous reasons above, but no, I am not. There are multiple gods throughout the world, but not all are synonymous and it’s impossible to believe all of them, therefore, it’s not that you believe one less than I do, it’s that it’s impossible to believe them all as you imply through saying “I believe one less than you.””
-How is it implied that it would be possible to believe in all of them? All I’m saying is that you don’t believe in any of the Hindu gods, and I don’t either. You don’t believe in the Norse gods, I don’t either. You believe in the Christian god, I don’t. I’m not trying to imply that it is possible to believe in all of them at the same time, usually religions are exclusive, that is the point I was trying to make, that there is just one of all these religions that you believe is true and hundreds that you don’t believe.
I do guess that you believe in the Christian god, and I have read as much of the bible that I know that you shouldn’t have any other gods than him (or her? or it? do the bible ever state a gender or is god maybe above such things. I think I’ve seen some argument that even though mankind is supposed to be created in the image of god that the creator is above such things but in the old translations it was more convenient to use the masculine form). Wouldn’t that make you an atheist for any other god then the Christian (or Abrahamic) god? Or are you speaking in a more spiritual way somehow linking some of the different faiths, only that the ways of believing differs?
I think you mentioned somewhere earlier that you go to a Christian college, what is that like? Do they teach the natural sciences like evolution there? Do you get classes in the different big religions in the world? Did you also attend something like a Christian elementary school, or is the US (I just assume you’re American, I don’t remember if you have mentioned this or not) elementary school supposed to be secular?
When I grew up here in Sweden we had classes in religion, and all the big religions were covered about as equally. Of course we did learn a bit more about Christianity but more as a part of our history since we were a Christian country once.
“You get the same simple answer as before, it is true to the extent it is possible to discern for the time being”
-But you said that we can’t discern said truths, so your objection being built upon that is still false. You can’t say “we can’t discern these truths for the time being” and then say “what I said is true for the time being.” Double standards aren’t an effective measurement to discover accurate information.
“It would have to be a method that is accepted by everyone”
-There are still some people that believe geocentric orbit. Does that mean the current system we believe to be true is false? Majority opinion does not determine truth. I think we can see that through history in certain areas.
“It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.”
-I never said it did, but it does deal with where humanity originated.
“When I speak of origins, I mean the origins of life on this planet”
-As am I, but my primary focus is humanity.
“I said that about the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Not about evolution. Please don’t mix the two together”
-They both deal with the origin of humanity, just in different ways.
“I also still don’t understand in what way the method is flawed”
-I showed how with the frog example. That along with the idea that science can’t discover truth using the scientific method itself is self-defeating.
” I feel like you’re trying to say that you should use a method on a method to show that the method is applicable or something like that”
-You’re getting close (read below)
“To me that sounds like circular reasoning”
-Ohhh, so close, but no cigar.
We’re not using a method on a method to see if it can prove itself. We’re using a method on a method to see if it contradicts itself. If it does, then it’s false, but if it’s not contradictory, then we move on to the next phase in discovering it’s validity.
“Self-evident truths hinges on the perception of the individual.”
-No, self-evient truth is knowing something is true without evidence. One’s perception would be evidence of a particular instance. That’s how I see it anyway.
“But how can you agree with anything that has sprung from science if you consider the method faulty?”
-Because people don’t “only” use the method alone. In present and many future applications they throw in the thing that is not as easily distinguishable (but still distinguished nonetheless), that being common sense.
“Do you believe it literally or metaphorically, or is it a mix of both?”
-Far more than that. There’s a whole list of literary features used throughout the Bible. Literal, metaphors, rhetoric, parable, etc.
“How do you test the validity of what is written in the bible?”
-Depends with which part of the Bible you’re looking at for the most part, but to give a general look, seeing as the Bible is over 60 books written by about 40 authors throughout all periods of time in about 3 different countries (all being factors that should falsify something if it were a lie) and yet it still lives on today as a concise testament through all it has endured, be it destroyed, slain, persecuted, martyred, etc.
“What it means is that if you have a possible answer to a question you just have to be able to set up an experiment that is falsifiable. Are you saying that is possible with religion?”
-If we both have a clear understanding of the term ‘falsifiable’ then yes.
“What kind of evidence is it?”
-Depends what we’re looking at. Asking what kind of evidence is like asking what is a bike. Well, what kind of bike are we talking about? Are we interested in the history of where bikes came from or how it works? Are we looking for how it’s made or the mathematics behind it being a mode of transportation? There’s multiple segments to such a general statement.
“But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty”
-Yet we come to different conclusions regarding origins.
“All I’m saying is that you don’t believe in any of the Hindu gods, and I don’t either”
-Because my belief contradicts them. Just like theirs contradicts mine and the vast majority of other religions contradict others. Saying you believe one less than I do is not valid because it’s to say that it’s possible to believe them all. In reality, there may be a handful of religions that don’t contradict each other and allow for syncretism. Regardless of that, this isn’t about how close we may seem, what matters is the final results.
“Wouldn’t that make you an atheist for any other god then the Christian (or Abrahamic) god?”
-If you want to severely twist the definition, sure.
“I know that you shouldn’t have any other gods than him (or her? or it? do the bible ever state a gender or is god maybe above such things.”
-He’s pronounced to be our heavenly ‘father’ who is composed up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, so God has a masculine identity. Man was also made in the image of God, and woman from man.
“Do they teach the natural sciences like evolution there?”
-They’ve brought it up from time to time and we’re all aware of it at the school.
“Do you get classes in the different big religions in the world?”
-They speak on multiple religions every day regardless of the class one is enrolled in.
“Did you also attend something like a Christian elementary school, or is the US (I just assume you’re American, I don’t remember if you have mentioned this or not) elementary school supposed to be secular?”
-I was in a secular school all the way through high school.
“You can’t say “we can’t discern these truths for the time being” and then say “what I said is true for the time being.” Double standards aren’t an effective measurement to discover accurate information.”
-In the first quote from me I was talking about ultimate truths. In the second quote I was referring to that something was as true as is possible for the time being. How is that double standards?
I think I know what the problem is here. You are applying logic on my linguistic phrasing at the time I am describing how science works. This is why I keep saying you’re using semantics to prove a point instead of trying to understand what it is really about. Let’s break my original sentence down for you.
Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one. When science finds an ultimate truth it can never be shown to be false, therefore it is impossible to know that it is an ultimate truth but at the same time it is true as far as we can possibly show.
I can agree that I might have made some error in my allusion that could make it seem like I wasn’t talking about the scientific method (I don’t want to go back in the discussion and check right now). I also mention falsifiability in greater detail below.
“There are still some people that believe geocentric orbit. Does that mean the current system we believe to be true is false? Majority opinion does not determine truth. I think we can see that through history in certain areas.”
-I said it would have to be a method that is acceptable to everyone. I agree that maybe I should have phrased that differently, but as I have said several times before, without a clearly defined method of discerning an absolute truth, how can you claim it is one?
““It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.”
-I never said it did, but it does deal with where humanity originated.”
-To quote what you said in your previous comment:
“In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”
How is that not a claim that evolution deals with the origin of life?
You also stated:
“And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything.”
I would say that shows that you are trying to mix abiogenesis and evolution together since when I said it, it was clear that I was talking about abiogenesis.
“As am I, but my primary focus is humanity.”
-Then I would suggest that you make the difference clear in your text. If you are discussing science then try to make sure you know where the boundaries for certain theories or hypothesis are drawn and make sure to show this when talking, otherwise it just seems like you either don’t understand the science alternatively are trying to confuse whomever you are talking to.
“I showed how with the frog example. That along with the idea that science can’t discover truth using the scientific method itself is self-defeating.”
-No, with the frog you showed a flawed experiment. I showed you why it was flawed and that it would never pass as science. After I showed all the ways it was a bad example since science doesn’t work that way, you picked out a small piece of all my arguments and left the rest. I pointed this out and you once again disregarded all my argument. Now you use this example yet again.
Also, science does discover truths; it just can’t show it is a truth.
“We’re using a method on a method to see if it contradicts itself.”
-So are you saying the scientific method contradicts itself? If that is the case, then please explain how.
“No, self-evient truth is knowing something is true without evidence”
-But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method? And how do you know something is true without evidence? Could you give me an example? I am quite tired now and it might be something obvious that I don’t see, if that’s the case it’s because it’s Monday
“Because people don’t “only” use the method alone. In present and many future applications they throw in the thing that is not as easily distinguishable (but still distinguished nonetheless), that being common sense.”
-No, if something comes from science then the scientific method has been used all the way from experiment to result. It will probably look like common sense after we see the result though.
“Far more than that. There’s a whole list of literary features used throughout the Bible. Literal, metaphors, rhetoric, parable, etc.”
-How do you know when god wants you to believe a passage literally or metaphorically?
“Depends with which part of the Bible you’re looking at for the most part, but to give a general look, seeing as the Bible is over 60 books written by about 40 authors throughout all periods of time in about 3 different countries (all being factors that should falsify something if it were a lie) and yet it still lives on today as a concise testament through all it has endured, be it destroyed, slain, persecuted, martyred, etc.”
-I’m not quite sure I follow. Is it valid because it has existed for a long time and is authored by many people?
I do find this quite fascinating though, that a collection of books that people have been adding and subtracting from for such a long time have developed to what we have today.
“If we both have a clear understanding of the term ‘falsifiable’ then yes.”
-I’m guessing this means you still haven’t understood the term then. I will cut the first paragraphs from Wikipedia, perhaps you can understand it better then when I tried explaining:
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
The claim “No human lives forever” is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, “All humans live forever” is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if “All humans live forever” were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong.
““What kind of evidence is it?”
-Depends what we’re looking at. Asking what kind of evidence is like asking what is a bike.”
-But I am totally illiterate about these things. I don’t even know what different types of evidence I could be asking for
““But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty”
-Yet we come to different conclusions regarding origins.”
-As I have said before, science has not come to any conclusions about origins. Science has a couple of hypothesis about origins, but there are no conclusions. If there was any certainty then abiogenesis for example might be a theory and not just a hypothesis.
Or are you talking about something else again? If you’re talking about the evolutionary tree that shows all of humanities descendants, then there are no different conclusions.
“Saying you believe one less than I do is not valid because it’s to say that it’s possible to believe them all.”
-I’m not sure I agree here, or maybe I just don’t understand again… but anyway it’s not anything I need to delve more in since it was just a question I have been thinking of a bit and you did answer
“He’s pronounced to be our heavenly ‘father’ who is composed up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, so God has a masculine identity. Man was also made in the image of God, and woman from man.”
-Yes, these things I am aware of. I guess I was mostly curious to know if there is any internal discussion among Christians about these things. As I said, I heard someone describe that god was a ‘father’ and masculine due to the translation and that we shouldn’t think about him as something other than a divine being that is far beyond human conceptions.
“They’ve brought it up from time to time and we’re all aware of it at the school.”
-I think my point about evolution being taught was quite moot after you said you want to secular school up to high school In collage you’re already supposed to know these things.
So maybe I should rather ask what you’re studying. Since my interest lie in what differences there would be between a Christian school and a secular, I guess it would be rather difficult to ask anything about it without knowing your major, or is that just in university that you have majors? In Sweden we go to 9 years of primary school (we start at the age of 7), 3 years in a sort of high school and then it’s off to university, I’m not entirely sure how your educational system works…
By the way, do you want to start a new thread since you said you found it annoying to keep scrolling upwards to the last comment made? If yes, then feel free to do so, I’ll still answer
I hope you haven’t made a comment that got eaten by failblog… I had some trouble when I tried to post my last one… it might have been because of it’s length or maybe just that we talked to long
“I just want Ben to know that when viewed from the outside it’s quite obvious that ICWUDT either dodges your questions in an intelectually dishonest way or maybe ICWUDT really really doesn’t understand how science works”
-Not necessarily dodging so much as pointing out a flaw in a question before answering the question itself. If somebody tells you, “Hey, humans don’t exist,” would you be debating about the existence of humans or would you point out that what he said is flawed from the beginning since he is a human?
In order to have an intellectual conversation, all presuppositions/assumptions must be accurate before you answer somebodies question. I think that’s the problem with evolution is they get the assumptions wrong which tampers with their results.
It is convenient to assume the assumptions are wrong so you can avoid those, yet you take your own assumptions as correct and truthful.
By the way, although I don’t agree with you, i find this whole discussion interesting and would like to know if there is any other media where you debate your ideas.
“It is convenient to assume the assumptions are wrong so you can avoid those, yet you take your own assumptions as correct and truthful”
-Whenever someone points out how they’re wrong/inaccurate/faulty, I’ll gladly correct them.
“By the way, although I don’t agree with you, i find this whole discussion interesting and would like to know if there is any other media where you debate your ideas.”
-Not really, just wherever I see fit.
The Bible doesn’t go into the extinction because it’s not relevant to anything biblical. It’s similar to mentioning the survival of fish in the flood of Noah’s day, it’s unimportant and unnecessary. However, in regards to the existence of dinosaurs, the first thing you have to take to heart is that the word “dinosaur” wasn’t invented until the late 1800′s so we’re not going to find that word in the Bible. What we do find are words of animals that describe similar features of dinosaurs. Words like Behemoths, Dragons, Sea Serpents, etc.
“In the first quote from me I was talking about ultimate truths”
-And what’s the difference between truth and ultimate truth? The truth is 2+2 equals 4. The ultimate truth is 2+2 still equals 4. They’re synonymous. “Ultimate” truth is just used for emphasis on the importance of truth.
“In the second quote I was referring to that something was as true as is possible for the time being. How is that double standards?”
-Saying we can’t discern truth and then saying something is true for the time being is to contradict your first statement. That’s where the double standard comes in. I prefer to just call it self-defeating or contradicting though.
“I think I know what the problem is here. You are applying logic on my linguistic phrasing at the time I am describing how science works.”
-Communication is a very important thing. This is why I pick apart what people say to see if what they say is accurate. Most times I do it jokingly, but since we’re discussing a more serious matter, I do it to attain accurate information. If we can’t communicate effectively because we keep cutting corners on what we say and what we mean then we’re not going to get anywhere.
“Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one”
-Exactly my point, which is why it’s self-defeating.
“I said it would have to be a method that is acceptable to everyone”
-No, you said, “It would have to be a method that is acceptED BY everyone.” Just those minor changes can alter the whole meaning of your sentence.
“How is that not a claim that evolution deals with the origin of life?”
-It can be. However, it’s also just as equally a claim that evolution deals with the origin of humanity.
“without a clearly defined method of discerning an absolute truth, how can you claim it is one?”
-I agree, but I’m not claiming anything to be absolute or truthful yet. We just have bare assertions (currently). The only thing I’m dealing with right now is the false idea that they *don’t* exist (or in your case, the idea that they are indiscernible).
“Then I would suggest that you make the difference clear in your text”
-I try, but I also make some of my answers broad for a reason to see your reactional answer on the topic I’ve placed in front of you over a thought out one.
“No, with the frog you showed a flawed experiment. I showed you why it was flawed and that it would never pass as science.”
-Well, first off, it is science. It’s just “bad” science. I’m using the method to gain my results and then interpreting my conclusion from them. That’s scientific. However, you’re right that it’s flawed. It’s bad science because we know that cutting off a frog’s leg doesn’t effect its hearing. There’s multiple tests we could devise for that. The point is, the very first test can result in getting the false conclusion I placed forth. True, it’s wrong “because” there’s other tests you can do. That’s not my point though. The fact of the matter is you CAN get false conclusions, period, and have the results support it. This is something that needs to be refined.
“Also, science does discover truths; it just can’t show it is a truth”
-Then there’s no point believing anything it says is true. Get everything out of the school systems that’s stated to be true under science since school texts are required to be updated to be factually accurate. If it’s not fact, it’s not true.
“So are you saying the scientific method contradicts itself? If that is the case, then please explain how.”
-I’ve explained how multiple times. The idea that the scientific method discovers truth (or truthful information) cannot be tested by the scientific method itself.
“But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method?”
-I’m not saying I do, but if it will give us more accurate information then I say why not?
“And how do you know something is true without evidence?”
-I don’t need to see pictures of my birth to know I was born. The Constitution of the United States lists moral statements that they follow up by saying “We find these TRUTHS to be *SELF-EVIDENT.*” The interesting thing is that we can agree with what they say as if it’s universal.
“How do you know when god wants you to believe a passage literally or metaphorically?”
-That’s where the study of Hermeneutics comes in. I’ve yet to study it in it’s entirety, but to give you a broad perspective of what we’re dealing with, here’s one way of deciphering the difference. In Hebrew, there’s certain ways to say something, but the way the sentence is structured determines if it’s literal or poetical/non-literal. I can’t exactly remember the sequence for both (they’re in my notes if I can ever find the blasted spiral notes), but it’s an organization between the subject, noun, and verb (Ex. God created the beast vs Created God the beast)
“I’m guessing this means you still haven’t understood the term then. I will cut the first paragraphs from Wikipedia, perhaps you can understand it better then when I tried explaining”
-That’s great, but if you want to define falsifiability then I want your definition, not someone else’s. I get enough confusion as it is with everyone disagreeing about the definition. However, if wikipedia is your definition, then ok. I just want to establish that.
“I don’t even know what different types of evidence I could be asking for”
-I gave some examples when I was speaking of the bike example.
“I guess I was mostly curious to know if there is any internal discussion among Christians about these things”
-There’s a lot of controversy about virtually everything in the Bible which is what leads to so many denominations. This is why we need to be careful in interpreting what we’re reading otherwise we can get multiple [false] conclusions (and thus, so many denominations).
“By the way, do you want to start a new thread since you said you found it annoying to keep scrolling upwards to the last comment made?”
-But of course!
“And what’s the difference between truth and ultimate truth?”
-In practice there’s no difference at all. You were the one talking about ultimate truths when I tried to explain how science worked. As I have said over and over, with science, within natural sciences, it is not possible to show that something is true, just that it is as true as we have methods of measuring.
If we use math as an example, and take the number pi. It is possible to use pi in most everyday instances and only measure it as 3.14. This is true even though we know we have rounded off the decimals. If we use state of the art computers we get a much more exact pi. Does that mean that when we didn’t have computers that 3.14 were untrue?
I know this is not a perfect analogy since it will never be possible to show all decimals for pi, but the principle is still the same. As long as we keep finding better methods of calculating, the closer we get.
“Saying we can’t discern truth and then saying something is true for the time being is to contradict your first statement.”
-I have only been trying to explain how the scientific method works. For most people on this planet it is enough to know that we have found out as much as possible with the methods we have about a given subject. Of course there is always a possibility that some new finding will show that what we know now isn’t entirely correct, but then we just adjust our perception a bit.
“If we can’t communicate effectively because we keep cutting corners on what we say and what we mean then we’re not going to get anywhere.”
-But the reason we started this discussion was that you didn’t accept that I could look at something being true while at the same time saying you can’t show that this is an ultimate truth.
I agree that communication is very important. I do try to phrase myself in a way that isn’t possible to interpret in any other way that what I mean. In this case however it seems that you are unwilling to accept that there can be degrees to the truth, I thought I had made that very clear. Today something can be true, but when we find out more information about the subject then the perception changes.
““Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one”
-Exactly my point, which is why it’s self-defeating”
-This is why I think you don’t get what we’re talking about. Science has never claimed to be able to find out any ultimate truths. How can a method be self-defeating in something it doesn’t claim to be able to do?
“It can be. However, it’s also just as equally a claim that evolution deals with the origin of humanity.”
-So when you said “In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”, what did you mean that “we simply don’t have life”? I really can’t see any other meaning of that sentence then that evolution would deal with how the first life appeared.
“I agree, but I’m not claiming anything to be absolute or truthful yet. We just have bare assertions (currently). The only thing I’m dealing with right now is the false idea that they *don’t* exist (or in your case, the idea that they are indiscernible).”
-I only say they are indiscernible in natural sciences using the scientific method.
“I try, but I also make some of my answers broad for a reason to see your reactional answer on the topic I’ve placed in front of you over a thought out one.”
-Yes, I’ve noticed this over and over in some cases it’s quite interesting since I have to make a better argument but in many cases it is mostly annoying since it gives the impression that you don’t understand the subject.
“True, it’s wrong “because” there’s other tests you can do. That’s not my point though. The fact of the matter is you CAN get false conclusions, period, and have the results support it. This is something that needs to be refined.”
-No. It’s not about other tests you CAN do. If you’re using science it’s about all the tests you HAVE TO do, and all the tests that your peers HAVE TO do. It is not science if just one team of people does an experiment.
“Then there’s no point believing anything it says is true. Get everything out of the school systems that’s stated to be true under science since school texts are required to be updated to be factually accurate. If it’s not fact, it’s not true.”
-Now I think you are mixing different sciences together and mixing up what they are used for. What exactly is it you want taken from the textbooks?
“The idea that the scientific method discovers truth (or truthful information) cannot be tested by the scientific method itself.”
-Who is saying it doesn’t discover truthful information?
And I would say it is possible to test what you are saying here. What we need to do is to stipulate a falsifiable claim, something like: Can the scientific method be used to discover truths? Then you take something you know is true (e.g. it is possible to make calls on a mobile phone), stipulate your hypothesis (is it possible to make calls on a mobile phone) and test it using the scientific method (make a call). There, the method has been used to test if the method can find truths.
““But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method?”
-I’m not saying I do, but if it will give us more accurate information then I say why not?”
-And you keep talking to me about how I phrase what I am saying . You are not saying that you want to mix anything else into the method, but if… then why not. I think that sounds exactly like you want to mix other things into the equation if it would give a certain outcome.
In that case it would cease to be science though. Why do you ask me to be precise in the conversation when you try to mix up different subjects? If you want to talk about a method that can discern accurate information according to your thinking, that’s one thing, but if that is the case, please state that instead of asking why it isn’t in the scientific method. I have explained how the method works, are you saying you don’t really understand?
“I don’t need to see pictures of my birth to know I was born. The Constitution of the United States lists moral statements that they follow up by saying “We find these TRUTHS to be *SELF-EVIDENT.*” The interesting thing is that we can agree with what they say as if it’s universal.”
-So we have changed the subject from talking about natural sciences here? Then yes, there is self-evident truths.
And in a few years time we will have advanced enough in medicine to be able to make babies that grow from conception outside of a human body, so then being alive won’t be enough to know that you have been born
Also, I wouldn’t say that any kind of moral statements can be perceived as self-evident truths considering that the moral of people change over time.
“[..]I can’t exactly remember the sequence for both (they’re in my notes if I can ever find the blasted spiral notes), but it’s an organization between the subject, noun, and verb (Ex. God created the beast vs Created God the beast)”
-This is quite interesting. Have you studied Hebrew and linguistics to be able to analyze these things or do you use other methods?
“That’s great, but if you want to define falsifiability then I want your definition, not someone else’s.”
-You sound like I should have a personal definition of falsifiability? We are talking about the scientific method here; it does not have more than one definition. If other people have explained it differently they have either been wrong or they haven’t been able to explain it in a way that you could understand. People all over the world use this method in science and they use it the same way. For scientists there doesn’t exist more than one definition, for laymen that try to explain this to other laymen there might be discrepancies in their understanding.
“I gave some examples when I was speaking of the bike example.”
-Well, as I made my first statement I was interested in all the different types of evidence. This is just a question I pose out of curiosity since I don’t know much about the world you come from; if you need it to be more precise then I guess I could try. You said that you had found evidence before you found faith, then maybe I should ask how you got the idea to start looking for evidence or was it presented to you or was it by chance maybe? What age were you? Was it some of the evidence that was some sort of a deal-breaker that when you found it you knew that this is the right thing for you. What type of historical evidence are you talking about? What other types of evidences are there to apply?
Maybe I should also add the question of what do you consider evidence, just so we don’t start a big discussion only to find out that we have different definitions
“There’s a lot of controversy about virtually everything in the Bible which is what leads to so many denominations. This is why we need to be careful in interpreting what we’re reading otherwise we can get multiple [false] conclusions (and thus, so many denominations).”
-Haha, yes, I have noticed that there are quite a few different denominations. I guess that most of them think it’s ok to have a slightly different interpretation as long as the main parts are the same (love, one god, jesus and so forth ), or is there a lot of enmity between the denominations? I understand that the more extreme ones are shunned by most (Westboro and their likes). How do you decide which of the denominations that have the best interpretation? Is it common that people switch denominations?
Hmm, I think our comments grow a bit every time we write an answer even though it feels like we say less in them I wonder if there are any other people that are still following this thread or if we have scared all of them off…
Regarding your last question, just want to let you know that I follow the discussion very closely and find it very interesting, although I don’t consider my english good enough to discuss logics and semantics so I never really try to get in the debate. (Also it would be uneducated at this point)
“You were the one talking about ultimate truths when I tried to explain how science worked”
-I’m aware, however it was for emphasis to describe the bone or the root of what we were discussing and nothing more.
“If we use math as an example…”
-Well, first of all, math is an abstract concept so it’s not the best of methods to use as a foundation of information. Secondly, the example you gave only addresses that something basic can be true, but delving into it more complexly can still be equally true. That’s not my argument. My argument is that truth is truth; something concrete is either true or it’s false. “Ultimate” truth was just used for emphasis. However, it was a good example in stating that science is just getting general truths and that it can get closer as time goes on. That’s great, I’m all for that, but until it’s right and until it can withstand criticism, then we need to leave it as theoretical (while still testing it) and stop teaching it to be fact, or at least stop making taxpayers pay for this idea to be taught when they may disagree. That’s what they have private schools for, to teach those that want to learn it as fact. Otherwise teach it as an idea/opinion in a history class just as in government.
“I have only been trying to explain how the scientific method works”
-And in the process you’ve been contradicting yourself, that’s all I’ve been explaining.
“But the reason we started this discussion was that you didn’t accept that I could look at something being true while at the same time saying you can’t show that this is an ultimate truth”
-Assuming I understand you correctly, you looking at something true and me disagreeing that it’s not an “ultimate truth” (again, used for emphasis alone), then that’s not an argument of truth but an argument of politics/opinion. There’s only one truth, there are not variants of truth. Either gravity exists or it doesn’t, you can’t have 2 people disagree and both of them be right. One person is obviously wrong. The only way there could be “variants of truth” is if it’s not truth but opinion which is deeply rooted into politics. Truth deals with the concrete. Opinion deals with the unstable.
“Science has never claimed to be able to find out any ultimate truths. How can a method be self-defeating in something it doesn’t claim to be able to do?”
-If it’s not true then there’s no point defending it as such. If you’re using the method to determine something then nothing in it can be true just as the conclusion can’t be. It’s all opinion, and I don’t deal with opinions, I deal with facts. Facts have a truth factor. Are you saying science doesn’t use facts because it doesn’t claim to be true?
“Today something can be true, but when we find out more information about the subject then the perception changes.”
-Today we may think something is true, but in reality it never was if we find something to conflict that previous idea in the future. Truth never changes, our perception of the truth can (as you stated). In the past people thought lightning was an act of the anger of God. Later they find out that it’s an act of nature, not God. The truth that lightning was a natural act did not change, our perception of that truth did.
“what did you mean that “we simply don’t have life”? I really can’t see any other meaning of that sentence then that evolution would deal with how the first life appeared”
-It does, however, as aforementioned a few posts ago, it also means the origination of humanity. They’re both equally true, but my argument is still targeted at the origin of humanity.
“Yes, I’ve noticed this over and over in some cases it’s quite interesting since I have to make a better argument but in many cases it is mostly annoying since it gives the impression that you don’t understand the subject.”
-And thus many reporters are hated/annoying. They still get the information though.
“It is not science if just one team of people does an experiment.”
-I’m not talking about one team doing a particular science experiment. I’m talking about the experiment itself. I’ve shown that it is indeed true you can get false conclusions with seemingly accurate results regardless of the number of tests you do (it’s the same results) which can be used as a springboard to get more information based on that alone. However, if it’s false then everything built upon it is just as false. That’s one point I’m making.
“What exactly is it you want taken from the textbooks?”
-If everything in science isn’t claiming to be true, then the science books.
“Who is saying it doesn’t discover truthful information?”
-You are, since it doesn’t claim to be true (by your opinion) then the information is either untruthful or all opinionated and never certain. Take your pick.
“And I would say it is possible to test what you are saying here. What we need to do is to stipulate a falsifiable claim, something like: Can the scientific method be used to discover truths? Then you take something you know is true…”
-Already false. We’re testing the “idea itself” that science discovers truth by the scientific method. All you did was substitute the idea for an idea. So now we have the idea that science discovers truth by using the scientific method of something of known truth by the scientific method. You’re using the method to prove the method (which is circular reasoning). You need to test the idea itself. Since this cannot be done, it is self-defeating.
“You are not saying that you want to mix anything else into the method, but if… then why not”
-I’m saying that I’m neutral on the subject of mixing or not mixing something with science based on the idea of gaining truthful knowledge. *However,* if one of said acts will give more accurate information, then why not? Make it unscientific or scientific. Figure out the semantics/classification of this better method later if that’s the issue here. This is if I understood you correctly.
“I think that sounds exactly like you want to mix other things into the equation if it would give a certain outcome”
-If it’s a truthful outcome, then sure.
“This is quite interesting. Have you studied Hebrew and linguistics to be able to analyze these things or do you use other methods?”
-It’s been a while.
“You sound like I should have a personal definition of falsifiability?”
-Because everyone I talk to has a different definition which raises completely different arguments. I’ve been able to disprove science just on falsifiability alone just because of one person’s definition, whereas for another person I wasn’t able to use it at all for that use from their understanding/definition. It just depends who I talk to.
“maybe I should ask how you got the idea to start looking for evidence or was it presented to you or was it by chance maybe?”
-I just had questions that I wasn’t getting answers from at school, so I researched it. Pardon my language, but Google is one hell of a database.
“What age were you?”
-17
“Was it some of the evidence that was some sort of a deal-breaker that when you found it you knew that this is the right thing for you”
-It answered my questions and then some.
“What type of historical evidence are you talking about?”
-That, like hermeneutics, is something I’m not up to date on.
“How do you decide which of the denominations that have the best interpretation?”
-I’m still going through it all seeing as the Bible is rather large and complexly written, but so far whenever I study any denomination, their interpretation doesn’t withstand as much criticism as Christian apologetics will point out.
“Is it common that people switch denominations?”
-Uncertain about that, but I doubt it. Once someone is in a denomination, they usually aren’t open to another idea. To be quite honest, I’m looking for faults in Christianity myself, but I’m not finding much that I haven’t found answers to. As far as I’m concerned, the only weak point in Christianity I’ve found is that those who don’t know Jesus are still sent to hell even if they’re unaware. That’s the only part that I find difficulty with, but the Bible isn’t clear on it so I guess I’ll just wait and see.
“I wonder if there are any other people that are still following this thread or if we have scared all of them off…”
-I scare myself off sometimes. o.O
“I agree, but there are still degrees and it depends on the subject”
-If there are degrees and variants of truth, then it’s not concrete truths we’re dealing with (as I stated in my previous comment), but rather a matter of politics/opinion. There are many ideas for the origin of life, the universe, humanity itself, etc., but there’s only one answer. Our perception of the topic isn’t concrete, but the topic itself is. We know there’s an answer, but our perception/limitations can’t get us a definitive answer with 100% assurity. There is not any variant of truth here, there’s variants of opinions and ideas of what the single and concrete truth is.
“We have factual evidence that one species have evolved into another and so forth”
-No, not to be harsh towards you (which means, here comes the harsh part, lol), but finding a similarities between one set of bones/fossils/locations/etc between another doesn’t prove diddly (pardon my language ) for evolution (nor against creation/religious perspectives). I find similarities all the time between spoons, measuring cups, to soup ladles, small cooking pots to big cooking pots as well as knives, to spoons, to sporks, to forks all the time. It doesn’t prove they evolved. If anything (and I stress the “if” part as much as I can) it proves that similarity between objects shows it was intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. As far as I’m concerned, similarity proves both our views, and as such, cannot be used against either one’s argument/side.
“That is also the facts that are taught in schools and in science books”
-I have no problem if you want to say that we see similarities. That’s perfectly fine by me and I 100% agree. It’s when people start teaching their own/personal interpretation on the evidence that I get involved. That’s all school needs to do is put forth the facts and let the students come to their own interpretations and conclusions about the facts themselves. We’re supposed to teach people to think critically. We can’t do that if we try to put answers in their heads with what we’re teaching them. That’s what brainwashing is. Not teaching. You can get anyone who doesn’t know any better to believe 2+2 equals 5 that way.
“the teachers explain that everything fits perfectly into the theory of evolution”
-And when I researched answers to my questions myself, everything they explained fit just as well with the creation/Christian model. This goes back to the previous statement above^
“I agree that there can only be one truth but sometimes it is impossible to show what it is”
-With our human limitations, I can agree. That’s why we rely on that which gives us the best evidence.
““One person is obviously wrong.”
-Or both”
-Also true, but my argument was the fact that we can’t both be right. At least one of us would be wrong.
“The facts and truths come from other parts of science and research”
-So the results are truthful, correct?
“How do you define facts?”
-As being truthful sources of information.
“When people thought lightning was coming from the gods they didn’t have a method of determining this. In science today we don’t attribute what we don’t know to something”
-Not my point. My argument is perception vs truth. Our perception changes (in this case, to use your rebuttal, the perception that changed was we have a method today whereas we didn’t have one in the past). Truth doesn’t change.
“How can you say they’re both equally true?”
-Because the origin of life (fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc) encompasses everything, including humanity. I’m simply focusing on humanity. It’s not that my argument doesn’t talk about origins of life in the broadest form. It can if taken in that context, but it can also be taken in the context regarding the origin of humanity specifically. That’s all I’m focusing on.
“Of course people can come to an incorrect conclusion”
-That’s all I was trying to make you aware of.
“I was saying the scientific method couldn’t show that something is true”
-Thank you! That’s how I’ve been saying it’s self-defeating. Wow, we’re 2 for 2 in agreement in a matter of seconds!
“Science doesn’t discover truths with the scientific method”
-You most certainly tried to show that though.
“Why would it matter if it is something known if we’re only testing the method?”
-It doesn’t. The fact that this particular piece of the puzzle of known truth is being “attributed” to the method is what falsifies itself from the original statement I made.
“Apparently I still have no idea what you actually mean by testing the idea itself.”
-An idea cannot be self-defeating or circular in order to be solidly standing. If it contradicts its foundation, it’s false. If it proves itself by itself, it’s illogical and thus false. It needs to not contradict it’s own logic while at the same time not using it’s logic to prove itself. It has to be neutral in order to be shipped off to the next phase of logical battery in determining it’s validity.
“But the original topic here was science.”
-Not from what I recall. The original topic was truth in science if memory serves me correctly.
“So then we have digressed into something different then what your original argument was about?”
-Depends what my original argument was to you. You’ll have to clarify.
“I would rather say that you have been able to disprove something based on a certain persons ability to argue something”
-You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. However, I do think what you say has good weight if we were going to argue this point.
“And what age are you now?”
-Nearly 19.
“Would you say that some of the denominations really have strayed too much from your interpretation of Christianity to deserve to be called Christian?”
-Indeed. For example, my brother calls himself Christian when he lives a life of un-repentant homosexuality which the Bible strictly says that he as well as drunkards, the sexually immoral, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s in plain black and white text. There are many hypocrites in the world and the phrase, “the few ruin it for the many” applies well here.
“My personal view of religion is that if there happens to be some sort of divine being, then I think people will be judged by their merits and not by faith”
-We are justified by faith, not works. If you’re interested I can probably find the verse. This is why I say it’s possibly something you can argue as the weakest part of Christianity, but it’s not really clear. My personal opinion is that we are born with an ethical code; a moral law. If we abide by that law within us then it may be an accepting of Christ. If we go against it willingly then that can be seen as rejection (that’s just the broad way of putting it). I personally don’t know and the Bible isn’t specific on the topic.
“By the way, were you raised a Christian from the time you were born or did your interest come later?”
-I was raised Christian, but dreaded church and Christian life until later when I researched it. Jesus speaks of this in the Bible as being a “born again” Christian when speaking to an emperor (if memory serves me correctly) of Rome.
Haha, it seems I’m not the only one that can miss the reply-button
“If there are degrees and variants of truth, then it’s not concrete truths we’re dealing with (as I stated in my previous comment), but rather a matter of politics/opinion. There are many ideas for the origin of life, the universe, humanity itself, etc., but there’s only one answer.”
-Yes, of course there can only be one truth but I’m still talking about the times where it isn’t possible to show that truth. Normally when this is the case (like the origin of life) we simply state that we don’t know. In other cases we can have knowledge enough to know that what we see is very close to the truth. That is not a matter of opinion. Is there anyone who doubts the theory of gravity for example? Since that is a scientific theory it cannot be proven as truth, but we can still be quite sure that it is true since all the calculations that stems from it are correct and all the parts that make up the theory are correct.
“No, not to be harsh towards you (which means, here comes the harsh part, lol), but finding a similarities between one set of bones/fossils/locations/etc between another doesn’t prove diddly (pardon my language ) for evolution”
-I’m not just talking about similarities. I am talking about all the different sciences that have found facts about evolution from genealogy to biology to paleontology to anthropology etc. etc. We have discussed this many times before and since you don’t take science as evidence we will not get any further. If you are interested there are good articles on Wikipedia on how the theory of evolution works, what evidences that have been found and why it has the same status as the theory of gravitation. On Wikipedia they also have lots of references if you are interested in knowing the sources. This part I feel that there is no use for us to delve into once again. This is what science shows us is how life have evolved (not originated ), if you choose not to believe in it that is fine with me, but please don’t say there’s no facts without doing some more serious research into it. Considering that there has been several creationists that have tried to disprove evolution and always failed, then I doubt that a discussion between the two of us where you don’t have enough knowledge about the workings of evolution and neither do I, then the discussion would once again just become about semantics which is not what evolution is about.
Your language I have no problem with nor the harsh parts, I still find you an interesting person to talk to and I haven’t seen you stoop to the low levels this debate can sometimes end up
What I really don’t understand is why evolution bothers you so much. I know that the different species that we have on this planet didn’t show up in the same order as in the bible, but does that part have to be taken literally? Couldn’t there have been a creator who created the first life and then made it in a way that it would evolve in the way we can show with the theory of evolution?
“I have no problem if you want to say that we see similarities. That’s perfectly fine by me and I 100% agree. It’s when people start teaching their own/personal interpretation on the evidence that I get involved. “
-In school we show all the evidence we have found and teach that everything fits perfectly into the theory of evolution. Where does any ones personal interpretations fit in there?
“And when I researched answers to my questions myself, everything they explained fit just as well with the creation/Christian model”
-Which once again leads to my question on why do you have a problem with evolution?
“With our human limitations, I can agree. That’s why we rely on that which gives us the best evidence.”
-Which is all I have been trying to say
“So the results are truthful, correct?”
-Yes.
“Because the origin of life (fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc) encompasses everything, including humanity. I’m simply focusing on humanity. It’s not that my argument doesn’t talk about origins of life in the broadest form. It can if taken in that context, but it can also be taken in the context regarding the origin of humanity specifically. That’s all I’m focusing on.”
-And I keep saying that if you have a discussion about evolution then your argumentation can never include that broad sense. To even mention it in the same discussion makes it look like you don’t understand what the theory is about. It doesn’t matter if you use the same argument in different topics; to include anything about the origins of life in the discussion is just incorrect.
““Of course people can come to an incorrect conclusion”
-That’s all I was trying to make you aware of.”
-So are you saying that this isn’t possible with people interpreting the bible? Or in religion? Anything that involves people of course involves the human factor. That is why science is so dependable since it has regulations to remove the possibilities of these errors ever spreading further then the specific persons. I still don’t see how this in any way would invalidate science as you were saying in your original argument.
““I was saying the scientific method couldn’t show that something is true”
-Thank you! That’s how I’ve been saying it’s self-defeating. Wow, we’re 2 for 2 in agreement in a matter of seconds!”
-Yup, it’s always good to agree on some things
I still don’t see how it’s self-defeating though since it isn’t supposed to show any truths.
““Science doesn’t discover truths with the scientific method”
-You most certainly tried to show that though.”
-I thought I tried showing that the scientific method was used to show that the theories are valid. If I wasn’t clear enough I’m sorry. The scientific method is used to show that a certain theory is as close to the truth as is humanly possible.
“The fact that this particular piece of the puzzle of known truth is being “attributed” to the method is what falsifies itself from the original statement I made.”
-All I tried showing was that by using the method you can find truths, you just can’t show that it is an absolute truth (or how to put it )
“An idea cannot be self-defeating or circular in order to be solidly standing. If it contradicts its foundation, it’s false. If it proves itself by itself, it’s illogical and thus false. It needs to not contradict it’s own logic while at the same time not using it’s logic to prove itself. It has to be neutral in order to be shipped off to the next phase of logical battery in determining it’s validity.”
-Ok, now I think I actually understand what you’re saying
I still don’t understand how you would say that the scientific method is self-defeating but that might be because I didn’t quite manage to explain what the purpose of the method was? Or do you still think it’s self-defeating?
“Not from what I recall. The original topic was truth in science if memory serves me correctly.”
-But even if we’re talking about truth in science it would change the topic if you mix in something that is unscientific. If I give you instructions on how to remove a virus from your computer and you tell me “my computer-background would look nicer in red”, it might be a prettier outcome but it would not have anything to do with removing the virus. Hmm, for once I might actually have managed to come up with a working analogy
“Depends what my original argument was to you. You’ll have to clarify”
-I think it was the same discussion as above, where you said science would be better if we mixed it up with something unscientific.
This discussion sort of reminds me of when I was travelling in South-East Asia, always when I was eating at restaurants I had to tell the waiters that I am lethally allergic to nuts and eggs and of course ask them not to include any of that in my food. A couple of times I get for example fried rice and I see small pieces of egg mixed in, I ask them why they do that since I specifically told them not to and they answer: “because it’s better this way.” And no, I’m not trying to make a point of any kind here, just telling a story
“You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. However, I do think what you say has good weight if we were going to argue this point.”
-No need to argue, it was so much nicer when we actually agreed on some things
“Nearly 19”
-I would say that you show good skills in debating and I salute your persistence. I hope you can manage to actually understand all the science we’re discussing sometime in the future because I do think you could become a good scientist if you wanted. If that’s not for you, I wish you luck in whatever field you pursue (as long as you don’t try to go on a fruitless battle against the science of the world ). Do you have any goals career wise? What’s your major in college?
“For example, my brother calls himself Christian when he lives a life of un-repentant homosexuality which the Bible strictly says that he as well as drunkards, the sexually immoral, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
-Hmm, I thought that the only thing that mattered to call yourself a Christian was to take Jesus into your heart? Then I thought it was the different denominations that had specific rules and restraints. As I said, I am not very versed in these things.
This thing about homosexuality is something that perplexes me in many religions, and especially in Christianity. First of all, the message I always hear from people speaking of Jesus is “judge not…” and so forth. Why would it then matter if someone else lives as a homosexual if you are not supposed to judge them? Secondly, since homosexuality is not a choice that means that god made them this way so why is it such a big deal (I know of the passages in the bible saying it is wrong)? Of course I understand that homosexuals could decide to suppress their feelings and desires and just live as asexual people, but wouldn’t that be kind of hypocritical to the god who made them this way?
By the way, are there condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, every time someone has shown me these paragraphs from the bible it’s been from the Old Testament?
“There are many hypocrites in the world and the phrase, “the few ruin it for the many” applies well here.”
-I hear you. Unfortunately that goes for everyone… I’ve seen some loud mouthed anti-theists who only claim to be atheists, and then people get the impression that all atheists are that way. I do find for example Dawkins quite interesting and thought-provoking from time to time, but I disagree with a lot as well, especially the way he presents himself when on TV or in his movie. I don’t like how he attacks all the religious people he speaks to and makes everything so black and white. He writes better then he performs though Have you read anything by him by the way?
“We are justified by faith, not works. If you’re interested I can probably find the verse.”
-No, no need to find the verse. I see this as a more theological/philosophical discussion, no evidence needed
But as I said, anything justified by faith instead of what you actually perform I wouldn’t be able to take seriously. With all the hypocrisy and double standards where people say one thing and do another I judge people from how they act towards one another and if there is some sort of divinity I would expect it to do the same (and no, I’m not comparing myself to god )
“My personal opinion is that we are born with an ethical code; a moral law. If we abide by that law within us then it may be an accepting of Christ. If we go against it willingly then that can be seen as rejection (that’s just the broad way of putting it). “
-I kind of like your thinking here.
“I was raised Christian, but dreaded church and Christian life until later when I researched it.”
-Haha, I can imagine. I’m guessing that many church sermons aren’t really that exciting for children and young adults.
I’ve only been to church on occasions when friends or family have gotten married or baptized or taken their confirmation. And when sightseeing in different countries of course. It is part of the culture so it’s interesting to see, and a lot of churches (as well as mosques and temples etc.) are very beautiful.
I feel like I’ve been pestering you with loads of personal and religious questions, is there anything you are interested that I know of? Life in Sweden, what’s in the head of an atheist, philosophical dilemmas?
Anyway, now it’s taken me several days to respond, I’ve had full days at work and at home I’ve just been tired, so I better send the answer instead of thinking to much.
“I think you mean to say the times where “you” do not know how to show it. Granted, we can’t know everything, but for the things we don’t know it’s inaccurate to assume we can’t know it.”
-No, I’m talking about where no one can show it in a way that everyone can see it is the truth. If you hold a stone and drop it no one can say that they don’t see the results of gravity but they can still argue that it is because of something other than the theory of gravity.
“As I’ve said before, absolute truths exist”
-Which I’ve never disagreed to
“This dismantles agnosticism and pluralism.”
-How?
“I do, I just don’t take “bad” science as evidence.”
-Which I still find very strange since all science has the same premise and is checked the same way. I understand that some of the things you don’t accept because of you beliefs, but as you’ve noticed in our discussions I don’t understand your examples of why some science would be worse than other science
“And I completely agree to say that you don’t know. Spread that word to professors and teachers all throughout the public school systems of the world because many say otherwise.”
-I don’t know how it works in the US, but here in Sweden there is no way a teacher would say that we for example that we know the origin of life.
“Oh i know it’s not “just” limited to similarities, but that is the primary argument for most people which is why it’s thrown out there.”
-It doesn’t matter what anyone’s primary argument is, it is all the combined evidence that matters. That’s what makes it a theory and not just a hypothesis.
“We can throw articles and citations at each other all day, that’s not going to get anyone anywhere […]No one gets anywhere by trying to have something do the work for them because then it’s not their argument”
-Well, considering that it is a subject that neither one of us is an expert in I’d say it’s quite obvious we need outside sources. I guess you just want to debate my understanding of these things and not the actual science and theories which I didn’t quite understand at first, I thought you were actually interested in the subject at hand and not a personal understanding of it. When we are speaking of science and the theory of evolution there isn’t any opinions involved, that is why I prefer someone who are trying to understand what it is about to actually read what the science says and not what a layman like me thinks the science says.
As I said in my previous comment I don’t want to go into this part once again, that is the reason I said you could look in Wikipedia if you were actually interested.
“If anything I said the facts that are believed to support it can be easily the same evidence for creation or just plain against evolution itself.”
-So the evidence that shows how everything wasn’t created as they are today and that they arose in different time-periods works together with creation? From what you have said in our discussions I still get the feeling that there are many parts of the theory of evolution that you don’t have a clear grasp on and I can’t explain them properly for you to understand, that is also why I would prefer if you looked in Wikipedia rather than having a discussion about someone’s understanding of it.
“Funny, creationists say the same thing. Who’s right?”
-Well, according to the courts where creationists and proponents of ID have tried to disprove evolution the victors have been the scientists. Could you show me any example of evolution being disproven? I have only heard of a couple of times it went to trial but I guess there could be more times, so please provide a link where the courts have ruled in the creationists favor. Or maybe you mean that someone has been able to disprove the theory of evolution? If that had happened I’m quite sure it would have been world news, but if you have some information then please show me
“It’s primarily science itself and the faults it contains”
-You still haven’t been able to show any faults in science. So far you have been using semantics to try to disassemble my argumentation on small parts, but nothing that can actually be held against science.
“What do you mean? I feel you’re implying something, I just don’t know what.”
-My bad, I thought that was the main problem you had with evolution, that the animals arose in a different order then what the bible says. And most of the time I try not to imply so much, I prefer to say it instead… of course a lot of times I just have whatever I really want to say clear in my head and then it looks like I’m implying things
“The Bible says there’s a creator who created everything the way it is, not created ooze which then turned into all the life we see today.”
-Ok, I won’t really argue this but since the ooze also existed then it must have been created by god I guess? Is the creation part of the bible one of the parts where everything is supposed to be taken literally?
“By saying it fits with evolution. Granted they may have been taught the same thing and may not have an authentic “personal” interpretation of their own, but teaching one conclusion when there’s others seems like brainwashing to me”
-There are no other viable conclusions that are supported by provable science. To have any other conclusion you have to disagree with science as a whole (it doesn’t work saying that science works in some ways and accept the premise when it suits your opinions and not when you disagree), and then I guess we could just as well let the kids stay at home and teach them my opinions on how I interpret different things
“Then why do you say the conclusions are not stated to be true? If the results are true, then shouldn’t the conclusion be as well? Or do you agree that science can get false conclusions regardless of how truthful it’s results are?”
-I have only said that the scientific method is used to show that different theories are viable. Science in itself has other ways of showing truths and gathering facts and evidence. And as I have said multiple times, science doesn’t work that way you keep implying. If one test receives bad results then it will be discovered before these results will be used to draw any conclusions. Do you actually not understand the parts I have been explaining about your experiment and why it would not matter the least bit in science if a group of people came to an incorrect conclusion? That will not in any way go any further then these people, their results and conclusions will not amount to anything more then the scientific community dismissing them.
“It only includes it if you look at it in that context. Look at it in the context that I’ve been aiming my argument towards, not the way you want to turn my argument into.”
-It doesn’t matter where you have been aiming any arguments, if you include a context that the origin of life is even implied in a discussion about evolution then you are either trying to lure the person you are discussing with to make a claim that is not supported by evolution and thereby trapping them in semantics or you don’t understand the theory of evolution.
“I’m unaware where I got “ultimate” from. Guess it just sounds more interesting to my teenage mind.”
-Well, it does sound more cool, I agree here It might be that it’s normally used in different comics for young adults like the ultimate x-men or something similar. I was never much into superheroes when reading comics (I did like Wolverine though), or even Marvel… I preferred, and still do, Vertigos slightly darker comics (Hellblazer for example). Have you been/are you interested in comics?
“Still self-defating”
-For something it isn’t even supposed to be doing?
“Apologies”
-No worries, we seem to do that both of us
“Lol, I enjoy stories”
-That’s good ‘cause there’s plenty more where that came from… I just have to get reminded of a good one and then I get started
“Digital Media Arts”
-That sounds cool. I’m not quite sure what it entails and what jobs you will be able to get, but I googled it and saw lots of interesting stuff Do you study anything specific like animation or game art design? I do play a lot of games, so that’s a field of interest for me
“It is, but that’s also like taking an oath to swear to tell the truth in court. You have to swear by it to say something with any credibility, but you can still lie and break the oath making it worthless. If you’re going to accept something, you have to obey the rules of what you’ve accepted.”
-But isn’t that oath different depending on which denomination you’ve chosen?
“I’m not judging them, no one is, the Bible is. I’m simply putting the message out there.”
-So you’re ok with anyone living as a homosexual if they don’t claim to be Christian? And I also find this part quite strange, if the bible is judging people why would any person need to put the message out there? Isn’t that the same thing as the persons doing the judging?
I guess you could show me many places in the bible where it says that homosexuality is wrong, but I’ve also seen several proponents of gay Christians say that there are other parts that supersede these parts and so on. What I’m trying to say, isn’t what the bible says open to some interpretation? I mean we’ve talked about the different denominations and that everyone has their own interpretation on the bible, wouldn’t that also mean that if you spread the message about homosexuality being wrong hinge on your interpretation of the bible? If it is based on interpretations and which parts of the bible should be followed literally and all that stuff then it would actually be you who are judging people and not the bible. If you decide to interpret the bible a certain way, then it is still your interpretation that makes you go out and spread the message that something is bad when that judgment should only be made by god?
Hmm, do I make sense here? I don’t mean it as an attack on you; this is just some thoughts that have been going through my head as I’ve watched for example the raging battles on proposition 8 and similar things. Regarding prop 8 I really didn’t understand how the opponents to gay marriage could say they didn’t judge anyone but still they denied them to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
“Remember when I said false interpretations produce false conclusions? You just made one. Homosexuality is indeed a choice. Now there’s not much concrete reason to support your view or mine that it is or isn’t a choice for everyone”
-There’s actually been multiple numbers of studies that show it is biological in nature and not a choice. I can give you an abundance of references if you’re interested
Also, consider the pain and abuse it means to be gay in our heteronormative world, you read about hate-crimes almost daily, gay people get denied their civil rights in a large part of the world, get beaten down if they show publicly who they are and so on, do you think that anyone would actually choose that life?
“but with my brother”
-Of course I can’t say anything about this specific case since it’s your brother. My initial thought though is that if someone is raised knowing no other option then being heterosexual, then of course they think they like girls at least until they discover that there are other possibilities.
“We are born to like the opposite sex, not the same sex. “
-No, we are born to reproduce with the opposite sex
“It’s only by an outward influence powered by one’s free will”
-Considering that the rate of homosexuality in the rest of the animals on this planet is about the same percentage as among humans I find this extremely unlikely. Or is it the animals’ free will and outward influence that makes them gay as well
“Yes, and depending on where you head with this conversation, I could talk for a long time to explain multiple things if you’re confused on a certain topic within it.”
-I was actually not really heading anywhere with this, at least not anywhere I had previously decided
The reason I ask is that I’ve been involved in these types of discussions before and people have given me many examples on the condemnation of homosexuality from the OT, I have asked them about other stuff in the OT (like people that should be stoned and other not so nice things) and they have said that it doesn’t matter anymore because the new deal with Jesus in the NT. Does this make any sense to you or am I just confusing?
“A lot of people try to make it a simplistic yes/no or black/white answer like everything else but there’s a lot of complexities to take into account.”
-Nice, once again we are in agreement
I do worry sometimes after watching American TV-news (or rather all the pundits) that everything seems to become more and more extreme. There is seldom any middle way and if anyone brings in an opponent for a discussion it ends up in a battle of who can shout the loudest… I still think Stewart and Colbert do a decent job in their interviews but they aren’t supposed to be more then comedians so…
“Thou shalt not judge >.> ”
-I agree. At least I strive for it… I do however think that people should be held to some standard, and I wouldn’t say I never judge people even though it would be nicer if I didn’t. Nobody’s perfect
“I just like the stimulating conversation. Critical thinking just exercises the brain for me. “
-Likewise. Strange how we seem to find reason where the other one can find criticism and vice versa
“Don’t work yourself to death.”
-That is not something you have to worry about, it is Friday and I take it quite easy
“No, that’s not what I’ve been saying about science. I have said that the scientific method can show that a theory is viable”
-And how viable that theory is in opposition to other theories determines which one is best to be taken as true, therefore there is a level of faith involved. I’m not saying you said or believe there’s faith in it, I’m simply pointing it out by using your template of viability of theories.
“Also, I would never accept something as truth if it requires any amount of faith”
-It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right when it has made mistakes in the past, yet you believe it’s true, do you not?
“If it requires faith it means that it is you as a person that decides to interpret something”
-How’d we get on interpretation? We’ve already interpreted theoretical data, I’m simply saying that if you compare 2 of them with each other, the one that has the most consistent information requires the least amount of faith to believe. Sure, you can decide the one that takes the most faith to believe is true and that would be your personal take on it, but it’s not really an interpretation. That doesn’t really fit.
“That is why science is used, no belief or faith is required, only facts and evidence.”
-This goes along with my comment, which is the 2nd paragraph from the top of this post, and as such I’d like for you to see your own reaction on this topic. What did you answer to “yet you believe it’s true, do you not?” This is more rhetorical as I just want you to reflect on it. If you said yes, then you show that science requires belief. If you said no (which would be contradicting to your “I don’t believe anything unless it’s true and requires 0 belief/faith” argument), then science isn’t true in your opinion.
That’s just more psychological though, to answer debatingly, it does require belief because you obviously believe science to be correct and accurate, let alone your sentence to be just as right.
“I was talking about the origin of life. How can that be so broad? How did life start on this planet?”
-You know my beliefs and I know yours. What would you like to expand on?
“And I said that was how you were arguing about evolution. I also added a winking smiley to show that I wasn’t trying to be altogether serious.”
-ICWUDT.. >.>
“Isn’t that exactly what all religions claim?”
-I’m sure it is, the difference is I’ve yet to see them back it up.
“But if it isn’t non-faith-based, then how could it be convincing to someone who don’t believe?”
-Picture this scenario. You find mud tracks of little shoe prints through a house. The most likely thing that anyone thinks of is a kid, or someone with little feet was walking through the house tracking mud from outside. That’s the most convincing idea based on the evidence since there’s nothing to determine it’s anything different. It could still be wrong though because someone could have placed the tracks there to deceive others, but it takes the least amount of faith to believe that idea to be true as opposed to the latter since that requires more faith to believe it as true. It still takes faith regardless of which scenario you believe, but the former is more convincing. Even if there was only one idea, it’s convincing to believe that as true with no other ideas’ influence.
“I wasn’t saying that finding truths was opinionated, just that your idea that it is always possible to show a truth is opinionated”
-If it’s not always possible to show truth, then how do you know if your rebuttal falls in that category, thus making it untruthful and err? We can go all day on this, but as I’ve said many times, avoid self-defeating arguments (or at least don’t defend them when they’re exposed) because I’m good at picking them out.
“So how do you determine if it’s inaccurate?”
-Depends on what we’re looking at. This isn’t something that can really be argued philosophically. It varies on information, unless you want the obvious answer of, “It’s inaccurate because it’s not accurate.”
“this only measures the capability of logical and semantic argumentation from the person you are discussing with, it says nothing about the actual subject at hand.”
-Then what does that say for your argument about logical semantics here? You’re using a logical argument as a premise to an actual subject being discussed. Doesn’t that make it useless?
“Why would that matter? We were discussing a court case where all evidence is examined”
-And if the evidence supports both views, then it’s worthless as a determining factor. Pretty much what I said already.
“I have no problem if the proponents of ID tries to prove their side, as long as they don’t try to claim that it is either scientific or that evolution wouldn’t be scientific”
-There’s multiple discussions that can branch from here that would determine ID being science and/or evolution not being so, but my argument doesn’t reside here.
“If someone is claiming something is true, then yes, they have to show it. If someone after that is claiming that same thing is actually false (after it has been shown viable), they have to prove it.”
-I can agree with that, but only in the way of “proving it’s false” by using the information that’s used to show it’s seemingly true. Otherwise, it’s the oppositions’ responsibility to prove it true.
“That you actually read up on how science and the theory of evolution really works instead of discussing how people think it works”
-Since it was made by people discussing how they think it works, I feel I’m on the same ground here.
“Well, in my apartment the water that comes from the tap is filtered. I think it’s a good metaphor you just made, of course there is bad water, but it doesn’t matter because it gets filtered before it reaches me.”
-So you’re now agreeing that there is such a thing as bad science, it just gets filtered out before reaching some defining moment of conclusion?
“That was something I thought was made clear a long time ago”
-Not necessarily, because you said that science doesn’t say anything is true, just that it shows theories are viable (which is to imply that “truth” and “viable theories” are separate and thus not the same. Since the only thing different from truth is it’s opposite, you ultimately imply it’s false), but now we have that settled.
“My thoughts are still on why would one method within science have to show something that it is not designed to do?”
-Science is designed to gain knowledge about the world. If it can’t discover that it’s own information in which it gains that knowledge is true, then it’s worthless. It is designed to do this, since it cannot fulfill it’s purpose in the place it matters most, I see no reason in utilizing it and it alone on my quest for gaining knowledge.
“To actually have any validity to your arguments about science you would have to go to the source description of science and argue that.”
-I am going to the source. I’m using the scientific method itself to show its self-defeating nature.
““If I can’t get a similar answer from the majority of people then what does that say for the future of science?”
-Absolutely nothing. If you get an erroneous answer from the majority of scientists that might tell something”
-So everyone else that’s not a scientist is stupid? We’re all incapable of meaningful thought even going through the schooling that is to make us think critically? School is a waste of time? Scientists are the gods of this age? You’re implying a lot of information here. I suggest a clarification.
“So basically what you’re saying is that anyone that believes in Christianity in any other way than you do is flat-out wrong?”
-No, because there are things we don’t know for a fact that are opinionated. It’s fair to have a different opinion, not a different truth. So I reiterate, relative “truths” do not exist. Relative “opinions” do though.
“If they know about their options and have chosen not to follow your interpretation of the bible, wouldn’t it be better to just leave them to their fate then?”
-If that’s what they “choose,” then by all means I’ll let them do what they want because it’s their choice, even if it grieves me. However, if they don’t know and they involuntarily choose a path they may not want to take, it’s worth bringing up the path that’s behind the bushes and thus give them a decision rather than one being made for them (in a sense).
“By this I mean that they feel it is a stronger point in the bible that you should not judge anyone, only god can do that and if you start telling people how they should live their lives then it is a judgment made by you and not by god”
-Who said I was telling people how they should live? I’m only pointing out an alternative to which they have the choice to make.
“I don’t have a problem with you or any other religious people mentioning this. What bothers me is when it turns to persecution, judgment and hate.”
-You and me both.
“But what makes the most sense to you does not make the most sense to other people, hence it is your interpretation.”
-If it were a subjective topic then you would have a point, but I look at things objectively and see if the puzzle piece fits the puzzle.
“The way I read you answer is that if there were parts that should be considered metaphors then it would be known so if it isn’t already known then it couldn’t have been meant as a metaphor.”
-If something is meant to be read a certain way, then the information will be there to decipher it as such (this goes back to my example regarding Hermeneutics in which literary poetry and literalism were determined by the way you write something). If there’s nothing to show that it is metaphorical then it’s not. If there’s everything to show it’s literal, then it is. If there’s not enough information, then that divides into opinions and cannot be used to the greatest of extents.
“What if someone who transcribed one version of the bible for their own gain added a passage about homosexuality being bad, or someone just wrote it incorrectly or something else along those lines?”
-Then that would be addressed by other translators. This isn’t a process that’s done by one person and then instantly published for the entire world to read. If they interpret something falsely (such as translating “cup” into “prostitute”) then that is something that will be dealt with by other translators.
Let’s take your scenario though and say it does get to the public. There would still be people (although few) who know the language and would see if it were accurate. If it’s not, then there would be a huge storm of opposition to the idea which would be made just as known to the public.
There’s many ways to interpret the same thing (bird can be known as flying creature, winged animal, one with feathers, etc.), but just because there’s different ways it is called does not mean one or all translations are wrong.
“What I was trying to say was that the bible was put together by humans and humans are fallible.”
-But God is not, and if the production of the Bible was influenced by God then we should see His characteristics in it. Since God is inerrant, we shouldn’t find error. Since God is immutable, we shouldn’t see a conflicting change in His nature. The list goes on.
“Why doesn’t it have anything to do with your argument? How do you show that nature goes against homosexuality?”
-It has nothing to do with my argument because I’m arguing that nature goes against homosexuality whereas you argue that homosexuality can have it’s benefits based on fertility and food relations in nature (which wouldn’t even correlate to homosexuality). Stop reproducing or move. Animals are smart enough to figure out when they need to move on from lack of food.
Nature goes against homosexuality because there’s no benefit to it. If anything were meant to be homosexual, there would not be diseases from it, there would fruits such as offspring to carry on the population. If everything were homosexual, there wouldn’t be a population.
“What do you base this assumption on?”
-It’s not an assumption, many psychologists have said this for a while. I could probably find the book that mentions it this weekend.
“there have been numerous studies showing that the most important thing is that the child is given love, affection and is shown empathy while growing up”
-I’m sure that’s “one of the most” important things, but there are “other most” important things right along with it. It’s not the only one.
“Doesn’t this give me at least some credibility in your eyes towards my mentioning that someone is born a homosexual?”
-No, because too many things go against it (objectively). Since we don’t know everyone’s story, we can’t make an assumption that everyone is mentally inclined to. They have their own choices. What we can do is look at the population and what affects the population itself to understand the situation. This is why I mention nature going against it.
“Especially considering that most homosexuals are raised no different than the rest of the people on this earth.”
-Everyone is raised differently my friend. Otherwise everyone would be exactly the same.
“I’m guessing that sometime in the beginning of mankind we were like the other animals, then we noticed that cooperation would give greater benefits and started gathering in greater numbers”
-What you have is an interesting paragraph to read, but this particular piece sticks out because it answers my question, but also doesn’t answer it.
My question was along the lines of where did the morals we all universally understand come from? Your answer only describes how we could have “discovered” them. Primitive human beings cooperating doesn’t show that’s where morals originated. It shows that being in groups was better than being separate. That idea was just as true the day before they cooperated as it was when it was discovered. The moral was still there. Where did the moral come from?
“How did you arrive to your conclusion that this would come from god?”
In my case, I believe that all laws have law-givers. As such, the moral law (being applicable to all subjects (humanity) and affecting them) has a law-giver. This is logically sound. Tested, observed, and repeated. This is what good science is if it’s going to be used.
“In the OT there are examples where it is ok to stone people to death, would that be applicable today?”
-No, because stoning someone was to atone for sin by the shedding of blood. Since Christ shed His blood for us to be sanctified, there’s no need to stone someone to atone for sin because Christ is the atonement Himself. This is why people say that the Old Testament law is not used today for a reason.
“Children don’t show any signs of empathy until they are some years old (usually around pre-school age), why wouldn’t they show this earlier if they are born with it?”
-Even though I wouldn’t really relate to this to defend my argument, my best take on it is because children are more curiosity-inclined rather than making decisions. They don’t consider anything but rather pursue it without thought that they later develop.
The argument I would use is found in the major events of history. Remember when I said that reactions show someones true colors (something like that anyway)? Major historical events that effect huge populations are a great example. Let’s take 9/11. This was an American tragedy in which our own planes with our own people were flown into our own buildings. Did anyone look at that and say, “yeah, that sounds about right.” No, people all over, even countries it didn’t affect knew it was wrong instantaneously. If morals are relative then we should have a mix of emotions from happy to sad, secure to terrified, hurt to comforted, etc., not a similar unifying experience.
“I still wonder why it is so much more important to tell people they can’t marry the person they love then it is to tell people they can’t masturbate?”
-Since when was this turned into a “which is worse than which” game?
“if someone is born a homosexual but are taught from an early age that the only thing that is correct and right is heterosexuality, then that person would still have all the homosexual feelings, only they would be suppressed and probably the person would think that those feelings are something bad (or even evil) and try not to act on them or tell anyone about those feelings. The person would still be homosexual, only a miserable and probably depressed one.”
-There are a multitude of prisoners that are miserable that their desire to kill those that put them in jail (or who they got caught by, etc.). Does that mean it’s right to let them go and do what they want?
The point I’m making here is you can have feelings about something. That doesn’t make those feelings right. The difference between my example and yours is there’s one afflicting one’s self whereas one is afflicting another and therefore it’s slightly inaccurate, but we decide that if someone wants to do something for themselves, then it’s their choice and they’re free to do it, whereas if someone wants to impede on another’s choices, it’s not ok, and that’s what makes a discussion like this so difficult and heated.
“No since that is against the laws stipulated by society”
-But if we all have different rights and wrongs, then what’s right for me isn’t always right for the next person. That’s the point I’ve been making. Moral relativism is false. We all agree that there are absolute rights and wrongs in the world. Green means go, Red means stop. To no one is it ok for Red to mean go and Green to mean stop to where there’s exceptions for them.
“There is also civil disobedience, if there are laws in a society that you disagree with you could rebel and break them, make sure you get arrested and stand for your views in an attempt to get a public discussion going. If we didn’t have a different sense about right and wrong then I guess laws and rules wouldn’t be necessary in a society?”
-My argument isn’t against the existence of laws. My argument is against moral relativism. Your law you’re pretending to break depends on what moral right or wrong you’re saying is relative and will therefore need clarification.
“There is actually a scientific explanation for this”
-There’s a scientific explanation for a lot of things, origins for example. It doesn’t mean it’s right.
But I am interested as always. I’m sure there’s also a scientific explanation as to why we started to wear clothes when animals don’t.
“I see. I have never gotten it explained this way before. I actually think I have learned something again”
-Lol, if the people you’ve been talking to don’t know this then I think they need to get involved in the Bible more. More often than not it’s the hypocrites trying to point the finger at non-Christians and making the real Christians look bad.
“Since we talk so much about semantics, couldn’t that mean offenders that are homosexuals instead of saying that the homosexuality is the offence”
-We could, but that would be more an issue of Hermeneutics in which we’d have to go to the original word and look at all possible translations to make sure it’s accurate before even starting a discussion.
I guess I’ll be joining the conversation as I would like to include a few points for discussion. Hopefully it won’t detract much from the original discussion as I don’t want it to get out of track.
First off, what has been bothering me for a while is the idea that bible can offer truth that is not entirely faith based. The main problem is that it proves itself by itself – it claims to be holy and truthful, so a lot of people assume it is. Like any other religious books, it can not be proved or disproved.
My issue with it being claimed as holy is that it is a collection of different texts, written by different people throughout many decades. The collection itself was so diverse that a council had to come to a consensus to what should be used. This alone should raise a red flag concerning people adapting, changing or writing it according to their own interests at the time. The exclusion of many gospels (New Testament Apocrypha) also seem like an arbitrary way to mold the bible into a more acceptable book.
My own interpretation of this book is that it should be taken as a good message to follow or fables like Esop used to write, where you get a moral message at the end.
Regarding the science subject, I am not sure if I should venture in those dangerous waters, but I’ll add my 2 cents. Science will never be able to say it has found the absolute truth about anything, as there are different layers of truth to be uncovered.
Let me explain – We may have found that the gravity theory explains the observed phenomenon very well, but we have yet to understand why it happens exactly.
All the technology around us today proves that science theories have been truthful enough to come up with calculations that allows us to achieve such advancement. When you look at satellites in orbit, you can be sure that that are hundreds of scientific theories behind it that allowed it to happen.
From my point of view, unless a divine being descends upon earth himself and states something as absolute truth, there will never be a way we can point something as such and be able to prove it without depending on faith alone.
Venturing on the homosexuality subject, I stand in the mid term between you guys. I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature, I find it more like a deficiency in someone’s neurological wiring that causes such condition. Many studies I have read state that all fetuses are female in the first couple weeks (thus the nipples), and then the female body injects male hormones turning it into a male fetus. The wrong amount of male hormones can create male bodies with female brains or needs. In that sense, we should not prejudice against homosexuals in any way, but we should not also force it as normal and natural like some medias do (Specially in my country we are forced to see homosexuals in every TV show and novel, it gets annoying).
Hopefully I have not been too silly and you guys won’t tear my semantics apart, as this is not my native language and in my head it makes sense Just wanted to add my opinions to what I find a very interesting discussion.
“Venturing on the homosexuality subject, I stand in the mid term between you guys. I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature..”
Homosexuality seems to be very natural as it is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, not just occurring in humans. There are, in fact, hundreds of species that we know engage in homosexual behavior, such as bison, elephants, dolphins, deer, dogs, cows, kangaroos, whales, bats, and pigs. There are also some species in which the entire population engages in sexual behavior with members of the same gender. Certain species of whip-tailed lizards, for example, only consist of females. They reproduces by parthenogenesis, or asexual reproduction, so sex is not required but they engage in sexual behavior in order to stimulate ovulation. The lizards that engage in this behavior have been found to have a higher number of produced offspring than those that are kept in isolation.
If however you are speaking about homosexuality being natural specifically towards humans, then I would say that the verdict is still out. Though I have read about studies that suggest that maternal relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile and have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. Please note that I am not saying the homosexuality is the cause of these cases of increased fertility only that it suggest that there is a correlation between them. But like I said, the verdict is still out.
“Many studies I have read state that all fetuses are female in the first couple weeks (thus the nipples), and then the female body injects male hormones turning it into a male fetus.”
The latest research shows that this is no longer the case. Originally we thought that the female form was the original template for fetuses of both sexes and that male development required certain hormonal or gene expression to occur. While this is still the true for male development, specifically it requires the activation of the SRY gene, we now know that the same is true for female development as well. In fact its actually a balance of pro male, pro female, anti-male, anti-female genes that determine fetal development. One such “pro female” gene is FOXL2, which is responsible for sex determination and ovarian development and function. Research has shown that the removal of this single gene would cause adult ovary cells to develop into testes.
Look who is back, Ben . Now the party is complete!
About it being natural, I cannot see a reason why animals behave like that considering there is no real benefit in such relations. I admit I am ignorant regarding all those studies, but wouldn’t it be the case of random “humping” like dogs do with inanimate objects? Should it be considered a homosexual behavior?
About fertility in humans, wouldn’t it actually be the opposite causation? I have read many times that the more children a woman has, the greater the chance the younger will be homosexual, something about anti corps acting against the fetus. (sorry if I am not posting any evidence, just pointing out something I saw somewhere)
The information you brought is very interesting, I didn’t know those details, yet it doesn’t contradict my opinion that it is some kind of defect in development. Would you have any links to point where I can read more about the subject?
By the way, to all remaining in this blog, wouldn’t it be better if we took the discussion to a forum or somewhere that it is easier to quote and doesn’t risk getting wiped at any moment? I fear this reply section gets so big it is wiped, and then we will lose the entire conversation and each other contact.
“Look who is back, Ben . Now the party is complete! ”
Glad to be back I have actually been following this conversation from the beginning, I simply chosen not to take part until now as I have no interest in participating in a discussion with ICWUDT
“About it being natural, I cannot see a reason why animals behave like that considering there is no real benefit in such relations.”
Well like I was saying about the whip-tailed lizards, the sexual behavior stimulates ovulation which in turn produces more offspring. However for most other animals homosexual behavior serves no purpose in regards to reproduction, but it may be advantageous in other ways. In bonobo chimpanzees, the bonds formed between females that engage in homosexual behavior are socially stabilizing which leads to promote successful reproduction of young.
“but wouldn’t it be the case of random “humping” like dogs do with inanimate objects? Should it be considered a homosexual behavior?”
For dogs humping is more about vying for social domination then it is about sex. Its one of the ways that compete for the “alpha dog” position. I have two dogs, a german shepherd (female) and a husky (male). As the german shephered is older and stronger she currently has the alpha dog position. And the husky is constantly challenging her for it, and he does this by wrestling her for the top mounting position. Now being stronger then him she always throws him off, but she will also display her dominance over him by mounting him and humping. This is very common practice among dogs.
“About fertility in humans, wouldn’t it actually be the opposite causation?”
As I said, I wasn’t trying to imply that it was cause of the increase of the fertility, only that there seemed to be a natural correlation between to the two. It very well could be the case that it is the opposite causation as you state. Its still too early tell.
“I have read many times that the more children a woman has, the greater the chance the younger will be homosexual, something about anti corps acting against the fetus.”
Actually I have read about those studies too, and this very well could be the case. I think what we should take away from this is that homosexuality, or even sex in general, isn’t as black and white an issue as it is commonly thought as, but instead is a much more complex issue with many variables that we don’t fully understand yet.
Personally though, I don’t find anything wrong about homosexuality and see it as being just as natural and morally permissible as any other sexual behavior, as long as its between consenting adults of course.
“The information you brought is very interesting, I didn’t know those details, yet it doesn’t contradict my opinion that it is some kind of defect in development.”
Oh sorry, I wasn’t trying to contradict your opinion there. I merely wanted to relay what the latest research had to say regarding sex determination of fetal development.
“Would you have any links to point where I can read more about the subject?”
@Ben
Nice to see you still visit here sometimes I did find your information interesting, I even think I might have learned something from it… now I just have to read up a bit on the studies.
@Luis
I agree that the format here is not really intended for this type of discussions, but if we move to a forum it would be hard to move all the initial conversations we’ve had which I think is quite important. Otherwise it wouldn’t take long before people start jumping in the conversation bringing up everything we’ve already said… If you have an easy way of transferring this then I’m all for it though
I’ve never really considered the risk of this conversation getting wiped, has that happened to other discussions here?
“I guess I’ll be joining the conversation as I would like to include a few points for discussion. Hopefully it won’t detract much from the original discussion as I don’t want it to get out of track.”
-Welcome back Luis. Since you started a new thread I think it won’t derail us in the other discussion. It’s always fun with more input and thoughts.
I guess your concerns about the bible are mostly aimed at ICWYDT and since I don’t know that much about bible history (I do find it quite interesting though) I won’t say much here. I could mention that a lot of Christians here in Sweden have more or less the same view as you do on the bible where you said you see it as a good message to follow. Here people generally see the message of love in the NT and regard the judgments and other stuff as history so to speak. Personally I think that anything that promotes love and peace in the world is positive
“All the technology around us today proves that science theories have been truthful enough to come up with calculations that allows us to achieve such advancement. When you look at satellites in orbit, you can be sure that that are hundreds of scientific theories behind it that allowed it to happen.”
-I think this is a good point. Of course there is a difference in the science used in biology from astronomy, but the principles and rules are exactly the same.
“I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature, I find it more like a deficiency in someone’s neurological wiring that causes such condition.”
-When I express that it is natural I don’t really mean anything more than that it exists in around 10% of the population, whether you look at humans or any other groups of animals. The main point I’ve been trying to make is that it is not a choice. As far as people choose to express their homosexuality is not my place to judge, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or spread any messages of hate I don’t really care what they do
“Hopefully I have not been too silly and you guys won’t tear my semantics apart, as this is not my native language and in my head it makes sense Just wanted to add my opinions to what I find a very interesting discussion.”
-No worries, it’s the internet and if we think you’re silly we’ll just ignore you
No seriously, I always find it interesting to hear thoughts from a lot of different people. I mean in this discussion that I’ve had here for more than 2 months I think I’ve shown that I’m not always right and that I don’t expect to be either. I just wish I was slightly better at expressing myself and then I might have been able to actually explain all these things about science and how it works so that we could come to a point where we either agree or at least understand exactly what the other one is really saying and then respectfully agree to disagree
By the way, I’d say your English is good, and I don’t have any problem understanding what you say. That might be because it’s not my native language either Where are you from by the way?
Thanks for the feedback always fun that someone is following our conversation.
Took me quite a time to answer, been busy last week But lets continue our parallel discussion
“In the first case it is someone who does it to make money, the second case is without affection so how could you say it’s homosexuality? Going through the motions doesn’t make you a homosexual.”
-Ok, I can actually agree with that, I was thinking in the acts more than the feelings, but we can settle for feelings on this one.
“Hmm, I’m not sure how you mean here. Why do you have a problem with a parade? You don’t have to participate if you’re not interested I guess?”
- I have a problem because I believe it generates more segregation, since they are reinforcing their differences from the rest. Also, lately it has been showing extreme promiscuity, which I also find wrong to be done publically and in front of children.
Also, I don’t think the pride is for being courageous and fighting against prejudice, but most will take pride in being gay on itself, which I find pointless. We shouldn’t be proud for being born on a certain way, but on things you achieved. In this case if it changed the name to “Superation Pride” would look better
“If they for example show a movie about kids discovering their emotions, trying to establish relationships and so forth and then two of the kids happen to be gay and they kiss I think it’s good.”
-I think the key word here is “happen”, one thing is to promote acceptance of differences, the other is to promote homosexual behavior. I don’t think there should be a specific material showing a homosexual kiss, its not the way the education should be handled. There are better ways to do it. It feels like a propaganda to me.
“Here in Sweden we have a sort of hospital for youths that need to have a grown-up to talk to about sex, to get a check up or to get information on safe sex or maybe just go there to get free condoms”
-That is amazing and I really hope we get to see something similar around here. Teen pregnancy has increased drastically over the years.
“Also, why is it more offensive to see two people of the same sex kissing then two straight people?”
-I don’t see as offensive, it just calls more attention because it is unusual compared to the average. I bet you would be much more shocked to see a man kissing a pig
“South America is quite high on my list. I do think I have to learn a bit of Spanish first”
-Spanish would allow you to visit more countries, so it is probably the best option. If you are willing to come to South America, I would recommend south of Argentina on the borders with Chile. It is one of the most beautiful places you can be. Look up Patagonia
“May I also ask the other things I’ve asked ICWYD already, like age and if you’re working or studying or maybe unemployed?”
-24, working as financial analyst for a technology company.
-Lastly, thanks Ben for those links. Will read them over the weekend.
“Took me quite a time to answer, been busy last week”
-No worries, I’m not always fast myself
“Ok, I can actually agree with that, I was thinking in the acts more than the feelings, but we can settle for feelings on this one.”
-Then we’re off to a good start, even though it cuts down the discussion
I think it might have to do with English being our second languages; homosexuality encompasses feelings but doesn’t necessarily have to include the acts. Homosexual acts I guess can be anything just involving the acts but not necessarily anything else. At least that’s how I think it is.
“I have a problem because I believe it generates more segregation, since they are reinforcing their differences from the rest. Also, lately it has been showing extreme promiscuity, which I also find wrong to be done publically and in front of children.”
-Hmm, I haven’t really seen it from this angle before but I think you have a point that it might lead to more segregation if they focus on the differences and especially if they do it in a way that might be seen as offensive to a large group of people.
I do guess this depends a lot on the society in general, if there’s an acceptance of homosexuality (like in Sweden) I guess this wouldn’t be a problem, it would be more like ‘ok, these people like to be seen, nice for them’ and then you’d go something else unless you wanted to give them the attention
I have heard some discussions about pride-parades in here as well where other homosexuals are complaining that these parades paints a bad picture for the rest of the homosexuals who are not exhibitionists or promiscuous.
“Also, I don’t think the pride is for being courageous and fighting against prejudice, but most will take pride in being gay on itself, which I find pointless. We shouldn’t be proud for being born on a certain way, but on things you achieved. In this case if it changed the name to “Superation Pride” would look better ”
-I can understand your thinking. I did check up the history of the pride-marches just to see why they are called pride so if you’re interested (or not) I’ll give you a short history lesson
It goes back to 1969 and New York, it was common that the police busted up gay-bars and harassed members of the LGB-community. In June the police did yet another raid on the gay-bat Stonewall Inn but the people in there decided not to take it anymore and fought back. This led to riots that lasted for three days. This is the event that is celebrated through the pride parades, the first time the community stood up for their rights together.
I guess this doesn’t make much difference to the people outside of the community, I just figured you might be curious as to why they are called pride-parades
“I think the key word here is “happen”, one thing is to promote acceptance of differences, the other is to promote homosexual behavior. I don’t think there should be a specific material showing a homosexual kiss, its not the way the education should be handled.”
-Mostly we’re in agreement here as well, as I said if the sex-ed is taught in a bad way it can have the opposite effect.
I’m not quite sure how you mean that they would be promoting homosexual behavior though. I mean either you’re homosexual or you’re heterosexual (or of course you can be bi), but in any case I doubt that it would make any difference if the behavior is promoted. As a heterosexual I don’t feel any attraction towards men, I don’t think I would even if I got bombarded with homosexual acts from everywhere
“That is amazing and I really hope we get to see something similar around here. Teen pregnancy has increased drastically over the years.”
-It is quite a good system; they have ad-campaigns from time to time encouraging young people to get tested for STD’s if they are sexually active and general information campaigns as well.
“I don’t see as offensive, it just calls more attention because it is unusual compared to the average. I bet you would be much more shocked to see a man kissing a pig ”
-Ok, then I just misinterpreted you True I would probably be very surprised to see that
On the other hand wouldn’t it be good if it wasn’t so unusual (not the pig-kissing )? Then it wouldn’t call so much attention and everybody would be happy
“Spanish would allow you to visit more countries, so it is probably the best option. If you are willing to come to South America, I would recommend south of Argentina on the borders with Chile. It is one of the most beautiful places you can be. Look up Patagonia”
-Yup, I figured that Spanish would get me the furthest, and I guess I could also at least be able to ask/understand some of the absolute basics of Portuguese in that case. Right now I don’t know more than ‘obrigado’ and ‘muito bom’ from being in Portugal for the Boom-festival some years back
Yes, I’ve heard and read about Patagonia and it’s a place I really want to visit. There’s a lot of places I really want to visit on my list, so I guess I just have to save up a fortune, quit my job and go travelling again Unfortunately I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future, I guess I have to make due with short trips on my vacations… I am hoping to make it over to China to visit a friend next year, keeping my fingers crossed that it will happen. Maybe I’ll take some extra time off work (with no pay) to stay a bit longer.
Do you have any recommendations on places to go in Brazil? I don’t know much about your country and most of it comes from such films as Cidade de Deus and similar ones, I’m guessing they don’t show the most positive aspects of your country (even though it’s a really good movie)? No, wait, I just remembered seeing another movie a while back that was really good as well, O Homem Que Copiava. It was a charming comedy that seemed more positive
“24, working as financial analyst for a technology company”
-Nice, is it a fun job? Seems complicated to me, but that might be because I never took an interest in financials.
“I do guess this depends a lot on the society in general, if there’s an acceptance of homosexuality (like in Sweden) I guess this wouldn’t be a problem”
-My feeling is that even if there is acceptance of homosexuality, there may not be acceptance of promiscuity or exhibitionism. In this point, I guess these parades are more bound to negative impacts instead of positive ones. The focus of these groups should be showing the rest of society that they are normal people. Dressing in leather or half naked is not the best way to do that.
“I’ll give you a short history lesson”
-Quite interesting, but I believe it has lost its meaning already. I would bet most people attending these events are not aware how they started, and even if they are, I believe they have already earned most of their rights and should do more focused parades if they wish (Parades with clear goals instead of just shouting out their sexual preferences). As it stands nowadays, it generally gives a bad impression of these groups.
“Mostly we’re in agreement here as well, as I said if the sex-ed is taught in a bad way it can have the opposite effect.”
- Unfortunately Brazil’s education is in terrible shape, so I don’t think they are prepared to handle this as it should. We have no sex-ed at all, so just showing random videos of homosexual behavior is not going to help anything.
“I’m not quite sure how you mean that they would be promoting homosexual behavior though”
-Children generally don’t have any kind of attraction at all until they start hitting puberty, so I believe showing homosexual behavior to younger children can promote experimentation by observation. Not that they will grow into homosexuals, but it is just an extra addition to an already extremely sexualized environment we live in today.
“On the other hand wouldn’t it be good if it wasn’t so unusual? Then it wouldn’t call so much attention and everybody would be happy”
-I believe it is unusual because it affects a smaller percentage of the population. If you stop to think about sexual practices, any one practiced by a minority only is likely to have a shocking factor to it. Keep in mind that I am not saying they are wrong.
“Do you have any recommendations on places to go in Brazil?”
-Rio de Janeiro is a great place to visit, people usually like going there. Also Brazil’s Northeast has some beautiful places to visit – especially beaches, if you can stand the heat.
Also, if you liked Cidade de Deus, I would recommend watching “tropa de Elite” (Elite Squad), it is even better.
“Nice, is it a fun job? Seems complicated to me, but that might be because I never took an interest in financials.”
-It is fun if you like numbers There is lots of pressure as you are handling money, but I love it.
Hope you had a nice easter yourself, how is it over Sweden? Here in Brazil people go on a chocolate craze, but I guess very few remember of the religious side.
“My feeling is that even if there is acceptance of homosexuality, there may not be acceptance of promiscuity or exhibitionism. In this point, I guess these parades are more bound to negative impacts instead of positive ones. The focus of these groups should be showing the rest of society that they are normal people. Dressing in leather or half naked is not the best way to do that.”
-I can understand your feelings towards this. I do have to wonder though; don’t the heterosexuals behave in a similar manner when it comes to the carnival and some other festivities? From what I’ve seen in pictures there seems to be quite a few half-naked people on the streets celebrating from time to time Maybe not as much leather though…
By the way, wouldn’t it get really hot wearing leather in you climate? Doesn’t sound comfortable
“Quite interesting, but I believe it has lost its meaning already. I would bet most people attending these events are not aware how they started”
-That might very well be true; I was just trying to put the name of the parade into perspective. I also think that the people organizing the parades are aware of the origins.
“Unfortunately Brazil’s education is in terrible shape, so I don’t think they are prepared to handle this as it should. We have no sex-ed at all, so just showing random videos of homosexual behavior is not going to help anything.”
-Ouch. Well, then I think it’s far more important to put the effort into developing a good sex-ed program for the schools then to care about specific minorities. If the classes are good then they will learn everything needed from there, including acceptance of people who are different from themselves.
“Children generally don’t have any kind of attraction at all until they start hitting puberty, so I believe showing homosexual behavior to younger children can promote experimentation by observation.”
-Personally I’m not sure that kids would experiment more than they already do in either case, and in general I think experimentation is something positivt.
“but it is just an extra addition to an already extremely sexualized environment we live in today.”
-This I do agree to. I think that too much in our society is sexualized, be it how the Americans shy away from even the natural parts by censoring TV and setting (in my opinion) ridiculous age limits to something where a nipple is being shown (and at the same time it’s ok for small kids to watch a large portion of violence), or the way sex is used in commercials to sell almost anything and of course how objectifying it is made…
“I believe it is unusual because it affects a smaller percentage of the population. “
-1 out of 10 is of course a minority, but it’s still quite a large part of the population.
“Rio de Janeiro is a great place to visit, people usually like going there. Also Brazil’s Northeast has some beautiful places to visit – especially beaches, if you can stand the heat.”
-Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.
I am not much of a beach person, but I enjoy it as relaxation from time to time. I can stand the heat though, I love it After travelling in south east asia I have a big problem standing the cold in Sweden instead…
“Also, if you liked Cidade de Deus, I would recommend watching “tropa de Elite” (Elite Squad), it is even better.”
-Yes, I have planned on watching that one, I have it at home waiting. I just feel I have to be in the mood for a (I’m guessing) rather depressing movie at times…
“Hope you had a nice easter yourself, how is it over Sweden? Here in Brazil people go on a chocolate craze, but I guess very few remember of the religious side.”
-Probably about the same then, there’s not much religion involved (since Sweden is quite un-religious I guess that’s not so strange) and people eat a lot of chocolate (I’m allergic so no chocolate for me).
What might be slightly different though is that kids dress up as witches and the parents gives them big eggs filled with candy
I posted a comment but I don’t think it went through. Occasionally my comment is invisible rather than “awaiting moderation,” and still get’s posted so I’ll wait another day or 2 and see if it posts. If not I’ll try to find a way to get it up there. Probably posting it in pieces. It was pretty long. lol
Let’s try splitting this in half since it’s being stubborn, lol.
“A theory wouldn’t be upgraded to the level of theory if it was conflicting with another theory since there would be something wrong which means they can’t both be true.”
-I’ll grant you that in the case of science, but in the expression of ideas, I have my theory (idea), they have theirs which both are viable as far as I’m concerned, but only one is right.
“if there’s been a mistake somewhere it gets found out and corrected, isn’t that something good?”
-It is good, but that was never my argument from the beginning. My argument was in the fact that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years whereas science (more specifically, evolution since that has a date on it for purposes of what I’m stating) has changed it’s idea continuously over the past 150 years. It’s good too change to get more accurate answers, but if the answers are already known then there’s no need for updates. Just in hindsight, there’s 2 possibilities. Either the Bible is wrong and it needs changes because it’s false, or it was right the entire time which is why it hasn’t had changes.
“you say that is your belief, then how can you say it’s the same as I say when I say that I don’t have a “belief” in science.”
-Just because you say you don’t have a belief in something doesn’t nullify that which defines it as such. In short, I can say I don’t have the flu, but if I exhibit symptoms that are defined as having the flu, then it doesn’t matter what I say. I’m certain you’ve heard of the phrase “actions are louder than words.” This is a good example of it.
“I still don’t understand how you can call science faith-based”
-Where are you getting that from? I didn’t use that in the last post (or at least, in the designated area you’re quoting me from), unless you’re speaking in a certain context I’m unaware of.
“but you just wait until you start working for real and end up under an incompetent boss who is a real jerk, then you’ll prefer to stay out of his way instead”
-Because the blind are leading the blind in this case. A faulty and imperfect person leads another whereas the “boss” I’m describing is beyond such faulty qualities.
“To use your analogy I would say that if there is a boss who expects me to do a certain job, I would prefer it if he came to me, introduced himself and then I would gladly do the job I’m hired for”
-He would if He weren’t pushed away by those preceding you. During the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden He was very much interactive and alive in their day-to-day life. It was once they rebelled and pushed God away that He became less and less interactive by more and more rebellion. God gave us free will. If we want to push Him away, He’ll allow it (granted this is just a nut-shell version with a lot of complications to go over).
“science doesn’t say that your ideas of supernatural entities are impossible, only that they can’t be tested to show they are true”
-So let’s test that idea. Let’s go through some things you believe can’t be tested and let’s see what we can find, shall we?
Where would you like to start? Define what we’re testing.
“it is possible to show that something is true, false or incomplete.”
-Now we might be getting somewhere. So is your argument true, false, or incomplete and how do you determine it as such? Let’s see how far we can get.
“So could you explain how your argument affects science in any way?”
-The origin of this disagreement was that logic/semantics could or couldn’t be used as a valid argument against something of science (anything in general really, but we’re focusing on science). I have clearly shown it can be because to say otherwise is self-defeating. That being said, unless my argument itself is logically flawed, it is useful in determining truth and not an arbitrary concept.
“Are you saying that this discussion wouldn’t be any different if you were actually talking to someone who had a degree in a scientific field and had been working as a scientist?”
-Depends. If we’re speaking on their knowledge of the subject, then no, it wouldn’t be the same from a commoner to someone who’s been educated and studied all about it. As for the outcome of a certain topic and it’s viability, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest because there would be more viable information for one side than the other regardless of how educated one is. However, this is why reading is so important or to do some kind of word-a-day definition exercise to further expand ones vocabulary because as a wise man once said, those absent of a good vocabulary, are incapable of truly complex and critical thought (that’s the gist anyway…).
“we don’t have the knowledge of the actual workings to be relevant”
-In other words, we’re stupid, they’re smart. All bow to the superiors. Lol, this is kind of what you implied last time, but I’m not going to really discuss this as it is one’s own opinion and it’s an entirely different argument for another day that I’ve prepared for.
“““And what I pretty much said was that a large part of the evidence only supports evolution” -And I believe otherwise.” -So why did you only mention that one part of the evidence supports both views when I asked what else then similarities (which was the only one you mentioned).”
–Those are 2 different things. Believing what a majority of the evidence supports and what certain evidence supports both sides are not the same.
“““So you think that by discussing an extensive scientific theory, that you haven’t read or done any in depth research of…” -That’s a pretty big assumption/assertion.” -Which I base on your argumentation in this thread.”
–I have gotten multiple different explanations of science and other various, yet related, topics on the subject but I don’t come to the conclusion that they haven’t researched it. At best, simply that they don’t understand from what they’ve learned (or not learned), or that the person they’re talking to has a different idea.
“I’m just saying that if you catch me in a logical fallacy then it’s most likely because I haven’t grasped exactly how science works. You haven’t refuted science by arguing with me.”
-I can gladly accept that you don’t know everything, nor does anyone else, but saying I haven’t refuted any of science in the process is basically playing monkey in the middle here. “Oh, I don’t have it, it’s that person over there.” I turn around and it’s the same story. It happens more often than you believe that people put it off on others believing the answer is somewhere else. If it’s elsewhere, then people shouldn’t have a problem finding it.
“Because it takes a bigger man to admit you made a mistake and correct it than to say you never make mistakes”
-But if the latter is true and one doesn’t make mistakes, then it doesn’t matter if you have the courage to admit you made a mistake and fix it. In the end, it never was correct, nor was what it changed to.
“Also, you said earlier that you would like it if all information was possible to show what is true without any involvement of faith. Then how can you compare something that you claim has never made mistakes but at the same time can’t be shown as truth without any faith involvement, to something that can show truth without any faith involvement?”
-Read carefully. I would “like” all information to be that way. Not I “must” have all information that way to make a valid decision in life. Therefore, if there’s never enough information to make a 100% definitive answer, then I will gladly suffice for the greater percentage. It may be 99.9%, is that .1% reasonable to doubt it? Not really.
“scientific knowledge is a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. The scientific method is a method of inquiry that must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning”
-I fail to see the difference. One is the body itself of facts and knowledge while one gains those facts and that knowledge. They still deal with possessing truthful information. Unless I misunderstand my previous comment in it’s past context, it still makes sense here.
“Within science there are plenty of methods that can show the gathered knowledge is true”
-That’s not the argument. We’re not looking for a method to find information to use the method with to see if it yields accurate results. That’s more circular reasoning.
We’re not looking for the method under the method. We’re specifically focusing on the basic groundwork itself. The method that all the specified methods for specific fields branch off of. You described it in the previous comment: “The scientific method is a method of inquiry that must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
“School is supposed to give us a general understanding on different topics, not down to the small details that we are discussing in this thread”
-Well put, I can agree to that contrary to my previous statements.
“If you go to driving school you don’t learn every step of the process of how a car is manufactured or how the intricacies work, you learn how to drive it”
-Went a little too far with the analogy here though. When discussing science itself, it makes sense to hit the general points and not all the specifics, but you refer to everything about the car (instead of driving the car) whereas we wouldn’t cover absolutely everything in science (such as geology, biology, weather, etc), just the intricacies of science itself (or, to use the analogy, driving itself). I understand what you’re going for, just a bit too extreme in my opinion.
“Why would you say that the pressure is on the school and not on you? If you lack some knowledge be it due to a poor teacher in school…”
-That’s exactly why I said it.
“…or just your own inattention in class”
-Also plausible. They were rather boring.
“Also, what one person sees as the idea that require the least amount of faith is probably not the same thing as someone else who looks at the same data”
-I’m glad we can agree that you can get different interpretations from the same thing. That’ll be useful information later to refer back to (possibly).
Doesn’t want to post to 2nd half, so we’ll see how many times I have to split this. o.O
“…wouldn’t the entire world belong to one religion otherwise? Or none at all?”
-Not necessarily. We all have different opinions, even if something is concrete in what it says. There are those people, and then there are those who rationally have a different opinion on something less established which is much more reasonable. There are people that disagree about the orbital pattern of the earth today on whether it’s geocentric or heliocentric (hope I got that right). Not everyone thinks the same established way.
“to me it sounds like you have your views and opinions set in stone (written in stone maybe ) and you seem absolutely sure that everything you have discovered is the only way that is possible to interpret and anyone who has a different opinion is flat out wrong”
-I could say the same thing about you.
Just because I oppose what you say and offer an explanation against it doesn’t mean I’m unchanging and my ways are absolute. It just means I have a difference of opinion and I see fault in what you say, therefore I express that disagreement.
“And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals”
-And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?
“So you’re saying that if there isn’t enough food to sustain a large population and nowhere to go to get more food, then it still wouldn’t be beneficial for the population as a whole?”
-Most certainly not.
“True that there’s a greater risk of contracting AIDS through anal sex, but lots of straight people indulge in that as well, so it’s not exclusive to homosexuals.”
-It’s not a natural way to have sex either. Avoiding it altogether avoids the greater percentage of the problem altogether. Not just AIDS but the others mentioned as well.
“I understand what you’re saying but since I see nothing wrong with homosexuality this comparison your making just doesn’t fit”
-We’re more on a view here of “if my premise is right, then I’m right” and vice versa. It’s more of an all or nothing approach and I doubt we’re going to get any further.
“I think I was referring to studies showing that the most important part of a child’s upbringing is that it’s loved and wanted, not the gender of the parents”
-And I agree, but I never spoke about what’s the most important. Simply what would be the best environment for a child to grow up in, which is indeed loving parents, but also (in addition to) a mother and a father. Not both of one gendered parent.
“I was more interested in understanding how nature could be against something that has been created by nature?”
-I’ve already said it multiple times. It doesn’t benefit anything. If everything were gay, everything would die. Even if they tried, they’d do more damage to themselves than if they didn’t try at all.
“You could also say that it benefits life when two gay people adopt a child that would otherwise grow up in an orphanage”
-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.
“I believe that morals stem partly from the fact that we all have feelings and we instinctively know that something that hurts me would hurt you as well and partly I believe that we developed some of our morals out of living together and noticing that we needed some rules. I don’t understand why morals have to come from any other place than from us humans?”
-You’re still not explaining where morals originate (taking both possibilities into account, either evolution being true or God existing). Just how we discover them. You’re not the first to try though.
“So if you chose to you could fall in love with another man?”
-That’s what homosexuality is. A choice. It’s not something you’re born with, it’s a choice you make (then again, this is more on my beliefs and can’t be proven/disproven very well). It’s something in your control. I’m not saying it’s an easy choice because choices vary in their difficulty to make them. It’s harder to make a choice in the emergency room to save someone’s life than it is to choose a color for a powerpoint presentation slide. We all struggle with certain choices differently. For me, homosexuality isn’t a hard choice to decide against, for others, it is. We all have different intensities of struggles. It doesn’t mean that those that struggle more with a certain situation are stuck there or that’s “who they are,” just that they need to work harder. My struggle is quitting when things get hard. For my uncle-in-law, that’s nothing, but for me, I have a hard time staying attached to projects until they’re finished.
“Earlier you said I only explained how I thought we had “discovered” morals, that’s not what I meant at all, I think that’s how we developed morals”
-At best, your example shows how they were discovered. It can be developed too if you want, but regardless of the terminology, it does not explain how they were created; where they originated which is one of the critical things that pro-evolutionary theorists must find an answer to.
“I also wouldn’t agree that your view requires the least amount of faith since it entails a supernatural being that cannot be proven to someone who doesn’t have that faith beforehand”
-All things require a certain amount of faith to believe it’s right (using your previous example about putting your hand in a bucket of water, you trust that your senses are accurate enough to feed you that information and process it), so your question is rather redundant.
“Just because you call something a law doesn’t mean it has anything in common with other things that are called laws”
-Then let’s define it and discover if the moral law applies.
“Constitutions etc. is man-made laws that we have written, how are they comparable to laws of nature for examples”
-Because we know their origins whereas we don’t know the origins of the laws of nature. Therefore, if we’re discovering where a law comes from (be it an intelligence or a non-intelligent entity), then we need to use something that we know where it came from.
“I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity”
-But no one knows exactly where it came from.
“I also don’t agree that there are moral absolutes”
-This goes back to the red light/green light example. Is it right for some people to go at red lights while others go at green? No. Therefore relativism in this sense is false. This has already been discussed.
“So you are saying that everyone on this planet have an innate feeling of what is right and what is wrong”
-In the plainest way, indeed.
““Since all origin-known laws have an intelligence behind them, we can logically conclude that the moral law has an intelligence behind it’s origin.” -Now you are making big assumptions here. As I mentioned, the law of gravity does not have an intelligence behind”
-You’re making a bigger one because we don’t know if gravity was an invention of God or an invention of nature (if it was the creation of an intelligence or of a non-intelligence). This is why I said “origin-’known’” laws as opposed to “origin laws” because some laws’ origins are unknown. My argument still stands as an intelligence behind the moral law as the greatest probability.
“I still can’t understand the logic behind your reasoning that you are using throughout, that somehow an intelligent being that cannot be seen and can only be known through faith, can be the explanation that requires the least amount of faith”
-Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith? I believed intellectually before making a volitional decision. Intelligence and emotional ways to faith are merely springboards to help those into making the volitional decision to be committed.
“As I’ve said numerous times before, this has nothing to do with science as you still claim”
-My comment from 2 paragraphs up says otherwise.
“Anything that is supernatural cannot be tested in a controlled environment and it can only be based on faith”
-Now we’re getting somewhere. However, we need to define a very important detail. What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?
“You are saying that the moral isn’t the actual action itself but that the action in one case is a sin and another it isn’t”
-In accordance to your example, the moral is that it’s wrong to sin and demands rightful judgment. Still using your example, the moral of atoning for this sin did not change itself, merely how it is atoned (through Christ rather than the law). If you want to talk about the moral of killing someone, that’s another story.
“If morals aren’t based on actions but on something defined in the bible, then how about all the people who don’t believe that sinning are morally wrong?”
-That’s not what was being discussed. You gave an example of why people stoned others and that we don’t do it now to back up your idea that the moral changed. I gave a counter-argument. Never once did I say anything about morals as defined in the Bible, your example merely takes them into account.
“Do you base all your moral beliefs on the bible?”
-It’s possible to do so to my knowledge.
“I think that in some cases red can mean it is ok to turn right”
-Yes, but that’s not the analogy as you’re trying to redefine. Is it, or is it not ok for someone to go through an intersection at a red light “because red means go” to them to where they don’t suffer consequences? If it’s ok, then moral relativism is true, but it contradicts reality as we know it because red is not applicable to mean “go,” thus, moral relativism is false. If it’s not ok, then moral relativism is false anyway.
“Isn’t that moral relativity, that whether a specific action is moral or not depends on the situation?”
-Relativism contradicts our common sense and our reactions. Those who claim to be relativists would never want their spouse to be relatively faithful. They would want them to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong.
It won’t let me post the rest of my comment on that last section so I’ll just clarify differently if there’s still misunderstanding. Jeez, trying to post this whole thing was more annoying than you can imagine, lol.
“I posted a comment but I don’t think it went through.”
-I wonder if Failblog doesn’t like us writing a book in every comment
“I’ll grant you that in the case of science, but in the expression of ideas, I have my theory (idea), they have theirs which both are viable as far as I’m concerned, but only one is right.”
-But you were discussing science and scientific theories, why would you mix that up with unscientific ideas? Either you stick to discussing science or everything in this part of the discussion is meaningless. If you find both ideas viable then you choose which idea seems more likely, but that has nothing to do with science that’s what’s in your mind.
“My argument was in the fact that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years whereas science (more specifically, evolution since that has a date on it for purposes of what I’m stating) has changed it’s idea continuously over the past 150 years. “¨
-While I agree that a lot of science has been changed when more information has become available evolution hasn’t. There have been lots of minor changes, yes, but the basic of the theory is still the same.
“Just in hindsight, there’s 2 possibilities. Either the Bible is wrong and it needs changes because it’s false, or it was right the entire time which is why it hasn’t had changes.”
-So are you claiming that every historical part in the bible that is possible to check is 100% correct? Everything in the OT has happened exactly the way it says in the bible?
“Just because you say you don’t have a belief in something doesn’t nullify that which defines it as such.”
-I agree with this sentence, but I don’t understand why you would say it requires belief when something is provable. I would say that the definition of being able to prove something is that it doesn’t require belief.
““I still don’t understand how you can call science faith-based”
-Where are you getting that from?”
-From you (further back) saying that “It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right[..]”, thus implying faith is needed to “believe” in science.
“He would if He weren’t pushed away by those preceding you.”
-That doesn’t matter the least to me. If we’re still using the analogy of a boss then I don’t care what happened before I started working there, I still expect the boss to greet me and explain my work. If I started working in a place and were told that the boss won’t see me because someone else made a mistake years back I’d be very suspicious
“So let’s test that idea. Let’s go through some things you believe can’t be tested and let’s see what we can find, shall we?
Where would you like to start? Define what we’re testing.”
-Are you serious here? Then let’s just take the basis of religion, does god exist? How can you test that?
““it is possible to show that something is true, false or incomplete.”
-Now we might be getting somewhere. So is your argument true, false, or incomplete and how do you determine it as such? Let’s see how far we can get.”
-Are you referring to my sentence above? It is true since you can take any scientific finding (or hypothesis) and show that there is either reproducible proof for every step leading up to the find, or you can show that it is possible to falsify and therefore it is false, or you can show that we just don’t have enough information to show either. Haven’t we been over this before?
““So could you explain how your argument affects science in any way?”
-The origin of this disagreement was that logic/semantics could or couldn’t be used as a valid argument against something of science (anything in general really, but we’re focusing on science). I have clearly shown it can be because to say otherwise is self-defeating. That being said, unless my argument itself is logically flawed, it is useful in determining truth and not an arbitrary concept.”
-No, the argument was that you can’t affect science by defeating me with logic/semantics. I was saying you have to go to the source, the scientific texts describing how science works and argue from there. Not some layman’s knowledge of science.
“As for the outcome of a certain topic and it’s viability, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest because there would be more viable information for one side than the other regardless of how educated one is.”
-But if one person has no idea how to put forth their arguments it doesn’t matter if they’re good or bad he will lose the discussion anyway.
“However, this is why reading is so important or to do some kind of word-a-day definition exercise to further expand ones vocabulary because as a wise man once said, those absent of a good vocabulary, are incapable of truly complex and critical thought (that’s the gist anyway…).”
-I fully agree here, which is kind of the point I was trying to make, if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side (not making a statement about our debate here )
““we don’t have the knowledge of the actual workings to be relevant”
-In other words, we’re stupid, they’re smart. All bow to the superiors. “
-I would say you totally misunderstand me here. Why would intelligence have anything to do with what I’m saying? It is possible to be incredibly smart but if you have no education it doesn’t help much. All I am saying is that I lack the deeper knowledge of how science works because I have never really studied it. I’m not trying to say that people who aren’t scientists are more stupid I am just saying that within the field of science I have significantly less knowledge then someone who has studied it therefore it is possible to defeat me in semantic argumentation because I lack the understanding of some parts of science.
If we talk about, say an experiment that has three steps.
1. Fill a pot with water. 2. Use the stove to make the water boil. 3. Put an egg in there for 3 min to boil (I’m not quite sure how long eggs usually boil since I’ve never boiled an egg in my entire life ).
If I have heard of this experiment but I have only been educated in steps 1 and 3, then it is quite obvious that I would never win an argumentation against someone claiming it isn’t possible to boil eggs with this experiment.
“Those are 2 different things. Believing what a majority of the evidence supports and what certain evidence supports both sides are not the same.”
-I’m not quite sure I follow. The discussion started about ID vs. evolution in the American courts. All the evidence that was put forth in the cases (from the scientists) supports evolution. Some of the evidence (of which you have mentioned one piece) supports creation as well. You seemed to imply that there was a lot of evidence that supported both sides and I asked what else. With the answer you gave me this time I’m just more confused
“It happens more often than you believe that people put it off on others believing the answer is somewhere else. If it’s elsewhere, then people shouldn’t have a problem finding it.”
-Which might be because you argue this with people like me who haven’t researched these parts? I got drawn into this discussion with you because it seemed that there were some parts of basic science it seemed like you were lacking. I understand it was probably more that you were trying to snare your discussion partners into semantic fallacies, but I didn’t get that at the time. Then I discovered that you are quite an interesting person to debate with and I wanted to get to know a bit more about how you reach your conclusions, what made you believe what you believe for the first time and so on (which you might have noticed in our discussion when I’ve tried to steer away from the science parts to more philosophical or theological parts). I haven’t been that interested in the science parts and I haven’t done much research but you have all the time pushed further into parts of science that I don’t have so much information about but still felt I should answer to the best of my knowledge.
If you’ve had this same discussion with lots of other people who also haven’t done their research then of course you’ll get the same answer.
I agree that it might not be too hard finding the answers but at the moment I even have a hard time just answering due to a lack of time, any further research into a field that I don’t need to delve that deep into to understand the basic workings of isn’t on my agenda anytime soon
I’m also not that sure it is that easy to find. We have sometimes been talking about very specific parts of science, the different methods used, different fields and so on. To actually find the inner workings of all of this would require a lot of time and patience, especially if you’re trying to go deeper then Wikipedia
“if there’s never enough information to make a 100% definitive answer, then I will gladly suffice for the greater percentage. It may be 99.9%, is that .1% reasonable to doubt it? Not really.”
-If you’re talking about religious faith I don’t think we will agree of the percentages
I would still say that being 99.1% sure about something means there is doubt. If it isn’t possible to show something to be 100% true then it isn’t a fact. You can still make a reasonable assumption on what is true but as I said before, when faith is involved then it is your ideas/preconceptions/faith that enters into the equation when you decide how likely something is and what the most likely truth is. That’s why I have been saying that what is the most probable truth to you isn’t the most probable to me.
“One is the body itself of facts and knowledge”
-Yes.
“while one gains those facts and that knowledge.”
-No. The scientific method is only a means of conduct to use to show that things can be facts or to show theories as viable. There are other methods that are used to find facts within science.
“Well put, I can agree to that contrary to my previous statements.”
-Nice, one more point we can agree to. Too bad we only agree to each others miniscule points
“I understand what you’re going for, just a bit too extreme in my opinion.”
-Fair enough. As I said at the end, I didn’t have time to read my comment through and see if I could have made a better analogy. My point got through though and that’s what’s important… I’ll try to sharpen my skills in making analogies from now on, even though I guess that as always I’m going to think that I have made up a brilliant analogy, just to read it again after a couple of minutes and notice all the faults, or even send the comment and have you point out all the faults
““…or just your own inattention in class”
-Also plausible. They were rather boring.”
-Agreed, I had some problems not falling asleep during some lessons in technology, not quite sure what the subjects name is, technology is just a direct translation of what it was called in Swedish, I kind of chose the wrong major in high school (I think it’s the equivalent of HS, I was there for three years the age span is approx 15-18) focusing on technology and physics which I found utterly boring. By technology here I mean calculating breaking points for different materials and how to read/draw design specs for construction… I really didn’t know what this meant before applying but at least I had the opportunity to specialize in computers after a while and do some programming.
“I’m glad we can agree that you can get different interpretations from the same thing.”
-As long as there is faith involved, haven’t I been saying that from the beginning?
“I could say the same thing about you.
Just because I oppose what you say and offer an explanation against it doesn’t mean I’m unchanging and my ways are absolute. It just means I have a difference of opinion and I see fault in what you say, therefore I express that disagreement.”
-I was speaking about how you look upon the bible. As I haven’t done any research I’m not saying that what you’re saying is wrong in any way, I was merely trying to say that it sounded like when you have reached a conclusion on a passage in the bible that would be the only way possible to interpret said passage if you are a rational and logical person.
I do guess this is what I sound like as well in our discussions except I don’t have a base-faith to start off with. If anyone can give me conclusive evidence (that is not based on faith in any step of the way) that what I’m saying is wrong I’ll accept it.
I do admit that any religion could be true but since it can’t be proven I will continue to live as a heathen
““And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals”
-And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?”
-No, which is why I made the argument It isn’t a conscious choice.
“It’s not a natural way to have sex either. Avoiding it altogether avoids the greater percentage of the problem altogether. Not just AIDS but the others mentioned as well.”
-But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex. There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?
I have a slight problem with your assumption that something wouldn’t be natural just because it doesn’t fit in the norm or because there is a higher risk for contracting something.
“I’ve already said it multiple times. It doesn’t benefit anything. If everything were gay, everything would die.”
-And I heard you every time you said that I’m just using semantics here; if something is created by nature it is natural no matter how much you or anyone else loathes it.
I agree though that an entire population being gay wouldn’t be natural because it has never happened and the population would be extinct in a generation, but around 10% of a population is quite natural since that’s the way it works for most (if not all) species on this planet.
“-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.”
-But this scenario is a current one in the world today. There are orphans and there are homosexuals that adopt kids. Why would the scenario be void? Also since society through a lot of our history hasn’t accepted anyone who is different there have been many kids born to people who are homosexuals but have been forced to act their opposite or not be accepted in society.
“You’re still not explaining where morals originate (taking both possibilities into account, either evolution being true or God existing). Just how we discover them. You’re not the first to try though.”
-Is it really that hard for you to understand that I don’t think that morals have any deeper origin then the brains of our ancestors? I do not think they were discovered by our ancestors I think we developed them, or created them or just noticed things were easier in a certain way and then kept going until it was something that was clear to everyone.
As I’ve also said I think that morals change, therefore I think it’s more likely that they sort of evolved throughout our existence, probably stemming from empathy, and are still evolving.
“At best, your example shows how they were discovered. It can be developed too if you want, but regardless of the terminology, it does not explain how they were created; where they originated which is one of the critical things that pro-evolutionary theorists must find an answer to.”
-I moved that quote up here since it concerns the same topic. You have my answer above, but I want to know what this has to do with evolution? We haven’t discussed morals in correlation to evolution before so where did that come from? Morals have no place within the theory of evolution.
“So if you chose to you could fall in love with another man?”
-That’s what homosexuality is. A choice. It’s not something you’re born with, it’s a choice you make (then again, this is more on my beliefs and can’t be proven/disproven very well). It’s something in your control. I’m not saying it’s an easy choice because choices vary in their difficulty to make them.[..] For me, homosexuality isn’t a hard choice to decide against, for others, it is.”
-Well, I’d say it is possible to maybe not prove, but at least try. As I said, would it be possible for you to actually fall in love with another man? You say it’s not hard for you to NOT be a homosexual (In my opinion because you weren’t born as one), but would it actually be possible for you to decide to be one? That would be the same level of hardship as the opposite. Have you during your years of growing up been able to choose to fall in love (and I’m not just talking about an infatuation) with someone? Or have you maybe never been in love, and therefore you think it is possible to choose?
In my world that wouldn’t be anything resembling a choice. I would say it is impossible. I can agree that how you act on your feelings is a choice, I could go through the motions of homosexual behavior without being gay (and vice versa) but I still wouldn’t be able to control the chemicals that flow through my brain to that level that I could fall in love by choice. Believe me, I have wished deeply both to be able to fall in love with someone as well as wanting to fall out of love… I know it is possible to suppress feelings to a certain level, which would help trying to fall out of love, but I’ve never heard of the opposite unless you count taking drugs and then you know it’s artificially inflicted and it won’t last.
“All things require a certain amount of faith to believe it’s right (using your previous example about putting your hand in a bucket of water, you trust that your senses are accurate enough to feed you that information and process it), so your question is rather redundant.”
-I don’t agree here. Putting my hands in water and coming to the conclusion that they get wet is a reproducible experiment that can be made by anyone and always yield the same result (preferably with their own hands though or mine would look like raisins very soon ).
““Just because you call something a law doesn’t mean it has anything in common with other things that are called laws”
-Then let’s define it and discover if the moral law applies. “
-From Wikipedia: Law is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions
I would say that the moral law could be seen as guidelines, but they are not enforced by anything other than your own conscience (as long as you don’t break any societal laws).
I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.
If you check natural law in Wikipedia (which is what I guess you’re talking about with your moral law) you get this: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning “man-made law”, not “good law”; cf.posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.
You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.
“Because we know their origins whereas we don’t know the origins of the laws of nature. Therefore, if we’re discovering where a law comes from (be it an intelligence or a non-intelligent entity), then we need to use something that we know where it came from.”
-But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar. I would also argue that this moral law that you defined seems to be closer to laws of nature than to any manmade laws, and since we don’t know where they come from shouldn’t that mean that it’s more likely we don’t know where they come from? If I’ve only seen pencils in my entire life and then someone presents a pen to me, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that the pen is made from a similar material as a pencil?
““I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity”
-But no one knows exactly where it came from. ”
-Which was exactly my point
““I also don’t agree that there are moral absolutes”
-This goes back to the red light/green light example. Is it right for some people to go at red lights while others go at green? No. Therefore relativism in this sense is false. This has already been discussed.”
-I don’t agree to either of your statements here. First as I said before, the color of the lights depends on what we as a people have decided together, not by any natural law. You can’t compare something you say is innate in everyone with an agreement that we have made. To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?
“““Since all origin-known laws have an intelligence behind them, we can logically conclude that the moral law has an intelligence behind it’s origin.” -Now you are making big assumptions here. As I mentioned, the law of gravity does not have an intelligence behind”
-You’re making a bigger one because we don’t know if gravity was an invention of God or an invention of nature (if it was the creation of an intelligence or of a non-intelligence). This is why I said “origin-’known’” laws as opposed to “origin laws” because some laws’ origins are unknown. My argument still stands as an intelligence behind the moral law as the greatest probability.”
-And I meant that the assumption was that you compared it to the origin-known laws rather than to the more similar law of gravity (still according to your definitions since I’m not even convinced there is anything like a moral law) and that you try to deduce the origins to anything based on the origins on something similar.
“Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith? “
-Is it possible to believe in god without faith?
““As I’ve said numerous times before, this has nothing to do with science as you still claim”
-My comment from 2 paragraphs up says otherwise.”
-Your comment concerned finding an unknown through an assumption that it ought to be the same origin as something similar. How is that scientific?
““Anything that is supernatural cannot be tested in a controlled environment and it can only be based on faith”
-Now we’re getting somewhere. However, we need to define a very important detail. What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?”
-That depends on the situation. If you’re trying to test how something reacts in space you need a vacuum chamber, if you want to know how chemicals react together you need a lab. I don’t really know what a controlled environment for something supernatural would be, only that it have to be possible to recreate the situation exactly the same no matter how many times you try and the results have to be the same. How would you suggest that is done?
“In accordance to your example, the moral is that it’s wrong to sin and demands rightful judgment. Still using your example, the moral of atoning for this sin did not change itself, merely how it is atoned (through Christ rather than the law). If you want to talk about the moral of killing someone, that’s another story.”
-I wasn’t talking about sin at all in my original example. I was saying that people thought it was ok to kill someone else. It wasn’t immoral to take someone’s life. Since I am not religious I don’t really know why you connected my talk about stoning people to some biblical sin, I just used an example that in the OT people stoned others to death. It has been common practice throughout the world in different times and different cultures to see it as ok and even the moral thing to do to kill other people. In different cultures and different times it is seen as the absolutely most evil thing possible to kill another human being. No matter what the reason. So yes, I was trying to talk about the moral of killing someone, which was the story I thought I was already talking about
“That’s not what was being discussed. You gave an example of why people stoned others and that we don’t do it now to back up your idea that the moral changed. I gave a counter-argument. Never once did I say anything about morals as defined in the Bible, your example merely takes them into account.”
-Since it seems you misunderstood me, than apparently I thought we were discussing something else I didn’t give the example as WHY people stoned others; I gave to example of people stoning others. The moral of the time was that it was ok to kill another human.
““I think that in some cases red can mean it is ok to turn right”
-Yes, but that’s not the analogy as you’re trying to redefine. Is it, or is it not ok for someone to go through an intersection at a red light “because red means go” to them to where they don’t suffer consequences? If it’s ok, then moral relativism is true, but it contradicts reality as we know it because red is not applicable to mean “go,” thus, moral relativism is false. If it’s not ok, then moral relativism is false anyway.”
-I still don’t know why you connect an agreement made by people to something you say is innate in all humans. Are you trying to say that green and red are somehow innately understood? That it would not have been possible for legislators to decide that green would mean stop? I want to know how you mean that this is connected to morals.
“Relativism contradicts our common sense and our reactions. Those who claim to be relativists would never want their spouse to be relatively faithful. They would want them to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong.”
-But people can change their views during their lifetime. I mean when I was younger I had relationships where I didn’t care if she had different partners and vice versa since the relationships were more based on sex than on love. Today when I’m in a more serious relationship I don’t want her to have other partners. Also when I was younger I figured the death penalty could be defended but today I don’t think that the state has a right to kill anyone. My morals have changed while I’ve grown up; I think it’s quite obvious that there are different morals in different cultures and through different times so I wonder on what you base your view that all people have the same moral and that it is unchanging?
“It won’t let me post the rest of my comment on that last section so I’ll just clarify differently if there’s still misunderstanding. Jeez, trying to post this whole thing was more annoying than you can imagine, lol.”
-I guess I will see for myself in a little while now. Crossing my fingers that it will work.
“But you were discussing science and scientific theories”
-No, I was discussing the validity of theories, however, it seems we had a different understanding of what a ‘theory’ was.
“There have been lots of minor changes, yes, but the basic of the theory is still the same.”
-My point is the Bible hasn’t changed, in it’s basics or specifics. Just looking at that aspect alone, why is there any need to believe something that can’t make up it’s mind in the past 150 years about what happened in the past over something which hasn’t been changed in a couple thousand years.
“So are you claiming that every historical part in the bible that is possible to check is 100% correct? Everything in the OT has happened exactly the way it says in the bible?”
-Provided we have the knowledge to discover if what it says it’s true (and most importantly, that it doesn’t contradict itself in any part of it’s own text), then yes. If it’s vague then we won’t really know for a fact. Although, in my opinion, I’d like to see some behind-the-scenes of the flood and whatnot when I get there.
“I would say that the definition of being able to prove something is that it doesn’t require belief.”
-You believe that your data is accurate enough to give you the correct results, do you not? You may not require a lot of faith that it’s true, but you do require faith nonetheless. You just happen to utilize .01% (example) of faith, which is a good thing because you don’t require very much faith to believe something as true. This is what we should use to determine what idea has the greatest validity.
“From you (further back) saying that “It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right[..]”, thus implying faith is needed to “believe” in science.”
-I can see how you would get that impression, and now that I think about it, you’re right to an extent. As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.
“If we’re still using the analogy of a boss then I don’t care what happened before I started working there, I still expect the boss to greet me and explain my work. If I started working in a place and were told that the boss won’t see me because someone else made a mistake years back I’d be very suspicious”
-You misunderstand me. If the others preceding you have had a negative influence in the “meeting of the boss,” then how many times does it have to go wrong before one realizes it’s not the best approach? The difference is God has perfect standards so it’s more of a one-shot deal. This doesn’t mean God refuses to intervene or have connection and relationship with those who seek him, it just means those prior to you have made that decision difficult for the entire population. As stated in the Bible, the actions of the father can have lasting consequences for their children.
“Then let’s just take the basis of religion, does god exist? How can you test that?”
-Well we have the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral Law argument (as we’ve been discussing a bit earlier). I’m sure you’re aware with some, if not all of these arguments and their basic constructs. Since we’re already discussing the Moral Law in a prior engagement, which of the remaining 2 interests you? Perhaps you already have counter-arguments for one.
“No, the argument was that you can’t affect science by defeating me with logic/semantics. I was saying you have to go to the source, the scientific texts describing how science works and argue from there. Not some layman’s knowledge of science.”
-So you’re taking the faith approach in which you believe the answer for science is out there, you just want to say I’m wrong and point off in the distance saying the answer is out there.. somewhere. You’re playing a nutshell game where I’m trying to find the nut under one of the 3 shells. The problem is, I’ve yet to find the nut, even by looking under every shell. I don’t see how you can believe I’m wrong when you don’t even know if you’re right. If science isn’t faith-based, you’re not proving any otherwise very well.
“if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side”
-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).
““while one gains those facts and that knowledge.” -No. The scientific method is only a means of conduct to use to show that things can be facts or to show theories as viable.”
-Still doesn’t address the latter of my paragraph.
“Nice, one more point we can agree to. Too bad we only agree to each others miniscule points”
-I agree. Hey, another agreement! Darn, not a major point though…
“I was merely trying to say that it sounded like when you have reached a conclusion on a passage in the bible that would be the only way possible to interpret said passage”
-If there’s other conflicting information then I will gladly address it. I’ve said that before. Just because there’s another interpretation doesn’t mean it’s right and I’m wrong in an instant; and if a passage isn’t clear and there could be multiple, plausible and viable interpretations then I won’t be too dogmatic because it’s a verse based on opinion more than objective reasoning.
“““And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals” -And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?” -No, which is why I made the argument It isn’t a conscious choice.”
–That doesn’t explain that it isn’t a conscious choice, that explains that they’re not going to turn homosexual in times of hardship. I do give you a great amount of respect for that clever tactic though. As I said before, reactions are a great way to determine the truth behind those who hide behind masks and shrouds of smoke (enjoy this video showing the practice in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUXTFceilo). Keep it up.
“But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex”
-Not unless someone had it prior which would then be transmitted through blood, semen, etc.
“There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?”
-Apples to oranges my friend. Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.
“I have a slight problem with your assumption that something wouldn’t be natural just because it doesn’t fit in the norm or because there is a higher risk for contracting something”
-If it brings about more problems/harm than solutions/productivity/good (or any equivalent) then it would be classified as “unnatural.” If it’s contrary to the course of nature, then it’s “unnatural.”
“if something is created by nature it is natural no matter how much you or anyone else loathes it”
-I refer you to the above paragraph along with the added statement of “if we were spawned by nature, then you would have a slight edge. If not, then any leverage you had prior is unusable.”
““-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.” -But this scenario is a current one in the world today. There are orphans and there are homosexuals that adopt kids. Why would the scenario be void?”
-Because I was speaking about the parents of the orphan, still relating to the unnatural aspect of homosexuality.
“Is it really that hard for you to understand that I don’t think that morals have any deeper origin then the brains of our ancestors?”
-That’s exactly the problem. There’s no “natural origin” at all. Any explanation for it only describes how it was discovered, not how it came to be. Not how it began existing. It can’t “have any ‘deeper’ origin than the brains of our ancestors” if there’s no origin at all.
“I do not think they were discovered by our ancestors I think we developed them, or created them or just noticed things were easier in a certain way and then kept going until it was something that was clear to everyone.”
-That still only describes how we could have discovered morals. The idea that there was an easier way to do something existed prior to their knowledge of figuring it out (just as mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school or developing mathematical formulas). They did ‘not’ create it, they found it. So, again, where did morals come from? Where did morality originate? I have a viable answer, where’s yours?
“As I’ve also said I think that morals change”
-You’ve yet to prove moral relativism either. Every example you’ve given to explain how morals ‘changed’ has been explained.
“We haven’t discussed morals in correlation to evolution before so where did that come from? Morals have no place within the theory of evolution”
-In a nutshell, if we have morals today, then they must’ve come from somewhere. Where’d they come from? There’s 2 viable options that you and I are dealing with. Evolution or Creation. It must have resulted from one or the other, which one was it and why?
“Have you during your years of growing up been able to choose to fall in love (and I’m not just talking about an infatuation) with someone? Or have you maybe never been in love, and therefore you think it is possible to choose?”
-My personal opinion on it is irrelevant, I’ve listed the reasons as to why it’s a choice.
“I don’t agree here. Putting my hands in water and coming to the conclusion that they get wet is a reproducible experiment that can be made by anyone and always yield the same result”
-So can the frog example I gave much earlier. The conclusion of the result is still wrong.
“I would say that the moral law could be seen as guidelines, but they are not enforced by anything other than your own conscience”
-We’re not really focusing on the enforcing of it, just the idea that it permeates everyone in a way (which would be one example showing it to be a law).
“I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.”
-In a sense, you are right, but unless those laws are radically different for different moral reasons from other laws around the world then it would otherwise support the moral universality and deny relativism.
“You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.”
-Because they’re the only laws in which we “know” the origins of. It doesn’t really help to bring up natural laws as an argument against my arguments for the moral law because there’s nothing to compare the natural laws to. They just exist. The connection of it’s origin is skewered to us; we’ve been trying to rebuild that connection for a long time, possibly throughout the course of all human history.
“But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar”
-A law isn’t similar to a law?
“I would also argue that this moral law that you defined seems to be closer to laws of nature than to any manmade laws, and since we don’t know where they come from shouldn’t that mean that it’s more likely we don’t know where they come from?”
-Very well, let’s use the law of gravity. Well, from the information we have, laws have law givers, ergo, it’s logical to assume (if anyone is going to assume anything) that the law of gravity has a law giver. The point of this paragraph being, it doesn’t matter if it’s closer to a law of nature or not. It still begs the question, does a law have a law-giver?
“If I’ve only seen pencils in my entire life and then someone presents a pen to me, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that the pen is made from a similar material as a pencil?”
-We’re talking about the origins, not the law itself. So, to rephrase your analogy, if you know how all pencils are made, then it would be logical to assume if someone handed you a similar, but slightly different utensil, that it was made a similar way and/or from a similar design(er). To add on, your analogy only implies intelligent design by implying pens and pencils are similar by producing a similar end result (writing) in which
“““I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity” -But no one knows exactly where it came from. ” -Which was exactly my point”
–How could that be your point? You were stating how my example showing laws have lawgivers was incongruent because laws of nature are different from laws of man. If you’re saying no one knows where morality came from then it’s your word against mine with the difference being that I have something to support my view while refuting the arguments you use to explain yours.
“First as I said before, the color of the lights depends on what we as a people have decided together, not by any natural law”
-And is anyone opposed in saying they should be able to go at a red light? Anyone proposing that red means go to them as opposed to green for everyone else? I don’t remember reading about it in the news.
More importantly, we’re confusing an absolute command with a relative culture. “What” we do is agreed upon, that we need to regulate traffic flow (otherwise we’d all crash into each other through intersections), but “how” we do it may differ (whether it’s traffic lights, stop signs, men doing aerobics in the streets, whatever).
“You can’t compare something you say is innate in everyone with an agreement that we have made”
-We all agree it’s wrong to go at red lights just as we all agree it’s wrong to kill a person.
“To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?”
-Because sinning is a rebellion against God. If people don’t believe in God or simply reject Him, then sinning isn’t as big of a problem for them. However, we are made in His image and I believe that alone has permeated us in ways that we can’t ignore.
“And I meant that the assumption was that you compared it to the origin-known laws rather than to the more similar law of gravity”
-We don’t know where gravity came from. We’re trying to discover where the moral law came from. If we use something we don’t know then how can we possibly gain any understanding? If you want to argue about the relation of the moral law to intelligence or non-intelligence or something then let’s discuss that, but as for the former, logic dictates that in order to understand something you have to relate it to something understandable. Since all origin-known laws are intelligence-made, it would make sense to say the origin-unknown laws are the same. Now, if we were going to transition to an argument of relation of man-made laws to natural laws then we can continue in a different direction, but we’re going to have to clarify something here. This transition into this argument is not about man-made laws versus natural laws. It’s an argument about intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws.
“Is it possible to believe in god without faith?”
-That wasn’t my point, nor did I reference God at all for that matter. “Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith?”
“Your comment concerned finding an unknown through an assumption that it ought to be the same origin as something similar. How is that scientific?”
-Are you saying a law isn’t related to a law?
“”What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?” -That depends on the situation. If you’re trying to test how something reacts in space you need a vacuum chamber, if you want to know how chemicals react together you need a lab”
-So a controlled environment is just something you can appeal to the senses, it’s not something you can use your mind for in reasoning, logic, deduction, etc? I’m certain I’d be able to know about the likelihood of a rainbow appearing if I know the conditions for it, regardless of the fact that the weather is physically out of my control.
On a separate note, the Big Bang is a supernatural event itself since everything that happens concurrently and continuously in the universe (post-Big Bang) is considered “natural,” therefore, whatever created the universe has to be above the natural in order to create the natural (ergo, ‘supernatural’), yet the Big Bang is believed to be true through the sciences.
“I was saying that people thought it was ok to kill someone else”
-No they didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be justified.
“I just used an example that in the OT people stoned others to death. It has been common practice throughout the world in different times and different cultures to see it as ok and even the moral thing to do to kill other people”
-Provided they have the justifiable means to do so. For the Islamic faith, you have to be against Islam (in a nutshell). That’s a justifiable means to kill someone. For Judaism, you have to have sinned. That’s a justification. If killing were ok, there wouldn’t be any justifications. We wouldn’t make excuses for doing the wrong things.
“But people can change their views during their lifetime. I mean when I was younger I had relationships where I didn’t care if she had different partners and vice versa since the relationships were more based on sex than on love. Today when I’m in a more serious relationship I don’t want her to have other partners. Also when I was younger I figured the death penalty could be defended but today I don’t think that the state has a right to kill anyone. My morals have changed while I’ve grown up”
-You’re confusing absolute morals with changing behavior (which is to say you confuse what ‘is’ with what ‘ought’ to be). What people ‘do’ is subject to change, what they ‘ought’ to do is not. This is but a small piece of your paragraph, but it’s the most important and this is all I can say at this time.
“I think it’s quite obvious that there are different morals in different cultures and through different times so I wonder on what you base your view that all people have the same moral and that it is unchanging?”
-This goes back to what I said several paragraphs ago. ‘What’ we do is agreed in all societies (be it health care, directing traffic flow, or breaking down on terrorism), but ‘how’ we do it is debatable. Having different plans to achieve the same goals does not support moral relativism, it dismantles it and rebuilds it into the support structure of an absolute moral law.
I just wanted to say that I haven’t forgotten about you, I’ve just had a lot to do at work and also some other stuff going on… I will answer eventually
Hmm, I have posted a comment but I don’t see it which I always do normally. I did try to post it again but then I got a message saying “It looks like you tried to say that already”.
Oh well, I’ll wait until tomorrow and then I’ll post again unless I see something.
I posted my reply about a week ago and checked on it a couple days later. It said it was still awaiting moderation.
I looked again today to find out that it had been deleted! I reposted it and I’ll keep my eye on it’s approval in the meanwhile.
“My personal opinion on it is irrelevant, I’ve listed the reasons as to why it’s a choice.”
-I would say that your personal opinion is relevant, it tells me if you believe that humans can choose the person we love or not since you are saying that homosexuals can. You haven’t given any valid reasons as to why it would be a choice; you have only been dismissive based on your opinions and what you deem as unnatural.
“So can the frog example I gave much earlier. The conclusion of the result is still wrong.”
-No, since not everyone doing this exact same experiment would reach that faulty conclusion and it would not stand any sort of peer review.
“We’re not really focusing on the enforcing of it, just the idea that it permeates everyone in a way (which would be one example showing it to be a law).”
-Then show me that it permeates everyone. You have not shown to me that there is a notion of the same morality in different people in different places.
““I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.”
-In a sense, you are right, but unless those laws are radically different for different moral reasons from other laws around the world then it would otherwise support the moral universality and deny relativism.”
-I stopped reading after “you are right”
As usual I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that all man-made societal laws are coming from the same place?
““You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.”
-Because they’re the only laws in which we “know” the origins of. It doesn’t really help to bring up natural laws as an argument against my arguments for the moral law because there’s nothing to compare the natural laws to. They just exist.”
-Wouldn’t that mean that you could use the same argument for natural laws then? That they “must” have a creator since all manmade laws have a lawgiver? Or could it possibly be so that the moral law just exists?
““But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar”
-A law isn’t similar to a law?”
-I am not convinced that your definition of morality as a law. Just because you define morality as a law doesn’t mean it is similar to a manmade law. I also think that the step you take, saying that because you believe morality has similarities with manmade laws would imply that a creator has made it. In that case I would see it as more likely that if you compare it to manmade laws, that would imply that the moral law is also manmade, created by humans (or our ancestors).
“Very well, let’s use the law of gravity. Well, from the information we have, laws have law givers, ergo, it’s logical to assume (if anyone is going to assume anything) that the law of gravity has a law giver. The point of this paragraph being, it doesn’t matter if it’s closer to a law of nature or not. It still begs the question, does a law have a law-giver?”
-Ok, here you say half of what I said earlier So in your comparison I would rather say that all the laws we know the origin of has a human law-giver, therefore it would be more logical to assume that other laws have human law-givers.
“And is anyone opposed in saying they should be able to go at a red light? Anyone proposing that red means go to them as opposed to green for everyone else? I don’t remember reading about it in the news.
More importantly, we’re confusing an absolute command with a relative culture. “What” we do is agreed upon, that we need to regulate traffic flow (otherwise we’d all crash into each other through intersections), but “how” we do it may differ (whether it’s traffic lights, stop signs, men doing aerobics in the streets, whatever).”
-I don’t see the absolute command here. And as I have been trying to say since you started using the traffic light analogy, I don’t see your connection to morality.
“We all agree it’s wrong to go at red lights just as we all agree it’s wrong to kill a person.”
-But we don’t all agree that it is wrong to kill a person. The US has capital punishment as a difference to Sweden.
It is also possible for a society to decide that we should switch to red meaning go, similar to 1967 when the Swedish government decided that all the traffic in Sweden should be driven on the right side of the road instead of the left.
““To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?”
-Because sinning is a rebellion against God. If people don’t believe in God or simply reject Him, then sinning isn’t as big of a problem for them. However, we are made in His image and I believe that alone has permeated us in ways that we can’t ignore.”
-I still don’t understand how it isn’t relative then? If there is absolutely nothing in me saying that it is wrong to sin (just take some “minor” sin like masturbation which is recommended in sex-ed in Sweden since it helps kids get to know their bodies) then how could there be an absolute moral encompassing me?
Also, if I actually know what is morally right, then how could I possibly do the opposite? If I had a feeling about all things in absolutes, then I doubt it would be hard to make the correct decisions.
Strange, there seems to be something close to the end of my comment that is the problem… My first comment is about half of what I had written, so it can’t be the length, my part 2 is about half of what was left since I couldn’t post the rest in one comment, here’s another split…
“If you want to argue about the relation of the moral law to intelligence or non-intelligence or something then let’s discuss that, but as for the former, logic dictates that in order to understand something you have to relate it to something understandable.”
-I can agree that it is good to relate to something understandable but I would say that the similarities have to be larger than your comparison of moral laws to manmade laws.
“Since all origin-known laws are intelligence-made, it would make sense to say the origin-unknown laws are the same.”
-Not really, I still don’t see the similarities except the semantic ones, that you call morality a law.
“we’re going to have to clarify something here. This transition into this argument is not about man-made laws versus natural laws. It’s an argument about intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws.”
-Again, when you say intelligence-based I guess you mean manmade since we don’t have anything else to compare to. Does this also mean that you think that natural laws are non-intelligence-based? In that case, what makes a moral law more similar to a manmade law than to a natural law?
“Are you saying a law isn’t related to a law?”
-This was from when I was saying that your method of discerning the origins wasn’t scientific. Why would it matter if a law is related to a law if you add assumptions without being able to prove anything?
“So a controlled environment is just something you can appeal to the senses, it’s not something you can use your mind for in reasoning, logic, deduction, etc? I’m certain I’d be able to know about the likelihood of a rainbow appearing if I know the conditions for it, regardless of the fact that the weather is physically out of my control.”
-For something to be testable and repeatable you need to be able to experiment so logic deductions and such are useful when trying to formulate a hypothesis or trying to calculate something, but you can’t find the evidence to natural sciences through it. It is a part of how you find the answers but not the whole.
Of course you would be able to know the likelihood of a rainbow appearing, but to test your hypothesis you need a controlled environment where you can actually control these parameters so the test can be reproduced in exactly the same way by anyone and be given the same results.
“On a separate note, the Big Bang is a supernatural event itself since everything that happens concurrently and continuously in the universe (post-Big Bang) is considered “natural,” therefore, whatever created the universe has to be above the natural in order to create the natural (ergo, ‘supernatural’), yet the Big Bang is believed to be true through the sciences.”
-No. The big bang theory starts with the big bang, which is when our universe exists. It doesn’t say what created the big bang. The big bang in itself isn’t supernatural but we don’t know what caused it, yet at least.
“No they didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be justified.”
-So you can do anything you want as long as someone decides it is justified?
“Provided they have the justifiable means to do so. For the Islamic faith, you have to be against Islam (in a nutshell). That’s a justifiable means to kill someone. For Judaism, you have to have sinned. That’s a justification. If killing were ok, there wouldn’t be any justifications. We wouldn’t make excuses for doing the wrong things.”
-There have existed societies where the strongest person (or group) makes the rules, they don’t need any kind of justification for what they do. If they wanted to kill someone it was ok, no justification needed. There exist dictatorships today where the leaders don’t need any justification for killing.
I’m still not quite sure what you are actually talking about though (surprised?), is there an absolute morality in that killing someone is immoral and no matter what justification is used it will always be wrong, or are you saying that if it is justified it can be acceptable?
One more thing, if people justify killing, wouldn’t their justification for something be based in a morality? You say that for Jewish people it would be ok to kill someone for sinning, isn’t the notion of sinning based on the bible and the Torah which is also the basis for their view of morality?
Now that was strange, the problem with my posting seems to have been in my comment just above, I figured I’d try changing something and wrote Jewish people instead of the short form, then the comment passed… is it disrespectful to talk of the people of that faith somehow? When I write it like this it could be understood to mean people of a certain ethnicity instead of my meaning of people belonging to the religion… oh well time to post the final part…
“You’re confusing absolute morals with changing behavior (which is to say you confuse what ‘is’ with what ‘ought’ to be). What people ‘do’ is subject to change, what they ‘ought’ to do is not. This is but a small piece of your paragraph, but it’s the most important and this is all I can say at this time.”
-But how would I know what ought to be?
“This goes back to what I said several paragraphs ago. ‘What’ we do is agreed in all societies (be it health care, directing traffic flow, or breaking down on terrorism), but ‘how’ we do it is debatable. Having different plans to achieve the same goals does not support moral relativism, it dismantles it and rebuilds it into the support structure of an absolute moral law.”
-So what are the absolutes in morality? If you say that is what we all start out from and then make our choices, where can I find a listing of what is actually right and wrong to do?
I might have to apologize a bit, my mood have been a bit up and down during the days I’ve written this answer and I know I sound a bit harsh in some places I hope you don’t take it too hard. I guess that I am also getting a bit tired of repeating myself so many times in the parts of the discussion where I feel you just don’t get what I’m saying (as I’m sure you feel as well) and that shines through a bit.
Anyway, I hope you haven’t missed me too much and that you’re having a nice summer. Here in Sweden it’s finally warm and sunny which is what I’ve been waiting all too long for.
@ReemZ: Wow, does this mean there’s even more people actually following our discussion? I have to say I’m impressed, I doubt I’d have the energy to follow something as winding as this
“You haven’t given any valid reasons as to why it would be a choice; you have only been dismissive based on your opinions and what you deem as unnatural”
-Well first off, I said from the very beginning that since we don’t know every person’s entire life, we can’t make the greatest of confirmations on the subject when it comes to mental actions. I know a majority of my brother’s life and as such I’m able to to explain many things based off of him.
Second, I don’t deem it unnatural. Nature itself does along with the other factors I mentioned.
“No, since not everyone doing this exact same experiment would reach that faulty conclusion”
-Exactly. Ergo, we have the people who get the right conclusions, and those that get the wrong ones. We have those who look at a fossil and say, “wow, look what evolution did” and we have those who say, “wow, look what the flood did.” We get different conclusions of the same evidence. Both are valid to their own extents which allows for those who believe one theory to think it’s true, but one is wrong because they contradict each other’s results. This is the dilemma in the example of the frog which relates to the dilemma we have here.
“Then show me that it permeates everyone. You have not shown to me that there is a notion of the same morality in different people in different places”
-I already have in the example of “What” we do over “How” we do it. “What” we do is agreed upon in all societies, but “How” we achieve those same goals can be relative.
“I stopped reading after “you are right” ”
-Then you must’ve seen the “in a sense” preceding it, meaning “not exactly.”
“As usual I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that all man-made societal laws are coming from the same place?”
-I believe all laws based off an intelligence prove exactly that. That all laws come from an intelligence (go figure, I’m sure that was hard to decipher based on the first sentence/premise ).
“Wouldn’t that mean that you could use the same argument for natural laws then? That they “must” have a creator since all manmade laws have a lawgiver? Or could it possibly be so that the moral law just exists?”
-I fail to see the point you’re making, but if you’re saying that natural laws are evidenced that all laws are natural then it doesn’t work that way as we don’t know the origin of natural laws. Nor are all laws (or even “some” for that matter) witnessed to be produced by a non-intelligent entity.
“Just because you define morality as a law doesn’t mean it is similar to a manmade law”
-Again, I feel I need to point out that this is not a debate over man-made laws and natural laws. This is intelligence-based laws and non-intelligence-based laws. And apparently we need to define law again. I’m assuming the dictionary definition is no longer acceptable.
“I also think that the step you take, saying that because you believe morality has similarities with manmade laws would imply that a creator has made it. In that case I would see it as more likely that if you compare it to manmade laws, that would imply that the moral law is also manmade, created by humans (or our ancestors).”
-Replace man-made with intelligence-made and you’re correct that it originates with intelligence. However, you have yet to provide a comprehensible explanation as to how morals were created if they evolved with our ancestors.
“I would rather say that all the laws we know the origin of has a human law-giver, therefore it would be more logical to assume that other laws have human law-givers”
-But since humanity did not create natural laws (and is instead bound to them without the immediate ability of contravening them) then your conclusion is false.
If you were following the conversation (which I don’t blame you if you don’t as it’s quite lengthy) you’d notice that we are rationally discussing the existence of a God.
Ok, I’ll try again… Strange that the comment seems to post like it should, it said awaiting moderation this time as well and then after a few days it just disappeared. You’d think that if there was something the moderators didn’t like they’d somehow tell us so we could stop doing the same mistake…
Ok, I guess I’ll try splitting my comment to see if that works any better.
Hey there, I’m back
Let’s see if we can manage to get this discussion rolling again… if we really want to spend all that time in front of the computer instead of being outside in the shining sun…
Who am I kidding, I’m at work and I can’t really do that from outside (the sun gives too much reflections on the screen).
“No, I was discussing the validity of theories, however, it seems we had a different understanding of what a ‘theory’ was.”
-I thought you were talking about scientific theories since in the beginning of this part of the discussion you tried applying those criteria. If we go back to April 13, you wrote:
““No, that’s not what I’ve been saying about science. I have said that the scientific method can show that a theory is viable”
-And how viable that theory is in opposition to other theories determines which one is best to be taken as true, therefore there is a level of faith involved.”
This is (the latest place) where you defined what theories we were talking about and this is what we have been discussing.
So that you are saying now that we are talking about different theories seems very strange, I have been trying to explain to you that there can’t be two scientific theories that are viable and the same time contradictory, which you have been implying. I have been saying that in that case we are not talking about science. Up until this comment I have been trying to say that this isn’t possible within science and you have contradicted me. Now you say that you have been discussing something entirely different?
In that case I guess you want me to compare a scientific theory that can be proven and tested with someone’s idea that is not possible to prove just because both of these are as viable to you? Sorry, I don’t really see the point in trying to show that in one case you have proof that makes faith unnecessary and in the other case you need faith. If you feel the need to press this point further that’s ok, but I don’t really think I’ll have much more to add (unless I once again have completely misunderstood what you’re saying)
“My point is the Bible hasn’t changed, in it’s basics or specifics. Just looking at that aspect alone, why is there any need to believe something that can’t make up it’s mind in the past 150 years about what happened in the past over something which hasn’t been changed in a couple thousand years.”
-First of all I wouldn’t say that science have changed its mind that much. Normally when scientists discover something new that is added to our already existing knowledge, it usually doesn’t discard it. (e.g. Newtons theory of gravity didn’t change just because Einstein came up with his theory of relativity or the theory of evolution that is unchanged in its base even though an enormous amount of information has been added since Darwin).
Secondly, (you say in the next paragraph that everything in the bible that is possible to check is 100% true), I would like to see some of this evidence you are talking about that shows the bible is true since I have never seen more than some historical points that are more or less correct. Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith.
I guess this is part of why we can’t agree on hardly anything in our discussions, you think that science requires belief and that religion requires less belief since you find it more compelling/believable whereas I don’t. Part of the problem has been that almost every time you have tried telling me that there is evidence for something you have meant it in a ‘in my world this is what takes the least amount of faith’-way, this is usually not the same answer that I would say requires the least amount of faith but that is not the reason I keep talking, I want you to prove these things to me in a way that I would accept, that doesn’t require any amount of faith. If you don’t think this is possible then I think we can leave all discussions about proving things.
“As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.”
-And every time I tried explaining this you mixed up science with one of the methods used in science.
“You misunderstand me. If the others preceding you have had a negative influence in the “meeting of the boss,” then how many times does it have to go wrong before one realizes it’s not the best approach? The difference is God has perfect standards so it’s more of a one-shot deal. This doesn’t mean God refuses to intervene or have connection and relationship with those who seek him, it just means those prior to you have made that decision difficult for the entire population. As stated in the Bible, the actions of the father can have lasting consequences for their children.”
-You’re probably right that I don’t understand you I also don’t really know why we keep this analogy, but anyway in my book it is never correct to let one person be seen as guilty of something that his parents did/the people preceding him.
“Well we have the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral Law argument “
-The Teleological argument is built on semantics and logic and assumptions (assuming there’s a purpose), there is no evidence anywhere that can be tested in a scientific environment so that has no bearing on actually being able to prove something.
The Cosmological argument is based on logic and assumption, assuming there is a cause.
The Moral Law argument, you haven’t even managed to explain to me what makes it a law and as you know I don’t find it plausible that there exists a common unchanging moral law, and there still isn’t anything in there which is testable.
As you probably notice, I haven’t read up on these arguments and I’m not really interested in discussing them to any length, what we were talking about before was that science doesn’t disregards your ideas as untrue, only that they can’t be tested in a scientific way and are therefore not interesting from a scientific standpoint. You said to give an example which I did and you answer with logic and semantic arguments. For someone to show me that a god exists there would have to be actual proof (e.g. a divine intervention) that can be repeated ad infinitum and producing the same results.
“So you’re taking the faith approach in which you believe the answer for science is out there, you just want to say I’m wrong and point off in the distance saying the answer is out there.. somewhere.”
-No, I’m saying I usually know the answer but I am not proficient enough in either semantics, logic or the English language to put my answers in a way that does justice to science. Also I normally know the general answer to these things but your way of argumenting takes it down to much finer details that I don’t have the full understanding of and neither the time to find out.
““if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side”
-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).”
-I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here. Are you saying that if I’m bad at debating I would still have a chance as long as the debate is about logic deduction?
“Still doesn’t address the latter of my paragraph.”
-I tried going back to the previous comment, and the one before that… I think I’m lost here, what doesn’t it address?
“Just because there’s another interpretation doesn’t mean it’s right and I’m wrong in an instant”
-That’s not what I meant, I meant that by the way you argue it sounds rather like the opposite, that since you have done your research you can dismiss all other interpretations instantly. I’m in no way saying you are wrong (or right for that matter ) just that it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.
“That doesn’t explain that it isn’t a conscious choice, that explains that they’re not going to turn homosexual in times of hardship. I do give you a great amount of respect for that clever tactic though.”
-Thanks, embarrassingly enough it wasn’t meant as a tactic though. It all started with you saying that there couldn’t be anything beneficial with homosexuality and I said it could. I didn’t mean anything more than that
““But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex”
-Not unless someone had it prior which would then be transmitted through blood, semen, etc.”
-And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?
““There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?”
-Apples to oranges my friend. Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.”
-How can you say it’s an invalid comparison? You stated that people should avoid anal sex altogether because it is an increased risk of contracting AIDS. Working in healthcare gives an increased risk as well. Is it because you see one of the acts as unnatural that you say they can’t be compared? Is it because one is something you see as necessary to our society and the other is something done for pleasure? In other cultures, like ancient Greece for example, it was seen as a natural part of society for men to have sex with boys. In some tribes in New Guinea they have a ritual for boys to become men that basically means that the older men in the village have sex with the boys, thereby giving them the seed of life.
Wow, I guess I started rambling a bit here As you might see I just don’t understand your reasoning.
“If it brings about more problems/harm than solutions/productivity/good (or any equivalent) then it would be classified as “unnatural.” If it’s contrary to the course of nature, then it’s “unnatural.””
-Ok, so we don’t have the same definition of the word. To me natural means more or less “from nature”. Since homosexuality is present in about 10% of all different species on this planet I see it as natural.
I do wonder about your definition, can you explain what it is that you see as the starting point? What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?
Who decides what it the course of nature? How can you even be sure that nature has a course?
“That’s exactly the problem. There’s no “natural origin” at all. Any explanation for it only describes how it was discovered, not how it came to be. Not how it began existing. It can’t “have any ‘deeper’ origin than the brains of our ancestors” if there’s no origin at all.”
-I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals. If they developed morals then the origin would be their brains. Simple as that.
“The idea that there was an easier way to do something existed prior to their knowledge of figuring it out (just as mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school or developing mathematical formulas). They did ‘not’ create it, they found it. So, again, where did morals come from? Where did morality originate? I have a viable answer, where’s yours?”
-Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge? What do you base that on? I wouldn’t say math existed before someone invented it, how do you come to that conclusion?
You are making very (at least to me) farfetched assumptions here and then you try to claim that you have a viable answer that would require me both to just accept your assumptions and then add another variable (god) to make them plausible.
““As I’ve also said I think that morals change”
-You’ve yet to prove moral relativism either. Every example you’ve given to explain how morals ‘changed’ has been explained.”
-Ok, how about slavery? Not too long ago it was morally accepted to own slaves. Today it is not.
And I don’t agree that everything has been explained, I was talking about that humans in different places and times have believed it morally correct or incorrect to kill other people (no matter the reasons) and this discussion is continued below…
“In a nutshell, if we have morals today, then they must’ve come from somewhere. Where’d they come from? There’s 2 viable options that you and I are dealing with. Evolution or Creation. It must have resulted from one or the other, which one was it and why?”
-Now you are on thin ice. How can you decide that there are 2 viable options here? None of the options is viable to me. Morality has nothing to do with evolution and I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation. I still find it interesting on a philosophical level to discuss this with you since our beliefs on this subject are so different but I see that you’re only trying to limit the discourse so that if I accept your faulty premise of 2 viable options it would end the discussion since morality isn’t part of evolution (even though I can say it evolves) and that would only leave 1 option.
“True, but it’s still possible to determine whether it’s a choice or not based on the numerous accounts of homosexual people in the world”
-Considering that we’ve always ended our discussion in something that requires us to understand one’s mental activities, that’s actually not a definite call you can make.
“But it was you who defined unnatural as to be something that does more harm than good or contrary to the course of nature”
-Yes? I’m focused more on the latter of that. How would it “not” be unnatural if it’s “contrary to the course of nature”? Isn’t that what “contrary” means?
“Then it is also you who define what harm is and what good is, meaning it is you who deem homosexuality as unnatural”
-This is all like saying, “Since I utilize the english language, nothing I say in english is meaningful, it’s just the language itself.” While it does reside with me originally, putting this information in another person’s mouth doesn’t make it any less true or false. You need to focus more on the information itself rather than the medium it comes from.
“As I have said before, if something comes from nature I see it as natural”
-But isn’t that why we’re here? To determine whether we came to be by natural means or intelligence-driven ones? You need to show convincingly that it’s natural just as I have shown it’s unnatural. As far as I’m concerned, I have the upper hand with the explanations I’ve given here. I’ll gladly repeat them if you’re unsure of what they were (after all, we’ve kinda been busy and haven’t responded as quickly as we used to, lol)
“And the ones that get the incorrect conclusion gets sorted out before it means anything since science has to be peer reviewed before it amounts to anything”
-And what good are peer reviews if they view the information the same way as those who derived an incorrect conclusion?
“Also incorrect, you don’t find scientists within biology or geology that would come to these conclusions and show evidence that would stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. If there were, then this would be up for a debate within the scientific community which it is not”
-I beg to differ on all accounts. While it would be painstaking work to find the people who believe contrary to the “scientifically-accepted” belief of evolution, their numbers are noticeable. But there have been so many persecuted for simply bringing up a different idea other than evolution that they wont even bring it up anymore. Archaeologists are the same way. They need to find some proof for evolution so they can continue receiving funding. If they find anything contrary to it they can be out of the job. This was the case for the discoverer of Lucy if I remember correctly. Right as his funding was about up, lo and behold, he found Lucy! (This is just from memory long ago so don’t take me 100% for it as I might’ve unintentionally fudged the details).
“No, both are not valid. For something to be valid you have to be able to show evidence that can be validated by your peers”
-Considering that my “peers” can come up to the opposite conclusion with the same evidence then it can most certainly be valid without validation by other people (to say otherwise is to say nothing can be true without more than one person’s confirmation, and if that were the case then not only would I need confirmation from someone else that what you just said is true, but then I couldn’t say anything without getting someone else’s approval of if it’s true or not (which is false). I don’t need someone to verify my answer of 2+2 equalling 4. I can find out if it’s true or not on my own). We can go back and forth as to whether or not something is valid, but the fact of the matter is we can still come to separate conclusions. That’s not the issue anymore. The issue is which of the conclusions is most accurately represented by the evidence?
“There is no dilemma at all, either it is possible to present enough evidence or it isn’t”
-Did I not present enough evidence for my conclusion with the frog? By the way, funny story. Someone actually brought up that joke at work a few weeks ago.
Part 3 (This particular comment is the reason I’m having trouble posting)
“slavery is something that has been accepted as moral in many societies throughout history, but today it’s shunned upon almost everywhere”
-And guess why that is? 2 major reasons (and many old films show this to be the reason as well): One, misinterpretation of Biblical scripture was used to say blacks were inferior, and secondly (and most importantly in my opinion), is evolution itself. Which kind of puts this in a circular argument. People being taught evolution simply see people as higher animals, and obviously there has to be one race that’s more evolved than the rest. Slavery has never been permitted when those who initiate it realize they are equal human beings to those they imprison. It’s only when they think someone is lesser than them in some way that they justify slavery to be ok. The moral did not change, the perspective did. We morally view all “human beings” as equals, but if we “perceive people different than humans” then we rationalize that since they are not human then they are not entitled to the same rights I am and therefore can be dealt with as lesser ‘creatures.’
“I was making the point that it seems that you are arguing that all laws that we know the origin of are human-made but you call them intelligence-based since the natural laws cannot be human made […] I don’t think that is a plausible comparison.”
-Ok, I think I understand now. You think I’m misusing evidence to support my viewpoint when you see it as proving something else (albeit something ridiculous, but proving something else all the same). If this is the case, then let me point something out. You got a different conclusion than I did. Did you not? Does this not prove ‘exactly’ what I said a long time ago? That aside, I believe you got the “wrong” conclusion (and yes, it is possible to do so ). While it is possible to take the evidence to mean that all laws are therefore created by humanity, it is not valid when looking at natural laws since laws of nature dictate humanity. Therefore, the more reasonable conclusion is that the evidence proves all laws are formed by some kind of intelligence as humans are intelligent entities. It is not a huge leap of faith to believe natural laws were created by an intelligent entity either.
“Also, when you talk about laws being intelligence-based, do you put humans at the same level as your god?”
-In the sense that we are both intelligent entities, yes. In the sense that humanity is/are god(s) themselves, no.
“As all the laws you are talking about are man-made and all of a sudden you want this specific law to be made by something far beyond the possibilities of humans and yet you see them as similar”
-I see them as similar because they are all “laws.” I see laws as intelligence-based designs because they prove exactly that. If you have conflicting information to this conclusion then I urge you to bring it up soon.
“I don’t think your comparison of any man-made laws to that of natural laws…”
-Let me stop you right there. Try to remember this is a debate over intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws. You seem to want to change it into an argument over man-made laws versus natural laws and have done so for multiple posts. That is not my argument nor has it ever been. I understand how you’re making the connection and how there can be confusion, but unless the difference of man-made laws and natural laws provide any conflicting evidence against the conclusion that all laws are intelligence-based then it is meaningless and therefore discarded.
“Do you think that all philosophical thoughts have been created and then discovered by the philosophers? […] Did the wheel exist before someone discovered it? Why is it not possible that morals might have grown from our empathy and our survival instincts?”
-I think the idea and meaning behind it has been created and we merely discover it. The concept, capabilities and uses for the wheel all existed prior to anyone utilizing it. One merely ‘discovered’ it’s concept, capabilities and uses. Just like it was always best for certain animals to group together for survival. They did not create that idea, they merely discovered it. To repeat for emphasis, it was always best for these animals to group together, whether or not they were in groups. The idea existed prior to them discovering it, therefore it was not created by them and did not originate so. The question is ‘how was’ it created? I have an answer, you haven’t provided one. The reason why is because there is no evolutionary answer. I think I’ve thoroughly beaten this topic to death and it’s probably best that we move on soon.
“Since you haven’t been able to show that morality is the same over time and in different societies…”
-I have indeed done so. In your latest post I haven’t had the chance to respond before you wrote this, but I welcome you to challenge me as much as you can. On the things we are capable of knowing (despite our humanistic limitations) I have answered all your questions and objections.
“When the court in the US decides to execute someone it is justifiable and when done on the street it is not? Are you then saying that in some cases killing people is ok?”
-I’m saying there are justifiable means in which people think it’s ok to do the wrong thing. That doesn’t make morals relativistic.
“I meant that if I actually had the knowledge of an absolute morality then I would know the correct path to take and it wouldn’t be that much of a choice, I mean who wants to do a bad thing if it is possible to choose a good thing?”
-You’d think so, but that’s where sin nature comes in along with deception. In the beginning we knew otherwise. Eve knew otherwise, but she was deceived despite her knowledge and morality and ‘chose’ against it. Adam followed to save his wife. Sin nature has had the grip on humanity ever since. All because of one action. And guess what? They knew better just as you claim you would be different if you had what they had, but they were still defiant.
“I would say it doesn’t make sense because all origin-known laws are laws that humans have talked about and agreed upon. They are all possible to break […] The differences are larger than the similarities; therefore it is a large assumption to say they ought to have been created in the same way”
-You’re confusing the application of laws (morality) with the origin. Yes, laws can be broken. That’s more an argument of morality on how laws may be in place but that doesn’t mean we can’t decide against them (more evidence how morals are not relativistic, but absolute.. more on that later). Applications of laws have nothing to do with whether it was created by an intelligence or not. If anything it could deal with the entity of intelligence that created it (e.g. since humanity is dictated by natural laws without possibility of rebellion, they could not have created them), but it doesn’t exclude an intelligent entity behind the creation of laws altogether.
When you say “created in the same way,” do note that ‘the same way’ in this case is intelligence-based and does not have the kind of restriction that you seem to be putting on it. The entity in which the intelligence comes from does (as explained a couple sentences ago), but the main point behind the idea (whether or not there is intelligence behind something) does not.
“So basically you’re saying that your version of morality supersedes mine? You are so sure that what you believe to be moral is absolute and therefore I am immoral for breaking what you think is supposed to be moral?”
-Assuming I understand what you’re saying, no. I’m saying whether someone identifies something as sin is relativistic based on their belief because sin is rebellion and rebellion is only applicable if there’s something to rebel against. It does not change whether something is moral or immoral; absolute or relativistic. Sin is not only about morals (which is what this whole issue seems to be related to). As I’ve said before, sin is rebellion against God. Rebellion to someone’s will can be anything from not killing someone to not wearing clothing of 2 different materials.
“But some people believe that the strongest sets the rules and all should be allowed to the one who shows the most power. No justification would be needed in that case”
-The justification is right in front of your face. They think they’re superior to others with power so they justify that they can do what they want and no one can deny them otherwise. Everyone is lesser than they are (this relates a lot to the slavery debacle I explained earlier).
“Do god follow these moral laws or are they only for humans? Since you say in the next paragraph that killing someone is immoral and according to the bible the Christian god has killed many people”
-Now you’ve added the element of justice into the mix. If you read about this you will notice that in most cases, God not only gives plenty of warning that if they don’t turn from their sins (the most I think was 400 years), but he tells them exactly what will happen (they’ll get what they ask for which is death). If God was not just in these situations, then neither is any reasonable court system.
“How could the bible suggest that someone be punished by death if killing always is immoral?”
-The wages of sin IS death. One way or another, everyone physically dies due to sin and some die the second death (spiritually). Immorality is not the issue. Justice takes center stage here.
“Yes you’ve said several times that we innately know but I would say it is obvious that many people don’t know. I don’t know it innately”
-That depends on what you think ‘innate’ knowledge is and how it is expressed. It’s not a composition of legalistic wording stating in your mind “killing is wrong as everyone has the right to life and blah blah blah…” It’s closer related to an emotional state which is uncovered best by a reaction. This is why those who are emotionally unstable or are born incapable of feeling empathy do not see why it’s wrong, because that which they have been born with has been disconnected. Similar to not having drivers/system files in a computer so it doesn’t know anything about it nor how to function without it.
“So in gods eye killing someone is not worse than swearing to your parents?”
-No, in God’s eyes, they’re both equally sin. However, that sin can vary in degree. At the same time, all sin has equal eternal consequences. All sins are equal in different ways. In severity, no; but in penalty, yes.
“I thought you were talking about scientific theories since in the beginning of this part of the discussion you tried applying those criteria”
-And you’re probably right. Since our comments are becoming more and more lengthy as well as responded to later and later, it’s hard to recap from memory every discussion, but I try my best.
“I have been trying to explain to you that there can’t be two scientific theories that are viable and the same time contradictory”
-And I have no more reason to argue semantics as we’ve done in the past several posts. So let’s just dive into the question of which idea is the scientific one seeing as we can’t get any further with me saying something along the lines of “which theory is more scientific.”
“I would like to see some of this evidence you are talking about that shows the bible is true”
-The way you worded that is kind of strange. It’s a bit difficult to provide “some” evidence that the Bible is “100% true.” I don’t recall saying it was 100% true, but maybe I did. Regardless of the wording, let’s try to dissect what you’re looking for. There’s the conciseness of Biblical scripture (inerrancy), there’s the entitled validity of Biblical scripture (the history and making of), and there’s scriptural information (knowledge contained within scripture and the culture providing truthful testimony). That’s just off the top of my head, but we’ll go from there.
“Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith”
-You seem to be proving the opposite when it comes to morals and intelligence-based laws.
“I want you to prove these things to me in a way that I would accept…”
-That’s all up to you. I can’t make you accept anything, but I would like you to ponder on something. If someone were to prove Christianity were true beyond a reasonable doubt, would you become a Christian? This is not my ‘subtle’ way of trying to find out something about your spirituality or ‘converting’ you. This is more of a mentality test. I don’t want you to answer this to me as much I want you to answer yourself honestly. It doesn’t matter what you tell me because your decision can be influenced on how you think I’ll react. I want you to be honest with yourself because the choice you make is very vital. If your honest answer is no, you wouldn’t become Christian even if someone were to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was true, then your decision against Christianity is emotional and/or volitional and not intellectual (and vice versa). Feel free to respond back about this, but do note that I will not.
““As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.” -And every time I tried explaining this you mixed up science with one of the methods used in science.”
-If you mean ‘method’ as in one method to determine what kind of rock you have in Geology and another method for stellar distance, then you confuse what I mean. I recall saying this before as well.
“in my book it is never correct to let one person be seen is guilty of something that his parents did/the people preceding them”
-Who said you were guilty? I said ‘lasting consequences,’ not ‘you are deemed guilty for their actions.’ For example, we are all born with sin nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Their action has a lasting consequence on us.
“The Teleological argument is built on semantics and logic and assumptions (assuming there’s a purpose), there is no evidence anywhere that can be tested in a scientific environment so that has no bearing on actually being able to prove something”
-You said before that testing something had to be in a controlled environment. Do you deny that the mind with it’s logical prowess is a controlled environment?
“The Cosmological argument is based on logic and assumption, assuming there is a cause”
-So then you deny the law of causality?
“As you probably notice, I haven’t read up on these arguments and I’m not really interested in discussing them to any length”
-Then you’re obviously not interested in answering your own question that brought it up, therefore, neither am I in wasting my time to answer it. This is one reason I divide a debate into categories. If you’re not interested in selecting a category enough to the point to answer your own question then there’s no reason I should be interested (and thereby wasting my time) in discussing it.
“No, I’m saying I usually know the answer but I am not proficient enough in either semantics, logic or the English language to put my answers in a way that does justice to science. Also I normally know the general answer to these things but your way of argumenting takes it down to much finer details that I don’t have the full understanding of and neither the time to find out”
-I guess I can eek out a compliment from all of that for what it’s worth.
“-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).” -I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here. Are you saying that if I’m bad at debating I would still have a chance as long as the debate is about logic deduction?”
–No, I’m saying that “good debating” and “expression” can only go so far. You can show a lot of things, but you can’t win them all with that alone. There are certain definites that cannot be ignored or “logically” explained away.
“I tried going back to the previous comment, and the one before that… I think I’m lost here, what doesn’t it address?”
-No clue. I’d search for it if I wasn’t so busy with work and everything. Ahh, we’ll come across it later…
“…it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.”
-That’s implied by all conclusions. You gain enough evidence to make an educated conclusion which negates that which is opposite or in conflict of said conclusion. If this is a bad thing then we should shun science; or all rationale in that case.
“And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?”
-While we don’t know the exact origin of AIDS (merely how it can be contracted from elsewhere), which kind of limits this discussion, there’s a reason it’s called “gAIDS” in some populations. The percentage of homosexual males contracting AIDS is much higher as the sexual activity that is partaken by both partners puts them at a much greater risk.
“How can you say it’s an invalid comparison?”
-I refer you to the comment in which you replied to: “Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.”
“You stated that people should avoid anal sex altogether because it is an increased risk of contracting AIDS. Working in healthcare gives an increased risk as well”
-In the former scenario, you’re risking being the one who gives someone an infection with no further purpose than pleasure. In the latter, you’re risking receiving it when helping to treat it. People can live without a certain (“immoral” in my opinion) pleasure. We can’t live without treatment.
“In other cultures, like ancient Greece for example, it was seen as a natural part of society for men to have sex with boys”
-Fun facts are no longer fun anymore.. lol.
“Since homosexuality is present in about 10% of all different species on this planet I see it as natural”
-Out of 10%, that’s what you conclude?
“What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?”
-I’m looking at an evolutionary standard of nature. Homosexuality gives no benefit to evolution. As such, I deem it unnatural in one of multiple ways.
“I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals.”
-Which you have not backed up in the slightest. You have shown it was a discovery. Not a development, not a creation, not the origin of morals. Absolutely nothing. We are still discussing morals, the moral law, and intelligence-based laws that are linked to this discussion to which I would say I also have the upper hand (then again it’s my perspective from my perspective, so it’s kind of a biased opinion), but for the most part, I have provided evidence for my theory through my findings, you have not. I think this part of the discussion is concluded. We would only be beating the debate into a worthless pulp at any point past this.
“Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge?”
-I direct you to my prior comment: “mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school [to learn about it]”
“Now you are on thin ice”
-It’s ok, I don’t weigh that much.
“I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation”
-Quite a leap of faith there.
Or not… The comment just disappeared once again. I will give it one more try since I still get the “awaiting moderation”, and after that I’ll just start to divide it again…
Hi again. Long time no write Partly because I’ve been on a weeks’ vacation in Hungary, partly because I’ve been busy at home and at work and probably partly because I just forgot I hope you still remember more or less what we’ve been talking about…
I feel that before you start reading this I should apologize a bit for the tone I have in a large part of this comment, I am not at the top of my game right now but I feel it would be good if I can finish my comment today since I’m leaving for a weeks’ vacation in Barcelona on Friday I guess I’ll be in a much better mood in about a weeks’ time.
And now I’m back from Barcelona as well, I didn’t quite manage to post it before leaving, I had a little bit still left to write… and yes, it does feel a lot better after some more vacation, having 30 degrees warm weather and being able to walk around in shorts for a week does wonders for a cold Swede. I think I’ll spend some of the rest of my vacation weeks during winter, that’s when we really need to get away from here
“Considering that we’ve always ended our discussion in something that requires us to understand one’s mental activities, that’s actually not a definite call you can make.”
-Well, not me personally even though from all my friends who are homosexual I’ve never heard anyone saying any different, but from the gathered research made by psychologists, biologists and medical researchers.
“Yes? I’m focused more on the latter of that. How would it “not” be unnatural if it’s “contrary to the course of nature”? Isn’t that what “contrary” means?”
-Because you are making your own definition of the word “unnatural”. If you check a dictionary you get:
Not natural; supernatural or artificial.
Which does not mean ‘contrary to the course of nature’.
I take my definition of ‘natural’ from Websters:
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Which is why I deem homosexuality to be natural.
I guess this part is not very relevant to our overall discussion but I am tired of people (especially over the Internet ) who try to change the meaning of words to suit their own agenda, I have been in countless debates where people have been calling some ideas they don’t like for socialist ideas when they have absolutely no clue as to what the socialist ideology entails and they just use the word as a derogatory term on anything they don’t like. I’m not saying it’s this bad with unnatural since I at least understand what you are trying to say, but it is quite hard to have a good discussion when we don’t define the words in the same way.
“This is all like saying, “Since I utilize the english language, nothing I say in english is meaningful, it’s just the language itself.” While it does reside with me originally, putting this information in another person’s mouth doesn’t make it any less true or false. You need to focus more on the information itself rather than the medium it comes from.”
-See what I wrote above.
It is nothing like saying nothing is meaningless, if you have a definition of harmful that is far different from mine then we are not talking about the same thing which means that first of all we will never understand what the other is saying and secondly anyone reading our conversation will either just get confused or they will thing that both of us are stupid for not understanding the other
“But isn’t that why we’re here? To determine whether we came to be by natural means or intelligence-driven ones?”
-Are you still talking about homosexuality or have you started going into origins or something else?
“You need to show convincingly that it’s natural just as I have shown it’s unnatural. As far as I’m concerned, I have the upper hand with the explanations I’ve given here. I’ll gladly repeat them if you’re unsure of what they were “
-That depends on what you are talking about. I wouldn’t say that you have convincingly shown anything through your explanations, if we’re talking about homosexuality you haven’t shown that it does any harm and if you’re talking about origins you haven’t shown anything that doesn’t involve faith which makes it utterly unconvincing to me and people who actually need proof to be convinced
“And what good are peer reviews if they view the information the same way as those who derived an incorrect conclusion?”
-Which they don’t. As I have tried explaining several times the good thing about peer review is that people don’t think the same way. People come from different cultures, countries and backgrounds. A person raised as a Muslim in Bangladesh who becomes a scientist does not have the same thought patterns as an atheist in Sweden or a Christian in the US. The way we process information is different depending on our background.
“I beg to differ on all accounts. While it would be painstaking work to find the people who believe contrary to the “scientifically-accepted” belief of evolution, their numbers are noticeable. But there have been so many persecuted for simply bringing up a different idea other than evolution that they wont even bring it up anymore.”
-First of all I see your trying to denigrate the scientific facts by calling it “belief of evolution”, secondly if there are a noticeable number of scientists who does not believe in evolution then it wouldn’t be a problem finding them and thirdly just because you say people have been persecuted (without showing any hint of evidence for it) does not make it so.
My guess is that you’re referring to the people who have been trying to debunk the theory of evolution through unscientific means and when it was shown that they didn’t use science or they had faulty reasoning which was discovered by peer review they claimed they were being persecuted.
Having a different idea than evolution is not something that scientists would persecute anyone for, having unscientific ideas and claiming that they are science (like our discussion in the beginning about ID for example) might do it though.
“Archaeologists are the same way. They need to find some proof for evolution so they can continue receiving funding. If they find anything contrary to it they can be out of the job.”
-Also something I don’t believe at all. Please present some evidence of this strange claim.
“Considering that my “peers” can come up to the opposite conclusion with the same evidence then it can most certainly be valid without validation by other people (to say otherwise is to say nothing can be true without more than one person’s confirmation, and if that were the case then not only would I need confirmation from someone else that what you just said is true, but then I couldn’t say anything without getting someone else’s approval of if it’s true or not (which is false). I don’t need someone to verify my answer of 2+2 equalling 4. I can find out if it’s true or not on my own). We can go back and forth as to whether or not something is valid, but the fact of the matter is we can still come to separate conclusions. That’s not the issue anymore. The issue is which of the conclusions is most accurately represented by the evidence?”
-No. Now you are trying to mix science with normal conversation with mathematics. Are you doing this just to be silly or because you are trying to confuse me and whoever might be reading this? We were discussing something that should be scientifically valid, than everyone who has the same conditions will be able to reach the same results. For something to be scientifically valid you need to show conclusive evidence that supports your idea or hypothesis.
The issue is not which conclusion is most accurately represented since you can’t show by scientific means that your idea is valid. As long as there is not enough evidence for an idea I don’t see any reason to compare it to a valid theory.
“Did I not present enough evidence for my conclusion with the frog?”
-No, you haven’t presented anything except a misrepresentation of science with your frog. As I have said several times that experiment had faulty reasoning that wouldn’t have made it through any peer review. It would not be possible to show evidence of your frog hypothesis since it was flawed from start. Your students in the example with the frog didn’t have conclusive evidence for anything they presented. For any possibility of their hypothesis to pass any peer review they would have to first present their hypothesis on why the frog would go deaf and show evidence of how the hearing is affected by the loss of legs and so on. The way you presented the experiment sounds like a bunch of first graders had an idea that has absolutely nothing to do with how science actually works, which I have been trying to explain to you, and then you say this is how science works… You seem to believe that someone seeing something and drawing a conclusion from it is science, it is not.
“This particular comment is the reason I’m having trouble posting”
-Maybe because we’re discussing slavery? I don’t really see why though.
“And guess why that is? 2 major reasons (and many old films show this to be the reason as well): One, misinterpretation of Biblical scripture was used to say blacks were inferior”
-But then I would say that the moral couldn’t be inherent in humans if we could perceive other humans as less than human… If we had such a deep sense of morality I’d think that we also knew what a human was…
“and secondly (and most importantly in my opinion), is evolution itself. Which kind of puts this in a circular argument. People being taught evolution simply see people as higher animals, and obviously there has to be one race that’s more evolved than the rest.”
-Why would one race have to be more evolved than another? People are not higher animals, we are animals. We possess a higher intelligence (at least based on what we as a species have decided intelligence to be) than most other animals but we are not the strongest or the fastest or the best swimmer etc. In what sense do you mean that we would be ‘higher’ than other animals?
“Slavery has never been permitted when those who initiate it realize they are equal human beings to those they imprison. “
-Are you serious? There have been countless of African tribes who keep slaves from their own people, there are many that consider winning a battle gives them the right to enslave the losers and also know that they themselves will become slaves if they lose the battle. In the Roman Empire the gladiators were kept as slaves and forced to fight in the arena but at the same time the good fighters were held in higher regard than an ordinary citizen of Rome so there was definitely no question about them being less than human.
“It’s only when they think someone is lesser than them in some way that they justify slavery to be ok. The moral did not change, the perspective did. We morally view all “human beings” as equals, but if we “perceive people different than humans” then we rationalize that since they are not human then they are not entitled to the same rights I am and therefore can be dealt with as lesser ‘creatures.’”
-But you can use that argument to cop out of anything then. If someone has a lot of money when keeping slaves you will just claim that since he’s rich he thinks he’s above all poor people and therefore he finds it morally acceptable to keep them as slaves. I would say that if there was anything like a ‘moral law’ that permeates everyone then there would also have to be incorporated into the law who it is supposed to encompass. What good is any morality if you can just choose who it encompasses?
“Ok, I think I understand now. You think I’m misusing evidence to support my viewpoint when you see it as proving something else (albeit something ridiculous, but proving something else all the same).”
-No, since you don’t have any evidence you only have a hypothesis which isn’t possible to prove I don’t think what you have presented proves anything at all. All I’m trying to say is that your comparison is lacking since you decide to add meaning to it that isn’t there to start with just because it fits your idea better.
“If this is the case, then let me point something out. You got a different conclusion than I did. Did you not? Does this not prove ‘exactly’ what I said a long time ago?”
-I didn’t reach a conclusion since we were talking about a possibility of where something originated. Even if I would have reached a conclusion that was different than yours it isn’t even similar to what you said a long time ago since then we were discussing science and here we are discussing a possibility, we are not putting forth any hard evidence.
“That aside, I believe you got the “wrong” conclusion (and yes, it is possible to do so ). While it is possible to take the evidence to mean that all laws are therefore created by humanity, it is not valid when looking at natural laws since laws of nature dictate humanity. Therefore, the more reasonable conclusion is that the evidence proves all laws are formed by some kind of intelligence as humans are intelligent entities. It is not a huge leap of faith to believe natural laws were created by an intelligent entity either.”
-I have never argued that it wasn’t possible to reach a wrong conclusion in a discussion between two people
You talk a lot about evidence but you haven’t put forth anything but assumptions and hypothesis (is that correct in plural?), you have taken the fact that some laws are created by humans, and some laws (that in some ways are similar to the created ones and in some ways they are not) we do not know where they originate from, and from there you say that shows that all laws would be created by an intelligence. Sorry, but for me that’s an incredible leap of faith to out of nowhere insert a being that we have absolutely no evidence of into the equation as a possible creator of laws.
“I see them as similar because they are all “laws.” I see laws as intelligence-based designs because they prove exactly that. If you have conflicting information to this conclusion then I urge you to bring it up soon.”
-I’ve been trying to say this before; they are laws according to your definition not in the definition of most other people. I for one had never heard someone refer to morality as a law before you did. You keep comparing laws made by humans to something that is similar but not made by humans and from there you reach a conclusion that everything similar to a human made law must be created by something intelligent. I don’t think you have enough data to reach that conclusion. I am not saying you are wrong (even though I as you know don’t believe in any deity) but I am saying that you need more evidence than a similarity to something else to actually reach a conclusion.
“Try to remember this is a debate over intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws. You seem to want to change it into an argument over man-made laws versus natural laws and have done so for multiple posts. That is not my argument nor has it ever been. I understand how you’re making the connection and how there can be confusion, but unless the difference of man-made laws and natural laws provide any conflicting evidence against the conclusion that all laws are intelligence-based then it is meaningless and therefore discarded.”
-That is because you have tried setting the parameters for this debate, I don’t accept them as I find them lacking in evidence. Since you haven’t made any compelling argument of why there should be a supernatural intelligent being suddenly inserted into the discussion I don’t see why you would make a distinction between man-made laws and intelligence-based laws as the only thing we can possible prove at this time is that all intelligence-based laws that we know of have been created by humans.
“The idea existed prior to them discovering it, therefore it was not created by them and did not originate so. The question is ‘how was’ it created? I have an answer, you haven’t provided one. The reason why is because there is no evolutionary answer.”
-I have provided an answer it’s just that you don’t accept it because it doesn’t fit with your view of it. As I have said countless times I believe that morality grew out of our ability to feel empathy and so on. You haven’t debunked what I am saying in any other words than expressing that you believe morality was already there when humans discovered it.
Why would there be an evolutionary answer? The theory of evolution has nothing to do with morality. Is this another attempt to mix up irrelevant parts with the theory of evolution as you did when you claimed abiogenesis was part of evolution? I know I sound annoyed but considering the lengthy discussion we had when you tried saying that abiogenesis was part of evolution I thought you actually understood what the theory of evolution entailed.
“I’m saying there are justifiable means in which people think it’s ok to do the wrong thing. That doesn’t make morals relativistic.”
-Ok, so it is always wrong to kill someone? It is never morally right to execute a prisoner?
“Applications of laws have nothing to do with whether it was created by an intelligence or not. If anything it could deal with the entity of intelligence that created it (e.g. since humanity is dictated by natural laws without possibility of rebellion, they could not have created them), but it doesn’t exclude an intelligent entity behind the creation of laws altogether.”
-I am not saying that it excludes an intelligent entity from being behind the creation of the laws, but there is nothing that suggests there would be considering that the only thing we have to base your assumption on is that the laws we know to be created have been created by humans and you can choose whether or not to follow them whereas we don’t know what (if anything) created the natural laws and they are not possible to break.
“When you say “created in the same way,” do note that ‘the same way’ in this case is intelligence-based and does not have the kind of restriction that you seem to be putting on it. The entity in which the intelligence comes from does (as explained a couple sentences ago), but the main point behind the idea (whether or not there is intelligence behind something) does not.”
-I’m not entirely sure of what you are saying here. All I was trying to say is that there is a greater difference between man-made laws and natural laws than there are similarities.
“Assuming I understand what you’re saying, no.”
-:-D
I think we both suffer from not understanding each other way too often in our discussion, but since we both seem to be about equally stubborn we keep going anyway.
“I’m saying whether someone identifies something as sin is relativistic based on their belief because sin is rebellion and rebellion is only applicable if there’s something to rebel against.”
-I think I understand and actually agree here
Does this mean that I am not sinning since I don’t believe in a god?
“Now you’ve added the element of justice into the mix. If you read about this you will notice that in most cases, God not only gives plenty of warning that if they don’t turn from their sins (the most I think was 400 years), but he tells them exactly what will happen (they’ll get what they ask for which is death). If God was not just in these situations, then neither is any reasonable court system.”
-But I thought you said earlier that the moral is absolute, that killing someone is always wrong. Or are you saying that as long as I tell the people that if they don’t do as I command (or God in this case) then it is ok to kill them when they don’t follow orders? Then it wouldn’t be about justice but justification as you have pointed out.
“The wages of sin IS death. One way or another, everyone physically dies due to sin and some die the second death (spiritually). Immorality is not the issue. Justice takes center stage here.”
-Ok, so it is morally acceptable to kill someone who has sinned?
“-That depends on what you think ‘innate’ knowledge is and how it is expressed. It’s not a composition of legalistic wording stating in your mind “killing is wrong as everyone has the right to life and blah blah blah…” It’s closer related to an emotional state which is uncovered best by a reaction.”
-But I got the feeling before that you thought sinning was immoral then wouldn’t you get at least a feeling of doing something wrong when doing something that is a sin? If we keep using me as an example I have never felt anything negative connected to masturbation for example, only positive feelings.
“The way you worded that is kind of strange. It’s a bit difficult to provide “some” evidence that the Bible is “100% true.” I don’t recall saying it was 100% true, but maybe I did. Regardless of the wording, let’s try to dissect what you’re looking for. There’s the conciseness of Biblical scripture (inerrancy), there’s the entitled validity of Biblical scripture (the history and making of), and there’s scriptural information (knowledge contained within scripture and the culture providing truthful testimony). That’s just off the top of my head, but we’ll go from there.”
-I’m not sure you’ve said 100% either, but you’ve said that you know that what is in the bible is true, that’s probably where I was coming from in this part. I think that what I mostly want out of this part is that you show me evidence to back up that all (or at least most) of the bible can be shown to be true. I know that some parts of it are historically correct in that they describe events that took place and have been recorded by several other historians or that have been found through e.g. archeologists. I have never seen anyone present non-faith based evidence of any of the supernatural parts of the bible. I am not sure this would be possible though and that’s why I’m curious as to how it is possible to show.
““Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith”
-You seem to be proving the opposite when it comes to morals and intelligence-based laws. ”
-I thought I was quite clear that in that discussion I was not speaking from a scientific viewpoint, I have only been discussing my own ideas and theories (and I use theory here as it is used in conversations, not as a scientific theory ), which means that I don’t claim to have an answer, just thoughts about the subject. If someone claims that what they are saying is the truth, I do need evidence to believe it as truth, otherwise I can accept it as a plausible idea or even a likely one, or as we have discussed earlier, the idea that requires the least amount of faith. But as I said, if it requires any level of faith I would not see it as being true.
“That’s all up to you. I can’t make you accept anything, but I would like you to ponder on something. If someone were to prove Christianity were true beyond a reasonable doubt, would you become a Christian?”
-The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that it depends on what type of evidence put forth. If someone could prove that the Christian God existed but nothing more I would likely be a deist (even though I’m not sure it would be called such if there was actual evidence and no faith necessary) but I probably wouldn’t adhere to any organized religion. The way I view different religions I see all the bad and the good that have come out of them and I think it’s quite obvious that a lot of religious leaders of any faith have been taking care of themselves rather than the congregation. Within the organized religions there have been many people who have gotten to their positions because of a hunger for power rather than a zeal for religion. So what I’m basically saying is I don’t like the idea of following authority figures
If it would be possible to prove without a doubt that the entire Christian religion was true then I don’t see how I could be anything but a Christian. I might not agree with everything within the religion or the rules for example, but if I knew it was true it wouldn’t really matter. I mean, I don’t approve of a lot of things the Swedish government is doing but I live here and I abide by the laws put forth. I do try to change the things I don’t like in society by partaking in demonstrations and similar things but I still follow the normal code of conduct.
If we’re speaking specifically about Christianity, to get me to follow that religion I would have to first be convinced that everything bad that has come out of it was really rooted out, here I’m speaking of everything from the crusades and the inquisition to the more recent scandals of child molestation and the churches indirect helping in spreading AIDS by refusing to allow their followers to use condoms and such things (yes, I know I am writing of very different denominations and that most people are good people just trying to make the world a better place).
If the current right-wing government we have in Sweden suddenly started to do things to improve the lives of everyone here instead of just the richest I still wouldn’t trust them, it would take a long time and many good actions to convince me, I guess it’s the same with religion for me.
“Who said you were guilty? I said ‘lasting consequences,’ not ‘you are deemed guilty for their actions.’ For example, we are all born with sin nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Their action has a lasting consequence on us.”
-I guess I equated being born with sin as being guilty. I still think that this notion of sin is something put in place by your God and if it was a benevolent god then it wouldn’t carry over to another generation
“You said before that testing something had to be in a controlled environment. Do you deny that the mind with it’s logical prowess is a controlled environment?”
-Of course it is not. The brain reacts differently depending on mood and what chemicals are flowing through it. The synapses in the brain are different from one day to another depending on your experiences.
“So then you deny the law of causality?”
-Why would I need to do that? As far as science can know we don’t have enough data from the time when the universe was created to know what happened. If something did cause the big bang that would have to have been outside of our current universe and we have no idea if the laws of causality or laws of gravity and so forth that exist within our universe existed outside of it.
“Then you’re obviously not interested in answering your own question that brought it up”
-I don’t even remember what the question was
“I guess I can eek out a compliment from all of that for what it’s worth.”
-Well, I am quite impressed (and sometimes frustrated) in your way of arguing, so you’re welcome
“No, I’m saying that “good debating” and “expression” can only go so far. You can show a lot of things, but you can’t win them all with that alone. There are certain definites that cannot be ignored or “logically” explained away.”
-I agree, but we seem to have different opinions on what those definites (is this a real word? I’ve used it several times but word doesn’t seem to accept it) are.
In my case I would say we have certain definites that we have gotten through science that can be proven without the use of any faith that you seem to object to whereas you have shown me things where you claim there is only needed a miniscule amount (which I disagree to) of faith and seem to think that would count as a definite for me.
I think what it boils down to is that both of us have resorted to mostly logic reasoning against the others arguments since we cannot agree on the definites…
““…it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.”
-That’s implied by all conclusions. You gain enough evidence to make an educated conclusion which negates that which is opposite or in conflict of said conclusion. If this is a bad thing then we should shun science; or all rationale in that case.”
-I don’t agree… here as well
I would say that some humility is positive in most cases. When I reach a conclusion I don’t automatically assume I’m correct because I think I’ve checked every possible angle of the problem. I am still open to the idea that I might have missed something and that there might exist more information that I’m just not aware of yet. If nothing comes up I will assume I’m correct as far as it’s possible to prove.
I would also say that this is part of the strength of science, that whenever someone reaches a conclusion everyone else is invited to try to break the argumentation or find possible faults in the reasoning or in the information itself. If this shows impossible then the hypothesis might be upgraded to a theory (if that’s what was presented.
““And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?”
-While we don’t know the exact origin of AIDS (merely how it can be contracted from elsewhere), which kind of limits this discussion, there’s a reason it’s called “gAIDS” in some populations. The percentage of homosexual males contracting AIDS is much higher as the sexual activity that is partaken by both partners puts them at a much greater risk.”
-We do know the origins; it comes from Simian immunodeficiency virus and was transferred from primates to humans. The jump from primates to humans probably happened in late 19th or early 20th century.
I don’t understand why it would limit the discussion even if we didn’t know where it came from. You stated earlier that someone needs to have it to be able to transmit it to someone else (which is quite obvious) and I still don’t understand why that would matter.
It is not a gay disease; anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with someone who is infected has a risk of contracting it, no matter what sexual preference they have. Yes, there is a higher probability to contract it of you have for example anal sex since there are more shallow blood vessels there, but that’s the same even if it’s a heterosexual couple having anal sex, on the other hand if there’s two gay men only having oral sex there’s a very low risk of transmitting the disease.
There’s also a higher risk of getting AIDS among drug addicts in cities where there are no needle-exchange programs since they use the same syringes as other junkies and then risk getting their blood mixed, so it might as well be called hetero-junkie-AIDS by following you logic. Just because it has been given a derogatory name like gAIDS in some places doesn’t mean it has any bearing whatsoever on anything but the fact that some people are bigots
Also, if the disease for some inexplicable reason would be gods punishment on homosexuals (as some people claim, I’m not saying you do even if your rhetoric sometimes implies it, I hope I am just reading you wrong here), then why is it that homosexual women are a lot less likely to ever contract the disease?
I’m skipping over some of the parts we have discussed about homosexuality here partly because I think I gave rise to some new topics in my comment above and partly because I doubt we will get any further along those paths. If you feel you want further discussion feel free to restart the topics
I do however find it a bit disappointing that you didn’t want to continue my line of questions about masturbation that you claimed had repercussions and could be dangerous. I am still very curious as to what you believe could be dangerous and how you back it up.
““What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?”
-I’m looking at an evolutionary standard of nature. Homosexuality gives no benefit to evolution. As such, I deem it unnatural in one of multiple ways.”
-But not giving benefit is very different from giving harm.
There’s a lot of different things among humans that have no evolutionary benefit, only a small percentage have green eye color for example, do you see that as unnatural as well?
““I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals.”
-Which you have not backed up in the slightest. You have shown it was a discovery. Not a development, not a creation, not the origin of morals. Absolutely nothing. We are still discussing morals, the moral law, and intelligence-based laws that are linked to this discussion to which I would say I also have the upper hand (then again it’s my perspective from my perspective, so it’s kind of a biased opinion), but for the most part, I have provided evidence for my theory through my findings, you have not. I think this part of the discussion is concluded. We would only be beating the debate into a worthless pulp at any point past this.”
-Ok, so how would you define ‘develop’?
I would say that if a group of people notice that acting in a certain way gives them benefits and from there they build upon that tactic and find that some parts of it works better than others is a form of developing moral.
As I have said several times I have not tried to prove that this is how it was developed, I have been saying that this is how I believe it happened and until someone can show me evidence that I’m wrong (which I am well aware of the possibility that I might be since I don’t have any evidence for this) then I will keep this belief.
As to you saying I haven’t shown an origin, that’s correct, as I don’t think it has a certain origin considering that the morals of people have been changing since time immemorial and it would be impossible to pinpoint a time when humanity started this development.
I don’t understand how you can say you have provided any evidence for your idea though; you have been giving me theories based on faith. I can see how that would satisfy you, but as I’ve stated I don’t see that as evidence since it cannot be proven. I also agree that this part of the debate might have reached its limit though, since you seem to try to argue that this IS how things are when I’m just trying to speculate
““Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge?”
-I direct you to my prior comment: “mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school [to learn about it]””
-And what is the similarity with morality and mathematics except that you claim they both existed prior to human use of them?
““I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation”
-Quite a leap of faith there.”
-How is that a leap of faith? If it would be possible to prove creation then most people on earth would be creationists in the same way that most people on this planet know that the theory of gravity is a fact since it is possible to prove.
Now it’s time to finish the discussion for this time, take care!
Its funny because last year while you guys discussed this, I had an agnostic position. After dedicating a lot of time researching and I am now leaning towards an atheistic view.
In case you are interested, there are these 2 sites which are amazing at pointing scientific evidence and debunking logical fallacies presented by apologists.
Do a quick google search for: Talk origins and iron chariots
There is also an amazing public show in Texas called “The atheist experience”, which is based around debates for religous and non-religious groups. You can find amazing discussions from this show on youtube or their own website
I have not been discussing this at all actually since this thread, but I’ve been to Talk origins at least. I have to check out iron chariots as well.
I have been hanging a bit at the thinking atheist, they have some interesting videos there and the forum is nice as well. I haven’t been very active though (mostly on politics ) because I’ve recently become a father so Internet chatting has not been a high priority
I’m glad you decided to post here again, it was quite a fun (albeit sometimes frustrating) discussion
Thank you!
I guess I am in for an interesting time now
I’m already back at work though, I was home for 10 days straight after my son was born but now I have to work again… not fun… but I can look forward to my parental leave next year instead
Someone give that man a cookie!
A cookie?? A medal!!
.. or like a dozen of them!
How ’bout a dozen medals made of cookie?
Your idea is the best, so far.
…great, now i want a medal cookie.
I want a metal cookie.
I got a rock.
I got paper.
I got scissors.
It is complete.
Not complete. You are missing lizard and Spock.
ive got myself!! i win!
Sheldon? :O
Sheldon?? is that you?? :O
And fire! Don’t forget fire.
I complety laugh out loud with this s”#t
greatings from Portugal
No. Besides, Sheldon’s added two more elements: Dynamite and Alcohol.
Spock´s unfair, he´s omnipotent.
And shotgun.
I have a horse.
It’s “I own a horse.”
Maybe he stole the horse, he doesn’t own it, but he has it?
I’m on a horse.
With tickets to that thing you like.
Look again, the tickets are now diamonds
Glock. Beats paper and sciccors. And a rock, too.
Nuke.
Tardis
Death Star.
Sonic screwdriver.
I own a horse.
There you go. They might be a little black.
I want a dozen medals made out of cookie too…
Or a cookie made of metal?
nevermind, that wouldn’t taste very good…
It would be funny if you gave it to someone you didn’t like, though.
I hate this kind of people, the “I post wrong facts on my wall and don’t like being corrected”, ugh.
When your Powers Combine I am Captain Troll!
He said that he didn’t ask for someone to post a comment telling him that he’s wrong implying that nobody should correct him, but did anybody see him ask for people to agree with him? Answer: NO!
I have just realized it’s a she.
Insert sexist joke here.
Yes cause then he could have his Medal and eat it too, which is special.. XD
+1 Cookie
Woman is mad because she got put in her place.
Her place = The Kitchen
Funny but not appropriate.
it’s always appropriate. unless… YOU’RE NOT A BRO.
how the heck is that not appropriate?
No one needs a sandwich.
Win
I do!!!
Better hope that kitchen isn’t on the second story. She’ll either freeze or burn to death.
Hahahaha. That would also mean her chain is too long. She shouldn’t make it past the first flight of stairs without permission.
“No dear, i’m only letting you off the chain, if you brought me a sammich.”
+1
Not if she was near the equator!
Let’s hope no cars drive through said kitchen. We don’t need any dead ladies on our hands.
And isn’t it cute when women try to be smart like this and fail so badly? The kitchen’s the only thing they understand.
And being a virgin is the only thing you’ll understand, sorry bud.
It’s nothing to do with being a woman and everything to do with being an ignorant git. That knows no gender, especially when it comes to religion.
MegaNerd is a lifelong virgin.
Isn’t it adorable when men try to add inches to their e-penis by forcing their old-fashioned, sexist opinions upon everybody on the internet, regardless of whether the conversation is appropriate or not.
Too bad it ends up diminishing anything attractive or intelligent about the person posting such garbage. He tried to be funny, and failed so badly. Being hated by everyone he opens his mouth to is the only thing he understands.
I dont care that they are joking, it’s annoying, I wouldnt mind it if there were more sexist jokes about men…..but what is there that isnt true?
I dunno, maybe the sexist opinion that some women have: All men are the same douchebag in a different suit.
Give it a rest, both sides, please.
I have a knife. Knives can be used to castrate idiotic men. Let’s give that a try, shall we?
Said knife can also be used to chop fruit. That’s a much more peaceful option, no?
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of s**t she sees without fact checking anything. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total s**t (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her retarded status updates, but she’s about one dumb comment away from being deleted outright.
I’m surprised you haven’t deleted her already
I had a male friend promoting that 813 years-thingie… And he’s usually a smart ass, so I guess that can happen to anyone. But atleast he lets himself be corrected. This girl’s reaction just made her go way down…
If you’ve already hidden all her status updates, how will you know the next time she says something stupid? Do you block her from your feed but stalk her page for the sweet sweet drama?
I think she’s better off without a friend like you.
On the contrary, nothing quite so satisfying as a woman with a spine.
You, on the other hand, are a tool.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
Why even wait that long? Don’t take it wrong please, I’m honestly curious.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
I got someone like that on my friends list. Reposts every dumb piece of crap she sees without fact checking anything, no matter how outlandish. Last time it was “don’t change your profile pic to a cartoon character because it was an idea by pedophiles” which of course wasn’t true. The time before that, it was “This October has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays, this only happens every 813 years” which again, is total cack (the next time that happens is 2016. I looked.)
When told she doesn’t have a clue, of course the reaction is “Just let it be, lol”. I’ve already hidden all her idiotic status updates, but she’s about one dumbass comment away from being deleted outright.
She should read the bible – her place is to stfu!
a knighthood
Batman-hood!
cl itoris hood?
Some give that man a Noble prize. Ignorance is bliss.
damn typo
Nobels are nobles.
i really hate typos
Typo-Hood Viper Hood Neighbor Hood
This is why we’re critical of religion.
I’m unclear why. Are you on some sort of mission to convert dumb theists to atheism? Because while such people may be easily swayed, I’m uncertain if you’ll find them to be suitable playmates…
No, we are critical of religion because it spreads stupidity.
Exactly. Christians are in general arrogant and look down on others for “not having hope in life” or “not being enlightened”. I’m not saying I, as an atheist, is any better than any of you, I’m just saying that I’m not letting myself get fooled by ancient fairy tales.
Adding this, it’s not wrong to believe in something, but you can’t prior this belief over reality, as you have no proof, other than the Bible, which in fact was written by humans.
^ This
THANK-YOU. As a fellow atheist, I agree. When it comes to religion, to me it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you dont force your beliefs on people and as long as those beliefs don’t cause harm.
I’m a Christian, and I agree. Christians only lie.
OH SH** WHAT HAVE I DONE?
Amen.
Oh you…
O:)
Then what about Santa Claus?!?
Seriously though. Are you saying that we can’t live our lives based on a belief in something unless it’s “real”, as in, right in front of your eyes? What about those who believed the earth to be round instead of flat, they had no proof until they proved it themselves, right? Some dedicated their lives to their theory without seeing that it actually was true. Is that so wrong? Isn’t it the same for many scientists? That’s why we have so many theory’s named after someone, and then someone else based their theories on the previous ones named, and so on until we arrive at something spectacular.
[I think I'm going to be flamed for making such a big deal out of light humor] Oh well!
I don’t quite think you understand the scientific method, anonymous person. Also, it’s apparent that you are not knowledgeable about the history of how the earth came to be known as being round.
Hope you had a merry Christmas.
But alright then, might you enlighten me?
Regardless, my purpose was to question believing something without “proof”. What is so wrong or foolish about it? Can’t you believe that one day you will become a successful business owner, prior to your business becoming one? Can’t a kid dedicate his life to basketball iin hopes of becoming a star because he believes he can? And what if he ends up not making it? All his effort is lost, but then what? He can find new hope and go on believing something else.
The point is you won’t find out if it’s true until you act upon finding out. The Christians believe in something, and unfortunately they will never be sure until they’ve died but what’s stopping them? What would they have lost? What’s illogical about it?
well, one difference is that the kid who believes he will grow up to be a basketball star is actually “hoping” to become one. he really *wants* to become amazing at the sport, but presumably he doesn’t tell people that he already *is* a star professional athlete.
similarly, i think it’s totally fine if people *hope* there is a god, so long as they don’t claim that there absolutely is one. frankly, i believe we are just completely unconscious after death, and heaven sounds a lot more appealing than that. so, i guess i hope that there’s a god.
however, so far i haven’t seen any evidence of god’s existence. to go back to your metaphor, i’ve never played basketball before in my life, and i don’t really plan to start. so, clearly there’s no “evidence” that i’ll ever become a basketball star. i could hope and believe that i’ll become an amazing basketball player without ever playing, but it would be pretty stupid of me. this is how i see believing in god without any evidence– it would be nice if he existed, but it’s completely foolish to really believe in it. in contrast, the kid in your example probably shows evidence he’ll become a professional basketball player– he’s probably already really good at basketball.
“but it’s completely foolish to really believe in it.”
-It’s foolish to believe in God, but believing is hoping as you stated before:
“…the kid who believes he will grow up to be a basketball star is actually “hoping”…”
And yet you hope there’s a God:
“i guess i hope that there’s a god.”
Did you just call yourself foolish?
“it would be nice if he existed”
-I would defend the idea, yup…
I like your choice of a name, ICWUDT!
Good points, amary! But as ICWUDT pointed out, it contradicts a bit.
Most kids don’t just start out good at basketball right of the bat, the point is, if you believe it then you’ll find the evidence to make it so (he works at his sport to develope that skill). Of course, I can see here where you could argue that we then create “evidence”, even though it [the evidence] is not necessarily true. This is where my metaphor doesn’t work; however, in the God scenario, Christians believe there IS evidence of his exsistence whereas atheists say there isn’t, but how do you know that it isn’t? What if it IS and you refuse to accept it? The Christians are entitled to their belief in God and there’s nothing wrong with it. You and I may accuse them of being foolish just as much as they say we are foolish for not believing. After all who is the final judge?
I do have another general question… Why is being told there “IS a God” so offensive? Someone once told me they didn’t like being told that they needed to “be saved” (and accept God), otherwise they would go to hell, but if you believe there isn’t a hell, why be so offended? This has always puzzled me.
Hope and faith are not synonymous. If I lost track of my finances this month and come across something I want to purchase, I can hope I have enough money left to buy it or I can purchase it because I have faith that the money is there. Hope is more along the lines of “I’m not sure if god exists, but that would be awesome.” (Agnostic) Faith is more like “God exists, I’m sure of it.”. (Theist)
It’s the issue of falsifiability. I can check my account to see if I have the money left, but you cannot check anything to see if god exists. “God did it” should never be a good enough reason as to how something exists or happened and “God said so” should never be a good enough reason as to why you or anyone else should believe or do anything.
Santa Claus was a pagan tradition.
Um.. No. Santa Claus is based off of a wealthy priest of the 4th century who would go around giving gifts (usually money) in December (I think it was December 4th, but I’m unsure).
Yeah you are correct.. And to add to it, the priest’s name was Nicholas, Saint Nicholas to be correct.. And he was a priest in Turkey, in Ankara I believe.
To be fair (I’m not contesting the Saint Nick fact), I think Virginian meant Christmas, in which case, yes, humanity has celebrated winter solstice since before the rise of Christianity. However, not all solstice festivals are the same thing. So no, you can’t even say Christmas was a pagan tradition. You’d have to say what they’re celebrating.
Pluralizing, you’re doing it wrong.
I noticed that, too. I also noticed the same word (theory) was pluralized correctly later in the same post. Very odd, indeed.
Aha haha yes indeed
Actually the Bible stated that the Earth was round before it was considered a scientific fact!
Praise God!
Which verse?
site it. chapter and verse.
Isaiah 40:21-22
There’s about 4 others but I can’t remember off the top of my head.
Circle? when they said the earth was flat they didnt mean flat and square.
They didn’t mean it was “flat” at all. Sure, they said circle, that’s only because they didn’t have a word for sphere in hebrew, so they settled for the next best thing.
This only says the earth is a circle. Which is flat. There is a difference between round like a circle and round like a sphere.
They didn’t have the word “sphere” in hebrew. I’m well aware that it says circle and the common rebuttal that “oh! Circles aren’t spheres therefore they thought it was flat!” but the fact of the matter is they lacked the word sphere so they had to settle for circle.
I just looked that up, and it calls it “the circle of the earth.” In at least five different versions.
And while a circle is indeed round, it is also flat.
They also didn’t have an exclusive word for “sphere.” They had Chuwg (circle) and Duwr (ball). It’s inaccurate to attribute either for the shape of the earth (yes, I know you’re going to object and say “ball would be a good description” but you can read Isaiah 29:3 for that), but one must be selected. Just because they went with circle doesn’t mean they thought it was flat.
Sorry, no, the passage says circle – not sphere. Flat earthers consider the world a disc, not a sphere.
Because they didn’t have a word for sphere, so they went with circle.
@ICWUDT…how the f**k would you know why they chose “circle”?! Were you there when they wrote the bible? I don’t think so! Someone just claimed that was why they chose circle…so that people writing the bible wouldn’t be looked at as being stupid. In reality, the people who wrote the bible probably were nothing more than a bunch of stoners or schizophrenics (I probably misspelled that one) claiming to “see and hear God”.
Regardless of what you believe…you were not there when it all happened; therefore, you do not KNOW anything. So stop arguing the reason for them picking “circle” because you do not really KNOW why.
“Were you there when they wrote the bible? I don’t think so!”
-I don’t have to be. This is just common sense. People take too many Bible verses out of context to say they are speaking about a flat earth when that is not the case. One is in Isaiah mentioning a circle. This is not evidence of a flat earth because they lacked a word for “sphere” in Hebrew. The only possible words they could’ve used were “circle” and “ball.” The use of “ball” is used in a different verse and the context it’s in would not make sense to be attributed to earth, therefore the only logical word they could use was circle. This is simple and logical deduction to come to a simple and logical conclusion. Now, I’ll grant you the idea that this isn’t enough to say they *meant* a flat or round earth, but it certainly isn’t evidence of a flat earth altogether. So lets look at something more.
Lets again think logically. If the authors of the vast number of books in the Bible were saying the earth was flat, why can’t they get their facts straight? What I mean is in a couple verses, it references the “corners” of the earth (which again, is inaccurate for evidence of a flat earth, but we’re taking the skeptics advocate here). But it also mentions the “circle” of the earth.
Do circles have corners? No. Its contradictory to say such a thing.
In conclusion, the only logical explanation to their thoughts on the shape of the earth is that it was round because it fits with “circle” and the “corners” (North, East, South, & West) evidence we saw earlier. To say they thought it was flat is contradicting themselves.
“So stop arguing the reason for them picking “circle” because you do not really KNOW why.”
-I respectfully disagree.
God bless.
No, it didn’t. If you’re thinking of the verse that includes “circle of the earth”, a circle is round and flat. In fact, the word also translated to “coin”.
And considering they didn’t have a word to describe a sphere, they went with circle. Just as in a birds-eye-view of the ocean/land, you would be able to map out a circle which indicates a spherical earth (this is indicated in Prov 8:27). If you look further in Luke (17:31, 34), you’ll notice Jesus speaks about day and night at the same time. This would imply a spherical-shaped earth in order to have these settings at the same time.
You must also take into consideration that certain verses which seem to indicate a flat earth (Psalm 75:3) are not to be taken literal. The Bible is not all literal (especially Revelation), it’s also allegorical, metaphorical, retoric poetry, etc.
never mind what the bible actually said, can any of you find a single credible source that says that people actually thought the earth was flat? its just an urban myth, the popular scientific opinion through out history has never been that the eart was flat.
Source?
I think American history textbooks noted that sailors thought they would fall off the Earth if they sailed too far from shore. Otherwise, I think America would have been found long before Columbus, Amerigo, and the other famous European explorers of the time.
Also, you cite the Greeks’ calculations, but then say they were lost, which basically defeats your argument. I just said “sailors,” and I was specifically referring to those during Columbus’s and Amerigo’s time, not every single person in history.
Wow, seriously, Wow. I am amazed at the ability of people who have already made their conclusion on a subject to revision the text to support their argument. None of the passages support your premise that the Bible said the earth was spherical before science. But you should seek employment as a scholar for the christian church since you have the same abilities of the best of them, which is to edit and redefine what was meant by someone that wasn’t there when the events occurred only heard a retold story for centuries, and if some scriptures didn’t fit the dogma at the time, to remove those books. Which is precisely why you shouldn’t use that book as a reference, it’s been too watered down. Just say something like the magic blueberry makes it all happen and we’ll see you for what you are, a crazy person. It’s people like you that jailed Galileo and then 400 years later said sorry and then claimed that what he said was in the bible all along.
If there is something wrong with what I said or faulty, then point it out, but your refusal and denial of it by insulting me saying “No, it’s wrong, you’re stupid and I’m right” does not negate what I said and only shows that you lack the ability to do so.
You are all being hung up on trivialities. So what if the bible says that the Earth is round? Many cultures say so. Does that make it’s outlandish claims any less false? Emphatically no.
Yeah, it said something about it being circular. I believe those door to door Jehovas pointed out the passage.
It also said that there were four corners. OH SNAP!
When people start blowing each other up and going to war over Santa Claus, then you’ll have a comparison.
Curiosity and an enquiring mind is what allows us to make discoveries, things that religion actively stifles.
There actually is a lot of evidence for an intelligent designer if you really look for it.
An intelligent designer wouldn’t make birds that can’t fly, fish with eyes that can’t see, and whales that can drown.
Well if an intelligent designer does exist, how do you know what his/her intentions were? If you don’t know what they were trying to do then how can you say that a flightless bird is a failure?
Indeed. There are also compromises that go with the intentions.
Still doesn’t explain why this entity couldn’t give whales gills or fish better eyes, both of which he already “designed”. I see no advantage of giving them something lower quality than he/she/it could of given. Did ID want to keep a record of all its failures?
And out of curiosity, I really want to know why an intelligent designer would make 400,000 different kinds of beetles.
One other thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
This renders Joe’s argument invalid. If you want to question it, talk to Wikipedia (or a psychologist).
“Still doesn’t explain why this entity couldn’t give whales gills or fish better eyes, both of which he already “designed”.”
-Did you completely miss the point of what we were saying? How can you say something is poorly designed unless you know the intentions of the designer?
“I see no advantage of giving them something lower quality than he/she/it could of given.”
-You may also not understand why some buildings have high ceilings. Sure, you can say there’s no designer because obviously that’s a poor structure. It wastes energy trying to heat/cool the room. Well if you happened to know that the designer was going for dramatic view rather than energetic efficiency, then suddenly it becomes clear. You have to know the intentions. Faulting something does not prove there isn’t a designer, it proves you don’t know the designers intentions.
“Did ID want to keep a record of all its failures?”
-How can you say it’s a failure if you have no idea what the designer was going for?
“And out of curiosity, I really want to know why an intelligent designer would make 400,000 different kinds of beetles.”
-One might assume God likes variety.
“This renders Joe’s argument invalid. If you want to question it, talk to Wikipedia (or a psychologist).”
-It doesn’t render his argument invalid. It doesn’t even have anything to do with this conversation. That has to do with interpreting evidence or reading only evidence that supports someones view, that has nothing to do with the rational conclusion of you saying something is poorly designed, therefore you would have to know the intentions of the designer. If this is invalid, please point out the error.
Also, wikipedia isn’t always the most reliable source as you may or may not know. One time I looked up world population percentage and it said China was 100%, and while that was rather amusing for me, I’ve never looked at wikipedia again for information.
God bless.
When I said Joe, I was referring to the one above Robin. Sorry about the confusion.
Are you trying to say that whales are better off without gills and being half-awake their entire life? And what is wrong with better eyes? Most flying birds can see better than humans, and their brains are roughly the size of those of fish. If someone can give me one reason why having worse eyesight is advantageous, I’d be happy to see it, and maybe I’ll stop arguing about it.
“wikipedia isn’t always the most reliable source”
And that’s why I said “talk to Wikipedia.” But you could at least google the topic (perhaps even google scholar) and compare your results with Wikipedia’s. Besides, I was just pointing out the concept/theory; I didn’t intend for you to read every detail or piece of history on it.
“Are you trying to say that whales are better off without gills and being half-awake their entire life?”
-I’m saying you can’t criticize what you don’t know. Builders can build a house with high ceilings to create dramatic views, but its going to be more costly to heat and cool it. You can come in the house and say, “there’s obviously no builder, look at how high that ceiling is, its way too costly. No one of intelligence would do this.” Well, they weren’t going for cost effectiveness. They were going for dramatic views. You cannot criticize it unless you know what the intentions of the designer were. Your criticisms don’t disprove a designer, it proves you don’t know the intentions of the designer. I can keep using this example until you get it, but you’re not faulting it in any way. You just keep bringing up the same argument I’ve answered over and over as if its still valid.
“If someone can give me one reason why having worse eyesight is advantageous, I’d be happy to see it, and maybe I’ll stop arguing about it.”
-Its not always about what’s the best advantage. Can the whale still swim and breathe? Yes, so there’s no argument. Can animals still get around (or see to a certain extent)? Yes, so there’s no argument. Etc.
“And that’s why I said “talk to Wikipedia.””
-That’s not going to help anything. Wikipedia is a public database. That’s why someone was able to change the world population percentage of China to 100% in the first place.
“But you could at least google the topic”
-So could you, but you posted a wikipedia reference. Not something linked to a Google search.
“Besides, I was just pointing out the concept/theory; I didn’t intend for you to read every detail or piece of history on it.”
-I didn’t. I read about 2 sentences worth of information. If I can do that, then I’m curious to know what you read that inferred to you it was worth using against someone.
God bless.
they’re actually both the same Joe I just used a different email for each one haha
Let’s rewind to your original point – “There are also compromises that go with the intentions.” – What does god have to compromise? If he created the universe, he would have to create the physics too. He didn’t have to make himself compromise.
Back to your last post:
“You cannot criticize it unless you know what the intentions of the designer were.”
Then you cannot support it either…but I do know his intentions. He is omni-benevolent, is he not? Then would he not do everything in his power (which is everything, since he’s also omnipotent) for the benefit of life? Or just humanity? Why not both? Still, it’s a very good idea of his intentions (no pun intended).
“Can the whale still swim and breathe? Yes, so there’s no argument.”
So god’s just doing the bare minimum?
“That’s why someone was able to change the world population percentage of China to 100% in the first place.”
They do have protected pages. It’s not as bad as you thought. Look at their help page: “en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Help:Editing”
Also…you seriously discredit Wikipedia based on one error? Out of the millions of pages it has? That’s like discrediting your calculus teacher because (s)he made one mistake in his calculations, and everyone makes algebraic mistakes from time to time.
“So could you, but you posted a wikipedia reference. Not something linked to a Google search.”
Why can’t you do it?
“lmgtfy. com/?q=Confirmation+bias” <– There’s your Google search. Website sarcasm intended.
“[Your last argument]”
Joe said, “There actually is a lot of evidence for an intelligent designer if you really look for it,” and I’m saying that with this concept called “Confirmation Bias”, a lot of things can look like evidence for an intelligent designer, especially “if you really look for it.” I’m curious to know what you read that inferred to you there was no connection.
Last chance. Unless you really have something to say that argues against Confirmation Bias, my argument stays.
P.S. It’s not like you actually measured the accuracy of Wikipedia. Here’s something else for you to read: “news. cnet. com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html”
P.P.S. Some html works in these forums. I found that out long after this Failbook post was posted.
true. I designed everything.
HAIL!
HAIL!
You win the internets!
All hail the flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages! May we be blessed enough to go to its heaven and bask in the glory of the awesome beer fountain!
Ramen
Even at Christian colleges they eat ramen noodles >.>
Just sayin’
Psst, genius…
If you had proof, then it wouldn’t be belief, now would it?
True, but it’s good to evidence to back up ones belief. (I personally believe) It’s a matter of what conclusion (attempt at finding truth) requires the least amount of faith because it has the greatest amount of evidence for itself as being true.
It’s not so black and white as just “belief,” but rather, which opinion best supports accurate facts (and I stress *ACCURATE* as much as I can) and requires the least amount of faith to believe?
Weird because most Christians I know don’t give a crap about anyone else’s religions, and most atheists I know constantly talk about how stupid anyone who believes in god is.
I’m agnostic, so I have no dog in the fight. I don’t know and I don’t really care.
Perhaps you know a bunch of other atheists who you just don’t know are atheists because they don’t talk about it? Most likely. Also, maybe you just know some weird people. By the way there is no such thing as neither being atheist nor theist, either you have a belief or you don’t, being agnostic is not some magical third way out as a lot of people mistakenly assume, what YOU are is an idiot.
I don’t know if you’re Christian, but if so, that was extremely out of character…. I don’t mean to call you out, friend. It’s just that these are the people that we should have compassion for and love.. not call idiots, whether they believe differently or don’t believe at all.
so it is only ‘out of character’ IF jacob is a christian…. by saying that you pretty much just displayed the arrogant view that it is christians who have the monopoly on compassion and love which is in some ways is far worse than flat out calling someone an idiot for their beliefs. you also suggest that those who do not believe in god deserve your compassion as if they are in need of it… this too is an arrogant sentiment, so assess yourself before jumping on someone else for what they said
Untrue, there are many who admit “I just don’t know if there is or isn’t” and they suspend judgement. It’s like saying Jimmy Hoffa is at location A or B, and that’s that. Maybe you can just not know something, and not be called an idiot because you have the wisdom to admit it.
unless they definitely believe in a god, they are atheists. an atheist doesn’t mean that you definitely believe a god DOESN”T exit, it just means you don’t believe a god defnitely exists.
you can have agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists, and you can have gnostic atheists and gnostic theists.
Acually you are COMPLETELY wrong, an Athiest IS someone who believes there is definitely not a god.
You also don’t know what Agnostic and Gnostic means.
Agnosticism is the ‘middle ground’ as people are putting it, there is no way for you to know if there is or isn’t a god because there is no proof for eiher side.
Gnosticism is (essentially) the belief in an imperfect god (as opposed to the ‘perfect’ God of Christianity).
You can’t have a gnostic athiest nor an agnostic atheist because those phrases are contradictions.
TL,DR: stfu>fo
I agree with your definitions, but I do believe there can be even more defining terms to what people believe. “asda” may be referring to The God Delusion where Richard Dawkins has a 5 tier way of defining beliefs as apposed to only 3 (theist, agnostic and atheist)
As an agnostic you don’t know if god exists or not, so you have to choose how you want to live your life. You can choose to live as if god is likely to exist so maybe you lean toward superstitions or other ‘paranormal’ ideas (things which cannot yet be explained). Or you can live your life leaning toward the idea that god does not exist, so therefore are less likely to be superstitious or credit anything paranormal to something supernatural.
I thought it was 7, and then he labeled himself 6. Point still holds, though.
“Magical third way out?” You must not have a very good (if any) understanding of agnosticism. I’m an agnostic because I believe there is no way of definitely knowing whether or not there is or isn’t a god, because there isn’t any proof of either. Do the research before you diss us.
Well, I hope that someday, you do! There’s a war going on for the hearts and minds and souls of the people, and, as Christians, I engage in this warfare every day. Just so you know, it’s people like you that I would lay down my life for! Have a great day, I’m praying and fighting for YOU!
As a long time fan of irony, I love the idea of a war being fought over the concept of an all encompassing love and acceptance.
How about you pray for yourself/family and stop worrying about what others believe in or not. It’s not up to you to change what others believe in so bugger off about this so called “enlightening”. Leaving people free to choose what they want to believe in without morons like you shoving crap down their throats is THE best gift any religious person can give to the rest of humanity.
Would probably end most wars too if people just stopped caring about others people’s beliefs. Religion tends to be a massive inferiority complex at the end of the day.
I wish so, but unfortunately most holy books, if not all, encourage “spreading the word of God”. In Christianity, not doing such a thing would be a sin of omission, and you will spend time in purgatory for it. So much for free will.
Ehhh, Athiests will continue to call our God and other religion’s Gods fairy tales, but then freak out if they get criticized at all. They call believers close-minded, but it seems to be them who label religions with blanket statements and the like.
Just let them be, and those with dignity will give you the same respect. Also, the Christian god is the only one that is capitalized (I’m not criticizing your beliefs, just correcting you).
Actually, I find it’s usually Christians who freak out when atheists start to use their own arguments against them, since so many sects of Christianity like to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to listen to.
You’re just mad your arguments are flawed.
There’s your problem, along with many others. Its not that it lines up with the evidence or not, its just that you don’t have anything to say against it, so you reject it and call the proposer stupid as if that’s justification for your means of rejection. If it’s error or invalid, then it should be easy to point out, but all you’re doing is barking without going through with the bite and I’m not impressed in the slightest. I’ve dealt with far too many people who do the same thing to even be remotely intimidated. I enjoy discussion to learn, but I can’t learn if you don’t take a similar role. If you do, then I’ll be here.
God bless.
Are you trying to say there is evidence that the human population was only two people (or in the case of Noah, 8 people)? Due to advanced study of genetics, we are now able to estimate whether or not bottlenecks such as these happened: http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/3/238.abstract
Basically, if the human population was ever reduced to such a small number, we would see it in the genetic code, but we don’t. Also, it’s highly unlikely that 2 or 8 individuals had enough diversity in their alleles to be the ancestors of all human life. That population would have been wiped out within a few generations. I was going to put the wiki article on here, but it’s not well sourced. I’ll see if I can find a good one.
p.s. for those who claim wiki is completely unreliable: all you have to do is look at the sources at the bottom, most scientific/mathematical articles on wiki are actually very reliable because of the high amount of experts who edit them; they usually include the relevant sources/papers. I wouldn’t suggest using wiki as a source for a research paper, but it’s a good place to start if you don’t know anything about a subject.
No, I’m not trying to say that. if anything I would be implying it, but not explicitly stating it in this post.
Regarding genetics, one of the multiple problems is you’re presupposing that we can determine the past based on the present. According to the evolution theory, we have changed for the better, so it would make sense that we could track backwards in genetic strength to view past events. However, creation says the opposite, that we are getting weaker and degrading. If that’s true, then looking at genetics today to interpret the past is like looking at a wrecked car and concluding it couldn’t have possibly functioned as a transportation device. In simpler terms, we’re dealing with a matter of unequal information here similar to arguing that apples aren’t nutritious because of Woodstock. Apple nutrition has nothing to do with Woodstock so the argument is worthless.
God bless.
Hi again ICWUDT. Since you seem to have run out of answers in our discussion I’ll just jump in here
Where in the theory of evolution does it say that we change for the better? What do you even mean by better?
Why do you attack the wrong thing and ignore the real argument I’ve placed forth?
Please, don’t. I don’t want to be involved in your religious warfare.
What is good for you is NOT good for the rest of the world, and we’d prefer to be left out of your games with your imaginary friends, thanks.
“What is good for you is NOT good for the rest of the world”
-You say it as if it’s a relative term.
And it is. For example, gatorade is okay to drink if you’re physically active, but should otherwise be substituted with a drink with less sugar and fewer calories.
Agnosticism is only a temporary position. If you don’t know, then you can find the answer. By willingly refusing to not find an answer, you’re automatically choosing rejection. A choice by default. And the only reason for that choice is the fact that you’re looking for God as much as a thief is looking for a cop.
I hope you find the answers you need, and if you’re truly looking for the truth, whenever you discover information, examine it closely. Think critically. Don’t stop just when you read something of what someone said. Critique it, and you’ll find answers. That’s what I did and it’s what I do today by discussing origins. Gaining more knowledge with each person I talk to. I found mine, I hope you find yours.
God bless.
Um, there is such thing as permanent agnosticism, in which someone would say “the probability of g(G)od’s existence is 50/50,” or “you can’t prove the existence or nonexistence of g(G)od.” And sometimes people just don’t give a [thought], and therefore remain agnostic.
Have a good day.
“there is such thing as permanent agnosticism”
-There’s also a such thing as geocentric orbit. Just because the idea exists doesn’t make it true.
“in which someone would say “the probability of g(G)od’s existence is 50/50,” or “you can’t prove the existence or nonexistence of g(G)od.””
-While that makes sense to a certain degree, it’s a bit self-defeating. To say you *can’t* know something is to say you can’t know your reasoning for saying you can’t know something. It’s self-defeating. This is not identified by me to be called permanent agnosticism but rather ornery agnosticism. Saying you *can’t* know something is illogical, saying you *don’t* know something is sensible, and you can re-read my previous post on that.
God bless.
Yeah, you’re right. Except the “automatic rejection” part.
One thing that annoys me the most is when people try to use analogies to prove a point. They don’t prove ANYTHING; the only thing they’re good for is explaining a point. Just because two (usually) unrelated items are similar one way doesn’t make them related in any other form.
Agnostics may not be looking for g(G)od, but they’re not running away from him/her either, whereas the thief is trying to run away from a cop, so “as much as” should really be “more than”.
The agnostics who don’t bother determining whether g(G)od exists don’t “automatically choos[e] rejection”; they just don’t choose, and you can’t really blame them as there’s so much involved in the arguments, more than any other argument. Labeling them atheists is just as wrong as labeling them theists. It’s like saying (explanation) that watching someone being bullied and doing nothing is just as bad as helping the bullies, which basically says ten punches are just as bad as fifteen. I’m sure fifteen punches would give more pain and injury than ten would.
“One thing that annoys me the most is when people try to use analogies to prove a point. They don’t prove ANYTHING; the only thing they’re good for is explaining a point”
-That’s usually what it comes to. No one can explain how the relation is wrong, and thus, how my conclusion is inaccurate, so they eventually just attack the use of analogies altogether. The problem is, you’ve defined yourself too narrowly. I’m aware “analogies” don’t prove anything. Analogies are a representation, and the representation is the evidence. The analogy is just a way to define the representation. If you have a problem with the evidence, attack the representation, not the classification of it.
“Just because two (usually) unrelated items are similar one way doesn’t make them related in any other form.”
-Depends on what you’re relating and on what grounds.
“Agnostics may not be looking for g(G)od, but they’re not running away from him/her either”
-That’s not what I said. I said “looking for,” not “running away from.” Thieves aren’t looking for cops just as some agnostics aren’t looking for God. They may not know, but the information is out there. I found it just by typing 3 words into Google, and I wasn’t even that interested. If someone like me could find it when I wasn’t even aware of the whole origin crisis, then so can they.
“The agnostics who don’t bother determining whether g(G)od exists don’t “automatically choos[e] rejection”; they just don’t choose”
-And not choosing is rejection by default (which technically is a choice anyway) because the information is out there. All they have to do is Google some questions if they’re truly interested. But that’s the problem, they’re not interested because they don’t care. It’s not that they don’t know, it’s that they don’t care to know, and they better start caring because they’re going to be dead a lot longer than they’re going to be alive. Its worth taking the time.
“Labeling them atheists is just as wrong as labeling them theists”
-I’m not labeling them either of those. I’m saying there’s a choice and they’re refusing to make one for explainable reasons (regardless of how vast they are). Therefore, since they refuse to make one, its not that they don’t know, its that they refuse to know and they don’t want to know. That’s rejection. They may not know about the existence of God, but they certainly reject knowing which makes them willingly ignorant as Romans describes them.
“It’s like saying (explanation) that watching someone being bullied and doing nothing is just as bad as helping the bullies”
-By doing nothing, it can be viewed that you’re condoning bullying. You may not be helping, but you seem to approve by not doing anything like getting an adult or something. Just like agnostics may not approve of either side, but they’re certainly not looking into it to make a decision, so their rejection to do so is a decision on its own, and its a similar decision to the secularists: rejection.
God bless.
Representations are not evidence. Showing that two arbitrary things are alike in one way doesn’t automatically mean they’re alike in any other way – it requires more evidence than it’s worth – yet too many people like to make this assumption and use it to prove things. That’s why I generally frown upon analogies.
“Just like agnostics may not approve of either side, but they’re certainly not looking into it to make a decision, so their rejection to do so is a decision on its own, and its a similar decision to the secularists: rejection.”
So they’re rejected from agnosticism? Then what are they now? If we were talking about indecisiveness in general, then yes, they’re no longer indecisive because they made a decision to stop looking. But this is not the case. Sorry, but you’re not explaining this “rejection” very well.
My philosophy is that the “next life” can take care of itself, and I’ll just do the best I can in this life. You can’t say “Its worth taking the time” because that only applies if they eventually believe in your kind of god. Otherwise, they wasted a significant amount of time.
“If you have a problem with the evidence, attack the representation, not the classification of it.”
I never did. Let me reemphasize: “They don’t PROVE anything.” Read my post more carefully.
About the bullying thing: Let’s consider a different scenario. Someone is giving out free cupcakes today at your school (No, they are not poisoned or such. They’ve been approved by the school). You’re a “bystander”. You decline the cupcakes, but you don’t stop them from giving cupcakes to other kids either. Therefore, you are condoning the free cupcakes. Can I say you helped giving out cupcakes, anymore than I can say the bystander helped giving out free punches? When something bad happens and someone doesn’t do anything about it, you use him/her as a scapegoat, but when something good happens and someone doesn’t do anything about it, you only give credit to the active participants.
It is possible that answering “I don’t know” is only temporary. I believe that to be true in most cases, those being ones that can be tested and eventually proven one way or the other. If it cannot be tested, then to provide an answer one way or the other would be either foolish, or an act of faith (belief that is not based on proof).
God – depending on how you choose define yours – is unfalsifiable, meaning he/she/it cannot be proven nor disproven because of how he/she/it is defined. However, if you are able to produce proof of his/her/its existence, please step forward and claim the Nobel Prize.
“I believe that to be true in most cases, those being ones that can be tested and eventually proven one way or the other. If it cannot be tested, then to provide an answer one way or the other would be either foolish, or an act of faith”
-Since God can neither be proven nor disproven, it’s a matter of which theory is best supported by the greater amount of evidence and therefore requires the least amount of faith to believe. The ratio of proven to disproven is the same. It’s a matter of discovering it. God still wants us to believe by faith, but he doesn’t want us to believe blindly which is why he has put forth enough to be convincing. In other words, there may not be 100% direct proof of God, but there are indirectly intellectual understandings that can be attributed as such due to their strength as a sound and rational argument (as well as direct historical evidence for the Bible which would be attributed to God).
Agnosticism is still a means of staying in the middle without picking a side in light of all the evidence that supports a particular side, and as such, without reviewing all/a majority of the evidence, it is a choice of rejection as Atheism is. Both sides require faith, it’s just a matter of which requires the least amount.
“God – depending on how you choose define yours – is unfalsifiable, meaning he/she/it cannot be proven nor disproven because of how he/she/it is defined.”
-I’m sorry, but since when does something have to be “falsifiable” to be even considered true?
“I’m sorry, but since when does something have to be “falsifiable” to be even considered true?”
It doesn’t, but for the love of pete WHY would you believe something with no evidence that cannot be disproven? I’m sure we can agree that any idiot can make up any claim their imagination will allow. But if they do and it both does not have concrete evidence and is not falsifiable then tell me why in the world SHOULD anyone even consider it? Especially if your common sense is already waving a red flag in your direction.
I say there’s an undetectable celestial teapot floating around in space, orbiting the earth. I can say I have a book from 2000 years ago that details the teapots origins and what it does for us. The book might even have a history of being 2000 years old. Does that make the words in the book true? No. Does that mean the teapot actually exists? No. Why should you believe it exists? You shouldn’t. Are there some people out there that do believe it? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t baffle me in the slightest. If you think that’s crazy, you should hear some of the crap those Creationist/Intelligent Designers believe!
“It doesn’t”
-Thank you, that’s all I care about. Something can be true without it.
“WHY would you believe something with no evidence that cannot be disproven?”
-Why would you discredit a viable answer on that grounds alone? This is one of the reasons science can’t answer everything, it automatically starts trying to answer the question without doing anything to truly answer it (otherwise known as an assumption).
“But if they do and it both does not have concrete evidence and is not falsifiable”
-We’ve already discussed falsifiable, it’s inaccurate to discovering truth. It’s gone as of now. As for concrete evidence, we’re still in that process of the discussion.
“I say there’s an undetectable celestial teapot floating around in space, orbiting the earth.”
-Exactly. It may not mean it’s true, but it’s not my job to disprove it. It’s yours to prove it or at least back it up enough to make it credible to a good extent.
“Does that make the words in the book true?”
-No, the concise information within and without it substantiates itself (assuming we’re still talking analogically here).
God bless.
“’WHY would you believe something with no evidence that cannot be disproven?’
-Why would you discredit a viable answer on that grounds alone?”
See also: Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell’s orbiting teapot.
“…it’s not my job to disprove it. It’s yours to prove it or at least back it up enough to make it credible to a good extent.”
Yeah, so I’d like to see more evidence that God exists than a single book, which is mainly the point of all the arguments on this page. So all I have to do is show (incontrovertibly, of course) that the evidence that you provide is misinterpreted or false, and then you no longer have a reason to keep your belief in God. Your unfalsifiability will no longer keep you safe.
Have a good day.
“See also: Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell’s orbiting teapot.”
-The difference is there’s no evidence for it (and I believe there’s evidence against it as well to be brutal).
“Yeah, so I’d like to see more evidence that God exists than a single book”
-We’ll have to start somewhere because just saying (essentially), “Prove God exists..” is like saying “What’s a car?” Well, what would you like to know? The history of the car? The transportation aspects of the car? The ‘anatomy’ of the car? You’re a bit too broad here. Narrow it down to something you’d like to know. Something that’s most important to you.
“So all I have to do is show (incontrovertibly, of course) that the evidence that you provide is misinterpreted or false, and then you no longer have a reason to keep your belief in God. Your unfalsifiability will no longer keep you safe.”
-Same for you and your belief in Sciencism
God bless.
Yeah, I know it goes both ways. At least we can agree on something.
Have a good day.
Actually, anything can spread stupidity, not just religion.
Case in point, the internet.
I think that person meant it is very good at spreading stupidity, compared to other means.
Just saying.
actually if the ORBIT was off by a small amount, it would be devastating.
and an earthquake would not throw off our orbit, that science is fail is bigger.
go read your bible and let the scientists talk
You need to get your information from science and scientists, not your local idiot preacher. The orbit varies by a great amount which proves your first statement wrong.
uhh… did you even read the guys post? as long as our orbit stayed within the habitable zone, which leaves a lot of room at any point in our current orbit on either side, we’d be fine. also, evo _is_ science in the same way that our theory of mathematics is science or the theory of physics.
you know what’s comical? the fact that you are so willing to believe everything that some random dude posts on FACEBOOK, and then probably accuse others with different beliefs of doing the same thing you’re doing.
just for clarification:
the habitable zone is just a zone in which LIQUID WATER should be present on a planet. the definition never states HUMAN LIFE. i believe the status poster (who also made a very unintelligent comment) that “we” would all burn or freeze. that is referring to HUMANS. so the comment made by this “great scientist” (heavy on the sarcasm) is completely void of meaning because the whole time he relates human life with the HZ.
Also the commenter states this information like it is fact. the proposes parameters of the sun’s HZ have fluctuated greatly.
read any freakin geology or astronomy textbook r tard.
however, the lady is just as dumb for posting that. that little change will NOT have an effect of global destruction.
Still, the distance varies that much and we’re still alive today, so it doesn’t matter whether or not he mentioned “habitable zone.” And I’m sure the correction dude had a source, or is otherwise supported by your “freakin geology or astronomy textbook.”
You know earthquakes change earths rotational speed and orbit all of the time right?
how can something change its own direction? isn’t that violating the law of conservation of momentum (including angular)? or Newton’s first law of motion: “…unless acted upon by an EXTERNAL force”?
….external force….like allah/god/zeus/ra/spaghetti monster’s finger??? :O
the status said if the earth were 10ft, not if the orbit was 10ft out. also – science is fail is bigger?
It said 10ft closer and further. I think that’s the same thing.
sure the earth doesnt leave its orbit, but is sure does shake more than 10 feet, still that isnt enough
“that science is fail is bigger”
that blew my mind. yay God for making you an idiot!
Actually, there’s nothing wrong with that (of course, this is probably not what ‘evo is not science’ meant):
subject clause: {subordinate conj. | dep. clause:[ subject | verb |
that science is
pred. nom./adj.]} | verb | pred. adj.
fail is bigger
stupid website deleted the extra spacing
sub. conj.: THAT
[ subject: SCIENCE
verb: IS
pred. nom./adj.]: FAIL
verb: IS
pred. adj.: BIGGER
Define a “small amount,” because yeah, being off by a few million miles wouldn’t do much, but being off by a ‘small amount’ (relative to distances between planets and such) like 50-100 million miles would be devastating.
I also don’t see how an earthquake could have any effect on a planet’s orbit. :/
Earthquakes can distort the size of the Earth.
And while devastating to complex life, a minor change in orbit would still allow life to exist, so long as it stays in the habitable zone (and the mechanism that changed Earth’s orbit doesn’t also tear it to pieces).
Qualify ‘off’, please. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.
Thank you… I’m sure that’s what she meant. And to the guy that was rude and sounded like an evolutionist: Nobody likes a smarty pants.
I do. I hate idiots. Being an evolutionist is generally a pretty good indication that the person’s less likely to be an idiot.
Actually people hate idiots more than smarty pants. Those “smarty pants” are the people making this world a better place, while people like you and the moron in the OP cause most of the problems to begin with. But hey, its all ok because you pray for us, right?
Fact: anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution or believes in the garbage the OP wrote is an utter moron and is contributing to making this world a terrible, terrible place.
Catch 22- I love smarty pantses. But smarty pantses also create some of the most destructive forces on earth. Which I do not like, because they are used for of course; Destructive purposes. And then Egocentric people want to use it to further their causes, or as a threat. Human beings are enough of a threat to other human beings without big scientific death bombs. I do wish we (ALL humans) would have, instead of focusing on warfar; focused our knowledge on healing.
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that even most deadly weapon known to man, doesn’t have the killing power of a belief. More people died in the crusades from swords, than people died from the a-bomb.
We have an elliptical orbit. It is off by HUGE amounts depending upon the time of year, and the Earth and Moon are actually moving AWAY from the sun.
Who cares?
Man, that was fantastic.
There you are again, Canaduck, with that frowny version of my avatar. Makes Jibble sad.
I don’t know… You’re really more of a violet square with square glasses… He’s really more of a royal purple with oval eyes…
I’m just sayin’…
WIN?? I guess..
I’m a she. And I don’t mind being Jibble’s doppelganger.
Ah shoot. And here I thought I’d found my doppelganger.
Doppelganger are to be feared. In the germanic beliefs, they are portents of death. Do you want to die, Mr Jibble?? Do you? DO YOU??!
I should have known that. Embarrassed.
I saw an anime where everyone has 2 doppelgangers and if they meet one of them, they die… wonder if that’s based off of those Germanic beliefs?
P.S: if anyone is curious, yes it is kurokami
purpleganger
17 likes ROFL
well they’re christians so you can’t expect much from them…
Hey! Christians can be scientists, too.
As for ignorant Christians, bash them all you want.
I’m pretty sure she’ll be in the latter category.
This is true. There are plenty of Christian scientists out there.
Yeah, but Christian Scientists are the ones who refuse to give their kids medicine when they’re sick because it’s against their beliefs… Which kinda rejects science in a manner of speaking.
Yeah… I’m a Christian, and a “fundamentalist” one at that, but I always think things through logically and practically, and I have never understood how people can come to that conclusion about vaccines…
You can’t say you’re logical and a fundamentalist Christian. That’s just not possible.
And yet it moves.
Depends on the logic.
One can both be logical and hopeful at the same time. I believe in God as well, although I’m really open-minded as well. There can be both.
Wow, virgin births and resurrections are logical and/or scientific now, are they?!
No, just lies.
Well if a god exists and he/she created time, space, matter and life out of absolutely nothing, then I’m sure bringing a dead guy back to life or making a virgin give birth is a pretty simple task for someone who created everything.
no, that’s Christian Science, not Christian scientists.
Christian Science is a brand name for a radical religion. An ideal Christian scientist would be Jon Lennox or Isaac Newton or probably your high school science teacher
That’s right.
Don’t forget Charles Darwin! He had a degree in Divinity AND he’s buried in Westminster Cathedral. So even good scientists can indeed also still have faith.
Darwin completely abandoned his belief in God after returning from the voyage of the Beagle (where the captain was trying to use him to reinforce traditional Christian ideas about the origin of the earth. see: catastrophism) and after the loss of his daughter. So no, he was not a Christian scientist. He was full-on atheist for the large portion of his life.
Also, having a Divinity degree has nothing to do with believing in God. Darwin only pursued this line of education because his father wanted him to.
Also Gallileo!
I know what you really meant by this, and I know that there are scientists out there who are christian, but please don’t include isaac newton or any other scientist who lived before the 19th century in your list of christian scientists. Almost everybody in the Catholic dominated Europe of Newton’s time was a christian. If they weren’t Christian, then they were persecuted i.e. the European Jewish ghettos. If they were christian or at least raised christian, and they went against christian dogma or openly claimed to be an unbeliever then they were tortured until they recanted or burned at the stake if they refused to recant. So counting any scientist before the 18th or 19th century as a christian scientist is really disingenuous as they didn’t really have a choice in the matter.
p.s. sorry to get all ranty, I know you probably weren’t meaning it that way, and I do get your overall point. Just use modern christian scientists next time.
The thing about that is some Christians who find fault with what scientists claim to be true is then used to question everything science has done. I’d find that reasonable to a certain extent, but not saying “no” to everything science has done. Science has done a lot of great things and interesting researches that have helped and aided us, but they’re not right about everything, nor can they be because science can’t prove everything.
In short, it’s not due to Christian beliefs, it’s due to noticing false information through whatever means (I’ve found many things before, but I wouldn’t reject vaccines because I’ve researched it) and then using that information to question everything else of relation.
That’s human logic, not religious beliefs.
THANK YOU, finally a post I can relate to. At this point, I feel that athiests believe that science is all, and Christianity is something to be mocked completely and give it no credit. Why can’t there be both? I believe that there was evolution of some kind, and I believe that God created it all. There is evidence of evolution, although we weren’t there to witness it all, so how can we be positive of anything?
I also believe that there are “theories” for a reason. They’re not called “facts”, although many people believe in them as such. Human error is something to be considered when it comes to science, but often is dismissed.
You need to consider the evidence for evolution and ask yourself if it’s accurate. I thought they had some concrete evidence too and almost combined the 2 to become a theistic evolutionist. After I researched it, I noticed all the assumptions and fault conclusions that had been come to by scientists to prove old earth/evolution and abandoned it altogether. If I would’ve just read the first page of my Bible I would’ve noticed that God says he was the creator of all things in 6 days. Not 6 billion years (or 4.6), 6 days.
“although we weren’t there to witness it all, so how can we be positive of anything?”
-Exactly. We all believe something by faith. Evolutionists believe something they weren’t there to prove. Atheists believe something “isn’t” there that they can’t prove/disprove. And Christians believe something “is” there that can’t be proven/disproven. We all believe something by faith, nothing is exact/perfect science.
It’s because I know the Bible to be a collection of stories that were originally passed down from generation to generation verbally before written language. When we got the printing press, we were able to print the bible stories and have them all be the same from book to book, but at that point, parts of the stories have been left out or embellished, and most bible stories don’t make a lick of sense because they’re so corrupted.
If you honestly believe that the bible is God’s word, you have more serious issues than those you perceive scientists and atheists to have. We at least KNOW for SURE where our knowledge comes from.
I’m well aware of multiple things about the Bible. One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way.
However, I’m not going to be too dogmatic on that because that’s not as important as the following.
The Bible is composed of 66 books written by over 30 authors throughout all periods of times throughout all the eastern world which then went through a filtration process (which required scripture to follow 5 specific pieces of information to be God-breathed scripture) for centuries (not just an overnight deal) which then came together to be the Bible. After hundreds of years of people studying it more and more, we notice there has yet to be a contradiction in the scriptures themselves. As such, if this were a lie made up or an inaccuracy, then why would it be so consistent? This is what historians call “accurate” through all these factors and variables.
No. Just no, to everything in this.
For all your claiming of doing research, you are ridiculously inaccurate in ALL of these “facts” about the bible. Where on earth did you learn these things?
The bible is INCREDIBLY contradictory, incomplete, translated differently depending on the time it was translated and what language it was translated into, and depending on the version you have you could be missing entire books.
Just stop.
Care to back that up? Be aware I’ve answered numerous alleged contradictions and errors. I’ve yet to come across one I couldn’t answer, so choose wisely, because I’ll only humor you for so many verses.
“One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way”
You say this as if you were there to know it and we all know that couldn’t be the case, as you’re speaking about thousands of years. Have you ever played the telephone game as a child? Just passing 1 statement… one STATEMENT verbally down from one person to another over the course of 10 minutes ends up with something unintelligible by the time their done in most cases. And they are putting forth a lot of effort to be as accurate as possible.
Now move on to what we know of humans. Important issues are overlooked by the news media because they understand that great deal of their viewing audience wouldn’t give a crap.. but if they put up a story about someone being raised from the dead and presented that as fact then WHOO BOY! Look at those ratings!!! I’d say it’s much more likely to be the case, based off what we all have observed as reality for the majority of the human race, is that if it brings profit or fame then it will live on.
What would be more newsworthy? Lazarus – the 10 millionth man to contract leprosy – has died today. …Or… Lazarus, the 10 millionth man to contract Leprosy was CURED by a miracle man!!!!!!! Hurray! If you believe you’ll be cured too! He said to burn cats to ward off disease and evil!! Don’t take baths because to bathe is to be vain and that’s a sin because he said so!!!
So people burned cats, and people stopped bathing in hopes to be cured of their diseases to appease the miracle man.. and in doing so the rats that carried the plague were able to survive and cause one of the most terrible disasters the world has ever known. Praise the miracle man.
“You say this as if you were there to know”
-Did you read what I said after that message you quoted? I’ll cite it for you: “However, I’m not going to be too dogmatic on that because that’s not as important as the following.”
I never claimed for 100% fact that it was true. That’s just common sense. The telephone game doesn’t apply because in telephone you’re saying it to 1 person whereas if you have hundreds of thousands (a few million if I’m correct) going through the same struggle, what are the chances that all of them will forget? If you pass the same story to the next generation and they’re all told the same story that the numerous amount of people went through, what are the chances then? They’re more slim, but not by much. Anyways, I’m through with this part since I’m not going to be too dogmatic, but this is just a bit of common sense here.
First you said: “One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story.”
Then when I quote you and provide feedback you say “I never claimed for 100% fact that it was true. That’s just common sense.”
So it was fact, but not 100% fact? I think what’s common sense is that if someone provides feedback that makes more sense than what you stated is to admit that you may have been wrong instead of contradict yourself.
“The telephone game doesn’t apply because in telephone you’re saying it to 1 person whereas if you have hundreds of thousands (a few million if I’m correct) going through the same struggle, what are the chances that all of them will forget?”
My point is that you are assuming 1 million people will all get the story right, or will be corrected by those that were right. That’s assuming 1 million people are all putting for 100% effort with 100% good intentions and have 100% memory capacity to remember 100% of the story and pass it on 100% accurately for hundreds of generations.
What I was saying is – from everything we know about society – is that it makes more sense for 1 million people to be told 1 story and then when they go to pass on that story a large % of them will exaggerate, another % of them will forget part of it, and another % of them will deliberately muck it up in order to try to bring attention to themselves. The more captivating the story – true or not – is what will be passed on. And that’s just the first generation… their children have to get it 100% accurate, and then their childrens children and so on and so forth. And on top of that, they have been translated from one language to the next, over and over again.
In another post of yours where you were arguing that the Bible stated the Earth was a sphere, except they had no word for sphere so they chose circle instead of.. I don’t know.. ball… you’re also 100% aware that in the translation, if there wasn’t an accurate word for what they’re trying to describe they’ll just pick the next closest thing that, now, thousands of years later, is entirely inaccurate. Since it was then translated from hebrew to a language that DOES have a word for sphere (ie. english), if they did actually know the earth was a sphere, why didn’t they then pick the accurate word?
So if you want to talk about common sense, think about this one for a minute and yours should tell you that it’s much MUCH more likely that the stories we see today are exaggerated, mistranslated and, in most cases (to put it in the language of today) complete bullsh*t. You’ve already admitted the mistranslated part, to admit the rest is probably pushing faith to the brink so I’m not expecting you or anyone else who tries to take the bible literally to be able to admit anything else, and that’s just fine if that’s how you wish to live your life.
It’s also why the whole Intelligent Design movement can be thwarted by (as it has been in the past) by nothing more than a childrens imagination. The Kansas school board was stopped by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the theme park they’re trying to build in Kentucky based off the literal translation of Noah’s ark can be built, then the Pastafarians can build their beer volcano and a stripper factory theme park as well, since both of them are claimed to be based off science.
“So it was fact, but not 100% fact?”
-It’s fact that we’re not dealing with 1 person but numerous amounts telling the same thing which would strengthen the accuracy of the story. But I’m not going to claim for 100% fact about how valid it was because I don’t know. Move on. There’s a reason I said I’m not going to be dogmatic on this. You’re pushing for an answer that you’re not going to get because I myself am unsure. I’m sorry.
“Since it was then translated from hebrew to a language that DOES have a word for sphere (ie. english), if they did actually know the earth was a sphere, why didn’t they then pick the accurate word?”
-Because in Hebrew it says circle, so the translators wrote it down as such. This has nothing to do with the translation, but the language. Besides, what you’re really attacking is why didn’t translators “interpret” it as sphere. To answer that question, it’s because it’s not their job to interpret the meaning behind what the Bible is saying. It’s their job to translate the words from 1 language to another so we can read it in common tongue. If they went around interpreting what they thought the Bible said, then I can guarantee you there would be much more mistakes than there are already due to scribal error (translations) from the original manuscripts (which all depends on the version you use).
“yours should tell you that it’s much MUCH more likely that the stories we see today are exaggerated, mistranslated and, in most cases (to put it in the language of today) complete bullsh*t.”
-Aside from the idea that I’m not well studied up on the history of the Bible as much as I am on the logic behind it, I would gladly say that out of every concise bit of information in the Bible, the history is no problem. If history can go through so many variables which would normally falsify and destroy anything that was indeed false, and yet the Bible is so concise, then this would be what historians call viable and accurate/truthful information. Obviously if it’s false then it wouldn’t hold up against all the variables of historical accuracy. The Bible is one of the most unique books on this planet if you study it.
“You’ve already admitted the mistranslated part”
-Depends if you’re mistranslating the information I’ve stated as you’ve been doing.
God bless.
“I’m well aware of multiple things about the Bible. One thing you’re missing when it came to verbal pass down is the fact that these were people all telling the same story. If one made a mistake, another would correct because they were there as well and knew what happened. They would pass down this accurately who would then take down to another in the same way.”
/snark/ This is why the game “telephone” is so incredibly boring, because everything passed by word of mouth is accurate and if there is a mistake along the way, we can be sure somebody who was there (centuries/millenia earlier?) will correct the mistake so no inaccuracies are recorded. /end snark/
You should research what a scientific theory actually is before you start claiming that facts are better: it’s called the scientific method and it goes like this:
Observe (i.e. facts)
Question (how do these observations (facts) come about?)
Hypothesis (an educated guess based on valid logic and what is already known about the phenomenon, not yet proven)
-null hypothesis= the position that your stated hypothesis is false, if your stated hypothesis isn’t supported, then you assume the null hypothesis
Testing/Experiment (find a way to test the hypothesis, this includes making more observations and writing down all the little facts that do and do not support your hypothesis)
Analyze/Synthesize Results
-if all the extra data/facts/observations support your hypothesis, you submit your research to a journal for publication
-a panel of experts in the field review your experiments/tests to see if your methods are valid and repeatable, is so then your paper is published
More Peer Review
-scientists in the field rip your paper to shreds, criticizing every tiny aspect of it, you must then do further tests to defend your hypothesis (not yet elevated to theory)
-you and other scientist independently perform more tests and experiments
-these repeated experiments continue to support your hypothesis
-many years (and debates/papers/experiments) later, your hypothesis is continually supported by the evidence
-furthermore, your hypothesis is able to explain many observations and synthesizes these observations (facts) into a coherent framework that can continue to be tested
Only at this point can your original hypothesis be elevated to theory. As you can see, theories are incredibly useful and important. They are much more useful than a series of disjointed facts.
Think about the very scientific, mathematic concept of the Fibonacci sequence. It appears in a large amount of forms in nature: pinecones, conches, sunflowers, roses, leaves, etc. It is science that discovered it; it was found to be fact through proper use of the scientific method. Personally, I believe it to be fact, that it exists, that far too many examples of it exist in the natural world for it to be poo-pooed. 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13… Mathematic beauty. However, I am also inclined to listen and consider the idea that some sort of sentient, thinking being set nature up to be that way; that things in nature are too oddly and interestingly perfect mathematically for there not to have been some planned creation of it. What I’m saying is that there CAN be a middle ground in the argument between science and creationism.
“It is science that discovered it; it was found to be fact through proper use of the scientific method.”
-I understand that science can be used to discover fact and is very useful, I’m not going to argue that, but what I will argue is the fact that science can’t answer everything. There are many people that get caught up in all the knowledge science produces and end up thinking it’s a universal standard to base everything off of, when in reality there’s 5 primary things that can’t be proven (to exist) by the method (when we obviously know it exists); 2 of which are detrimental and actually destroy the theory itself.
Religion answers less than science, in that it drives people to come to their own conclusions, whether they are right or wrong.
I don’t believe religion. I believe truth and evidence. Since Christianity lines up with all the evidence I see no reason to disbelieve it.
Couldn’t reply to your above comment, had to come here. (I’m sure you’ll find it as it seems to be your mission to find a both bastardizing and annoying way to rationalize your irrational beliefs – just like most bible scholars, sorry for the redundancy) Even though this will only be seen by ICWUDT I’m really writing this to all the kids out there who are confused about belief or the lack thereof. ICWUDT and people of there ilk believe that you can only have eternal life if you believe in what they believe in, there is no other path. So unless you subscribe to christianity you’re doomed to nothingness at best, hell at worst. But think about it, if they’re right and you convert, you’ll have to spend eternity with a bunch of asshats like this. I know I’ll be sleeping well tonight hoping for the nothingness to come take me away.
All I read was “I’m right, you’re wrong..and stupid.”
That’s a great argument for a 5 year old, but it doesn’t hold up against actual logic. If you have something to conflict with what I’ve said that disproves it in some way then by all means, tell me. However, this act of insulting shows nothing more than the fact that you can’t fault it because everything I’ve said seems to be accurate.
Am I right? Or do you have something to say worth saying?
Of course that’s all you read because that’s all you rigid mind is able to see. You have your conclusion – the Bible is true – and you cannot possibly conceive of the possibility that you are wrong. This started with you stating that the bible said that the earth was spherical before science did, and that is absolute nonsense. Then you couched it in, they didn’t have a term for sphere which is possible since most of the writers of the bible weren’t educated, as they were poor, but there were objects that were spherical and known to them which they could have used to refer to it other than circle, and there were people that lived in that time that were educated and did know what a sphere was. Ever heard of Euclid? Or is your education in just what the bible says, if so I’m comfortable in my 5 year old mentality that I’m still ahead of you. You quote Prov 8:27 … no it says circle not sphere, it could have said apple-like, I’d believe that, or a round gourd, they had them back then. And Luke 17:31, 34 has nothing to do with spheres. It’s not even the passage where jesus comments on night and day which is a stretch in itself to say the it says the world is spherical because night follows day. But I think I have it now, you don’t really believe this, do you? You’re a christianity troll aren’t you? I would sincerely like to apologize to all the asshats in the world for comparing this troll to you, I hope you can forgive me. The bible does state that you will be eternally damned if you change anything that is written in it, so enjoy that for yourself.
The more insults you throw, the less intelligent and mature it makes you look. You seem to have ignored my past comment. All I see is a distraction whenever you try to insult anyone instead of answer their comments. This just shows me that you have nothing else to say in response to what I’ve placed in front of you so you resort to other means to distract from your inability to do so. So if you would like to have a conversation, drop the insults and answer like a man, not a child.
“You quote Prov 8:27 … no it says circle not sphere”
-That was my point. I wasn’t using it as evidence that they said “sphere” because that would contradict what I said in my entire post. I used it because it can be used as a reference to a round earth. Any time you hear the word “circular” you need to consider what point of view the author is speaking from and if they’re speaking literal or poetical. In this case, the point of view is above the earth of God (literal). When you map out a circle from this point of view, does it necessarily mean it’s flat? No, if you look at any picture of the earth high above it you’ll be able to draw out a circle. In Isaiah it says the same thing. “It is he (God) who sits upon the circle of the earth.” Again, God’s point of view.
You can’t just go straight to interpretation as most atheists and skeptics tend to do. There’s much more to Hermeneutics than interpreting, there’s observation which is a key point. You must observe what the author meant by understanding their time period, customs, traditions, day-to-day activities, their current knowledge of certain things, etc. You essentially should know all about them in a sense.
I’m aware of Euclid, but he’s not the point. In hebrew they simply lacked a word for sphere, so they went with the best thing they had, circle. Again, this falls under observation. Why didn’t they use sphere and instead used circle? They didn’t have a word for sphere, everyone of that time must’ve known there wasn’t a word for it, therefore if they use something such as circle it wouldn’t raise any alarms to anyone because they wouldn’t see a circle in reference to the earth as saying it’s flat because they all knew it was round, and it’s not just this verse that explains it more in depth.
“And Luke 17:31, 34 has nothing to do with spheres”
-My point is it implies one as I said before. And it says “On *that* day (such and such happens)” and he then follows by saying “On *that* night (such and such also happens) speaking of the exact same time. If you read the verses before this one, we can see he’s talking about the same time by mentioning the day Lot left Sodom it was destroyed as well as the day Noah walked in the ark and the people outside it were destroyed. It speaks of the days of the people, then the *day* of judgment. Judgment does not take 24 hours to happen so people on the other side of the world can wake up and have their breakfast first, it’s instantaneous and happens all at once.
God bless.
As I wrote in my original comment, science purported the FACT that the earth was spherical (and revolved around the sun, and is not the center of the universe) before the bible did (which is a strange statement because the bible never refers to it as a sphere, all of your blather about not having a word in hebrew is monkeyspunk they had the ability to express the concept of a sphere but chose circle instead) was correct. I’ve given up on feeding the troll anymore. If god exists it gave me 1. the ability to realize that some of the things I learned at one point were wrong and 2. the ability to move on and discover another way of thinking to get to the answers. Maybe it will do the same for you one day.
“science purported the FACT that the earth was spherical (and revolved around the sun, and is not the center of the universe) before the bible did”
-The Bible is already written, so everything that is (before and after) does not change. You say it as if the Bible is written after the science of today. That’s not the argument, the issue is whether or not the Bible prescribes a round earth or a flat one.
“all of your blather about not having a word in hebrew is monkeyspunk they had the ability to express the concept of a sphere but chose circle instead”
-Again, if I’ve made a mistake, point it out. Stop hiding behind assertions of “you’re wrong and stupid” because that doesn’t work. If this were a court of law you wouldn’t be giving a good impression. You’d be looking like a child to be honest. So let’s all grow up.
“If god exists it gave me 1. the ability to realize that some of the things I learned at one point were wrong and 2. the ability to move on and discover another way of thinking to get to the answers.”
1) What are you judging this idea of something being “wrong” from? What standard? Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you have some idea of what a straight line is. In a similar manner, you don’t know what is wrong unless you have some idea of what right is. What are you judging this sense of right and wrong on though? What standard? Just like the standard for saying a line is crooked is a straight line, there must be a standard for good and evil, right and wrong. What is it? Evolution doesn’t explain this. The Bible does. So I’m interested in your answer.
2) There’s many ways to get answers, but you’re missing the point that there’s only 1 truth. So you can find whatever way you want to discover the truth, but when you realize what the truth is, the way of discovering it wont matter. The truth is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I pray that you’ll discover this truth someday in time, because you’re not going to like the alternative.
God bless.
How about the gospel of Judas? Or Mary Magdalene? Or any other gospel left out because it didn’t adhere to one mans thinking of the religion? What about the fact that Jesus himself was a jew, and never said otherwise; Except that he was the messiah? Why Judas be so hated? If Christ died on the cross for all of our sins- Why hate the man who gave him up? I mean… really, if Jesus was a prophet who lived a long life and died naturally- where would be his forgiveness? Why would he have to forgive us? He got staple gunned to a cross and suddenly a new world order came to play. Down the years it got convoluted to the Roman Catholic church who played for power for centuries; and then came Martin Luther who interpreted things differently; Henry the 8th couldn’t get laid until he got a divorce (after that a couple, and then head chopping)- Stricter religious folks didn’t think him being the head of church, or his daughter or her heir were strict enough. Went into a bunch of boats. Came to the Americas- Almost died. Indians fed them at a crucial time. Then became embroiled in Indian affairs- Boom sticks were crucial at that point (Not theology) Our European ancestors killed off alot of Indians (native americans for the folks who believe in p.c.) Small pox and other ailments (must have been gods will) A hundred years or so later came the salem witch trials. We all know how that went. After that, manifest destiny whereupon god wanted us to take over the continent. Then there was the civil war which both sides decided god was on their side (like so many other wars) Yay, the yankees won. Real westward travel begins. We kill off thousands, if not more Natives who really just don’t want to share their hunting grounds with whites who will kill buffalo and take the choice bits of meat and leave the rest rotting. We put them on reservations after backing out of hundreds of treaties. I believe a time or two we the “white christians” invited them to parley and then killed the chiefs who showed up.
And that is to say nothing about the crusades.
“How about the gospel of Judas? Or Mary Magdalene? Or any other gospel left out because it didn’t adhere to one mans thinking of the religion?”
-What about it? It didn’t stand up against the 5 lines of scrutiny to be determined God-breathed scripture (therefore, it’s man-made and didn’t get in as God’s word). Plus, if you read some of the stuff, I’m actually glad it’s not in there, there’s some pretty weird stuff in all those man-made scriptures. Then again, that’s why it’s man-made and not God-made.
“What about the fact that Jesus himself was a jew”
-What about it? He had to be jewish to fulfill the law of the Old Testament.
“Why Judas be so hated?”
-You’ll have to be a bit more specific.
“If Christ died on the cross for all of our sins- Why hate the man who gave him up?”
-Why do other people hate Judas? Or Christ? I need a bit more clarification.
Ok, you don’t need to go all through history about yankees and whatnot. If you’re talking about the thousands upon thousands of death throughout the years due to religion then you really need to study history and consider all the millions of deaths that happened due to atheism (anti-biblical principles). Just the deaths in WWII outweigh all the deaths of religion I’d say.
I really want to quit this because I feel that I’m contributing to feeding you but explain to me, how the deaths in WW2 are being attributed to atheists? The Japanese were polytheists (definitively NOT atheists) and the German and Italians were Christian. I can feel reality warping again…………………….
I meant atheism in the sense of anti-biblical principles. That’s why it’s in parenthesis. Is polytheism anti-biblical? Yes, so it qualifies. And just because one calls themselves Christians doesn’t mean they are. Ever hear of a hypocrite? They’re quite common. Christianity has quite a lot of them which makes the true Christians look bad.
Claiming something is not enough. Actions are also required. Did they follow Christian principles? Of course not. Germany in particular killed millions of Jews. Christ says in proverbs he detests/hates the hands that shed innocent blood (otherwise known as murder).
Also, they may have had a religion, but they killed for atheistic/anti-biblical causes, not religious ones.
Actually more people have died in the name of Christ (yes that includes all the people killed by Christians) than any other in the history of religion…and society in general…so…shhh.
Why the hell are you still here ICWUDT? You are one of the MOST ignorant people I’ve ever “met”. You’re talking about arguing with people about how the bible is all knowing and right and everything else is wrong. The bible does NOT PROVE ANYTHING!!! Therefore, you have not proven anything either! Nobody is going to believe your word, because your word doesn’t mean $#!+. I’m sure most of you played the game “telephone” and if you managed to make some desperate friends over the years ICWUDT, I’m sure you have played aswell. Well the point is, even with a group of 10, the last message will not be the same as the original message. Now times that by billions of people…and you wont have anything close to the original. People add what they want, and take away what they hate…and even if everyone was telling the same story, people have different interpretations and that’s how stories get changed as well. You can’t use the bible as your only argument, because it doesn’t have any facts…just stories/lies/illusions that were passed down.
Science has been proven…religions have not. So if you want to talk PROOF stick with the science. In your case, you don’t seem to know that much science so gladly STFU!
OK, that comment ^^ should have been a reply to an earlier comment. No idea why/how it ended up here, but anyways, ICWUDT, you’re still an idiot. Saying WWII (Germany/Nazis) did not kill for religious reason?! Ok…go explain that to all the JEWS who were killed/tortured. It [religion] may not have been the only reason people got killed…but yes, it did play a part! ZING!
Face it, the only thing you “know” is what you read in that little book of yours. You probably spend all day at home on the computer and completely unaware of what goes on in the REAL WORLD. I saw this bumper sticker that reminds me of you: “Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you’re an @$$hole”
“You are one of the MOST ignorant people I’ve ever “met”.”
-And you’re one of the most angry people I’ve met without reason. If I’m so obviously wrong, then what use is so much anger and aggression (aside from the fact you didn’t explain anything regarding evidence of any position to go with your anger)? There’s absolutely no reason for anger if you’re right. This only shows me that you have nothing else to resort to but this tactic instead of answering the objections I’ve brought up. You assert and assert but you haven’t studied in depth, have you? I’ve yet to see you back up your assertions, while on the other hand, I’ve answered all your questions so far (speaking of which, if I’m so wrong, why do you feel the need to respond to this comment having nothing to do with my position on origins over a comment I’ve answered specifically addressing it (such as the flat earth issue)? This is just more evidence to show your inability to answer my standpoint. You have shown nothing but childish tactics of fits of rage and I’m terribly sorry you’ve let your mind be corrupt in such a way, but you will not succeed here in the slightest unless you come to reason with this problem).
I do this to learn. If you’re going to act like a child and nothing more, then I’ve outgrown you and there is no use of this conversation. I pray that you will realize that anger is not a philosophy to live by. I pray that you understand anger only brings more anger and destruction with it. It never brings peace.
We’re through here.
God bless.
On the one hand, there are many, many innovations brought to light by Christian scientists and pioneers.
On the other hand, there’s information to suggest that Sir Isaac Newton may have imbibed lead and mercury.
Most people then imbibed on at least lead. Plates, cups, and bowls were made out of lead. It wasn’t until fairly recently people realized that lead was bad for you.
Uh, you can be a Christian and a scientist without being a Christian Scientist. As you’re well aware, Christian Scientists actually don’t know f**k-all about Christianity OR science.
My mom is the top biochemist in the University of Mary Washington. She is also a Christian.
Hahahahaha, good one!
It’s up to 20 likes now haha.
Love it !
As a Christian, it’s so embarassing when other Christians blithely make up facts or think that their ignorance is somehow more holy than taking an honest look at the world. Arguing theological points is one thing, but the science regarding earth’s orbit is about as cut and dry as it gets. C’mon guys.
tuche
What’s a “tuche”?
It’s like a tuque for a douche.
it’s touché, honey.
Back to the kitchen, Pinky!
How do you know she’s Christian?? She could be Jew, or Islamic… even Krishna, Buddist or Wiccan… what, you read God and assumed she was Christian?? That’s not cool, man…
Yeah, that’s true. But hers is such a common attitude in mainstream Christianity that I feel pretty safe with the assumption. If anything, my comment showed a negative bias toward them and not toward anyone else.
Agreed. Either that or she’s from New Jersey. Muff Cabbage and what not.
I just laughed so hard at that my eyes watered, good job. That was a truly awesome second option and body of evidence.
Hey, don’t mistake American Christians for European Christians. Cuz we Europeans (generally) take a more distanced approach to religion (nowadays). Whereas most American Christians I’ve met, well… I’m not gonna elaborate on this.
You don’t need to Puff… (sigh) you don’t need to. My Fellow Americans… :facepalm:
I’m very glad you chose to add the afterthought “(nowadays)” or I’d have to launch into a discussion of: pograms, inquisitions, crusades, holocausts, etc., etc., etc…. ad nauseum that I don’t recall happening on any American continent.
American Christians are just a radically mutated version of European Christians. Which is why they are in America. I mean; It might have taken them a while to realize hanging witches wasn’t the way, but I seem to remember about 500+ years of witch burning and heretic burning and slave ownership or other hanging in Europe’s past. I’m not religious one way or another- but saying that we’re so different is kind of funny. How super duper modern of you after centuries of Monarchy warfare. I admit, we’re not very refined over here. (at least the lower folks, I think that is a good thing, though if not primed with history, most are ignorant) I don’t claim that we are the best, but certainly we are not the worst. Honestly it’s egotistical at best to say one country is better than another.
Using God does imply she’s christian. A Jew would have been more likely to use Yahweh and a muslim would have used Allah.
Probably right with muslims since I haven’t met one yet personally… not yet with Jews… I know many Jews who uses God instead of Yahweh… as well buddists, wiccans, and Krishna…. and not forget santeros!! So “God” is not an statement for Christianity…
Ah but most Jews write it as G-d, not the full version with the “o”. Also we don’t use Yahweh at all or at least don’t pronounce it like that, that’s just an approximate anglicized version of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) which actually doesn’t have a pronounciation, either because it’s too sacred or it’s been forgotten (more likely).
We’re far more likely to use HaShem (השם) in normal conversation, but this depends on how religious your upbringing is.
Actually most Jewish people I know just don’t talk about their religion all that much, but I live in the midwest, there are not very many Jewish people here.
Nah, they just use G-d. They really do, except in prayer.
Good for you for catching this though. I was about to say…
thats not true at all. Jews would never say that for that is attempting to pronounce Gods name using the Hebrew language. They’d say God or Adonai or Lord (most uncommon would be Lord most common being God). I know this for I’m Jewish and trying to say His name is very banned.
and what about Mormons? they say God. And i know a Muslim who is very orthodox and he says God.
You sir, are in imbecile.
…Mormons are a type of Christian. You, sir, should get your facts straight…
Yeah, Mormons are considered a sect of Christianity.
I’ve never seen one Jew in my life time call god Yahweh in regular conversation. And all my muslim friends don’t say Allah because they get called terrorists[not saying that's ok but it happens]. However I would say likely you’re right, just not necessarily
You’re on the right track. I don’t know about Orthodox Jewry, but Reform Jews (like myself) generally don’t have a problem with saying ‘God’ in conversation, or keeping the ‘o’ in the middle of the word when writing it. In prayer, we say ‘Adonai’, at least at my temple.
You are incorrect, if she were a Jew, they do not spell out the name of God.
The “don’t ever comment on my status telling me I’m wrong” tilts the probability strongly towards the Judeo-Christian sect. The “amen” from one of the respondents seals the deal as Christian.
muslims say amen as well, although it’s pronounced differently out loud. this isnt very sound reasoning.
Jews say Amen too. Pronounced a bit differently, but still.
The “don’t ever comment on my status telling me I’m wrong” tilts heavily towards “why is this person on my friends list?!”
(or any friend list, for that matter)
Dood would be on MY friend’s list.
They look American from the language. If she’s American and religious, that means it’s at least 10 to 1 odds that she is Christian. Christian is a fairly reasonable assumption, given those odds
So you not only assumed her religion but her nationality as well… that’s amazing…
Why don’t you complete the profile and add her age, sexual behaviour and Favourite TV Shows (Obviously not NatGeo or the Discovery Channel)??
Her nationality is obvious by the language, which I said. If you’re just looking to be offended, be my guest, but you’ll do yourself more favors if you turn on your brain in the process.
Not offended… yet amuzed… I was actually to keep on the joke but since you actually killed it making yourself serious… agh… I’m guessing, by your statement, you are also American and Christian… right? You know what, forgt it. It’s not funny anymore… Thanks a lot… partykiller… ¬¬’
Your are the perfect example of this:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/73/Trollface.png
No… that’s what you are.. I was joking.. you are trolling.. or so you intent….
while reading through i got a whimsical tone from shushnik and a trollesque tone from you, pot
Then I apologize. Wasn’t my intention. So, I’m sorry.
+10 internetz for the very rare and elusive blog humility
Win!
You comment on people assuming and yet you yourself assume she doesn’t watch NatGeo or Discovery Channel. Way to go!
Thanks!! ^_^
Well, she might also be Canadian, but considering that we are smarter I doubt that.
if they were canadians, they would use metric.
Nahh, the stupid people here still use imperial for those stuff. But it’s true she’d be smarter if she was Canadian.
I think you meant if she *were* Canadian.
Both can be used. It’s just the way english has evolved.
I’m with judyjudy. “Ain’t” can be used, too, but it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who knows better. Anyone whose grammar I respect knows how to use subjunctive, and I’m grateful when I slip up and they point it out.
I concur.
If God had wanted metric he would have given Jesus 10 Deciples instead of 12, at the last supper.
Well, technically it’s 1.05 to 1 odds, because it’s 95% likely she’s christian, but people don’t typically understand when you utilize accurate breakeven odds ratios. So take that for what it’s worth.
Your comment makes no sense. Accurate breakeven odds ratios? Really??
Anyway, I think you’re trying to say she’s got a 95% chance of being Christian, which is wrong, whether assuming she’s from the US or just the world in general (76% approx. in USA, 33% approx. in world). Also, assuming that value were correct, then you’re ratio of 1.05 to 1 odds is completely wrong: if there were a 95% chance of being Christian, 95 people out of every 100 would be Christian, which gives us a ratio or 95 to 5, or 19 to 1.
Don’t make up statistics. She may give the impression she’s Christian, but making up statistics and giving probabilities for something which is completely subjective (the probability she’s Christian based on the way she writes) is just dumb.
Also, learn some math.
Given the fact that she is religious, which is obvious by the post, 95% of all religious people in the U.S. are Christian. The majority of the 24% of U.S. people who are not Christian profess some form of non-religious status, be it athiest, agnostic, humanistic, whathaveyou, which was culled from the assumption ratio due to the fact that she affirms her religious status.
…Eh?
According to your post:
100% = entire population of United States of America
95% = out of all religious people, these are Christians
24% = non-religious people, athiests, agnostics, etc
…? 95+24=119, not 100….
Check this website: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
Look at the “Top Ten ORGANIZED Religions in the United States, 2001″.
Nonreligious, Atheist, Agnostic have been dropped from this list. And still, Christianity is 76.5%….
Now, check the graph above, where it includes Nonreligious, Atheist, and Agnostic in the graph, as well as some other religions, equaling twenty so far. Christianity, once again, is 76.5%. Nonreligious, Atheist, and Agnostic all together equal 14.1%.
PS – Humanist is a separate religion.
PSS – Have you got something to back up your “proof”?
I never stated that 24% of people were non-religious. I stated that 24% of people were non-christian. Of that 24% the majority are non-religous, with a small portion of religious non-christian people.
You can’t add 95% of religious people are christians to the 24% of americans are non-christian because they are measures of a different base populations. The 95% is of religious Americans, the 24% is of all Americans.
My proof is in the census numbers.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html
As of 2008 there are in the U.S.:
173.4 million Christians
34.2 million with no religion specified
8.8 million non-Christian religious
Of the religious, a total of about 182.2 million people, 173.4 million are christian. Around 95%.
first off, tl,dr, only read your calculation.
second, he is saying that 95% of religious people are christian, not 95% of americans. apparently 83% of americans are religious. 83% of 307M is 254.8M, so it is 95% of 254.8M
—extra calculations follow—
95% of 254.8M is 242.06M
242.06M christian
64.94M non christian.
24% of 64.94M is 15.59M
all=
242.06M christian
49.35M non-christian
15.59M non-religious.
When someone starts with tl;dr, I immediately assume they’re rude and ignore the rest of their post.
sooo.. basically what you’re saying is “tl;dr.”
No, I think it would be more like tr;dr. Too rude; didn’t read, which might apply to a post of any length.
No no, 95% Christian, 5% are not. Out of that five percent, 24% blah blah blah. It’s still correct math. As for the actual facts, I have no idea and I’m far too lazy to give a s—
By the way, the key to the misunderstanding of ratios is the betting aspect of the term “odds”. To create a breakeven scenario where the house would set “odds”, the factor of payout is inverse to other ratios. Conversationally people do not understand the difference and convert the concept to a flat percentage based ratio “X to 1 odds” which is mathematically incorrect in the context of a wager.
I misstated the ratio, conversationally, because it is how such things are commonly understood even though it is technically incorrect. You graciously assisted in the demonstration of misunderstanding, for which I give my thanks.
I see your point about the 95% religious people. Thanks for clarifying. I was in a bad mood and feeling like taking it out on nameless faceless internet people, rather than people I know, so I guess I was just looking for errors. Have a good life.
wow —– more internet humility!
+10 internetz!
Your use of “you’re” in “you’re ratio” is completely wrong. Please learn some English.
Ummm… you need to go check your figures again. Christians are only 75% of the population in America and Atheist/agnostic is between 10-15%. Jews are 3% and the rest are less than that.
So, if total population were 1000, by your percentages, 750 would be Christian, 30 would Jewish, and (being very generous) ~29 would be “religious other”.
Total religious = 750+30+29 = 809.
Chance of religious person being Christian = 750/809 = 0.927
That’s close enough to 95% for this discussion and is consistent with what Shushnik says, “Given the fact that she is religious, which is obvious by the post, 95% of all religious people in the U.S. are Christian.”
Jewish? Probably not, as the Jews I know do not write “God” on Facebook; they usually do something like “G_d” to show respect. Islamic? I have rarely heard a Muslim refer to God as “God” when the more common name is “Allah”. Krishna I know little about. Buddhists don’t generally recognize a God in the Christian way, their aim is to reach enlightenment using whatever path suits you best. And Wiccan I know little about as well. But, as you can see, a comment like “God is good!!” could generally be perceived as Christian.
This is true. As a Jew I know that usually Jews do write G-d or G_d because it’s not only to show respect but because He is sacred and shouldn’t be deleted or something that could happen through Facebook. However not all Jews know this but already the chances of him being Jewish are low (1: Jews are smart…. 2: Jewish population isn’t too high) but now the percentage of Jews that don’t say G-d or G_d makes that even lower, so he/she is most likely not Jewish.
“Jews are smart.”
Hehe. Stereotypical but generally true, from my experience. I have yet to meet a dumb Jew, *ever.* And I’ve met many smart Jews.
‘Not all Jews know this’? Try, ‘not all Jews follow this particular convention’. Personally, I think God’s name could survive being deleted on Facebook. It’s a silly rule.
I can safely say that neither a Krishna, Bhuddist or Wiccan would say, “God is amazing” after spouting a completely bogus, supposed fact. Wouldn’t happen. Only followers of the Abrahamist religions are so blind in their faith as to be so stupid. No, I am not saying all members of all Abrahamist faiths are stupid.
You don’t know the sort of Krishna and Buddist I know… believe me.. it happens.. a lot… XP
If you actually knew any “Krishnas”, you would know that they call themselves “devotees”. And they ALWAYS call God “Krishna”.
I do know, and no, they don’t ALWAYS, as a matter of fact, they use God many MANY times… searching on wikipedia don’t make it true, so, move on…
Why are you talking about yourself? People use their own terms for their faith, but over the broad spectrum, certain patterns emerge. Many theists call their god, God, but that term is most often used by Christians (at least in the US, where this is most likely from). This does not mean that the poster could not be of a different religion, it just means that it is more likely. It is entirely possible you are right, but we are using somewhat standard generalizations to come to our conclusions.
Um…they’re talking about themselves because they’re responding to a post that claimed that ALL Krishnas referred to themselves a certain way as proof that this poster was lying about knowing any.
When someone tells you “You must be lying about knowing a so-and-so, because they ALL do this” it is perfectly valid to say “no, not all, I know a guy…”
You just reprimanded someone for pointing out that the conclusions above are gross generalizations, not reliable facts.
I was trying to yell at him for making a big deal, not because he was wrong.
Krishnas and Bhuddists refer to “God” as the spirit of life and the shared consciousness of life in the Universe, not the creator/architect of physical objects. Wiccans are part of a loose-knit NeoPagan spirituality, some of whom would possibly attribute the placement of Earth as something the Goddess had a hand in, but most would not.
Right, what exactly are Krishnas? Do you mean Hindus? Or Hare Krishnas? I’m not sure if you’re just saying it wrong, since you were going along the line of mostly major religions. I’ve never heard of anyone refer to themselves as a “Krishna”. And I was born Hindu (as in my parents are Indian and Hindu, rather than them being hippie types and converting or whatever).
I gotta say, dude, I have met a LOT of stupid Wiccans. But they would say “goddess” instead of “God,” so I guess technically you’re right.
(S)he could perhaps be jewish, but probably not. Jews know better than to take their holy books literally.
Moslems, the cult of Hare Krishna, buddhists and wiccans have other names for their gods/supreme beings/forces of nature, so they’re all out of the equation.
Face it. If someone says something retarded and/or blatantly ignorant, and mentions the word “god” in the process, they’re probably christian.
I’m sure there are plenty of fundy Jews in Israel, just as there are plenty of fundy Christians in America, and plenty of fundy Muslims in Islamic countries. When a person lives in an area where their religion is in the minority, they don’t have as many people around them reinforcing their particular brand of beliefs, so I think we would be even less likely to see fundy Jews in countries where Judaism isn’t the norm.
That said, a fundy Jew is probably more likely to use “G_d” or maybe even “YHWH,” which still rules them out, and I agree that the woman here is probably Christian.
Lots of Christians actually think God’s name is “God”.
This is true. The Jews believe that G-d’s name is now a mystery because a long time ago it was only known by the Jewish High Priest or something and it was lost and now not known. Ad-nai and G-d “yood yood” and “yood hay vuv hay” act as a nickname you could say.
Buddha was not a god…
We dont have Gods in Buddist. Fail.
Whatever. It’s all bulls**t anyway. It’s all a primitive attempt to figure out why things are the way they are.
She cant be Buddhist as they do not have a god or gods.
You can pretty much rule out Wiccan because she didn’t say “Goddess”
Wiccans would have said “the god,” Islamics would have said “Allah,” etc. She’s Southern Baptist.
lmao…really? sounds like she could be any protestant denomination considering I have encountered this kind of mentality in Methodists, Lutherans, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc. Most protestant denominations have very few differences in what they accept as “canon”.
As far as my 2 cents, I grew up in a Christian home (the kind most of you here would make fun of) but I no longer follow that belief system. This sounds exactly like something many Christians I have known would say, but I would like to point out that I have also met many who love science and actually see it as confirmation of God hand in everything.
Hating on Christians as a whole is just as bad as having a Christian try to “save” you by shoving the Bible down your throat. Anyway, it’s nice to see someone put in their place for posting bs no matter who it is
Wicca generally believes there are more than one god, if only metaphorically. Actually, they put more stock in the female aspect, because the male usually dies at the end of the season to be reborn. Jews, I believe the sacred name for god is Yahweh (sp) Calling him got is a new testament thing. Islamics generally refer to god as Allah. Buddhist? From what I know about the faith, they generally don’t argue. Krishna? I have no Idea. I’m only 25. Give me a few more years and I’ll try to completely evaluate more faiths and religions.
I’m thinking she wouldn’t win any theological arguements either, this one.
The problem is not if she’s christian or not… but the fact that she is blonde and girl, ergo , a blonde girl, wich are oftenly dumbs, or like I like to call them, dumb blonde girls.
What’s the difference between negatively stereotyping blonde girls and Christians?
” ergo , a blonde girl, wich are oftenly dumb, or like I like to call”
Sorry, what? Are you playing stupid? Are you trolling? Are you really that stupid, ignorant and presumptuous?
There is no connection between hair colour and intelligence.
“Oftenly” Often? How often? Where, exactly is your proof? Hollywood films…?
I need to call on this persons God for some strength here. Your stupidity astounds me.
Why do you refuse to learn the language? I mean, seriously, your grammar, syntax, and spelling are horrible.
Because is clearly to me that you have no intention to learn spanish as well… not even if they’re more countries who speak spanish… and because I’m with Paz’ philosophy that language, as long is understood, it’s grammar and ortography are indeed, overvalued. Keeping the purism of languages avoid them to evolve. All the languages we speak in the world today are not by deviant versions of the languages spoken centuries before. So being a purist, or like you say, grammar nazi, is not only anoying, but incorrect and unnatural, sinces stops the natural evolution of alnguage as an anthropology entity.
*language
Why speak Spanish when I can speak the language of my family and coworkers, German? Also, it is one thing to be a Grammar Nazi, but an entirely different thing to wish for someone to include nouns in his sentences.
English is already one of those most confusing languages in the world. We don’t need grammar and spelling that poor making it even worse.
You want a language that’s used more widely, particularly on the internet, learn French.
Better yet, learn Latin. That’s used as the basis for Spanish, Italian, French, and a few others – and is as a result is technically spoken in more countries (although not fluently) than Spanish or English.
Or try Esperanto.
Perhaps you have noticed that this Web site is in English. And perhaps you might also have noticed that Google Translate does a fair job of turning Spanish (and a number of other languages) into passable English. You might further note that Google Translate is a service provided free of charge.
You appear to be blonde.
Why do you act so butthurt in the flame war you started?
Amen.
This^^
I completely agree, Calico.
Wow.. that’s crazy!
People are so gullible.
I agree
I agree to agree…
Let’s agree to agree on disagreeing about agreeing?
I agree.
I am in violent agreement with you.
Maybe she’s the dude’s wife, and she thinks it’s funny to say “don’t disagree with me” to be funny.
That would be the greatest Poe ever…
Yes.
To quote Dumbledore
, “People find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right.”
THIS.
THAT.
THE OTHER THING.
The other white meat?
no, bacon.
Deer!
Oh dear!
Goes to show to always be simple when trying to sound profound.
You might say we’re damn lucky to have all the right conditions for life.
Unless you know a physicist or a statistician.
Well, we are lucky in that luck is an assessment of results being in favor of the subject(s) -not a driving force of events- and that this planet being habitable is fortunate to us, since we exist as a result.
Of course, if we didn’t have the right conditions for life, we wouldn’t be having this discussion on this planet.
But odds are there are several billion more planets with the right conditions in the Universe. Sure, with our present technology it will take eons to reach even the nearest, but who cares how long it takes Little Miss I-Just-Made-This-Sh*t-Up to reach any place else, as long as she’s off *this* planet?
To be honest, it’s not entirely impossible that if the conditions of the universe changed, that some other form of life would have arisen. The universe did not form to permit life (otherwise, why are there vast spaces of uninhabitable regions?), life formed to fit the universe. See also: Douglas Adams’ mud puddle argument
i disagree to disagree.
I wish I knew who the people underneath the one with 17 likes was commending. I’m hoping it’s not the OP…
Also, “I don’t wanna know I’m wrong, don’t tell me I’m wrong!!!! I don’t care!!!” is something I heard all throughout high school in my small town. It’s pathetic.
-”Wow, that’s crazy!”
-”I knoooooow!”
You see, she even admits she’s crazy… =P
Me. Too. Disgusting!
You lived in Texas?
he mad?
Yeah, he mad.
How did the OP explain poles vs equator in terms of distance?
Oh right, the Earth is flat. I forgot.
people already freeze to death in the poles, so….
Santa lives in the North Pole… Happy Feet in the South Pole.., And Miss Cassidy on the Stripper Pole…
That explains why Santa is always dressed in 20 layers of coats…
Exactly! Everyone gives him this negative stereotype of being fat. He’s dressed in layers, people!
Honestly, flying around in an OPEN sleigh? Oy vey!
He is fat, it’s blubber, like a polar bear or a seal. He’s had 500 years to adapt.
Biology fail.
Attempt to be funny catastrophically failed. Just saying…
Good luck next time
facts straight from Frisky Dingo
*rimshot
BURN!
Every Christian in Ohio is like this. “I’d rather believe something I read in an e-mail forward rather than those sinful science textbooks paid for by government grants.” And if they accidentally stumble on the truth their parents have spent their wholes lives covering up, they seriously turn into The Hulk (The green one, not the mustache one.)
That wouldn’t happen if they heard to They Must Be Giants when they were littles… you know…. “Science is real”… beautiful song…
I don’t expect anyone but the most die-hard tmbg fans to appreciate the sheer awesomeness of potblessed’s comment – regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
Thank you….
(I can listen to that song for hours)
They MIGHT Be Giants
I knew there was something wrong with this post… Sh*t ..
XP
**I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy..**
Check out the song “they got lost” by They Might Be Giants – the announcer makes the same mistake you did. When I first read your post I thought you might have been referencing that.
Love TMBG!
OK, this one deserves translation.
‘That wouldn’t happen if, when they were young, they had listened to the song, “Science is Real” by They Might Be Giants. It’s a beautiful song.’
And having figured out what you meant to type, yes, I agree.
Ugh. I used to teach ecology & evolution to college students in Cincinnati. Can’t tell you how old that got real fast. I would get ‘I don’t have to do this assignment because I don’t believe in evolution.’ My counter: ‘You are required to learn communism in other classes, and religions other than Christianity in comparative religion classes. That does not require you to convert. Do the work or fail.’
Also, these were biology majors.
sas biology students, im disappoint
¿Como?
See, that type of thing gets me all fired up. And remember the debacle in Kansas? When they tried to modify the scientific method so that it was less objective? There is a quote about “Those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Most people assume that this quote is in reference to history. It is not. The quote refers to human progress – history, true, but also scientific advancement. Religion is plain dangerous.
Naw, stupid is plain dangerous. Religion has nothing to do with it, other than being a convenient shield. Take away someone’s shield, and sure enough they’ll just find a new one if they can’t deal with reality.
I mean… you do realize that a disproportionate fraction of science you use daily was established by religious people, right? Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, Copernicus? Among many many others.
So… unless you’re going to name BOTH the guys who independently created calculus as the enemy of science, let’s all take a deep breath and realize that there are always idiots out there. I assure you, I have met atheist idiots and the only reason why they aren’t as annoying as the religious ones is that they’re so thinly distributed they don’t form action groups.
And when they do, we have people complaining about what’s on the penny or the dollar…
Religion has nothing to do with it? Yeah, I’m sure those kids killed of things like eczema and diabetes would be glad to know their parents were just stupid and it wasn’t the irrational religion belief in faith healing that killed them.
Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, etc were religious. They didn’t use religion to do science. They used science to do science. When religion meets science, it is a retardant and it is actually the reason why Newton didn’t do more than he did.
And wtf are you talking idiot atheists? Do you really think the removal of a blatent disregard for the establishment of religion clause of the first admendment isn’t worthy of complaining about?
Do you not realize that sort of thing is why Americans get laughed at?
Argh, that’s the point! This is so irritating – someone makes a perfectly valid point about how there are religious people who have brought about great advancements to society, and someone else goes, “yes, but they didn’t use RELIGION to do it, did they?” NO THEY DIDN’T AND THAT’S THE FREAKING POINT. I’m not even remotely religious but this still makes me so unbelievably annoyed.
I think you need to reread what the point of MY comment was in response to Z.
First he said, “Naw, stupid is plain dangerous. Religion has nothing to do with it.” Stupid is dangerous and so is religion.
Then he said, “I mean… you do realize that a disproportionate fraction of science you use daily was established by religious people, right? Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, Copernicus? Among many many others.” So what? Religion was irrelevant to them except where it stunted their continued progress like it did with Newton or in censoring like they did with Galileo. Bring up scientists who happen to be religious is worthless.
I have no problems with people believing in whatever deity they want, so long as they don’t try to impose the detrimental beliefs on others: faith healing, trying to get Creationism into schools, telling little kids they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe, etc.
Right, except the fact that most sane religious people would not say that imposing detrimental beliefs on others is a part of their religion. Why discount those people? Especially considering they are the overwhelming majority of the religious population. Why only focus on the lunatics?
Evil intentions combined with an ignorant population is the danger, and all that’s made up of people. Take just pure religion away, and all those things you’re saying (imposing detrimental beliefs, telling kids lies to make them do things etc) can and will still exist.
The point is for most people, religion IS irrelevant to what they do. Sure, religion possibly stunts progress in certain areas, but many other things do this as well. What these things have in common is an inability of people to think outside of themselves and separate themselves from their beliefs – understandably not an easy thing to do. But claiming this is limited to religious people is highly unfair and divisive.
Personally, I became an atheist because I thought it was synonymous with being against indoctrination. More and more, I realise that while I still technically fall under the definition of an atheist due my fundamental beliefs, this obnoxious attitude and ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, literally against anything that has the word “religion” in it, is not something I signed up for.
I’ll let you in on something. The insane aren’t as few as you believe.
Some 35% of religious people, at least in the USA, believe the universe is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs lived at the same time as human. 35% is the a majority of religious people because there are so many factions.
And I’m well aware some are not like that. I’m married to one of them.
I disagree with this statement: “Evil intentions combined with an ignorant population is the danger.”
People who are otherwise moral people do bad things in the name of religion and think it’s good because they think it’s divinely warrented… like the compulsory genital mutilation of infant boys. No one would do that if it wasn’t for religion. There’s absolutely no reason to.
Parents that believe in faith healing end up letting their kids die of things like eczema and diabetes, which is like tourture for weeks or months before they finally die.
It takes religion for that, not evil intentions.
I also disagree with this: “religion IS irrelevant to what they do.” It is completely relevent especially when you look at suicide bombers. Ever hear of an atheist suicide bomber? It’ll never happen. BTW, they think they’re doing the right thing. It’s not because of evil intentions (at least in their own minds).
“Sure, religion possibly stunts progress in certain areas, but many other things do this as well.”
Possibly? It does all the time. The condom stuff in Africa, the campaigns against education and medicine in the USA, etc…
Sure other stuff hurts us as well, but not nearly as badly. And it’s not like religion gets to claim “well, they’re bad too.” They’re supposed to be better than the rest of us, not worse.
“What these things have in common is an inability of people to think outside of themselves and separate themselves from their beliefs”
Okay… here comes a rant.
I don’t give a s**t what personal beliefs people have (as I said, my wife is a Christian). It really doesn’t bother me, but my wife doesn’t go around trying to impose her beliefs on others. She doesn’t think I’m going to hell for being an atheist. She’s never once asked me to start going to church or to pray with her. She thinks gay marriage is okay and simply being a good person is enough to get into heaven. She’s never let religion cloud her choices in any matter worthy of rational thought.
Atheists don’t fight against people like that. It’s fighting against leniant sentancing for people that kill their kids because of faith based beliefs, like the parents of the little girl that died of eczema and the other that died of diabetes. Each couple, between all four of them that were sentences, got less than 10 years… 10 years for the lives of two young children who were tortured to death.
I fight against the state (Kentucky) spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a literal interpretation of the Bible-based theme park when they haven’t even seen a feasibility study, and the feasibility study that’s said to be in existance was written by a friend of Ken Ham.
I fight against religion having a say in civil rights matters as it did in getting Prop 8 approved.
These are the things most atheist fight against… I have no dog in any of those races. I fight against that purely because religion is encroaching on free society and people are suffering for it.
Atheists are fighting to benefit other people… it’s the definition of thinking outside of yourself.
“I became an atheist because I thought it was synonymous with being against indoctrination.”
Most are against indoctrination, but that’s not a requirement for atheism. Only not believing in a deity is. Beyond that, atheists are as diverse a group of people as you could hope to find.
“this obnoxious attitude and ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, literally against anything that has the word “religion” in it”
Did anything I listed that are the biggest concerns of most atheists have anything to do with banning the practice of religion in any way? Or was it just banning religion’s ability to effect politics and civil rights and free society?
So I know is this nearly a month late, and you probably won’t see it…but I thought I’d reply anyway.
You know, the thing is that I completely agree with fighting for most of what you said. I’m on the same side in so many ways, and I believe in so many of the same things. The only thing that I absolutely refuse to agree with is your claim that it is RELIGION that is causing these things. This, to me, is just plain wrong.
You say that being against indoctrination is not a requirement for atheism because they are a diverse set of people. So why do you think religious people aren’t exactly the same, as diverse a group of people? Just because there are MANY insane religious people does not automatically mean that the majority are, and I think you will find that there are MANY insane people who are not religious as well.
More than anything, you seem to be equating ignorance with people who believe they have good intentions. When I talk about evil intentions, I’m talking about an agenda being very purposefully pushed forward by people who have a lot of power and money, who deceive an ignorant population into doing their bidding based on the belief that it is the right, or moral or, let’s say, holy thing to do. (And by the way, this happens across the board, religious to non-religious, left-wing to right-wing.) Someone who let’s their kid die because they believe in faith healing may believe they have good intentions, but in my view, they are just extremely ignorant. Pure and simple.
And by the way, your statement about the impossibility of an atheist being suicide-bomber is total sophistry. Anyone can be, and has been, a terrorist. Suicide-bombers are terrorists. What it sounds like you’re saying, “sure, our side has terrorists, but at least they aren’t SUICIDE-bombers. Those are the worst kind!” Give me a break.
Over and above all of this, I know for certain that finger-pointing is definitely not the way forward. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t specifically say that you wanted to ban the practice of religion, your attitude in terms of how you define things by saying stuff like, “Stupid is dangerous and so is religion” is what I find really hard to swallow.
The guys who invented the Calculus were enemies of university students, not of science.
Good for them! Evolution is full of holes. micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution. Evolution has done nothing to advance science. Through digs and research to prove evolution, ancient cities have been found proving the Bible correct.
btw, if she had put the word ORBIT in, she would have been correct.
AHAHAH. You’re funny
Yes, you are correct in that micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Genetics and the fossil record prove macro-evolution.
Through digs and researcher, ancient cities have been found that are older than biblical history.
And, no, she would not have been correct if she had used the word “orbit”. The orbit of Terra varies by more than 1,000 miles every year. Any sizable impact, such as the one that created the Chicxulub crater would have destroyed all life on Terra and we would not exist.
I was going to comment but EvilDave took care of it.
Look, I get why you cannot accept evolution because it contradicts your chosen god/myth but please, for your own self-respect, don’t try to argue against it. Just say “It’s my faith.” and leave it at that. Because that’s what it is, faith. If you really wanted to observe evidence and accept (not believe) its conclusions we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
@evo is not science: You are an idiot. And that might be a massive over-estimation of your intelligence. I won’t bother to explain why, it would require using words with more then three letters.
Why the f**k would you be a biology major if your religion forbids learning science?
That is extremely disappointing. Excellent comeback though. :3
Yeah, except communism and religion can be considered a matter of opinion. Evolution cannot.
But so not worth the arguement. It grew tiresome. They didn’t even understand enough to argue.
They closed their tiny minds and turned away from the light. Like larval Morlocs, content to exist like parasites on the advances that human progress has brought.
That is downright lovely!
Read the damn novel before you insult the Morlocs! >:C
I’m pretty sure the EXISTENCE and HISTORY of communism and religion is also not a matter of opinion. Unless you’re taking a really nihilistic or relativistic view on things.
I believe you have a confusion about the usage of “belief” in this context. I believe in communism, religion, and evolution- in that they all exist as important topics of study. This would in no way force me to have an opinion about any of them. In fact, one could imagine a biologist who doesn’t believe in evolution at all- but is satisfied in their work to act “as-if” evolution occurred and use that as an assumption that underlies their work.
People do this all the time for other things. Nobody “believes” that macro-economics works according to the silly rules that economists make. With that said, they have been derived and are useful for projecting things, so I’d be happy to use such rules in absence of better theory.
With that said, one would have to be a dummy to not believe in evolution in both senses. You can literally demonstrate evolution in a petri dish with bacteria in under a month. No joke. Just play with some staph. Just be careful not to make it a super-MRSA and get it in your eye.
Why the hell would a religious person even want a degree? I thought their lot on this earth was to get married at 17 and pop out fifteen kids and then die in the produce section of their local walmart from a brain aneurysm. ESPECIALLY A SCIENCE DEGREE!
Nah, that’s just Mormons.
But not before college. There is BYU over in Utah, you know. It’s a whole Mormon school. Not all Mormons can get in, of course, but they’re all told to get a good education.
If Creationism is tought as science, then it shouldn’t be an University.
“Do the work or fail.” is good. I also heard of another biology teacher who tells his class at the very beginning of the course every year that they don’t have to *believe* what they were being taught. They just have to *understand* it.
Kudos to both of you.
Bravo!
Evolution is the foundation of all biology. You can’t be a good biologist without believing in evolution, and I hope they either realize that or just become something stupid instead.
I can completely verify her claims are like onemillion persent trew! I climbed up on the roof of my dad’s shed which is like ten feet hi AND I TOTALLY BURNED UP!!!!!!!!1!1!!11!!!1111!
That’s not verifying her claims…. thats just.. being stupid….
To actually verify it you must jump from 20 feet high… =B
Bite me. Then I would die. My blood would be on your hands you heartless person. It’s so easy for you Internet losers to wish death on other people – why not try it in real life sometime? Oh, and it was humor, you retard! It was supposed to be satire of the idiot in the original post but idiots like you don’t get that, do you?
No. =)
^ I lol’d.
Wow, you made a joke, you should have expected that comeback.
I tell my friends stuff like that all the time. A classic example is, “Here’s a quarter, why don’t you go play in the traffic?”
Thankfully the friends I have are all at least reasonably intelligent and recognize that playing in traffic is a fumb ducking thing to do!
I spent 23 years in the US Army. I didn’t just wish death on other people, I delivered it. Are you asking me to schedule a delivery? Can you afford me?
BOOM! Headshot
By her logic, if you climb a ladder or go upstairs in your house, you will explode in a fiery burst of flames.
But…but…MY ATTIC IS SO HOT! How could she be wrong?!?! ;[
oh silly stupid mind numbingly retarded christians… when will you ever learn
Never, cause if u learn, then u cease to be christian
I liked this one (y)
Yeah, I used to be a Christian, but I also used to believe in Santa.
I don’t know, you sound pretty ignorant and closed-minded to me, non-christian.
Some people just need to the heck.
Exacat-wait, what?
Read more failbook entries, i get it now
Is this going to be the new “I accidentally the” ‘casue I hope so!
I accidentally the whole to the heck…:S
I agree with Andy, some people just need to the heck.
I agree with Kim who agrees with Andy. Some people really need to the heck.
I agree with Duaner on agreeing with Kim who agrees with Andy. Some people just need to the heck.
dont ever comment on her status telling her that she needs to the heck everrrr again
God doesn’t like liars.
Sadly, i didnt think she lied, she actually believed that
That doesn’t mean she didn’t lied, but that she’s a mythomaniac.
She gets her “information” from liars like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.
Prove he exists before you start talking about what he thinks because I have a really hard time distinguishing between God’s beliefs and the beliefs of the people who are telling you what God’s beliefs are.
I want to be sure I’m getting it from the right source.
God is not that amazing considering he/she overlooked the obviously defective “product”.
Choice?
Yeah, sometimes I feel like I’m human generation 1. People are so fail.
I really wish I could could comment on these people’s facebooks! Could say something like “Whoa, hold on there blasphemer, don’t you mean if the sun was 10 ft closer to the earth, since it’s the thing doing the revolving?”
lol
Let the girl be excited….even in her ignorance.
No. That sort of ignorance needs to be quashed the second it’s stated, and with such viamence that if they refuse to change their ignorant beliefs, they’ll be loath to express it in public.
Original poster in that failbook is a moron. Pass off ignorance and call it ‘gods will’ then freak out when someone can offer real proof.
And these same people will complain about today’s kids being dumb. What can you do when you him in the gene pool.
What can you do when you him in the gene pool indeed.
But these people are what makes failbook so great. It amuses us AND keeps us aware of the increasing idiotard population.
Gaah! typed too fast. grammer fail.
Should say “when you have him in the gene pool”
*her
*grammar
LOVE the Stargate avatar. <3
That was my exact thought when I read it…
It’s like she works for Fox news or something.
MSNBC is more likely.
Fox. :p
CNN
CSPAN
STEWART
Discovery Institute
ITYM “Faux News.” YW.
Using that logic, don’t walk towards or away from the sun. Also, anyone 10 feet away from you has a good chance of being toasted or frozen.
Well… is freezing cold here now… did we move 10 ft.?? =S Or is it just winter?? XD
Oh potblessed, your comments amuse me (but then again I am also potblessed at this time…)
Man, that girl just needs to the heck.
I agree with Ryan, that girl needs to the heck.
I agree with Andy who’s agree with Ryan with that girls needs to the heck.
I agree with potblessed on agreeing with Andy on agreeing with with Ryan that this girl needs to the heck.
So we’re all in agreement. Show of hands for “to heck”? The hecks have it, motion passes. Moving on to the Girls shouldn’t fart when they don’t mean it. Show of hands.
I agree with andy on us needing to the heck.
I agree with L on agreeing with andy on us needing to the heck.
C-C-C-COMBO BREA…..meh… just forget it –’
I agree on Yay to break this combo because he needs to the heck!
Proof that people who believe in gods just do because they don’t know the answer to questions.
Yes, one person who believes in a god happens to show her idiocy, and it is PROOF of that. That’s really sound reasoning.
There are many more people like her out there…
Many, yes, but not all. Some people are religious because they fear death. Some are religious because they were taught to fear a lake of fire. Some need to feel like there is a powerful being looking after them. People believe in gods for many reasons.
Again, they just don’t know the answer to questions. They ask “What happens when you die” Someone answers “you go to hell and burn in a lake of fire!” and they believe it. Thats idiocy on itself, innit? If you need a powerful imaginary being looking after you, if you fear a lake of fire, or need guidance in life… Choose god instead of common sense
Hahahaha. I love this L person.
Also, there ARE many more people like her out there! They’re called “morons”.
–noun
1.
a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2.
Psychology . a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
There are even satanic morons, muslim morons, wiccan morons, and jewish morons! The world is actually FILLED with morons. Isn’t that interesting?
And an imbecile.
God has disowned you.
Golden Retrievers?
The idiot was corrected, as is right and proper. I feel I must note, however, that no earthquake (regardless of magnitude) could change the earths orbit at all. Internal forces would not add any net acceleration and nothing is being ejected from the earth, hence momentum is not changed (tangentially or radially).
Please feel free to ignore my unnecessary critique. Point is: stupid people be stupid. Think of this comment just more as a ‘in case you were wondering’ about the earthquake thing.
Yeah, I thought that part sounded dubious.
Actually, eathquakeS could do the job. While he is wrong saying one could, on a fault line when an earthquake occurs it can make this “–” go to this “_-” or “-_” because part of the earth is slid up or down in that area. So a few large earthquakes could toast us or freeze us.
I know the guy and he told me he was trying to cut her a little slack lmao. He could have torn her apart more if he wanted to.
So, who’s the girl? I want to judge these failbookers’ profiles for myself.
Oh man… you cannot leave us like this… please… do tell!!
She’s kinda hot…^^
“Normal Community” High School? Bwahahaha :’)
I wonder if people like this ever happen upon their failbook entries and subsequent comments.
If so…
Hi Michelle! Get a clue.
I think religion gives religion a bad name.
that reminds me of when my friend asked me if his shirt made him look fat and i replied
“no, your fat makes you look fat”
But the shirt is OK, right??
ummm… not really….
Compelling argument.
If you post something that is false as a status, you are asking everyone that can see it. If you don’t want that, then don’t post it as a status.
agreed
ditto
Lolnub.
How could this ever be true? The Earth isn’t completely round, it has mountains and canyons making it so the only habitable area of the Earth would be around 0.01%, the part in the middle of the burning and freezing areas. Also, it is not the closeness of the sun that cause the difference in heat between different areas of Earth, but if the sunlight is direct or indirect. That statement is completely stupid and anyone who believes it is DUMB!!
ahaha
Then how do you explain the fact that since moving to Denver I have been burned to a crisp. Obviously, the lord wanted us all to live at sea level. Mountains wer his mistakes, where he crumpled up the world a bit.
Hence why the mountains are always on fire (in Southern California, anyway!) God says “NO.”
Smart men are super sexy.
Yes, yes they are.
Ignorant Christian is ignorant.
Amen brotha.
Sounds like the woman is religiously devoted. However, no matter how religiously devoted you are…there are some facts that are really hard to ignore. Like, for example, the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Technically, either calling the Sun or the Earth a fixed point works; however, the math for calculating orbits is a lot simpler when the Sun is called “fixed.” And of course, the Sun is also moving around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is moving along with the Local Group towards I have no idea what, and so on.
But believing that a distance of less than 3 meters between Earth and Sun matters, well… Euthanasia seems advisable.
That’s religion for ya… “I’m wrong, but I don’t wanna hear it” lmao. Praise Jebus!
Well, yes, the “I don’t wanna hear it” part, but I bet she would never admit, “I’m wrong.” It’s against her religion.
Shes a christian, not muslim.
k, so I didn’t read every comment left, cause I didn’t want to read about the religious debates…
BUT…
by her logic, wouldn’t the world freeze every night and burn during the day?!?
Laptop – $900
WiFi service – $30
Warm, fuzzy slippers – $18
Comfy office chair – $220
Corner desk – $370
Reading some moron getting her a$$ put in its place – PRICELESS
hmm… mildly amusing
That is so funny. I love when people post something just stupid on their facebook, for all their friends to see, and then get pissed when someone says something. “DID I ASK YOU?” A: Actually, sorta.
Obviously, she didn’t ask anyone who knows anything.
Fact: People who get their facts from Faux New (and especially Faux and Friends) are 100 percent fact free.
Amazingly, Fox had something about the Westboro Baptist Church recently that had facts in it. Except they referred to them simply as the Westboro Church, as though they wanted to distance the Phelps from Christianity.
Can’t say I blame them for that one.
Your “fact” is just as false as the failbook above.
Irony: i·ro·ny [ahy-ruh-nee] – See Irony.
I AM SCIENCE!
YOU ARE ALL WRONG!
Thanx… I think… O_O (blushed)
Principle – correct; actual distance – not even close.
Flame war – not surprising.
Her principle conjecture is “God must exist because if Terra’s orbit were only 10 feet off in either direction, no life would exist here” which is demonstrably false.
I was saying that the principle of a habitable zone is correct; however, it is not 10 feet. It’s not even close to 10 feet.
That answer was simplifying a bit. The earth could not move to any place in that “habitable zone” and get a stable orbit like now. If the velocity or the mass of the earth did not change when it was moved to its new position, it would spiral into the sun or shoot out into space. The earth has found its sweet spot. Nothing magical about it though.
Not really, if it was closer at its current velocity, it would fall closer but gain momentum in the process and reach a new balance. If it didn’t, over the millions of years meteors would have owned us.
I once found the earth’s sweet spot, but she still never called me again..
Idiot people doesn’t like to know they are idiots.
No we don’t!!!
Wait, what?? O_O
hey, did you guys know–if the Earth were ten feet closer to the sun then we would all burn up and if it were ten feet further then we would all freeze to death! Isn’t learning science amazing?
Lol, religion.
Wow, someone sure is butthurt. Jeez, sore losers.
I’m surprised nobody said this yet:
Life on Earth probably would not have happened if the Earth was much warmer or much colder.
And if Mars was at the right distance from the Sun and had all the requirements for life to evolve on it (like Earth) then we would live on Mars and this woman would be saying “Wow, Mars is at the perfect distance for us to live, good job god!”
The biggest mistake in her reasoning is not that she does not know the Earth could get miles closer to the Sun and we’d still live, but that she does not understand probabilities at all…
What’s the probability of us living on a planet that can’t support life? 0.
The probability of us living on a planet that can support life? 1 (or 100% if you don’t know how probabilities are normally expressed).
So even though we could not have lived anywhere else than a planet like Earth, it’s god’s magic that put us and Earth together. Right…
And also, there’s like what? 1 billion galaxies, with 1 billion stars each, with an average of 5 planets each? That’s 5 x 1 Billion x 1 Billion planets in the universe… I’d be impressed if all had life on them or even if NONE had life on them. The fact that some meet all the requirements for life is to be expected.
Put a cup on the ground, walk away 1 foot and throw 1 million coins in the direction of the cup but without aiming specifically at the cup. You’ll definitely have at least 1 coin land in the cup. The only way to have ALL coins or NO coins land in the cup is to do it on purpose.
Numbers are a bit off. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars in them. There is no evidence of each star having orbiting planets as we do not have powerful enough telescopes or equations to judge– we can only posit the existence of planets comparable to Jupiter’s mass.
Also, it’s entirely possible for no coins to land in the cup if you toss them one at a time. Each coin has its own probability in that case. If you chuck all of them at once, though, you’re right.
Now I must listen to Feist.
I’d be pretty impressed if someone was able to pick up and throw a couple of tons of typical metal coinage and also avoid crushing the cup in the process.
The cup itself is made out of coins! :O
Mushaboom = sexy brain.
So, you’re saying all the planets are “one at a time”? I’m pretty sure they’re existing simultaneously.
The temperature of a planet is not purely based on the distance from the sun, anyway; other things to consider are the amount of radiation from the sun and the planet’s atmospheric conditions/properties (Venus is hotter than Mercury).
Tl,dr
Yup. If god wasn’t awesome like that, she wouldn’t be alive to know he wasn’t awesome.
*God weren’t
That assumes that one knows the prior probabilities, which we do not. Quite honestly, we can make no statements about the probability or improbability of life in the universe. We still do not even understand all the formative factors that have made life possible where we are, nor do we have any point of reference to figure out common factors with other areas that hold life.
With that said, given all the known info, it seems likely that at least some simple organisms exist elsewhere in the universe. But it would not necessarily be unlikely (P < 0.5) that no life occurred within the universe. For example, your cup example works great. But let's instead assume that you're throwing a million coins randomly but the cup is two football fields away. What now are the odds that any coin drops in there? Not high. Though non-zero, since maybe one rolls and bounces off another coin. Or, does a crazy particle-tunneling effect and appears inside the cup regardless of your throw. Which would be rather miraculous, if I do say so.
The probability that life will evolve on Earth: 1
The probability that some idiot will dispute this: 1
typical christian
:O how did you make that backwards “b” in your smiley?! :O
bash.org ftw :0
I seriously hope ur kidding. lol In case ur not it’s a lower case d
Isn’t it more logical that it’s a backwards b?
hahahhahaha^
wow, dude seems like a douche. If you don’t want people commenting on your s**t, then dont make it a facebook status!
ahh yes, the angry ignorance of a religious fanatic. Just remember boys and girls. Superman has his weakness in cryptonite. Religious Fanatics weakness, cold hard facts….They Burn the ears!!!
Thank you for saying “religious fanatic” and not “Christian”. Nobody likes religious fanatics. Not even real Christians.
We are able to live here and the earth is perfectly set up for us, because we adpated to the earth.
Come on. It was created and then we were formed based on the certain properties the earth contained. That is why it is perfect for us.
It’s not like, OMG how perfect! Aren’t we lucky? If it was just a little different, we wouldn’t exist!
Well, we would, just as different forms.
You should study Anthropic Principles. These principles are necessary for life. It’s not that earth would be slightly different, it’s that the atmosphere or anything needed for life (like a planet) is so fine-tuned that it implicitly screams a designer made it.
You can’t evolve if there’s no earth. You can’t evolve if there’s no atmosphere. You can’t evolve if gravity is changed ever so slightly to where everything falls out of order. You can’t evolve if asteroids constantly pummel you into the earth (which is why we need Jupiter). All of these would kill you, and as we all know, you can’t evolve if you’re dead.
People have every basis for saying how perfect and fine-tuned this earth is, because it is. It has nothing to do with adaptation, because there would be nothing to adapt to; you’d be dead if a particular problem arose, thus Anthropic Principles are perfect examples against ideas such as yours.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Prove that evolution of life cannot take place without Earth. Prove that evolution of life cannot take place without atmosphere. Prove that evolution of life cannot take place if the gravitational constant is changed.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; furthermore, the latest discoveries in meteorites tend to indicate that amino acids CAN evolve in low gravity and vacuum.
And anyone who claims “Intelligent Design” is sciene is saying (1) “I’m too stupid to imagine random chance causing human life to appear over the billions of years this planet has existed,” and (2) “My god is an idiot.” The latter statement comes from the incredibly awful and vulnerable “design” of the human male reproductive organs.
Anyone who has to resort in immature name-calling and insult their intelligence in an argument automatically fails. Just so you know.
You deserve a high-five.
I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right. If all I need to do is have you prove something wrong, I could keep you busy for a long time.
For example. I believe oranges have purple smurfs on the inside of them; but when you cut the skin, they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong.
I could keep you busy your whole life with that one.
Also, if gravity were changed ever so slightly, planetary bodies would fall out of orbit, atmospheres would drift into space, and ultimately the universe (which exists on the gravity constant) would collapse on itself.
Evidence also shows that when going through the process believed to start life that you get useless amino acids that can’t aid in life and 98% tar which kills it anyway.
Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life. This was tested, observed and repeated (even today) continuously.
1) It’s not that “I’m too stupid” to imagine random chance. It’s that it’s virtually impossible and therefore I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility. That’s just human logic. The chances of 1 protein molecule forming on it’s own is as likely as a blind man finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara desert… 3 times… in a row. And you need about 200 proteins for the simplest life! It’s inconceivable.
2) To say something is poorly designed is to imply that you know what “design” is. You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.
Secondly, sub-optimal design isn’t evidence of no design at all. Cars aren’t optimally designed, but they’re designed nonetheless.
Thirdly, to say something is wrongfully designed is to say you know the intentions of the designer. Designers don’t always go for perfection, sometimes they just go for something that fills a particular need. Which leads me to my final point that there are always trade-offs (which elaborates off of my third point in which you must know the designer’s intentions). Large cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they’re also more difficult to maneuver and consume more gas. Trade-offs can’t be avoided in this world. You must compromise certain things to reach the intended objective. For example, you can’t fault the design on a compact car because it doesn’t carry 15 passengers. The objective is to carry 4, not 15.
To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms unless you know the intentions of the designer.
tl;dr
It wasn’t directed at you so I honestly don’t care if you read it or not. But you should know that “tl;dr” is an implicit admittance that one can’t combat what I’ve written.
no, it’s an admittance that you’re not worth the time it would take to read whatever you wrote. l2meme. trololol.
You just proved my point.
God bless.
Again, you take things too seriously. It doesn’t fit your name.
I’ve seen far worse comments and they were far more serious so forgive me if I don’t distinguish the difference through the medium that is the internet; absent of voice inflection and facial features to determine sarcasm.
“I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right”
Wow. Right out of the starting gate and already we’re encountering problems. If we’re talking about evolution, then we’re talking about science. And in science nothing is ever “proven”, nor could it ever be. The reason is the positive proof is only dealt with in mathematics. Science deals only in disprove things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory or even a hypothesis is it being falsifiable. This means that if the theory is false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. So yes, you *do* have to disprove the theory of evolution.
However, even though we can’t prove the theory, we can demonstrate that it exists and that it works. And this is done through volumes of evidence that supports the theory. Evidence such as:
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution.
“Also, if gravity were changed ever so slightly, planetary bodies would fall out of orbit, atmospheres would drift into space, and ultimately the universe (which exists on the gravity constant) would collapse on itself.”
Ah yes. The ole’ “universe is fine-tuned for life” argument. Sorry but the universe isn’t as “finely tuned” as you think. Work by Dr. Fred C. Adams has shown that 25% of random starting conditions would create universes capable of producing stars. And stars are are a fundamental source of energy as well as all higher elements necessary for life. Research by Dr. Roni Harnik, Dr. Graham D. Kribs, and Dr. Gilad Perez has shown that a viable universe with stars *is* possible even if the weak nuclear force, one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, was removed. Even if the universe was a random roll of the dice, a universe capable of supporting life is *not* that unlikely. Again all of this if from peer-reviewed and verified accurate research.
“Evidence also shows that when going through the process believed to start life that you get useless amino acids that can’t aid in life and 98% tar which kills it anyway.”
This is either you being vastly ignorant of the subject or you’re just flat out lying. In the Miller-Urey experiment, carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells. Glycine being the most abundant of the amino acids producted. Miller himself was quoted in an interview saying that “Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.” These are hardly “useless” amino acids as you call them.
“Intelligent Design is indeed science”
No it isn’t. And this was shown in a court of law when it was demonstrated during the Dover Trials that the proponents of Intelligent Design merely substituted the word “creationism” with “intelligent design” in the creationist book “People and Pandas”. It was the exact same book in all other aspects. Intelligent design is just creationism dressed up. It’s a scam promoted solely to undermine legitimate science. It doesn’t even count as an hypothesis because it isn’t based on evidence. It offers no mechanism. And isn’t even falsifiable. It is backed by nothing and produces nothing because it is nothing but untestable conjecture. None of it has been demonstrated to be right and lots of it have been shown to be wrong. So it’s useless in any field, because only accurate information can have practical application.
“Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.”
This is fallacy known as an ‘Argument from Analogy’. When constructing a logical argument, its best to not commit a logical fallacy when doing it.
“It’s not that “I’m too stupid” to imagine random chance”
Evolution isn’t “random”. Far from it. Natural Selection actually makes evolution extremely deterministic.
“I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility”
It’s not about *believing*. It’s about what is verifiably accurate. No belief required.
“The chances of 1 protein molecule forming on it’s own is as likely as a blind man finding a particular grain of sand in the Sahara desert… 3 times… in a row.”
You’re now arguing probability after the fact. This is fundamentally wrong. The probability of *any* outcome after the fact is always 1:1. E.g. In a coin toss, the probability of it landing either heads or tails is roughly 50:50. If I flip it and it happens to land on heads, then the probability that it landed on heads is 1:1. The probability of being struck by lightning is roughly 1 out of 75,000; but for the people that were struck by lightning, their odds are 1:1.
Not to mention that you also seem to being arguing that just because it is statistically unlikely for something to occur means that is impossible for it *actually* occur. Again this is fundamentally flawed reasoning.
“design is empirically detectable”
This seems to be a reoccurring element in all your posts. You keep emphatically claiming the design is evident and yet you have not shown one piece of evidence in support of this claim. Why is that?
You keep stating that “I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right” but you don’t seem to be holding yourself to the same standards. How do you know that design is evident? What method are you using to determine this? By what criteria are you using to judge what is and is not design?
“To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms unless you know the intentions of the designer.”
And you cannot succeed in claiming what is design until you show how you know it is design or by what means are you determining design.
“in science nothing is ever “proven””
-Then apparently we can’t discover truth with it in which case it shouldn’t be used.
“One of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory or even a hypothesis is it being falsifiable. This means that if the theory is false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. So yes, you *do* have to disprove the theory of evolution.”
-That doesn’t make any sense. In essence, you’re saying that in order for it to be science, it must be falsifiable, in which case it must be able to be demonstrated as false, even if it’s true. But if something has to be falsifiable to be true, then the idea that something must be falsifiable must be falsifiable itself (which means there’s an exception) and therefore, not everything true needs to be falsifiable. So technically, if the idea that something must be falsifiable to be considered true then nothing can be true which means the idea of falsifiability cannot be true. In short, it’s self-defeating in every way.
“All of these are peer-reviewed…”
-Which doesn’t matter because there’s no unbiased peer when it comes to origins unless they’ve never heard of what they’re reading about.
“Even if the universe was a random roll of the dice, a universe capable of supporting life is *not* that unlikely.”
-Considering the fact that if you take *all* Anthropic Principles into account (not just the gravity) and do a calculation as to how that would show up randomely with all these principles intact for a planet supporting life, it’s a chance greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I don’t remember the exact number, probably about 10^140 chance of it happening. Virtually impossible.
“Again all of this if from peer-reviewed and verified accurate research.”
-Again, doesn’t matter.
“These are hardly “useless” amino acids as you call them.”
-Oh, but indeed they are. You can have amino acids, but that’s not the problem, the problem is he formed only left or only right amino acids through the process, and you need an equal amount of each for life (Example: ddd|bbb (left|right). However, I reiterate that even this isn’t as much of a problem as the toxin which you ignored. They may have created amino acids, and even though it was indeed useless as I stated, it was only 2% of the creation. The other 98% was a kind of tar which would kill off the 2% life anyway.
“No it isn’t… And isn’t even falsifiable [ID being science]”
-It most certainly is, because apparently you didn’t read everything I said involving it as science. Since I have better things to do than re-type something because you don’t feel up to reading everything, then you shouldn’t even be commenting. I’ll give you the opportunity to reread what I said. And again, it doesn’t need to be falsifiable to be true.
“When constructing a logical argument, its best to not commit a logical fallacy when doing it.”
-When writing potatoes, it’s best not to make lemons as the sun will explode. It must be true because I said it without anything to back up what I said.
“Natural Selection actually makes evolution extremely deterministic.”
-Natural Selection, selects. It doesn’t create, thus aiding in evolution. If a whole population has a dominant gene of long hair, then the recessive short gene gets “filtered out,” keeping the long-haired gene strong. Did we create a new population? No, we still have it (in this example, dogs), the dogs are still dogs though. They didn’t grow wings because there wasn’t anything to select from for wings. Secondly, Natural Selection is a misnomer and appeal to intelligence. Since “selection” is an intelligent process.
“No belief required.”
-I’m sorry, but do you believe there was something happening over billions of years, too small to see in a lifetime, is happening today? Yes? That’s a belief, that’s faith. Do you believe certain things happened in history that you were not there for? Yes? Then you have faith in the information you’re given/receiving. We all have faith in some way, regardless of what we believe to be true. Finally, this whole discussion we’re having just shows you implicitly admit you believe in something. Do you believe you’re right in this debate?
“You’re now arguing probability after the fact.”
-”If” that’s how life came to be. Since that’s what this whole discussion is about, there is no “after the fact” in this case which is therefore rendered invalid until we know what is.
“just because it is statistically unlikely for something to occur means that is impossible for it *actually* occur.”
-I’m aware of that, but after it exceeds a certain number, the chances are so slim that scientists say it’s “virtually” impossible. In case you hadn’t noticed, I say virtually impossible a lot. I know that there aren’t many things that are “literally” impossible, but I know they are statistically, highly unlikely and therefore “virtually” impossible.
“You keep emphatically claiming the design is evident and yet you have not shown one piece of evidence in support of this claim.”
-The person from the previous comment admitted it implicitly in his explanation. That’s the evidence. Even when he’s fighting and debating against it, he knows design is empirically detectable by saying something is poorly designed. Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is, as such, you don’t call something poorly designed unless you have some idea of what design/optimal design/perfect design is.
I’ll give you an A for effort though. You seem very intelligent to notice certain criteria.
“-Then apparently we can’t discover truth with it in which case it shouldn’t be used.”
Science only deals with empirical data, that’s data the that is gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. In other words, science deals only in truths that can be *demonstrated*.
“In essence, you’re saying that in order for it to be science, it must be falsifiable, in which case it must be able to be demonstrated as false, even if it’s true.”
Correct.
“But if something has to be falsifiable to be true..”
No it has falsifiable in order for it to be *demonstrated* true, in order for it to be science. Earlier when I was arguing against Intelligent Design, I said it was not science not that it was not “true”. I.D. isn’t science cause it isn’t falsifiable. It’s not falsifiable because it can’t be demonstrated only inferred; and if it can’t be demonstrated then it isn’t science. Now I hold that it *may be possible* that we were designed by some intelligence, but until this “fact” can be demonstrated empirically in some way it is *not* science.
“Which doesn’t matter because there’s no unbiased peer when it comes to origins unless they’ve never heard of what they’re reading about.”
Do you understand how peer-review works? I only ask because based on this comment, you seem to think that it involves merely reading a paper, and accepting it only if the understand and agree with the work being done. This is not the case. They check, double check, and triple check the data provided to see if any mistakes, misinformation, or miscalculations have occurred. They check to see if the results match with data from the experiment. If called into question, they can even repeat to experiment to see if those results will match the ones provide in the paper. They check to see if the experiments were based off a mistake in the hypothesis; or if the mistake was in the observation stage. Because of all this, the review process usually takes several months before its finished, and even then it can be sent back with corrections to be submitted again if mistakes are found. And they certainly don’t allow unqualified scientists who don’t know what they’re “reading about” to be part of the review process.
“it’s a chance greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I don’t remember the exact number, probably about 10^140 chance of it happening”
Great. So you admit that its possible that it could happen. So what’s the problem?
“Virtually impossible”
As I said in my previous comment, “virtual impossibility” =/= *actual* impossibility. More on this later.
“They may have created amino acids, and even though it was indeed useless as I stated, it was only 2% of the creation. The other 98% was a kind of tar which would kill off the 2% life anyway.”
Then you missed the point of the experiment. The significance of the Miller-Urey experiment was that it demonstrated that was possible to acquire the building blocks of life, the amino acids, from non-living material. Not that this was absolutely how it happened on Earth billions of years ago. We still don’t know how life got started on Earth or even know exactly what the conditions were like back then. The experiment only showed that the start of life is *possible* from non-life.
“It most certainly is, because apparently you didn’t read everything I said involving it as science”
Oh? lets see then
“Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life. This was tested, observed and repeated (even today) continuously.”
Nope, not here. All I see are baseless assertions without evidence to support them.
“You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.”
Not here either. Just more unsupported conjectures.
“The platypus is also evidence “of” God, not against. The fact that there’s absolutely no transitional fossils of this mammalian creature that defies what the average mammal does (birthing young in eggs rather than fully developed) is more than enough.”
More assertions. Also no evidence in support of evolution is *not* evidence for the existence of god. Even if you could disprove evolution, this does not increase the validity of Intelligent Design, as this would be a false dichotomy. It might be that there both wrong and its something that we haven’t discovered yet.
All your other posts seem to either be talking about the bible or a repeat of your “cars and planes are designed” analogy. I didn’t include your lengthy “optimal/sub-optimal/cars/planes/” posts because they’re just more arguments from analogies. The reason being is because you still haven’t answered *how* you know that humans are design? What method or criteria are you using to determine that humans are designed? Until you can do more than just state “design is evident” then you cars and planes/ optimal and sub-optimal arguments are meaningless.
However, if I have overlooked something then please show me. I’ll gladly take a look at it. I just don’t see it. If you don’t want to write it again then just use the copy & paste function.
“it doesn’t need to be falsifiable to be true.”
Yes, but it does needs to be falsifiable to be *science*.
“When writing potatoes, it’s best not to make lemons as the sun will explode. It must be true because I said it without anything to back up what I said.”
Alright, then I shall elaborate on what I said. You stated “Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.” This is an argument from analogy, other known as False Cause or False Equivocation. An argument from analogy goes like this:
X has attributes of A, B, C
Y has attributes of A and B
Therefore, Y has attribute C
This is a fallacy. Just because Y has been demonstrated to have attributes of both A and B does not mean it has attribute C. It must still be demonstrated to have attribute C before you can equivocate it to have C. In you argument you’re stating:
Books have information and authors
Cells have information
Therefore, cells must have an author
Furthermore DNA being said to be information, a code, or a blue print is only an analogy or metaphor to help explain how DNA works. In a argument, analogies are used to explain premises of that argument. You, however, are substituting the analogy for the premise of the argument. This is why it is a logical fallacy.
“It doesn’t create, thus aiding in evolution. If a whole population has a dominant gene of long hair, then the recessive short gene gets “filtered out,”
Recessive genes aren’t filtered out. Natural Selection only filters out genes that inhibit an organism’s ability to reproduce, such has being sterile or dying before being able to reproduce. If the organism dies then it can’t pass on those genes and are thus filtered out of the gene pool. Since neutral genes, genes that due not improve or inhibit an organism’s ability to reproduce such as genes that determine hair length, then they get passed on and continue to remain in the gene pool, regardless if those genes are active or dormant.
“..appeal to intelligence. Since “selection” is an intelligent process.”
No. Again you are committing false equivocation here. “Selection” in the scientific process of evolution does not mean the same thing as it does in the informal, everyday usage of the term.
“do you believe there was something happening over billions of years, too small to see in a lifetime, is happening today? Yes? That’s a belief, that’s faith”
Firstly, no I do not “believe” in evolution. I *know* evolution to be a fact. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been demonstrated to have predictable effect in guiding this variance. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development. It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition. As I said in my previous comment, no belief required.
Secondly, even if I said yes to your question and said it was belief it still wouldn’t necessarily be on faith. Not all beliefs are faith based beliefs.
“Do you believe certain things happened in history that you were not there for?”
Again no. I *know* there things that happened in history that i was not there for. I know I was not there for the Lincoln assassination. But I know it happened based on the evidence.
“Then you have faith in the information you’re given/receiving.”
No. Its based on evidence. Evidence that can be evaluated and determined whether or no it supports the claim. Evidence that we have no reason to think is wrong and every reason to think is right. When new evidence is discovered that demonstrates a previously held position to be untrue, and that evidence is sound evidence, then we re-evaluate our position according to the new evidence. Once again no faith required.
“We all have faith in some way, regardless of what we believe to be true.”
No. My knowledge and beliefs are based on what we can *demonstrate* to be true.
“I’m aware of that, but after it exceeds a certain number, the chances are so slim that scientists say it’s “virtually” impossible”
But you don’t seem to understand that “virtual impossibility”, or as mathematicians call it “statistical improbability”, does not mean it can’t happen. Only that odds of it occurring are so highly unlikely that it “might as well as” be considered impossible. But they will also tell you that it still has a chance to occur. Otherwise the odds of occurrence would be at 0 and not 10^140. Probability only tells us what is more likely to happen, not what *will* happen.
“The person from the previous comment admitted it implicitly in his explanation. That’s the evidence”
I saw nothing in the previous comment to yours that indicated evidence that we are designed. Unless your referring to MsBuzz, the first comment you responded to, when she says “it was created”. Because that is just more baseless assertions without supportive evidence to corroborate it.
“he knows design is empirically detectable by saying something is poorly designed”
Again, how does he know? What method or criteria is he using when determining this?
“Obviously you don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is”
Then how can you claim we’re designed? What would a non-designed human look like? How would it function differently? What differences would there be between a designed human and a non-designed human? Like I said in the previous comment, I don’t see you holding yourself to the same standards.
“you don’t call something poorly designed unless you have some idea of what design/optimal design/perfect design is.”
Then you can’t call humans designed without knowing what a non-designed human would be like.
“Science only deals with empirical data”
-Funny, that’s what I’ve been saying all along about ID being a science. It’s observable, experimental and repeatable.
“No it has falsifiable in order for it to be *demonstrated* true in order for it to be science”
-Which, again (aside from the fact that science isn’t the ultimate source of truth and that’s all I’m interested in), if it is true, then it can’t be falsifiable. You’re already making judgment calls before even understanding if it’s true or false. That’s the problem today with scientists. I see it all the time. They’re not logically deducing the illogical, they’re completely rejecting it without considering it’s possibilities. Also, demonstration is not the same as reality. We can’t demonstrate everything, it doesn’t mean the things we can’t demonstrate are false. The question is where does demonstration end and common sense begin? A thousand years ago we couldn’t demonstrate the things we could do today, and a thousand years before that the same thing. Does that mean everything we do today is false? No, common sense has to take hold. Also, you didn’t comment on everything I said about falsifiability falsifying itself which alone defeats the idea. I’d like to hear your comments on that.
“Do you understand how peer-review works?”
-Yes, but that’s not the problem. They can check, double check, they can check 5 million times, but if they are biased in their thinking or assumptions, they’ll come to the wrong conclusion. Is it possible to come to the wrong conclusion of the same data? Yes it most certainly is. Just like 2 people can look at a fossil and 1 say “wow, look what evolution did” while the other says “wow, look what the flood did.” I’ll give another example. One day, some students go out to a pond to find out how high a frog jumps. They find a frog and scare him. The frog jumps 50 inches into the air. They write down everything, cut off 1 leg and scare the frog again. This time he jumped 40 inches. They cut off another and he jumps 30 inches. They cut off the third leg and he jumps 20. Finally, the last leg is chopped off. They scare him but he didn’t move. They were baffled. They assumed, according to the data that he’d jump 10 inches. So they had to figure this out. They came to the conclusion, that with each leg cut off of the frog, he jumps 10 inches less, but when you cut off the last leg, the frog goes deaf.
What happened here? They got the wrong conclusion. It seems valid based on all the data and assumptions, but they missed the real truth of the matter that the frog just lacked the capability to jump anymore. This is what happens today. They can be peer-reviewed all they want, but if they come to the wrong conclusion each time, then it means nothing. And since nothing of origins is unbiased, it all goes back to what they were taught, which eventually adds up to circular reasoning. Teaching people to look for the wrong thing and then using that as evidence that it’s true.
“Great. So you admit that its possible that it could happen. So what’s the problem?”
-The point is it’s virtually impossible to happen on it’s own. If there’s less of a chance of this happening than the number of atoms that even make up the entire universe of planets, then it’s virtually impossible. This is your faith, and this is why you seem comfortable in the fact that “Oh, it’s still possible, even though slim.” Well I’m sorry, but I don’t have that amount of faith to believe something of such absurd proportions. You might, but I never will.
“As I said in my previous comment, “virtual impossibility” =/= *actual* impossibility.”
-And as I said in my previous comment that you obviously did not read, I never said virtual was equal to actual impossibilities. That’s not what I believe and that’s not my argument if you consider reading it again. You might as well be setting up a strawman.
“Then you missed the point of the experiment.”
-Then the experiment is worthless. It doesn’t matter if you get amino acids from non-living material (aside from the fact that they manipulated it against nature which would be an intelligent intervention and only prove creation if anything). If that material can’t do anything for life (since it’s useless as just one out of 2 necessary pieces of amino acids), then the idea of “life” coming from non-living material is invalid. The amino acids are useless and the 98% tar created from non-life to “life” will kill it anyway. They can call it a success if they want, but in reality, its a failure. If they had made both kinds of amino acids, they “might” have an argument, but there’s still the problem of the 98% toxin killing it off.
“Oh? lets see then”
-I’ve already written it in the previous comment to that. I’m not going to re-type it all out because you didn’t want to read it the first time. Also, if you didn’t read it the first time, what incentive is there for you to read it this time? Let alone me type it out again.
“Nope, not here. All I see are baseless assertions without evidence to support them.”
-Oh the irony, because I don’t see any evidence stating I’m wrong. Just the assertion that I’m wrong. If I have faulty evidence, then you should be able to point out the fault. So where is it?
“Not here either. Just more unsupported conjectures.”
-Read the above/previous comment.
“X has attributes of A, B, C
Y has attributes of A and B
Therefore, Y has attribute C”
-Ah, yes. I remember this argument. Aside from the fact that you messed it up (Y would have attributes of A and B, not C. And Y would be equal to X), something to be understood is the validity of what’s being said. Are we dealing with definites? Or attributes? For example, take the following into account:
All cars have wheels.
Airplanes have wheels.
Therefore airplanes are cars.
The definite is cars/airplanes. The attributes are wheels. The transportations are not defined by their wheels, the wheels are attributes of the definition. The above is false because in reality, the attributes should be defined, not the definites by the attributes:
Wheels are on (and part of) cars.
Wheels are on (and part of) planes.
Therefore wheels are on (and part of) cars and planes.
Definites also implicitly admit the existence of certain attributes. In this case, If I said “car” to someone. They’d think of engines, steering wheels, and most importantly, driving wheels. Now lets correctly rearrange your syllogism:
A, B, & C are attributes of X.
A, B, & C are attributes of Y.
Therefore A, B, & C are attributes of X and Y.
What’s even better is if you have 2 definites that are attributed to each other. This makes a much stronger argument. This is what validates my argument.
So lets go back to what I said. 100% of books have authors (books are the definite just as authors are. If I say “books” you think of authors, and if I say “authors” you think of books. They’re mutual), the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets (books). Therefore, this would logically indicate an “author” for life since we see the “books” that are written.
“Recessive genes aren’t filtered out.”
-I know, that’s why I put quotations around “filtered out.”
“If the organism dies then it can’t pass on those genes and are thus filtered out of the gene pool.”
-Which is very important. It would be confusing to see certain animals exist today and, oh I don’t know, defy evolution seeing as they should be non-existent by evolutionary processes. Might want to look into the Pacific Golden Plover sometime. I’d say that’s a good place to start.
““Selection” in the scientific process of evolution does not mean the same thing as it does in the informal, everyday usage of the term.”
-That’s why it’s a misnomer. I rest my case.
“all been demonstrated to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.”
-I’m sure, but remember what I said earlier about different conclusions to the same evidence? You may think you *know* something to be true and that there’s evidence to support it, but I believe the same thing by the same evidence. Now you must begin the arduous task of deciding which supports what and why with the greatest accuracy.
“I *know* there things that happened in history that i was not there for”
-Not all history, yet certain things in history must happen in order for us to be here. I’m not talking about history man was here for, not history that you personally weren’t here for, but history no man was here for. Beginning of the universe, beginning of the earth, beginning of the solar system, beginning of _blank_. Everything we weren’t here for, you have faith came into existence even though you weren’t here. We all believe something based on something. And just as I’ve said 2 times before, you can believe on evidence all you want and there’s nothing wrong with that, but we *can* get the wrong interpretations from the same evidence.
“But you don’t seem to understand that “virtual impossibility”, or as mathematicians call it “statistical improbability”, does not mean it can’t happen”
-Yes I do, I understand it, and that’s exactly what I mean when I say it. That’s why I don’t say it’s “literally” impossible. I say it’s “virtually” impossible. Do I not make myself clear?
“I saw nothing in the previous comment to yours that indicated evidence that we are designed”
-He denied design by commenting on it’s vulnerable (poor) design. That’s the implication. You can’t say something is poorly designed unless you have some idea of what designed/optimal design/perfect design is. You don’t call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line is and you don’t call something evil unless you know what good is. You have nothing to judge it off of, this is what gives validity to the sass-back comeback of “How would you know?” You have to have some idea of what *is* to put in any valid input. I’m not sure how much clearer I can get.
“Then how can you claim we’re designed?”
-Read the above/previous comment.
“Then you can’t call humans designed without knowing what a non-designed human would be like.”
-And yet, everyone tries to disprove the design of humans by pointing out flaws in design which gives validity to what I’ve been saying in the past 2 comments.
“Funny, that’s what I’ve been saying all along about ID being a science. It’s observable, experimental and repeatable.”
Yes, you do keep saying. But what you don’t do is show evidence to support what you are saying. You mere proclaim it to be true without evidence to back it up. That’s why it is *not* science.
“aside from the fact that science isn’t the ultimate source of truth and that’s all I’m interested in”
No one ever said it was. It is merely the best method that we currently have available to us on discerning what can be demonstrated as true. Unless you have an alternative method that produces better results you would like to show us? Do you?
“You’re already making judgment calls before even understanding if it’s true or false”
No I’m not. You have not shown I.D. to be science, you have merely proclaimed it to be science. And *again* I have NEVER said I.D. was true OR false. I said it wasn’t falsifiable. If it isn’t falsifiable that it is not science, REGARDLESS of whether or not its true. If I make the claim that a tea pot is orbiting the sun between the mars and jupiter, then we can check every orbital body that exists the two planets to see if it is a tea pot or not. This makes the claim falsifiable; we can demonstrate whether or not there is a tea pot. If, however I say that the tea pot is too small for telescopes or any instruments to detect it, then the claim is NOT falsifiable because we have no way of demonstrating if there is or is not a tea pot there. Even if there is a tea pot there, if I have no way of demonstrating this to you, then my claim that there is a tea pot is unfalsifiable and not science. If I.D. is a science, as you proclaim it to be, then please demonstrate it.
“They’re not logically deducing the illogical”
How in the hell do yo deduce the illogical?? Can A be both A and not A at the same time? Can it be neither? No its not logically possible. They are mutually-exclusives states Can you give an instance where this is possible?
“We can’t demonstrate everything, it doesn’t mean the things we can’t demonstrate are false”
Once again, I have NEVER argued that non-demonstrated things are false. I have only argued that they are *unscientific* and not *science*. There is a difference.
“The question is where does demonstration end and common sense begin? A thousand years ago we couldn’t demonstrate the things we could do today, and a thousand years before that the same thing. Does that mean everything we do today is false? No, common sense has to take hold”
Common sense also once told us that because we see the sun moving in the sky, then it must be going around the Earth. But we know this is not the case. Common sense once told us that because we see a flat horizon, then the Earth must be flat. Again we know this to not be the case. Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge. But by being able to demonstrate things, then we can check to see if our claims, or common sense, is correct.
“you didn’t comment on everything I said about falsifiability falsifying itself which alone defeats the idea. I’d like to hear your comments on that.”
The reason I didn’t comment on that was because it was a non issue. That entire argument was predicated on, as you said in the first post, “But if something has to be falsifiable to be true..” Which is something I never said or even argued from. I was arguing that *scientific* truths, truths that can be demonstrated, are falsifiable. Not *all* truths. Let me try to put it another way to make it more clear:
Not *all* truths are falsifiable
However all *scientific* truths are falsifiable
Evolution is a scientific truth, so evolution is falsifiable
If you think evolution is wrong, then falsify it.
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable
If it is not falsifiable, then Intelligent Design is not *science*
“but if they are biased in their thinking or assumptions, they’ll come to the wrong conclusion”
Which is why it is reviewed by more than one person to prevent this from happening. Can you give a instance where an Intelligent Design paper was reject based solely on the biased opinion of the scientists reviewing it?
“Is it possible to come to the wrong conclusion of the same data”
But we aren’t looking at the same data. I’ll explain more on this later on in this post.
“Just like 2 people can look at a fossil and 1 say “wow, look what evolution did” while the other says “wow, look what the flood did.”
Difference being evolution can demonstrate how that fossil came to be, where as a global flood as never been demonstrated to have occurred, only assumed to have occurred based on the claim of a book.
“The frog jumps 50 inches into the air. They write down everything, cut off 1 leg and scare the frog again. This time he jumped 40 inches. They cut off another and he jumps 30 inches. They cut off the third leg and he jumps 20. Finally, the last leg is chopped off. They scare him but he didn’t move. They were baffled. They assumed, according to the data that he’d jump 10 inches. So they had to figure this out. They came to the conclusion, that with each leg cut off of the frog, he jumps 10 inches less, but when you cut off the last leg, the frog goes deaf.
What happened here? They got the wrong conclusion. It seems valid based on all the data and assumptions, but they missed the real truth of the matter that the frog just lacked the capability to jump anymore.”
Why wouldn’t the data conclude that a frog can’t jump without legs. On what basis are they concluding the deafness of the frog is connected to him missing legs. I’m sorry but this analogy is just terrible and makes absolutely no sense to me.
“This is what happens today. They can be peer-reviewed all they want, but if they come to the wrong conclusion each time, then it means nothing.”
Again can you give me an instance of this occurring?
“If there’s less of a chance of this happening than the number of atoms that even make up the entire universe of planets, then it’s virtually impossible”
If there is a chance of it happening, however low those odds may be, then it is completely possible.
“This is your faith”
No it isn’t. I’m not saying this how it happened. I’m saying you cannot take a valid option off the table because you think unlikely odds make it statistically improbable, which is what your doing.
“Well I’m sorry, but I don’t have that amount of faith to believe something of such absurd proportions.”
Its not about faith or believing, its about you not wanting to admit to it being possible because of your preconceived notion that god exists. I have no such preconceived notions. I’m perfectly fine god being cause of our universe, if that is indeed the case. I’m also fine with our universe coming into existence without a god, again if that is the case. I only care about which one can be demonstrated to be the right one based on evidence and not because of a belief that stems from an assumption.
“And as I said in my previous comment that you obviously did not read, I never said virtual was equal to actual impossibilities”
I did read it. And yes that is exactly what you said in the very first post i replied to. You said “It’s that it’s virtually impossible and therefore I don’t see the point in believing an impossibility”. I’m not putting words in your mouth. This is exactly what you said. You equated “virtual impossibility” with being impossible.
“You might as well be setting up a strawman.”
Which is exactly what you’re doing to me every time you say I “have faith” or “belief”, when i specifically told you in the last post that I do *not*. And yet you do it several times in this post. For last time, I do not have faith or belief in evolution or in any other scientifically held position. If you continue to perpetuate otherwise, you will not only be constructing a strawman argument against me, but you will also show yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
“Then the experiment is worthless. It doesn’t matter if you get amino acids from non-living material (aside from the fact that they manipulated it against nature which would be an intelligent intervention and only prove creation if anything). If that material can’t do anything for life (since it’s useless as just one out of 2 necessary pieces of amino acids), then the idea of “life” coming from non-living material is invalid”
Are you seriously saying because one experiment did not answer all the questions that it is meaningless and invalid? Come on now. What they do is take significant knowledge gained, that amino acids can come from non-life, and then conduct more experiments based on that knowledge, evaluate more hypothesis, make more observations in many other research experiments. The information from those experiments will in turn aide in other experiments. Acquiring knowledge is usually a VERY slow process. If you seriously think because one experiment didn’t answer all of your questions it then makes it invalid, then you have no idea how science works.
“I’ve already written it in the previous comment to that. I’m not going to re-type it all out because you didn’t want to read it the first time. Also, if you didn’t read it the first time, what incentive is there for you to read it this time? Let alone me type it out again.”
Which is why I said to Copy&Paste it. Seriously it take less then 30 seconds. If you have the time to write out this lengthy of a response to me, then you can spend 30 seconds to copy & paste something. Unless its not there to begin with that is…
“because I don’t see any evidence stating I’m wrong. Just the assertion that I’m wrong. If I have faulty evidence, then you should be able to point out the fault. So where is it?”
Umm… I never said you were wrong. Only that you made a claim without evidence to support the claim being made. I never said the claim itself was wrong. Might wanna work on your reading comprehension skills.
“Are we dealing with definites? Or attributes?
I’m saying that you are falsely equivocated attribute C to definite Y without just cause.
“100% of books have authors (books are the definite just as authors are. If I say “books” you think of authors, and if I say “authors” you think of books. They’re mutual), the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets (books). Therefore, this would logically indicate an “author” for life since we see the “books” that are written.”
Again no you can’t say there is an author to life based on that alone. You are falsely equivocating authors with information. Just cause all books have authors, and all books have information does NOT mean that all information comes from authors. That’s the fallacy.
“-I know, that’s why I put quotations around “filtered out.””
If you knew then you shouldn’t have used filtered out at all since they are not filtered out in way from the gene pool.
“It would be confusing to see certain animals exist today and, oh I don’t know, defy evolution seeing as they should be non-existent by evolutionary processes. Might want to look into the Pacific Golden Plover sometime”
Alright, I looked it up and read about it. I even watch the short film by exploritory films about it. I don’t see how it “defies” evolution. What exactly is the problem you’re seeing? That it knows what direction to fly in? Many birds have been demonstrated to be able to detect Earth’s magnetic field and determine magnetic north, homing pigeons for example can do this. Is it that it can fly longer then it should have energy for? By flying in a v formation they can reduce the air resistance for the ones in the back, allowing them to reduce their effort and reserve more energy. They could also glide along the air currents, again reducing the efforts and saving energy. So how exactly does it “defy” evolution?
“That’s why it’s a misnomer”
How exactly does a word having a different contextual meaning make it a misnomer? The word “theory” means something different for a police detective then it does for a scientist. Does it that make “theory” a misnomer? No. So please explain how it is a misnomer.
“You may think you *know* something to be true and that there’s evidence to support it, but I believe the same thing by the same evidence”
No, as I said above, we’re not looking at the same evidence. Facts are objectively verifiable and thus indisputable data. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, depend instead on subjective impressions of personal preference, erroneous assumptions, and assertions of logical fallacies. Sure we could rationalize on a few of the facts differently. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate, or can be accounted for by only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot imply two mutually-exclusive opposing positions. In my first response to you I gave list of evidence that supports evolution, I’ll give them to you again. (see how easy it is to copy & paste?)
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
Have you looked at all of these evidences? Have you evaluated them? How do these fit the I.D. model?
“And just as I’ve said 2 times before, you can believe on evidence all you want ”
And I have told you I do not “believe” when it comes to science.
“but we *can* get the wrong interpretations from the same evidence.”
We *cannot* get the two mutually-exclusive interpretations from the same objectively verifiable facts.
“That’s why I don’t say it’s “literally” impossible. I say it’s “virtually” impossible. Do I not make myself clear?”
But you did explicitly say it was impossible because it was “virtually impossible”. I showed this earlier up above in a previous comment in this post. I quoted *exactly* what you said. So no, you are not being clear.
“He denied design by commenting on it’s vulnerable (poor) design. That’s the implication. You can’t say something is poorly designed unless you have some idea of what designed/optimal design/perfect design is”
And yet *you* keep claiming that we are designed and that design is evident. You. Not him. You. I’ll even quote you again from the first post I replied to:
“This also validates what I said about Intelligent Design being a science and proves what ID scientists have been saying all along. ID is science because design is empirically detectable.”
Notice where you said “what I said about Intelligent Design” and “because design is empirically detectable.”
I have several times now, how do *you* know that we are designed. On what basis are you determining this. What standard, what method, what criteria are *you* using when determining that we are design. You have replied to me twice now and still have not answered these simple questions. Can you?
“this is what gives validity to the sass-back comeback of “How would you know?”"
I’m asking on what basis are you proclaiming that we are designed. What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? I’m starting to think that you don’t answer it cause you can’t answer.
“Read the above/previous comment.”
Your previous comment did nothing to answer the question. You only made a cop-out, and tried to ridicule it as a “sass back comeback”.
“And yet, everyone tries to disprove the design of humans by pointing out flaws in design which gives validity to what I’ve been saying in the past 2 comments”
Obviously not everyone since yet to do it even once. Again I can’t disprove if it isn’t falsifiable. You haven’t given me anything to disprove. You merely proclaim “We are designed and our design is evident”. Now stop dodging the question and answer, on what basis do you determine we are designed. What evidence has led you to this conclusion.
*I got to this part and stopped reading because the rest of this is pointless otherwise and this matter needs to be settled first.*
“I was arguing that *scientific* truths, truths that can be demonstrated, are falsifiable. Not *all* truths.”
-Then you need to find out what you believe to be true and why. If science isn’t reliable in finding truth (universally),
“No one ever said it was”
and yet you believe something as life altering and detrimental to life after death based on it, then you need to look beyond science to find that universal truth. There’s only one truth my friend, regardless of if it’s scientific or not, and if you’re hindering/restricting information to find the truth (in this case, based on science alone) then you are doomed to gain a false concept and thus, a false truth.
You say science isn’t the ultimate source of truth, yet you defend it against arguments bent on discovering truth and truth alone (in many cases it actually happens to be based on science, but not all). So what are you defending? Truth? Or something you intentionally know is doomed to make false truths?
“and yet you believe something as life altering and detrimental to life after death based on it”
I’m going to start with this point since you said you didn’t read my whole post. I told you in 3 different posts now that I do NOT have any belief in regards to scientific positions. And yet you *keep* stating that I do. STOP STRAW MANNING ME. And you say I’m arrogant? How arrogant do you have to be in order to state what it is other people “believe” *despite* being told otherwise. You have shown yourself to me to be completely devoid of any intellectual honesty.
Now, on to the matter at hand.
“Then you need to find out what you believe to be true and why.”
Then please tell me what this supposed better way of discerning truth is. Since you proclaim to know what this “one truth” is, then tell me how it was that you came about at discerning it.
“If science isn’t reliable in finding truth”
Science DEMONSTRATES truth. But you since you supposedly have better, then please share with the rest of the class what it is.
“There’s only one truth my friend”
How do you it *is* true? What did you use to determine this? You keep proclaiming truth but you give me nothing in regards has to HOW you came about this truth. You keep saying that we are design. How did you determine this? You like to use the analogy of “you cant call a crooked line unless you know what a straight line is.” So then tell me, what would a non-design human look like. How would it function? How can you call humans design without know what a non-design human would be like. This is the problem. You don’t hold you own claims to same standard that you impose on others. That’s intellectually dishonest.
“if you’re hindering/restricting information to find the truth (in this case, based on science alone) then you are doomed to gain a false concept and thus, a false truth.”
Then tell me, *what* is this other method. Again you keep stating it, but you don’t tell me what it is.
“you defend it against arguments bent on discovering truth and truth alone”
I defend science against arguments that proclaim to be science but don’t follow the scientific method in order to be science. I defend it against arguments that proclaim to be true, but give me no reason or evidence as to *why* or *how* its true. If you proclaim something is truth but don’t tell me how you know it’s true, then I have no justifiable reason to accept your claim as truth.
“So what are you defending? Truth?”
I’m defending the best method that we currently know of at *discerning* truth. But again since you claim to know a better one, then please tell me what it is.
“Or something you intentionally know is doomed to make false truths?”
Can you demonstrate what truths science has demonstrated to be true but you think is false?
“I told you in 3 different posts now that I do NOT have any belief in regards to scientific positions. And yet you *keep* stating that I do. STOP STRAW MANNING ME.”
-No, you “assert” that, but you most certainly do have a belief. Not only implicitly, but you’ve admitted it recently explicitly. Implicitly, you admit it by arguing your point against mine. You “believe” you’re right, just as I believe I’m right. If you “know” you’re right, then express the death blow and stop dragging this out. Otherwise you implicitly admit it. Since you’ve said nothing against this but rather keep asserting “science this, science that” then I can assume you have nothing to combat against it other than caps and asterisks. Explicitly, you just admitted/agreed to science isn’t 100% reliable in discovering truth. If it’s not, then the information coming from it has an extent of belief in it.
This is “good” science. Something empirically defined by tests/observations. Unless I’m mistaken in my evidence, then this stands to reason that you do indeed have a belief and you can deny it all you want, it doesn’t change reality.
“And you say I’m arrogant? How arrogant do you have to be in order to state what it is other people “believe” *despite* being told otherwise”
-Simple, I can do it because I’ve got something to back me up, I’ve had something to back me up, and after several comments, I still have something to back me up until you combat it otherwise. What do you have to negate this evidence? I can be *told* over and over, but telling something is not the same as proving/defending it.
“Then please tell me what this supposed better way of discerning truth is”
-I already have. Re-read carefully. And no, I’m not going to copy and paste because this isn’t about convenience as much as principle. If you’re not going to take the time, I see no reason to waste mine for you.
“Science DEMONSTRATES truth”
-And we can’t always *DEMONSTRATE* it. It doesn’t mean that a specific truth doesn’t exist. Sometimes common sense has to take hold and you have to think intellectually without demonstration.
“You keep saying that we are design. How did you determine this?”
-Implicitly, it’s admitted through people’s objections of “poor design proves no design” arguments. I’ve explained that already.
Explicitly, 100% of books have authors, books contain information, the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedias, therefore it seems logical to say there’s an “author” for life.
This is “good” science. Tested, observed, and what’s better is it’s repeated all the time. If you’re using science, then you’re on my side.
“So then tell me, what would a non-design human look like.”
-Humans are naturally shown to be designed, so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive.
“How can you call humans design without know what a non-design human would be like. This is the problem. You don’t hold you own claims to same standard that you impose on others. That’s intellectually dishonest.”
-No, you’re just simply confused and living by false information, but that’s why I’m here. To clear up the misunderstanding.
This is only a problem because you’ve switched the equation. The original equation is “If you can identify something as a wrong answer, then you must have some idea of what the right answer is.” It’s not the same working the equation backwards, because working it backwards instantly defines everything else (excluding the right answer) to be wrong.
In conclusion, I’ll end in an analogy. 2+2=3 is wrong, I know this because I have an idea of how to find the right answer. 2+2=4 is right, and therefore everything other than 4 as the answer is wrong. It doesn’t work the same way as if you have the wrong answer.
“I defend science against arguments that proclaim to be science but don’t follow the scientific method in order to be science.”
-Good news, I’ve never proclaimed to attack science or be “for” science alone. I’ve been for truth and against error. What you’re doing is “bad” science and is error. I utilize the method and it’s properties, but I get a completely different answer than you, yet it’s still valid according to scientific standards. This is why we can’t rely on science alone, we need to express methods to things outside of science. And of course, as you know, science can’t answer everything which is probably why we get different results with the same method. It’s not universal nor exclusive enough.
“I’m defending the best method that we currently know of at *discerning* truth.”
-And since it’s faulty and doesn’t guarantee truth, what’s to defend? It can be the best all it wants, but if it has error in discovering the truth, what are you defending? How can you say it’s the best method if you don’t even know if the information you’re getting is true or not?
“Can you demonstrate what truths science has demonstrated to be true but you think is false?”
-Again, demonstration isn’t always needed, just a side note there. Regardless, science has had it’s many errors and has had to be corrected countless times all throughout history. I believe it’s biggest goof so far that they’ve yet to see is evolution. This actually is the one constantly corrected because they apparently can’t get it right, but that’s part of the reason we’re in this little discussion isn’t it? Also, if you remember my comment about the students examining the frog and testing it’s jumps based off of cutting it’s legs off, you’ll notice that they got the wrong conclusion but they still followed the methods of science. According to the method, their results were accurate, but we all know it’s obviously wrong. Ultimately, this is what science comes down to, results then guesswork of the meaning of those results. To be fair, a majority of the guesswork is so narrow that it usually points the results to a simple conclusion, but in the things we don’t know (such as origins) it’s a dangerous minefield to be in and you have to be careful with the results.
Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.
Wow. I just have to say wow
I know this discussion is long over, but if you have email notifications on then I just have to give thanks to Ben for staying so incredible patient in this discussion and showing any person just reading through that it is possible to do this without name-calling.
I do think the biggest problems in the discussion is that ICWUDT (I do like the alias
) thinks (s)he is discussing some sort of ultimate truth (which is impossible to discern since we don’t have any methods of finding it yet and it comes down to faith) and you are following science which is quite obvious that ICWUDT don’t know the basics of which is shown in how (s)he keeps avoiding all your questions.
I always find it amusing when someone is saying ID is science and tries to use some sort of part science, part logic and a big part of faith to show it. I have full respect for someone who believes in creation or ID and says they believe it because they believe in a god or something similar. I really don’t know why they keep trying to call it science though.
I ended up in a similar discussion about evolution with someone who was trying to disprove evolution by using science which of course just ended with this person not answering anymore…
http://failblog.org/2010/11/09/epic-fail-photos-classic-literature-fail/
if you want an enormous conversation to read and a few smiles along the way
“I don’t have to prove evolution wrong. People have to prove it’s right.”
If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim. If you’re going to claim that god exists, you also have to come up with proof of your claim. Thing about evolution is no one has been able to come up with anything to prove it wrong yet. Have they proven that it doesn’t explain everything? Sure. But what is claimed has never been proven wrong.
It’s all a simple misunderstanding anyway. Creationists or those who believe in Intelligent Design are saying apples. Evolution by Natural Selection is saying oranges. Evolution does not, nor was it ever meant to, explain the origin of life. They can co-exist just fine.
“For example. I believe oranges have purple smurfs on the inside of them; but when you cut the skin, they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong.
I could keep you busy your whole life with that one.”
Really? Since the smurfs only turn to seeds once the skin is cut, then gimme an x-ray machine and I’ll prove you wrong instantly. Now prove to me that god exists. I’ll give you equally testable proof of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
“Intelligent Design is indeed science. Science deals with things we can test, observe, and repeat. Since 100% of books have authors and the simplest cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedia sets, I can logically conclude that there’s an author for life.”
One of these statements were true, and that’s the second one. The others were either false or horribly illogical. Just because we know books have authors and that the genome has enough information that we can write several books about it does not equate the cell having an author. I could say that because the amount of jolly pirates in the world are decreasing and the world is getting warmer then that means a lack of pirates is causing global warming and we can combat it by wearing eye patches and drinking rum. They just don’t have ANYTHING to do with each other. Books have authors because that’s the only way books come about.. someone wrote it. Just because you or anyone else is bewildered by the sheer amount of information in the genome, or are beside themselves in awe at the complexity of the human eye DOES NOT MEAN that just because you or anyone else cannot personally explain how it came about does not mean no one else can and it DOES NOT MEAN the ONLY explanation is there was an intelligent designer.
If so he sure messed up with those poor color blind guys.
“If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim. If you’re going to claim that god exists, you also have to come up with proof of your claim.”
-”Scientific fact” and “fact” are not the same thing since science can’t answer everything. Including that it has faulty assumptions and discredits information from the start before even testing anything. And I’m aware of the burden of proof. It’s my burden to support my side. It’s not your burden to disprove it. Just as it’s your burden to support your side, while it’s not mine to disprove. If it’s true, then prove so, and if it’s true then it should be able to stand up to criticism.
“Thing about evolution is no one has been able to come up with anything to prove it wrong yet”
-Duh. If someone has to prove the other person wrong, then we can make up loads of crap and say it’s true because you can’t prove them wrong. For example: I believe there are purple smurfs on the inside of oranges, but when you cut the skin they turn into seeds. Prove me wrong. I could keep you busy your whole life couldn’t I? After all, it’s proven right because you can’t prove it wrong. I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right.
“Evolution does not, nor was it ever meant to, explain the origin of life. They can co-exist just fine.”
-No, because they contradict each other. The Bible says one thing happened, evolution says the exact opposite in most areas.
“then gimme an x-ray machine and I’ll prove you wrong instantly.”
-X-rays blow tiny holes right through what it’s examining. That’s how it produces (negative) images and you would still be cutting through the skin. Still waiting. Prove me wrong.
“I could say that because the amount of jolly pirates in the world are decreasing and the world is getting warmer then that means a lack of pirates is causing global warming and we can combat it by wearing eye patches and drinking rum.”
-How do they relate though? There’s a difference between coincidence and necessary factors. Books are a necessary factor to authors and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. People are not called authors unless they wrote a book and books are always written by authors. This is not a coincidence, this is necessary. Whereas pirates can completely be non-existent and the temperature would still fluctuate because it’s not connected in such a way.
“They just don’t have ANYTHING to do with each other. Books have authors because that’s the only way books come about.. someone wrote it.”
-There you go, you just proved what I stated above.
“Just because you or anyone else is bewildered by the sheer amount of information in the genome, or are beside themselves in awe at the complexity of the human eye DOES NOT MEAN that just because you or anyone else cannot personally explain how it came about does not mean no one else can and it DOES NOT MEAN the ONLY explanation is there was an intelligent designer.”
-It has nothing to do with “awe.” It has to do with what we notice makes up certain things by what characteristics.
Books have information
Authors write books
Life has information
Therefore life has an author
“If so he sure messed up with those poor color blind guys.”
-Are you saying something is poorly designed? Or sub-optimal design? Or imperfect design? I’ve got more but I’ll stop there. I’m curious on your thoughts.
God bless.
“”Scientific fact” and “fact” are not the same thing since science can’t answer everything.”
Does that mean that science is wrong? Absolutely not. It’s starting to sound like the only reason you discredit evolution is because it doesn’t answer every single little thing you expected it to. It doesn’t answer how life began. It doesn’t explain gravity. It doesn’t explain particle physics. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. It explains how things evolve, and nothing more. By that same reasoning I could say the bible is false because it doesn’t explain why humans and other animals, for (comical if not immature example), fart.
“No, because they contradict each other. The Bible says one thing happened, evolution says the exact opposite in most areas.”
How does the bible and evolution contradict one another? Remember.. the story of creation has NOTHING AT ALL to do with evolution.
“-X-rays blow tiny holes right through what it’s examining. That’s how it produces (negative) images and you would still be cutting through the skin. Still waiting. Prove me wrong.”
No they don’t. They produce light that is not absorbed by soft tissue and is passed through atoms (which can cause the electrons to shift aside and collide with other atoms to create ions, which is what causes radiation poisoning, but doesn’t destroy the atoms nor create any sort of holes) and it is absorbed by hard tissue (bone) which is what causes the resulting image.
But in any case we’re both arguing the same point. Whoever speaks and claims their words are fact has the burden of proof. The difference between your example (or any example used where you just make up whatever you please) and evolution is that evolution has produced mountains of testable evidence to support its claim. You have produced nothing to support your smurf theory.
Lastly, read what you said here: “How do they relate though? There’s a difference between coincidence and necessary factors. Books are a necessary factor to authors and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. People are not called authors unless they wrote a book and books are always written by authors. This is not a coincidence, this is necessary.”
Now read what you said here:
“Books have information
Authors write books
Life has information
Therefore life has an author”
Worded properly your last line should have read “Therefore authors write life” but that would make your reasoning sound as crazy as it is. As you can see in one moment you write a paragraph REPEATEDLY stating that by definition authors write books, books are written by authors, you cannot have one without the other. Then you try to state that because life has information and books have information then both have an author? Life isn’t a book.. at least I know I’m not. Books can’t type or think therefore you must not be a book. Therefore, using your own reasoning, since you’re not a book then you don’t have an author, and neither do I.
This must be why they decided to go with Intelligent Design instead of Intelligent Authoring. Since authors only write books and designers can design anything then their analogy would be able to include life too. Guess we’ll just have to agree to be victims of semantics and loose definitions of what constitutes as proof and what doesn’t.
You can go with your god theory, and I’ll go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, they both have equal amounts of proof that are both just as conclusive as the other. I like mine better because there’s no such thing as hell, just flat beer and ugly strippers. And that thing where you can still redeem yourself after you die instead of burning in a lake of fire for all eternity just because you didn’t believe in one specific thing.. even though you were a good person? His Most Noodled and Meatily Orbed One sounds like a loving god. Yours sounds like someone’s made up story used to fear monger ancient peoples who didn’t know any better into believing whatever they wanted in order to control them.. and made sure to put that faith clause in there so there’s no way to really know if they’re telling the truth or not unless those poor ignorant people die.
One day I hope you will also be touched by his Noodley Appendage. May the Sauce be with you, forever and ever.
RAmen
“Does that mean that science is wrong?”
-Did I say that? No, I said it’s not the same thing, then listed the variables of what can throw it off.
“It’s starting to sound like the only reason you discredit evolution is because it doesn’t answer every single little thing you expected it to”
-Don’t turn this back on me. You started this with challenging me stating “If you’re going to claim that a scientifically proven fact is wrong, then yes you do have to come up with proof of your claim.” I’m simply criticizing your assertions to see how valid it is as any person would.
“It explains how things evolve, and nothing more”
-Since evolution has it’s roots in science, then I can logically attack the roots or anything connected to the roots as long as it relates.
“How does the bible and evolution contradict one another? Remember.. the story of creation has NOTHING AT ALL to do with evolution.”
-Umm, yes it does. For example, it has birds before fish and reptiles.
“The difference between your example (or any example used where you just make up whatever you please) and evolution is that evolution has produced mountains of testable evidence to support its claim. You have produced nothing to support your smurf theory.”
-Wasn’t my point. Its not about evidence, its about proving something wrong which is illogical as I’ve explained. You can have all the evidence in the world, but it’s only in support of something if it goes without unbiased criticism (or someone from an opposing view point criticizes in since in the case of origins there are none who are unbiased unless they don’t know or don’t care which wouldn’t make them viable as critics). As far as I’m concerned, no one has evidence until we discuss the information and criticize each other’s data. Since we’re in opposition, we should get somewhere.
“Worded properly your last line should have read “Therefore authors write life” but that would make your reasoning sound as crazy as it is.”
-All you did was reword what I said. Authors write life is the same as life having an author.
“Then you try to state that because life has information and books have information then both have an author?”
-Life and books both have information. Books have authors so what does that imply? This has been my argument from the beginning.
Books Life
—— —-
Author (X)
or
Books = Information
Information = Intelligence
Books = Intelligence (in this case, an author)
Life = Information, therefore;
Life = ?
“This must be why they decided to go with Intelligent Design instead of Intelligent Authoring”
-The analogy doesn’t define the theory. The analogy is an example to express that life has a designer.
“After all, they both have equal amounts of proof that are both just as conclusive as the other.”
-We’ve only just started getting into certain lines of evidence, what makes you think this is all there is?
“I like mine better because there’s no such thing as hell”
-And thus is you’re downfall. Its not that you’re open to information. This isn’t about a battle with the mind, but with the will. That’s the problem with many people, they don’t care if it’s right or wrong, they just don’t like that it gets in the way of what they “want” to do. Its more of a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
“And that thing where you can still redeem yourself after you die instead of burning in a lake of fire for all eternity just because you didn’t believe in one specific thing.. even though you were a good person?”
-You have a very warped concept of Biblical teachings my friend. Hell is quarantine of self-torment, for those who choose it, to filter them out of the good of God’s creation. All actions have consequences, good and bad. If you want to reject biblical teachings and live a sinful life, then go right ahead, you’ll get what you ask for. If you want to live a life of acceptance and repentance, then you’ll get what you ask for. It’s the same for either side, the difference is the kind of consequences that result. In hell you’re paying a debt you cannot fully pay off which results in the self-torment of that debt for eternity. What you’ve done will be used to torment you. I could probably find a book on it somewhere in my library. On the opposition, if you claim Christ as your savior, the sinless life he lived will be attributed to you which is to say you are sinless as well by him. Its your choice.
God bless.
Remenants of microscopic bacteria have been found on Mars, and you can’t prove there is no life on Jupiter as you can’t see all the way to the surface. There could be something swimming through those gas clouds. Just as I can’t prove there is no God. It’s nearly impossible to prove a negative. Just because said “life” doesn’t resemble life on Earth, doesn’t mean it isn’t life.
If you’re talking about that rock that NASA had a while back, that’s been discredited, by themselves to be quite brutal. They only said it “could” have been a bacteria because the government was going to cut off funding, so they needed something to show that they needed money to keep research going. After they presented this and their funds were released, they came out a short while later saying it wasn’t a bacteria but a mineral or something, but thanks for the money, we’ll hold onto that. “The love of money is the root of all evils” as Timothy says, and if that bacteria convinced you, then I’d say that verse is right on.
Also, as I mentioned above, I don’t need to prove you wrong (In reference to your post, I don’t need to disprove that there’s life on Jupiter) you need to prove you’re right. If all I need to do is prove you wrong then I can keep you busy you’re whole life. For example, I believe that the opposite side of the sun from our perspective is completely missing, instead it’s replaced with a giant light bulb, and whenever we send satellites to view the other side, it sends a false image back. Prove me wrong. See what I mean? I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right.
Well it seems I’m no longer able to hit the reply button in our conversation above. So I shall continue here.
“-No, you “assert” that, but you most certainly do have a belief.”
Hmm. So now you’re saying that you know more about me, someone you have never met or interacted with outside of these post, than I do about myself? Wow. That seems very, oh what’s the words I’m looking for here… oh yes, arrogant of you, doesn’t it? Can you also tell me my hopes and dreams and aspirations? lol
“but you’ve admitted it recently explicitly”
No, I haven’t. I have never used the word “belief” except when address your use of the word in your straw man against me. Please show otherwise, if you can.
“If you “know” you’re right, then express the death blow and stop dragging this out.”
I have. Twice now I have given a list of evidence that supports evolution. I’ll give it again.
ERVs
atavisms
transitional forms
physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges
ontogeny and developmental biology
protein functional redundancy
convergent phenotypes
mobile genes
observed speciation
as well as the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, and any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades
You, however, have not given one iota of evidence to support I.D.
“you just admitted/agreed to science isn’t 100% reliable in discovering truth”
Science demonstrates what is true. You can “discover” as many truths as you think there are, but unless you can demonstrate them to be the truth, then neither I nor anyone else has any justification to accept them as truths. E.g. If I discover that there is no god at all behind the cause of the universe or that Jesus never existed, unless I can demonstrate this to be true then neither you nor anyone else has any justification to accept this as a truth. That’s point. You can claim the truth all you want, but until you can demonstrate it, then its meaningless.
” This is “good” science. Something empirically defined by tests/observations.”
And what tests/observations have been done to empirically determine design?
” I’ve got something to back me up”
No you don’t. Your only evidence is that: 1) I somehow implied it, which is just conjecture on your part and 2) that i explicitly stated it, which I never have. Quote me where i have, if you can.
“I already have. Re-read carefully.”
No you haven’t. You said there was one truth and I needed a new way to discover truth. I asked what that was, and you said nothing.
“And no, I’m not going to copy and paste because this isn’t about convenience as much as principle. If you’re not going to take the time, I see no reason to waste mine for you.”
Thats because you can’t copy it. Its not there. Otherwise you wouldn’t be bickering over having to take 30 seconds to do it. If read all of your posts multiple times. And it is simply not there.
“And we can’t always *DEMONSTRATE* it. It doesn’t mean that a specific truth doesn’t exist”
I never said it doesn’t. But unless you can verifiably demonstrate it as truth, then I have no grounds to accept it as truth.
“Sometimes common sense has to take hold and you have to think intellectually without demonstration.”
I already dealt with you common sense argument. You would know this if you had read my other post in it’s entirety and not just stop at the beginning as you did. But I have no problem copying it for you. So here it is again:
-Common sense also once told us that because we see the sun moving in the sky, then it must be going around the Earth. But we know this is not the case. Common sense once told us that because we see a flat horizon, then the Earth must be flat. Again we know this to not be the case. Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge. But by being able to demonstrate things, then we can check to see if our claims, or common sense, is correct.
“Implicitly, it’s admitted through people’s objections of “poor design proves no design” arguments. I’ve explained that already.”
Implicit arguments are meaningless as people can derive different implied meanings from the same source. If you can’t demonstrate it, then I have no reason to accept your claim as truth.
“Explicitly, 100% of books have authors, books contain information, the cell has enough information for 1000 encyclopedias, therefore it seems logical to say there’s an “author” for life.
This is “good” science. Tested, observed, and what’s better is it’s repeated all the time. If you’re using science, then you’re on my side. ”
1) Logical arguments are not science, good, bad, or otherwise. Also this argument is still a fallacy. You are falsely equivocating authors with information. Just cause all books have authors, and all books have information does NOT mean that all information comes from authors. That’s the fallacy.
2) How has this been tested. When was this observed.
“If you’re using science, then you’re on my side. ”
The problem is you’re not using science. Science is falsifiable. I.D. is not falsifiable as it has never made a claim that can be demonstrated.
“Humans are naturally shown to be designed, so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive.”
If *you* say that I can’t call a line crooked without knowing what straight line is as a reference, as you have stated, then you can’t call design, without knowing what non-design is as a reference. Funny how when you use an argument then it’s “science”, but when I use the exact same argument against your claims, well then all of a sudden its faulty and wrong.
“The original equation is “If you can identify something as a wrong answer, then you must have some idea of what the right answer is.” ”
No, I was using your crooked line, straight line reference. Not the poor design argument. Pay attention.
” 2+2=3 is wrong, I know this because I have an idea of how to find the right answer. 2+2=4 is right,”
No. We know its right, because 2 has been assigned to a specific amount. And 4 has been assigned to a different specific amount. And when we placed we place the amounts assign to 2 with another amount that is also assigned as 2, we find that they match the amount that was assigned as 4.
“Good news, I’ve never proclaimed to attack science or be “for” science alone”
Never said you did. I only said that you were proclaiming something to be a science when it doesn’t follow science’s criteria to be a science. Again you are straw manning something I never said.
“What you’re doing is “bad” science and is error.”
Until you demonstrate this, demonstrate how it is bad science and how it is in error, I cannot accept this claim to be true
“I utilize the method and it’s properties”
No, you just make conjectures without evidence to back them up. Again what evidence is there that supports I.D.?
“but I get a completely different answer than you, yet it’s still valid according to scientific standards.”
Your answer isn’t falsifiable. Falsifiability is a necessary criteria in scientific standards. So no, it isn’t valid at all. Please demonstrate how I.D. is falsifiable. Not that it’s true, *only* that is falsifiable.
“And of course, as you know, science can’t answer everything which is probably why we get different results with the same method.”
Again we aren’t using the same methods. Science requires evidence, demonstrability, and falsification in it’s methods.
“And since it’s faulty and doesn’t guarantee truth,”
Again you have not shown *how* it’s faulty. Also science only deals in truths that can be demonstrated.
“It can be the best all it wants, but if it has error in discovering the truth”
Everything has errors. Nothing outside of mathematics can be guaranteed. Its the best cause it produces the best results with least amount of errors. Again if you have a better method, then provide it.
“How can you say it’s the best method if you don’t even know if the information you’re getting is true or not?”
We know its true because we can D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-E it to be true. Also how do you know that the information that leads you to the conclusion of design to be true? Can it be demonstrated?
“Again, demonstration isn’t always needed”
If you want other people to accept you claims as truth, then yes, it is.
“Regardless, science has had it’s many errors and has had to be corrected countless times all throughout history.”
That’s the beauty about science. Its self-correcting. When new information comes that shows past information to be wrong, it corrects it. When Einstein came along and showed things to be wrong with Newton’s gravitational theory, guess what? We fixed it. How is that a bad thing? Science has never proclaim absolute knowledge about absolutely anything.
“I believe it’s biggest goof so far that they’ve yet to see is evolution.”
Then since evolution is falsifiable, then please falsify it. Disprove it. Show that its wrong. I’ve asked you this once before and you still haven’t done it. Stop talking about it, and do it.
“This actually is the one constantly corrected because they apparently can’t get it right”
Again science is self-correcting. We base our conclusions on the evidence. When evidence is come along that contradicts the conclusions, then we alter that conclusion based on the new evidence. If the conclusion can’t be altered, then we throw it away for a better one that can account for all the evidence. Much like how we threw out the geocentric model and replaced it with the heliocentric one because it fit best with the evidence we had. Again, how is this bad?
“Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did. We only strive to answer as much as we possibly can.
“So now you’re saying that you know more about me, someone you have never met or interacted with outside of these post, than I do about myself?”
-I don’t need to “know” you, and the fact is we’re interacting, period. It doesn’t matter about the medium of interaction. It’s quite simple to determine what I have presented, if you have a problem with it in the sense that it’s wrong or faulty in some way, then please point it out. Until then, it stands for what it is.
“No, I haven’t. I have never used the word “belief””
-Again, you don’t have to. The definition of belief is what you’re acting on.
“Twice now I have given a list of evidence that supports evolution. I’ll give it again.”
-This is what I meant when I said that you can get the wrong interpretation of the same evidence. In some cases, it’s just plain wrong. Speciation is a big one, and I see you listed it. You take speciation to mean an eventual grand-scale evolution from something that once was something (for example, a dog) into something it’s not (like a flying kangaroo). All we see is small changes. Yes, we have all variations of dogs, but they’re still dogs. There’s nothing showing it’s turning into something else other than a dog.
I see you also mention ERV’s as the first on the list. With more and more study, the more active we see these alleged pseudogenes. And even though they’re in the same place as monkeys, that only shows we need them in the same place.
I could go all day, but we’re going to try and avoid 10 page comments.
“You, however, have not given one iota of evidence to support I.D.”
-I’ve given it several times involving an author for life, the ability to detect design, etc. You just reject it.
“Science demonstrates what is true.”
-Wasn’t my point.
“You can claim the truth all you want, but until you can demonstrate it, then its meaningless.”
-That seems contradictory. If it’s true, but you can’t show it’s true, then it’s meaningless (which tells me, if it’s true, but you don’t know, then it’s false). I’m just saying, sounds odd. More importantly, can it be demonstrated that something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable to be falsifiable?
“And what tests/observations have been done to empirically determine design?”
-Seriously? I stated tests and observations right before I said that.
“No you don’t. Your only evidence is that: 1) I somehow implied it, which is just conjecture on your part and 2) that i explicitly stated it, which I never have. Quote me where i have, if you can.”
1) You’re implying it right now through this discussion. You “believe” you’re right, and I “believe” I’m right. If you don’t believe you’re right, then why are you arguing with me? If I’m wrong in my logic, then explain, but rejection and assertion doesn’t displace it.
2) I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did”
So if it can’t answer everything, then how do you know it’s accurate in answering the random questions that people utilize the theory for? You can’t, so you take the answers by faith, and I’m only just getting started with this.
“Thats because you can’t copy it. Its not there.”
-So now, instead of harping on me about not simply copying and pasting it, when I add that it’s about principles you’re just going to arrogantly assume it’s not even there because you honestly couldn’t be bothered from the beginning to read something in it’s entirety? Or at least carefully? You’re not looking to correct me or defend yourself, you’re just looking to be right, regardless of if you’re wrong.
“Otherwise you wouldn’t be bickering over having to take 30 seconds to do it.”
-If it takes 30 seconds, then why didn’t you go back either? Stop wasting both of our times…
“Common sense is not always the best way to acquire knowledge.”
-I never said it was. I said common sense has to take hold *and you have to think intellectually* [if something cannot be] demonstrated.”
I’m not going to say demonstration doesn’t help–it does–but for the things we can’t demonstrate, we need to think intellectually and use common sense if we want to gain even the tiniest iota of truth.
“Implicit arguments are meaningless as people can derive different implied meanings from the same source.”
-So if the information I gain when someone says “poor design proves no design” implies to me that they must know what design is in order to call it “poor” design just as someone must know what a straight line is in order to call one crooked, how am I wrong? Where’s the error in implication by their objection?
“Logical arguments are not science, good, bad, or otherwise.”
-Science presupposes logic and math (it’s one of the things it can’t prove).
“That’s the fallacy.”
-And I explained the fallacy, and how it’s a fallacy itself. It’s inaccurate, so I corrected it. If I’m wrong, then please, point it out and I’ll be sure to review it. If you want to read it, it’s easier to find than other information, just look for the syllogisms.
“The problem is you’re not using science [...] I.D. is not falsifiable as it has never made a claim that can be demonstrated.”
-Really? Even though science is about testing, observing, and repeating while ID specifically does that? Books have information, books are written by authors, information is in cells therefore life has an author. This is tested & observed (people write books, books have information, that’s the test and observation) then repeated over and over all year, every year.
“then you can’t call design, without knowing what non-design is as a reference.”
-I’ve already explained this. The correct answer is the standard or the reference just as the straight line is the reference, or 2+2=4. These are correct, therefore if a line is crooked in any of the millions of ways it can be distorted, 2+2=less than or greater than 4. It doesn’t work the way you’re trying to do it because you’re trying to make the wrong answer the standard, when the wrong answer can never be the standard because there’s only 1 right answer (thus, the standard) while there’s an infinite amount of wrong answers.
Would you know instantly that 9327520+2938767=12392875 is right or wrong? No, but once you analyze it, you’ll notice it’s wrong, how do you know it’s wrong? Because you know how to figure out the right answer. If you already know the right answer, then everything else is assumed to be the wrong answer. What you’re doing is saying I must know the wrong answer in order to know the right one. No, if I know the right one, then everything is instantly assumed wrong. If I’m given a wrong answer, and I know it’s wrong, then I have some idea of what the right one is. If 2+2=4, then I know 2+2=3 is wrong along with any other number. I didn’t need to get every answer wrong until I found the right one.
In conclusion, I can know if something is designed (right) without considering anything “un-designed” (even though that includes anything without the features of said designed object as being “un-designed”), but if someone wants to point out that something is poorly/wrongfully designed (wrong), then they must have some idea of what something “designed” is.
“No, I was using your crooked line, straight line reference. Not the poor design argument.”
-They’re one in the same.
“Never said you did.”
-Then what’s your purpose for being here? If you’re defending science as you said in your previous post, and I’m not attacking it, why did you reply to my post in the first place?
“I only said that you were proclaiming something to be a science when it doesn’t follow science’s criteria to be a science.”
-Even though ID follows testing, observation, and repetition?
“Until you demonstrate this, demonstrate how it is bad science and how it is in error, I cannot accept this claim to be true”
-Much like the way I’ve *been* waiting for you to demonstrate how I’m wrong or faulty in my logic for the past few posts? Nonetheless, the evidence supporting evolution does not in fact support it but rather goes against it, can be explained, be completely disregarded, or any combination of the 3.
“We know its true because we can D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-E it to be true.”
-That’s what the students did in my example with the frog! They got the wrong answer! So again, ***How can you be sure that the answers you’re getting are true?!***
“Also how do you know that the information that leads you to the conclusion of design to be true?”
-When it holds up against any scrutiny and objection. Evolution, is being objected to, it’s being scrutinized, and it’s not holding up. What makes it worse off is it’s constantly being changed while the Bible has been the same for many more years than evolution has been around. Just that alone says a lot.
“We fixed it. How is that a bad thing?”
-Depends on what you mean by fixing it. If all the evidence points to the idea that it is indeed fact and there’s no glaringly scrutinizing evidence against it, then that would be a great thing to fix it, but if you’re fixing something that’s false, then it is indeed a bad thing. As I said, you can get the complete wrong interpretation from the exact same evidence as someone with the right interpretation. If you have the right idea, then go ahead and fix it, if you don’t, then stop fixing it because there’s nothing to fix!
“then please falsify it. Disprove it.”
-Remember from the first comment? I don’t need to prove it wrong, you need to prove it right. I can provide extremely conflicting information; besides, proving something wrong is relative (apparently), and unnecessary. Certain people accept certain information based on how involved in their belief they are.
“You take speciation to mean an eventual grand-scale evolution from something that once was something into something it’s not”
No, I don’t. Speciation is nothing more than when a population group within a particular species is no longer able to breed with its parent species and produce fertile offspring, due to genetic drift. That’s it.
As for you example of a dog turning into a flying kangaroo, this would actually defy and disprove evolution.
“All we see is small changes. Yes, we have all variations of dogs, but they’re still dogs”
Terms like “dogs”, “birds”, “fish” and “lizards” are not terms for classifying species. There are many different species of birds, such as Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) and crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). And yet there still birds. Even “crow” isn’t a species classification as there several species of crow:
Corvus corone
Corvus caurinus
Corvus bennetti
Corvus enca
And many, many more
Crows would actually be a very good example of speciation. As for dogs, the modern day dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a subspecies of Canis lupus which comprises of wolves. But a wolf is not a dog although they are in the same species. There are also other subsets of Canis lupus that are also not dogs but are the same species. If you’re gonna argue against speciation, *at least* learn how species are classified.
This is problem with people like you and the I.D. proponents. You don’t understand basic Taxonomy. If you did you would know that one of fundamental principles of Taxonomy is that all descendant species will always belong to whatever categories their ancestors did, no matter how much they are modified. There reason is cause there are existing branches that split into successive subsets that are each monophyletic, sharing a common line of descent from which they can diverge but *never* detach. Which is why humans are still apes. And apes are still monkeys. So a human is both an ape and a monkey. And birds are still dinosaurs. Even if a dog, for whatever reason, evolved into something resembling a human, it will STILL be a dog.
“I see you also mention ERV’s as the first on the list. With more and more study, the more active we see these alleged pseudogenes. And even though they’re in the same place as monkeys, that only shows we need them in the same place.”
1)ERV stands for Endogenous Retrovirus. Meaning that that we got these genes from viruses; we didn’t start out with them. How do we know this? Because these genes came from RNA sequences, which is what viruses use and copies them onto the hosts DNA. And if the hosts reproduces, then those genes are passed down to its descendants.
2) The significance of ERVs is not whether those genes are active or not, its there coded sequence and location on the gene that’s important. We share 16 ERV genes in the *exact* same location with chimpanzee alone, and that’s just for the K class ERVs. We have a total of 98,000 different ERV genes, all of which are in the *exact* same location as they are in our modern day ape relatives. This can only be explained by us sharing a common ancestor with them from which these genes were passed down from. Unless you wanna argue that 98,000 different virus infected both humans and apes in the exact same gene location in our DNA that is.
“I’ve given it several times involving an author for life, the ability to detect design, etc. You just reject it.”
Because you haven’t told me HOW we can detect it. What’s your criteria, you’re method or you’re standard for determining design. That is what I’m asking for.
“Wasn’t my point.”
I know it wasn’t your point. Your point was science isn’t reliable in “discovering” truth. Mine was that science is for “demonstrating” truth. Newton discovered the laws motion, but unless he demonstrated them empirically then his discovery of them of them would be of no use to anyone else. THAT was my point.
“If it’s true, but you can’t show it’s true, then it’s meaningless (which tells me, if it’s true, but you don’t know, then it’s false)”
A rock is still a rock even if there is no one there to call it a rock. But unless I show you what a rock is, the word “rock” and the definition associated with it is meaningless. Likewise, truth is truth even if no one knows its the truth. But unless that truth can be demonstrated as a truth, then we have no basis or justification to accept it as a truth.
“More importantly, can it be demonstrated that something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable to be falsifiable?”
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re asking here. I’ll be glad to answer it, its just that the way its set up is a little confusing. Are you asking if I can demonstrate my claim that truth must be demonstrable and falsifiable? Or are you simply asking if my claim that truth must be demonstrable and falsifiable is a falsifiable claim itself?
Also I just want to stress that I wasn’t arguing that it cant be a truth if you can’t demonstrate it. Truth is truth regardless of who knows it (just a like a rock is still a rock even if no one calls it a rock). Only that we can’t *accept* it as a truth, or science, unless it can be demonstrated.
“Seriously? I stated tests and observations right before I said that.”
You only stated that they were done. But nothing about who did them, when they did them, or what they did them. That’s what I want to know.
“You’re implying it right now..”
Implications and inferences are aren’t good arguments as its possible to derive different inferences from the same source. If I say “This drink is sweet” it’s entirely possible to derive two different meanings to it. 1) being that the drink has a sweet taste to it. 2) being this drink is awesome, or good tasting. And in written form its especially hard to derive which implication is correct. Where as if you heard me say it, you could easily tell which by the emphasis I put on the the sweet. If I say “SWEET!” or “ssswwweeeeeeeeeet” then you would know I meant it as in the drink tastes good. This is why implied arguments are bad cause it can cause you to easily straw man what someone is saying.
“I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.” ”
Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine. Those are your words the last sentence you wrote from the post I couldn’t hit the reply button to. So care to try again?
“So if it can’t answer everything, then how do you know it’s accurate in answering the random questions that people utilize the theory for”
For the questions we can answer, we can demonstrate how we know. For the questions we can’t, we simply say “I don’t know” and wait until we can answer them. Are you saying its wrong because it can’t answer every single question that anyone could come with yet?
“So now, instead of harping on me about not simply copying and pasting it, when I add that it’s about principles you’re just going to arrogantly assume it’s not even there because you honestly couldn’t be bothered from the beginning to read something in it’s entirety? Or at least carefully? You’re not looking to correct me or defend yourself, you’re just looking to be right, regardless of if you’re wrong.”
I have looked. I’ve read each and every one of your posts multiple times and I did not see it. Which is why I asked you to quote it for me. But each time you only cop-out by claiming its on principles that you can’t be bothered to do it. If its there, show me.
“If it takes 30 seconds, then why didn’t you go back either? Stop wasting both of our times…”
Again, I have read all your posts multiple times and didn’t see it. Show me.
“I said common sense has to take hold *and you have to think intellectually*”
But if you can’t demonstrate it, how can you know if what your common sense is telling you is correct and accurate. That’s the problem.
“but for the things we can’t demonstrate, we need to think intellectually and use common sense if we want to gain even the tiniest iota of truth.”
But if you can’t show or demonstrate that its the truth, then you have basis to accept that it is the truth. That’s my whole point.
“So if the information I gain when someone says “poor design proves no design” implies to me that they must know what design is in order to call it “poor” design just as someone must know what a straight line is in order to call one crooked, how am I wrong? Where’s the error in implication by their objection?”
As I said above, arguments from implications are bad because multiple implications can be derived from the same source. So you have no way of discerning whether or not the information gained is accurate or not, and so it can easily lead to you straw manning their positions.
“Science presupposes logic and math (it’s one of the things it can’t prove).”
1) You are aware that logic and logical arguments are two different things, right? Yes the scientific method is based on logic, but science does not use logical arguments as evidence. I could give you a logical argument for the existence of someone like Spider-man to possibly exist. But that doesn’t mean he does or ever will. It also doesn’t mean he ever could exist as my logic could be based on inadequate information.
2)Of course it can’t prove it. I already told you in the very first comment I wrote to you that science doesn’t “prove” anything, It only disproves things. Positive proofs exist only in mathematics, not science.
“-And I explained the fallacy, and how it’s a fallacy itself. It’s inaccurate, so I corrected it. If I’m wrong, then please, point it out and I’ll be sure to review it. If you want to read it, it’s easier to find than other information, just look for the syllogisms.”
The reason its a fallacy is that not all information comes from authors. Newton is author of the laws of motion, but he didn’t author the information. He merely reported the information he observed. So just because cells have information does not mean that they have an author. Its a false equivocation between authors and information.
“Really? Even though science is about testing, observing, and repeating while ID specifically does that?”
What tests have they done? Who did them? What observations did they test? This is what I’m asking for, but all I get from you is the same false equivocation fallacy again and again. You even repeat it in the very next line.
“is is tested & observed (people write books, books have information, that’s the test and observation)”
But not all information comes from books now does it? Nor does all information come from an author.
“It doesn’t work the way you’re trying to do it because you’re trying to make the wrong answer the standard,”
Ok, just for the sake of the argument, on the basis the humans are designed, using this as the standard, then what would a non-designed human look like? How would it function differently?
“Then what’s your purpose for being here? If you’re defending science as you said in your previous post, and I’m not attacking it, why did you reply to my post in the first place?”
To correct you on your misunderstandings about science (such as you think science has to “prove” things when it doesn’t do that) and how it operates (such as falsifiable claims and demonstrations of truth in order to be accepted as truth).
“Even though ID follows testing, observation, and repetition?”
Again, what tests? Who did them? What observations did they test?
“-Much like the way I’ve *been* waiting for you to demonstrate how I’m wrong or faulty in my logic for the past few posts? ”
I showed how you were wrong on what speciation was. I showed how you were wrong in your use of the term “dog” as classification of species. I showed you how you were wrong in your understanding of ERVs.
“Nonetheless, the evidence supporting evolution does not in fact support it but rather goes against it, can be explained, be completely disregarded, or any combination of the 3.”
And as I showed up above, you misunderstood what the evidence is and how it supports it.
“That’s what the students did in my example with the frog! They got the wrong answer! So again, ***How can you be sure that the answers you’re getting are true?!***”
You’re student example is a terrible example. 1) Did they do the test on multiple frogs and different types of frogs to see if this was the case for all frogs 2) Did they experiment as to why the loss of legs caused deafness 3) Why would they need to cut off the legs in the first place? There are much easier and much more accurate methods to measure the frog’s jump. Its easy to derive muscular power output. Then they could easily correspond that data to the average height of his jumps to get how much each leg is responsible for jumping. All of this with maiming any frogs. If you’re gonna use an example of scientific method, at least use a proper one.
“When it holds up against any scrutiny and objection”
But aside from you false equivocation fallacy, you haven’t shown me what information it was that lead to your conclusion so that I can scrutinize or object to it. What is it?
“Evolution, is being objected to, it’s being scrutinized, and it’s not holding up.”
Its held up for over 150 years. Its met every objection and scrutinization that’s been presented. Even Dr. Behe’s objections to it were shown to be fallacious in court of law during the Dover Trials. Under oath, he admitted that under his definitions, astrology would be considered a science. No one has every evolution it to be false, so if you think you can, then be my guest.
“What makes it worse off is it’s constantly being changed..”
Again, why is that bad?
“Bible has been the same for many more years than evolution has been around. ”
And yet there are numerous translations (NIV, KJV, NKJV,etc), alterations to original manuscripts ( such as earliest copies of Mark do not contain chapter 16: 9-20), and there are over 35,000 denominations of christianity, all of whom differ on their interpretations on what the bible says or means. Just that alone says a lot.
“but if you’re fixing something that’s false, then it is indeed a bad thing.”
And you know its false how?
“you can get the complete wrong interpretation from the exact same evidence as someone with the right interpretation.”
As I’ve said before facts are objectively verifiable and thus indisputable data. But mere facts don’t qualify as evidence until or unless they collectively indicate, or can be accounted for by only one scenario over any other available option. By definition, the same evidence cannot show two mutually-exclusive opposing positions.
“Remember from the first comment? I don’t need to prove it wrong, you need to prove it right”
Remember my first comment? Science doesn’t and can’t prove anything. It only disproves things. Evolution is a scientifically falsifiable claim, meaning *if* it is indeed wrong then it can be demonstrated to be wrong. So do it. Falsify it.
“I can provide extremely conflicting information”
And if its falsifiable, we can see if it accurate or not.
“proving something wrong is relative (apparently), and unnecessary.”
In science, its very necessary. So necessary, in fact, that its a necessary criteria in order for it to be a science.
“Certain people accept certain information based on how involved in their belief they are.”
How much you believe something has no determining value in whether or not its true.
I mean this with all sincerity, Ben, you are my hero. I can’t wait to tune in tomorrow for the next chapter (and to find out why all the atheists killed all those people in WWII).
Making a quick correction in regards to this.
[ I can quote you just in this last comment you posted alone. Towards the end:
““Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
No one has ever said it did”
Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine. Those are your words the last sentence you wrote from the post I couldn’t hit the reply button to. So care to try again? ]
I now see where you got that from. So I retract the statement above. However I don’t see how my stating that science doesn’t ever answer absolutely everything is me *explicitly* stating anything in regards to belief? Cause I never said that Science is the best method period, only the best method we *currently* have. If a better method is discovered and it can get better results, then we will use that instead.
I already commented on it, so just disregard it when you come to it on my post.
“However I don’t see how my stating that science doesn’t ever answer absolutely everything is me *explicitly* stating anything in regards to belief?”
Because since you agree that it can’t find the answers to everything through it’s methods, then that means it has it’s faults and cannot be relied on fully and solely. If it has faults, how can you know it’s true in the results that *only* use science? This requires faith to believe it’s true.
Secondly, can it be determined that science discovers truth by using the scientific method? No, so it defeats itself by it’s own criteria (self-defeating).
It might be the best method we have, but it’s not good enough, and it’s being taught as fact in the school system. If it’s not fact, then we need teachers saying “this is our best guess when science examines it” and expose students to all possibilities exclusive from *science* since science is only one aspect of the information.
“Because since you agree that it can’t find the answers to everything through it’s methods, then that means it has it’s faults and cannot be relied on fully and solely.”
Just because we can’t answer a question now, doesn’t mean we won’t be able to answer it later. You seem to be under the impression that because science cant answer something now, that automatically means that it won’t ever be able to. This is simply faulty reasoning. Our understanding of how things work grows just as much as our technological ability to test them. The fact that we can’t test and demonstrate something now, doesn’t mean we won’t be able to later.
“If it has faults, how can you know it’s true in the results that *only* use science?”
Everything has faults. But its the best method we know of that can produce the most right results with the least amount of errors. And the errors that do come about, we correct them as how understanding gets better. Again, I ask you, do you know of a better method? If so, then what is it? If you don’t then we have to continue to use the best method we have currently at our disposal.
“Secondly, can it be determined that science discovers truth by using the scientific method?”
Anyone can make a discovery. Science is about demonstrating if the discovery is true. If you make a discovery, but you have no way of demonstrating this discovery to anyone else, then what basis do they have to accept what you claim to have discovered to be the truth?
“It might be the best method we have, but it’s not good enough,”
Then please, tell us better way to do it. Enlighten us. If you don’t know a better way, then we have to continue to use it, as it is the best method that we have available to us at this time.
“..and it’s being taught as fact in the school system”
Because it is fact. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within breeding populations of species over the span of generations. And given enough time, the build up of allele frequency changes will lead to the build up of significant superficial changes within certain populations. This will lead to genetic drift within the gene pool which will cause speciation and the emergence of diverging species. This has been both tested and directly observed.
One of the most recent cases of speciation was observed in 2009, when two new species of horned lizard (Phrynosoma cerroense and Phrynosoma blainvillii) emerged from their parent species (Phrynosoma coronatum). The study was conducted by Dr. Adam Leaché and Jimmy McGuire, who is an associate professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley. The study was publish in the scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”.
See unlike you, I can give *specific* scientific studies that were done to back my claims up. Can you do the same for your I.D. “discoveries”?
“If it’s not fact, then we need teachers saying “this is our best guess when science examines it”
Demonstrable facts are not “guess work”.
I’m glad we agree on speciation to a great extent.
“The significance of ERVs is not whether those genes are active or not, its there coded sequence and location on the gene that’s important”
-That’s why I talked about it’s activity and location, covering my bases.
“We share 16 ERV genes in the *exact* same location with chimpanzee alone, and that’s just for the K class ERVs. We have a total of 98,000 different ERV genes, all of which are in the *exact* same location as they are in our modern day ape relatives.”
-I know, I explained in a simplistic manner in my previous post as to why.
“Because you haven’t told me HOW we can detect it”
-By using the brain God gave us for this specific purpose. There’s no ultimate 1 sentence explanation to discover all truth throughout all reality. It’s a combination of hundreds of criteria. If you think something is true, then expose it to any bit of criteria that effect it. Obviously the origin of something is not the same as what 2+2 equals so there’s different criteria. Have I, or have I not explained myself clearly and logically on an author for life and design? If I haven’t, then explain where it doesn’t make sense and I’ll be sure to correct or explain it.
“A rock is still a rock even if there is no one there to call it a rock. But unless I show you what a rock is, the word “rock” and the definition associated with it is meaningless. Likewise, truth is truth even if no one knows its the truth. But unless that truth can be demonstrated as a truth, then we have no basis or justification to accept it as a truth.”
-All I’m saying is it sounds weird and a bit odd, I’m not necessarily challenging it, but it does sound a bit cold in a way.
“Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re asking here.”
-Yeah, I figured that might happen. To be honest I had trouble understanding it after rereading it a few times. Essentially it’s an A, B, A pattern of a question. I’ll emphasize with caps and lowercase:
CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT something must be demonstrated to be true must also be falsifiable BE FALSIFIABLE ITSELF?
Or to put it another way, I’m asking if the idea that *something must be demonstrated in order to be true must also be falsifiable* *can be demonstrated to be falsifiable itself.*
If it can, then it negates itself (because the falsifiable would be falsifiable). If it can’t, then it fails to hold up against it’s own criteria and is therefore false.
“Only that we can’t *accept* it as a truth, or science, unless it can be demonstrated.”
-I’m glad we understand that. So we’ve agreed that science can’t answer everything and that it’s not the sole source of truth. Now we agree that science rejects that which it can’t demonstrate even if it’s true.
As usual I’m confused seeing as I get something different from every person.
Now, as I said before, demonstrations can go the wrong way. So are there variables science looks at in order to make sure it’s gaining the truth? Otherwise it seems mostly like guesswork.
“You only stated that they were done. But nothing about who did them, when they did them, or what they did them. That’s what I want to know.”
-Forgive me, but why the heck would that matter? It’s more important that these are methods science uses and we got a scientific answer based on it. If you can find a book without an author then be my guest, but so far we’ve seen every book to have an author.
“Implications and inferences are aren’t good arguments as its possible to derive different inferences from the same source.”
-Which is why I asked for you to point out any other implication that could logically be received from the statement. Aside from that, what is wrong with the implication I received? You seem to be doing this dance around of not answering direct questions.
““This drink is sweet” it’s entirely possible to derive two different meanings to it”
-There’s a difference between implication and interpretation. When someone says some explicitly about something (such as, this tea is sweet) you don’t get the *implication* about whether they mean something is awesome or if it’s flavorfully sweet. You *interpret* it from what they said. Implication is a hidden meaning without explicitly saying it. When they said something was sweet, they weren’t implying it, they were inferring it to which you then interpreted it in 2 ways.
“Umm… that’s from you’re post. Not mine.”
-Read more than just my post, you’ll notice yours right after mine.
“Are you saying its wrong because it can’t answer every single question that anyone could come with yet?”
-No, I’m saying it’s wrong because people *believe* it can answer every single question anyone can come up with (I’ve talked to a lot of them, so if I compare you to them, it’s only because the few have ruined it for the many (in addition to the idea that some can’t get the facts straight so I get a different answer with every person)). Along with the fact that it contradicts it’s own method and therefore is false, so it may be able to find truth by chance, but it can indeed go wrong, and go wrong it has.
“I have looked. I’ve read each and every one of your posts multiple times and I did not see it. Which is why I asked you to quote it for me.”
-To be honest, with everything we’re talking about, my mind has gotten side-tracked and I’m unsure what we’re discussing here. If it’s truth/falsifiability then I’ve explained that above; but I think it’s something about a new method other than science to which I’ve said taking all the criteria anything is related with and scrutinizing the *truth* in question to see if it holds up. If it’s neither then I’m uncertain.
“But if you can’t demonstrate it, how can you know if what your common sense is telling you is correct and accurate.”
-That was the problem, I was thinking of demonstration in a different context than what you were, thus all of this confusion. False alarm. At least we’re making progress and getting on the same page now.
“As I said above, arguments from implications are bad because multiple implications can be derived from the same source. So you have no way of discerning whether or not the information gained is accurate or not”
-As I said above, implications are not the same as interpretations of the inferred. To add onto that, if you get 2 implications, that doesn’t mean only 1 is right (unless they contradict each other), that just means you have 2 extra pieces of information. That only applies to interpretation, and even in interpretation, there are few cases where more than 1 interpretation could be applied accurately, but not many.
This is what I want you to do. Explain my evidence. Explain my logic. Explain how it’s faulty if you can. I enjoy conflict and rational conclusions from it. It’s how we learn.
“I could give you a logical argument for the existence of someone like Spider-man to possibly exist. But that doesn’t mean he does or ever will. It also doesn’t mean he ever could exist as my logic could be based on inadequate information.”
-That’s what I’ve been saying all along about science. It’s primarily guesswork which turns out to be inadequate because the logic behind it is wrong. It’s not that you shouldn’t use logic, it’s that you should make sure your logic is correct. The only way to do that is trial and error by expressing it to as much criteria as possible.
“science doesn’t “prove” anything, It only disproves things.”
-Then you’re in a world of trouble with all the things discovered by science. If it’s just to disprove things, then as *I* said from the first post, nobody should be trying to disprove the other person. It needs to be based on what can you prove! If all we need to do is have people disprove everything then we can keep people busy for the rest of their lives and generations to come.
“Newton is author of the laws of motion, but he didn’t author the information”
-Yes, but where did that information come from? Did it come from an intelligent God who designed the universe? Or did it come from impersonal and non-intelligent big bang?
So my logic still stands to reason.
“What tests have they done [ID]?”
-The one I keep telling you about. It’s empirically detectable that design exists in nature (implicitly and explicitly).
Implicitly through people’s attacks on the idea that something is poorly designed.
Explicitly through logical placement of the simplest cell (life) having enough information for 1000 encyclopedias. Encyclopedias are books. Books have authors. Authors are intelligent. Therefore it stands to reason that there must be an author (intelligence) for life.
“but all I get from you is the same false equivocation fallacy again and again”
-It’s only a fallacy to you because you don’t accept the explanation to the fallacy. Until you can fight the criticism off, my information stands.
“But not all information comes from books now does it?”
-All information comes from intelligence. Books and authors are just an example of that.
“then what would a non-designed human look like?”
-I’ve already explained that, and for both our sakes, this one time and one time only I’ll copy and paste the information for you:
***Humans are naturally shown to be designed [as I've said through my examples], so asking what a “non-designed” human looks like is like asking “what does an apple banana look like?” They’re mutually exclusive. [Emphasis added]***
And again, that’s basically anything other than a human, but you’re asking in in a way as if there’s a specific answer, like “what isn’t the answer to 2+2?” Well, the correct answer is 4, so anything other than 4 isn’t the answer. I’d have to pick a random number out of the sky and it would be wrong to 2+2=?. I’m sorry but we’re not going to both come to 5039 being the wrong answer as if it’s the specific answer. All numbers are *specifically* the wrong answer other than 4.
“You’re student example is a terrible example. 1) Did they do the test on multiple frogs and different types of frogs to see if this was the case for all frogs 2) Did they experiment as to why the loss of legs caused deafness 3) Why would they need to cut off the legs in the first place?”
-Well lets examine how terrible it is. Now, before we start, this experiment is just a random experiment, much like science today does random experiments (not to be any inflection on you, I just find it interesting that our tax dollars in america are going to good causes during a time of debt such as examining the mating life of a type of bird…). It may not make sense, but hey, it’s scientific and uses all the characteristics of science.
1) Yes, they scared a frog by yelling at it (which I’m sorry if I didn’t add that earlier in the experiment, they yelled at it to scare it), the frog jumped the same amount of inches (50 the first time, then 40, and so on) based on X amount of legs.
2) Yes, when the frogs hit 0 legs, they yelled at it but it didn’t move. They thought it would jump 10 inches according to the data but it just stood there, so they concluded the frog went deaf.
3) Unimportant, my example is based on wrong conclusions, not why do we do experiments.
This is scientifically verified by everything, yet they got the wrong conclusion instead of rightfully concluding it didn’t jump because it had nothing to jump with. It’s not impossible. You can get the wrong interpretation from the same evidence.
“But aside from you false equivocation fallacy, you haven’t shown me what information it was that lead to your conclusion so that I can scrutinize or object to it. What is it?”
-That’s rather amusing. You’re essentially saying, “Aside from the evidence you’ve shown me, you haven’t shown me evidence…”
“Its held up for over 150 years.”
-It’s just *existed* for 150 years. The bible has held up for thousands. Only one is right, and if we’re just going off of common sense here, does it make sense to believe something constantly changing to try and maintain accuracy over the span of 150 years over something that hasn’t changed for thousands *because* it’s accurate already?
“Again, why is that bad?”
-Because you’re looking at it out of context. I explained it more in depth in the previous post and I just explained it again right above this comment about the 150 years thing.
“And yet there are numerous translations”
-Because there’s many ways to translate the same word. Also, some are in old english, some are in more modern english.
“alterations to original manuscripts ( such as earliest copies of Mark do not contain chapter 16: 9-20)”
-And I’ve considered that a long time. From all the research I can uncover, there are 3 possibilities here.
1) Mark wanted to intentionally end the gospel in an open-ended fashion
2) It was never finished
3) The last page was lost prior to the recopying of scriptures
Much external evidence negates the idea that Mark wrote this controversial piece of scripture, therefore one would logically conclude that Mark wanted to leave it open and someone took the liberty to fill in a few verses. The good news is we are able to note that these writings are not originally part of Mark and whatever credibility Mark has should not be attributed to these final verses. We should therefore compare it with the rest of scripture. If it holds up and maybe turns out the someone else of the Bible wrote it or something, then there would be no reason to doubt it. If it doesn’t, then we can discard it.
“And you know its false how?”
-Because it doesn’t hold up against a lot of criteria which is detrimental to the theory.
“So do it. Falsify it.”
-So can the study of science itself be falsified? Please note, I’m not attacking science here, I’m attacking the idea of falsifiability.
“How much you believe something has no determining value in whether or not its true.”
-Tell that to the previous people I’ve discussed with. I said the same evidence and they all reacted differently. Some thought it was worth looking into and left, others got angry and upset and suddenly started insulting me (as a majority of them do. It’s nice to have an intelligent discussion with someone such as yourself).
Wow.. I wrote a lot…
God bless.
“How exactly are we agreeing in any extent?”
-You disagree that speciation leads to grand-scale changes which is what I believe. Since we both agree, there’s nothing more to discuss. You can go on about dogs always being dogs all you want, and I’m well aware of that argument and how difficult it is to explain myself thoroughly without crossing over that path, but that wasn’t the point I was making. Sure, if evolution is true we evolved from the first cell, so technically all life is a “cell” in a sense, but I was making the point that there’s nothing showing dogs growing wings or apples developing the anatomy of an orange. If anything we see creatures mutating with something they already have. People have sometimes had 4 legs due to mutation, but they already had the information to make legs. Where was the evolution? How do we get from a single cell to man? Speciation certainly doesn’t show it.
“Which is only a response as to *why* they’re possibly there, not *how* they got there”
-How is that an issue? If evolution is true, then that would be a good point, but if it’s false and creation is true, there is no dilemma. To make an argument, there must be a solid foundational ground to discuss on. Since there is nothing of common ground here, there’s nothing to discuss in *how* they got there.
“One explanation is that we both share a common ancestor from which these genome sequences we’re passed down to us”
-And another is that we share a common designer who made us similarly.
“The problem with this is that what your brain tells you subjective as it is the result of your own”
-That’s for experiences, not for logic and reason. Interpreting the same experiences differently based on ones personality is ineffective when it comes to objective definites of logic and reason. Coping with being shot in the arm is not the same as defining something with a specific answer.
“I wasn’t asking for one “ultimate” explation. I was only asking for yours. What is your criteria? What is your standard?”
-I already said that in great depth after the sentence you copied and pasted to answer to. Like I said, there’s hundreds of criteria and it’s all different depending on what you deal with because not all truths are related other than the fact that they’re all truth. You seem to imply that there’s some ultimate expression of finding it all. There’s only exposing an idea to all the criteria that effect it.
“No you haven’t. You haven’t because you haven’t given me the justification for you reason that all information comes from authors.”
-Yes I have. I said previously that not all information comes from authors. The only thing that an author for life makes sense with is the fact that information comes from intelligence. Nothing says all information comes from *1 source* of intelligence over all others as you keep attacking at. Just that all information comes from an intelligence in general.
“Evolution produces new information in the gene code all time, all without any intelligence required to do so.”
-First off, if you mean evolution as in small-scale variations, then I agree. The main point of this is, where did life come from in order to do this in the first place? If it came from nothing/unintelligent processes, then you’d have a point. If it came from an intelligence, then it just shows life is a process of intelligence and anything done by this intelligence is the same. Again, going back to the top of this post, we’re not on a common ground here so the argument is null.
“So your reasoning of “author for life and design” is faulty.”
-Currently, my argument still stands and I will be waiting for anything you have to offer in regards as to how my argument is faulty.
“Something being unfalsifiable says nothing about either it’s validity or truth.”
-Thank you, that’s all I was pointing out. I wasn’t attacking science itself, just the idea of falsifiability. It can be scientifically acceptable all it wants, but if it’s not an accurate way to discover truth as I’ve shown then I cannot logically accept it.
“Falsifiability is not a claim or statement where it must be subjected to its own reasoning.”
-If it wants to be true, then yes it must be. And again, it can be selectively chosen to be that way all it wants to be scientifically acceptable, but it’s not accurate in discovering the truth which is what is most important to learn. If you start with a false assumption, you’ll get a false answer.
Now that this falsifiability is all out of the way, I’d like to go back to the original statement I made in which I don’t need to prove you wrong, you need to prove you’re right. Since falsifiability cannot be used to accurately and truthfully defend the evolutionary position, we are now to a point where scientific theories (such as evolution) must be proven to be truthfully accepted and does not need to be proven wrong. If it cannot be logically explained to be dependable, then I would rightfully question its position as being taught as fact in the educational system.
“Every theory that is accepted by science is constantly and consistently retested”
-So just like my frog example, it gets more and more accurate that frogs go deaf after the last leg is cut off.
In short, no, science apparently does not go off of external variables to possibly understand if their conclusions are accurate. Repeating the same method ensures you’ll get a more accurate reading by averaging the results, but if you do nothing to change the method for more accurate results, then what’s the point? You could be doing it wrong every time and you never know. That’s not accuracy.
“I’m saying that “information” doesn’t require an “intelligence”, as I showed above.”
-But that’s on the premise that life came from unintelligent processes. If your premise is wrong, then so is your conclusion.
“I was saying that my words had no implications whatsoever in regards to my having a “belief” or not in scientifically held positions.”
-First, it doesn’t have to be in a scientific position to be truth. I’ve shown that through multiple lines of evidence.
Second, you haven’t shown at all that you didn’t imply something. I’ve explained every argument against that.
Finally, there’s nothing left to defend against the idea that your trust in the theory is indeed a belief.
“The difference is that what you claim to be implicated is merely your interpretation of the meaning of my words.”
-While you make a valid point, I still don’t see the error. If I’ve made a false interpretation, then how have I done so? You really should explain these things along with your assertions so we don’t have to go another round to get it all out. These conversations are long enough as it is, lets not play 20 questions.
“So instead of correcting them on how *they* view science, you question the science itself?”
-Actually I’m not sure why I said that, but thank you for correcting that. However I did also mention that science can’t prove itself by the scientific method to show truth and is technically false since it fails to hold up against its own criteria.
“I’ve explained how you didn’t understand speciation. I’ve explained how you didn’t understand ERVs. I explained how you didn’t even understand basic species classification. I showed how evolution adds new information without any intelligent beings needed, falsifying your “books and authors” logic.”
-And I’ve re-explained it as stated above in this post. It’s when we come to a defining moment/conclusion that we see who in the end is correct such as we have with falsifiability (in my opinion anyway, I honestly don’t see the recovery for it, but I urge you to make a good effort if you so choose to).
“How does it still stand? You have established that god is the one who created it. And as I showed above intelligence is not necessary for information.”
-You just don’t get it. If this universe is a result of the intelligent, then that means the processes that take place could not happen unless an intelligence preceded it first. Your examples of non-intelligent processes could have a hidden premise of intelligence for its existence which would nullify your results and confirm mine.
“[Design is] Detectable how?” [Added for context]
-I’ve gone over it far too many times and this is the last time I will state it so remember it well.
1) Implicitly through people’s objection of poor design
2) Explicitly through the analogy that information requires intelligence (books have authors)
“It was thanks to research from “random experiments” in evolutionary biology…”
-Let me stop you there to say, evolution has had *no* benefit to society. Absolutely none. What has been helping is the anatomical/genetic/etc studies and similarities that animals share (which does not explicitly support only evolution) to develop the information we have today.
“You still didn’t say how many frogs and many types of frogs they used. You need more than just one. Which was the point of my question.”
-Doesn’t matter, this is all theoretical and the kind of frog doesn’t change the results. If you cut off all the frog’s legs then according to the results it becomes deaf.
“No, I mean did they experiment to discover the mechanism that connects the legs to hearing. Cause real science wouldn’t just stop with “well he didn’t move that means he must not be able to hear””
-That’s not the point. Did they or did they not get a different conclusion than what we would logically conclude actually happened? Yes. That’s the only point I’m making is the fact that you can get the wrong interpretation. Sometimes it doesn’t occur to people that there’s more than meets the eye and therefore it causes them to get a false conclusion. To these students, the obvious didn’t occur to them and it happened to them. Anyone is capable of making mistakes. Scientists are no exception. Stop fighting this subject. You’ve been going against this analogy for far too long after I’ve expressed the point.
“Your example shows wrong conclusions based on faulty reasoning”
-EXACTLY! Thank you! I couldn’t be more proud.
“Tell that to the Catholics, they seem to find no problem in both believing the bible and accepting evolution”
-And yet the first page of Genesis conflicts evolution. So Catholicism is false. You either believe one or the other, not both. They’re mutually exclusive.
“Changing accordingly as new information presents itself is far better than one book that just proclaims to be right and never changes.”
-If it proclaims it’s right and it is right, then what’s the problem? Why choose something constantly changing because it can’t get things right the first time over something that already has gotten it right the first time?
“Exactly how does their “reactions” affect the validity of your claims?”
-Reactions are the best method to discovering the truth behind someones beliefs. But my argument was based on the acceptance of information based on how much someone believes in something. One who is unbiased is likely to accept information from either side more willingly, whereas one who is in depth to one side usually is less willing to accept information from the opposition. I don’t expect for you to start believing creation nor do I think you expect me to start believing evolution, but I feel it’s important to be educated on both sides so I like to hear what others have to say and see how it holds up to my own information. And who knows, anything can happen in these discussions.
God bless.
“You disagree that speciation leads to grand-scale changes which is what I believe.”
Uh no. Speciation *is* grand-scale changes. The problem is you have a misconception as to what “grand-scale changes” are. You think that its a dog becoming a kangaroo, which can’t happen because they are on two separate evolutionary branches. Evolution does not allow one species on one branch to become something on another branch. You’re simply showing you ignorance as to what the basic fundamentals of evolution actually say and instead create a straw man of what you think it says. Please, read the actual research and studies from the researches in the field.
“You can go on about dogs always being dogs all you want, and I’m well aware of that argument.. ”
Obviously you aren’t if you think “dog” is a species classification.
“I was making the point that there’s nothing showing dogs growing wings..”
Why would they? They had no need for them. Evolution has no goal, nor is it a ladder. If they can successfully reproduce, natural selection won’t effect them. If they can’t successfully reproduce, then they either evolve enough to where they can or they go extinct. That’s it.
“If anything we see creatures mutating with something they already have.”
That what evolution does, it adds or takes away from already existing features. They don’t just spontaneously sprout new vestigial organs or appendages.
“People have sometimes had 4 legs due to mutation, but they already had the information to make legs. Where was the evolution?”
Mutation itself is not evolution. Evolution requires natural selection with it.
“How do we get from a single cell to man? Speciation certainly doesn’t show it.”
Have you read any actual research studies that were published on the subject?
“How is that an issue? If evolution is true, then that would be a good point”
Because the actual significance of the ERVs is in HOW they got there, not what they do after there already there. Its the means by which we obtained them.
“-And another is that we share a common designer who made us similarly.”
But we did NOT always have them. They came from retroviruses. So your design argument fails. If we had always had them, then your argument would mean something.
“Like I said, there’s hundreds of criteria and it’s all different depending on what you deal with because not all truths are related other than the fact that they’re all truth.”
And yet you STILL won’t give the criteria that you used to determine design. What is it?
“..is the fact that information comes from intelligence.”
And I already gave you an example of evolution producing information WITHOUT intelligence. So you argument is null and void.
“where did life come from in order to do this in the first place?”
Then you problem is with abiogenesis not evolution. Evolution only comes into effect after life is already started.
“If it came from nothing/unintelligent processes, then you’d have a point.”
It did. Frameshift mutation *is* an unintelligent proceess.
“Currently, my argument still stands and I will be waiting for anything you have to offer in regards as to how my argument is faulty.”
I gave you a specific example of new information been created without intelligence (frameshift mutations). Your “reasoning” does not stand.
“It can be scientifically acceptable all it wants, but if it’s not an accurate way to discover truth as I’ve shown then I cannot logically accept it.”
Then tell us a better way to do it. You can criticize all you want, but unless you offer a better way that gets better results, then you criticisms mean nothing as its still the best method we know of.
“If it wants to be true, then yes it must be.”
Again its not about being “true”. Its about what is scientific and what is not scientific. If you say the I.D. is science, which you have, then it *must* be falsifiable. If it isn’t falsifiable than it is *not* science.
“we are now to a point where scientific theories (such as evolution) must be proven to be truthfully accepted and does not need to be proven wrong”
You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics. Only math can make proofs, not science. I don’t know how many times I have told you this.
“Repeating the same method ensures you’ll get a more accurate reading by averaging the results”
Who said anything about repeating the same thing? When new information is found, they get tested with new experiments and new methods. When we get the results then they are compared to see if the results match what is predicted by the theory. Which is why Newton’s theory of gravity was changed to Einstein’s general relativity theory, because Newton’s theory couldn’t predict mercury’s orbital pattern, where as Einstein’s did. This is what is meant by testing theories. Again you fail to understand basic science principles. I mean seriously, this is stuff I learned in first year in high school.
“But that’s on the premise that life came from unintelligent processes. If your premise is wrong, then so is your conclusion”
Then again your problem is with Abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started.
“First, it doesn’t have to be in a scientific position to be truth.”
Never said it. I was questioning I.D.’s validity at being a science, not on where its true or not.
“If I’ve made a false interpretation, then how have I done so? You really should explain these things along with your assertions so we don’t have to go another round to get it all out. These conversations are long enough as it is, lets not play 20 questions.”
I have told you specifically that I have no “belief” at all in matters of science. But you keep on that I do because of your subjective interpretation of what you “think” I actually mean.
“However I did also mention that science can’t prove itself by the scientific method to show truth and is technically false since it fails to hold up against its own criteria.”
I also said that science can’t “prove” anything at all.
“You just don’t get it. If this universe is a result of the intelligent, then that means the processes that take place could not happen unless an intelligence preceded it first.”
And evolution says nothing about how the universe started. A god, or intelligence, could have created life itself. But if he/she/it did, then they used evolution to create the diversity of life that we find.
“Your examples of non-intelligent processes could have a hidden premise of intelligence for its existence which would nullify your results and confirm mine.”
So first it was “all information comes intelligence”. Then when I gave an example of information coming from non-intelligence, all of a sudden there’s a “hidden premise of intelligence” to it. LOL. You go ahead and keep moving that goalpost there, sunshine.
“I’ve gone over it far too many times and this is the last time I will state it so remember it well.
1) Implicitly through people’s objection of poor design
2) Explicitly through the analogy that information requires intelligence (books have authors)”
I’m asking for the criteria that determines what is designed.
“What has been helping is the anatomical/genetic/etc studies and similarities that animals share (which does not explicitly support only evolution) to develop the information we have today.”
And it is these similarities that was predicted by the theory of evolution itself. If we all share common ancestor, then we share similar features. Some more than others, like mammals share hair and live birth with other mammals, but not with reptiles. And you share more traits with members of you family then you do with people outside of your family. Darwin himself noted these similar features when he first proposed the notion of common ancestry. Of course I doubt you actually read his work either.
“Doesn’t matter, this is all theoretical and the kind of frog doesn’t change the results. If you cut off all the frog’s legs then according to the results it becomes deaf.”
It does matter if you argue that its using scientific methods, since real science would conduct the experiment with more than just one frog (or even type of frog) to see if the same is true for all frogs.
“That’s not the point. Did they or did they not get a different conclusion than what we would logically conclude actually happened? Yes. That’s the only point I’m making is the fact that you can get the wrong interpretation”
That is the point. As science would go on to discover if there is a mechanism that links legs to the ability to hear to make sure the conclusions were right. Science doesn’t just stop with the first conclusion it gets.
““Your example shows wrong conclusions based on faulty reasoning”
-EXACTLY! Thank you! I couldn’t be more proud.”
Thank you for quote mining my statement and taking it out of context. Had you read the whole thing, I explain that the faulty reason came from their faulty unscientific methods. Thank you for showing your intellectual dishonesty.
“And yet the first page of Genesis conflicts evolution. So Catholicism is false. You either believe one or the other, not both. They’re mutually exclusive.”
And how do you know that genesis isn’t an allegory for primitive men in a primitive time? How do you know the bible itself isn’t just a man-made book? You also just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.
“If it proclaims it’s right and it is right, then what’s the problem?”
Cause we don’t know that the bible is right. How do you know that it is?
“-Reactions are the best method to discovering the truth behind someones beliefs.”
Or you could, you know, ask them and let them tell you. Crazy notion I know.
“I don’t expect for you to start believing creation.”
If the evidence led me that way I would. I have nothing against there being a god or us being a product of that god. But I simply see no evidence to support that conjecture.
“but I feel it’s important to be educated on both sides so I like to hear what others have to say and see how it holds up to my own information”
So then would you be for the education of alchemy as opposed to chemistry? Or geocentric as opposed to heliocentric? Or how about intelligent falling as opposed to gravity? All ideas are *not* equal.
“Uh no. Speciation *is* grand-scale changes”
-Oh, I’m sorry but I don’t recall seeing the speciation of dogs lead to anything but.. dogs. It’s inaccurate to say speciation *is* grand-scale changes. All speciation shows is we get different variations of the same animals. We have arctic foxes and fennecs. Both adapted to completely opposite environments, but they’re both still foxes. Nothing shows they’re changing into anything more than that.
“The problem is you have a misconception as to what “grand-scale changes” are.”
-Oh I have a great understanding. Now, you’re free to believe it means speciation, but that doesn’t show anything of how we got from cells to human beings. That shows we get different variations of the same kinds of life.
“You think that its a dog becoming a kangaroo, which can’t happen because they are on two separate evolutionary branches”
-I was just using it as an example. I made it very clear in my previous post that I understood the argument you were making. I was just using that example to show that there has to be radical changes to change something into something it isn’t (and yes, you can say “oh it’s always a dog technically” and that’s fine, but there comes a point when it’s different than the dogs of today, that’s the only point I’m making).
“Obviously you aren’t if you think “dog” is a species classification.”
-I never said it was a species classification. We get species within this categorization, but I’ve never referred to “dogs” in general as being a species.
“Why would they? They had no need for them”
-Not my point. There’s has to come a time when the first cell(s) eventually change into man. As such, we should be able to see such radical changes.
“If they can’t successfully reproduce, then they either evolve enough to where they can or they go extinct.”
-If they can’t reproduce, then they’re dead. There is no evolution. That’s one of the problems with evolution is it doesn’t explain a lot of animals in the world. The chicken egg and the pacific golden plover are just a couple of them if you’re up to studying it some day in the future.
“Its the means by which we obtained them”
-I agree.
“But we did NOT always have them.”
-That has nothing to do with countering what I said.
“If we had always had them, then your argument would mean something.”
-Doesn’t matter when it comes into existence. I’ll give you so much as to say it would aid your case, but it doesn’t go against mine in the slightest. Since this can be used for both our standpoints, we need to appeal to something beyond this.
“And yet you STILL won’t give the criteria that you used to determine design. What is it?”
-”Still?” I’ve given it to you time and time again. If you don’t care to read it, I don’t care to explain it.
“And I already gave you an example of evolution producing information WITHOUT intelligence. So you argument is null and void.”
-And I countered it. My argument still stands.
“Then you problem is with abiogenesis not evolution”
-We’re not discussing origins in this respect. We’re discussing the origin of information. If you’re going to use something as evidence that unintelligent processes produce meaningful information, then you need to make sure your premises are accurate. In this case, the premise is where did the information come from that you claim is an unintelligent process to create more information? Was it caused by an unintelligence? Or the contrary? Since we do not know (but that’s what we’re here to find out), you cannot use it as evidence. Your argument for unintelligence producing information is in error.
“Then tell us a better way to do it. You can criticize all you want, but unless you offer a better way that gets better results, then you criticisms mean nothing as its still the best method we know of.”
-So if you know science can be false, you’re saying it has to be trusted because it’s the best method currently? Well I’m sorry but if that’s the case then the best isn’t enough. For all you know you’re believing a lie for stubborn reasons.
Aside from that, I’ve explained to you multiple times that you should expose an idea to as much criteria as possible (anything that can effect the results) to discover truth.
“Again its not about being “true”. Its about what is scientific and what is not scientific.”
-Wow, just wow. So evolution doesn’t have to be true, just be “scientific.” Still want to say you don’t have a belief?
“If you say the I.D. is science, which you have”
-After seeing what you’ve shown about science, I don’t think I want it to be. But then again, I get a different explanation from each person about what science *truly* is, so I’ll keep an open mind.
“You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?
“Again you fail to understand basic science principles.”
-That’s what happens when you get a different opinion from everyone. I’ll give you as much as to say that I’m not as understanding about certain parts of science as some other people (such as yourself) may be, but saying I fail to understand it doesn’t really say anything to me anymore. If you can all get on the same page, then I’ll listen. This isn’t to be a reflection on you, I simply think others have ruined it for you to be taken seriously on this matter.
“I have told you specifically that I have no “belief” at all in matters of science.”
-I respectfully disagree on the basis of what I’ve already written.
“And evolution says nothing about how the universe started.”
-That has nothing to do with this part of the conversation. This is explaining that information comes from an intelligence to back up my analogy of life having an author just as books do.
“all of a sudden there’s a “hidden premise of intelligence. LOL. You go ahead and keep moving that goalpost there, sunshine.””
-So instead of answering my objection or refuting it’s validity, you decide to divert away from that with meaningless notions. You need to be very careful when doing that, I’ve had a lot of experience in detecting someones inability to answer me directly.
My argument still stands. Since we’re trying to discover where we came from you cannot use something that is premised off of where it came from. That’s circular reasoning.
“I’m asking for the criteria that determines what is designed.”
-I explained that in the analogy of books to authors.
“And it is these similarities that was predicted by the theory of evolution itself.”
-Similarities can be predicted however they want, but similarities *themselves* do not aid your position more than mine, nor mine yours.
“If we all share common ancestor, then we share similar features.”
-But it does not prove common ancestor *over* a common designer. They are equally proven by similarity.
“It does matter if you argue that its using scientific methods, since real science would conduct the experiment with more than just one frog (or even type of frog) to see if the same is true for all frogs.”
-Considering that I can manipulate my example since it’s theoretical and thus tell you that it’s the same with all frogs. Scientifically proven, frogs go deaf.
“That is the point.”
-Good, then we’re in agreement that science can get false conclusions.
“Had you read the whole thing, I explain that the faulty reason came from their faulty unscientific methods.”
-A couple comments ago (2 statements above this explanation) you said my example didn’t use the scientific method of conducting the experiment with more than one frog. I said they did, they got the same result. This is ridiculous, why are you wasting our time with this nonsense of “did they check all the frogs in the universe?” That has nothing to do with my argument.
“And how do you know that genesis isn’t an allegory for primitive men in a primitive time?”
-Because there’s nothing indicating it. Also, the first page of Genesis is completely opposite to evolution in at least 20-30 ways. For example, birds were before reptiles.
“How do you know the bible itself isn’t just a man-made book?”
-Because it best explains the evidence outside of itself along with the concise amount of information within itself through the multiple variables that historians would deem to test it’s validity (meaning, through all that it’s experienced in it’s formation, such as all periods of time, many places around the world, several authors, etc. Through all these variables, the Bible is still concise in it’s information. Historians would deem this true if it had all these characteristics).
“You also just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.”
-No I didn’t. I saw a contradiction, I pointed it out. You’d have to interpret Genesis differently than what it says. If you’re going to point the finger at anyone, point it at the Catholics.
“Or you could, you know, ask them and let them tell you.”
-People don’t always answer truthfully (like you don’t agree that you’re theory is a belief), so a reaction is needed because the truth of what someone thinks is much more likely to come out through a reaction than if you simply ask them.
“So then would you be for the education of alchemy as opposed to chemistry? Or geocentric as opposed to heliocentric? Or how about intelligent falling as opposed to gravity? All ideas are *not* equal.”
-There’s a difference between discussing the possibilities of what the truth is (without 100% knowing it) and discussing something that’s been proven false (but if you want to discuss the history of it, then I see no harm in introducing the history to students). If there’s anything to support something like geocentric orbit, then I’d like to hear it, and if it had a good argument that couldn’t be refuted, then I would feel that it should be introduced (but it’s known to be false, so of course this is going to sound ridiculous because there isn’t much of an argument to support geocentricity. Common sense of gravitational force is enough to disqualify it.). Creation and evolution are far different.
God bless.
“Oh, I’m sorry but I don’t recall seeing the speciation of dogs lead to anything but.. dogs.”
My word, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. I said that speciation is when a particular population of a species is no longer capable of breeding and produce fertile offspring with the parent species from which it came. Speciation has not occurred yet between dogs since they can still breed with one another. There is a difference between different “breeds” and different “species”.
And again, “dog” is not a classification of species and yet here you are once again using it to argue against speciation.
“We have arctic foxes and fennecs. Both adapted to completely opposite environments, but they’re both still foxes.”
But they aren’t the same species. Fennec foxes are Vulpes zerda, where as the arctic foxes belong to Alopex lagopus. As with the term “dog”, “fox” is NOT a classification for species. Once you again you display your ignorance on the subject.
“Oh I have a great understanding”
As I just showed up above, no you most certainly do not.
“I was just using it as an example”
And a very poor one at that, since it is something that evolution *specifically* says cannot happen. If you gonna use an example, then use a relevant one.
“I made it very clear in my previous post that I understood the argument you were making.”
And yet, with each one of mine I have to correct you on your misunderstanding and misconceptions on it.
“I was just using that example to show that there has to be radical changes to change something into something it isn’t”
But radical changes aren’t always necessary. All it takes to be a new species is enough genetic drift with certain populations of a species to keep it from being able to breed with other populations. That’s it. Sometimes radical changes accompany this, sometimes they don’t.
“I never said it was a species classification. We get species within this categorization, but I’ve never referred to “dogs” in general as being a species.”
But you keep using the different breeds of dogs to argue against speciation when speciation has not occurred in dogs yet. You’re arguing a straw man you created. If you’re gonna argue against speciation then use the correct taxonomic classification for species.
“Not my point. There’s has to come a time when the first cell(s) eventually change into man. As such, we should be able to see such radical changes.”
Again, have you or have you not read *any* actual studies or research published on the subject?
“The chicken egg and the pacific golden plover are just a couple of them if you’re up to studying it some day in the future.”
I already looked into you pacific golden plover and saw nothing that defies evolution, so you gonna have to be a little more specific than that, sport. And how exactly is the chicken egg a problem for evolution?
“That has nothing to do with countering what I said.”
If your arguing that we were both designed with them in the same places, then it does since it wasn’t always there but acquired much later on. Either we both share a common ancestor or 98,000 different viruses just happened to infect both of us with the same sequence in the same location.
“Doesn’t matter when it comes into existence. I’ll give you so much as to say it would aid your case, but it doesn’t go against mine in the slightest. Since this can be used for both our standpoints, we need to appeal to something beyond this.”
No it can’t. Since you’re arguing that we were both designed with them, then the fact that we didn’t always have them actually hurt your case.
“”Still?” I’ve given it to you time and time again. If you don’t care to read it, I don’t care to explain it.”
All you have given is the “design is evident” and the “books and authors” arguments. The former is merely unsupported conjecture, since you have yet to show any empirical evidence to back it up, and the latter I exposed as faulty as I showed you a specific example of information coming from non-intelligence.
“And I countered it. My argument still stands”
Your only counter was “there may be a hidden premises to it”, which is just pure unsupported speculation on your part.
“If you’re going to use something as evidence that unintelligent processes produce meaningful information, then you need to make sure your premises are accurate. In this case, the premise is where did the information come from that you claim is an unintelligent process to create more information? Was it caused by an unintelligence? Or the contrary?”
Since no intelligence was observed when the frameshift mutations occurred, then we have no reason to say that it was caused by an intelligence. And to say there was is just speculation on your part.
“So if you know science can be false, you’re saying it has to be trusted because it’s the best method currently?”
What’s the alternative? Go back to previous methods that are even worse? If you want us to use a better one, then tell us what it is.
“Well I’m sorry but if that’s the case then the best isn’t enough. For all you know you’re believing a lie for stubborn reasons.
Aside from that, I’ve explained to you multiple times that you should expose an idea to as much criteria as possible (anything that can effect the results) to discover truth”
And yet you still don’t give a better method or state what specifically your criteria is.
“Wow, just wow. So evolution doesn’t have to be true, just be “scientific.”
Evolution is the best explanation that fits all the data, facts, and observations. If a better one comes along that can explain better, then we will change to that one. Just like we did when we changed from Newton’s theory of gravity to Einstein’s general relativity, because it is a better explanation that fits all the data.
“After seeing what you’ve shown about science, I don’t think I want it to be. ”
Good then we both agree, I.D. is not science. It doesn’t explain all the data, it has no falsifiability, and it has no predictive capabilities.
“But then again, I get a different explanation from each person about what science *truly* is”
That’s what you get when you ask random people on the internet their opinions instead of actually studying the subject and reading actual research done by actual researchers in the field.
““You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?”
You have got to kidding me…
“That’s what happens when you get a different opinion from everyone.”
Then stop asking for “opinions” and go do some actual research. Read the papers being published. Go take a biology class. Stop trying to debate people’s opinions on science, and go learn what the science actually says.
“I respectfully disagree on the basis of what I’ve already written.”
Fine. Disagree. I have no problem with that. But to use that as basis for an argument for you what you think I mean is nothing short of a straw man.
“-I explained that in the analogy of books to authors.”
Criteria – noun
1) a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based
2) a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
If you seriously think that an “analogy” is a criteria for anything, then you’re in worst shape then I though.
“Considering that I can manipulate my example since it’s theoretical and thus tell you that it’s the same with all frogs. ”
If you have to manipulate it, then it was poor example to to argue from to begin with.
“-Good, then we’re in agreement that science can get false conclusions.”
Yes it can. And when new information comes up that shows it faulty, you know falsify it, then we either change it or get a better one. Again just like we did with Newton’s and Einstein’s theories.
“Because there’s nothing indicating it. Also, the first page of Genesis is completely opposite to evolution in at least 20-30 ways. For example, birds were before reptiles.”
Genesis completely opposes it self. For example:
GENESIS 1:11-12 and 1:26-27: Trees came before Adam.
GENESIS 2:4-9: Trees came after Adam.
GENESIS 1:20-21 and 26-27: Birds were created before Adam.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:19: Birds were created after Adam.
GENESIS 1:24-27: Animals were created before Adam.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:19: Animals were created after Adam.
GENESIS 1:26-27: Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
GENESIS 2:7 and 2:21-22: Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
But as I’m sure many writers will tell you, it’s so hard keeping continuity between the first 2 chapters of the same book. LOL
“People don’t always answer truthfully (like you don’t agree that you’re theory is a belief), so a reaction is needed because the truth of what someone thinks is much more likely to come out through a reaction than if you simply ask them.”
And you know they’re lying how exactly?
“If there’s anything to support something like geocentric orbit, then I’d like to hear it, and if it had a good argument that couldn’t be refuted, then I would feel that it should be introduced ”
Then do tell, what empirical evidence do you have that supports I.D. (and if you thnk your “design is evident” or “books have authors” analogy arguments count as empirical evidence, then you have no idea what empirical really means)
““dog” is not a classification of species and yet here you are once again using it to argue against speciation.”
-Again, I never said it was. I said the speciation *of* dogs. Not, the *dog species.*
“But they aren’t the same species”
-But they’re both still foxes…
“”fox” is NOT a classification for species. Once you again you display your ignorance on the subject.”
-Never said it was. You’re assumption from the beginning of this *species* talk has been that you think I’m talking about variation within a species or something. You’ll have to clear that for me as I’m not certain, but rest assured, whatever you’re assuming is causing you to receive false conclusions.
“And a very poor one at that”
-Because you’re taking it too literally. This is why people get a false understanding when they read the Bible (as I see you’ve cited in this post and will explain further on). If you prefer I can replace “kangaroo” with “creature with a tail, pouch, and looks like a giant mouse with wings.”
“But radical changes aren’t always necessary”
-They are if you believe evolution is how man god here! You seem to imply that I believe radical changes mean something like punctuated equilibrium. That’s not the case. I’m well aware things make small changes, but all those small changes lead to.. small changes. Nothing shows they change into anything other than their basic form. 600 generations of fruit flies in a lab resulted in.. guess what.. fruit flies. We didn’t get anything beyond their basic form.
“But you keep using the different breeds of dogs to argue against speciation”
-I’m not arguing against speciation. I’m arguing against the idea that speciation proves grand-scale evolution.
“I already looked into you pacific golden plover and saw nothing that defies evolution, so you gonna have to be a little more specific than that, sport. And how exactly is the chicken egg a problem for evolution?”
-Well to give you the gist of the information (there’s whole books on this stuff, but I’m going to give you the bullet points and you’re free to research it now or later (or never), I’m not going to ask that you research it now if you prefer not to) we’ll start with the Plover first. This is a bird which constantly flies back and forth to Hawaii and Alaska throughout it’s life, and it’s got quite a magnificent way of doing it. First, it has to fly in a group (1 bird breaks the wind while the others fly in it, and change out so often), because the energy it would take to fly back and forth would take all it’s energy and it still wouldn’t make it (therefore it would die and couldn’t evolve, had to get it right the first time). And second, it has to know where it’s going. If it’s off by 1 degree it would be hundreds of miles away from it’s target (therefore, dead and can’t evolve). This is enough for now.
The chicken egg is similarly interesting. First, it has very small holes (or “pores”) in the egg which allow the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. It has to get this right the first time or it’s dead and can’t evolve, thus chickens wouldn’t exist. Second, after some time of it’s development, it grows what is known as an “egg tooth.” This grows on the top of the beak and is used to break through a thin wall for more air (if you’ve ever cut a boiled egg in half, you’ll notice this pocket in the egg) and it needs that air when it reaches that stage of development (side-note, everything is done very precisely; the chick doesn’t have days to do all these things, sometimes it has mere hours so it has to work fast or it dies). But in order for it to get that air, it has to be developed in the right position in order to break through the wall. If it’s randomly upside down, it’s dead. With all of these complexities taken into account and understanding the need for them, it’s quite clear it had to get these right on the first try.
I think 2 points are a good amount for each example.
“then it does since it wasn’t always there but acquired much later on”
-No, you still don’t understand. I’m sure I’ve said before (but I’m not 100% certain so I wont be too dogmatic on it) that you ignore the fact that the process can still be used for creation. You seem to think that a population (with these common similarities) diverged and evolved into something different but kept these similarities which are to prove evolution. That’s fine. I see them as a result of a similar process but not by a common ancestor of evolutionary means. However, a common designer. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.
“Either we both share a common ancestor or 98,000 different viruses just happened to infect both of us with the same sequence in the same location.”
-Again, this is a matter of unequal presuppositions which render the argument invalid. If evolution is true, then you would have a point. If creation is true, then the *random* but similar locations are not so random after all.
“Since you’re arguing that we were both designed with them, then the fact that we didn’t always have them actually hurt your case.”
-Well first off I’d probably argue the idea if we always had them or not, that’s interesting to me as to how that was concluded. Primarily, you seem to forget that God can create the appearance of age/time. He does it all throughout the first chapters of Genesis. And finally, your presupposition that it would harm my argument is false. Regardless of if we had them or they developed, I don’t see how that’s plausible as an argument against my case.
“All you have given is the “design is evident” and the “books and authors” arguments. The former is merely unsupported conjecture, since you have yet to show any empirical evidence to back it up”
-Design is evident by the implicity of objection. Read in the context to avoid this confusion. I’ve yet to see you show me the fault in it all. If my logic is not in support of the evidence, then explain. Until then, you’re argument of “it’s unsupported conjecture” is unsupported conjecture. If you would like me to explain the evidence again so you can analyze it, I will gladly reproduce it (and if I can find it, I’m sure I could cite the person who said it).
“the latter I exposed as faulty as I showed you a specific example of information coming from non-intelligence.”
-[Read below]
“Your only counter was “there may be a hidden premises to it”, which is just pure unsupported speculation on your part.”
-It’s not that there “may” be a premise. There “is” a premise. It’s not hidden. I’ve yet to see you combat it other than say it’s wrong. Since we’re here to discuss origins, you cannot use the premise that we are the result/origin of unintelligent causes to prove your case (just as I cannot use the premise of an intelligence to prove an intelligence. It would be like me saying, “There is an intelligent designer for the beginning of life because life was made by an intelligent designer in the beginning.” That’s obviously absurd. It’s circular reasoning, and it’s the premise you’re taking when explaining your evidence.
“Since no intelligence was observed when the frameshift mutations occurred, then we have no reason to say that it was caused by an intelligence.”
-[Read above]
“And yet you still don’t give a better method or state what specifically your criteria is.”
-It was mentioned in that paragraph.. and I told you, the criteria is different with most truths. You can’t use the same criteria from what 2+2 equals in comparison to how fast things orbit the sun. But to add to it, you cannot disqualify information from the beginning (as science does). Science automatically disregards anything supernatural, miraculous, or anything beyond the natural (to put it bluntly), so of course you’re going to get naturalistic results. That’s all that’s considered. Anything separate from natural is automatically disregarded.
“Evolution is the best explanation that fits all the data, facts, and observations”
-After filtering the information that’s not considered due to the false understanding of finding truth.
“It doesn’t explain all the data, it has no falsifiability, and it has no predictive capabilities.”
-1) It explains the data. That doesn’t have to be part of science.
2) It doesn’t have to be predictive to be true.
3) If you’re going to believe falsifiability is still accurate after everything we’ve discussed, then you are blinded by your beliefs, and that, my friend, is what makes it Sciencism. If everything you’ve said is true so far, then you’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that science is a religion more than a means of finding truth.
“That’s what you get when you ask random people on the internet their opinions instead of actually studying the subject and reading actual research done by actual researchers in the field.”
-Researching it just yields in opinions from others writing the information (where do you think the research comes from?), exactly what I’m already getting.
“““You CAN’T PROVE anything outside of mathematics.”
-Can you prove that statement is true?”
You have got to kidding me…”
-Oh, no, this is actually my favorite part about discussions like this. You see, what you’ve just done is create a self-defeating argument (as you do quite often, especially with “falsifiability”). I like them so much because they just fit perfectly with everything like a jigsaw puzzle. In this case, you say that nothing can be proven outside of mathematics. What you failed to realize is that your statement must be proven true in order for the former to be true. If you cannot prove it is true, then your statement is false. If you *can* prove it true, then your statement has falsified itself. Either way, it cannot be true. Putting it into perspective, you might as well say “I can’t speak a single word in English.” Well, you just did, therefore it’s false.
“Criteria – noun
1) a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based
2) a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
If you seriously think that an “analogy” is a criteria for anything, then you’re in worst shape then I though.”
-Analogy – A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.
My analogy is not the criteria, it is the similar representation of the criteria.
“If you have to manipulate it, then it was poor example to to argue from to begin with.”
-If there’s nothing to fault the end result of it, then there’s no harm in adding something useless to it, just as you added this nonsense of “did they test on multiple frogs?”
If you’re just going to add random/useless criteria, then you can fault anything. I would grant you this if it faulted my end result, since it does not, it’s invalid.
“Yes it can [...]”
-Then evolution could be false and you’re taking it for granted.
“Genesis completely opposes it self.”
-Yes, I’ve heard this many times, and I actually explained it earlier, but that was a side-note, not necessarily an escalated argument as it is now. So, lets look at this.
1) Trees before Adam/Trees after Adam
In Genesis 1, God is creating things all over the earth. In Genesis 2, God creates more things only in the Garden of Eden.
2) Birds before Adam/Birds after Adam
[Read above]
3) Animals before Adam/Animals after Adam
[Read above]
4) Adam and Eve created same time/Adam created first, then Eve sometime later
This is one of the more interesting ones I like to tackle. The mistake your making here is that Genesis 1 talks about what God did for the week (day by day) while Genesis 2 talks about what happened specifically on one day of creation. So Genesis 1 says Adam and Eve were created the same *day* while Genesis 2 says Adam and Eve were created at different *times* of that day. They’re concise.
The real problem regarding this controversy of alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 is that Genesis 1 gives the headlines while Genesis 2 goes back and gives the details (like a newspaper) and people take it as a contradiction instead of one chapter giving more information to support the other. That’s all it is. Genesis 1 talks about the week. Genesis 2 talks about the days of that week (particularly day 6).
“But as I’m sure many writers will tell you, it’s so hard keeping continuity between the first 2 chapters of the same book.”
-Common sense should kick in and tell people, “how could the author contradict himself in just the first 2 chapters?” and then they might find the answers. But many people are far too content with it being wrong that they fail to look into it for a more reasonable answer (such as yourself it seems). The author didn’t screw up, you did.
“And you know they’re lying how exactly?”
-Because they’re reactions yield different information than what they claim.
“and if you thnk your “design is evident” or “books have authors” analogy arguments count as empirical evidence, then you have no idea what empirical really means”
-Since empirical evidence is based off of experiment/observation, then both of my examples fit that description. The experiment regarding information for life (books have authors) is tested by finding if informational books do indeed have intelligent authors. This is tested and observed as well as repeated. The “design is evident” is more difficult since it’s an implicit argument and is primarily reliant on observation and I’ll wait for you according to my earlier post of if you would like me to explain the evidence again or not.
“Can you comprehend anything that you read?”
-I feel the same way about you and falsifiability or the belief of science or “truth.” Seems we’re both guilty.
“And what exactly is a fox?”
-An animal that has boundaries just like every other animal. They can be subjected to change, but you’re still going to get an animal. While I’ve heard much on a taxonomical classification for it, there’s far too much controversy to fully know. You’ve brought up a lot of information and I’m looking forward to researching it, but unfortunately I cannot continue because the Bible is not specific in this aspect (in fact, it’s rather broad when discussing kinds of animals). This is more of an issue of studying beyond the Bible which I will do in the future.
“But fennec and arctic foxes are NOT varieties of the same species.”
-What I said wasn’t as much of an argument as it was a question. I don’t know what you’re assuming here and we can’t continue until we get on the same page.
“But we weren’t doing that, were we?”
-When discussing origins, technically that’s the underlying basis of the whole thing, yes.
“we talking about speciation as a whole. And as a whole, radical changes are not *required* for speciation to have occurred”
-And do you or do you not believe that through these small-scale changes (such as the different variations of dogs from Great Danes to Poodles) we arrived at grand-scale changes (such as cell to man)?
“Changes in their “base form” is not required for different species to emerge.”
-I have no problem with species, that’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m against the idea that species eventually turns into grand-scale changes rather than the small-scale change it is.
“Speciation *is* grand scale evolution”
-Pardon me, but I don’t see much of a difference between all the species of elephants. I’m not seeing anything showing that they’re developing fingers, wings, or a reptilian tail. I see elephants.
“This combined with their group flight pattern will reduce their energy consumption even further.”
-That wasn’t my argument. The argument is how did they know they needed help and couldn’t make the flight on their own? How’d they know exactly where to go in order to land on Hawaii? They can’t roam around, they barely have any energy left once they make it there regardless of weather conditions. If they’re off by 1 degree then they’re several hundreds of miles off and die. How does evolution explain this?
“But of course we already know that many birds use the sun like a compass, as well as being able to detect the Earth’s magnetic field which helps in giving them a map of where they are and were they’re going.”
-Again, that doesn’t explain how they knew where Hawaii was, that’s still an issue. And now another problem has arisen. If they use the magnetic field as a compass, then does it make sense to say the earth went through magnetic reversals (which is an argument used to deny the evidence saying the magnetic field was stronger and if you go back millions/billions of years, eventually it’s too strong and kills life, so scientists came up with magnetic reversals)? If the EMF reverses, suddenly the birds are going the wrong way and they don’t get to Hawaii (and die, therefore not evolving).
“Before going into a discussion about the chicken can I at least ask, have you done any research into the chickens evolutionary development? Have you ready any research papers on the subject?”
-Before I answer that, why did you feel it necessary to answer my information on the golden plover, but you wont explain anything on the chicken? What’s with the double standard I’m sensing here?
“Ah yes, the old irreducible complexity arguments.”
-Not necessarily. Yes it has to have the right things in the right places, but it also has to use these things the right way. So IC is only part of the argument.
“Are you next gonna try to use flagellum or immune system as evidence of irreducible complexity arguments?”
-Nope, don’t need to.
“But never have we once observed an intelligence guiding these viruses to place them in the same location and the same sequence.”
-Do you expect to see a bright light come through the ceiling? This is very ridiculous reasoning. If you don’t observe it, it doesn’t make it false. That’s why observation is accompanied by testing and repetition to get a more accurate conclusion. This also falls under the same premise of where the universe came from that we’ve been talking about.
“And what empirical evidence do you have to back up this speculative notion?”
-Hmm, I didn’t speak very clear on that part and I thank you for pointing that out. What I’ve shown doesn’t necessarily definitively prove that random process are all intelligent, but it also doesn’t definitively prove they are unintelligent. It’s an unpredictable variable. What I should’ve said (and actually what I think I meant to say but didn’t come out that way) is that random processes *may* not be always random.
“Yeah god is funny like that. He seems to take pleasure in deceiving people.”
-Actually, he told us in Genesis. He’s not deceiving us, he told us from the beginning what he was doing. Everything else is just putting the puzzle pieces together. Otherwise, I’m unsure we would have the conclusions that I’ve brought up in this particular piece of the conversation.
“Just look at 1 corinthians 1:27 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”. Yep, he loves us so much that he wishes to deceive us.”
-Just like everything else about the Bible, you’ve taken this out of context. This is speaking about those who think they’re wise in the sense of *there’s no God* kind of mentality. Not the wise in general, but specifically what someone was said to be “wise” about.
“And yes, god “could have” created the appearance of age, but to say that he did is purely speculative…”
-So now you’re attacking the Bible and what it says happened. So why do you not trust what it says happened in Genesis?
“You merely have a baseless assumption that god put them there, with nothing to back it up.”
-I don’t need anything to back it up. This is one of those cases where it doesn’t matter if it’s true or false, it still fits. So I fail to see what the logic is behind this.
“You haven’t present any evidence. Analogies are not evidence.”
-I never said they were. Analogies are *representations* of the evidence, they are not evidence themselves. If you have something against it, explain the fault. Until then, it still stands.
“And your argument of ” “it’s unsupported conjecture” is unsupported conjecture” is itself unsupported conjecture. See I can turn words around on each other too to form meaningless sentences.”
-You would have a point if that’s all I said, but you failed to address the message preceding it that backs up my statement. I’ll give you an A for effort for trying to discover a self-defeating argument though. Almost worked. The more you practice, the better you’ll be able to detect it.
“So which is it? Is there a premise or is it that it “could have” a premise? And if there is, is it hidden or is not hidden? You don’t seem to be able to keep you story straight anymore.”
-I applaud you. Very good, but you took it too far with the “not keeping my story straight anymore” statement. It’s still accurate because there’s still the premise. I may not have been accurate in saying if it was or could be existent, but they don’t conflict each other to the point that my argument can be nullified. So, argument still valid, I await your explanation of if it’s true or false by what evidence.
“Cause you have yet to give any evidence to support it. You merely state your assummption”
-You seriously think it’s an assumption that the universe came into existence by some means? Do explain.
“I am asking for your *specific criteria* in regards to design, and once again you fail to give it.”
-The longer it’s pondered, the more criteria that come to mind. I can’t list it all currently, but as I’ve said before, the primary criteria we are dealing with here is that which encompasses my analogy of books and authors. I’m still waiting for my *non-proof* analogy to be explained. If it cannot be done within the next couple posts, I will conclude that it’s accurate, because this back and forth with the same results isn’t going anywhere for you. I’m not expecting you to admit it’s right, because based on your profound belief in sciencism, you’re bound to not accept anything conflicting it.
“Science only disqualifies that which gives no evidence to support it.”
-You mean, that which isn’t falsifiable right? Evidence is completely different.
“Because there has *never* been anything observed to exist but the natural. What would “supernatural” consist of if it’s not natural?”
-Natural exists in the universe, since the universe did not always exist and came into existence, anything that existed before it to cause it was a supernatural cause since it has to be stronger to create the natural (thus escalates to *super*natural). We all believe in something supernatural, you just might disagree with the definition.
“Because only the natural has been observed to exist.”
-Again, observation alone is not enough. False assumptions bear false conclusions.
“But you give no empirical evidence to support your explanations.”
-Can you empirically support this assertion?
“Where in the hell did I ever say it had to be predictive to be true. I said it had to be predictive to be scientific.”
-Again, you more than willingly admit science is separate from truth and if you’re not wanting to find the truth of origins but would rather take conclusions based on faith, then go right ahead and believe in sciencism, but I’m in this for the truth.
I can’t go further. This is no longer a battle for what is true with the mind, but which do you find most appealing and acceptable by your own will.
I pray you’ll get out of this false understanding. You know it’s separate from truth, you admit it several times, I just hope you find your way out of it.
God bless.
As I was about to begin this reply to your most recent post, I was reading over what you wrote a second time. I knew exactly what I was going to say, everything from what you wrote about speciation, to your mistaken assumptions, to even your convoluted view of science and truth. And just as I was about go up and hit the reply button, I noticed this little gem of a comment from you:
“..if you’re not wanting to find the truth of origins but would rather take conclusions based on faith, then go right ahead and believe in sciencism..”
Despite being told *countless* times now that I have no “belief” or “faith” in regards to matters of science, you once again taken it upon yourself to tell me what it is I believe. And with that, any respect I had for you, for being an honest debater or even a decent human being, just flew right out the window. You continue to straw man arguments of both positions I have specifically told I do not hold as well as ones I have never even stated in any form. I don’t if its because you are not capable of comprehending the notion that someone does not need faith or what, and to be perfectly honest I could care less at this point.
You have shown yourself to be devoid of any intellectual honesty or integrity. So now there is no longer any reason for me to continue this discussion with someone who is incapable of arguing from positions that I *actually* hold. So farewell and best of luck on your search for truth.
Heh, I guess I should’ve kept reading before posting my earlier comment
I agree that the reply button and how the comments keep nesting on the cheezburger networks is slightly illogical, but then again this maybe isn’t the best place for these discussions… and yet it’s so easy to get dragged into them.
I’m not quite sure why I feel the need for yet another comment, but I’m still quite impressed by both of you for keeping this discussion for as long as you did. Kudos. I don’t want to start it up again, I just want Ben to know that when viewed from the outside it’s quite obvious that ICWUDT either dodges your questions in an intelectually dishonest way or maybe ICWUDT really really doesn’t understand how science works, what empirical criteria is, what a scientific theory is or why science is used all over the world.
I know this comes out as sort of disrespectful of ICWUDT and I’m sorry about that. I do respect your persistence and in some cases I actually think you want to understand what Ben is saying. I would suggest that you actually read up on the scientific method and evolution, then there could be really interesting discussions.
“Science can’t answer everything. If I’ve made anything clear, it’s that.”
And that gives you the right to fill in the gap with made up stories about a omnipotent force that made everything up?
If you take it out of context then it could mean anything.
Isn’t it more logical to believe that a giant man in the sky with a white beard snapped his fingers like Shaq in the movie Shazam, and the earth just poofed out of nowhere with buildings and people and houses and cars and food and water? Come to think of it, God is sounding more and more like Santa Claus..
Try explaining that to someone who believes the planet and all life in it (including us humans) were a 7 day creation process.
actually, you’re defining “perfect for us” as a situation in which life for all members of our species is lived until our chromosomes finally stop replicating and we die of age. however, without a constantly expanding world with unlimited resources, we would eventually out-reproduce the rate of “natural” death, causing overpopulation, which leads to over consumption of resources and space. This leads to death due to starvation.
From starvation could come any number of other causes for death… this is where Darwin’s famous law would take over. It would literally be survival only of the fittest, leaving the rest to die (as it is with our current conditions). This could be considered both the closest to “perfect” as is achievable, as it creates a society which is always increasing in all areas, and it can also be considered the farthest from “perfect”, as it does require the elimination of “weaker” members.
POINT BEING: there’s no way to define anything as perfect. everything has (a) flaw(s), and nothing can be proven 100%. (the one exception to this is any concept, such as mathematics, that are created by those trying to validate it. This is because limits on imagination literally are set by ourselves, and any ideas created within our minds are not subject to any outside limitations.)
Super String theory would suggest we exist because we are tied to the sun. If we move away from it it would change to keep us alive; If a God was part of the equation and wanted the continued existence of his “creation” . In a universe where science and physics still require an explanation of a divine nature. However acurate measurements are available through scientific method, and to believe it is a mere 10 feet would seem highly improbable. But hey if “God” did it who am I to argue.
Sorry, I believe in Silly String Theory. It’s the only one that’s demonstrably awesome. If that runs into problems, I’m jumping over to String Cheese Theory.
Actually, it should be referred to as the Super String Hypothesis as there is no experimental evidence yet.
I want to hit her. SO BAD.
Btw, i’m a Christian who believes in science too… Shocking, isn’t it?
Heretic!
Definitely. Turn the other cheek, bra.
Bras don’t have cheeks.
If you believe in the scientific method, you can not believe in the stories of the bible because all the supernatural events in the bible are demonstrably false, therefore you can not be a christian, therefore you can not be a christian who believes in science. QED.
But they are.
Oh snap.
Its not necessary to take the bible at face value to “believe in it”.
But it IS amusing the number of people who DO take it as-is.
I believe in a higher power that created everything, but I also believe in evolution and do not believe that the Bible is everything. Am I a christian?
Progressive Creationist would be the correct term, but you should know that the Bible and evolution mix like oil and water. They’re mutually exclusive and directly contradict each other. As far as I’m concerned, it’s either one or the other.
being an atheist, i think i’m safe in pointing this out: some sects of some religions interpret the bible in different ways, point in case is Catholicism- Catholics are still christian, because they believe that Jesus Christ did exist as the Messiah (Messiah can be defined in a mulitude of ways). I know for a fact that some variations of Christianity do not take the bible as the literal written word of god, but instead as life lessons and moral-based stories.
There’s many interpretations, but there’s only 1 correct conclusion about the message that is being conveyed.
Oh sure lets all make up some random crap call it fact ant get pissed when some one says we are full of it… This particular chick should realy go back to the kitchen…
She probably heard it from a priest or some other kind of uneducated educator.
god is a lie that you believe because you’re a coward who’s afraid of dying. truth hurts, doesn’t it?
I’m not afraid of dying. I don’t think we go straight to a “heaven” and I don’t believe in hell, but I do believe that there is somebody who created this place. I don’t think it was MADE for us, but I do think he knows us and listens.
And some people believe having sex with little children gives the immortality.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/12/24/
Potatoes are flying cows with the ability to 10 o’clock the highway through their nose on a plate of spaghetti.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Well lady who posted that stupid status, you didn’t ask but HE DIDN’T WANT YOU TEACHING PEOPLE THIS STUPID what you call FACT! I want to punch her so badly.
Brilliant! I absolutely love this!
“Mummy, where do empirical facts come from?”
“Well, from the Organised Superstition fairy of course, sweetheart… And if you ever question me or my wisdom I’m sending you straight to an Exorcist, kid!”
La la la la la la la la la
I can’t hear you. I’m praying.
Please don’t disturb my delusions with tiresome facts
La la la la la la la la la
Are you still talking? Shut up.
La la la la la la la la la
@Crispy-chan: That is not in the least shocking. It’s… hope.
that guy got pawned. science ftw
It’s a girl that got pawned… you just got pawned…
*Throws chess piece at you…* pawned again…
*Sells you at a pawn shop…* pawned again…
So much pawnage that I’m out of puns…
That’s right, guys. All Christians are stupid. Just like all blacks are criminals, all asians are geniuses, and all mexicans have moustaches.
Comparing your (nonexistent) “religious persecution,” which is really just backlash from Christians being d*cks to everyone for such a long time, to racism is not going to endear you to anyone, poppet.
It’s more fair to make generalizations about someone based on their religious preference since, you know, you DO have a choice in that. It is fair to say that people who choose to support the theory that some dude in the sky went “ABRACA-FREAKIN-DABRA,” might not have the best grasp on, you know, science.
With you encouraging good relations, we’ll soon be looking at world peace with happiness, joy, and tea parties.
That’s the only way some people will understand. I agree with Jane.
I’d apologize for holding people responsible for their actions and decisions as opposed to genetics, but I’m not.
You want world peace? Kill everything that moves. You’ll have a place as peaceful as the grave.
Insanity wolf at its finest…
“More fair” but still unfair.
It doesn’t look like we’ve progressed much at all in the past few hundred years.
No, it is actually 100% fair to hold people responsible for the decisions they make for theirselves.
All christians are either stupid or delusional.
I’d rather be delusional than a closed-minded dumbass who generalizes a certain belief system based on a few people, at best. I know plenty of stupid athiests, and some pretty cool ones. I don’t base anything on beliefs, just the person themselves.
All atheists are either stupid or delusional.
See? I can do it too. Amirite though?
Although the dude was right about the orbit and whatnot, did I just read that a “moderately-sized” earthquake could throw off the Earth’s orbit by 10 feet? He does realize that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, which occur entirely on the Earth’s very thin crust, right? Earthquakes affect only a small part of the Earth, there’s no way they’re moving it 10 inches, much less ten feet. Heck, by that logic, shouldn’t our orbit be totally destabilized by the moon?
I could move the earth if I wanted to. >.>
Technically, anyone can. Jumping into the air moves it about a fraction of an atoms size if you want to get all techy. Then again, my physics teacher was a little nuts…
It’s a shame stupid people want to argue with other people when they know they’re wrong.
Don’t be so rude with the poor woman, remember, she’s just a woman, don’t ask too much from them
Dude, if you absolutely MUST block out the whole name, at least color code it! We don’t know (if we had no past knowledge) who he was talking to when he said “haha nice *black*”
1.) It was my first submission to failbook so I really didn’t think about it. 2.) Yes I did notice this later and I wish I blocked it differently.
3.) He was saying nice to Braxton, the guy who proved Michelle, the girl, wrong. The person saying Really? That’s crazy! Is one of Michelle’s dumb friends who read it and immediately believed it as fact and was like AMG NOWAI!
He was talking to the man who owned the girl.. I know these people and I go to school with them. that girl is the most idiotic person I know and puts a bad image on Christianity. I’m Christian, but I do not believe her ridiculous comment.. kudos to the man who put her in her place.
This was a triumph.
I’m making a note here; HUGE SUCCESS.
It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.
“Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved.”
Tim Minchin, “Storm”
Opps. That’s supposed to be “Faith is the denial of observation so that BELIEFS can be preserved.”
Even if she WAS right, then it still could have no relation to “God´s perfect plans”. It could be totally coincidental. I mean, The Guy created the appendix and the platyplus, you can´t say He was all that bright…
Hey, the platypus is perfectly designed to live in its environment (if you keep humans out of it).
It is functional, but he didn´t put much effort in the aesthetics, did he?
The appendix helps fight off infections my friend; assuming you’re implying that it’s vestigial. Yes, you can remove it, but you have a much better chance of living longer with it.
The platypus is also evidence “of” God, not against. The fact that there’s absolutely no transitional fossils of this mammalian creature that defies what the average mammal does (birthing young in eggs rather than fully developed) is more than enough.
Finally, no, it is virtually impossible to be coincidental that anthropic principles would come to be by chance. Study Anthropic Principles if you will.
Well, I invite you to study the Joke Principle, as I was making fun of the appendix (which people only seem to acknolegde it when it actually f**ks up) and the platyplus (which can be considered quite an strange animal).
And no, the platyplus is NOT an evidence “of” God. (And it´s not an evidence of a lack of God, again, I was joking) Just because there´s no transitional fossils of them, it doesn´t mean the whole evolution theory can be discredited. I´m no biologist, but the fact that it seems to be the crossover between avians and mammals kinda says something about it.
I´m gonna be honest with you, I had no idea of what Anthropic Principles were, so I googled it, read some articles mentioning it, and all I can say is “HELL, NO, BIATCH.”
If you’re joking, then don’t make so obvious that you’re truthful rather than facetious. Sarcasm can’t be detected well through text, so you’ll have to compensate accordingly.
I never said evolutionary theory can be discredited based on that one bit of evidence, but it certainly doesn’t help it that they can’t find transitional forms for a good percentage of animals today. You’ll have to clarify on what you mean about said crossover between avian/mammals and what entirely it supposedly explains.
And what exactly did you read regarding Anthropic Principles. What was the confusion so I can fix it for you.
Why would an “intelligent” designer put the prostate (which commonly expands) around the urethra? That’s just messed up.
Also, please look into the conditions necessary for fossils to form. You’ll learn that not every carcass of every animal could have been fossilized. No matter how many fossils we dig up, we probably won’t know about 90% of all of the species of land animals that have ever existed just because not enough of them died in the right places.
In addition, you should know that evolution deniers complained about the lack of transitional fossils between whales and what scientists posited to be their land-dwelling ancestors. They thought it was ridiculous to believe that whales could have evolved (pshaw!) from land mammals. And then, the right fossil was found from the right time period, proving that whales have a land-dwelling ancestor. When they were proved wrong by evidence, the deniers just picked another animal without transitional fossils. Get it?
To say something is poorly designed is to imply that you know what “design” is. You can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfect is.
Secondly, sub-optimal design isn’t evidence of no design at all. Cars aren’t optimally designed, but they’re designed nonetheless.
Thirdly, to say something is wrongfully designed is to say you know the intentions of the designer. Designers don’t always go for perfection, sometimes they just go for something that fills a particular need. Which leads me to my final point that there are always trade-offs (which elaborates off of my third point in which you must know the designer’s intentions). Large cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they’re also more difficult to maneuver and consume more gas. Trade-offs can’t be avoided in this world. You must compromise certain things to reach the intended objective. For example, you can’t fault the design on a compact car because it doesn’t carry 15 passengers. The objective is to carry 4, not 15.
To close in this section in it’s primary point, you cannot succeed in criticisms against “poor” design unless you know the intentions of the designer.
All I was saying in regards to transitional fossils is it “doesn’t help” evolution if they can’t find them. Never once did I say it disproves it or anything in relation to that. Their theory implies it and as such, they must find them in order to bring convincing evidence of their theory. If they don’t find any then you might as well be saying “apples are purple in some cases” and never get a purple orange. Oh but it still happens!
Just as a side-note, I find it a bit humorous that evolution says fish came on land, but then a land animal evolved back into fish… Just find that interesting.
It’s one thing to be sub-optimal in design, and another to just have it wrong. I don’t think any car is designed on purpose with a part that is meant to fail. There’s a ton of space in the body for the prostate to be–why the heck would someone place it around a collapsible tube like the urethra? Is the designer “testing” us by making it harder for us men to pee when we get older? It isn’t just “not optimal,” it causes a problem. It has nothing to do with niches to fill or intended objectives–it is an unnecessary problem without benefits that could easily have been avoided had we been designed in the same manner that cars are designed. If there is a “designer,” he is either lazy or a jerk, especially if we’re significant to him, or even designed “in his image.”
Not finding fossils doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt the theory. There is already a mountain of evidence proving evolution to be true–asking for transitionary fossils for each and every species is nothing but nitpicking by those who are determined to be against it. It has been proven to such a degree that more fossils would only be “icing on the cake,” or else pursued for the sake of trying to prove the theory wrong (finding a creature that should not have existed at a certain time, like a modern rabbit skeleton found in 200 million-year-old rock). We’re past the stage of trying to prove that evolution has occurred. It’s a scientific fact.
…whales aren’t fish.
Again, you’re just proving my point about design, you can’t know what is imperfect unless you know what perfection is and you must know the intentions of the designer, but apparently we need to add onto this. Tell me, if you were to copy something over and over again, would the copy be just as good as the original after 1000 scans? No, it would be worse. The fact that God made everything perfect in the beginning with Adam and Eve, and they eventually had kids who had kids and so on, I’m surprised we’re here today to talk about it. If we find problems today, that doesn’t call for the question of “why did God make it this way?” it calls for “how did it get this way?” God did not make the world as damaged as it is, God created a perfect world and man wrecked it. What you’re saying is the equivalent to taking a picture of a wrecked car and sending it to the manufacturer yelling at them “WHY DID YOU MAKE A WRECKED CAR?!” They didn’t. They made a fully functioning car and someone else destroyed it.
“Not finding fossils doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt the theory.”
-I’ve been saying that the whole time, but eventually it will diminish if nothing is found. Just like my example of finding purple apples/oranges. You can say it exists at rare times, but if you don’t ever see it, why believe it? Eventually it’s influence degrades over time.
Interesting, what is this “mountain” of evidence? I’ve heard that term quite a lot. Let’s expand on it.
There’s been quite a lot of common animals found in “old” layers. That’s why evolutionists had to come up with something to explain it. Such as alligators/crocodiles. “Oh they were like that for millions of years, that’s why we have them today, they didn’t evolve anymore.”
Aside from that, there’s every reason “not” to report something that harms the assumed credibility of evolution. People who have been in the line of fire to find evidence in support of evolution are in risk of losing their jobs if they find evidence contrary to it. If people find anything against it, they wont even report it for fear of losing not only their jobs, but funding as well as some becoming outcasts due to it (if memory serves me correctly from past research) and therefore not very easily finding another job.
“It’s a scientific fact”
-News flash, science can’t answer everything, so saying it’s “scientific fact” doesn’t hold too much water since it’s not a universal standard.
“…whales aren’t fish”
-…I’m speaking generally.
Man, if you really want proof against the idea that we were intentionally designed this way, just look at our spines. We are NOT designed to be bipedal, and our bodies fight it and break down because of it all the time. It’s fascinating when you really study it.
That just proves my above comment. Feel free to read it.
Really? You do know that our bodies were meant to be quadrupedal, right? This isn’t even about fossil evidence (though it overwhelmingly supports it), it’s about the confusing curvature of our spines and the vast amount of hip problems humans suffer as a result of adapting to bipedalism. So I guess your argument would have to state that a designer designed us as quadrupeds and then we messed it up by standing on our feet… or would you just ignore the quadrupedal evidence altogether and say that the designer created us the way we are now and boo to science? Because I really don’t follow your logic at all.
“You do know that our bodies were meant to be quadrupedal, right?”
-No, that’s your assumption. In order to “know” what our bodies were meant for, you’d have to be there in the beginning of human existence to discover it.
It’s true we have problems today. Backs ache, things start creaking, we eventually go from young and “invincible” to old and vulnerably “bruisable.” It’s important to know that with all the problems we have in this world, God did not create it this way. You’re looking at a wrecked world (one that we created to be honest) and saying God made a mistake or using that as evidence that God didn’t create this world and/or doesn’t exist. This is not the way God made it. God made a perfect world and man wrecked it. What you’re doing is essentially looking at todays world in the sense of looking at a wrecked car, taking a picture and sending it to the manufacturer (creator) and yelling at them about why they made a wrecked car. After all, that’s just stupid! Well, they didn’t make it that way. They made a perfectly functioning car just as God made a perfectly functioning body and we wrecked it.
Not only that, but lets use common sense here. If you copy a copy and copy that copy then copy a copy of that copy and so on, is the 1000th copy going to be as great as the original (for example, you and I compared with Adam and Eve)? No, it’s going to be worse. If we find that we’re having problems today, that would logically indicate that we’re the copies of the original people in the beginning and simply aren’t as perfect as them.
Yeah, you have no idea. Siiigh.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_02.html
Last two sections are very important. But you’ll probably discount it on some ridiculous ground, so it’s kind of pointless to science at you. Just… please drop that bulls**t car analogy. It’s wrong and stupid.
So basically you’re saying that G-d would have made us quadrupedal then. The spine is meant to be like a suspension bridge, holding everything up horizontally, and our ancestors “f**ked it up” by standing upright a very long time ago. It has nothing to do with age or deterioration. It has everything to do with the basic function of the spine and how we go entirely against it by standing upright. This explains the S-shaped curvature, as well as big toes, foot arches, and enlarged leg joint surfaces. I don’t have to have “been there” to see that our bodies are adapted, not designed. So unless you think Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Australopithecines, your claims don’t add up.
And please drop that car analogy. It’s not doing you any favours.
Man, you only say thing without arguments. PLEASE START USING ARGUMENTS, GHANDI!
@TealDear
Wow, that’s just way too amusing. “Drop that bulls**t car analogy. It’s wrong and stupid”
-Ok.. How is it wrong and stupid? Just because you insult it doesn’t make it wrong. I could say you don’t exist because you’re stupid. Do you suddenly disappear out of existence? No, so explain yourself if you have the explanation.
“So basically you’re saying that God would have made us quadrupedal then.”
-No, you’re saying that. If I’m implying it, then by all means point out where the implication is. You constantly saying/asserting it doesn’t make it true and makes for a terrible argument fit for a 3 year old. I’ve explained why things can be what they are today but you ignore it and continue to go on saying everything supports your idea after I’ve already answered why it seems that way. If you have nothing to add because there’s nothing to add, then silence yourself and be on your merry way.
If something is wrong, explain it. Don’t assert it. If this were court, you would’ve lost a long time ago.
@Godhatesyou
Same to you. If you’ve got an argument to refute what I’ve said, then make it clear and explain yourself. If you have nothing but insults then I would “logically” conclude that you have nothing to say and divert away from that.
man, this ICWUDT guy is a dumbf**k
One who simply insults another as an argument is only an implicit admittance that they have nothing to say in response to what I’ve explained.
In short, it’s a cop-out to defend oneself of their beliefs, and I’m sorry you have nothing to defend yourself with other than insults.
God bless.
“How is it wrong and stupid?”
Cars aren’t living creatures that procreate.
Cars are designed though, and yet less complex than any living thing, so it stands to reason that life is designed and therefore has a designer as well. I never said cars lived and procreate.
I know you didn’t say they did, but that’s why your analogy breaks down.
Cars are designed how *WE* want them to be.
The mutations that cause evolution are random. We didn’t get to choose to be smarter. Elephants didn’t choose to be bigger, and cheetahs didn’t choose to be faster. The selective pressures of the region made it so that the smarter apes survived, the bigger elephants survived, and the faster cheetahs survived.
If nature had selected for the stronger apes to survive, rather than the smarter ones, we wouldn’t be here today.
That is so much different from how new cars produced, I really don’t see how you people continue to use that s**tty car analogy.
“Cars are designed though” YES
“and yet less complex than any living thing” YES
“so it stands to reason that life is designed and therefore has a designer as well” NO
The ability to live and procreate absolves living things from the requirement for a “designer”.
That’s a very arrogant statement isn’t it? How is it that once it comes to reproduction, the analogy is false? First, the analogy still fits even with that feature considering it’s being produced continually by factories and they are all still individually designed. Second, using the first explanation, how can you be sure each and every one of us isn’t designed just because we reproduce? That isn’t evidence against a designer, that’s evidence for one since everything with information has had some origin of intelligence.
God bless.
I have no proof of how the platypus came to exist. A WIZARD DID IT. Hallelujah
But according to Wikipedia, the anthropic principle seems to actually argue against your point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). Then again, I didn’t read past the first few lines coz tl;dr and also – Wikipedia, right? Who knows.
Anyhow, I thought the whole anthropic principle thing really just meant that the reason we’re here is because we are; there’s no big explanation, if it were some great, fantastical reason for us being here then we wouldn’t be, very simply. Or something?
I just think it’s sad to see someone who would rather continue in ignorance than take correction.
p.s. I don’t think any religious or non-religious affiliation has a corner on that market.
I’ve been in this same situation, correcting completely made-up “facts” on social networks, and have lost “friends” (yes, teenage American girls) because of how angry the truth made them, no matter how polite I was about it. Most of what these girls would post were common legends that were easily corrected using snopes.com.
You can’t trust anything that bleeds for 7 days and doesn’t die!
The average menstrual cycle is less than 7 days.
Hahaha owned.
dont read this!!!! sciene is poison god made evrythign so stop feeding what the devil gives you if u read your BIBLE it tells you everything you need to know
every1 should make a promise to go 2 chruch on sunday it will change ur life
I’ve been staring at my screen for 5 minutes trying to decide what I can possibly say that will make you realize what an idiot you are. Sadly, my words cannot do this comment any justice..
Spiffy doesn’t recognize sarcasm. Who is the idiot?
It had to be done
Yes, it will add 2 hours of misery to an otherwise average week, and remove 2 hours that you could have spent doing something productive or relaxing. That’s definitely a change.
Going to church, and getting to know the people there, are the things that convinced me that christianity is based on falsehoods and hypocrisy.
u dont need 2 make up words to sound smart, genious. if u would stop being lazy u would here this tthing from church: GOD IS KING
How old are you? Seriously, you sound like an immature little kid. Let people believe what they want to believe. If you are were truly confident in your religion, you wouldn’t need to try to turn other people to it.
Oh wow, falsehood and hypocrisy, such big words, what do they meeeeeeean?
Double Rainbow?
Katy. You are an embarrassment to Christians everywhere. I’m assuming you’re not TRYING to sound like a a-hole, but you’re seriously coming across as one. You won’t change anyone’s mind about going to church sounding like a petulant child. In any case, churches will not change people’s lives. Someone has to make the conscious choice to better themselves and become a good person. Church is more of a support group in making that change. But not a necessity.
Yay, just what people need, more fodder for believing that everyone who isn’t an atheist is a complete idiot.
I’m not religious, but I love theology and religious studies. And I’ve met MANY highly intelligent deeply religious people. But people continue to believe that morons like this are representative of an entire group of people. Sigh.
“And I’ve met MANY highly intelligent deeply religious people.” Only because they were brainwashed from childhood. If religion weren’t spoon fed to people while they’re as young and gullible as possible a “highly intelligent deeply religious person” would be virtually impossible to find.
Brainwashing is actually the perfect term for it! Have you seen video footage of fundamentalist Muslim schools where the young boys are rocking front to back constantly while nothing but the Koran is drilled into their minds every day–no math, no history (at least not any TRUE history), no science….just the Koran and hatred of the great Satan (the USA). At least most Christians only get their dose for an hour or two each Sunday. And some also have Saturday nights, Wednesday nights, and summer bible school to reinforce the brainwashing. Yay.
If anything, that should show you what happens when you’re taught the wrong thing. Since science cannot answer everything and the results are taken by faith, it’s quite accurate to say science can and does get a false conclusion. As such, I question why certain science should be taught in school (certain science, not science in general. Don’t get me wrong here, I enjoy science as much as the next person (until it comes to chemistry..ugh..), but there are things in which they are simply wrong about).
Not to mention, have you ever met a highly RATIONAL deeply religious person?
Quite a lot actually.
I don’t know about that. I came to Christianity “because” of the evidence for it. Even though I was taught it throughout my life, I was as close to agnosticism as anyone could be but still being a Christian in the smallest sense. I dreaded going to church and eventually I didn’t know what to believe. All I did was research it and I’ve found my calling. To answer questions and objections people have towards it because I was once like them. Unknowing.
All it takes is some research, but for those who don’t care to and would rather object and rebel against it, be my guest. For those who want answers to questions, I’m a database for them. I don’t know everything, but I can answer a majority of the questions people normally ask.
I see we have the old “I used to be an atheist until…”
Research is the one thing you didn’t do. Or, in the very least, the right kind.
Close to agnosticism, nowhere near atheism. If you’re going to insult me, at least get your information right.
Also, if I haven’t done the research, explain where I lack it. I’m tired of everyone just asserting something and expecting it to be true. If all we have to do is assert something for it to be true, then I can say you’re a purple banana and *poof* all the sudden you are one.
Reading Answer in Geneis and Discovery Institute material does not consistute “research.”
My, my we’re arrogant aren’t we?
No. You thinking you know better than hundreds of years worth of research because you read the bulls**t put out by AiG and DI that has no scientific merit is arrogent.
Every single one of their arguments (i.e. the arguments you’ve been cut/paste here) have been bedunked as completely unfounded hokum.
“You thinking you know better than hundreds of years worth of research because you read the bulls**t put out by AiG and DI that has no scientific merit is arrogent.”
-After you read the following below, you’ll see why I’ve lost the small amount of respect for you I had.
“Every single one of their arguments (i.e. the arguments you’ve been cut/paste here)”
-Now that takes the cake. If you can cite where I supposedly copied the arguments from these websites that I, in fact, typed up by hand from my own knowledge on the subject through research which didn’t even include AiG or DI, then I would be extremely impressed.
I agree with you Molly. It makes me nauseous when people act like this. It makes religious people look bad. My parents are Roman Catholics and really amazing people that are well educated. Very open-minded and respectful of other religions and beliefs.
Thanks for the supprt everyone. Thanks Dryer(Spiffycamel) for posting this. Sorry if I was in any way inaccurate on the first two points. I got my information at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=582 and at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=398 I figured they were reliable being from cornell. The third point is what came to mind when I first read the comment and I put it in because 1)I wanted to make three points haha and 2)I didnt want to be too mean because I really don’t know the girl well. I hope everyone had a great winter solstice, and I hope you all have a wonderful Festivus.
Braxton, I think I love you.
I live at 6,000 feet above sea level. We’re more than a mile closer to the sun at high noon, so people burst into flames all the time up here! Especially when they climb tall ladders. God is truly amazing.
She said she didn’t ask for that comment. I say she did, the very moment she posted that status.
To be fair to the poor idiot, I was actually taught this in public grade schools back in the mid-80s. It was, of course, later expanded upon to reflect more accurate science (i.e. it was the oversimplified version they gave us as young kids). But if you don’t take the right classes later on in high school, it is entirely possible that a person might still believe this, religious silliness notwithstanding.
he mad lol
i disagree. she’s a woman, it’s her right to be wrong.
aaaand let the pms’ing start.
isnt he wrong aswell? as an earthquake wouldnt move the whole earth ten feet… plus she tried to state a fact thn said isnt god amazing..a contradiction in itslelf.
Pedant V Idiot deathmatch!
God IS amazing.
This is what when religious try to science.
This is what when sentence try to sense making.
What an idiot. I hate how people ignore science and replace it with religious views that make no sense. I love how this girl also got mad at him for correcting her. What an idiot.
She meant the orbit, I’m sure. That is actually fact. If the orbit was off by so much….. and so on. That goes to show how great our God is! PG, PG, PG!!!
Brandy, let me start off by telling you that I am also a believer in God. He is a friend and teacher and father figure to me. However, I also have many friends and family who are atheists. I know that repeating things such as, ‘God is good!!’ with smiley faces is exactly what an athiest laughs at. It completely shuts them off. I know you probably don’t mind it, but if you truly want to help people understand Him, being in-your-face about it has the opposite effect on what you’re trying to accomplish. Look up facts and if they are curious, tell them about your experiences with Him that cannot be explained by their facts and logic. I’m sure you know what I mean by that. He will shatter logic sometimes to show the lukewarm and call them back to Him. You’re right though, He is good.
Actually, we laugh at self-righteous twaddles like you.
NOT true. The orbit is the big ol’ ellipse our Earth rotates around the sun. As you read above (or did not read), the ACTUAL ORBIT OF THE PLANET could be a few dozen MILLION miles off and we’d be fine. If you need extra proof: If we orbited 10 foot further away, then the back side of the Earth at night would be 10 foot further, and the warm part in the say would be 10 foot further. Now ask yourself this: Is the Earth more than 10 foot wide? Yes? And yet there’s a 10 foot margin of life-or-death? No. Because if it was that tiny, then everyone on the backside of the Earth would be freezing to death in the cold inhospitable coldness of space.
Do /not/ say something is fact without ANY proof, evidence, or even SUGGESTION that it might be right. Who says that it’s fact? Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of science? No. I know it’s a no, because anyone that knows more than high school anything knows it’s wrong. You’d have to be quite literally RETARDED to believe that.
Someone commenting above said that, and she ran with it. To her, that comment makes it fact.
God is rated PG? I’m pretty sure he earned at least an R for the Old Testament.
Oh Brandy. Our orbit differs by millions of miles depending upon the time of year. You can know that to be true and still believe in God.
Well, at least he was polite! Unlike the follower of “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild”. Egos… where’d I put that hatpin?
Wow, I’ll be freezing to death in the bottom of my river, then.
I love how she says, “Don’t ever tell me I’m wrong again!”
Just goes to show how tough it is to reason with people like her.
500th comment woot
The Earth rotates. The Earth is more than 10 foot wide. Anyone with a brain larger than a walnut could figure out on their own that what they were hearing was point-blank retarded.
Stop getting your scientific facts in the way of my religion! The world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the world is only 6,000 years old, all humans and animals were created exactly as they are now and have never changed at all!!!!!
Close, but stereotypical mocking troll is fail. You get a 50% seeing as you got 2 out of 4 right. (The last 2).
I lol’ed. Hard. The fact that according to your “bible” (A known acronym for “Book intended (for) brainwashing lesser entities” the first human was a grown up man, and the 2nd generation were born as babies, shows SOMETHING changed from the moment of creation
Must you stick to retarded views until a senile old man with a pointy hat decides he must accept change or lose followers to scientific advance? (As was done with earth not being flat and the sun not turning around earth)
Change is imminent, it’s the form of change and what it represents that’s the debate.
Like… evolution?
Evolutionary change requires vast amounts of change to turn something into something it’s not (Like a dog into a fish).
Creational change simply shows that variations are possible but not enough so to turn something into something it’s not (We get all variations of dogs (Poodles, Great Danes, Bulldogs, etc) but all the variations of dogs aren’t turning into fish or birds. They’re dogs…)
Evolution change represents different aspects than to what Creational change represents. As such, as I said before and will reiterate, the debate is which is true and by what do they represent?
Science is based on evidence, not debate. We’ve known evolution is true for a long time now. We have the evidence, you don’t.
Anyone who thinks there’s really a debate anymore about evolution is just flat out stupid. The evidence from ERVs to paleontology, to geology, etc. only makes sense in the light of evolution. Creationism does not.
“Science is based on evidence, not debate”
-And debates are how we get information from both extremes to see which on holds up best against scrutiny and supports the most/best amount of evidence.
“We’ve known evolution is true for a long time now”
-Depends what you mean by evolution. Do you mean evolution as in long/grand-scale changes over billions of years? Or short/small-scale changes over the short periods of time we’ve been able to study it?
“Anyone who thinks there’s really a debate anymore about evolution is just flat out stupid”
-All I’m doing is thinking critically. The more critical I thought, the less evolution made sense. Sure, through grade-school it makes sense because they brainwash you from day one. In kindergarden they teach you about how dinosaurs lived “millions” of years ago. So you already think it’s true whenever you learn more about it and we’re only taught one side of the argument. As far as I’m concerned, since science can’t know our origins due to our finite capabilities as human beings, we should be given the opportunity to learn the evidence of both sides and have the students decide which seems best.
“The evidence from ERVs to paleontology, to geology, etc. only makes sense in the light of evolution. Creationism does not.”
-ERV’s (or “pseudogenes”) have been shown to have more and more uses the more we study them. In fact, a study was shown that when taken out of lab mice that they died soon after (about a week if memory serves correctly). Not only that, but the very reason that they persist in existence just shows that they implicitly have a use (since manufacturing on the molecular level is very energetically costly, if evolution were true, our bodies would get rid of useless data. The fact that they persist just shows they’re active). These pseudogenes have been shown to act as backups or decoys for the primary genes. It draws infections towards it so the original information is safe, and even if the original gene is destroyed, the pseudogene takes it’s place. It’s quite amazing.
Even though these ERV’s are in the same places as monkeys, this only shows we need them in the same place. Similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestor. It can just as easily prove common designer.
So what does evolution make sense of that creation does not? I’ll be sure to answer your questions and/or objections.
God bless.
“And debates are how we get information from both extremes to see which on holds up best against scrutiny and supports the most/best amount of evidence.”
No. You use peer-reviewed journals based on scientific experiment. It’s not a matter of debate. You either have the evidence or you don’t.
“Depends what you mean by evolution. Do you mean evolution as in long/grand-scale changes over billions of years? Or short/small-scale changes over the short periods of time we’ve been able to study it?”
Word salad…. there’s only one kind of evolution. The billions of years one which shows through multiple disciplines of science that all life decended from a common ancestor about 3.5-4 billion years ago.
“All I’m doing is thinking critically.”
No, you’re not. You’re ignoring observed and established scientific fact so that you can keep your beliefs in the Bible. That’s the opposite of critical thinking.
“since science can’t know our origins”
ROFL. Yes, we can thanks to genetic markers.
“we should be given the opportunity to learn the evidence of both sides and have the students decide which seems best.”
I’m all for that so long as you come up with actual evidence. “God did it” is not a valid argument in science.
“ERV’s (or “pseudogenes”) ”
ERVs are NOT pseudogenes.
“since manufacturing on the molecular level is very energetically costly, if evolution were true, our bodies would get rid of useless data.”
That would be true if it weren’t for the randomness of mutations. The junk DNA that doesn’t have a real effect means it’s less likely for a mutation to happen in the genes essential to create a living creature, so while it is costly to have a 3 billion base pair long DNA strand, it means the ~150 mutations we get during the combination of our parents genes are unlikely to be in places of importance. This makes having junk DNA a benefit, not a detriment despite the energy cost because you’re more likely to even be born.
“The fact that they persist just shows they’re active”
Incorrect conclusion based on false premise.
“It draws infections towards it so the original information is safe, and even if the original gene is destroyed, the pseudogene takes it’s place.”
Complete hokum. ERV insertions are random.
“Even though these ERV’s are in the same places as monkeys, this only shows we need them in the same place. Similarity does not necessarily prove common ancestor.”
More hokum. Gene placement is generally irrelevent (with the exception of certain motifs) especially since ERVs are generally inactive, it doesn’t matter at all where they are.
Not only that, but it this also doesn’t explain things liek BDVs which go much further than just the “great” apes. BDVs are found in the equivalent places in guinea pigs, elephants, squirrels, and many, many other creatures we’re cousins with, but we diverged from MUCH further back.
Even assuming you were right about ERVs (you’re not), that doesn’t explain BDVs or NIRVs.
“It can just as easily prove common designer.”
ROFL. No, it doesn’t. ERVs are caused by viruses that infect gametes. We know how they got there. You’re suggesting that is less reasonable than your deity put all of there on a whim and we’re completely wrong about the *observed* ability for viruses to infect gametes.
We would have to be completely wrong about everything we know about viral infection for your assertion (which has no evidence) to be correct against what we know as fact (based on mountains worth of evidence.)
That’s just silly.
“You use peer-reviewed journals based on scientific experiment. It’s not a matter of debate”
-Peer review all depends on the peer that’s doing the reviewing, and since it’s impossible to be unbiased on an issue of origins unless you have no knowledge of either arguments (which would render them invalid as a peer-reviewer), any peer-reviewer is going to be biased on what the paper is already about (evolution) and they wont allow creationists to be the peer reviewers because they’ve already decided creationists are wrong which eventually comes to circular reasoning. Peer-review papers don’t mean much my friend. It’s about what the evidence best supports, not who supports it.
“there’s only one kind of evolution”
-Considering evolution simply means “change” then no, it can have many meanings (about 6 when it comes to origins), but if you’re talking about biological evolution, then it’s narrowed down to 2. Either small change only, or big change through small change.
“You’re ignoring observed and established scientific fact so that you can keep your beliefs in the Bible.”
-And how am I doing so?
“Yes, we can thanks to genetic markers.”
-And what do genetic markers show that you believe is evidence for evolution?
““God did it” is not a valid argument in science.”
-If you can find where I said those words then be my guess, but I’ve never fallen back on that idea unless I’ve explained it logically as to why.
“ERVs are NOT pseudogenes.”
-Good, I’m glad you agree, because you see, I get far too many people saying ERV’s support evolution, then go on about pseudogenes as if they’re the same thing and it disproves everything I said. So for the benefit of this conversation, I’m glad we have established they are distinct from each other. I find it far too difficult to get an accurate story line from people who can’t get their stories straight.
“The junk DNA … [is] a benefit”
-Ergo, it’s not junk since it’s useful. That’s all I’m making a point for. Also, the more we study “junk” DNA, the more uses we find it has. Even removing them from mice resulted in death shortly after by a few days to a week. It’s far from junk, it’s quite useful.
“Incorrect conclusion based on false premise.”
-So what is the false premise and why? Every time I find a false premise I show it and explain it. Why haven’t you done the same?
“ERV insertions are random.”
-So wait, you’re saying pseudogenes and ERV’s are the same now? This is why I said they were the same in the beginning to see your reaction, hoping to get an accurate understanding as to if you think ERV’s are different or similar, but now I don’t know what to think, nor do I think you know either.
“equivalent places in guinea pigs, elephants, squirrels, and many, many other creatures we’re cousins with”
-Again, it doesn’t prove common ancestor alone. Similarity proves both our sides which is why we need to appeal to evidence outside of similarity. No one is going to get anywhere with similarity alone.
“NIRVs”
-Sounds buddhist.
“You’re suggesting that is less reasonable than your deity put all of there on a whim and we’re completely wrong about the *observed* ability for viruses to infect gametes.”
-What makes you think God just put them there? What disqualifies him from using this process?
“We would have to be completely wrong about everything we know…”
-Oh, yes you’re wrong about a lot, but more importantly you’re going on your finite knowledge of who God is and what God could or would be able to do and seeing something completely different which contradicts your idea of God so therefore, instead of concluding that you have a false premise, you conclude there is no God instead and you’re right. Considering the fact that we are finite and limited with a 3-pound brain, you need to be very careful before you start to dismiss something infinite smarter than you.
As far as I’m concerned, we’re done here. Based off of what I read regarding the inflection you put off through your choice of words depicting frictional attitude I can tell you’re not here to gain knowledge of my side as I am of your side which can only mean we’re wasting each other’s time. As such, I bid you farewell and hope you come to the realization that some things regarding what you believe to be evidence for your side can be the result of false assumptions and therefore false conclusions as I have demonstrated.
God bless.
“Ergo, it’s not junk since it’s useful. That’s all I’m making a point for. Also, the more we study “junk” DNA, the more uses we find it has. Even removing them from mice resulted in death shortly after by a few days to a week. It’s far from junk, it’s quite useful.”
No scientist has ever said it wasn’t useful. Quite the opposite in fact. The term “junk dna” was coined in a paper written in 1972, “So much junk dna in our genome”, written by Dr. Susumu Ohno. In the paper he writes that term “junk” comes from the fact that these sequences are non-coding, meaning the base pairs are not translatable. He then goes on to cite at least 3 different uses these sequences have in our genome, in the exact same paper. What he does *not* do, however, is write them off as being useless or unimportant.
Of course you would know this had you read any *actual* research papers or studies done by actual researches in the field. But once again you display your vast ignorance on the subject. Next time try reading what the *actual* evidence says.
Let’s assume you’re right. Then God must have planted Carbon-14 in the earth, and made its half-life to suggest that the earth is billions of years old. So, either you’re wrong about the earth being only 6000 years old, or God intentionally rigged the decay of isotopes to trick us. Which would you prefer?
First, the half-life of C14 is said to be about 5000 years, that’s your first false premise. Second, C14 is said to be measurable up to 60,000 years, then it’s too finite to count, so the oldest anything can be using Carbon dating is 60,000 years, not billions, that’s your second false premise.
To defeat your point, C14 is constantly in production today and it’s number is increasing all the time. Why is this important? Because C14 is said to take 30,000 years to reach an equilibrium point (just as much C14 is decaying as is being produced). Since it hasn’t because it keeps rising, that means it hasn’t reached equilibrium which would stand to say that the atmosphere is not more than 30,000 years old. What’s more is scientists say it’s only 1/3 of the way through it’s cycle. This would stand to reason the atmosphere is no older than 10,000 years old. This is no problem for the creation view, but it’s every problem for the evolutionary view which requires billions of years.
Since we can see this would show the earth is young, not old, your argument saying I’m wrong about the earth being young/6000 years is false. Even if it wasn’t, your second conclusion is also false. God told us exactly what he was doing in the beginning. Just because he may create something mature doesn’t show at all that he’s lying. He told us exactly what he was doing from chapter 1 of Genesis. God said he created a man; not a child, but a fully mature man (probably about 20-30 years old) even though he was seconds old. Did he deceive us? No, because he told us exactly what he did.
In conclusion. Not only is everything false (your premises and logic along with your conclusion (since false assumptions bring false conclusions)), but it proves the contrary.
God bless.
So, I’ve got this star that’s a few million light years away. Care to tell me how its light travelled all that way, in spite of the constant speed of light, in your young earth model?
As the previous comment, I’ll discuss the false premises in your post first.
First false premise you have is that light is a constant when it actually isn’t. It can be slowed to a complete stop and accelerated 300 times it’s assumed constant. It can be warped by gravity (as well as time itself, this is why satellites need a special timing system since they’re further away from the earth’s gravity so time is different). Also, if the universe is curved and warped rather than perfectly straight, then if you take the Euclidean calculations of universal distances and transfer them to non-Euclidean measurements (such as Riemannian math which is curved) then even the farthest starlight can reach earth in about 15.71 years.
Second false premise, just because something is assumed to be millions of light years away, does not make it that old. You seem to misunderstand the fact that God included maturity in his creation. When he created Adam he didn’t create an infant, he created a man even though he was seconds old. He also created light before creating stars/suns so there’s no reason he didn’t already have the light in place.
To use these premises, we’ll look deeper into some information. How did they get that the light was millions of light years away? The most reliable method scientists use is parallax trigonometry. This is to say they take measurements of a star from the extreme ends of the earth’s orbit (taking a measurement from 1 month, then wait 6 months later to get to the opposite side of earth’s orbit and take the same measure) the theory is they’ll get an interception of these 2 lines-of-sight and using trigonometry calculations of 186 million miles (base of the triangle; being the earth’s orbit from one end to the other; 2 AU’s) and whatever the angle of the base to the star was.
It sounds all well and good, but here’s the problem. Let’s take your “constant” light again for a moment and say it’s at a set speed. If you do the calculations, you’ll notice that to measure just 1 single light year is as equal as having 2 observation points 10 inches of part (this representing the opposite sides of earth’s orbit for measurements) and looking at a dot 5 miles away (this representing the star we try to measure). That’s a ratio of 1:31,605 (2 AU’s:1 LY)! This is just 1 light year. That would make a pretty skinny triangle. Now I’ll say you can maybe measure 100 light years. I’ll say 1000 if everyone stops crying. But there is no way anyone can measure millions and certainly not billions of light years.
In conclusion, I’m not going to argue that the stars aren’t millions and billions of light years away. Who knows, they might indeed be that far away, but the way we measure that is faulty and to say the light being that faulty age does not mean it’s that old since God created maturity. Since we don’t know if the universe is straight or curved yet, as such, we can’t be certain if light takes millions of years to reach us, or if it simply takes almost 16 years at most.
There’s a lot we have to learn, but what we do know is that nothing validates old age, but everything validates young age.
God bless.
“First false premise you have is that light is a constant when it actually isn’t”
Yes it is. Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second (that’s 186,000 miles per second or 671 million miles per hour or 12 trillion miles a year). Light *always* travels this speed through empty space, or vacuum.
“It can be slowed..”
True. When light travels through an atmosphere or a transparent medium, it does indeed slow down.
“..accelerated 300 times it’s assumed constant”
Ok. Wow. This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read.
While it its possible to accelerate light *when it travels through a medium*, it CANNOT be accelerated pasted its (c) constant that it travels at in a vacuum. And in fact it is impossible for it do so. If the spatial distance between between event A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by (c), then we have frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. if, however, something were traveling faster than (c) relative to an inertial frame of reference, then it would in essence traveling back in time relative to another frame. This would violate causality as an effect would be perceived *before* its cause. And this has never been observed to be possible. So no, you cannot accelerate light faster than its constant (c).
“It can be warped by gravity..”
Technically gravity has no affect on light itself. Gravitational fields warp space and the light photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field.
“as well as time itself, this is why satellites need a special timing system since they’re further away from the earth’s gravity so time is different”
The reason satellites need a special timing system is because of the *speed* at which they are traveling not their distance from Earth’s gravity. As Einstein’s theory of relativity shows us, time for an object slows the faster that it moves in space. The satellites are moving at rough 70,000 miles per hour. This is sufficient to cause their internal clocks to be off by a fraction of a nano-second compared to our time.
“if you take the Euclidean calculations of universal distances and transfer them to non-Euclidean measurements (such as Riemannian math which is curved) then even the farthest starlight can reach earth in about 15.71 years.”
Please show your math, because I’m calling b.s. on this.
“just because something is assumed to be millions of light years away..”
Mathematical calculations are *not* assumptions.
“does not make it that old”
It does since light does indeed travel at a constant in vacuum of empty space.
“God included maturity in his creation.”
Unsupported biblical conjecture.
“He also created light before creating stars/suns so there’s no reason he didn’t already have the light in place.”
More unsupported biblical conjecture.
“..186 million miles (base of the triangle; being the earth’s orbit from one end to the other; 2 AU’s)”
Just a slight quibble here. They actually only use 1 AU for the actual measurement for the base of the triangle, not 2.
“whatever the angle of the base to the star was.”
Again slight quibble. They’re using angle of the parallax displacement of the star’s *apparent* position.
“If you do the calculations, you’ll notice that to measure just 1 single light year is as equal as having 2 observation points 10 inches of part and looking at a dot 5 miles away.”
Where are are you getting this apparently arbitrary distances from? In this representation, its the distance of the dot (what you say is 5 miles away) that we are trying to calculate.
“That’s a ratio of 1:31,605 (2 AU’s:1 LY)”
Again please show your math because these numbers are WAY off. How in the hell is 2 AU’s a ratio of 1 LY??? 1 light year is 12 trillion miles. Light travels across 173 AU’s a day!
“But there is no way anyone can measure millions and certainly not billions of light years.”
We can, we have, and we do.
“In conclusion, I’m not going to argue that the stars aren’t millions and billions of light years away”
It seems you can’t argue much of anything, as your *apparent knowledge of astronomy is just as poor as your knowledge of biology.
“Since we don’t know if the universe is straight or curved yet, as such”
Actually we do know. The universe is both flat and curved. If you would like learn more about how we know this, then I invite you to read the works of theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss.
“we can’t be certain if light takes millions of years to reach us”
We can. The math does not lie.
“if it simply takes almost 16 years at most”
Until you show your math, this is just laughably absurd.
“what we do know is that nothing validates old age, but everything validates young age.”
And yet, you have not presented one piece of evidence that supports. You again just keep asserting it.
If light can be altered by gravity, then it’s not constant. Time is also altered by gravity. And as I said in the previous comment, certain parts of space (as well as light) are curved, some may be straight. Light could be far, or it could be closer than we think. We don’t know. What we do know is that different mathematics yield different results. They’re both viable, but only if we know *exactly* what we’re dealing with. Space is full of mystery, and I enjoy studying it.
“it CANNOT be accelerated pasted its (c) constant that it travels at in a vacuum”
-If it can be altered by gravity, it could be faster (very rare) or slower. It’s not constant. Taking into account that gravity can effect it, depending on star size can have very significant effects in the long run as it leaves the star alone, regardless of what it encounters on the way.
“So no, you cannot accelerate light faster than its constant”
-You might want to read the science articles that I might arrogantly assume you would take all information of things like this from. You can do a Google search and find it on the first page I’m certain.
“Technically gravity has no affect on light itself.”
-It’s nice to learn something new every day. My point is it’s still effected in the presence of gravity.
“Please show your math, because I’m calling b.s. on this.”
-I’m not a mathematician, but I can give you the sources. Primarily by Niessen, Richard who reviewed several articles came up with the 15.71 after looking through the following information:
1) Harold Slusher – “Age of the Cosmos” 1980.
2) Wayne Zage – “The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,” Mathematics Magazine 53, 1980, pg 289-293
27 binary stars were observed and it appears light travels in curved paths through space.
“Mathematical calculations are *not* assumptions.”
-When it comes to parallax trigonometry of star distance, I’m quite certain it is.
“It does since light does indeed travel at a constant in vacuum of empty space.”
-You missed my point entirely. I urge you to go back and re-read it carefully.
“[+More] Unsupported biblical conjecture.”
-Unsupported as in, I didn’t provide a verse? If you want I verse, the part concerning light before the sun/stars is in the very 3rd line/verse in Genesis (Gen 1:3). Then it says he created the sun, moon and stars in a later verse. The part concerning man is Genesis 1:27. 6th day of creation, fully mature man. Could walk, talk, and get married all on the first day of his life.
“Where are are you getting this apparently arbitrary distances from?”
-Converting 1 light year into the miles travelled in that year gives an equal equation/ratio (unit-wise) of AU’s to LY’s in order to gain an accurate measurement.
“Again please show your math because these numbers are WAY off. How in the hell is 2 AU’s a ratio of 1 LY??? 1 light year is 12 trillion miles. Light travels across 173 AU’s a day!”
-That’s not what I meant by the ratio. I mean the distance of earth from one side of the sun to the other (2 AU’s) compared to the distance of 1 light year (1 LY). The ratio is 1:31,605 but to gain a better understanding, this is approximately 186million:5,878,625,373,184 (all in miles) This is to say 5.8 trillion miles divided by 186 million miles is 31,605. Thus, giving the ratio of 1 to 31,605 and 10 inches between 2 observational points looking at something about 5 miles away (or 16 inches apart and about 8 1/3 miles away).
“We can, we have, and we do.”
-Then you must know something I don’t, do explain.
“It seems you can’t argue much of anything, as your *apparent knowledge of astronomy is just as poor as your knowledge of biology.”
-I find it funny that everyone says something like this before I even have a chance to respond to your criticism. How arrogant are you? You might as well be talking to a mouse if you just want to be right about everything without conflict.
“We can. The math does not lie.”
-I’m not saying math lies. People do though. All the time as a matter of fact, but I’m not saying scientists are intentionally lying, rather they’re using a faulty method which gives them false information to where they think it’s true. Just like you can think you’ve got the right answer in a math class (I’ve been through it a lot) but you never know if you’re wrong until it’s pointed out and why it doesn’t work.
“Until you show your math, this is just laughably absurd.”
-Until you give me a chance to reply, you might as well not comment to a lone sentence of no other importance rather than to soothe your ego.
“you have not presented one piece of evidence that supports. You again just keep asserting it.”
-And you’ve just asserted that I’ve been asserting as well as yet to give me a chance to respond (until now).
I enjoy conversation like this because I learn what other’s think and their knowledge on the subject. I read a lot of books, but I still don’t know everything on every subject, nor will I ever be able to. That’s why I do this, but you’re arrogance and ego leaking off of nearly every sentence is becoming unbearable. If you can converse without.. *that..* then please do. If not then I’ll gladly speak to you if you have a translator for rudeness.
God bless.
“If light can be altered by gravity, then it’s not constant”
As I said in the last post, gravity *only* affects the space on which light travels on. The *speed* at which light travels is NOT affected by gravity in the slightest. It remains at its constant. Photons have no mass, so they are not affected by gravitational fields, only the space on which they move through is.
“Time is also altered by gravity”
Time is also relative to the observer. This means the speed of light always remains constant in relation to the observer that is observing it.
“If it can be altered by gravity, it could be faster (very rare) or slower. It’s not constant. Taking into account that gravity can effect it, depending on star size can have very significant effects in the long run as it leaves the star alone, regardless of what it encounters on the way.”
You might wanna read posts as a whole before starting your comments. It will greatly help when you begin your criticisms. As I said before, gravity does *not* affect the speed of light.
“You might want to read the science articles that I might arrogantly assume you would take all information of things like this from. You can do a Google search and find it on the first page I’m certain.”
I could only find two relative articles on the subject, so if neither of the articles I’m about to mention are the ones you’re referring to so please refer me to the one you mean.
The first one is a wikipedia article on “Faster-than-light”. However the article specifically says that this is a still a hypothesis, meaning it hasn’t been demonstrated at this time to be practically possible. Even tachyons which are said to be able to achieve ftl speeds are still hypothetical as no evidence for their existence as been demonstrated. The article also specifically notes “This is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since:
* Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information.
* Light travels at speed c/n when not in a vacuum but traveling through a medium with refractive index = n (causing refraction), and in some materials other particles can travel faster than c/n (but still slower than c), leading to Cherenkov radiation”
The second article was about photon tunneling. This seems to be the most promising in regards as to which article you were referring to. I would like to read more on this before commenting in detail, but I do have an initial impression on the subject (which is just from a quick overview of a view articles on the subject mind you). First I never could find how *exactly* they achieved the tunneling process itself. But based on the descriptions of the results and observations, it seems just be a variation on the “wormhole” or “warp drive” concepts in which it is the space around the object moving and not the object itself. So it wouldn’t be a violation of the speed of light rule as its space that’s doing the actual moving, that is if this is actually what happening during photon tunneling. I could be wrong in my initial impression though.
Second, Aephraim Steinberg, who is a quantum optics expert at the University of Colorado, states that this does not violate the theory of special relative, which is where the speed of light constant rule comes from, cause this is merely giving the appearance of ftl travel.
“It’s nice to learn something new every day. My point is it’s still effected in the presence of gravity.”
No it isn’t. As I’ve said numerous times now, gravity does not affect the *speed* light photons at all. Only the space through which they travel.
“Primarily by Niessen, Richard who reviewed several articles came up with the 15.71 after looking through the following information:
1) Harold Slusher – “Age of the Cosmos” 1980.
2) Wayne Zage – “The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,” Mathematics Magazine 53, 1980, pg 289-293″
I’m not familiar with Niessen or Zage, so I won’t comment on there work until I’ve had time to look over it in more detail. (However I do find it odd that you would get your source from Niessen since he has no mathematical or astronomy degrees *at all*. This evident in his article when states that Alpha Centauri is the nearest start to us. Its not. Proxima Centauri is. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away, while Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years. So doubt Niessen can be held as a “credible” source)
Slusher, on the other hand, I can comment on. His book “The Age of the Cosmos” is filled with fallacious arguments. One example of this is in his chapter regarding Olber’s paradox. He dismisses the expansion of the universe as the solution to the paradox by stating “However, the expansion of the universe has been challenged on a number of counts.” That’s it. He gives no mention as to examples of these challenges, who they are made by, or any information on them. He merely dismisses the expansion of the universe and reaches his conclusion of the universe being young, without any supporting evidence as to *why*. This is an extremely dishonest tactic.
“When it comes to parallax trigonometry of star distance, I’m quite certain it is.”
Parallax triangulation is a very well understood process and very accurate. And when distance errors do occur, which is usually a result from small angular parallaxes, we have equations to compensate for them.
“Unsupported as in, I didn’t provide a verse?”
No. Unsupported as in you gave no evidence as *why* we should hold the verse to be true.
“I find it funny that everyone says something like this before I even have a chance to respond to your criticism. How arrogant are you?”
You wanna talk about arrogance? How many times have you arrogantly proclaim that I have “faith” in my “belief” of evolution and science in general, when I specifically told you I do not? And yet continued to argue that I do! That’s arrogance. How many times have you arrogantly proclaimed I.D. to be science and *not* provide any evidence to support it? How many times have you arrogantly stated humans as being *designed* and not tell me how it was that you reached this conclusion? How many times have you arrogantly argued to people that “you can’t claim poor design without knowing the intentions of the designer” or “you can’t call a line crooked without knowing what a straight line is”, but when I ask you then what does a non-designed human would look like or how it function differently, you are surprisingly silent? Why is that? Why can you not answer these questions? Why don’t you hold your own claims to the same standard that you impose on others?
“-Until you give me a chance to reply, you might as well not comment to a lone sentence of no other importance rather than to soothe your ego.”
When you argue math and not show the entire process you used to get your results, then I’m going to call you on it. Show the entire process the first time, then I won’t have any need to comment.
“And you’ve just asserted that I’ve been asserting as well as yet to give me a chance to respond”
The point was that you gave no evidence for the assertion in the first place. You merely proclaimed it to be so.
“you’re arrogance and ego leaking off of nearly every sentence is becoming unbearable”
Pot. Meet kettle. You have displayed your arrogance numerous times, stemming from the very first post from you that I responded to. I even gave some of these example above.
“If you can converse without.. *that..* then please do”
Perhaps you should follow your own advice before advising others.
You guys need f**king lives.
Aren’t you sweet <3
“However I do find it odd that you would get your source from Niessen since he has no mathematical or astronomy degrees *at all*”
-Because, after all, all truth is dependent on degrees. I’m aware it would give more credibility, but you don’t need degrees to think about these things. If he’s wrong, then feel free to contact him if you can and show him where. I personally haven’t researched *everything* in excessive depth because I can only read so much so fast, which is why I’m here. I now have a lot of information to study about light travel (which is only 1 out of 2 false premises to the point of my primary argument in the first post that you’ve gotten distracted from it seems) that rather interests me should I choose to get greater involved in the topic.
“His book “The Age of the Cosmos” is filled with fallacious arguments”
-And if in a latter year I happen to have an interest in Astronomy as I had in high school, then I’m certain I’ll read it and decide that for myself.
“Parallax triangulation is a very well understood process and very accurate.”
-I’m sure it is.. for a certain amount of light years. That’s why I’ll say it’s accurate to about 100 lights years at best, and I’ll give you 1000 just to cover all bases, but there’s no way it covers millions and certainly not billions of light years as I’ve explained. The way of measuring one light year is about 31,605 times that of the diameter of our orbit. That would make a very skinny triangle (the base being 1, the 2 sides reaching out being 31,605). This is just 1 light year. So again, I’ll say they can measure 10, maybe 100, and just in case, 1000, but there’s no way it can measure millions or billions. If you’d like to explain how, that’d be lovely.
“Show the entire process the first time, then I won’t have any need to comment.”
-That wasn’t the point of my comment. I had already heard previously about what you said, and since the sentence had no other informational meaning other than to restate the same informationally meaningless comment you had already said before, for the purposes of saving time, you might as well not state it again to waste both our times (typing it out and reading it just as I’m typing this pointless message and you’re having to reading it).
“You have displayed your arrogance numerous times”
-Because I’ve been backing my side up, you merely deny it. But I’ll cut you some slack as this could be viewed mutually from both parties.
“..but you don’t need degrees to think about these things”
This is true. However it does help in knowing whether or not what you are thinking about is accurate or not. For instance, if Niessen had actually studied astronomy he wouldn’t have made the amateurish error of mistaking Alpha Centauri as being the star closest to us. He would have known that Proxima Centauri is actually our closest neighboring star. Of course had he submitted he work to peer-review, then the mistake would have been caught early on. But as we know, creationist and I.D. proponents don’t like that nasty peer-review. LOL. Darn those scientists, correcting mistakes and what not; making sure that the information being provided is accurate and correct. So you’ll forgive me if I prefer to get my information for people who have actually studied the subjects they talk about.
“This is true. However it does help in knowing whether or not what you are thinking about is accurate or not.”
-That’s essentially what I said, you even took this from the same sentence explaining what you just said:
“***I’m aware it would give more credibility,*** but you don’t need degrees to think about these things”
Other than the above, unless you’ve got anything else to say from my previous comment involving the math I’ve done with parallax trigonometry and if it’s faulty or not, then I’d say we’ve concluded this part.
“That’s essentially what I said, you even took this from the same sentence explaining what you just said:
“***I’m aware it would give more credibility,*** but you don’t need degrees to think about these things” ”
And in the following sentences I wrote after that, I showed how some of what he “thinks” is just flat out wrong. Had his “thinking” been based on actually studying astronomy, then he would have known it was wrong.
You’re kidding, right? Please, for the sake of humanity, be kidding.
There is no faster route to Atheism than by reading the Bible!
Reading it incorrectly anyway.
Seriously, give up. You’re like an atheist stalker.
How could it be read incorrectly? Is there a definitive list on all things literal and metaphorical in your bible?
Why does Jesus have two geneologies (only one of which makes him the Messiah)? Why is the creation story told differently twice in the same book? Where’d Cain’s wife come from? Why is there evil in the world?
I mean, I almost want to call Poe’s Law on this. It’s like you took every tired theist argument in existence and brought them here, then got all pick-and-choose with your arguments, hand-waved the others, and claimed victory.
You’re either a very stupid theist or a very smart atheist.
I’m simply correcting everything that’s false. Are you saying we shouldn’t know the truth and I should instead allow you to live in falsehood? Interesting…
Jesus doesn’t have 2 genealogies. You’ll have to explain why you assume that if you want a specific answer.
The creation story is set up like a newspaper (If I understand your question correctly). The first chapter gives the headlines of what happened in the 6 days of creation, and the second chapter gives the details. They’re not contradictory, they support each other and give more details as to what happened. For example, It says in chapter one that God created man and woman on the same day. In chapter two it says they were created different times. Is this contradictory? No, it supports both of them. They were created the same *day,* but they also were created different *times* of that day.
Adam and Eve had many kids. Cain married one of them.
The “why” questions when it comes to God and his judgment are rather difficult for us to understand because we’re not God. Our most intelligent men of today do not even meet up to the level of intelligence for God to be considered stupid. Something very important that we must understand is that there are compromises for a specific design. In the case of evil in the world, let’s think of other possibilities.
1) God could create us without capability of sin. This would rid us of free will. This would make us robots in a sense and any relationship we had with God would be meaningless. In the beginning he made Adam and Eve innocent, but gave them the option to choose good or evil. So far, we can see evil is our fault.
2) God could intervene and negate evil. For example, if someone accidentally fell off of a 10 story balcony, then he would have to intervene and have them be safe rather than dying from impact. In this reality, God would be a terrible father to us. There would be no good or bad consequences to actions and as such, people would just become more sinful and destructive to themselves and God.
3) God could remove the bad people. The problem here is there would be no one left because no one is good. We all sin and we all commit evil acts. All evil (big or small, regardless of how evil one person is to another) is destructive and wreaks havoc.
God’s desire is that we would obey him, that it might be well with us (Deut 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way and then we blame God for not doing anything about it.
If I’ve made any mistake or error as you imply by throwing in Poe’s law, then by all means, point out the error. However, what I see is a person who would rather say I’m wrong and waste time asserting it rather than explaining why. This only indicates to me that you lack the ability to do so, and I wish you the best.
God bless.
You know you’re an atheist stalker when
1) you’ve replied to nearly every atheist on this giant comments page, and
2) you argue against the guy who just called you an atheist stalker.
Good to know. I’m just looking for people to back up what they say/believe. Are you saying people shouldn’t challenge others on the basis of finding the truth?
It was a joke. Laugh. You take everything too seriously, even my suggestion to make a formal talk page.
atheism + science FTW
humanity can be so stupid sometimes.
Obviously fake. Otherwise she would’ve deleted the comment.
Perhaps it was taken before (s)he could/did delete it.
I think I dated this chick once …
It makes me sad to see people that stupid.
GEEZUS!!! So much flame-warring!!! WHY CAN’T WE ALL BE FRIENDS AND ENJOY THIS LADY’S FAIL?!
Because there are fails in the comments that are just as bad.
^ TL;DNR ^
anyways, FACT: Some people believe too much bullcrap, religious or not
Wow. I wonder just how many of these fails are done by women? Women are just stupid. And before you get all defensive ladies, go read all the fails.
Um chauvinistic pig say what?
He’s hungry. You shouldn’t be on the web dearie.
For everyone saying that i believe in god… I WAS BEING SARCASTIC!!!! ITS IMPOSSIBLE THAT GOD COULD DO THAT, ONLY SCIENCE CAN!
You aren’t Michelle xD
Christians, all of your blather about anything doesn’t change your fundamental fail. To be a Christian, you have to accept the idea that the torture and crucifixion of an innocent human being was a righteous act.
Your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God created a situation in which the ONLY solution was to slaughter someone? You see, if I were an all loving being I wouldn’t REQUIRE the torture and murder of my own son (or myself in human form..again..the differences in which flavor or Christianity you choose amuse me) in order to provide salvation.
No matter how you want to spin it, your God, if he exists, set it up so that the only way he would provide salvation to humans is if a crucifixion occurred. Sorry, that is a fundamental failure in basic morality or logic.
Oh, and on top of all that you have zero evidence to back up your claims. Merry Christmas (which is a pagan holiday btw, Jesus wasn’t born on Dec 25th even if you believe the bible)
“To be a Christian, you have to accept the idea that the torture and crucifixion of an innocent human being was a righteous act.”
-That’s called sacrifice.
“Your supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God created a situation in which the ONLY solution was to slaughter someone?”
-No, “we” created that situation and implicit solution with it. Luckily for us, God has a back-up plan every time we do wrong. Christ is the final line though, and it was only by God’s grace and mercy that he sacrificed himself for his creation. It saddens me to see that so many people die “for” their god(s) when God has already died for them.
“You see, if I were an all loving being I wouldn’t REQUIRE the torture and murder of my own son (or myself in human form..again..the differences in which flavor or Christianity you choose amuse me) in order to provide salvation.”
-It’s good to see that you’re human then, but the fact of the matter is, human sacrifice was the only appropriate sacrifice. Anything less wouldn’t be appropriate. We sinned, therefore we needed a sinless substitute to take our sin debt for us and pay it for us. We also need a willing sacrifice because it’s immoral to sacrifice an unwilling person. Jesus lived a sinless life, was born without sin nature, and willingly died for us so we might be justified in him.
“Sorry, that is a fundamental failure in basic morality or logic.”
-Again, good to see you’re human and thus finite as we all are.
“Oh, and on top of all that you have zero evidence to back up your claims.”
-That’s a pretty arrogant claim to say before allowing anyone to answer your objections.
“Merry Christmas (which is a pagan holiday btw, Jesus wasn’t born on Dec 25th even if you believe the bible)”
-While it’s unknown why the early church decided to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25, the most probable cause is that some pagans around them would much more easily come to Christianity if the time of celebration of the year were similar, so they adopted a similar day.
Regardless of this, does it really matter what day we celebrate the birth of Jesus? No, not as much as we celebrate God’s gift to the world in the form of Jesus, our savior, period. Jesus was probably born in spring, there’s many lines of evidence to support this, but what’s important that we celebrate his birth. There’s nothing theologically necessary to support the exact day just so long as we celebrate.
God bless.
It’s funny you want to say WE are the faulty ones, yet if we are to believe what you believe, your God CREATED us this way and knew in advance everything that would happen, and decided to do nothing about it, but instead chose to be bloodthirsty and make the most “appropriate” solution a human sacrifice. Again, you’re not winning any points with your comments because God is the one who is supposed to be the one who creates what is “appropriate”.
By your own admission, he arbitrarily decided that human sacrifice would be “appropriate” when he could have chosen ANY OTHER ACT as “appropriate”. Therefore, by your own admission, your God is a bloodthirsty savage who enjoys torture and crucifixion. Thank you for proving my point.
And again, I’m still waiting for actual EVIDENCE that Christianity is actually true.
“It’s funny you want to say WE are the faulty ones, yet if we are to believe what you believe, your God CREATED us this way”
-He created us *with the choice* of good or evil. It was entirely up to us.
“and knew in advance everything that would happen, and decided to do nothing about it”
-Yes, he knew everything in advance. Perhaps that’s why he had a plan to bail us out and redeem ourselves every time we failed, hmm? Adam and Eve failed, so God set up a plan for us to redeem ourselves (after the flood, we were to build a government and expand, instead we built a tower (The Tower of Babel) to be confined in one place), when we failed that plan, he had another, and another, and another. Now, we’re at Christ’s first coming (after this, the last will be Christ’s second coming in which there will be no more chances, God has given us plenty). We can choose to accept the free gift he’s given us or not. Personally, I don’t see the point in turning down a free get-out-of-jail-free card.
“but instead chose to be bloodthirsty and make the most “appropriate” solution a human sacrifice.”
-Yup, it’s pretty sad that we let it out of control and get to that point isn’t it?
“Again, you’re not winning any points with your comments because God is the one who is supposed to be the one who creates what is “appropriate”.”
-Again, you’re not winning any points by assuming you’re right before even allowing me to respond to criticism. But that’s human nature I suppose.
“By your own admission, he arbitrarily decided that human sacrifice would be “appropriate” when he could have chosen ANY OTHER ACT as “appropriate”.”
-He could’ve chosen anything, but then you’d be going on about the fact that it’s not a necessary sacrifice! You see how nicely woven this is? This is why it’s important to do things right. Does it not make sense that the sinless must be paid for sin? I would think so, it doesn’t seem to make sense paying sin with sin (paying debt with debt). That’s like paying a loan with a loan. You didn’t get anywhere, you’re still in debt. God had to do things very specifically. If I’m wrong in my logic here, please point it out.
“Therefore, by your own admission, your God is a bloodthirsty savage who enjoys torture and crucifixion.”
-No, by simple logic, we know exactly the worthy sacrifice he sent and the grace and mercy it showed to submerge himself down to our level in order to save the unworthy sinful creatures he created.
“And again, I’m still waiting for actual EVIDENCE that Christianity is actually true.”
-Then why are you fighting the above subject? I can show that you’re wrong and everything you object to (so far) is shown to knit together, but if that’s not going to be evidence to you, then what exactly is? More importantly, if the above conversation wont prove anything, why are you arguing against it?
“He created us *with the choice* of good or evil.”
No, it’s quite clear from your theology he created us sick (original sin) and commands us to be well. That’s pretty sick.
“Yes, he knew everything in advance.”
So, not only does he make us “sick,” but set up Adam and Eve with the knowledge so they’d end up that way and then punished them for it? That’s even worse.
That’s like putting a plate of cookies in the middle of the floor full of toddlers and then spanking them all when they take one.
“Does it not make sense that the sinless must be paid for sin? I would think so, it doesn’t seem to make sense paying sin with sin (paying debt with debt). That’s like paying a loan with a loan. You didn’t get anywhere, you’re still in debt.”
No. As I explained before, that entire bit of the story is disgusting. No moral person would find that reasonable.
“No, it’s quite clear from your theology he created us sick (original sin)”
-Original sin resides with Adam and Eve and as such, everyone after them would have this *original sin.* We were discussing the original sin itself and the choice Adam and Eve had to choose it.
“but set up Adam and Eve with the knowledge so they’d end up that way and then punished them for it?”
-No, again, they had the choice to choose good or evil and they chose evil. Just because God knew the future event that would come to be, it does not dictate ones actions. When I see my little cousin eyeball a jelly sandwich (which he loves) I know he’s going to ask me to make him one. Surely enough, he does. Did I make him take it based on the idea that I knew he was going to do it? No. He chose by his own free will, and it’s ultimately our free will that decides what happens. God has ordained the future to where our choices are like second causes. He may know the future, but it doesn’t dictate our actions. Rather, it’s the opposite.
It’s amazing to consider that he’s been able to provide a back-up plan for whenever we fail to do what he asks of us. I’d get on board before the ship sails my friend.
“As I explained before, that entire bit of the story is disgusting. No moral person would find that reasonable.”
-It doesn’t matter if *you* see it the wrong way it’s intended. I’ve explained the previous persons misunderstandings already. You’re free to view it however you want, just like you’re free to disbelieve gravity, but once you step off that cliff, you’re going to realize just how real it really is and how futile your disregarding of the fact is as well.
God bless.
“We were discussing the original sin itself and the choice Adam and Eve had to choose it.”
Not really. If God knows everything, he set them up to fail just so he could punish them.
In addition, sorry, even if that story weren’t a myth, I’d still not be responsible for the sins of my ancestors. That’s complete nonsense told to control people.
“No, again, they had the choice to choose good or evil and they chose evil. Just because God knew the future event that would come to be, it does not dictate ones actions.”
God still would have created them that way on purpose… he set them up to fail. There’s no way around that if he knew what was going to happen. He should have made a snake that couldn’t talk, or not put the apple tree there… one or the other.
And where the hell was God while the snake was tempting Eve? If he knew everything was happening, why didn’t he step in and gone, “Noooooooo. *kick the snake away* Bullocks, bullocks, bullocks, bullocks! I’m God. Eating from that tree will kill you. And if a snake comes along, don’t listen to him because he’s a lying little s**t.”
“He may know the future, but it doesn’t dictate our actions.”
ROFL.
“I’d get on board before the ship sails my friend.”
LMOAROFLCOPTERLOL.
“It doesn’t matter if *you* see it the wrong way it’s intended.”
I’m just not as good at mental gymnastics as you are. My mind can’t twist enough to make something so insanely immoral into something good.
“just like you’re free to disbelieve gravity”
No, see, gravity can be proved to exist, unlike your deity.
Here’s a challenge:
Name a moral thing said or moral thing done by a person of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.
Name an immoral thing said or done because of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.
Let me know which list is longer…
“If God knows everything, he set them up to fail just so he could punish them.”
-You go ahead and believe that, but I’ve made my point clear regarding your false understanding of it. If you don’t have anything to say about it, then we’re done and this part of the conversation is concluded.
“I’d still not be responsible for the sins of my ancestors”
-You’re not, you’re born with a sin nature. You’re responsible for your own sins and you will be held accountable for them unless you give someone else the payment.
“God still would have created them that way on purpose”
-Yes, he created them *with a choice.*
“he set them up to fail”
-No, Adam and Eve *chose* failure.
“He should have made a snake that couldn’t talk, or not put the apple tree there”
-Then you would argue that they had no free will because they wouldn’t have the choice of evil. If there weren’t an evil in the midst of good, all there would be is good, ergo, no choice but good, ergo, no free will. You see how nicely woven everything is? But hey, that’s how we learn.
“If he knew everything was happening, why didn’t he step in”
-If God interfered with our choices, what free will is there? If he saved us from consequences, what’s there to stop us from doing the wrong thing and what benefit is there in doing the right thing? Again, look at how nicely woven this web is. I’m not sure about you, but I find it quite fascinating how intricate this is. I’d say God knew what he was doing in the beginning.
“I’m just not as good at mental gymnastics as you are.”
-No, you’re just confused and haven’t studied the word as much as you should.
“My mind can’t twist enough to make something so insanely immoral into something good.”
-Where have I turned the immoral into good?
“No, see, gravity can be proved to exist, unlike your deity.”
-Regardless that I personally find it hard to believe that there *isn’t* a God due to what I’ve found over the years, that wasn’t my argument. I said you’re free to “disbelieve” something (to not believe or disregard something regardless of if it’s existence is valid in reality or not), but once you go against the reality of it, you’ll only prove it’s existence.
“Name a moral thing said or moral thing done by a person of faith that a secular person couldn’t do.”
-It’s not the argument of whether you can do something someone else can. We’re all capable, but it’s more of what you *shouldn’t* be able to do (if there is no God and thus no standards), and yet it’s shown we can.
For example, we all have a sense of absolute right (and absolute wrong) in the world (in fact, it’s self-defeating to say otherwise). If there is no God, and therefore no standard, then there’s no absolute rights and no absolute wrongs. Everything is relative. However, we condemn people for doing the *wrong* thing. We say it’s unfair, unjust, and not right. If this were the reality of the world, then teachers should be able to grade on whatever they choose because there’s no such thing as a universal understanding of unfair, unjust, or right/wrong. If you do a project of your choosing over the growth of octopi, then the teacher can grade based on the color of your folder if they so choose to since it’s all relative. His right/wrong is not your right/wrong, but we understand there’s a universal standard, then this cannot be the case and it’s obviously ridiculous to think otherwise.
If there is no standard, then your question is false from the beginning (which is to say, you admit the existence of absolutes/rights and wrongs/morals just in the implication of your question). You show this by assuming there are morals that distinguish someone of faith than to a secularist (in other words, there’s a standard), but if there are no distinct morals, then it’s all relative in which case your question is meaningless because your morals would not be equal to mine so there’s no controversy regarding what you morally can or can’t do compared to what I can or can’t do.
We’re done here. God bless.
Have you heard of secular morals? They do exist.
For example, I find it wrong to steal from my neighbor because I’ll most likely get caught by the police, and people won’t trust me as much, something I’ll absolutely need in the future.
It might not be the best one, but you get my point: people can have morals with just reasoning.
If g(G)od existed, I’d rather be forced to do the right thing than be given the choice to refuse the right thing and then get punished in hell or purgatory for accidentally going the wrong way. And did you notice the moral differences in your religion between past and present, e.g. attitude towards slaves? How can there be a moral standard if it changes with time? Don’t tell me that you’re no longer bound by the Old Testament because the church says God did lay those laws on his people in the past, and I’m wondering why he would change the rules (morals). Unless the New Testament didn’t actually disapprove of slavery, in which I would question how that would be moral today.
“Have you heard of secular morals? They do exist.”
-Your example just proves universal morals. It’s wrong to steal.
“people can have morals with just reasoning.”
-You’re example proves otherwise. There’s always a reason. Yours was that you would get caught and suffer negative consequences. People don’t do the wrong things for no reason, there’s always something people think of in order to justify doing the wrong thing.
“I’d rather be forced to do the right thing than be given the choice to refuse the right thing and then get punished in hell or purgatory for accidentally going the wrong way.”
-Then you would be a robot, subject to what God told you and he could tell you to not care about the wrong which would negate your statement. There are compromises to a particular design, and the one God wanted required an all or nothing scenario.
You also have a false concept of free choice. You have the will to choose good or evil, right or wrong (etc.), but all choices have consequences. Good choices have good consequences and vice versa. If you choose bad choices, then you’ll get what you’ve asked for. It’s not so much punishment as reaping what you’ve sewn which might as well be punishment since that’s certainly what it would feel like. You’re aware of your options, it’s your choice where you will end up, so choose wisely because you’re going to be dead a lot longer than you’re going to be alive.
“Don’t tell me that you’re no longer bound by the Old Testament”
-Depends what you mean by that. If you mean the Old Testament is technically worthless then you’re wrong, but if you mean that the Old Testament law no longer bears weight on us by means of where we end up after death, then you’re absolutely right. Christ said he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. Christ lived the perfect life for us so we, as finite and imperfect human beings, didn’t have to since we lacked the ability to do so in the first place. This does not nullify the Old Testament, but makes it’s power of where we end up after death null and void so long as our faith is with Christ. It’s still a useful tool to learn from and abide by, but if we fail in upholding it, it’s not the end of the world for us.
God bless.
“Your example just proves universal morals. It’s wrong to steal.”
lol I just said it’s wrong to steal, but wtvr. So what? I was using the more general definition of ‘secular’: unrelated to religion. My point was, yes, saying “because g(G)od says it’s morally wrong” is a reason, but MY reason didn’t include g(G)od.
“People don’t do the wrong things for no reason, there’s always something people think of in order to justify doing the wrong thing.”
First, that’s a comma-splice. Second, and more importantly, since when was everyone moral? Some people do weigh the benefit of the crime to outweigh the punishments, and, as it turns out, such people exist. Even with religion, people manage to justify such things to themselves. And then there are the immoral people, who find nothing morally wrong with stealing. They’re not necessarily ignoring g(G)od; they could just be unreasonable.
Besides, can’t I be good for goodness’ sake? Again, I’m not saying the religious can’t be that way, but I usually find that not to be the case (after all, you do believe in a threatening hell and a rewarding heaven).
Lastly, there are plenty of situations when the ‘right’ decision is anything but obvious. What if, after critical thinking, I still in the end make a wrong decision, when I think it’s right? Am I going to be punished?
“Then you wold be a robot….”
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Would you rather be forced to do the right thing all the time, or commit countless sins, most of which you don’t know about or intend to commit, and burn for countless years? I mean, it’s not like you’ll feel pain for eternity while doing what’s right.
Another thing about the robot: That’s not true. In almost all cases, there isn’t just one right and one wrong choice, but rather numerous or countless of each. You will still have choices.
I didn’t quite word that right: by “Some people do weigh the benefit of the crime to outweigh the punishments,” I meant “Sometimes some people feel that the benefit of the crime outweighs the punishments….”
Have a good day.
I don’t know if my comment can be seen yet since it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation,” because my above comment doesn’t make sense without it.
“That’s called sacrifice.”
No it’s not. If all I had to do was endure a Jesus’s life and become a (supposed) right had of the supreme ruler of the universe, I’d do that.
If he went to hell for us, that’d be a sacrifice.
“No, “we” created that situation and implicit solution with it…”
Ummm… he’s God, he’s supposed to be able to do anything. He should have just snapped his fingers.
“It’s good to see that you’re human then, but the fact of the matter is, human sacrifice was the only appropriate sacrifice.”
No. No human sacrifice (or animal for that matter) is never a appropriate action.
“We sinned, therefore we needed a sinless substitute to take our sin debt for us and pay it for us.”
No. I never asked for that (not that the Jesus story ever did… I bet you couldn’t even tell me what year he was supposedly born in), but I wouldn’t have allowed it to happen in the first place. I’m more moral than that. I don’t accept being indebted to someone for something they chose to do nearly two thousand years before I was born.
Sorry, assuming the story is true, I still wouldn’t accept the debt my ancestors would owe. It doesn’t work that way.
“That’s a pretty arrogant claim to say before allowing anyone to answer your objections.”
Prove what year Jesus was born in, and I’ll start going to church again.
“While it’s unknown why the early church decided to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25″
Actually, it is quite well known. Thanks to the political climate at the time and the Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the empire. Just as you explained yourself, Christianity started to adopt pagan festivals and rituals and symbology to make it easier to get pagans to convert… it was a political choice to make it in December, not a religious one.
And it goes way beyond that. Why do you think we have Christmas trees dispite the book of Micah specifically saying don’t have them? Why do you think the main holidays fall on the solstices and equinoxi (equinoxes?). Christmas is celebrated at the Winter Solstice. Easter is celebrated at the spring equinox. Do you realize that EASTER is the same pronounciation of Eostre, the pagan god of firtility and THAT is where we get rabbits and eggs from, because they’re symbols for that god and firtility?
The 3 kings part of the story… do you realize that’s refering to the 3 stars on Orion’s belt (which were called the 3 kings) and it is a reference to thier placement near the horizon that they came to “greet” him?
“Regardless of this, does it really matter what day we celebrate the birth of Jesus? No, not as much as we celebrate God’s gift to the world in the form of Jesus, our savior, period. Jesus was probably born in spring, there’s many lines of evidence to support this, but what’s important that we celebrate his birth. There’s nothing theologically necessary to support the exact day just so long as we celebrate.”
Honestly it DOES matter. We don’t know the day he was born, or the year. There are no contemporary writings of the guy, and every miracle attributed to him was done by someone else first… virgin birth, healing the blind, raising the dead… done by gods long before Jesus.
It should make you question the validity of his very existance, let alone if you make that assumption, you still need to prove he actually was the son of God.
Seriously, that just shows a complete lack of awareness for your religion.
“No it’s not. If all I had to do was endure a Jesus’s life and become a (supposed) right had of the supreme ruler of the universe, I’d do that.”
-You say it as if it’s easy and simple to do. Have you lied before? Yes, we’ve all lied one time or another, therefore we are not like Jesus in that alone. If you’ve broken the Old Testament law in one way or another, then you cannot be of any use as a sacrifice because as I said before, it’s like paying a debt with a debt.
“If he went to hell for us, that’d be a sacrifice.”
-That would contradict the sacrifice. He “paid” for our sins. Taking our sins upon him, a sinless substitute. He lifted us up by raising himself up, similar to pulling someone up once you’ve gotten onto the high ledge. He walked the path for us so we wouldn’t have to do it considering none of us “can” do it. His sinless life pays for our sinful lives. When we give him our sin, it doesn’t taint him, it cleans us.
“He should have just snapped his fingers.”
-He could have indeed, but then there would be no negative consequences to our actions which would result in us being more sinful and destructive than ever. That’s not the reality God wanted. If he did, he would’ve created it that way in the first place. You’d also probably be attacking the idea that God’s a wimp and bad person allowing us to do the wrong things without us paying the consequences.
“Prove what year Jesus was born in, and I’ll start going to church again.”
-There’s no theological reason to *know* his exact birth. Just as it’s not necessary to know his exact death (even though evidence would say it was probably April 3rd, 33 AD). What’s important is what it meant to the world.
“Christianity started to adopt pagan festivals and rituals and symbology to make it easier to get pagans to convert”
-I’m aware they adopted the day of year to help convert pagans, but what others were adopted might I ask? This is interesting to me.
“Why do you think we have Christmas trees dispite the book of Micah specifically saying don’t have them?”
-Oh I’m well aware of what it says, but it seems to me you have a different understanding. Could you site the verse and we’ll see if it fits your claim.
“Do you realize that EASTER is the same pronounciation of Eostre, the pagan god of firtility and THAT is where we get rabbits and eggs from, because they’re symbols for that god and firtility?”
-I’m aware, but what you seem to be unaware of is that the origin of something does not always dictate it’s future meanings. Times change, just like when gay meant happy and cool meant not hot. Back then, it may have had pagan meaning. Today, it’s the day of celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The importance of Easter is to focus on Christ. Are we focusing on/thinking of the pagan traditions of the past when we say “Easter”? No, when someone says Easter, if anything, Christianity comes to mind in some form. Tubal-Cain was an artificer of brass and iron (Genesis 4), does that mean whenever we make brass or iron that we’re secretly worshipping Tubal-Cain or one of the first times of brass and iron? No.
The origins are not as important as the focus.
“he 3 kings part of the story… do you realize that’s refering to the 3 stars on Orion’s belt (which were called the 3 kings) and it is a reference to thier placement near the horizon that they came to “greet” him?”
-Same as what I listed above, but if you truly study the star of Bethlehem you will find some of the most extraordinary things you can find in the stars. The man on the website I’m about to list has researched the star of Bethlehem for several years (if not a few decades) and you would be amazed at what he’s discovered. I urge you to research his work. The 3 kings are but one of the puzzle pieces put together. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/
“There are no contemporary writings of the guy”
-And there’s multiple reasons for that. For one, the population was illiterate so it wasn’t necessary. Second, they thought Jesus would return soon after he rose to heaven. After a bit of time went by, they realized they needed to write it down and it wasn’t until the early church started sending letters to each other that it forced them to write it down (communication). There’s much more to that, but its been a while since I reviewed it so I’m uncertain about a few things.
“and every miracle attributed to him was done by someone else first”
-They each are distinguished though. They may be similar in some aspect (just as the flood of Gilgamesh was to the flood of Noah) but they have they’re differences that distinguish them as original. Again, here the origin is unimportant. What matters is do they distinguish themselves from each other enough to be original.
“It should make you question the validity of his very existence”
-Oh, you need to do a lot better than that to make me question the evidence stored for Jesus. Even historians believe he existed. That’s not the question. The question is whether or not he did what is said he did, and I believe he did.
“Seriously, that just shows a complete lack of awareness for your religion.”
-And your anger and arrogance leaking off of every sentence just shows the hostility of yours. I’ll be praying for you.
God bless.
“I’m surprised you don’t know that “Jesus” isn’t his real name”
-Jesus was called by many names: Yeshua, Immanuel, Christ, Messiah, and so on. Just because I use the name “Jesus” out of the number of names doesn’t make me wrong. I also don’t see anywhere in the comment you posted that indicates I didn’t know. Just as usual you’re just trying to pick a fight that you can’t win because you lost once you replied. Regardless of how old you really are, I encourage that you do a little growing up. Stop corrupting yourself and you might enjoy life a little (if not a lot) better. Consider kindness over anger and you might have better relationships between people. I converse with Ben on this comments section because he’s calm and we can have an intelligent conversation. You on the other hand have no desire to do so but rather just throw insults left and right, in which case I have no desire to converse with you unless you have a change of heart and return with a more mature stature.
Strengthen your will against your problems. Deny the necessity to be negative and think more positively and you’ll have a much more fulfilling experience in life.
God bless.
His real name was “Joshua”.
That’s one of the translations of his name, yes. Some others are Immanuel and Yeshua. They all mean the same thing.
God bless.
Is “Yeshua” how they pronounced todays version of “Joshua”? I guess it kind of sounds similar. I’ve just heard that his actual name was “Joshua”.
Depends what language you’re speaking in. Whether it’s Greek, English, whatever, there’s different names for the same person. Just like the english name “Phillip” is still Phillip in Spanish, it’s just pronounced “Felipe.” There’s also names that are only symbolic, such as Immanuel which literally translates to “God with us.” Jesus was Immanuel as well.
God bless.
I love you <3
Hey, don’t make fun of religious people. Religious people have faith which is better and more powerful than things like science and facts.
/snark
Oh, like this?
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”
- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
Not only did you misinterpret it from the version you got it from (for example, it doesn’t say rape because it doesn’t mean rape), you really should study the culture of that day. If you make the correct observations, you will come to the correct conclusion.
The most important observation that not many people understand is the fact that we are not bound by the Old Testament law. The law was to show that we are incapable (as finite, sinful, imperfect human beings) of keeping it’s commands. This is what required a savior so we would be justified by faith (in Christ) rather than a law we are doomed to fail trying to obey.
“The most important observation that not many people understand is the fact that we are not bound by the Old Testament law.”
What about the ten commandments? Sorry. You don’t get to cherry pick the bits you like, especially when Jesus said to keep all the old laws.
“The law was to show that we are incapable (as finite, sinful, imperfect human beings) of keeping it’s commands. This is what required a savior so we would be justified by faith (in Christ) rather than a law we are doomed to fail trying to obey.”
Your brain can do the most amazing mental gymnastics. I love reading you stuff just to see the convoluted reasoning you come up with just so you can keep your beliefs.
“What about the ten commandments? Sorry. You don’t get to cherry pick the bits you like, especially when Jesus said to keep all the old laws.”
-I’m not cherry-picking. You are right that Jesus said to keep the old laws by saying he didn’t come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. The point of Jesus was so that we would be justified by faith, not by the law. It doesn’t make the law nullified, but rather, it’s power over us is nullified provided we are justified by faith in Christ. It should still be followed and obeyed as Jesus followed and obeyed it, but the good news is we’re not bound by the perfect following of it 100%. We’re doomed to fail it, that’s what called for a savior. The only difference is when we fail, our justification is Christ.
“Your brain can do the most amazing mental gymnastics. I love reading you stuff just to see the convoluted reasoning you come up with just so you can keep your beliefs.”
-You know what I read there? “You’re stupid, deal with it.”
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. If this were court then you would’ve just lost the jury/judge at this point. They don’t work off of insults, they work of the evidence to back up their claims. If I could just claim something and have it be true then I could just say I have billions of dollars and never have to work again. So if I’m wrong in my *mental gymnastics* as you so call it, then please do point out the error.
God bless.
WTF are you talking about?
“You are right that Jesus said to keep the old laws by saying he didn’t come to abolish the law, but fulfill it.”
So, he should be stoning gays and killing disobedient children…
“The point of Jesus was so that we would be justified by faith, not by the law. It doesn’t make the law nullified, but rather, it’s power over us is nullified provided we are justified by faith in Christ. ”
What the hell does this even mean? It’s gibberish.
“It should still be followed and obeyed as Jesus followed and obeyed it, but the good news is we’re not bound by the perfect following of it 100%.”
What the hell are you even babbling about here? There’s no where Jesus says we’re not supposed to follow it 100%. You’re just making crap up now.
“We’re doomed to fail it, that’s what called for a savior.”
Oh great… they we’re all sick and commanded to be well bit again…
“The only difference is when we fail, our justification is Christ.”
That’s right. Forget personal accountability… we get to blame it on Jesus.
Reminds me this story of a kid that wanted a bike, so he prayed for it, but then he realized God didn’t work that way so he stole one and prayed for forgiveness.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to remove personal accountability for morality as you are here. If you do something wrong, it’s your own damn fault. Isn’t that what you’ve been saying this whole time, that’s it’s personal choice? How the hell do we get to just blame Jesus now after the fact?
“If this were court then you would’ve just lost the jury/judge at this point. They don’t work off of insults, they work of the evidence to back up their claims.”
Ummm… that is what I was saying… you’re twisting around everything to an untenable assertion without evidence. You’re the one who wouldn’t stand a chance in court, because your explanations hold about as much water as a fish net.
“So if I’m wrong in my *mental gymnastics* as you so call it, then please do point out the error.”
I have been. Your mental gymstastics is how you’re dismissing everything or coming up with an absolutely absurd explanation for something immoral to be moral because it’s something your diety did… like human sacrifice of Jesus and Jephthah’s daughter, or the genocide of entire civilizations which included taking slaves and raping the virgins.
It’s absurd.
“So, he should be stoning gays and killing disobedient children”
-No, because due to his sinless sacrifice, they can be forgiven for the wrong things they’ve done according to Old Testament law. When men brought a woman who had disobeyed the law to Jesus (basically to challenge him), they said she went against the law, so what were they to do? Jesus said a phrase you might be familiar with, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” They eventually left because none were without sin.
“What the hell does this even mean?”
-I don’t answer questions to those with negative attitudes. If you honestly want an answer to your question, you don’t need the rude adjectives.
“There’s no where Jesus says we’re not supposed to follow it 100%”
-Did Jesus say that? No. *I* said we’re not bound by the *perfect following of it 100%* because Jesus fulfilled the law for us. So long as we put our faith in him, we are justified by that faith and no longer by the law.
“You’re just making [-] up now.”
-I know it’s a bit difficult to understand, but the Bible is not a kindergardener’s story book. It’s not meant to be fully understood in a few pages and taking a few minutes to read it. There’s a lot of information it covers, that’s why it’s usually at least 1000 pages in any translation.
“That’s right. Forget personal accountability… we get to blame it on Jesus.”
-How is that blaming it on Jesus? Jesus is our fallback for when we fail (which we are doomed to do so). And it has nothing to do with personal accountability. Yes, we’ve done wrong. Everyone has done wrong. It doesn’t mean we don’t know it or don’t accept the reality of it, it means we’re all going to pay a debt we cannot fully pay for eternity. Unless… we find a substitute. God was gracious enough to provide us with one.
“You’re the one who wouldn’t stand a chance in court, because your explanations hold about as much water as a fish net.”
-More assertions, not seeing any explanations of the complications.
“Your mental gymstastics is how you’re dismissing everything or coming up with an absolutely absurd explanation”
-What am I dismissing? What have you brought up that I haven’t answered? Why is my explanations absurd? How does it not hold up?
“like human sacrifice of Jesus”
-How does a sacrifice of God in the flesh of a human being not make sense with payment of human sins?
“and Jephthah’s daughter”
-There’s a lot to go through when understanding this part of the Bible. Yes it’s true that Jephthah vowed he’d sacrifice the first thing to go through his door if God gave him victory in battle and his daughter was first to walk through. However, there’s no indication afterwards that says she was sacrificed as a burnt offering. If anything, from Judges 11:37 it tells us she may have been granted to live, but roam (some people indicate through other lines of evidence that she may have been given to the tabernacle as a servant). Something you must understand is the Bible doesn’t approve of everything it records. Some things are to be examples of bad examples to show what happens when you do the wrong thing. Some is just history of man, and more. What we are to learn from the story of Jephthah is that he serves as an example to never make foolish vows/oaths. God tells us multiple times that he specifically forbids human sacrifice through many verses such as Jeremiah 7:31.
“or the genocide of entire civilizations”
-If you take time to read your Bible, you’ll notice God gives plenty of warning to these nations that he will judge them for what they’re doing. He gives them plenty of time to repent and turn to him. He tells them what they’re doing wrong and how they can redeem themselves. They chose not to through the multiple warnings he gave them (sometimes God waited hundreds of years for repentance), so God finally went through with the judgment he promised would happen if they continued in their ways. Where’s the absurdity in this? This is perfectly sensible and reasonable.
And you know that your observation is correct because…?
Because I’ve studied it.
Yeah, and that justifies everything. You can study a map for years and still not understand a thing about it unless and until you can answer questions like “Where am I according to this map?” and “What’s the perspective of this map?” If it’s a map of the stars, you need to know the latitude, longitude, and orientation (North?) from which the map was made, as well as your position on the Earth in order to reach that reference point.
Here’s some of my studying: truth-saves . com. It used to be my “Website” until it prevented me from posting any comments.
This is the most awesome comments section I have ever seen.
And in the end, even though I put myself in the argument previously- This is why we have religious wars. Because ultimately, people like to fight verbally. And when it isn’t satisfactory– Pull out the guns. Let’s see who has the biggest. In religious arguments its basically the same thing. Nobody is right or right with religion. It’s all a matter of belief. It really shouldn’t be something fought over- it should be personal.
well folks, a happy new year…i was just browsing thru the section wen i saw dis discussion and well ….i see some ancient argument still being fought out!!
period!!
for the record, i find religious righteousness creatively obnoxious and seriously nauseates me. Like people coming up and saying, The Lord is great and beautiful, look at the nature the flower blah blah blah…..
to them i wud like to say, that yeah i see the nature i see your flower. but i also see an african child sitting on a rehab center with a worm eating his eye out!! My my is God benevolent!!!! my head bows down to this Astral presence.
I wonder, if this is His benevolence what might his malevolence be!!
And what this about Eve failing!! Don’t you have sex!! Like Eve is someones ribs!! period!!!
some one commented that there is proof that actually Science’s proofs are false. Will you please respond to that!!!
religion gives faith true, gives a purpose to life again true. but it is like cancer. religion is sumthing we should be wary of. Coz’ anytime some one starts to shout about there God, someone else is bound to start My God’s better and loves me more!!!!
“yeah i see the nature i see your flower. but i also see an african child sitting on a rehab center with a worm eating his eye out!! My my is God benevolent!!!! my head bows down to this Astral presence.”
-Yes, I remember taking a picture of a wrecked car and sending it to the manufacturer with a note exclaiming, “Why did you make a car this way?!”
Confused? So am I when I read your comment. What you’re essentially saying is God created an imperfect and wrecked world. This is not the way God made it. God made a perfect world, and although manufacturers aren’t perfect, they make fully functioning cars to the best of their abilities. The fact that this world is not as perfect as it was just shows it was wrecked by someone (Adam and Eve). Don’t point the finger to the maker, it’s not their fault, it’s ours.
“some one commented that there is proof that actually Science’s proofs are false. Will you please respond to that!!!”
-Gladly. Science has given us knowledge for a lot of things, but it cannot be 100% reliable. The results and conclusions are taken by faith just as any other belief because science contradicts itself. If science were able to discover truth all the time, then it would be able to use the scientific method on itself to test if the idea that science discovers truth, is true. Since it cannot, it’s self-defeating, and any conclusions drawn from it’s methods are taken by faith as if they are true. Furthermore, science disregards information before even testing it which is illogical. It never was *science,* it was *sciencism* (the religion of science). I’m not saying science can’t answer anything, but it certainly is not reliable and the knowledge gained from science cannot be trusted off of science alone. It has to be exposed to new criteria beyond that.
Afterthought: Perhaps I should’ve just suggested that you read Richard Dawkins or something. Oh well.
1. If you don’t remember, somewhere up there you were saying how the Intelligent Designer must make compromises–hence, imperfections.
2. Science may not be 100% reliable, but it’s pretty close. In any case, it doesn’t mean religion is any more reliable.
3. “Furthermore, science disregards information before even testing it which is illogical.” Since when did science disregard information before testing? If you have an example, are you sure it wasn’t disproved with experiments before being discarded? If you’re talking about simplification, they do eventually add the other information back in, unless they’ve shown that it’s irrelevant to the situation. (The ideal scientists, anyway.) e.g. Gauss’s Law
4. Experimental results are “taken for faith” because it’s the best the scientists got, and they ARE willing to change their minds if contradicting evidence arrives. In other words, they’ll admit they’re wrong if you can prove it (not saying it’s easy to admit), whereas most religions tend to say they’re absolutely right, no matter what confronts them.
5. There is a proper term for your “sciencism”: scientology.
6. astericks for quotation marks? No big deal, but it just bothers me.
If you think the scientific method is faulty and unreliable, I’d like to see your alternative. And (ideal) scientists don’t say that something was proven true; they say something has yet to be proven false.
I’ll get to this tomorrow, hopefully. Don’t think I gave up.
6) Yeah, sorry, I thought you were trying to express sarcasm because you were discussing how hypocritical it is. nvm then. And yes, I misspelled asterisk, embarrassing, moving on.
Sorry I took so long.
1) My point was that you said “God made a perfect world,” even though you admitted he had to make sacrifices. I’m not confused because he is “beyond all comprehension”; I’m confused because he settled for something (compromise) that we CAN understand; we make compromises every day.
2) What grounds exactly do you have to say that science is unreliable in certain areas? Which is a more reasonable conclusion: accepting that the data on radioactivity (and all the other forms of evidence) does not lie and things are as old as the evidence shows, or assuming some great entity which requires more explanation than it can explain formed everything that way only 6000 years ago, with, for example, all the photons already headed for Earth? You can stick with the latter, but I accept the former.
3) Then they had a perfectly good reason to discard the “information.” They did NOT just disregard it; when they falsify something, they prove it to be FALSE, and, like everything else they do, they disprove it a bunch of times by a bunch of people (independently) in a bunch of places.
4) Once it works with the current experiment, make another one aimed specifically at the new hypothesis. Did you think science just sits on its work?
Besides, I can just turn around and ask you that. How do you know you’re not making the wrong interpretations of the Bible? How do you know you’re not turning it into another wrong interpretation? Apply your answer to both the Bible and science.
5) It’s related to YOUR version of science. Regardless, I was trying to be sarcastic there, as you consider them both “religion.” And please note there’s a difference between the scientists who do their job, perform experiments (repeatedly), and make the conclusions, and the people (atheists) who use those data to discredit religion. I’m not saying they’re mutually exclusive, but they’re not the same thing (in fact, quite a few scientists are religious).
Go ahead and have the last word; I’m going to be busy with school for a while, and at least one other person already discussed what I was planning to discuss. Just because I don’t reply doesn’t mean I’m incapable of responding.
Have a good day.
1) Depends on what context you take it from for the most part. The context we’re talking about is God made a perfectly functioning world just like manufacturers can make a perfectly functioning car. There were compromises for the creation that they each wanted. God sacrificed a few characteristics because he wanted something else which would lack those characteristics (for example, he wanted whales who breathed above water. Who knows why. I think God wanted something different compared to the other fish who breathe through the water), just like the manufacturer for a car may build a compact car meant for 4-5 people. You can’t fault these and say there’s no designer because the whale isn’t optimally designed with gills for better breathing or the car didn’t have a manufacturer because the car doesn’t seat 15 people. This is not what they were going for, as such you cannot fault it and say its imperfect thus it doesn’t have a designer because you don’t know their intentions. Nor does this prove that God is imperfect because he had to sacrifice characteristics.
2) “What grounds exactly do you have to say that science is unreliable in certain areas?”
-Well, for one thing it dismisses things before examining them. It also can’t prove the existence of mathematics and logic since it presupposes them (which is a circular reasoning tactic they take for granted). It can’t prove that science discovers truth by the scientific method itself which would show science is self-defeating. Another thing is falsifiability is false and its one of the bases that science holds to. So for the most part, the results that give a certain conclusion are taken by faith because all the assumptions presupposed are faulty.
“Which is a more reasonable conclusion: accepting that the data on radioactivity (and all the other forms of evidence) does not lie and things are as old as the evidence shows”
-Radioactivity has 3 assumptions (2 disastrous ones that discredit it altogether) that render it invalid. I’ve mentioned it before in a former post. Even if they *were* accurate, you have to keep in mind that God created things with maturity without time. For example, when God created Adam, he didn’t create a child. He created a full grown man, possibly looked like he was in his 20′s or 30′s yet he was seconds old. So the earth may have the appearance of billions of years old. There’s no accurate way to determine that based on radioactive dating, but even if there were accurate evidence stating so, it doesn’t mean it literally is that old, it means it has the appearance of that age.
“or assuming some great entity which requires more explanation than it can explain formed everything that way only 6000 years ago, with, for example, all the photons already headed for Earth?”
-How does it require more explanation? I’d like to hear this. But in regards to light from stars already to earth, this goes back to the maturity-without-time argument. Even if stars are that far, it doesn’t make it that old. Secondly, the way they measure starlight is beyond stretched. The parallax method is the primary culprit, and it sounds like a good method. Take one measurement from one side of earths orbit, do the same thing 6 months later, and calculate the interception. Sounds great, but just to measure 1 light year is equal to having 2 observation points 10 inches apart (representative of the diameter of earth’s orbit) looking at a point 5 miles away and calculating the interception lines (representative of 1 light year). That’s just 1 light year. Its a ratio of about 1:31,600. So I’ll say they can measure 10 light years. Maybe 100. Heck, I’ll give you 1000 if it’ll make you happy, but there’s no way they can get millions and billions of light years.
3) “They did NOT just disregard it; when they falsify something, they prove it to be FALSE”
-Really? I got a completely different explanation from Ben about what falsifiability was. But then again, I get a different explanation from everyone because everyone changes the story whenever I get close. So explain what falsifiability is in your words. What’s your definition of it in its totality?
4) “How do you know you’re not making the wrong interpretations of the Bible?”
-Because it stands up to criticism. Your interpretations of the information in which your conclusion is, “It evolved,” does not.
5) If science looks at the evidence in a specific lighting rather than an unbiased one (that 1 specific lighting being a naturalistic explanation for everything), then yes, it is a religion since the results are taken by faith (seeing as they look at it 1 way rather than all ways to find the truth). They’re making judgment calls before even examining anything. I’m not necessarily saying scientists are doing this on purpose, but they’re taught this way, and with each passing generation, we pass the baton onto the next so they’re raised to deceive themselves by the deceived as well. Its a never-ending cycle unless enough people stand up and point out, “Hey! This is inaccurate!” We need to seek the truth. We have brains for a reason and we’re limiting ourselves and our vast capabilities of logic and reason to an idea that’s inaccurate. Its ridiculous to see people limit themselves.
“I’m going to be busy with school for a while”
-As am I, my friend. Spring just started.
“Just because I don’t reply doesn’t mean I’m incapable of responding.”
-I never said it did.
God bless.
Actually, you kind of did say that. Search for the comment where you said, “…you should know that ‘tl;dr’ is an implicit admittance that one can’t combat what I’ve written,” (I assume your browser has a “find” feature) and your comment after that. I can reply to this, but I’m not going out of my way to do so. It may have to wait until summer.
“Actually, you kind of did say that”
-I have about a page’s worth of information, it would be helpful if you referenced what you were responding to. However, I was referencing the “tl:dr” comment itself, not the idea of if you say nothing at all.
another thing: he just happened to give a bad example. What about natural disasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes? Are we responsible for those? Is it our fault for not preventing the disasters?
Considering that there weren’t all the individual tectonic plates that there are today as well as the canopy which would increase air pressure significantly during the first heaven/earth system (we’re living in the 2nd heaven/earth system which occurred after the flood), then yes, we are responsible because they never even would have existed if God didn’t need to rid the world of the evil of man in the first place. I’ll be glad to go into specifics if you like, but that answers your questions.
God bless.
Do you realize you just made yourself a hypocrite? If you consider science unreliable, why are you using tectonic plates to support your argument? If you say that’s not science, I’m going to slap you silly. (don’t take that seriously)
Second, your flood point assumes that everyone agrees with it. You’re defending the Bible with a statement only believed to be true because it was stated in the Bible (a circular argument). Not everyone believes in the biblical flood; you need to support your argument with something that everyone agrees with.
Even if that did happen, the Bible said God caused the destruction because everyone but Noah and his family were evil (something about having affairs with devils). The people who died in the natural disasters I mentioned did not deserve what they got, like those in the Book of Genesis.
Furthermore, after the flood, God (Jehovah, same thing) said, “I will never do it again–I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things…” (Genesis 8:21) (my version specifically says ‘paraphrased,’ but that shouldn’t matter much). Yet, we still have floods and such that take thousands of lives each year, and that’s just people.
Btw, how did he manage to collect all those hundreds of thousands of beetles all over the world, let alone insects? Vertebrates alone already consist of approximately 40,000 species. And why did he save the mosquitoes?
And to people that think I have no life: I do have a life; it’s why I took 2-3 days to reply and haven’t read most of the comments (in the middle).
Have a good day.
“If you consider science unreliable, why are you using tectonic plates to support your argument?”
-Because that’s where earthquakes come from. That’s good science. I never said science can’t answer *anything,* I said it can’t answer *everything.* There’s a right way to evaluate scientific results, and a wrong way. Sometimes there’s no way at all, if using science alone, which is what makes the results an act of faith to believe.
“Second, your flood point assumes that everyone agrees with it. You’re defending the Bible with a statement only believed to be true because it was stated in the Bible”
-No, I’m answering your question on a biblical basis because that’s what you were expecting by the way you phrased your question. I told you that what I presented answered your questions, but if you would like to get into specifics of what it all means, how, why, etc, then I’ll be glad to explain. You did not question me, but instead criticized it for being inaccurate. The english language is a powerful tool my friend.
“The people who died in the natural disasters I mentioned did not deserve what they got”
-Ever hear the verse similar to the idea that the actions of the father have lasting consequences on the later generations? The ruin and wrecked world we live in is the consequences to the actions of the people in Noah’s time. So yes, people today may not deserve it, but who’s to blame for that? God bringing justice? Or man whose negative actions had negative consequences?
““I will never do it again–I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things…” [...] Yet, we still have floods and such that take thousands of lives each year, and that’s just people.”
-You’re right. But who’s to say it’s God causing the floods? Your verse only makes sense if God is behind all the floods since he says “*I* will not bring a flood again,” instead of “floods will never happen again.”
“Btw, how did he manage to collect all those hundreds of thousands of beetles all over the world, let alone insects?”
-Insects do not qualify as creatures to take on the ark. That which has life is classified as anything with blood, breath in its nostrils, and (inconclusively) a soul. This also means plants were not taken on the ark.
“Vertebrates alone already consist of approximately 40,000 species.”
-Who says God took “species?” I’d like to see where the Bible says this.
God bless.
lets have another crusade
I honestly believed what the original poster stated … when I was six.
This has got to be a joke. The average person is over 5 ft tall. Sounds like BS to me.
nazis
Oh boy, another bible-thumping moron getting butthurt when their OMG I LOVE YOU JESUS I KNOW YOU DID THIS bulls**t claim is proven wrong. This is why I choose agnosticism.
Agnosticism is not a choice. There are no middle-grounds in truth. Agnosticism is merely a temporary grounds on which to remain for a short period of time until you make a decision of what you believe most to be true based on studying the evidence. If you never do, then you’ve inadvertently chosen rejection by default.
I’d choose wisely. Study the information for both sides carefully, but make a decision. You may not know, but that just means you need to discover it.
God bless.
Yes it can be. There are “permanent” agnostics who claim “no one can prove or disprove the existence of g(G)od,” and agnostics who don’t give a [thought]. You don’t have to make a decision.
If U saw WID up T (reply to a previous comment of your’s), you can ingore this.
*ignore
lol
we atheists and you christians have more in common than you think, there are around 2800 different gods worshipped around the world , i dont believe in 2800 of them you dont believe in 2799 of them , so we are almost in agreement, now think why you dont believe in the 2799 and apply that logic to the 1 remaining and perhaps we can agree completely.
“we atheists and you christians have more in common than you think, there are around 2800 different gods worshipped around the world , i dont believe in 2800 of them you dont believe in 2799 of them”
-True (to a certain extent), but you’re taking a false account of all of the estimated 2800 gods into your calculation. Your implication is that it’s possible to believe all 2800 of them. However, gods contradict other gods. When 1 god says there aren’t any others but them, then that calculation of yours drops to 2798. If one god is the most powerful and none surpass them, it drops 1 more, and so on.
There is no agreement between religions. If there were, you would have a point. You may not believe in *any* god, but it’s impossible to believe them *all.* As such, 2800 is a very very far stretch and cannot be used as any logical argument against anyone of any belief. If you get a calculation of the religions with gods that can coexist and not contradict each other, you let me know. Until then, this argument is flawed. Your source you received this argument from is a bit in error. While I can’t remember their name, I’ve heard this argument before. Probably from Hitchens if memory serves me correctly.
God bless.
“If one god is the most powerful and none surpass them, it drops 1 more, and so on.”
You are postulating the existence of multiple gods, a christian would deny that and state there is only 1.
Reducing the argument to as low as 100 deities (or even 2) who are worshiped the original statement still holds true, if you apply the same logic you use not to believe in the other 99 to your own god then why believe in that particular one?
It surely comes down to a lack of any proof?
To be clear i am not making any personal attack and mean no offence.
“Reducing the argument to as low as 100 deities (or even 2) who are worshiped the original statement still holds true”
-I’m well aware, but keep in mind that I never said it wasn’t valid or didn’t hold any meaning. Rather, the calculations were a bit extreme and needed to be fixed accordingly. The meaning behind the analogy is an interesting concept, but it all boils down to *which is true on the basis of what has more information in support of it’s message and therefore requires less faith to believe?*
“To be clear i am not making any personal attack and mean no offence.”
-None taken. I enjoy criticism. Not only do I read books on the subject, but I discuss it with others to expand my understanding. Criticism usually comes with it. I’ve just learned to turn it into a positive outlook in which to learn more, and it’s been stimulating conversation for critical thinking about origins for many.
God bless.
There’s a difference between rejection and challenging/confrontation. There’s also a such thing as something called a *hypocrite.*
Fair enough, I’m sure we are both awarre we will never agree.
Your position is one of “i believe it because i believe it” i.e. faith
Whereas mine is show me proof or i disbelieve.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. I’m just like you in a sense, but everything requires a certain amount of faith. The goal is to find something that evidence best supports and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe. I didn’t believe until I started researching it. 3 little words on Google and now I am who I am today from it.
I don’t believe because I believe (which is circular reasoning and is therefore false so I wouldn’t say that at all to be honest [I steer clear from self-conflicting arguments]), I believe because the information is best supported by a greater amount of evidence and requires the least amount of faith to believe it’s true. Still requires faith, but a small amount compared with other theories in my opinion.
God bless.
The tl;dr guy wasn’t just telling the “**Fact” person (s)he’s wrong, but telling everyone who believed it that (s)he’s wrong.
That was my point though religion is not backed by evidence and is based purely on faith .
The person who started this thread is a good example of faith based reasoning.
He has faith that his oddball statement regarding solar distance was true and used this as an affirmation of religious belief.
When shown this was untrue we had an initial reaction of “how dare you disagree” regardless of any evidence shown him i bet he still thinks it’s true.
I can agree completely that if you think something may be correct then search for fact based evidence to either suppport or negate that idea.
Have to admit though i am perplexed as to how following that path led you to religious belief as i can’t find even one piece of evidence to support the existence of a deity of any sort.
lol you guys can’t even agree to disagree.
Well ICWUDT and i certainly disagree i just wasn’t being rude to him/her.
ICWUDT obviously believes ancient mythology to be true whereas i do not believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, whales that swallow people before regurgitating them,ancient desert dwellers who built a boat with animals aboard that came from continents they didn’t even know existed and included by definition species which we are still discovering now.
Nor do i believe in a megolomaniacal deity who despite being the epitomy of love ,commits genocide, is so insecure it supposedly has to create creatures purely to worship it and makes contradictory statements.
I do not believe in virgin births, people walking on water, dead people coming back to life after days of being dead etc. etc….
I do believe in the power of prayer but only insofar as in its power to assist the religious conmen prey on the gullible.
I find it unbelievable that it is now 2011, the majority of people have had some sort of education. yet vast numbers cling to these and similar ancient fairy stories.
Use your brains and get a life, you are NOT going to burn in some poorly defined hell for eternity for not believing in santa claus or any other fictional creature.
“Well ICWUDT and i certainly disagree i just wasn’t being rude to him/her.”
-Of course not, but I tend to find a passive aggressive factor in most comments.
“whereas i do not believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, whales that swallow people before regurgitating them”
-Because you’re taking a naturalistic standpoint. No wonder people get so confused and only find answers to fit with a naturalistic idea. Because that’s all they’re looking for. Also, it doesn’t say “whale” in the bible. Its a decent guess, but we don’t know what swallowed Jonah other than it was a “giant fish.”
“ancient desert dwellers who built a boat with animals aboard that came from continents they didn’t even know existed”
-Aren’t you assuming the world of today was the world of the past? Landscape and all?
“Nor do i believe in a megolomaniacal deity who despite being the epitomy of love ,commits genocide, is so insecure it supposedly has to create creatures purely to worship it and makes contradictory statements.”
-Depends what you’re using as evidence to support your idea that God commits genocide and in what context do you say that in.
God created us because he wanted to. Nothing else as can be determined. As his created beings, he would like to have a relationship with us, but he’s not going to force it if we don’t want it.
“I do not believe in virgin births, people walking on water, dead people coming back to life after days of being dead etc. etc….”
-In short, you don’t believe miracles. So, why? I’m curious.
“I do believe in the power of prayer but only insofar as in its power to assist the religious conmen prey on the gullible.”
-You’re entitled to your opinion, there’s not much to comment on since this is more subjective than objective in its validity (i.e. it depends on the person)
“I find it unbelievable that it is now 2011, the majority of people have had some sort of education. yet vast numbers cling to these and similar ancient fairy stories.”
-I’ve had an education, and been self-educated in all possibilities as to what the truth is through various opinions rather than the one side that public schools teach. I’d say that’s an education anyone should ask for; instead of indoctrination, teach both sides or teach none. They’re both valid. After all, I became a creationist in light of the evidence, even after high school (directly out of high school to be brutal), I stumbled upon a website and that led to more information and eventually I saw too much evidence that was difficult to be answered from the opposition and it was too overwhelming to be ignored (in my opinion).
“Use your brains and get a life”
-That’s exactly what I did. Not only did I get educated through the system, but I educated myself. Something not many people tend to do. I wanted to learn, and learn I did.
“you are NOT going to burn in some poorly defined hell for eternity for not believing in santa claus or any other fictional creature.”
-You have a very false concept of Christianity then my friend. Far too much falsehood here to discuss in one comment. I’m surprised you fit that all into 1 sentence to be honest.
God bless.
Yep. Shows the lengths to which people will go to convince themselves that they’re “right,” even when they clearly are not. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
@ICWUDT: not the place for your arguments. This is a comments section where most atheists don’t feel like explaining their points (for their own reasons), especially to someone who still thinks the Earth is only six thousand years old and what not. Hence, the insulting, weak replies to your comments.
I suggest you start a forum or join an existing one, and then link to it here so whoever’s interested can visit. Perhaps you could use the website blank above the ‘Your comment’ box.
“not the place for your arguments. This is a comments section where most atheists don’t feel like explaining their points (for their own reasons)”
-So, in other words: “You’re not going to get the answers to your upbringings here, but trust me, they’re out there! Go find them!” I guess this is one of those insulting, weak replies you were talking about. If the answer is somewhere else, then direct me to it. If you don’t have an answer, don’t respond. If you’re wrong, then accept it and move on, but I’ve yet to see anyone here to effectively answer my questions and thus negate my major objections against their beliefs. We go around in circles several times because that’s all there is to do. There are no answers from you or anyone. You just don’t want to admit it which is the cause for the circular logic. That’s fine, I’m not the one living in denial, but if you want to, then go right ahead.
“especially to someone who still thinks the Earth is only six thousand years old and what not”
-Do you have anything to object to it? I’ve answered people’s reasons for rejection of it several times to no avail on their part. I’m eager to hear what you have to say on it.
“I suggest you start a forum or join an existing one”
-Why, when there’s plenty of people who add their 2 cents here? I’m simply questioning them on it and asking them to explain why they come to their conclusions. There’s obviously a cause to their thinking. To say their isn’t is contradictory and self-defeating.
God bless.
OMG, really? I was just making a suggestion. All you had to say was ‘no’.
I did say no, I just gave an elaborate no to give you more of a contextual grasp of why I said no.
But since you started an argument:
“for their own reasons” include, but are not limited to:
1) they explained it a million times already
2) they have a life
3) they don’t have a point to explain
all of which can and may result in “insulting, weak replies to your arguments.”
“‘You’re not going to get the answers to your upbringings here, but trust me, they’re out there!’”
Exactly. Who’s going to know such a chain of arguments exist in some random comments section (although Ben did make quite an argument)? Besides, I can’t edit any mistakes I made in something I already posted here, which sucks.
Why are you leaving it to me to find a forum? I didn’t start the fire.
“I’ve yet to see anyone here to effectively answer my questions and thus negate my major objections against their beliefs. …There are no answers from you or anyone.”
First of all, that’s why I suggested a forum, so people who search for those things can find it (I’d be surprised if this showed up on the first page of a google search like “debate on religion”), and you would have more of a challenge.
Second, did you forget everything up there? I gave you answers, Kemanorel gave you answers, Ben gave you answers (you have yet to give a reply to his last assertions concerning special relativity), and I’m about to give more answers (my last, though–I won’t have any more time to be on this page). There are definitely answers from me and anyone else. You even sometimes said, “Don’t insult me when you haven’t even given me a chance to reply,” and then you still don’t reply–I mean, that was your chance.
“Do you have anything to object to it?”
Yes, though someone beat me to it. But that’s not why I said that in the first place; atheists don’t agree that Earth is 6000 years old (I meant to say “for example” after mentioning that), so seeing another person still thinking that makes most of them think something like “Wow, really? What an idiot…” (again, a reason for the insults), and either don’t know how to combat it or have gone over it for too long, and aren’t going to waste any more effort in this random COMMENTS SECTION.
“Why, when there’s plenty of people who add their 2 cents here?” (should be “there are”)
Because there will be plenty more people if you (or I, but I’d rather join someone else’s) start a formal talk page, or join an existing one.
You seriously believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, there are numerous text books which i could suggest you read just for starters but what would be the point you are blinkered and would dismiss all the evidence as the work of the devil no doubt.
Scientific theory is based on evidence not on faith,as an example your comments are being read by people all over the world thanks to the application of scientific theory.
I feel sure you must beleive in the theory of gravity, if not try jumping off a tall building, the hand of god will not reach out to save you, you will crash into the ground at a speed proportional to the mass of the earth which is deforming spacetime.
I have just realised that you may indeed have faith that gravity does not exist and although i find your irrational beliefs somewhat annoying , i wish you no harm so please , i implore you not to go out and look for a tall building to test your faith.
“You seriously believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry”
-When in doubt, do both.
“there are numerous text books which i could suggest you read just for starters but what would be the point you are blinkered and would dismiss all the evidence as the work of the devil no doubt.”
-There are also numerous places of information where I could direct you as well. It doesn’t make either of us right. What determines that is the logic behind what we cite. I don’t usually cite websites of information because its not needed, but feel free to if you so choose to do so.
“I feel sure you must beleive in the theory of gravity, if not try jumping off a tall building, the hand of god will not reach out to save you, you will crash into the ground at a speed proportional to the mass of the earth which is deforming spacetime.”
-Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy science, but there are some things in which science is simply wrong. Science is not a universal method to discovering truth. It has its faults which tamper its results and as such it cannot be relied on for everything. Its assumptions produce false conclusions and its interpretations bear the same results. Science of origins is much different than science of constants. Gravity can constantly be tested, observed, and repeated to exist. Our origins cannot; it was a historical event and all historical events are unrepeatable. What we do have are tests we can observe and repeat and thus attribute to origins to give us an accurate understanding.
“I have just realised that you may indeed have faith that gravity does not exist
-No, I have a problem with where people believe the origin of gravity was or came from. Your essentially saying I have a problem with the existence of human beings. That’s not correct, I have a problem with the origins of human beings.
“and although i find your irrational beliefs somewhat annoying…”
-The Bible says we are the salt of the earth. Do you know what salt does when you rub it in a wound? It irritates it. Our society is wounded and collapsing under this idea of evolution (which, by the way, holds no improvements in anything of real world application; its just a dead idea that doesn’t go anywhere) and in accordance with your saying of me being an annoyance to you and the Bible saying I’m the salt of the earth, I’d say I’m doing a good job.
God bless.
I’m kind of laughing that you only realize that now–I thought ICWUDT made that pretty evident up there. But yeah, I agree. It’s why most atheists feel they’re wasting their efforts arguing the evidence against faith, because it’ll only end in stalemate (the devil part).
“It’s why most atheists feel they’re wasting their efforts arguing the evidence against faith”
-When it comes to origins, we all believe by faith. Its more of a battle of which explanation of origins best explains the evidence/information and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe.
By faith, I meant religion, particularly its assertions about the world. And I don’t “believe” in the evolutionary version of our origins; that’s 100%, absolute certainty. I’m only 99.99% certain, and it gets closer to 100% as science advances. That remaining .01% is the room for incontrovertible (99.99% incontrovertible, at least) evidence against it.
“By faith, I meant religion”
-As did I.
“And I don’t “believe” in the evolutionary version of our origins”
-Oh you most certainly do. You and I both get different interpretations from the same evidence. We both believe our interpretation is correct, therefore, we both take them by faith, but only one is correct and better supported than the other.
“that’s 100%, absolute certainty
-Then give me the death blow to my belief in opposition to it my good sir!
God bless.
I’m sorry, I meant “belief is 100% certainty regardless of evidence for or against it.” Well, belief by faith is (the actual definition of faith this time). I don’t take evolution by faith; I have plenty of reason and evidence to back up my “belief,” as you like to call it. Whereas religious books say “we are absolutely right,” science says “there is always a possibility that we’re wrong (however big or small it is).” And our evidence is not exactly–oh heck, this argument is pointless.
“I don’t take evolution by faith; I have plenty of reason and evidence to back up my “belief,” as you like to call it.”
-And I have plenty to back up mine.
“Whereas religious books say “we are absolutely right,” science says “there is always a possibility that we’re wrong (however big or small it is).””
-Considering the Bible and its counter-part, evolution/old age earth/abiogenesis/etc (anything contradictory towards the biblical account), a better way to state your objection is that the Bible “hasn’t changed in thousands of years since its creation” while evolution “has changed countless times in the short 150 years or so its been in existence/popular.” Now the issue is why has evolution changed so much and the Bible hasn’t at all? Common sense would tell us, that since the Bible still remains standing today (even without change) that its accurate and doesn’t need to change, whereas evolution may not be right and is constant need of updates to keep up with it. I don’t know about you, but I find that pretty remarkable.
“And our evidence is not exactly–oh heck, this argument is pointless.”
-Yeah, tends to get that way when I start winning. I mean, I could be sarcastically arrogant here and say I was winning from the start and you’re just figuring it out now, but that’s not me.
God bless.
That is not what I meant at all. I meant this was a pointless topic to begin with. If you want me to finish what I was saying, I will, but it’ll have to wait until summer, or at least spring break. And who said you were winning–besides you and your “sarcastic arrogance”?
“That is not what I meant at all. I meant this was a pointless topic to begin with”
-Then why did you continue it if it was pointless from the beginning? It seems that you bring certain things like this up only when you’ve tried to defend the idea that’s opposing yours.
“And who said you were winning–besides you and your “sarcastic arrogance”?”
-Aside from the above situation? No one says that, its implied. Ben was the only person who I got a good conversation out of him as opposed to any others and I couldn’t continue with him because we were discussing the truth in science and he explicitly admitted that science and truth were mutually exclusive. Any discussion afterwards would be fruitless.
1. Believe: to have faith in something.
2. Faith: acceptance of a statement, regardless of the evidence.
3. I accept science because of the evidence.
4. Therefore, I don’t believe in science.
Just to clarify, nowhere in this string of comments did I say your acceptance of religion is 100% faith-based.
“No one says that, its implied.”
*that.
*It’s
You don’t know that. Saying it’s implied that you are winning is even more arrogant. Debates are like the game Othello (Reversi): the person who went last almost always seems to be winning.
faith is not evidence you have no evidence whatsoever for a creationist explanation as none exists , if i am wrong and you can show me evidence do so .
An ancient text written by an unknown author containing mere hearsay is not evidence.
You refute evolution and think all present creatures and plants have always existed , dear o dear , all modern breeds of dog are descended from wolves which have been selectively bred(a form of human intervensionist evolution) to produce all the dog breeds we see today,
The potato when first found in n america was the size of a pea but has been selectively bred to produce modern potato varieties. I am just scratching the surface here .
Have you ever looked at a seed catalogue and seen “new variety for this year” well that variety of whatever plant did not exist last year never mind thousands of years ago!!!!
“faith is not evidence”
-I never said it was, but I’m confident that my belief system requires less faith than yours.
“if i am wrong and you can show me evidence do so”
-Gladly, but where would you like to start? As I’ve said before, you’re asking a very broad question, you need to simplify it a bit. You asking for evidence is like me asking you what a car is. You have no idea what I’m asking about cars. Am I asking for the history? The designs? The manufacture of? The transportation abilities? How its built? Narrow it a bit please.
“An ancient text written by an unknown author containing mere hearsay is not evidence.”
-It’s not written by “an” author, it’s written by about 40.
“You refute evolution and think all present creatures and plants have always existed”
-Depends what context you take that in. If you mean “all present animals and plants” as in the exact species, variations, etc we have today, then no, I don’t. However if you mean the basic forms/kinds of creatures (such as dogs, cats, elephants, etc) that variated, then yes I do. I’m still researching as well.
“all modern breeds of dog are descended from wolves which have been selectively bred(a form of human intervensionist evolution) to produce all the dog breeds we see today”
-Yes, we have all forms/variations of dogs. Guess what? They’re still dogs.. They aren’t growing wings, producing poison, nor changing their tail into a spiked club. Something I’m curious in, now that you brought it up, is if dogs are all descended from wolves, can we not remove genetic material until we get its ancestor it descended from? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
“The potato when first found in n america was the size of a pea but has been selectively bred to produce modern potato varieties”
-Still a potato.. Growth does not prove evolution. Even so, it can only grow so much before its worthless. There are limitations. There’s been many experiments done to improve such things, and once they reach a particular maximum, it starts going downhill. We may be able to alter many things, but we’re never going to get a potato the size of a house and we’re never going to see a potato produce peas and carrots for stew.
God bless.
ICWUDT sorry if i said a whale re jonah when i should have said a large fish, mmm that makes all the difference!!
You ask if i believe in miracles, no i don’t.. biblical miracles? turning wine into water? requires sugar and yeast its called fermentation.An electric light bulb would have been more impressive ,surely if someone created the universe he could have managed that, even a box of matches would have been a better call.
Modern day so called miracles? Lets take an example.
Mr X is a religious fellow, which religion is immaterial,he is an accountant in London.
The poor chap is diagnosed with an untreatable deadly disease . Less than 1 person in a million survives the disease.
At the time of his diagnosis 500,000 people worldwide have the same disease.
Following diagnosis he has to give up driving and takes the no.19 bus to work every day, he also prays 5 times a day to his god that he be saved.
At the end of 6 months he is still alive, his doctors tell him he has gone into complete remission and is inexplicably cured. Nice one Mr x we are pleased for you.
Of the 500,000 patients he is the only one who is now not dead.
A miracle! a miracle! cry the religious ,he prayed and was saved.
Hang on though, of all those patients around half at least would be religious , so would have prayed, of the rest a fair few clutching at straws may have tried a prayer or two.Lets say 300, 000 prayed , still only one survived.
To connect his survival with praying is a non sequiteur and of no statistical significance.
It would make slightly more sense to attribute his survival to frequent travel on a no.19 london bus, as of the 500,000 original sufferers he is the only one to have used that form of transport and the only one still alive.
Miracles? humbug… a miracle is something for which you do not at the moment have a satisfactory explanation, no more no less.
“sorry if i said a whale re jonah when i should have said a large fish, mmm that makes all the difference!!”
-I point it out because that’s the primary reason you get the wrong conclusions is by your faulty assumptions/presuppositions. We don’t know if it was a whale and it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t. The event was a miraculous one just like water into wine or the virgin birth.
“You ask if i believe in miracles, no i don’t.. biblical miracles?”
-And why is that?
“turning wine into water? requires sugar and yeast its called fermentation.”
-That’s the naturalistic explanation, not the miraculous. This is why you get wrong conclusions because you automatically presume only the natural can happen. God did these things on purpose to show he doesn’t need time to create maturity. He can skip the intermediate steps if he pleases. He reveals that all throughout Genesis as well: Creating man seconds old but with the appearance of age (possibly in his 20′s or 30′s).
“An electric light bulb would have been more impressive ,surely if someone created the universe he could have managed that”
-Why would he need to create light when he is the light? Secondly, the water into wine was meant to reveal who Jesus was to his disciples, not everyone at the wedding.
“Of the 500,000 patients he is the only one who is now not dead.”
-Considering the fact that there wasn’t disease in the original creation and was mans fault from the beginning, God didn’t have to do anything at all. Disease was not what he wanted for us in the first place, but we allowed it to enter the world. Its not his problem, but he still intervenes because he still cares, regardless of how corrupt we become. Its part of his nature.
God bless.
Don’t bother. I started going back and forth with this guy for a couple days and concluded to stop responding. I went back and read a few of his posts and others replies to them while I was bored at work and found you getting caught up in the same crap myself, Kemanorel, and Ben did. This is not a personal attack on ICWUDT, it couldn’t possibly be, since he isn’t saying anything that every other creationist says during a ‘debate’.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that if you do combat their arguments beyond a shadow of a doubt they will just reword it. They will claim the bible is the perfect word of god but when you debate the story of Noah’s Ark for example they’ll try shoving that satellite photo in your face even though they know if the Ark had been discovered it would have been the biggest news story the world would have ever known. You can show that the math in the bible for the dimensions of the ship and the doorway couldn’t have possibly fit certain animals, even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred. (That’s why they can’t believe in carbon dating.) Of course when their evidence doesn’t stack up they will say the bible isn’t a literal translation so all the work you put in to researching the actual truth will just go down the drain.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve attempted to ‘debate’ with a creationist and ended up having to just stop. They think that’s them winning the conversation, when in reality, I just got so flabbergasted by what they were purporting as truth and then the ‘evidence’ they provided to support it (if they bothered) while simultaneously disregarding ALL evidence to the contrary (ie. geology has proven there was no global flood and no archaeologist has ever found the ark through it’s been searched for.. er.. religiously) all the while claiming that they have looked at both sides with unbiased ‘logic and reason’. With those types of claims and conclusions you can also safely conclude you are not dealing with someone who is in their right mind.
Even if you are able to get one of them to admit that their logic and reason is flawed, you will still have 1 remaining hurdle that you will never be able to win an argument against – faith.
Faith cannot be argued against other than to point out that to rely on it is intellectual bankruptcy (to quote Dan Barker). Here’s a few more of his quotes.. and ICWUDT has done them to you too:
“You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say God is love, they will claim that *you* are taking things out of context!”
He tried using this cause/effect thing on me:
“Some theists, observing that all ‘effects’ need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.”
But ultimately, ICWUDT is being ruled by his own fear and nothing more:
“It’s not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown.”
So some people just can’t handle the answer being “I don’t know.” They feel much more comfortable believing there’s a zombie sky-jew watching over them, smiting their enemies, directing their life, who loves them and will allow them to live eternally in paradise if they do nothing more than turn away from their own reason and logic and believe in that one damn book.
Being told that you are in control of your own life, no one will ‘get the bad guy’ in the end, there’s no invisible friend that knows you and completely loves you unconditionally, and when you die you don’t go anywhere.. you’re just dead.. even when we’re talking about a 3 year old kid that was killed needlessly by a drunk driver….. well that’s just too damn sad and scary.
I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, but I figured it should be said just in case. I enjoy reading your posts.. but you sound like you’re a busy guy, and I wanted to make sure you understand that you will never change his mind so to try is just an absolute waste of time. ICWUDT knows he will never change your mind and knows he wouldn’t change mine, Kemanorel’s or Bens. The difference between him and us is he’s trolling. He’ll go on for as long as you let him, because he knows that as long as he has faith to fall back on, he can NEVER be proven wrong.
(oh and ICWUDT – don’t bother responding to this. I am not talking to you.)
Epic Win
“This is not a personal attack on ICWUDT, it couldn’t possibly be, since he isn’t saying anything that every other creationist says during a ‘debate’.”
-So, since we’re all saying the same thing, that makes it false? If I’m understanding you correctly, then the aforementioned is true, in which case, you are also false.
“I’m sure you’ve noticed that if you do combat their arguments beyond a shadow of a doubt they will just reword it.”
-Depends on the context you take “reword” to mean. If you mean reword as in changing my arguments to where its no longer the same argument as before, then I should see tons of comments pointing out where I’m contradicting myself. However, if you mean reword as in strengthening my arguments with more information as the discussion goes on, then you’re absolutely correct. That’s how we communicate my friend. The english language is a powerful tool. Use it wisely.
“They will claim the bible is the perfect word of god but when you debate the story of Noah’s Ark for example they’ll try shoving that satellite photo in your face”
-Never once have I referred to that. If you’re intimidated from discussing certain things because of what other people have said, then either you know they’re right, or you’re assuming we’re all the same and conclude that you don’t need to challenge a particular person because you’ve already got your answers which is a faulty conclusion to begin with before even discussing any information (interesting, I’ve been saying this quite often about making faulty assumptions and thus getting false conclusions).
“You can show that the math in the bible for the dimensions of the ship and the doorway couldn’t have possibly fit certain animals, even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred.”
-Depends what animals you’re referring to and at what age. If you’re speaking of adults, you “might” have a point (not a very strong one, but you would have something started there), however if we’re looking at children, then that’s a completely different story and this has no valid meaning whatsoever.
“even though we have proof those animals existed before they claim the flood occurred.”
-Fun Fact: All animals existed before the flood, otherwise Noah wouldn’t have anything to take onto the ark.
“Of course when their evidence doesn’t stack up they will say the bible isn’t a literal translation”
-Just as there are times to translate particular meanings behind historical events, so are there times to translate the Bible literally or analogically/metaphorically/rhetorically/poetically/etc. If you get a false conclusion, you don’t stop there, you look further. That way, when someone points out that you didn’t look deep enough, you don’t turn it on them about changing it. It doesn’t mean they changed it, it means you were content with saying it was false rather than looking for truthful answers. We should always be looking further for more information until there’s nothing left to explore. That’s how we discover truth.
“I just got so flabbergasted by what they were purporting as truth and then the ‘evidence’ they provided to support it (if they bothered) while simultaneously disregarding ALL evidence to the contrary”
-I never disregarded it. You stopped before we could ever possibly into it (as do many others). If that was where I was wrong and it so obviously disproves what I believe, then you should have had no problem bringing it up as the death blow to my belief, but you didn’t. You decide to stop, and then at the right time, you basically say “This guy is nuts, out of everything we discussed that he answered my objections towards, he’s wrong here, but I’m done talking now.” Well you should’ve brought it up when we “were” talking. Don’t hide in the shadows. I’m here willing to take on anything you have to offer, but don’t try to sucker punch me and say it wasn’t you when I notice who hit me. That’s cowardice.
“Even if you are able to get one of them to admit that their logic and reason is flawed”
-I’m begging for people to point it out to me! The problem here is you seem to assume the role of the victorious after you’ve commented against me before I’ve had the chance to respond to your criticism. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. What makes me wrong (or you right) is when one can show another where they are wrong (or where the other is right) and have it withstand the criticism thrown back at it. Mine has sustained such criticism. If you disagree, then by all means, please, I beg you, criticize it. Critique it. If I can’t make a sensible argument back, then obviously I’m wrong/you’re right.
“Faith cannot be argued against other than to point out that to rely on it is intellectual bankruptcy”
-Couldn’t have said it better myself dear friend. You and I both have faith that our beliefs are true. This is a battle of which information upholds whom’s belief better and thus requires the least amount of faith to believe it to be true.
““You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say God is love, they will claim that *you* are taking things out of context!””
-Actually, if you’re taking things out of context, then not only will other verses affirm it by compounding together to form a more accurate interpretation of what we’re reading, but the verses you’re using against the Bible will be misunderstood and easily explainable once read more generally. Too many people read one verse and say that proves something. No, you need to make sure you know what the Bible is saying. Read the verses around it, not just that one verse in the middle. I could tell you a story about how a man cut open a woman’s stomach. You would think, “Oh, he murdered her, that’s awful,” but what if I said that the man was a doctor and the woman was pregnant. The baby stopped breathing so the doctor had to cut her open to get the baby out. Suddenly you think the man’s a hero. Context is everything. Read very carefully.
““Some theists, observing that all ‘effects’ need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.””
-Actually, an uncaused cause is a necessity. If there’s a never-ending chain of causes from the beginning of the universe to what was the cause of the universe, then the chain doesn’t make any sense because where did it start? There needs to be a beginning to the chain of causes, but the beginning cannot be caused because then the Law of Causality would state that there must be something preceding that. Essentially, doing the math the only explanation is that there must be something without beginning/cause that was the beginning of the Law of Causality. This way it doesn’t violate it’s own law and it also explains the existence of the law and where it came from.
You believe in uncaused caused energy (i.e. the Big Bang)
I believe in uncaused caused God.
“ICWUDT is being ruled by his own fear and nothing more”
-I became a creationist in light of the evidence. Not because I wanted to be one. I didn’t even know what a creationist was until I researched so much information that I came across the word for my classification.
“So some people just can’t handle the answer being “I don’t know.””
-No one knows for 100% certain, but just because there’s a hint of doubt does not make that doubt the overwhelming factor. If you believe something to be true by a percentage of 99, does that mean one is out of their mind for taking that last 1% by faith? No. 99% is more than enough convincing, and it doesn’t take much faith to believe the 99% is true over the 1% of being false.
“and will allow them to live eternally in paradise if they do nothing more than turn away from their own reason and logic and believe in that one damn book.”
-God wants us to believe by faith, but he doesn’t want us to believe by blind faith. There should be good reason for why you believe something, and that’s why he gave us more than enough information for those who believe to be confident in their belief. If he wanted mindless puppets, he would’ve created us without free will. He wants us to accept a free payment that he’s giving us at his own expense, the cost of his only son. If you want to spit in his face at it, then ok, but we’re all in debt to sin, and we’re going to pay it one way or another. I’ve accepted Christ’s free gift so I wont have to pay a debt I cannot rightfully pay in full. Would you like the same free gift? Don’t worry, you don’t need to go the India or anywhere. You can do it right where you are. Its quite simple too, like pushing the “Accept” button on the ATM.
“ICWUDT knows he will never change your mind and knows he wouldn’t change mine, Kemanorel’s or Bens. The difference between him and us is he’s trolling.”
-Nope, in the long-run, I’m just helping. Not only you, but myself. I like understanding how you think, but its hard to gain a grasp when you all have different ideas of the same thing.
“He’ll go on for as long as you let him, because he knows that as long as he has faith to fall back on, he can NEVER be proven wrong.”
-Everything has been purely intellectual. I will admit I don’t know everything just like you don’t. In that respect, we both rely on faith. The difference is I back up my arguments with logic and reason, not “Goddidit” as many put it. If I’m not, then obviously it should be easy to point out.
“oh and ICWUDT – don’t bother responding to this. I am not talking to you.”
-Translation: “You’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you why, you just have to accept it (by faith?)”
You’re free to do what you want, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase, “actions speak louder than words.”
God bless.
Clearly, this ICWUDT “person” has NO life-lol. I mean reading this sh*t was absolutely comical! This person probably sits in front of their computer 24/7 just waiting for the e-mail response notification so that they can copy and paste more religious bs. -That’s where all their “research” comes from (sitting on their prob 400lb @$$ googling crazy religious arguments and c&p them on here) NOBODY with a life knows that much about every argument that can be made esp on a subject with little to no ACTUAL FACTS. Debate me all you want ICWUDT, but evidence says you are one pathetic lonely f*cker who clearly has no job, no life, no friends, sits in their momma’s basement in front of their computer waiting for the next person to respond to your crazy rants. I don’t care if your psycho religious…more power to you…I’m not religious, that really isn’t your concern. So when you decide to reply to this, don’t bring up religion because that’s not what this comment is about. It’s about the fact that YOU SIR HAVE NO LIFE. The amount and extent of your comments is all the proof I need to declare you have no life. Perhaps if you got off your @$$ and got a job, you’d have less time to worry about what everyone else believes that don’t concern you and you can positively contribute back to your society. I’m tired of my hard earn tax dollars going to your welfare check because you would rather sit at home and troll than go to work!
“This person probably sits in front of their computer 24/7 just waiting for the e-mail response notification so that they can copy and paste more religious bs”
-You’re free to believe what you choose to, I don’t need to prove myself to you. But I’m interested where you believe I’m copying and pasting these things from. Cite it if you will.
“That’s where all their “research” comes from”
-Let’s take your advocate here and say I’m Googling everything. Does that make the information wrong? What’s your reasoning behind this, because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.
“NOBODY with a life knows that much about every argument that can be made esp on a subject with little to no ACTUAL FACTS”
-Sure they can, and thank you for complimenting me on my intellectual capacity. If there’s “no actual facts” then please point out where I’m wrong and I’ll be sure to correct it or strike it from the record altogether.
“Debate me all you want ICWUDT, but evidence says you are one pathetic lonely f*cker who clearly has no job, no life, no friends, sits in their momma’s basement in front of their computer waiting for the next person to respond to your crazy rants.”
-You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well. But my phone has internet connection so it alerts me whenever I get emails and I can respond quite quickly. I don’t like keeping people waiting because I don’t like waiting for others. Its a courtesy thing.
“It’s about the fact that YOU SIR HAVE NO LIFE”
-Interesting. Its a “fact?” What evidence do you have to support this fact?
“The amount and extent of your comments is all the proof I need to declare you have no life”
-How does it prove this exactly? This is very interesting to me how you came to this conclusion.
“you’d have less time to worry about what everyone else believes that don’t concern you”
-It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it. This isn’t a matter of “your beliefs aren’t mine so we have to change that.” This has to deal with life and death and where you’re going afterwards. If you want to challenge that, then by all means, challenge it. If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.
“I’m tired of my hard earn tax dollars going to your welfare check because you would rather sit at home and troll than go to work!”
-You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger. I hope you don’t treat everyone this way.
God bless.
Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life. See, a person who has a life would maybe reply a couple of times and leave things at that because they know there are more important things in life like having a job and taking care of their family for 2 examples. People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions. I mean you’ve been back here almost everyday since this fail has been posted. WHY?? Because you have NO LIFE! Now I’m going to be all retarded and reply like you do…
“because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.”
-Yes, Google is a wonderful search engine to many sites with information about any given subject or question. I never claimed it to be a bad site. It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.
“You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well.”
-You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs. It’s okay, you can go back and re-read. Ha, sorry that was irrelevant. Low blow by me. Oops.
“It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it”
. Where do people end up that they don’t want to be? How would you know where any given person ends up when they die? A true believer knows “only God can judge me” and unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.
-Huh?? Why does it scare you that people die everyday? Dying is part of life. Everyone will die someday. A true believer would not be afraid of death
Why do you care so much what other people believe in? You should only be concerned with your beliefs. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs doesn’t me it’s a personal attack against you. So relax. Maybe if you got laid once in a while you wouldn’t be so uptight. Calm down, open your mind, you might actually make a friend or two then.
“If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.”
-Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs? They are MY beliefs not yours!! Why would I need to prove any credibility to MY beliefs? I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.
“You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger.”
-How am I not making myself look good? Because I don’t appreciate having to put in hard long hours at work while people are sitting at home trolling and receiving welfare checks? Well excuse me. I’m a good hard working citizen who gives back to their community instead of takes. I believe people should earn what they get and not take things for free. I didn’t realize that made me such a monster. Sorry I guess. Btw, I am a woman. Just want to clear up the “sir (or madam)” issue. Care to clear up your gender? And how does any of this make me “blinded by anger”?? How was I showing anger? I simply stated that you have no life, which is pretty obvious based on what I stated before. I backed up my assumptions, there was no anger. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m angry. I may not like you, but I don’t wish anything bad against you. I do hope you find that life you are looking for. If that’s a religious life than good for you. I don’t want a religious life, and you need to just accept that and move on. If you can’t move on…then it will prove my point even more that you have no life.
I think you believe ALL atheist are evil. While some might be, just as some Christians might be evil…not ALL are evil! You need to open your mind and learn to be more accepting. If Jesus can be, so can you. Since you like to be on the computer so much, maybe you should check out http://www.indeed.com it can help you find a job in your local area. So instead of getting your panties all knotted up over what other people believe and continuing to be a menace, you can go to work and bring good to your community. Good luck with getting that life.
Honest words from an Atheist…
“God bless to you too”
“Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life”
-It couldn’t be that I’m technically required to be around a computer due to school work and will be around one in the future for my job I’m training for? No, couldn’t be that with the technological age we’re in today. (:
“People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions”
-Its not about opinions. Its about discussing facts and which supports what. If you don’t want to discuss this, then you’re right, there’s nothing to talk about between you and I. I’m interested in finding truth. Are you?
” It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.”
-So where am I copying and pasting my arguments from that you claim I’m taking?
“You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs.”
-No I saw, but you restated some of your insults twice other than a weight joke so I just assumed you accidentally missed out on that. (:
“Why does it scare you that people die everyday?”
-It doesn’t. Its the aftermath.
“How would you know where any given person ends up when they die?”
-Because I believe the information best supports my side of the argument, so that would indicate anything of synonymous relationship to it is true.
“unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.”
-I’m not judging, I’m stating what is fact based off of the information we have. If one doesn’t claim Christ as their savior, they’re not saved (hence the word “savior”). That’s not judgment, that’s understanding. Its because of Christ that we’re able to pay a debt that we’re incapable of paying ourselves. If we don’t accept payment for our debt, then we have to pay the consequences (this can be related to jail, bail, the courts, etc).
“Why do you care so much what other people believe in?”
-What someone believes in for the limited time here on earth is nothing compared to the aftermath of when someone is dead. You’re dead a lot longer than you are alive. I’m sure you know that just as well as I.
“Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs?”
-You came to me, not the other way around. You’re challenging me more than I’m challenging you, but feel free to assert something so we can discuss it if that’s your preference. (:
“I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.”
-Of course you can, but if its not true, then why believe it? People have beliefs because they “believe” it to be true, not necessarily that it is true. That’s fine and dandy, but I’m going to follow something that has the most credibility to its name and therefore easiest to believe to be true.
I’ll finish this later.
Let’s play in the fantasy world for a bit (since you like to do that so much;)) Let’s say you are around a computer for school or job training…perhaps you should focus on the school or job training and not worried about posts on a failbook site hmm? I think I’m going to stick with you not having a life and trolling from your momma’s house because you have NO JOB and NO LIFE! Don’t like my conclusion? Ask me if I give a damn…I’ll go on living my life just the same while you will have a conniption fit over it and get all defensive. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. Unless you are a total ignoramus (for the sake of this convo, let’s say you aren’t…at least not a TOTAL one) nobody KNOWS for sure what happens after death…that’s why some people believe in heaven and hell, some in reincarnation and some believe nothing happens (those are just some examples). If there was any defiant knowledge, there would only be one conclusion. Who are you to say that your way is the one and only right way?? If you believe in your way, and that’s what works for you…then so be it. But your way doesn’t work for everyone and those people have found a way that works for them…why do you feel the need to discredit their beliefs? If you don’t believe it’s true, then don’t follow their beliefs…simple as that! Please explain to me where I once challenged your beliefs? Read my posts…I made numerous statements saying I don’t care what you believe it, believe what you want (I’m the one being accepting). YOU actually said you were out to challenge my beliefs. My post haven’t been about religion…they’ve been about you not having a life. I backed that statement up, as well as you backed it up for me. So in your last rant, you admit you agree people can believe what they want. So stop with this religious nonsense. As far as you following what’s credible, go a head you follow what ever your little heart desires. Nobody is trying to change your beliefs, so be respectful and do the same. AGAIN, I’m not here to discuss religious beliefs because that is something personal and has to come within the person. A belief is something that can’t be taught or argued, it is a feeling within yourself in what you feel is right and wrong. If you have to be taught what to believe in and what provides the most credibility or facts then that is not TRUE beliefs. Look within yourself to find your beliefs not on failbook-LMAO. After writing that I found it hilarious that you’re soul searching and preaching on failbook!!! You thing are a FAIL
Have yourself a nice day now troll. I look forward to reading more of your comical rants that show your lack of life. My friends and I find this hilarious
“Let’s say you are around a computer for school or job training…perhaps you should focus on the school or job training and not worried about posts on a failbook site hmm?”
-In a class where there’s 20 students and the professor checks each ones edit individually to make sure a 40 second clip is accurate to the tee, there happens to be a bit of time. That’s why I cut out if you were curious.
“I think I’m going to stick with you not having a life and trolling from your momma’s house because you have NO JOB and NO LIFE!”
-And again, you’re free to believe that if you want. Its not the reason I’m here, so if it makes you happy to think I’m that kind of person then by all means, go ahead, but that’s not why I’m involved in this discussion. If you have something worthwhile to say then I’ll gladly be open to discussion, but I’m here to discuss and learn others viewpoints on origins and how we can determine the truth behind it. If you want to battle with personal-life trivials then I’m sorry but I’m just not as interested as much as you are.
“I’ll go on living my life just the same while you will have a conniption fit over it and get all defensive.”
-[Read above]. I don’t recall ever getting defensive. I recall offering for you to continue without hindrance (if you wanted), but as I listed above, I’m not very interested in discussing personal lives. You have yours, I have mine. I know nothing of yours so I can’t logically make a conclusion about you. Maybe personality, but that’s about the extent of it.
“Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true.”
-Never said it did. Where are you getting this interesting conclusions?
“If there was any defiant knowledge, there would only be one conclusion”
-That’s what I thought, but then I started to realize, there’s more than one conclusion you can make from the same information and it eventually becomes a battle of which conclusion best explains the same evidence which can then become a matter of will rather than mind (i.e. people will sometimes reject something not for its logical explanation, but because they just don’t like it. Will takes over where the Mind should be).
“Who are you to say that your way is the one and only right way??
-Who are you to challenge me without challenging me? That is, you keep playing 20 questions and beating around the bush rather than just confronting me. You say things like “What makes you right? How are you sure? I think you’re wrong…” If you asked objective questions rather than subjective then the things you ask now would implicitly answer themselves. Either you’re afraid or you don’t care. I’d like to think you don’t care because with all the bark you’ve given I would assume there’s a bite behind it.
“But your way doesn’t work for everyone and those people have found a way that works for them”
-Depends what context you mean that in.
“why do you feel the need to discredit their beliefs?”
-I don’t, I challenge them to see how trustworthy they are. I’m in search of knowledge, but I want what I learn to be true. I don’t care for false information, its just taking up space.
“Please explain to me where I once challenged your beliefs?
-Aside from the fact that you’re implicitly challenging me by conversing, that’s not even what I said. I said “You’re challenging me *more* than I’m challenging you.” I’m not challenging your beliefs, but I’m less aggressive and forward about it whereas you’re quite the contrary.
“YOU actually said you were out to challenge my beliefs”
-No, I said if you want to declare something specific as fact, then I will challenge it (in the correct context anyway).
“you admit you agree people can believe what they want. So stop with this religious nonsense.”
-Sir (or madam)… This “rant” wouldn’t even be going on if you didn’t say anything. Shutting me up requires mutual effort, but if you want to discuss something (which you implicitly state by joining this little debacle from the start), then I will gladly be here to answer your questions. If you just want to say where I’m wrong then I’ll point out your flaws. If you want to rant and rave as you’ve been doing then I will have to terminate this conversation unless you become a bit more mature (starting with taking off caps and curse words for emphasizing insult. If you want to emphasize a point for increased validity, then I understand, but its not an appropriate medium to converse).
“Nobody is trying to change your beliefs”
-Never said they were, but if they want to challenge me then I will gladly accept the challenge.
“If you have to be taught what to believe in and what provides the most credibility or facts then that is not TRUE belief”
-I’m a bit confused. If what I’m reading is correct, you’re saying if its taught, then its not true? You might have to clarify that.
“I look forward to reading more of your comical rants that show your lack of life. My friends and I find this hilarious”
-Any time!
God bless.
To clarify what I meant by if a belief is taught it’s not a true belief, it means that a belief is something that you feel within yourself not something that you can be talked into believing. It doesn’t mean the information is false…but telling/teaching someone to believe something is more brainwashing than an actual belief. Take for example, I grew up being taught Catholicism. I went to church every Sunday and religion school once a week. They taught you must follow certain beliefs and lifestyles to be Catholic. What they taught me didn’t feel right so I chose not to believe in the Catholicism. However, if I claimed to believe in Catholicism because that’s what I was told was right, but didn’t actual feel inside that it was right…then that would not be a real belief. Now am I saying Catholicism is all wrong? For me, yes, but for someone who truly believes in it, no, it’s perfect for them. Much of our beliefs comes from life experience and how we view life and the world. And isn’t it a beautiful thing we are not all robots who share the exact same life experiences? There is a wide variety of lifestyles and beliefs that go along with it. Embrace the differences in cultures and learn to be more accepting.
Now on a different note…I’m a little worried about you my friend. Do you get out and have fun at all? You seem to be very uptight and serious. Lighten up a bit. Tell me what sort of things you like to do for fun outside of studying religions. I don’t know if you’re male or female. I am female. I did clarify that in one of my posts, I’m not sure you got that since you wrote “sir (or madam)” again. Do you like to party? Play board games? Shop? What makes you truly happy outside of religion? I like talking to you…I may not agree with what you say, but what fun would life be if everyone agreed about everything?? Tell me though what kind of things you like to do for fun (remember….religion isn’t part of that answer…I already know you like religion
) I look forward to your response!
“Now am I saying Catholicism is all wrong? For me, yes, but for someone who truly believes in it, no, it’s perfect for them.
-Interesting, it makes sense to a certain extent up until about this point, then it kind of cuts off. A belief can be true, but there’s only 1 truth. There’s no “my truth is there is no gravity” while your truth says there is. One of us is wrong (in this case, me). So for the majority, beliefs may be false if there’s a similar understanding for those beliefs just like there’s different interpretations of similar information/evidence and thus differing conclusions, but that doesn’t make them all wrong nor does it make more than one truth.
“Embrace the differences in cultures and learn to be more accepting”
-Depends on the context of accepting. I’m not looking for people to bash or anything. Its not like I go to the grocery store and look for an Indian couple to attack their beliefs when they’re looking for hamburger buns (*Doo Doo Chhh*). I have nothing against people and if they want to believe something as true, then I have no problem with that, but if they’ve never heard both sides of the story then I feel its necessary to bring up the conflict provided that they claim their belief is true or their interested in the opposition themselves. Otherwise, I don’t even confront them about it. I have a friend who follows Islam. She doesn’t really believe it and was curious about many things. When we got on the subject I started asking questions about what she followed to a point where she didn’t want to talk about it anymore. That’s fine. If someone would rather block themselves off from conflict, that’s their choice and I wont force anything on them, but I can be friendly even with people such as that. You seem to think I’m a total douche about it or something, lol. (:
“I’m a little worried about you my friend”
-Ditto >.>
“Do you get out and have fun at all?”
-Yup, you just don’t see me.
“You seem to be very uptight and serious. Lighten up a bit.”
-Because we were discussing a serious topic. And I do lighten up, lol, that’s where the faces and little remarks come in, such as in the last post at the very bottom with the smiley.
“I don’t know if you’re male or female. I am female. I did clarify that in one of my posts, I’m not sure you got that since you wrote “sir (or madam)” again.”
-Male. You said yours earlier? Hmm.. I must’ve skipped over that… From your posts I wouldn’t conclude you were a woman, but I guess that proves the idea that false assumptions produce false conclusions. I’m just as guilty as the next person and so on I suppose.
“Do you like to party? Play board games? Shop?”
-Depends. I don’t mind things like graduation parties or personal gatherings of friends (sometimes family I suppose.. Even that’s a stretch), but I don’t prefer clubs or concert masses. Board games are fine, haven’t played one since Thanksgiving. Still have an old Stratego board game. Not a big shopper. A couple guys and I from the dorms just randomly go to Walmart or Target a couple times of the week.
“but what fun would life be if everyone agreed about everything”
-Imparting knowledge has its benefits, but that makes me sound rather old I bet.
“I look forward to your response!”
-You got really cheerful really quickly. Kind of scares me lol. Not to say its a bad thing but I’ve never seen someone turn around that quickly.
God bless.
Cheerful? Meh. Slightly bipolar? Probably lol
I’m trying to be nice here. How about we make a truce and agree to disagree (at least when it comes to religion)? Lol, I thought you were female…I’m not sure why I came to that conclusion…it’s just funny how we both mixed up each others gender. “A couple guys and I from the dorms…” so I take it you are in college. What is your major? Religious studies? If not, it should be! Well that’s all I got for now. Enjoy the weekend.
“How about we make a truce and agree to disagree
-*Signs treaty* >.>
“I thought you were female…”
-O.O
Tis rather odd indeed…
“What is your major?”
-Digital Media Arts – Communications Major
“If not, it should be!”
-Lol, what makes you say that?
“Enjoy the weekend.”
-You too *gives a cookie*
God bless.
Lol, this proves my point even more…that took you what? 20ish mins to reply?? Whether you sit around for a phone alert or an e-mail alert is irrelevant. The number of times you’ve posted on this site and the lengths of your post shows you having NO life. See, a person who has a life would maybe reply a couple of times and leave things at that because they know there are more important things in life like having a job and taking care of their family for 2 examples. People with lives don’t feel the need to continuously come back to a failbook site arguing their religious opinions. I mean you’ve been back here almost everyday since this fail has been posted. WHY?? Because you have NO LIFE! Now I’m going to be all retarded and reply like you do…
“because it was to my knowledge that Google was a helpful search engine for finding information when one wants it.”
-Yes, Google is a wonderful search engine to many sites with information about any given subject or question. I never claimed it to be a bad site. It being such a great search engine means that anyone can google any subject and paste their findings on a site claiming that they know something beyond copy and paste.
“You forgot to throw a stereotypical weight joke in there as well.”
-You must have missed the part where I implied you weigh 400lbs. It’s okay, you can go back and re-read. Ha, sorry that was irrelevant. Low blow by me. Oops.
“It scares me to know that people die each day and end up in a place they don’t want to be in simply because they may not have ever discussed it”
-Huh?? Why does it scare you that people die everyday? Dying is part of life. Everyone will die someday. A true believer would not be afraid of death . Where do people end up that they don’t want to be? How would you know where any given person ends up when they die? A true believer knows “only God can judge me” and unless you claim to be God, YOU cannot judge.
Why do you care so much what other people believe in? You should only be concerned with your beliefs. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your beliefs doesn’t me it’s a personal attack against you. So relax. Maybe if you got laid once in a while you wouldn’t be so uptight. Calm down, open your mind, you might actually make a friend or two then.
“If you want to declare something as fact, then I will challenge you instead to see just how credible your belief is.”
-Why are you out to challenge MY beliefs? They are MY beliefs not yours!! Why would I need to prove any credibility to MY beliefs? I can believe whatever I want to believe…it has NOTHING to do with you.
“You’re not making yourself look very good right now sir (or madam), and it scares me to know you’re this blinded by your anger.”
-How am I not making myself look good? Because I don’t appreciate having to put in hard long hours at work while people are sitting at home trolling and receiving welfare checks? Well excuse me. I’m a good hard working citizen who gives back to their community instead of takes. I believe people should earn what they get and not take things for free. I didn’t realize that made me such a monster. Sorry I guess. Btw, I am a woman. Just want to clear up the “sir (or madam)” issue. Care to clear up your gender? And how does any of this make me “blinded by anger”?? How was I showing anger? I simply stated that you have no life, which is pretty obvious based on what I stated before. I backed up my assumptions, there was no anger. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m angry. I may not like you, but I don’t wish anything bad against you. I do hope you find that life you are looking for. If that’s a religious life than good for you. I don’t want a religious life, and you need to just accept that and move on. If you can’t move on…then it will prove my point even more that you have no life.
I think you believe ALL atheist are evil. While some might be, just as some Christians might be evil…not ALL are evil! You need to open your mind and learn to be more accepting. If Jesus can be, so can you. Since you like to be on the computer so much, maybe you should check out http://www.indeed.com it can help you find a job in your local area. So instead of getting your panties all knotted up over what other people believe and continuing to be a menace, you can go to work and bring good to your community. Good luck with getting that life.
Honest words from an Atheist…
“God bless to you too”
Side note…if this ends up being a multiple reply, sorry my internet was all messed up
before you jump on it i made a typo i obviously meant “turning water into wine” not the reverse
ICWUDT; even I’m sick of your crap. You’re going to hell!
What?! Noes!
*Uses you as shield*
Haha, wow…
People are so nice on here. Never understood why (esp over the internet) if someone doesn’t like what someone else said/doesn’t agree…why not just “x” out of the site and move on? There really isn’t all this need for hatred. There are places around the world where people are forced into believing something, and if they go against it, they are killed. Be happy you have the option to just ignore what you don’t like. I think that about sums up my two cents.
Wow is this still going on? Think i’ll obey the bible and… “go forth and multiply” lol
Good idea. Yeah, ICWUDT keeps finding new toys to play with. I’m guilty too. I have to say his debating style/choices have rekindled the atheist in me and I’m ordering myself a couple of books by Dan Barker and Carl Sagan. I had been leaning toward agnosticism since there’s a part of me that thinks that if someone goes around saying that “God” does not exist then they must have proof of that claim, and since something that doesn’t exist can’t leave proof one way or another then that statement is just as much of an assumption as assuming that a “God” does exist.
But yet there is no proof that anything has ever come about from supernatural means.. and pretty much everything that had been chalked up to the supernatural in previous ages has since been shown to have a natural explanation so it makes it hard to understand how ANYONE could still prefer to believe in magic anymore. And I can’t help but look at all the things that people, fundamentalists or not, have done in the name of their deity or religion that it makes me wish the whole thing could be done away with. It’s not that there aren’t any good things that come from religion.. there are.. but I believe those same good things could come about from different sources as well.
I guess I got some reading to do.
well i guess every atheist should really say theyre agnostic if you want to be pedantic.
As if evidence were produced we would change our minds,wherein lies the difference ,show the religious evidence to refute a claim and they refute it.They cant even accept the anomolies in the bible where a god of love wipes out its own creations for not doing as theyre told etc.
If someone says the andromeda galaxy is made of pizza boxes, i cant say its definitely untrue no matter how unlikely, as i cant prove it but id be 99.99999999 sure so guess id have to be agnostic regards that statement.
Science’s very goal is to find answers, which it does pretty much everyday. If science had every answer, it would stop. That it hasn’t found a particular answer *yet* does not prove anything in any way, shape or form.
“if you have email notifications on”
-Indeed. >.>
“I do think the biggest problems in the discussion is that ICWUDT (I do like the alias) thinks (s)he is discussing some sort of ultimate truth (which is impossible to discern since we don’t have any methods of finding it yet”
-Why thank you (also, if you’re curious, I’m a guy), but I do have a disagreement with your statement that we can’t discern ultimate truth. To say such a thing, I would have to ask, “is what you just said ultimately true?” If not, then what you said is nullified. If so, then obviously you disproved your own statement by saying it’s true when you state there’s no ultimate truth.
You have to be careful with those self-defeating arguments. I’m good at picking up on them. (:
“I always find it amusing when someone is saying ID is science and tries to use some sort of part science”
-I’ve come to the realization that I prefer not to label ID as science anymore since I’ve noticed that science, by the scientific method, is self-defeating like the argument I just went over above. ^^^
Since science cannot use the scientific method to find out that it discovers truth, it is therefore not useful in discerning absolute truth (which I proved exists above ^^^). Ergo, we need a new method.
“I ended up in a similar discussion about evolution with someone who was trying to disprove evolution by using science which of course just ended with this person not answering anymore…”
-Oh, trust me, that doesn’t happen with me unless we are simply going in circles and cannot agree.
God bless.
Hmm, I was really not intending to go into any kind of debate here but both yesterday and today have been quite slow days at work and I kept reading the comments on this enormous thread… and well, here I am
So how come you didn’t reply to my posting instead of down here? Or is it nesting problems again (all to common on cheezburger). If it’s not possible to press reply because the postings have gone on for too long, just reply to the last of the postings and the answer will (usually) nest below the last one, it’s easier to keep track on what’s happening then. Not so much of a problem now since we’ve just started another thread here, but so you know for future reference.
I did say that we can’t discern ultimate truths yet, not that we’re never going to be able to. Many things can be true to the best of our knowledge (as my statement), but we don’t have any methods of saying that this will always be the case since science is always moving forward we will always find better and more accurate ways of measurement.
I’m glad you don’t say ID is science any more.
I do think you still haven’t quite grasped what science really entails though, just based on all the discussions I’ve read through here. Or you know fully well what it means and you just enjoy trying to make everyone that tries to explain it to you confused by mixing up their words in logic argumentations about how they express themselves.
I don’t like when people put words in my mouth so I will try not to do it to you, but I need some clarification here. Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because:
1. It does not tell us the ultimate truth.
2. It cannot (as of yet) give us answers to every question we have at the moment.
3. It does not take into consideration anything that is not testable or falsifiable (e.g. supernatural causes).
4. You believe that all scientists are biased (because they’re scientists), at least in the areas where you dispute science.
5. You believe that scientists base some of their research on faulty assumptions and therefore arrive at faulty conclusions.
Have I understood what you’ve been trying to express somewhat correctly, or is this just what I’ve been reading into your comments?
After reading this page I think that you would never be the one who suffers a loss of words
I’ll include the other comment here as well so we don’t have to keep talking in two different threads…
Ok, maybe not so much dodging the questions as (at least this is what it looks like to me) using semantics and logical arguments as to not have to answer the questions and rather focusing in how people ask the questions then the actual questions. Hmm, no, that is more or less dodging the questions in my world
I’m guessing that in some cases you are so set on this critical reading of questions that you’re not even aware you’re doing this. The point I’m trying to make is that for someone who just stumbles in here and reads the discussions it comes off as slightly arrogant and it looks like you’re aiming for a rhetorical way of winning the discussions rather then to actually stay on topic.
I’m guessing this is because you have a different outlook on what a correct assumption is, but it seems to me that you use different criteria throughout this page. In some cases you use an argument like (quote from memory) “god put a mature mountain in place, therefore it’s possible that scientists think it’s older then it really is” and in some places you use scientific criteria for your arguments. I would say that it’s a bit dishonest to mix these up since one of them require faith in a deity.
Also you say that evolution is incorrect, if you can prove that by using the scientific method then you would be world famous and probably be considered one of the greatest scientists that exists today. As long as you can back it up by scientific evidence and not by a logic/faith-based discussion on a lol-site
Now I think I have to stop writing and do some actual work for a while… I probably won’t be replying again until next week sometime, I usually don’t hang around on lol-sites during the weekends, only on slow days at work
By the way, if there’s any grammatical errors or things you don’t understand because of the way I express them, just ask and I’ll try to clarify. English is not my native language so I’ll use that as an excuse.
“So how come you didn’t reply to my posting instead of down here? Or is it nesting problems again (all to common on cheezburger). If it’s not possible to press reply because the postings have gone on for too long, just reply to the last of the postings and the answer will (usually) nest below the last one”
-Yup. I’m aware, but it’s better to just reply than constantly scroll up and down a page or 2 to get back to the comment.
“I did say that we can’t discern ultimate truths yet, not that we’re never going to be able to”
-Then how can that statement be of any valid use since it’s not discernible as an ultimate truth?
“Or you know fully well what it means and you just enjoy trying to make everyone that tries to explain it to you confused by mixing up their words in logic argumentations about how they express themselves.”
-I indeed know fully well what science is and its method, but I allow people to explain it so we’re on the same page of what science is since I get multiple explanations of the same thing. At that point, I simply point out the flaw in their thinking. They’re already confused, it has nothing to do with me, I’m just pointing it out where they don’t see it.
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
-You already started with a false premise. I don’t disagree with all science has done. Science has indeed had many accomplishments, but the method itself is false and I disagree with science determining things we don’t know (such as origins) since we have to rely solely on the method itself for information because we can’t apply common sense as well to the data. In the present, science is a great method. In the historical event of origins, not so much.
I’ll give you an example. One day, some students decided to experiment with frogs. They were testing how high frogs could jump and recording the data for interpretation later on. They went to a pond and yelled to scare a frog into jumping. The frog jumped 5 feet high. They cut off a leg and scared it again, the frog jumped 4 feet. They cut off another leg, it jumped 3 feet. The third leg goes, it jumps 2 feet, but then they cut off the last leg. They yell at it to jump, but the frog doesn’t move. They try again but the same thing happens. It jumped 0 feet. They analyzed this data and finally concluded their results. They said that with each leg they cut off, the frog jumps 1 foot less (good observation). However, whenever the frog gets to 0 legs, it goes deaf (Oooh, bad conclusion). You can get completely different conclusions from the same information. In this example, we obviously know that’s a ridiculous conclusion because we add common sense into the mix and its obvious that its hearing has nothing to do with its jumping. The fact that it has no legs to jump with does. Origins are different. Since we have no recollection of what happened along with variables associated with it, we have to rely on the method alone more than common sense. We don’t have any knowledge to associate one with the other for common sense to work as we do with frogs and their ability to jump not being connected to their hearing. Therefore, I started looking at the method itself and found out how it doesn’t work. The answer of evolution to our life’s origin is like the conclusion that frogs can’t hear once they’ve lost all their legs. It’s the fault of man putting too much faith into a method that’s inaccurate.
“maybe not so much dodging the questions as (at least this is what it looks like to me) using semantics and logical arguments as to not have to answer the questions and rather focusing in how people ask the questions then the actual questions. Hmm, no, that is more or less dodging the questions in my world”
-If the question is in err then what use is my answer to an invalid question? It’s worthless. Let’s fix the question to make it valid and then I’ll be more than happy to answer it.
“for someone who just stumbles in here and reads the discussions it comes off as slightly arrogant and it looks like you’re aiming for a rhetorical way of winning the discussions rather then to actually stay on topic”
-If staying on topic to people is discussing invalid information then ‘staying on topic’ isn’t an accurate way to have a discussion to discover the truth.
“Also you say that evolution is incorrect, if you can prove that by using the scientific method then you would be world famous and probably be considered one of the greatest scientists that exists today”
-Using the method to disprove the method has already been done; it’s self-defeating. Since the validity of the idea of evolution is crutched on the method being true, taking away the foundation is all that’s needed for everything built upon it to crumble away.
God bless.
Hmm, weird. It seems my comment I posted two days ago didn’t get accepted, or maybe it’s still awaiting moderation so there’s a risk for double posting here. If that happens, I’m sorry beforehand
Luckily for me I have the comment on notepad where I usually paste it to read through just to check for errors before posting, so here we go again:
“Then how can that statement be of any valid use since it’s not discernible as an ultimate truth?”
-Why does it have to be an absolute truth? See, this is why I mean you’re making the discussion about semantics. If you believe there is a way of discerning an absolute truth then I would like it if you explained it to me rather then just saying my sentence is logically unsound. I think we should always strive to get as close to the truth as possible, but that’s all we can do. If it was possible to get to an absolute truth then we wouldn’t need to have this discussion, then everyone in the world would know what it is.
I don’t claim to know for example how life originated since there’s not enough data and evidence to discern that yet, but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.
If you know how science works, then why would you keep making claims about how the method of falsifiability should be falsifiable? Isn’t that “common sense” as you call it, that if you can prove that a theory is incorrect then the theory doesn’t hold?
My own quote:
I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases. Am I still off with everything I said on the subject?
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish
As for your example with the frog, I would say it’s a very bad example. Partly because the people who conducted this experiment would have to be completely devoid of common sense as you say. Partly because they would first have to create a theory on what they are researching and what they expect to find (as you say, they believe that the frog would jump a bit less for each leg being cut off). When they noticed the results differ from their theory they would have to investigate the reasons why it failed. You don’t just take a conclusion from thin air and say the frog is deaf.
If their first guess would be that the frog is deaf, then they would have to stipulate WHY it would be deaf. How the legs would be connected to the hearing and show the evidence for it.
If they still somehow would come to the conclusion that the frog was deaf, they would submit this incredible finding to the science community where other people would go through their experiment and see if their conclusions are correct or not.
Of course this premise is so stupid that it would be impossible to show any link between the inner workings of a frogs hearing and it’s legs so they would have to reformulate their theory or abandon it and start over.
“If the question is in err then what use is my answer to an invalid question? It’s worthless. Let’s fix the question to make it valid and then I’ll be more than happy to answer it.”
-Sure, I can agree here, but somehow in most of the discussions you were involved the questions never met your standards even when it was obvious that you understood exactly what the people who asked you things meant with their questions. Couldn’t you give them a bit of leeway and show them how to pose the question to actually get a straight answer
“If staying on topic to people is discussing invalid information then ‘staying on topic’ isn’t an accurate way to have a discussion to discover the truth.”
-Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth? Can’t a discussion have a value in and of itself? Instead of just discussing the semantics of posing a perfect question can’t even an imperfect question deserve an interesting answer? I know I’m going of on a slight philosophical tangent here, but I like discussions
“Using the method to disprove the method has already been done; it’s self-defeating. Since the validity of the idea of evolution is crutched on the method being true, taking away the foundation is all that’s needed for everything built upon it to crumble away.”
-Sorry, I’m not sure I follow here. How has it already been done?
Do you mean that evolution would not be valid because you don’t accept the premise of the scientific method?
Odd, I think the same occurrence happened to me, I just never reposted.
“Why does it have to be an absolute truth?”
-Because otherwise it’s worthless. If there is doubt or contradiction as to whether or not it is true itself then there’s no reason to believe it holds any validity to the conversation and is therefore discarded. It’s this kind of philosophy that allows us to delve deeper to discovering the truth about more and more criteria of reality. Kind of like Inception one might say! o.O
“but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.”
-False premises produce false conclusions.
“If you know how science works, then why would you keep making claims about how the method of falsifiability should be falsifiable? Isn’t that “common sense” as you call it, that if you can prove that a theory is incorrect then the theory doesn’t hold?”
-It is common sense. You see, it’s self-defeating because if it’s true, then it falsifies ‘itself’ and is therefore invalid and discarded, but if it’s false, then there’s no point in believing that it’s accurate and is discarded anyway. Either way, it’s inaccurate.
“As for your example with the frog, I would say it’s a very bad example. Partly because the people who conducted this experiment would have to be completely devoid of common sense as you say.”
-Exactly! The difference when it comes to science of origins and science of present-day testings is that we throw common sense into the mix which guides the method. We know the frog example is ridiculous because common sense tells us what would cutting off something’s legs have to do with it’s hearing? However when we take that common sense out of the equation (since it’s more void when discussing a one-time event that we can’t replicate) and rely only on science, we have a problem. Science itself cannot give us the answers, we need more than that. The scientific method on its own is self-defeating, but if you add something to it, the formula changes.
“Couldn’t you give them a bit of leeway and show them how to pose the question to actually get a straight answer”
-That’s where I test the strength of one’s character and faith towards their own belief. If someone truly believes they’re right, then they’ll find a way to point it out respectfully without getting defensive in insults rather than in discussion.
“Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth?”
-As opposed to finding lies?
“can’t even an imperfect question deserve an interesting answer”
-It can indeed have an interesting answer, but what use is it in reality if it’s an inaccurate question?
“How has it already been done?”
-The idea that science discovers truth cannot be determined by the scientific method itself.
God bless.
“Odd, I think the same occurrence happened to me, I just never reposted.”
So maybe failblog has grown tired of our conversation and tries to get us to quit
I am glad you’re back to continue this discussion though.
““Why does it have to be an absolute truth?”
-Because otherwise it’s worthless.”
So you just skipped the part where I ask you to describe a way to show that something is an absolute truth.
““but I’m happy to say “I don’t know” rather then to put my faith in something that isn’t possible to prove.”
-False premises produce false conclusions.”
What’s the false premise here?
“-It is common sense. You see, it’s self-defeating because if it’s true, then it falsifies ‘itself’ and is therefore invalid and discarded, but if it’s false, then there’s no point in believing that it’s accurate and is discarded anyway.”
How does it falsify itself if it is true? That’s the point of science, if it is true then no one would be able to falsify it.
“However when we take that common sense out of the equation (since it’s more void when discussing a one-time event that we can’t replicate) and rely only on science, we have a problem.”
Once again you disregard all else I said about your experiment. Even if you take common sense out of the equation this experiment will never yield the type of results you are implying. If you scroll up to my last comment and read the actual reasons to why it would not work instead of just focusing on the rather insignificant part where I said the experiment wasn’t plausible because I don’t think there exists people who are this devoid of common sense…
I also have to say I don’t quite grasp what you’re saying in you parenthesis, it might just be that it’s monday morning, but if you could explain I’d be glad.
“If someone truly believes they’re right, then they’ll find a way to point it out respectfully without getting defensive in insults rather than in discussion.”
In some ways I agree with you here, I do think it’s good if people are forced to take examine why they think like they do on a regular basis and if you get challenged it’s a good reason to start breaking down your arguments to see what really works.
However I also know that some people just don’t have the sort of reasoning that we demand from them. Even if they truly believe in what they are saying it is near impossible to express it in a way that you or I would deem sound in our way of thinking. I do agree fully though that in a discussion the civil thing to do is to keep from insults
““Does all discussions have to be about discovering the truth?”
-As opposed to finding lies?”
No, as opposed to just talking. Don’t you think that sometimes it is possible to gain knowledge,insight,understanding or just entertainment from nothing else then talking to someone? If you have a casual discussion about politics for example (happens almost daily at my place of work) then it’s mostly based on opinions that people hold on how a society should be governed. This can’t lead to any truths even though I prefer when people have some sort of facts to back up their opinions, but in the end it’s still opinions.
I find it most intriguing trying to understand why someone thinks the way they do and not only what they think. Since so much of the dialogue on the internet and in some parts of the media is based on stereotypes and a strong unwillingness to see where the other side is coming from it makes me feel I rather want to understand why people hold their views then the actual views.
As you can see I still find it interesting to have these types of debates about different things though
“-It can indeed have an interesting answer, but what use is it in reality if it’s an inaccurate question?”
As I just said, there can be a value in the discussion itself. Sometimes it is possible to actually narrow down the subject to be able to find that correct question after a bit of dancing around
“-The idea that science discovers truth cannot be determined by the scientific method itself.”
I don’t see how this is relevant. Unless you can show a way that is possible to use to discover ultimate truths then it is impossible to show anything as true.
As I and many people have pointed out several times, science shows the closest we can get to the truth with the most advanced methods that exist today. Tomorrow we will be slightly closer and so on.
I’d like to go back to my previous comment since there are some things I find interesting for the continuation about this subject that you never answered. I asked for your views on science, and I gave a list of 5 things I had gotten the impression that you expressed. I’m still curious as to whether I am correct in my assumptions or if I was wrong. If I got the wrong idea there’s a risk that I will misinterpret what you’re saying.
At first you said I had the wrong premise which I later explained was rather a wrong way of expressing myself. But we never got back to my assumptions after that. You also added that “I disagree with science determining things we don’t know (such as origins)”. It doesn’t. There are a couple of hypothesis about abiogenesis that touch this subject, but there is still insufficient data to say anything clearly. Science does not claim to know about origins.
You also never addressed my comment about you mixing science arguments with faith based arguments.
There, I think that about covers it and now it is time to go for lunch. Take care!
“So maybe failblog has grown tired of our conversation and tries to get us to quit”
-I suppose so!
“So you just skipped the part where I ask you to describe a way to show that something is an absolute truth.”
-Whenever something can withstand criticism and doesn’t contradict itself, then I would logically conclude it’s true. The reason I ignored it is because your question for asking it was faulty as I pointed out.
“What’s the false premise here?”
-Saying it’s impossible to prove. Now I’m never here to prove my side 100% because the point of the Bible is not meant to prove itself. It’s meant to put forth information convincing enough to allow those who follow its teachings to follow with confidence. There’s always something that someone will find to deny it. Then again, that’s life. If someone doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll find any reason to deny it, even if it’s irrational.
“How does it falsify itself if it is true?”
-Simple, however I need your personal definition of falsifiability because I always get a different one depending on the person.
“That’s the point of science, if it is true then no one would be able to falsify it”
-So if it can be false, then what’s the point in believing it’s true?
“Even if you take common sense out of the equation this experiment will never yield the type of results you are implying
-Of course it does. Obviously if it doesn’t move then it must not have heard you. See the relation? That’s the only point I’m making is that you can get the wrong conclusions based on something that seemingly fits the evidence. Lack of common sense will aid in this error.
“No, as opposed to just talking.”
-If you’re talking about who could win in a footrace; Superman or Flash, then no there’s nothing wrong with that. Since we’re discussing origins and where we came from, we’re not looking for superstitions or comic book tales, we’re looking for the truth of where we came from. Should that happen to relate to a comic book tale then that’s another story. I’ve not got anything against talking about random things, but when we’re trying to discover the truth of where we came from, then yes, absolute truth must be a factor taken into account.
“Don’t you think that sometimes it is possible to gain knowledge,insight,understanding or just entertainment from nothing else then talking to someone?”
-Assuming they’re telling the *truth,* or at least a story of truthful characteristics/morals (not necessarily about them), then yes. As for entertainment, there’s a reason they call it an “amusement” park. Muse means to think, add an ‘A’ to it and it becomes the opposite (thus, ‘amuse’ means to not think). Just a little fun fact there.
You can gain knowledge multiple ways, through the truths that people tell, the mistakes they made, etc. I’m not saying there’s only 1 way to gain information and that’s only through absolute truth. I’m saying, when discovering the truth of our origins, we need truthful information, not life stories or people’s opinions.
“Unless you can show a way that is possible to use to discover ultimate truths then it is impossible to show anything as true.
-Taking your advocate, then your statement here is false and thereby dismissed.
“I’d like to go back to my previous comment since there are some things I find interesting for the continuation about this subject that you never answered. I asked for your views on science, and I gave a list of 5 things I had gotten the impression that you expressed.
-I’m well aware, but I also pointed out that you started with a false premise before asking your 5 questions which renders them obsolete until the premise (or the questions) is/are fixed.
“At first you said I had the wrong premise which I later explained was rather a wrong way of expressing myself. But we never got back to my assumptions after that.”
-Because if you’re wrong in your assumption then you’re wrong in your questions that are based on the assumption. False assumptions produce false conclusions as I’ve said previously. There’s no need to answer something built on a foundation that can’t sustain itself.
“You also never addressed my comment about you mixing science arguments with faith based arguments.”
-Where have I mixed science and faith based arguments?
God bless.
“Whenever something can withstand criticism and doesn’t contradict itself, then I would logically conclude it’s true. The reason I ignored it is because your question for asking it was faulty as I pointed out.”
What you’re proposing as true sounds to me to be only semantics. That would imply that as long as you make your statement without fault you could express anything as being true. I would say you need data to back up a statement, not just sound reasoning.
You know I regard science as the ultimate tool we have for coming as close as possible to the truth, but you also know I don’t agree with you in saying it’s possible to actually reach any ultimate truths. Especially when we are discussing topics like origins where we don’t have enough data yet to be able to do a full analysis and from there make conclusions.
“Simple, however I need your personal definition of falsifiability because I always get a different one depending on the person.”
I don’t quite understand how there could be different definitions of falsifiability, but ok.
If something is theoretically possible to falsify it is falsifiable. In science that means that if anyone finds any evidence to disprove what you are working on, then it is easy to show it was incorrect. If no one ever finds a way to falsify what you are working on it is true to the extent of our current measuring capabilities.
“So if it can be false, then what’s the point in believing it’s true?”
Because if no one can prove it to be false then it is as close to the truth as we can possibly get.
“That’s the only point I’m making is that you can get the wrong conclusions based on something that seemingly fits the evidence.”
But as I stated, even if someone reaches the wrong conclusion in one single experiment there is no way it would pass all the tests that science puts it through after the initial error. You can reach an incorrect conclusion in any part of life, be it religion, debating etc., but in science there’s a number of checks to make sure it never gets further then that single instant.
“Since we’re discussing origins and where we came from”
I didn’t know that was the topic of the entire conversation, at least for me it is partly about finding out how different people reach their conclusions about different aspects
“I’m saying, when discovering the truth of our origins, we need truthful information, not life stories or people’s opinions.”
too bad we have very different opinions on how to get to that truth though…
Hey, I actually agree with you here
I do have to add though that I’m not overly concerned about finding out about our origins, of course it would be very interesting to know how it all started, but I doubt science will have progressed that far in my lifetime to actually give any conclusive proof so I don’t give it much thought in my daily life. To me it’s more important what I can do with what I have then to dwell on topics that is impossible for me to know. Of course with the exception of the occasional philosophical digress
“Taking your advocate, then your statement here is false and thereby dismissed.”
Also just semantics, yes you can logically deduce that the sentence is faulty, but if there is no way of proving an ultimate truth, how would it be possible to phrase it any differently? That’s why I have been asking you all the time to define a method of discerning ultimate truths so I could use it in phrasing my questions or putting forth my thoughts to you in a way that you would accept and continue the discussion instead of just picking apart my wording.
“Because if you’re wrong in your assumption then you’re wrong in your questions that are based on the assumption”
My assumption was that you found some science to be inaccurate because of the 5 points I listed. Is that what you meant?
“Where have I mixed science and faith based arguments?”
My example was that in one discussion you said the science behind measuring geological age was sound, but since you believe that god could have put them on our planet already old you dismissed the subject. This to me is such a giant leap that it makes it problematic to have a normal conversation, even if it would be possible to prove something without the shadow of a doubt, then you can just say
-sure, but that was only because god put the evidence there…
(This is just my recollection of the discussion so if it’s not exactly what you said I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.)
Take care!
“What you’re proposing as true sounds to me to be only semantics. That would imply that as long as you make your statement without fault you could express anything as being true”
-As I previously said, “Whenever something can withstand criticism AND not contradict itself” I would assume it to be true. Not just non-contradictory. If you have criticism, let’s hear it.
“but you also know I don’t agree with you in saying it’s possible to actually reach any ultimate truths.”
-If that’s so, then your statement isn’t truthful, in which case it is disregarded. See how easy this is? Ultimate truths exist. We use them day to day. To deny them is only to affirm their existence. It may be difficult to find them (which I might disagree with to multiple extents based on the subject at hand), but that doesn’t mean they’re non-existent.
“Especially when we are discussing topics like origins where we don’t have enough data yet to be able to do a full analysis and from there make conclusions.”
-So then you agree that evolution is a belief like any other since you would say there’s not enough data to make such a definitive conclusion. I agree. Next on the list is which of the theories on origins is the most viable and most convincing, holding the most evidence to support it’s idea?
“If something is theoretically possible to falsify it is falsifiable. In science that means that if anyone finds any evidence to disprove what you are working on, then it is easy to show it was incorrect. If no one ever finds a way to falsify what you are working on it is true to the extent of our current measuring capabilities.
-I agree on a majority of it, but I need a bit of clarification. Can something that is true be falsifiable? Does something need to be falsifiable to be considered true or scientific?
“But as I stated, even if someone reaches the wrong conclusion in one single experiment there is no way it would pass all the tests that science puts it through after the initial error.”
-Sure it can, if science eliminates answers before testing for a conclusion. For example, if I were to ask you the answer to 2+2, but the answer isn’t 4, what answer would you give? 5? Well if 4 isn’t correct, then 5 could be it. So could 3, or 17, etc. When you eliminate answers, you’re doomed to get false results. This is what science does. When looking for answers to origins, I find it strange that they don’t consider anything other than a natural answer. They wont accept an answer of intelligence behind everything (for whatever reasons, I can name a few), only the unintelligent. They force an answer into the peg hole because they’ve eliminated others beforehand.
“too bad we have very different opinions on how to get to that truth though”
-If you have a way to get a truth, then good for you, that’s great. I’m interested in any methods that can be used to discover truth.
“I do have to add though that I’m not overly concerned about finding out about our origins”
-Discovering who we are dictates what we do in the grand scheme of things. Origins aren’t always important, but what we do and where we’re going because of those doings are. Origins are just fascinating for me on their own.
“but if there is no way of proving an ultimate truth, how would it be possible to phrase it any differently?”
-Simple. If there’s no ultimate truth, then your objection against what I said is meaningless as an objection.
“That’s why I have been asking you all the time to define a method of discerning ultimate truths so I could use it in phrasing my questions or putting forth my thoughts to you in a way that you would accept and continue the discussion instead of just picking apart my wording.”
-Aside from the fact that I’ve already said that it shouldn’t be self-defeating and withstand criticism, what if I couldn’t come up with a method? What would that indicate to you?
“My assumption was that you found some science to be inaccurate because of the 5 points I listed. Is that what you meant?”
-No, your assumption was that I believed “science is wrong (in all cases).”
“My example was that in one discussion you said the science behind measuring geological age was sound, but since you believe that god could have put them on our planet already old you dismissed the subject.”
-That’s not a mixing though. That’s one over the other. Using science to say “this is why you’re wrong” or any other way to prove an old earth versus a young earth view is to say one side is right, not both in whatever ways. I will gladly take by faith that the Bible is correct in this particular instance since there’s nothing really conclusive we can use to give a 100% accurate date if God can create anything with the appearance of age (maturity). There’s nothing truly contradictory (P.S. That was just one of the arguments against the old ages we get).
God bless.
“As I previously said, “Whenever something can withstand criticism AND not contradict itself” I would assume it to be true.”
Sorry, I guess I was too tired when I read that
“If that’s so, then your statement isn’t truthful, in which case it is disregarded. See how easy this is? Ultimate truths exist. We use them day to day. To deny them is only to affirm their existence”
But all I’ve been saying is that my statement is as true as it is possible to get for the time being. I have also never said that ultimate truths don’t exist, just that we aren’t able to discern them just yet (and now we’re talking about finding these truths through the scientific method in natural sciences).
“So then you agree that evolution is a belief like any other since you would say there’s not enough data to make such a definitive conclusion”
What? Why would you involve evolution here? I thought we were talking about origins? In science origins have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution only starts after life has begun. It says absolutely nothing about how life started. This has been pointed out in discussions above in this thread, and seriously, you claim to know what evolution is about, I would say this shows that you really don’t. Please don’t mix abiogenesis (which there isn’t enough evidence to have a clear idea of what actually happened, only speculations and qualified guesswork) and evolution. In the scientific world they have nothing to do with each other.
And no, I would not say that it requires any “belief” in evolution. There is plenty of facts to show that it is a viable theory. This discussion has been ongoing for a very long time above and I don’t think it’s necessary to go through all the different aspects of evolution once again. If you don’t believe in evolution, that’s fine with me, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. The reason I get involved in these discussions are because people often try to either say that the theory of evolution isn’t true and use science to disprove it (which still hasn’t succeeded) or portray it as a belief which is just as futile since a belief doesn’t require proof whereas science does.
“Next on the list is which of the theories on origins is the most viable and most convincing, holding the most evidence to support it’s idea?”
Since there is no conclusive evidence of how life started yet I would still say that there is no way of knowing. I think that abiogenesis might be true but I have no idea. I have never seen any evidence presented that the bible would be true so before that happens I don’t think that’s a viable option. That’s why I keep saying I don’t know. I’m not disregarding any possibilities but unless there is some sort of evidence I’m not going to say anything for certain.
“Can something that is true be falsifiable? Does something need to be falsifiable to be considered true or scientific?”
Of course something that is true can be falsifiable. Otherwise what would be the point of science? If something is true then it isn’t possible to falsify though, but it is still falsifiable.
Something needs to be falsifiable to build a hypothesis in science. If it isn’t possible to falsify a given subject, then it wouldn’t be possible to test the validity and therefore it wouldn’t be science.
“Sure it can, if science eliminates answers before testing for a conclusion. [..] When looking for answers to origins, I find it strange that they don’t consider anything other than a natural answer”
Science never eliminates any answer beforehand. The possibilities just have to be falsifiable.
Science has never stated that it is impossible for a creator to be behind origins of life, but since there is no way of testing or proving this, it doesn’t belong in science. That’s all. You can probably find scientist saying that there is no creator, but that is them speaking as individuals. Science in and of itself does not say it is impossible that there is a creator.
Why do you find this strange? Science has a very defined method it uses, anything that falls outside of the method is not applicable. Wouldn’t you find it odd if someone proposed that you should add a couple of books to the bible written by me, just because they would be a logical continuation of the original story? If you don’t find that odd, then give me an adress where I can send in my contributions
“If you have a way to get a truth, then good for you, that’s great. I’m interested in any methods that can be used to discover truth.”
)
As I have said before, the scientific method is the way to get to the truth (and you don’t need to point out that I have said we can’t show the ultimate truth with this method, that doesn’t mean we don’t find ultimate truths with it, just that we can’t show them to be ultimate truths
“Discovering who we are dictates what we do in the grand scheme of things.”
Yes, agreed. I don’t think it is necessary to know how life started on this planet to know who we are though. I think the important part is how we live our lives, how we treat other people and that we do the best we possibly can with the short life we have.
“Simple. If there’s no ultimate truth, then your objection against what I said is meaningless as an objection.”
Once again, I have never said that ultimate truths doesn’t exist, just that we don’t have the means to discern them (as such) yet.
“No, your assumption was that I believed “science is wrong (in all cases).””
Which I rectified in the next comment, explaining I mistakenly translated my Swedish sentence in my head, from my comment:
“My own quote:
“Have I understood you correctly that you don’t agree with science (in all cases) because”
Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases. Am I still off with everything I said on the subject?”
“That’s not a mixing though. That’s one over the other.”
I don’t quite agree here. Considering that most of the discussions are about science and that it seems that you in some cases believe what science has discovered but in some cases you don’t. In the cases you believe in science you argue from a position of science but if something doesn’t correspond with your view of the bible then the bible supersedes it and all of a sudden the scientific method is not good enough to use.
I have full respect for your belief system and I have no problem that you want more answers then science is able to give for the time being, but to pick and choose which parts of science to use just feels wrong to me. Either you acknowledge that science is a good method of moving towards the truth and to discover how the universe works, or you don’t. If you don’t think science has the best method, that’s fine, but don’t use science when it benefits you purpose and then shift to faith in the discussions when science doesn’t work for you
Hmm, I think that came out a bit more harsh then intended. As you probably have noticed I find it interesting to discuss these topics with you so don’t read too much into that last paragraph, I just think that science and religion does not work well together. Not saying that I dislike religion or anything, just that it has no place in science
On a slightly different tangent. We have been discussing science and methods and semantics for quite some time here. I am quite curious to what makes you so sure the bible is correct? What is it that gives you this (seemingly) absolute faith in that the earth is young, a creator is behind everything and that all the evidence (from science) that shows otherwise was just planted there to fool us (or some reason I don’t know/understand)?
I also wonder what made you choose Christianity as your religion? I mean you are almost as much atheist as I am, I just believe in one god less then you. Considering the other two Abrahamic religions have the same basis and worship the same god, how do you know the Christian one is the correct one?
Wow, that was a longer comment then I expected.
Take care!
“Sorry, I guess I was too tired when I read that”
-We all get that way occasionally.
“I have also never said that ultimate truths don’t exist, just that we aren’t able to discern them just yet”
-Then how can you discern if your statement is true as you imply it is? Again, really simple stuff here.
“I thought we were talking about origins?”
-We are. In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.
“It says absolutely nothing about how life started.”
-It has to deal with where humanity arose, so technically it does.
“I would not say that it requires any “belief” in evolution. There is plenty of facts to show that it is a viable theory.”
-And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything. If we don’t, then you’re just as wrong as I am and this conversation is fruitless.
“people often try to either say that the theory of evolution isn’t true and use science to disprove it (which still hasn’t succeeded)”
-Probably because they’re ‘using science’ in the wrong context. Using the method which is flawed will definitely not get them anywhere in trying to disprove anything to them or others since the method is flawed itself. That’s the context I use it in as I’ve said before.
“Of course something that is true can be falsifiable.”
-So what if falsifiability is put on trial here? If the idea that something has to be falsifiable to be science can be falsifiable itself, then what validity is something to be set in the standard of being falsifiable to discover truth? After all, even if truth can be falsifiable, how can we be sure anything is true?
“If something is true then it isn’t possible to falsify though, but it is still falsifiable”
-So there cannot be self-evident truths? It all has to be falsifiable in some way? Still trying to understand the concept here.
“Sorry, I think my sentence was a straight translation from Swedish I meant that you agree with science, but not in all cases.”
-There are many things science is good for and I will agree with. In present applications (and multiple future uses) it is very useful and a great aid in advancing. However, it does have it’s falsifying factors as we can see when we try to apply it to origins.
“In the cases you believe in science you argue from a position of science but if something doesn’t correspond with your view of the bible then the bible supersedes it and all of a sudden the scientific method is not good enough to use”
-That’s called conflict. Yes, I believe the Bible cover to cover. I still have a lot to study and understand, but for everything I’ve studied so far, it’s pulled through every time. This is going to raise conflict with other theories. If there were only one theory, then, granted, I might not think so hard on the subject, but it is because of these conflicts that allow us to critically analyze the 2 thoughts and thus become more deeply understanding of the propositions to come to a more accurate decision. That’s not so much mixing faith with science as rising conflict between the two and discovering which is right (and sometimes both can be right or both can be wrong, but it’s because of the friction they create between each other that allows us to discover that).
“Not saying that I dislike religion or anything, just that it has no place in science”
-You mean to tell me you’re eliminating answers before coming to a conclusion when presented with a problem? Strange, I think I addressed that issue and you disagreed with it didn’t I?
“I am quite curious to what makes you so sure the bible is correct? What is it that gives you this (seemingly) absolute faith in that the earth is young, a creator is behind everything and that all the evidence (from science) that shows otherwise was just planted there to fool us (or some reason I don’t know/understand)?”
-I find more evidence for it which is what drew me in, then faith took over and that was the nail in the coffin. I don’t think I could’ve started with faith, but I knew I wasn’t going to be able to survive on the evidence alone. That was just the platform to jump from.
I also wouldn’t say that the “evidence from science was planted there to fool us.” I would say we’re fooling ourselves with the evidence that supports another theory. This is what I was referring to just moments ago about the evidence better supporting another idea, not science. You and I can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. It’s part of the example I gave with the frogs and science students.
“I also wonder what made you choose Christianity as your religion? I mean you are almost as much atheist as I am”
-For the previous reasons above, but no, I am not. There are multiple gods throughout the world, but not all are synonymous and it’s impossible to believe all of them, therefore, it’s not that you believe one less than I do, it’s that it’s impossible to believe them all as you imply through saying “I believe one less than you.”
God bless.
“Then how can you discern if your statement is true as you imply it is?”
-You get the same simple answer as before, it is true to the extent it is possible to discern for the time being. As no one has yet provided any method to discern an ultimate truth that can show without a shadow of a doubt that it is an ultimate truth, then how could I state that what I say is absolutely true? It would have to be a method that is accepted by everyone; otherwise it would only be true to some people. If it is only true to some people then how can you call it an ultimate truth?
For example, in math it is possible to have ultimate truths. 1+1 is always going to be 2, for every person who has the capacity for understanding how addition works. It doesn’t matter if you’re religious or atheist; there is no possible way to interpret it where the result wouldn’t be 2.
“We are. In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”
-No. It does not go further. The theory of evolution starts when life already exists. It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.
“It has to deal with where humanity arose, so technically it does.”
-Yes, it deals with how humans evolved from other animals. It says nothing about how the first life on earth came into being. In what technical way is it the same thing? It shows what kind of species came before humans and what came before them and so on back to the first single-cell life on this planet. Maybe we are just using the same terms in different meanings. When I speak of origins, I mean the origins of life on this planet, which science so far only has a hypothesis to, abiogenesis.
“And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything. If we don’t, then you’re just as wrong as I am and this conversation is fruitless.”
-I said that about the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Not about evolution. Please don’t mix the two together, that just shows you don’t understand science. Why do you keep trying to mix a scientific theory together with a scientific hypothesis? This I find a bit dishonest in your way of debating, when you constantly try to tell me why evolution can’t be correct by stating things that have nothing to do with evolution. I said earlier that we don’t have enough information to make a theory of abiogenesis, that’s why it’s still at the hypothesis stage. Evolution we have plenty of evidence of. I wrote a long paragraph about this in my last comment, what part is it you don’t understand? If there is a theory about a specified field, then why is it so hard to understand that anything outside of these specifications does not belong to the theory? I agree that they are connected in the sense that without life there is no evolution, but that does not change the fact that the origin of life is outside the boundaries that concerns evolution.
“Probably because they’re ‘using science’ in the wrong context. Using the method which is flawed will definitely not get them anywhere in trying to disprove anything to them or others since the method is flawed itself.”
.
-Thank you. Then I hope you can convince other creationists or ID followers to stop doing this
I also still don’t understand in what way the method is flawed, and I’m afraid that we might not ever reach a point where you manage to explain it in a way that I would understand, given the many times we’ve tried this already
“So what if falsifiability is put on trial here? If the idea that something has to be falsifiable to be science can be falsifiable itself, then what validity is something to be set in the standard of being falsifiable to discover truth?”
-I’m not quite sure I follow what you’re trying to say here. I feel like you’re trying to say that you should use a method on a method to show that the method is applicable or something like that. To me that sounds like circular reasoning, you can have a method of making food (read the recipe, mix the ingredients then cook), but how would you apply the method onto itself? This just sounds ridiculous so I hope I have misunderstood what you meant as I seem to keep doing
“After all, even if truth can be falsifiable, how can we be sure anything is true?”
-If no one manages to falsify it of course. If you have an ultimate truth as a scientific theory, then there would be absolutely no way to falsify it.
“So there cannot be self-evident truths? It all has to be falsifiable in some way?”
-Exactly. In science there can’t be any self-evident truths. What you perceive as self-evident might not be to me. Self-evident truths hinges on the perception of the individual. Science is how you work towards objective truths. That gives the same results no matter who performs the experiment. No matter what person you are, where you come from or what place you’re at you would get the same results from doing the same experiment.
“There are many things science is good for and I will agree with. In present applications (and multiple future uses) it is very useful and a great aid in advancing. However, it does have its falsifying factors as we can see when we try to apply it to origins.”
-But how can you agree with anything that has sprung from science if you consider the method faulty? Sorry, what do you mean when you apply it to origins? Since we haven’t gotten far enough in the search for how life started I don’t quite know how you would apply it?
“Yes, I believe the Bible cover to cover”
-Do you believe it literally or metaphorically, or is it a mix of both?
“That’s not so much mixing faith with science as rising conflict between the two and discovering which is right”
-Ok, I actually understand your reasoning here
I don’t agree with the conclusions you draw, but that’s another thing. How do you test the validity of what is written in the bible?
“You mean to tell me you’re eliminating answers before coming to a conclusion when presented with a problem? Strange, I think I addressed that issue and you disagreed with it didn’t I?”
-No, not at all. Why would I reject any possible answers? Did you not understand my explanation? My quote: “Science has never stated that it is impossible for a creator to be behind origins of life, but since there is no way of testing or proving this, it doesn’t belong in science.” What it means is that if you have a possible answer to a question you just have to be able to set up an experiment that is falsifiable. Are you saying that is possible with religion?
“I find more evidence for it which is what drew me in, then faith took over and that was the nail in the coffin. I don’t think I could’ve started with faith, but I knew I wasn’t going to be able to survive on the evidence alone”
-This is a discussion where I feel intrigued to learn more, I hope you don’t feel I get too personal or anything, but I find it very interesting trying to understand how people with other worldviews then me thinks.
What kind of evidence is it? You don’t have to go into specifics if you’re not comfortable with it even though I wouldn’t mind anecdotes as well
“You and I can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions. It’s part of the example I gave with the frogs and science students.”
-But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty, and if that’s the case then it gets reworked or discarded. Your example with the frog is still not a good example considering it would never get any further then the initial ‘not so smart people’ who conducted the experiment. What part of my explanations about how your example is incorrect is it you don’t understand? Do we need to take it once again or could you just point to how you think it is a relevant example?
“For the previous reasons above, but no, I am not. There are multiple gods throughout the world, but not all are synonymous and it’s impossible to believe all of them, therefore, it’s not that you believe one less than I do, it’s that it’s impossible to believe them all as you imply through saying “I believe one less than you.””
-How is it implied that it would be possible to believe in all of them? All I’m saying is that you don’t believe in any of the Hindu gods, and I don’t either. You don’t believe in the Norse gods, I don’t either. You believe in the Christian god, I don’t. I’m not trying to imply that it is possible to believe in all of them at the same time, usually religions are exclusive, that is the point I was trying to make, that there is just one of all these religions that you believe is true and hundreds that you don’t believe.
I do guess that you believe in the Christian god, and I have read as much of the bible that I know that you shouldn’t have any other gods than him (or her? or it? do the bible ever state a gender or is god maybe above such things. I think I’ve seen some argument that even though mankind is supposed to be created in the image of god that the creator is above such things but in the old translations it was more convenient to use the masculine form). Wouldn’t that make you an atheist for any other god then the Christian (or Abrahamic) god? Or are you speaking in a more spiritual way somehow linking some of the different faiths, only that the ways of believing differs?
I think you mentioned somewhere earlier that you go to a Christian college, what is that like? Do they teach the natural sciences like evolution there? Do you get classes in the different big religions in the world? Did you also attend something like a Christian elementary school, or is the US (I just assume you’re American, I don’t remember if you have mentioned this or not) elementary school supposed to be secular?
When I grew up here in Sweden we had classes in religion, and all the big religions were covered about as equally. Of course we did learn a bit more about Christianity but more as a part of our history since we were a Christian country once.
Take care!
“You get the same simple answer as before, it is true to the extent it is possible to discern for the time being”
-But you said that we can’t discern said truths, so your objection being built upon that is still false. You can’t say “we can’t discern these truths for the time being” and then say “what I said is true for the time being.” Double standards aren’t an effective measurement to discover accurate information.
“It would have to be a method that is accepted by everyone”
-There are still some people that believe geocentric orbit. Does that mean the current system we believe to be true is false? Majority opinion does not determine truth. I think we can see that through history in certain areas.
“It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.”
-I never said it did, but it does deal with where humanity originated.
“When I speak of origins, I mean the origins of life on this planet”
-As am I, but my primary focus is humanity.
“I said that about the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Not about evolution. Please don’t mix the two together”
-They both deal with the origin of humanity, just in different ways.
“I also still don’t understand in what way the method is flawed”
-I showed how with the frog example. That along with the idea that science can’t discover truth using the scientific method itself is self-defeating.
” I feel like you’re trying to say that you should use a method on a method to show that the method is applicable or something like that”
-You’re getting close (read below)
“To me that sounds like circular reasoning”
-Ohhh, so close, but no cigar.
We’re not using a method on a method to see if it can prove itself. We’re using a method on a method to see if it contradicts itself. If it does, then it’s false, but if it’s not contradictory, then we move on to the next phase in discovering it’s validity.
“Self-evident truths hinges on the perception of the individual.”
-No, self-evient truth is knowing something is true without evidence. One’s perception would be evidence of a particular instance. That’s how I see it anyway.
“But how can you agree with anything that has sprung from science if you consider the method faulty?”
-Because people don’t “only” use the method alone. In present and many future applications they throw in the thing that is not as easily distinguishable (but still distinguished nonetheless), that being common sense.
“Do you believe it literally or metaphorically, or is it a mix of both?”
-Far more than that. There’s a whole list of literary features used throughout the Bible. Literal, metaphors, rhetoric, parable, etc.
“How do you test the validity of what is written in the bible?”
-Depends with which part of the Bible you’re looking at for the most part, but to give a general look, seeing as the Bible is over 60 books written by about 40 authors throughout all periods of time in about 3 different countries (all being factors that should falsify something if it were a lie) and yet it still lives on today as a concise testament through all it has endured, be it destroyed, slain, persecuted, martyred, etc.
“What it means is that if you have a possible answer to a question you just have to be able to set up an experiment that is falsifiable. Are you saying that is possible with religion?”
-If we both have a clear understanding of the term ‘falsifiable’ then yes.
“What kind of evidence is it?”
-Depends what we’re looking at. Asking what kind of evidence is like asking what is a bike. Well, what kind of bike are we talking about? Are we interested in the history of where bikes came from or how it works? Are we looking for how it’s made or the mathematics behind it being a mode of transportation? There’s multiple segments to such a general statement.
“But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty”
-Yet we come to different conclusions regarding origins.
“All I’m saying is that you don’t believe in any of the Hindu gods, and I don’t either”
-Because my belief contradicts them. Just like theirs contradicts mine and the vast majority of other religions contradict others. Saying you believe one less than I do is not valid because it’s to say that it’s possible to believe them all. In reality, there may be a handful of religions that don’t contradict each other and allow for syncretism. Regardless of that, this isn’t about how close we may seem, what matters is the final results.
“Wouldn’t that make you an atheist for any other god then the Christian (or Abrahamic) god?”
-If you want to severely twist the definition, sure.
“I know that you shouldn’t have any other gods than him (or her? or it? do the bible ever state a gender or is god maybe above such things.”
-He’s pronounced to be our heavenly ‘father’ who is composed up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, so God has a masculine identity. Man was also made in the image of God, and woman from man.
“Do they teach the natural sciences like evolution there?”
-They’ve brought it up from time to time and we’re all aware of it at the school.
“Do you get classes in the different big religions in the world?”
-They speak on multiple religions every day regardless of the class one is enrolled in.
“Did you also attend something like a Christian elementary school, or is the US (I just assume you’re American, I don’t remember if you have mentioned this or not) elementary school supposed to be secular?”
-I was in a secular school all the way through high school.
God bless.
“You can’t say “we can’t discern these truths for the time being” and then say “what I said is true for the time being.” Double standards aren’t an effective measurement to discover accurate information.”
-In the first quote from me I was talking about ultimate truths. In the second quote I was referring to that something was as true as is possible for the time being. How is that double standards?
I think I know what the problem is here. You are applying logic on my linguistic phrasing at the time I am describing how science works. This is why I keep saying you’re using semantics to prove a point instead of trying to understand what it is really about. Let’s break my original sentence down for you.
Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one. When science finds an ultimate truth it can never be shown to be false, therefore it is impossible to know that it is an ultimate truth but at the same time it is true as far as we can possibly show.
I can agree that I might have made some error in my allusion that could make it seem like I wasn’t talking about the scientific method (I don’t want to go back in the discussion and check right now). I also mention falsifiability in greater detail below.
“There are still some people that believe geocentric orbit. Does that mean the current system we believe to be true is false? Majority opinion does not determine truth. I think we can see that through history in certain areas.”
-I said it would have to be a method that is acceptable to everyone. I agree that maybe I should have phrased that differently, but as I have said several times before, without a clearly defined method of discerning an absolute truth, how can you claim it is one?
““It does NOT have anything to do with how life originated.”
-I never said it did, but it does deal with where humanity originated.”
-To quote what you said in your previous comment:
“In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”
How is that not a claim that evolution deals with the origin of life?
You also stated:
“And yet you said earlier that we don’t have enough information to conclude anything.”
I would say that shows that you are trying to mix abiogenesis and evolution together since when I said it, it was clear that I was talking about abiogenesis.
“As am I, but my primary focus is humanity.”
-Then I would suggest that you make the difference clear in your text. If you are discussing science then try to make sure you know where the boundaries for certain theories or hypothesis are drawn and make sure to show this when talking, otherwise it just seems like you either don’t understand the science alternatively are trying to confuse whomever you are talking to.
“I showed how with the frog example. That along with the idea that science can’t discover truth using the scientific method itself is self-defeating.”
-No, with the frog you showed a flawed experiment. I showed you why it was flawed and that it would never pass as science. After I showed all the ways it was a bad example since science doesn’t work that way, you picked out a small piece of all my arguments and left the rest. I pointed this out and you once again disregarded all my argument. Now you use this example yet again.
Also, science does discover truths; it just can’t show it is a truth.
“We’re using a method on a method to see if it contradicts itself.”
-So are you saying the scientific method contradicts itself? If that is the case, then please explain how.
“No, self-evient truth is knowing something is true without evidence”
-But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method? And how do you know something is true without evidence? Could you give me an example? I am quite tired now and it might be something obvious that I don’t see, if that’s the case it’s because it’s Monday
“Because people don’t “only” use the method alone. In present and many future applications they throw in the thing that is not as easily distinguishable (but still distinguished nonetheless), that being common sense.”
-No, if something comes from science then the scientific method has been used all the way from experiment to result. It will probably look like common sense after we see the result though.
“Far more than that. There’s a whole list of literary features used throughout the Bible. Literal, metaphors, rhetoric, parable, etc.”
-How do you know when god wants you to believe a passage literally or metaphorically?
“Depends with which part of the Bible you’re looking at for the most part, but to give a general look, seeing as the Bible is over 60 books written by about 40 authors throughout all periods of time in about 3 different countries (all being factors that should falsify something if it were a lie) and yet it still lives on today as a concise testament through all it has endured, be it destroyed, slain, persecuted, martyred, etc.”
-I’m not quite sure I follow. Is it valid because it has existed for a long time and is authored by many people?
I do find this quite fascinating though, that a collection of books that people have been adding and subtracting from for such a long time have developed to what we have today.
“If we both have a clear understanding of the term ‘falsifiable’ then yes.”
-I’m guessing this means you still haven’t understood the term then. I will cut the first paragraphs from Wikipedia, perhaps you can understand it better then when I tried explaining:
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
The claim “No human lives forever” is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, “All humans live forever” is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if “All humans live forever” were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong.
““What kind of evidence is it?”
-Depends what we’re looking at. Asking what kind of evidence is like asking what is a bike.”
-But I am totally illiterate about these things. I don’t even know what different types of evidence I could be asking for
““But with science you are not supposed to be able to reach different conclusions unless the hypothesis is faulty”
-Yet we come to different conclusions regarding origins.”
-As I have said before, science has not come to any conclusions about origins. Science has a couple of hypothesis about origins, but there are no conclusions. If there was any certainty then abiogenesis for example might be a theory and not just a hypothesis.
Or are you talking about something else again? If you’re talking about the evolutionary tree that shows all of humanities descendants, then there are no different conclusions.
“Saying you believe one less than I do is not valid because it’s to say that it’s possible to believe them all.”
-I’m not sure I agree here, or maybe I just don’t understand again… but anyway it’s not anything I need to delve more in since it was just a question I have been thinking of a bit and you did answer
“He’s pronounced to be our heavenly ‘father’ who is composed up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, so God has a masculine identity. Man was also made in the image of God, and woman from man.”
-Yes, these things I am aware of. I guess I was mostly curious to know if there is any internal discussion among Christians about these things. As I said, I heard someone describe that god was a ‘father’ and masculine due to the translation and that we shouldn’t think about him as something other than a divine being that is far beyond human conceptions.
“They’ve brought it up from time to time and we’re all aware of it at the school.”
In collage you’re already supposed to know these things.
-I think my point about evolution being taught was quite moot after you said you want to secular school up to high school
So maybe I should rather ask what you’re studying. Since my interest lie in what differences there would be between a Christian school and a secular, I guess it would be rather difficult to ask anything about it without knowing your major, or is that just in university that you have majors? In Sweden we go to 9 years of primary school (we start at the age of 7), 3 years in a sort of high school and then it’s off to university, I’m not entirely sure how your educational system works…
By the way, do you want to start a new thread since you said you found it annoying to keep scrolling upwards to the last comment made? If yes, then feel free to do so, I’ll still answer
Time to finish for this time,
Take care!
I hope you haven’t made a comment that got eaten by failblog… I had some trouble when I tried to post my last one… it might have been because of it’s length or maybe just that we talked to long
I hope you don’t think we’re going in circles and cannot agree
“I just want Ben to know that when viewed from the outside it’s quite obvious that ICWUDT either dodges your questions in an intelectually dishonest way or maybe ICWUDT really really doesn’t understand how science works”
-Not necessarily dodging so much as pointing out a flaw in a question before answering the question itself. If somebody tells you, “Hey, humans don’t exist,” would you be debating about the existence of humans or would you point out that what he said is flawed from the beginning since he is a human?
In order to have an intellectual conversation, all presuppositions/assumptions must be accurate before you answer somebodies question. I think that’s the problem with evolution is they get the assumptions wrong which tampers with their results.
God bless.
It is convenient to assume the assumptions are wrong so you can avoid those, yet you take your own assumptions as correct and truthful.
By the way, although I don’t agree with you, i find this whole discussion interesting and would like to know if there is any other media where you debate your ideas.
“It is convenient to assume the assumptions are wrong so you can avoid those, yet you take your own assumptions as correct and truthful”
-Whenever someone points out how they’re wrong/inaccurate/faulty, I’ll gladly correct them.
“By the way, although I don’t agree with you, i find this whole discussion interesting and would like to know if there is any other media where you debate your ideas.”
-Not really, just wherever I see fit.
What about the dinosaurs, how does the bible explains their existance and extinction?
The Bible doesn’t go into the extinction because it’s not relevant to anything biblical. It’s similar to mentioning the survival of fish in the flood of Noah’s day, it’s unimportant and unnecessary. However, in regards to the existence of dinosaurs, the first thing you have to take to heart is that the word “dinosaur” wasn’t invented until the late 1800′s so we’re not going to find that word in the Bible. What we do find are words of animals that describe similar features of dinosaurs. Words like Behemoths, Dragons, Sea Serpents, etc.
God bless.
it doesnt they didnt know anything about them lol
“In the first quote from me I was talking about ultimate truths”
-And what’s the difference between truth and ultimate truth? The truth is 2+2 equals 4. The ultimate truth is 2+2 still equals 4. They’re synonymous. “Ultimate” truth is just used for emphasis on the importance of truth.
“In the second quote I was referring to that something was as true as is possible for the time being. How is that double standards?”
-Saying we can’t discern truth and then saying something is true for the time being is to contradict your first statement. That’s where the double standard comes in. I prefer to just call it self-defeating or contradicting though.
“I think I know what the problem is here. You are applying logic on my linguistic phrasing at the time I am describing how science works.”
-Communication is a very important thing. This is why I pick apart what people say to see if what they say is accurate. Most times I do it jokingly, but since we’re discussing a more serious matter, I do it to attain accurate information. If we can’t communicate effectively because we keep cutting corners on what we say and what we mean then we’re not going to get anywhere.
“Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one”
-Exactly my point, which is why it’s self-defeating.
“I said it would have to be a method that is acceptable to everyone”
-No, you said, “It would have to be a method that is acceptED BY everyone.” Just those minor changes can alter the whole meaning of your sentence.
“How is that not a claim that evolution deals with the origin of life?”
-It can be. However, it’s also just as equally a claim that evolution deals with the origin of humanity.
“without a clearly defined method of discerning an absolute truth, how can you claim it is one?”
-I agree, but I’m not claiming anything to be absolute or truthful yet. We just have bare assertions (currently). The only thing I’m dealing with right now is the false idea that they *don’t* exist (or in your case, the idea that they are indiscernible).
“Then I would suggest that you make the difference clear in your text”
-I try, but I also make some of my answers broad for a reason to see your reactional answer on the topic I’ve placed in front of you over a thought out one.
“No, with the frog you showed a flawed experiment. I showed you why it was flawed and that it would never pass as science.”
-Well, first off, it is science. It’s just “bad” science. I’m using the method to gain my results and then interpreting my conclusion from them. That’s scientific. However, you’re right that it’s flawed. It’s bad science because we know that cutting off a frog’s leg doesn’t effect its hearing. There’s multiple tests we could devise for that. The point is, the very first test can result in getting the false conclusion I placed forth. True, it’s wrong “because” there’s other tests you can do. That’s not my point though. The fact of the matter is you CAN get false conclusions, period, and have the results support it. This is something that needs to be refined.
“Also, science does discover truths; it just can’t show it is a truth”
-Then there’s no point believing anything it says is true. Get everything out of the school systems that’s stated to be true under science since school texts are required to be updated to be factually accurate. If it’s not fact, it’s not true.
“So are you saying the scientific method contradicts itself? If that is the case, then please explain how.”
-I’ve explained how multiple times. The idea that the scientific method discovers truth (or truthful information) cannot be tested by the scientific method itself.
“But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method?”
-I’m not saying I do, but if it will give us more accurate information then I say why not?
“And how do you know something is true without evidence?”
-I don’t need to see pictures of my birth to know I was born. The Constitution of the United States lists moral statements that they follow up by saying “We find these TRUTHS to be *SELF-EVIDENT.*” The interesting thing is that we can agree with what they say as if it’s universal.
“How do you know when god wants you to believe a passage literally or metaphorically?”
-That’s where the study of Hermeneutics comes in. I’ve yet to study it in it’s entirety, but to give you a broad perspective of what we’re dealing with, here’s one way of deciphering the difference. In Hebrew, there’s certain ways to say something, but the way the sentence is structured determines if it’s literal or poetical/non-literal. I can’t exactly remember the sequence for both (they’re in my notes if I can ever find the blasted spiral notes), but it’s an organization between the subject, noun, and verb (Ex. God created the beast vs Created God the beast)
“I’m guessing this means you still haven’t understood the term then. I will cut the first paragraphs from Wikipedia, perhaps you can understand it better then when I tried explaining”
-That’s great, but if you want to define falsifiability then I want your definition, not someone else’s. I get enough confusion as it is with everyone disagreeing about the definition. However, if wikipedia is your definition, then ok. I just want to establish that.
“I don’t even know what different types of evidence I could be asking for”
-I gave some examples when I was speaking of the bike example.
“I guess I was mostly curious to know if there is any internal discussion among Christians about these things”
-There’s a lot of controversy about virtually everything in the Bible which is what leads to so many denominations. This is why we need to be careful in interpreting what we’re reading otherwise we can get multiple [false] conclusions (and thus, so many denominations).
“By the way, do you want to start a new thread since you said you found it annoying to keep scrolling upwards to the last comment made?”
-But of course!
God bless
Oops, I missed the reply button so apparently I started yet another thread
I guess you still understand that my comment is aimed at you
“And what’s the difference between truth and ultimate truth?”
-In practice there’s no difference at all. You were the one talking about ultimate truths when I tried to explain how science worked. As I have said over and over, with science, within natural sciences, it is not possible to show that something is true, just that it is as true as we have methods of measuring.
If we use math as an example, and take the number pi. It is possible to use pi in most everyday instances and only measure it as 3.14. This is true even though we know we have rounded off the decimals. If we use state of the art computers we get a much more exact pi. Does that mean that when we didn’t have computers that 3.14 were untrue?
I know this is not a perfect analogy since it will never be possible to show all decimals for pi, but the principle is still the same. As long as we keep finding better methods of calculating, the closer we get.
“Saying we can’t discern truth and then saying something is true for the time being is to contradict your first statement.”
-I have only been trying to explain how the scientific method works. For most people on this planet it is enough to know that we have found out as much as possible with the methods we have about a given subject. Of course there is always a possibility that some new finding will show that what we know now isn’t entirely correct, but then we just adjust our perception a bit.
“If we can’t communicate effectively because we keep cutting corners on what we say and what we mean then we’re not going to get anywhere.”
-But the reason we started this discussion was that you didn’t accept that I could look at something being true while at the same time saying you can’t show that this is an ultimate truth.
I agree that communication is very important. I do try to phrase myself in a way that isn’t possible to interpret in any other way that what I mean. In this case however it seems that you are unwilling to accept that there can be degrees to the truth, I thought I had made that very clear. Today something can be true, but when we find out more information about the subject then the perception changes.
““Using the scientific method it is not possible to show that something is an ultimate truth even when we find one”
-Exactly my point, which is why it’s self-defeating”
-This is why I think you don’t get what we’re talking about. Science has never claimed to be able to find out any ultimate truths. How can a method be self-defeating in something it doesn’t claim to be able to do?
“It can be. However, it’s also just as equally a claim that evolution deals with the origin of humanity.”
-So when you said “In evolution, we originated from another creature which in turn originated from another, and so on until we simply don’t have life, then it goes further.”, what did you mean that “we simply don’t have life”? I really can’t see any other meaning of that sentence then that evolution would deal with how the first life appeared.
“I agree, but I’m not claiming anything to be absolute or truthful yet. We just have bare assertions (currently). The only thing I’m dealing with right now is the false idea that they *don’t* exist (or in your case, the idea that they are indiscernible).”
-I only say they are indiscernible in natural sciences using the scientific method.
“I try, but I also make some of my answers broad for a reason to see your reactional answer on the topic I’ve placed in front of you over a thought out one.”
in some cases it’s quite interesting since I have to make a better argument but in many cases it is mostly annoying since it gives the impression that you don’t understand the subject.
-Yes, I’ve noticed this over and over
“True, it’s wrong “because” there’s other tests you can do. That’s not my point though. The fact of the matter is you CAN get false conclusions, period, and have the results support it. This is something that needs to be refined.”
-No. It’s not about other tests you CAN do. If you’re using science it’s about all the tests you HAVE TO do, and all the tests that your peers HAVE TO do. It is not science if just one team of people does an experiment.
“Then there’s no point believing anything it says is true. Get everything out of the school systems that’s stated to be true under science since school texts are required to be updated to be factually accurate. If it’s not fact, it’s not true.”
-Now I think you are mixing different sciences together and mixing up what they are used for. What exactly is it you want taken from the textbooks?
“The idea that the scientific method discovers truth (or truthful information) cannot be tested by the scientific method itself.”
-Who is saying it doesn’t discover truthful information?
And I would say it is possible to test what you are saying here. What we need to do is to stipulate a falsifiable claim, something like: Can the scientific method be used to discover truths? Then you take something you know is true (e.g. it is possible to make calls on a mobile phone), stipulate your hypothesis (is it possible to make calls on a mobile phone) and test it using the scientific method (make a call). There, the method has been used to test if the method can find truths.
““But why would you want to mix something unscientific into the scientific method?”
. You are not saying that you want to mix anything else into the method, but if… then why not. I think that sounds exactly like you want to mix other things into the equation if it would give a certain outcome.
-I’m not saying I do, but if it will give us more accurate information then I say why not?”
-And you keep talking to me about how I phrase what I am saying
In that case it would cease to be science though. Why do you ask me to be precise in the conversation when you try to mix up different subjects? If you want to talk about a method that can discern accurate information according to your thinking, that’s one thing, but if that is the case, please state that instead of asking why it isn’t in the scientific method. I have explained how the method works, are you saying you don’t really understand?
“I don’t need to see pictures of my birth to know I was born. The Constitution of the United States lists moral statements that they follow up by saying “We find these TRUTHS to be *SELF-EVIDENT.*” The interesting thing is that we can agree with what they say as if it’s universal.”
-So we have changed the subject from talking about natural sciences here? Then yes, there is self-evident truths.
And in a few years time we will have advanced enough in medicine to be able to make babies that grow from conception outside of a human body, so then being alive won’t be enough to know that you have been born
Also, I wouldn’t say that any kind of moral statements can be perceived as self-evident truths considering that the moral of people change over time.
“[..]I can’t exactly remember the sequence for both (they’re in my notes if I can ever find the blasted spiral notes), but it’s an organization between the subject, noun, and verb (Ex. God created the beast vs Created God the beast)”
-This is quite interesting. Have you studied Hebrew and linguistics to be able to analyze these things or do you use other methods?
“That’s great, but if you want to define falsifiability then I want your definition, not someone else’s.”
-You sound like I should have a personal definition of falsifiability? We are talking about the scientific method here; it does not have more than one definition. If other people have explained it differently they have either been wrong or they haven’t been able to explain it in a way that you could understand. People all over the world use this method in science and they use it the same way. For scientists there doesn’t exist more than one definition, for laymen that try to explain this to other laymen there might be discrepancies in their understanding.
“I gave some examples when I was speaking of the bike example.”
-Well, as I made my first statement I was interested in all the different types of evidence. This is just a question I pose out of curiosity since I don’t know much about the world you come from; if you need it to be more precise then I guess I could try. You said that you had found evidence before you found faith, then maybe I should ask how you got the idea to start looking for evidence or was it presented to you or was it by chance maybe? What age were you? Was it some of the evidence that was some sort of a deal-breaker that when you found it you knew that this is the right thing for you. What type of historical evidence are you talking about? What other types of evidences are there to apply?
Maybe I should also add the question of what do you consider evidence, just so we don’t start a big discussion only to find out that we have different definitions
“There’s a lot of controversy about virtually everything in the Bible which is what leads to so many denominations. This is why we need to be careful in interpreting what we’re reading otherwise we can get multiple [false] conclusions (and thus, so many denominations).”
), or is there a lot of enmity between the denominations? I understand that the more extreme ones are shunned by most (Westboro and their likes). How do you decide which of the denominations that have the best interpretation? Is it common that people switch denominations?
-Haha, yes, I have noticed that there are quite a few different denominations. I guess that most of them think it’s ok to have a slightly different interpretation as long as the main parts are the same (love, one god, jesus and so forth
Hmm, I think our comments grow a bit every time we write an answer even though it feels like we say less in them
I wonder if there are any other people that are still following this thread or if we have scared all of them off…
Anyway, time for the weekend. Take care!
Regarding your last question, just want to let you know that I follow the discussion very closely and find it very interesting, although I don’t consider my english good enough to discuss logics and semantics so I never really try to get in the debate. (Also it would be uneducated at this point)
“You were the one talking about ultimate truths when I tried to explain how science worked”
-I’m aware, however it was for emphasis to describe the bone or the root of what we were discussing and nothing more.
“If we use math as an example…”
-Well, first of all, math is an abstract concept so it’s not the best of methods to use as a foundation of information. Secondly, the example you gave only addresses that something basic can be true, but delving into it more complexly can still be equally true. That’s not my argument. My argument is that truth is truth; something concrete is either true or it’s false. “Ultimate” truth was just used for emphasis. However, it was a good example in stating that science is just getting general truths and that it can get closer as time goes on. That’s great, I’m all for that, but until it’s right and until it can withstand criticism, then we need to leave it as theoretical (while still testing it) and stop teaching it to be fact, or at least stop making taxpayers pay for this idea to be taught when they may disagree. That’s what they have private schools for, to teach those that want to learn it as fact. Otherwise teach it as an idea/opinion in a history class just as in government.
“I have only been trying to explain how the scientific method works”
-And in the process you’ve been contradicting yourself, that’s all I’ve been explaining.
“But the reason we started this discussion was that you didn’t accept that I could look at something being true while at the same time saying you can’t show that this is an ultimate truth”
-Assuming I understand you correctly, you looking at something true and me disagreeing that it’s not an “ultimate truth” (again, used for emphasis alone), then that’s not an argument of truth but an argument of politics/opinion. There’s only one truth, there are not variants of truth. Either gravity exists or it doesn’t, you can’t have 2 people disagree and both of them be right. One person is obviously wrong. The only way there could be “variants of truth” is if it’s not truth but opinion which is deeply rooted into politics. Truth deals with the concrete. Opinion deals with the unstable.
“Science has never claimed to be able to find out any ultimate truths. How can a method be self-defeating in something it doesn’t claim to be able to do?”
-If it’s not true then there’s no point defending it as such. If you’re using the method to determine something then nothing in it can be true just as the conclusion can’t be. It’s all opinion, and I don’t deal with opinions, I deal with facts. Facts have a truth factor. Are you saying science doesn’t use facts because it doesn’t claim to be true?
“Today something can be true, but when we find out more information about the subject then the perception changes.”
-Today we may think something is true, but in reality it never was if we find something to conflict that previous idea in the future. Truth never changes, our perception of the truth can (as you stated). In the past people thought lightning was an act of the anger of God. Later they find out that it’s an act of nature, not God. The truth that lightning was a natural act did not change, our perception of that truth did.
“what did you mean that “we simply don’t have life”? I really can’t see any other meaning of that sentence then that evolution would deal with how the first life appeared”
-It does, however, as aforementioned a few posts ago, it also means the origination of humanity. They’re both equally true, but my argument is still targeted at the origin of humanity.
“Yes, I’ve noticed this over and over in some cases it’s quite interesting since I have to make a better argument but in many cases it is mostly annoying since it gives the impression that you don’t understand the subject.”
They still get the information though. 
-And thus many reporters are hated/annoying.
“It is not science if just one team of people does an experiment.”
-I’m not talking about one team doing a particular science experiment. I’m talking about the experiment itself. I’ve shown that it is indeed true you can get false conclusions with seemingly accurate results regardless of the number of tests you do (it’s the same results) which can be used as a springboard to get more information based on that alone. However, if it’s false then everything built upon it is just as false. That’s one point I’m making.
“What exactly is it you want taken from the textbooks?”
-If everything in science isn’t claiming to be true, then the science books.
“Who is saying it doesn’t discover truthful information?”
-You are, since it doesn’t claim to be true (by your opinion) then the information is either untruthful or all opinionated and never certain. Take your pick.
“And I would say it is possible to test what you are saying here. What we need to do is to stipulate a falsifiable claim, something like: Can the scientific method be used to discover truths? Then you take something you know is true…”
-Already false. We’re testing the “idea itself” that science discovers truth by the scientific method. All you did was substitute the idea for an idea. So now we have the idea that science discovers truth by using the scientific method of something of known truth by the scientific method. You’re using the method to prove the method (which is circular reasoning). You need to test the idea itself. Since this cannot be done, it is self-defeating.
“You are not saying that you want to mix anything else into the method, but if… then why not”
-I’m saying that I’m neutral on the subject of mixing or not mixing something with science based on the idea of gaining truthful knowledge. *However,* if one of said acts will give more accurate information, then why not? Make it unscientific or scientific. Figure out the semantics/classification of this better method later if that’s the issue here. This is if I understood you correctly.
“I think that sounds exactly like you want to mix other things into the equation if it would give a certain outcome”
-If it’s a truthful outcome, then sure.
“This is quite interesting. Have you studied Hebrew and linguistics to be able to analyze these things or do you use other methods?”
-It’s been a while.
“You sound like I should have a personal definition of falsifiability?”
-Because everyone I talk to has a different definition which raises completely different arguments. I’ve been able to disprove science just on falsifiability alone just because of one person’s definition, whereas for another person I wasn’t able to use it at all for that use from their understanding/definition. It just depends who I talk to.
“maybe I should ask how you got the idea to start looking for evidence or was it presented to you or was it by chance maybe?”
-I just had questions that I wasn’t getting answers from at school, so I researched it. Pardon my language, but Google is one hell of a database.
“What age were you?”
-17
“Was it some of the evidence that was some sort of a deal-breaker that when you found it you knew that this is the right thing for you”
-It answered my questions and then some.
“What type of historical evidence are you talking about?”
-That, like hermeneutics, is something I’m not up to date on.
“How do you decide which of the denominations that have the best interpretation?”
-I’m still going through it all seeing as the Bible is rather large and complexly written, but so far whenever I study any denomination, their interpretation doesn’t withstand as much criticism as Christian apologetics will point out.
“Is it common that people switch denominations?”
-Uncertain about that, but I doubt it. Once someone is in a denomination, they usually aren’t open to another idea. To be quite honest, I’m looking for faults in Christianity myself, but I’m not finding much that I haven’t found answers to. As far as I’m concerned, the only weak point in Christianity I’ve found is that those who don’t know Jesus are still sent to hell even if they’re unaware. That’s the only part that I find difficulty with, but the Bible isn’t clear on it so I guess I’ll just wait and see.
“I wonder if there are any other people that are still following this thread or if we have scared all of them off…”
-I scare myself off sometimes. o.O
God bless.
“I agree, but there are still degrees and it depends on the subject”
-If there are degrees and variants of truth, then it’s not concrete truths we’re dealing with (as I stated in my previous comment), but rather a matter of politics/opinion. There are many ideas for the origin of life, the universe, humanity itself, etc., but there’s only one answer. Our perception of the topic isn’t concrete, but the topic itself is. We know there’s an answer, but our perception/limitations can’t get us a definitive answer with 100% assurity. There is not any variant of truth here, there’s variants of opinions and ideas of what the single and concrete truth is.
“We have factual evidence that one species have evolved into another and so forth”
) for evolution (nor against creation/religious perspectives). I find similarities all the time between spoons, measuring cups, to soup ladles, small cooking pots to big cooking pots as well as knives, to spoons, to sporks, to forks all the time. It doesn’t prove they evolved. If anything (and I stress the “if” part as much as I can) it proves that similarity between objects shows it was intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. As far as I’m concerned, similarity proves both our views, and as such, cannot be used against either one’s argument/side.
-No, not to be harsh towards you (which means, here comes the harsh part, lol), but finding a similarities between one set of bones/fossils/locations/etc between another doesn’t prove diddly (pardon my language
“That is also the facts that are taught in schools and in science books”
-I have no problem if you want to say that we see similarities. That’s perfectly fine by me and I 100% agree. It’s when people start teaching their own/personal interpretation on the evidence that I get involved. That’s all school needs to do is put forth the facts and let the students come to their own interpretations and conclusions about the facts themselves. We’re supposed to teach people to think critically. We can’t do that if we try to put answers in their heads with what we’re teaching them. That’s what brainwashing is. Not teaching. You can get anyone who doesn’t know any better to believe 2+2 equals 5 that way.
“the teachers explain that everything fits perfectly into the theory of evolution”
-And when I researched answers to my questions myself, everything they explained fit just as well with the creation/Christian model. This goes back to the previous statement above^
“I agree that there can only be one truth but sometimes it is impossible to show what it is”
-With our human limitations, I can agree. That’s why we rely on that which gives us the best evidence.
““One person is obviously wrong.”
-Or both”
-Also true, but my argument was the fact that we can’t both be right. At least one of us would be wrong.
“The facts and truths come from other parts of science and research”
-So the results are truthful, correct?
“How do you define facts?”
-As being truthful sources of information.
“When people thought lightning was coming from the gods they didn’t have a method of determining this. In science today we don’t attribute what we don’t know to something”
-Not my point. My argument is perception vs truth. Our perception changes (in this case, to use your rebuttal, the perception that changed was we have a method today whereas we didn’t have one in the past). Truth doesn’t change.
“How can you say they’re both equally true?”
-Because the origin of life (fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc) encompasses everything, including humanity. I’m simply focusing on humanity. It’s not that my argument doesn’t talk about origins of life in the broadest form. It can if taken in that context, but it can also be taken in the context regarding the origin of humanity specifically. That’s all I’m focusing on.
“Of course people can come to an incorrect conclusion”
-That’s all I was trying to make you aware of.
“I was saying the scientific method couldn’t show that something is true”
-Thank you! That’s how I’ve been saying it’s self-defeating. Wow, we’re 2 for 2 in agreement in a matter of seconds!
“Science doesn’t discover truths with the scientific method”
-You most certainly tried to show that though.
“Why would it matter if it is something known if we’re only testing the method?”
-It doesn’t. The fact that this particular piece of the puzzle of known truth is being “attributed” to the method is what falsifies itself from the original statement I made.
“Apparently I still have no idea what you actually mean by testing the idea itself.”
-An idea cannot be self-defeating or circular in order to be solidly standing. If it contradicts its foundation, it’s false. If it proves itself by itself, it’s illogical and thus false. It needs to not contradict it’s own logic while at the same time not using it’s logic to prove itself. It has to be neutral in order to be shipped off to the next phase of logical battery in determining it’s validity.
“But the original topic here was science.”
-Not from what I recall. The original topic was truth in science if memory serves me correctly.
“So then we have digressed into something different then what your original argument was about?”
-Depends what my original argument was to you. You’ll have to clarify.
“I would rather say that you have been able to disprove something based on a certain persons ability to argue something”
-You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. However, I do think what you say has good weight if we were going to argue this point.
“And what age are you now?”
-Nearly 19.
“Would you say that some of the denominations really have strayed too much from your interpretation of Christianity to deserve to be called Christian?”
-Indeed. For example, my brother calls himself Christian when he lives a life of un-repentant homosexuality which the Bible strictly says that he as well as drunkards, the sexually immoral, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s in plain black and white text. There are many hypocrites in the world and the phrase, “the few ruin it for the many” applies well here.
“My personal view of religion is that if there happens to be some sort of divine being, then I think people will be judged by their merits and not by faith”
-We are justified by faith, not works. If you’re interested I can probably find the verse. This is why I say it’s possibly something you can argue as the weakest part of Christianity, but it’s not really clear. My personal opinion is that we are born with an ethical code; a moral law. If we abide by that law within us then it may be an accepting of Christ. If we go against it willingly then that can be seen as rejection (that’s just the broad way of putting it). I personally don’t know and the Bible isn’t specific on the topic.
“By the way, were you raised a Christian from the time you were born or did your interest come later?”
-I was raised Christian, but dreaded church and Christian life until later when I researched it. Jesus speaks of this in the Bible as being a “born again” Christian when speaking to an emperor (if memory serves me correctly) of Rome.
God bless.
Haha, it seems I’m not the only one that can miss the reply-button
“If there are degrees and variants of truth, then it’s not concrete truths we’re dealing with (as I stated in my previous comment), but rather a matter of politics/opinion. There are many ideas for the origin of life, the universe, humanity itself, etc., but there’s only one answer.”
-Yes, of course there can only be one truth but I’m still talking about the times where it isn’t possible to show that truth. Normally when this is the case (like the origin of life) we simply state that we don’t know. In other cases we can have knowledge enough to know that what we see is very close to the truth. That is not a matter of opinion. Is there anyone who doubts the theory of gravity for example? Since that is a scientific theory it cannot be proven as truth, but we can still be quite sure that it is true since all the calculations that stems from it are correct and all the parts that make up the theory are correct.
“No, not to be harsh towards you (which means, here comes the harsh part, lol), but finding a similarities between one set of bones/fossils/locations/etc between another doesn’t prove diddly (pardon my language ) for evolution”
), if you choose not to believe in it that is fine with me, but please don’t say there’s no facts without doing some more serious research into it. Considering that there has been several creationists that have tried to disprove evolution and always failed, then I doubt that a discussion between the two of us where you don’t have enough knowledge about the workings of evolution and neither do I, then the discussion would once again just become about semantics which is not what evolution is about.
-I’m not just talking about similarities. I am talking about all the different sciences that have found facts about evolution from genealogy to biology to paleontology to anthropology etc. etc. We have discussed this many times before and since you don’t take science as evidence we will not get any further. If you are interested there are good articles on Wikipedia on how the theory of evolution works, what evidences that have been found and why it has the same status as the theory of gravitation. On Wikipedia they also have lots of references if you are interested in knowing the sources. This part I feel that there is no use for us to delve into once again. This is what science shows us is how life have evolved (not originated
Your language I have no problem with nor the harsh parts, I still find you an interesting person to talk to and I haven’t seen you stoop to the low levels this debate can sometimes end up
What I really don’t understand is why evolution bothers you so much. I know that the different species that we have on this planet didn’t show up in the same order as in the bible, but does that part have to be taken literally? Couldn’t there have been a creator who created the first life and then made it in a way that it would evolve in the way we can show with the theory of evolution?
“I have no problem if you want to say that we see similarities. That’s perfectly fine by me and I 100% agree. It’s when people start teaching their own/personal interpretation on the evidence that I get involved. “
-In school we show all the evidence we have found and teach that everything fits perfectly into the theory of evolution. Where does any ones personal interpretations fit in there?
“And when I researched answers to my questions myself, everything they explained fit just as well with the creation/Christian model”
-Which once again leads to my question on why do you have a problem with evolution?
“With our human limitations, I can agree. That’s why we rely on that which gives us the best evidence.”
-Which is all I have been trying to say
“So the results are truthful, correct?”
-Yes.
“Because the origin of life (fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc) encompasses everything, including humanity. I’m simply focusing on humanity. It’s not that my argument doesn’t talk about origins of life in the broadest form. It can if taken in that context, but it can also be taken in the context regarding the origin of humanity specifically. That’s all I’m focusing on.”
-And I keep saying that if you have a discussion about evolution then your argumentation can never include that broad sense. To even mention it in the same discussion makes it look like you don’t understand what the theory is about. It doesn’t matter if you use the same argument in different topics; to include anything about the origins of life in the discussion is just incorrect.
““Of course people can come to an incorrect conclusion”
-That’s all I was trying to make you aware of.”
-So are you saying that this isn’t possible with people interpreting the bible? Or in religion? Anything that involves people of course involves the human factor. That is why science is so dependable since it has regulations to remove the possibilities of these errors ever spreading further then the specific persons. I still don’t see how this in any way would invalidate science as you were saying in your original argument.
““I was saying the scientific method couldn’t show that something is true”
-Thank you! That’s how I’ve been saying it’s self-defeating. Wow, we’re 2 for 2 in agreement in a matter of seconds!”
-Yup, it’s always good to agree on some things
I still don’t see how it’s self-defeating though since it isn’t supposed to show any truths.
““Science doesn’t discover truths with the scientific method”
-You most certainly tried to show that though.”
-I thought I tried showing that the scientific method was used to show that the theories are valid. If I wasn’t clear enough I’m sorry. The scientific method is used to show that a certain theory is as close to the truth as is humanly possible.
“The fact that this particular piece of the puzzle of known truth is being “attributed” to the method is what falsifies itself from the original statement I made.”
)
-All I tried showing was that by using the method you can find truths, you just can’t show that it is an absolute truth (or how to put it
“An idea cannot be self-defeating or circular in order to be solidly standing. If it contradicts its foundation, it’s false. If it proves itself by itself, it’s illogical and thus false. It needs to not contradict it’s own logic while at the same time not using it’s logic to prove itself. It has to be neutral in order to be shipped off to the next phase of logical battery in determining it’s validity.”
-Ok, now I think I actually understand what you’re saying
I still don’t understand how you would say that the scientific method is self-defeating but that might be because I didn’t quite manage to explain what the purpose of the method was? Or do you still think it’s self-defeating?
“Not from what I recall. The original topic was truth in science if memory serves me correctly.”
-But even if we’re talking about truth in science it would change the topic if you mix in something that is unscientific. If I give you instructions on how to remove a virus from your computer and you tell me “my computer-background would look nicer in red”, it might be a prettier outcome but it would not have anything to do with removing the virus. Hmm, for once I might actually have managed to come up with a working analogy
“Depends what my original argument was to you. You’ll have to clarify”
-I think it was the same discussion as above, where you said science would be better if we mixed it up with something unscientific.
This discussion sort of reminds me of when I was travelling in South-East Asia, always when I was eating at restaurants I had to tell the waiters that I am lethally allergic to nuts and eggs and of course ask them not to include any of that in my food. A couple of times I get for example fried rice and I see small pieces of egg mixed in, I ask them why they do that since I specifically told them not to and they answer: “because it’s better this way.” And no, I’m not trying to make a point of any kind here, just telling a story
“You’re entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. However, I do think what you say has good weight if we were going to argue this point.”
-No need to argue, it was so much nicer when we actually agreed on some things
“Nearly 19”
). Do you have any goals career wise? What’s your major in college?
-I would say that you show good skills in debating and I salute your persistence. I hope you can manage to actually understand all the science we’re discussing sometime in the future because I do think you could become a good scientist if you wanted. If that’s not for you, I wish you luck in whatever field you pursue (as long as you don’t try to go on a fruitless battle against the science of the world
“For example, my brother calls himself Christian when he lives a life of un-repentant homosexuality which the Bible strictly says that he as well as drunkards, the sexually immoral, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
-Hmm, I thought that the only thing that mattered to call yourself a Christian was to take Jesus into your heart? Then I thought it was the different denominations that had specific rules and restraints. As I said, I am not very versed in these things.
This thing about homosexuality is something that perplexes me in many religions, and especially in Christianity. First of all, the message I always hear from people speaking of Jesus is “judge not…” and so forth. Why would it then matter if someone else lives as a homosexual if you are not supposed to judge them? Secondly, since homosexuality is not a choice that means that god made them this way so why is it such a big deal (I know of the passages in the bible saying it is wrong)? Of course I understand that homosexuals could decide to suppress their feelings and desires and just live as asexual people, but wouldn’t that be kind of hypocritical to the god who made them this way?
By the way, are there condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, every time someone has shown me these paragraphs from the bible it’s been from the Old Testament?
“There are many hypocrites in the world and the phrase, “the few ruin it for the many” applies well here.”
Have you read anything by him by the way?
-I hear you. Unfortunately that goes for everyone… I’ve seen some loud mouthed anti-theists who only claim to be atheists, and then people get the impression that all atheists are that way. I do find for example Dawkins quite interesting and thought-provoking from time to time, but I disagree with a lot as well, especially the way he presents himself when on TV or in his movie. I don’t like how he attacks all the religious people he speaks to and makes everything so black and white. He writes better then he performs though
“We are justified by faith, not works. If you’re interested I can probably find the verse.”
)
-No, no need to find the verse. I see this as a more theological/philosophical discussion, no evidence needed
But as I said, anything justified by faith instead of what you actually perform I wouldn’t be able to take seriously. With all the hypocrisy and double standards where people say one thing and do another I judge people from how they act towards one another and if there is some sort of divinity I would expect it to do the same (and no, I’m not comparing myself to god
“My personal opinion is that we are born with an ethical code; a moral law. If we abide by that law within us then it may be an accepting of Christ. If we go against it willingly then that can be seen as rejection (that’s just the broad way of putting it). “
-I kind of like your thinking here.
“I was raised Christian, but dreaded church and Christian life until later when I researched it.”
-Haha, I can imagine. I’m guessing that many church sermons aren’t really that exciting for children and young adults.
I’ve only been to church on occasions when friends or family have gotten married or baptized or taken their confirmation. And when sightseeing in different countries of course. It is part of the culture so it’s interesting to see, and a lot of churches (as well as mosques and temples etc.) are very beautiful.
I feel like I’ve been pestering you with loads of personal and religious questions, is there anything you are interested that I know of? Life in Sweden, what’s in the head of an atheist, philosophical dilemmas?
Anyway, now it’s taken me several days to respond, I’ve had full days at work and at home I’ve just been tired, so I better send the answer instead of thinking to much.
Take care!
If the only 100% safe sex is with yourself, what about hermaphrodites? Do you think that’s what happened with the “virgin” Mary?
“I think you mean to say the times where “you” do not know how to show it. Granted, we can’t know everything, but for the things we don’t know it’s inaccurate to assume we can’t know it.”
-No, I’m talking about where no one can show it in a way that everyone can see it is the truth. If you hold a stone and drop it no one can say that they don’t see the results of gravity but they can still argue that it is because of something other than the theory of gravity.
“As I’ve said before, absolute truths exist”
-Which I’ve never disagreed to
“This dismantles agnosticism and pluralism.”
-How?
“I do, I just don’t take “bad” science as evidence.”
-Which I still find very strange since all science has the same premise and is checked the same way. I understand that some of the things you don’t accept because of you beliefs, but as you’ve noticed in our discussions I don’t understand your examples of why some science would be worse than other science
“And I completely agree to say that you don’t know. Spread that word to professors and teachers all throughout the public school systems of the world because many say otherwise.”
-I don’t know how it works in the US, but here in Sweden there is no way a teacher would say that we for example that we know the origin of life.
“Oh i know it’s not “just” limited to similarities, but that is the primary argument for most people which is why it’s thrown out there.”
-It doesn’t matter what anyone’s primary argument is, it is all the combined evidence that matters. That’s what makes it a theory and not just a hypothesis.
“We can throw articles and citations at each other all day, that’s not going to get anyone anywhere […]No one gets anywhere by trying to have something do the work for them because then it’s not their argument”
-Well, considering that it is a subject that neither one of us is an expert in I’d say it’s quite obvious we need outside sources. I guess you just want to debate my understanding of these things and not the actual science and theories which I didn’t quite understand at first, I thought you were actually interested in the subject at hand and not a personal understanding of it. When we are speaking of science and the theory of evolution there isn’t any opinions involved, that is why I prefer someone who are trying to understand what it is about to actually read what the science says and not what a layman like me thinks the science says.
As I said in my previous comment I don’t want to go into this part once again, that is the reason I said you could look in Wikipedia if you were actually interested.
“If anything I said the facts that are believed to support it can be easily the same evidence for creation or just plain against evolution itself.”
-So the evidence that shows how everything wasn’t created as they are today and that they arose in different time-periods works together with creation? From what you have said in our discussions I still get the feeling that there are many parts of the theory of evolution that you don’t have a clear grasp on and I can’t explain them properly for you to understand, that is also why I would prefer if you looked in Wikipedia rather than having a discussion about someone’s understanding of it.
“Funny, creationists say the same thing. Who’s right?”
-Well, according to the courts where creationists and proponents of ID have tried to disprove evolution the victors have been the scientists. Could you show me any example of evolution being disproven? I have only heard of a couple of times it went to trial but I guess there could be more times, so please provide a link where the courts have ruled in the creationists favor. Or maybe you mean that someone has been able to disprove the theory of evolution? If that had happened I’m quite sure it would have been world news, but if you have some information then please show me
“It’s primarily science itself and the faults it contains”
-You still haven’t been able to show any faults in science. So far you have been using semantics to try to disassemble my argumentation on small parts, but nothing that can actually be held against science.
“What do you mean? I feel you’re implying something, I just don’t know what.”
-My bad, I thought that was the main problem you had with evolution, that the animals arose in a different order then what the bible says. And most of the time I try not to imply so much, I prefer to say it instead… of course a lot of times I just have whatever I really want to say clear in my head and then it looks like I’m implying things
“The Bible says there’s a creator who created everything the way it is, not created ooze which then turned into all the life we see today.”
-Ok, I won’t really argue this but since the ooze also existed then it must have been created by god I guess? Is the creation part of the bible one of the parts where everything is supposed to be taken literally?
“By saying it fits with evolution. Granted they may have been taught the same thing and may not have an authentic “personal” interpretation of their own, but teaching one conclusion when there’s others seems like brainwashing to me”
-There are no other viable conclusions that are supported by provable science. To have any other conclusion you have to disagree with science as a whole (it doesn’t work saying that science works in some ways and accept the premise when it suits your opinions and not when you disagree), and then I guess we could just as well let the kids stay at home and teach them my opinions on how I interpret different things
“Then why do you say the conclusions are not stated to be true? If the results are true, then shouldn’t the conclusion be as well? Or do you agree that science can get false conclusions regardless of how truthful it’s results are?”
-I have only said that the scientific method is used to show that different theories are viable. Science in itself has other ways of showing truths and gathering facts and evidence. And as I have said multiple times, science doesn’t work that way you keep implying. If one test receives bad results then it will be discovered before these results will be used to draw any conclusions. Do you actually not understand the parts I have been explaining about your experiment and why it would not matter the least bit in science if a group of people came to an incorrect conclusion? That will not in any way go any further then these people, their results and conclusions will not amount to anything more then the scientific community dismissing them.
“It only includes it if you look at it in that context. Look at it in the context that I’ve been aiming my argument towards, not the way you want to turn my argument into.”
-It doesn’t matter where you have been aiming any arguments, if you include a context that the origin of life is even implied in a discussion about evolution then you are either trying to lure the person you are discussing with to make a claim that is not supported by evolution and thereby trapping them in semantics or you don’t understand the theory of evolution.
“I’m unaware where I got “ultimate” from. Guess it just sounds more interesting to my teenage mind.”
It might be that it’s normally used in different comics for young adults like the ultimate x-men or something similar. I was never much into superheroes when reading comics (I did like Wolverine though), or even Marvel… I preferred, and still do, Vertigos slightly darker comics (Hellblazer for example). Have you been/are you interested in comics?
-Well, it does sound more cool, I agree here
“Still self-defating”
-For something it isn’t even supposed to be doing?
“Apologies”
-No worries, we seem to do that both of us
“Lol, I enjoy stories”
-That’s good ‘cause there’s plenty more where that came from… I just have to get reminded of a good one and then I get started
“Digital Media Arts”
Do you study anything specific like animation or game art design? I do play a lot of games, so that’s a field of interest for me 
-That sounds cool. I’m not quite sure what it entails and what jobs you will be able to get, but I googled it and saw lots of interesting stuff
“It is, but that’s also like taking an oath to swear to tell the truth in court. You have to swear by it to say something with any credibility, but you can still lie and break the oath making it worthless. If you’re going to accept something, you have to obey the rules of what you’ve accepted.”
-But isn’t that oath different depending on which denomination you’ve chosen?
“I’m not judging them, no one is, the Bible is. I’m simply putting the message out there.”
-So you’re ok with anyone living as a homosexual if they don’t claim to be Christian? And I also find this part quite strange, if the bible is judging people why would any person need to put the message out there? Isn’t that the same thing as the persons doing the judging?
I guess you could show me many places in the bible where it says that homosexuality is wrong, but I’ve also seen several proponents of gay Christians say that there are other parts that supersede these parts and so on. What I’m trying to say, isn’t what the bible says open to some interpretation? I mean we’ve talked about the different denominations and that everyone has their own interpretation on the bible, wouldn’t that also mean that if you spread the message about homosexuality being wrong hinge on your interpretation of the bible? If it is based on interpretations and which parts of the bible should be followed literally and all that stuff then it would actually be you who are judging people and not the bible. If you decide to interpret the bible a certain way, then it is still your interpretation that makes you go out and spread the message that something is bad when that judgment should only be made by god?
Hmm, do I make sense here? I don’t mean it as an attack on you; this is just some thoughts that have been going through my head as I’ve watched for example the raging battles on proposition 8 and similar things. Regarding prop 8 I really didn’t understand how the opponents to gay marriage could say they didn’t judge anyone but still they denied them to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
“Remember when I said false interpretations produce false conclusions? You just made one. Homosexuality is indeed a choice. Now there’s not much concrete reason to support your view or mine that it is or isn’t a choice for everyone”
-There’s actually been multiple numbers of studies that show it is biological in nature and not a choice. I can give you an abundance of references if you’re interested
Also, consider the pain and abuse it means to be gay in our heteronormative world, you read about hate-crimes almost daily, gay people get denied their civil rights in a large part of the world, get beaten down if they show publicly who they are and so on, do you think that anyone would actually choose that life?
“but with my brother”
-Of course I can’t say anything about this specific case since it’s your brother. My initial thought though is that if someone is raised knowing no other option then being heterosexual, then of course they think they like girls at least until they discover that there are other possibilities.
“We are born to like the opposite sex, not the same sex. “
-No, we are born to reproduce with the opposite sex
“It’s only by an outward influence powered by one’s free will”
-Considering that the rate of homosexuality in the rest of the animals on this planet is about the same percentage as among humans I find this extremely unlikely. Or is it the animals’ free will and outward influence that makes them gay as well
“Yes, and depending on where you head with this conversation, I could talk for a long time to explain multiple things if you’re confused on a certain topic within it.”
-I was actually not really heading anywhere with this, at least not anywhere I had previously decided
The reason I ask is that I’ve been involved in these types of discussions before and people have given me many examples on the condemnation of homosexuality from the OT, I have asked them about other stuff in the OT (like people that should be stoned and other not so nice things) and they have said that it doesn’t matter anymore because the new deal with Jesus in the NT. Does this make any sense to you or am I just confusing?
“A lot of people try to make it a simplistic yes/no or black/white answer like everything else but there’s a lot of complexities to take into account.”
-Nice, once again we are in agreement
I do worry sometimes after watching American TV-news (or rather all the pundits) that everything seems to become more and more extreme. There is seldom any middle way and if anyone brings in an opponent for a discussion it ends up in a battle of who can shout the loudest… I still think Stewart and Colbert do a decent job in their interviews but they aren’t supposed to be more then comedians so…
“Thou shalt not judge >.> ”
-I agree. At least I strive for it… I do however think that people should be held to some standard, and I wouldn’t say I never judge people even though it would be nicer if I didn’t. Nobody’s perfect
“I just like the stimulating conversation. Critical thinking just exercises the brain for me. “
-Likewise. Strange how we seem to find reason where the other one can find criticism and vice versa
“Don’t work yourself to death.”
-That is not something you have to worry about, it is Friday and I take it quite easy
Have a good weekend!
“No, that’s not what I’ve been saying about science. I have said that the scientific method can show that a theory is viable”
-And how viable that theory is in opposition to other theories determines which one is best to be taken as true, therefore there is a level of faith involved. I’m not saying you said or believe there’s faith in it, I’m simply pointing it out by using your template of viability of theories.
“Also, I would never accept something as truth if it requires any amount of faith”
-It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right when it has made mistakes in the past, yet you believe it’s true, do you not?
“If it requires faith it means that it is you as a person that decides to interpret something”
-How’d we get on interpretation? We’ve already interpreted theoretical data, I’m simply saying that if you compare 2 of them with each other, the one that has the most consistent information requires the least amount of faith to believe. Sure, you can decide the one that takes the most faith to believe is true and that would be your personal take on it, but it’s not really an interpretation. That doesn’t really fit.
“That is why science is used, no belief or faith is required, only facts and evidence.”
-This goes along with my comment, which is the 2nd paragraph from the top of this post, and as such I’d like for you to see your own reaction on this topic. What did you answer to “yet you believe it’s true, do you not?” This is more rhetorical as I just want you to reflect on it. If you said yes, then you show that science requires belief. If you said no (which would be contradicting to your “I don’t believe anything unless it’s true and requires 0 belief/faith” argument), then science isn’t true in your opinion.
That’s just more psychological though, to answer debatingly, it does require belief because you obviously believe science to be correct and accurate, let alone your sentence to be just as right.
“I was talking about the origin of life. How can that be so broad? How did life start on this planet?”
-You know my beliefs and I know yours. What would you like to expand on?
“And I said that was how you were arguing about evolution. I also added a winking smiley to show that I wasn’t trying to be altogether serious.”
-ICWUDT.. >.>
“Isn’t that exactly what all religions claim?”
-I’m sure it is, the difference is I’ve yet to see them back it up.
“But if it isn’t non-faith-based, then how could it be convincing to someone who don’t believe?”
-Picture this scenario. You find mud tracks of little shoe prints through a house. The most likely thing that anyone thinks of is a kid, or someone with little feet was walking through the house tracking mud from outside. That’s the most convincing idea based on the evidence since there’s nothing to determine it’s anything different. It could still be wrong though because someone could have placed the tracks there to deceive others, but it takes the least amount of faith to believe that idea to be true as opposed to the latter since that requires more faith to believe it as true. It still takes faith regardless of which scenario you believe, but the former is more convincing. Even if there was only one idea, it’s convincing to believe that as true with no other ideas’ influence.
“I wasn’t saying that finding truths was opinionated, just that your idea that it is always possible to show a truth is opinionated”
-If it’s not always possible to show truth, then how do you know if your rebuttal falls in that category, thus making it untruthful and err? We can go all day on this, but as I’ve said many times, avoid self-defeating arguments (or at least don’t defend them when they’re exposed) because I’m good at picking them out.
“So how do you determine if it’s inaccurate?”
-Depends on what we’re looking at. This isn’t something that can really be argued philosophically. It varies on information, unless you want the obvious answer of, “It’s inaccurate because it’s not accurate.”
“this only measures the capability of logical and semantic argumentation from the person you are discussing with, it says nothing about the actual subject at hand.”
-Then what does that say for your argument about logical semantics here? You’re using a logical argument as a premise to an actual subject being discussed. Doesn’t that make it useless?
“Why would that matter? We were discussing a court case where all evidence is examined”
-And if the evidence supports both views, then it’s worthless as a determining factor. Pretty much what I said already.
“I have no problem if the proponents of ID tries to prove their side, as long as they don’t try to claim that it is either scientific or that evolution wouldn’t be scientific”
-There’s multiple discussions that can branch from here that would determine ID being science and/or evolution not being so, but my argument doesn’t reside here.
“If someone is claiming something is true, then yes, they have to show it. If someone after that is claiming that same thing is actually false (after it has been shown viable), they have to prove it.”
-I can agree with that, but only in the way of “proving it’s false” by using the information that’s used to show it’s seemingly true. Otherwise, it’s the oppositions’ responsibility to prove it true.
“That you actually read up on how science and the theory of evolution really works instead of discussing how people think it works”
-Since it was made by people discussing how they think it works, I feel I’m on the same ground here.
“Well, in my apartment the water that comes from the tap is filtered. I think it’s a good metaphor you just made, of course there is bad water, but it doesn’t matter because it gets filtered before it reaches me.”
-So you’re now agreeing that there is such a thing as bad science, it just gets filtered out before reaching some defining moment of conclusion?
“That was something I thought was made clear a long time ago”
-Not necessarily, because you said that science doesn’t say anything is true, just that it shows theories are viable (which is to imply that “truth” and “viable theories” are separate and thus not the same. Since the only thing different from truth is it’s opposite, you ultimately imply it’s false), but now we have that settled.
“My thoughts are still on why would one method within science have to show something that it is not designed to do?”
-Science is designed to gain knowledge about the world. If it can’t discover that it’s own information in which it gains that knowledge is true, then it’s worthless. It is designed to do this, since it cannot fulfill it’s purpose in the place it matters most, I see no reason in utilizing it and it alone on my quest for gaining knowledge.
“To actually have any validity to your arguments about science you would have to go to the source description of science and argue that.”
-I am going to the source. I’m using the scientific method itself to show its self-defeating nature.
““If I can’t get a similar answer from the majority of people then what does that say for the future of science?”
-Absolutely nothing. If you get an erroneous answer from the majority of scientists that might tell something”
-So everyone else that’s not a scientist is stupid? We’re all incapable of meaningful thought even going through the schooling that is to make us think critically? School is a waste of time? Scientists are the gods of this age? You’re implying a lot of information here. I suggest a clarification.
“So basically what you’re saying is that anyone that believes in Christianity in any other way than you do is flat-out wrong?”
-No, because there are things we don’t know for a fact that are opinionated. It’s fair to have a different opinion, not a different truth. So I reiterate, relative “truths” do not exist. Relative “opinions” do though.
“If they know about their options and have chosen not to follow your interpretation of the bible, wouldn’t it be better to just leave them to their fate then?”
-If that’s what they “choose,” then by all means I’ll let them do what they want because it’s their choice, even if it grieves me. However, if they don’t know and they involuntarily choose a path they may not want to take, it’s worth bringing up the path that’s behind the bushes and thus give them a decision rather than one being made for them (in a sense).
“By this I mean that they feel it is a stronger point in the bible that you should not judge anyone, only god can do that and if you start telling people how they should live their lives then it is a judgment made by you and not by god”
-Who said I was telling people how they should live? I’m only pointing out an alternative to which they have the choice to make.
“I don’t have a problem with you or any other religious people mentioning this. What bothers me is when it turns to persecution, judgment and hate.”
-You and me both.
“But what makes the most sense to you does not make the most sense to other people, hence it is your interpretation.”
-If it were a subjective topic then you would have a point, but I look at things objectively and see if the puzzle piece fits the puzzle.
“The way I read you answer is that if there were parts that should be considered metaphors then it would be known so if it isn’t already known then it couldn’t have been meant as a metaphor.”
-If something is meant to be read a certain way, then the information will be there to decipher it as such (this goes back to my example regarding Hermeneutics in which literary poetry and literalism were determined by the way you write something). If there’s nothing to show that it is metaphorical then it’s not. If there’s everything to show it’s literal, then it is. If there’s not enough information, then that divides into opinions and cannot be used to the greatest of extents.
“What if someone who transcribed one version of the bible for their own gain added a passage about homosexuality being bad, or someone just wrote it incorrectly or something else along those lines?”
-Then that would be addressed by other translators. This isn’t a process that’s done by one person and then instantly published for the entire world to read. If they interpret something falsely (such as translating “cup” into “prostitute”) then that is something that will be dealt with by other translators.
Let’s take your scenario though and say it does get to the public. There would still be people (although few) who know the language and would see if it were accurate. If it’s not, then there would be a huge storm of opposition to the idea which would be made just as known to the public.
There’s many ways to interpret the same thing (bird can be known as flying creature, winged animal, one with feathers, etc.), but just because there’s different ways it is called does not mean one or all translations are wrong.
“What I was trying to say was that the bible was put together by humans and humans are fallible.”
-But God is not, and if the production of the Bible was influenced by God then we should see His characteristics in it. Since God is inerrant, we shouldn’t find error. Since God is immutable, we shouldn’t see a conflicting change in His nature. The list goes on.
“Why doesn’t it have anything to do with your argument? How do you show that nature goes against homosexuality?”
-It has nothing to do with my argument because I’m arguing that nature goes against homosexuality whereas you argue that homosexuality can have it’s benefits based on fertility and food relations in nature (which wouldn’t even correlate to homosexuality). Stop reproducing or move. Animals are smart enough to figure out when they need to move on from lack of food.
Nature goes against homosexuality because there’s no benefit to it. If anything were meant to be homosexual, there would not be diseases from it, there would fruits such as offspring to carry on the population. If everything were homosexual, there wouldn’t be a population.
“What do you base this assumption on?”
-It’s not an assumption, many psychologists have said this for a while. I could probably find the book that mentions it this weekend.
“there have been numerous studies showing that the most important thing is that the child is given love, affection and is shown empathy while growing up”
-I’m sure that’s “one of the most” important things, but there are “other most” important things right along with it. It’s not the only one.
“Doesn’t this give me at least some credibility in your eyes towards my mentioning that someone is born a homosexual?”
-No, because too many things go against it (objectively). Since we don’t know everyone’s story, we can’t make an assumption that everyone is mentally inclined to. They have their own choices. What we can do is look at the population and what affects the population itself to understand the situation. This is why I mention nature going against it.
“Especially considering that most homosexuals are raised no different than the rest of the people on this earth.”
-Everyone is raised differently my friend. Otherwise everyone would be exactly the same.
“I’m guessing that sometime in the beginning of mankind we were like the other animals, then we noticed that cooperation would give greater benefits and started gathering in greater numbers”
-What you have is an interesting paragraph to read, but this particular piece sticks out because it answers my question, but also doesn’t answer it.
My question was along the lines of where did the morals we all universally understand come from? Your answer only describes how we could have “discovered” them. Primitive human beings cooperating doesn’t show that’s where morals originated. It shows that being in groups was better than being separate. That idea was just as true the day before they cooperated as it was when it was discovered. The moral was still there. Where did the moral come from?
“How did you arrive to your conclusion that this would come from god?”
In my case, I believe that all laws have law-givers. As such, the moral law (being applicable to all subjects (humanity) and affecting them) has a law-giver. This is logically sound. Tested, observed, and repeated. This is what good science is if it’s going to be used.
“In the OT there are examples where it is ok to stone people to death, would that be applicable today?”
-No, because stoning someone was to atone for sin by the shedding of blood. Since Christ shed His blood for us to be sanctified, there’s no need to stone someone to atone for sin because Christ is the atonement Himself. This is why people say that the Old Testament law is not used today for a reason.
“Children don’t show any signs of empathy until they are some years old (usually around pre-school age), why wouldn’t they show this earlier if they are born with it?”
-Even though I wouldn’t really relate to this to defend my argument, my best take on it is because children are more curiosity-inclined rather than making decisions. They don’t consider anything but rather pursue it without thought that they later develop.
The argument I would use is found in the major events of history. Remember when I said that reactions show someones true colors (something like that anyway)? Major historical events that effect huge populations are a great example. Let’s take 9/11. This was an American tragedy in which our own planes with our own people were flown into our own buildings. Did anyone look at that and say, “yeah, that sounds about right.” No, people all over, even countries it didn’t affect knew it was wrong instantaneously. If morals are relative then we should have a mix of emotions from happy to sad, secure to terrified, hurt to comforted, etc., not a similar unifying experience.
“I still wonder why it is so much more important to tell people they can’t marry the person they love then it is to tell people they can’t masturbate?”
-Since when was this turned into a “which is worse than which” game?
“if someone is born a homosexual but are taught from an early age that the only thing that is correct and right is heterosexuality, then that person would still have all the homosexual feelings, only they would be suppressed and probably the person would think that those feelings are something bad (or even evil) and try not to act on them or tell anyone about those feelings. The person would still be homosexual, only a miserable and probably depressed one.”
-There are a multitude of prisoners that are miserable that their desire to kill those that put them in jail (or who they got caught by, etc.). Does that mean it’s right to let them go and do what they want?
The point I’m making here is you can have feelings about something. That doesn’t make those feelings right. The difference between my example and yours is there’s one afflicting one’s self whereas one is afflicting another and therefore it’s slightly inaccurate, but we decide that if someone wants to do something for themselves, then it’s their choice and they’re free to do it, whereas if someone wants to impede on another’s choices, it’s not ok, and that’s what makes a discussion like this so difficult and heated.
“No since that is against the laws stipulated by society”
-But if we all have different rights and wrongs, then what’s right for me isn’t always right for the next person. That’s the point I’ve been making. Moral relativism is false. We all agree that there are absolute rights and wrongs in the world. Green means go, Red means stop. To no one is it ok for Red to mean go and Green to mean stop to where there’s exceptions for them.
“There is also civil disobedience, if there are laws in a society that you disagree with you could rebel and break them, make sure you get arrested and stand for your views in an attempt to get a public discussion going. If we didn’t have a different sense about right and wrong then I guess laws and rules wouldn’t be necessary in a society?”
-My argument isn’t against the existence of laws. My argument is against moral relativism. Your law you’re pretending to break depends on what moral right or wrong you’re saying is relative and will therefore need clarification.
“There is actually a scientific explanation for this”
-There’s a scientific explanation for a lot of things, origins for example. It doesn’t mean it’s right.
But I am interested as always. I’m sure there’s also a scientific explanation as to why we started to wear clothes when animals don’t.
“I see. I have never gotten it explained this way before. I actually think I have learned something again”
-Lol, if the people you’ve been talking to don’t know this then I think they need to get involved in the Bible more. More often than not it’s the hypocrites trying to point the finger at non-Christians and making the real Christians look bad.
“Since we talk so much about semantics, couldn’t that mean offenders that are homosexuals instead of saying that the homosexuality is the offence”
-We could, but that would be more an issue of Hermeneutics in which we’d have to go to the original word and look at all possible translations to make sure it’s accurate before even starting a discussion.
God bless.
I guess I’ll be joining the conversation as I would like to include a few points for discussion. Hopefully it won’t detract much from the original discussion as I don’t want it to get out of track.
First off, what has been bothering me for a while is the idea that bible can offer truth that is not entirely faith based. The main problem is that it proves itself by itself – it claims to be holy and truthful, so a lot of people assume it is. Like any other religious books, it can not be proved or disproved.
My issue with it being claimed as holy is that it is a collection of different texts, written by different people throughout many decades. The collection itself was so diverse that a council had to come to a consensus to what should be used. This alone should raise a red flag concerning people adapting, changing or writing it according to their own interests at the time. The exclusion of many gospels (New Testament Apocrypha) also seem like an arbitrary way to mold the bible into a more acceptable book.
My own interpretation of this book is that it should be taken as a good message to follow or fables like Esop used to write, where you get a moral message at the end.
Regarding the science subject, I am not sure if I should venture in those dangerous waters, but I’ll add my 2 cents. Science will never be able to say it has found the absolute truth about anything, as there are different layers of truth to be uncovered.
Let me explain – We may have found that the gravity theory explains the observed phenomenon very well, but we have yet to understand why it happens exactly.
All the technology around us today proves that science theories have been truthful enough to come up with calculations that allows us to achieve such advancement. When you look at satellites in orbit, you can be sure that that are hundreds of scientific theories behind it that allowed it to happen.
From my point of view, unless a divine being descends upon earth himself and states something as absolute truth, there will never be a way we can point something as such and be able to prove it without depending on faith alone.
Venturing on the homosexuality subject, I stand in the mid term between you guys. I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature, I find it more like a deficiency in someone’s neurological wiring that causes such condition. Many studies I have read state that all fetuses are female in the first couple weeks (thus the nipples), and then the female body injects male hormones turning it into a male fetus. The wrong amount of male hormones can create male bodies with female brains or needs. In that sense, we should not prejudice against homosexuals in any way, but we should not also force it as normal and natural like some medias do (Specially in my country we are forced to see homosexuals in every TV show and novel, it gets annoying).
Hopefully I have not been too silly and you guys won’t tear my semantics apart, as this is not my native language and in my head it makes sense
Just wanted to add my opinions to what I find a very interesting discussion.
“Venturing on the homosexuality subject, I stand in the mid term between you guys. I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature..”
Homosexuality seems to be very natural as it is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, not just occurring in humans. There are, in fact, hundreds of species that we know engage in homosexual behavior, such as bison, elephants, dolphins, deer, dogs, cows, kangaroos, whales, bats, and pigs. There are also some species in which the entire population engages in sexual behavior with members of the same gender. Certain species of whip-tailed lizards, for example, only consist of females. They reproduces by parthenogenesis, or asexual reproduction, so sex is not required but they engage in sexual behavior in order to stimulate ovulation. The lizards that engage in this behavior have been found to have a higher number of produced offspring than those that are kept in isolation.
If however you are speaking about homosexuality being natural specifically towards humans, then I would say that the verdict is still out. Though I have read about studies that suggest that maternal relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile and have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. Please note that I am not saying the homosexuality is the cause of these cases of increased fertility only that it suggest that there is a correlation between them. But like I said, the verdict is still out.
“Many studies I have read state that all fetuses are female in the first couple weeks (thus the nipples), and then the female body injects male hormones turning it into a male fetus.”
The latest research shows that this is no longer the case. Originally we thought that the female form was the original template for fetuses of both sexes and that male development required certain hormonal or gene expression to occur. While this is still the true for male development, specifically it requires the activation of the SRY gene, we now know that the same is true for female development as well. In fact its actually a balance of pro male, pro female, anti-male, anti-female genes that determine fetal development. One such “pro female” gene is FOXL2, which is responsible for sex determination and ovarian development and function. Research has shown that the removal of this single gene would cause adult ovary cells to develop into testes.
Just relaying some interesting information.
Look who is back, Ben
. Now the party is complete!
About it being natural, I cannot see a reason why animals behave like that considering there is no real benefit in such relations. I admit I am ignorant regarding all those studies, but wouldn’t it be the case of random “humping” like dogs do with inanimate objects? Should it be considered a homosexual behavior?
About fertility in humans, wouldn’t it actually be the opposite causation? I have read many times that the more children a woman has, the greater the chance the younger will be homosexual, something about anti corps acting against the fetus. (sorry if I am not posting any evidence, just pointing out something I saw somewhere)
The information you brought is very interesting, I didn’t know those details, yet it doesn’t contradict my opinion that it is some kind of defect in development. Would you have any links to point where I can read more about the subject?
By the way, to all remaining in this blog, wouldn’t it be better if we took the discussion to a forum or somewhere that it is easier to quote and doesn’t risk getting wiped at any moment? I fear this reply section gets so big it is wiped, and then we will lose the entire conversation and each other contact.
“Look who is back, Ben
. Now the party is complete! ”
Glad to be back
I have actually been following this conversation from the beginning, I simply chosen not to take part until now as I have no interest in participating in a discussion with ICWUDT
“About it being natural, I cannot see a reason why animals behave like that considering there is no real benefit in such relations.”
Well like I was saying about the whip-tailed lizards, the sexual behavior stimulates ovulation which in turn produces more offspring. However for most other animals homosexual behavior serves no purpose in regards to reproduction, but it may be advantageous in other ways. In bonobo chimpanzees, the bonds formed between females that engage in homosexual behavior are socially stabilizing which leads to promote successful reproduction of young.
“but wouldn’t it be the case of random “humping” like dogs do with inanimate objects? Should it be considered a homosexual behavior?”
For dogs humping is more about vying for social domination then it is about sex. Its one of the ways that compete for the “alpha dog” position. I have two dogs, a german shepherd (female) and a husky (male). As the german shephered is older and stronger she currently has the alpha dog position. And the husky is constantly challenging her for it, and he does this by wrestling her for the top mounting position. Now being stronger then him she always throws him off, but she will also display her dominance over him by mounting him and humping. This is very common practice among dogs.
“About fertility in humans, wouldn’t it actually be the opposite causation?”
As I said, I wasn’t trying to imply that it was cause of the increase of the fertility, only that there seemed to be a natural correlation between to the two. It very well could be the case that it is the opposite causation as you state. Its still too early tell.
“I have read many times that the more children a woman has, the greater the chance the younger will be homosexual, something about anti corps acting against the fetus.”
Actually I have read about those studies too, and this very well could be the case. I think what we should take away from this is that homosexuality, or even sex in general, isn’t as black and white an issue as it is commonly thought as, but instead is a much more complex issue with many variables that we don’t fully understand yet.
Personally though, I don’t find anything wrong about homosexuality and see it as being just as natural and morally permissible as any other sexual behavior, as long as its between consenting adults of course.
“The information you brought is very interesting, I didn’t know those details, yet it doesn’t contradict my opinion that it is some kind of defect in development.”
Oh sorry, I wasn’t trying to contradict your opinion there. I merely wanted to relay what the latest research had to say regarding sex determination of fetal development.
“Would you have any links to point where I can read more about the subject?”
If you mean about fetal development, I do.
http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/units/gender/experts/vilain.html <—- Here is an interview with Eric Vilain, MD, PhD.
http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867409014330 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20005806 <—– these are of the same article but both sites have a huge database that may contain more on the topic.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6952050.ece <—- here is a times article that gives a pretty good overview
Hope these help
@Ben
I did find your information interesting, I even think I might have learned something from it… now I just have to read up a bit on the studies.
Nice to see you still visit here sometimes
@Luis
I agree that the format here is not really intended for this type of discussions, but if we move to a forum it would be hard to move all the initial conversations we’ve had which I think is quite important. Otherwise it wouldn’t take long before people start jumping in the conversation bringing up everything we’ve already said… If you have an easy way of transferring this then I’m all for it though
I’ve never really considered the risk of this conversation getting wiped, has that happened to other discussions here?
“I guess I’ll be joining the conversation as I would like to include a few points for discussion. Hopefully it won’t detract much from the original discussion as I don’t want it to get out of track.”
-Welcome back Luis. Since you started a new thread I think it won’t derail us in the other discussion. It’s always fun with more input and thoughts.
I guess your concerns about the bible are mostly aimed at ICWYDT and since I don’t know that much about bible history (I do find it quite interesting though) I won’t say much here. I could mention that a lot of Christians here in Sweden have more or less the same view as you do on the bible where you said you see it as a good message to follow. Here people generally see the message of love in the NT and regard the judgments and other stuff as history so to speak. Personally I think that anything that promotes love and peace in the world is positive
“All the technology around us today proves that science theories have been truthful enough to come up with calculations that allows us to achieve such advancement. When you look at satellites in orbit, you can be sure that that are hundreds of scientific theories behind it that allowed it to happen.”
-I think this is a good point. Of course there is a difference in the science used in biology from astronomy, but the principles and rules are exactly the same.
“I don’t think it is natural as a normal functioning feature, I find it more like a deficiency in someone’s neurological wiring that causes such condition.”
-When I express that it is natural I don’t really mean anything more than that it exists in around 10% of the population, whether you look at humans or any other groups of animals. The main point I’ve been trying to make is that it is not a choice. As far as people choose to express their homosexuality is not my place to judge, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or spread any messages of hate I don’t really care what they do
“Hopefully I have not been too silly and you guys won’t tear my semantics apart, as this is not my native language and in my head it makes sense Just wanted to add my opinions to what I find a very interesting discussion.”
-No worries, it’s the internet and if we think you’re silly we’ll just ignore you
No seriously, I always find it interesting to hear thoughts from a lot of different people. I mean in this discussion that I’ve had here for more than 2 months I think I’ve shown that I’m not always right and that I don’t expect to be either. I just wish I was slightly better at expressing myself and then I might have been able to actually explain all these things about science and how it works so that we could come to a point where we either agree or at least understand exactly what the other one is really saying and then respectfully agree to disagree
By the way, I’d say your English is good, and I don’t have any problem understanding what you say. That might be because it’s not my native language either
Where are you from by the way?
Thanks for the feedback always fun that someone is following our conversation.
Take care!
“oh well it’s Friday”
Took me quite a time to answer, been busy last week
But lets continue our parallel discussion 
“In the first case it is someone who does it to make money, the second case is without affection so how could you say it’s homosexuality? Going through the motions doesn’t make you a homosexual.”
-Ok, I can actually agree with that, I was thinking in the acts more than the feelings, but we can settle for feelings on this one.
“Hmm, I’m not sure how you mean here. Why do you have a problem with a parade? You don’t have to participate if you’re not interested I guess?”
- I have a problem because I believe it generates more segregation, since they are reinforcing their differences from the rest. Also, lately it has been showing extreme promiscuity, which I also find wrong to be done publically and in front of children.
Also, I don’t think the pride is for being courageous and fighting against prejudice, but most will take pride in being gay on itself, which I find pointless. We shouldn’t be proud for being born on a certain way, but on things you achieved. In this case if it changed the name to “Superation Pride” would look better
“If they for example show a movie about kids discovering their emotions, trying to establish relationships and so forth and then two of the kids happen to be gay and they kiss I think it’s good.”
-I think the key word here is “happen”, one thing is to promote acceptance of differences, the other is to promote homosexual behavior. I don’t think there should be a specific material showing a homosexual kiss, its not the way the education should be handled. There are better ways to do it. It feels like a propaganda to me.
“Here in Sweden we have a sort of hospital for youths that need to have a grown-up to talk to about sex, to get a check up or to get information on safe sex or maybe just go there to get free condoms”
-That is amazing and I really hope we get to see something similar around here. Teen pregnancy has increased drastically over the years.
“Also, why is it more offensive to see two people of the same sex kissing then two straight people?”
-I don’t see as offensive, it just calls more attention because it is unusual compared to the average. I bet you would be much more shocked to see a man kissing a pig
“South America is quite high on my list. I do think I have to learn a bit of Spanish first”
-Spanish would allow you to visit more countries, so it is probably the best option. If you are willing to come to South America, I would recommend south of Argentina on the borders with Chile. It is one of the most beautiful places you can be. Look up Patagonia
“May I also ask the other things I’ve asked ICWYD already, like age and if you’re working or studying or maybe unemployed?”
-24, working as financial analyst for a technology company.
-Lastly, thanks Ben for those links. Will read them over the weekend.
“Took me quite a time to answer, been busy last week”
-No worries, I’m not always fast myself
“Ok, I can actually agree with that, I was thinking in the acts more than the feelings, but we can settle for feelings on this one.”
-Then we’re off to a good start, even though it cuts down the discussion
I think it might have to do with English being our second languages; homosexuality encompasses feelings but doesn’t necessarily have to include the acts. Homosexual acts I guess can be anything just involving the acts but not necessarily anything else. At least that’s how I think it is.
“I have a problem because I believe it generates more segregation, since they are reinforcing their differences from the rest. Also, lately it has been showing extreme promiscuity, which I also find wrong to be done publically and in front of children.”
-Hmm, I haven’t really seen it from this angle before but I think you have a point that it might lead to more segregation if they focus on the differences and especially if they do it in a way that might be seen as offensive to a large group of people.
I do guess this depends a lot on the society in general, if there’s an acceptance of homosexuality (like in Sweden) I guess this wouldn’t be a problem, it would be more like ‘ok, these people like to be seen, nice for them’ and then you’d go something else unless you wanted to give them the attention
I have heard some discussions about pride-parades in here as well where other homosexuals are complaining that these parades paints a bad picture for the rest of the homosexuals who are not exhibitionists or promiscuous.
“Also, I don’t think the pride is for being courageous and fighting against prejudice, but most will take pride in being gay on itself, which I find pointless. We shouldn’t be proud for being born on a certain way, but on things you achieved. In this case if it changed the name to “Superation Pride” would look better ”
-I can understand your thinking. I did check up the history of the pride-marches just to see why they are called pride so if you’re interested (or not) I’ll give you a short history lesson
It goes back to 1969 and New York, it was common that the police busted up gay-bars and harassed members of the LGB-community. In June the police did yet another raid on the gay-bat Stonewall Inn but the people in there decided not to take it anymore and fought back. This led to riots that lasted for three days. This is the event that is celebrated through the pride parades, the first time the community stood up for their rights together.
I guess this doesn’t make much difference to the people outside of the community, I just figured you might be curious as to why they are called pride-parades
“I think the key word here is “happen”, one thing is to promote acceptance of differences, the other is to promote homosexual behavior. I don’t think there should be a specific material showing a homosexual kiss, its not the way the education should be handled.”
-Mostly we’re in agreement here as well, as I said if the sex-ed is taught in a bad way it can have the opposite effect.
I’m not quite sure how you mean that they would be promoting homosexual behavior though. I mean either you’re homosexual or you’re heterosexual (or of course you can be bi), but in any case I doubt that it would make any difference if the behavior is promoted. As a heterosexual I don’t feel any attraction towards men, I don’t think I would even if I got bombarded with homosexual acts from everywhere
“That is amazing and I really hope we get to see something similar around here. Teen pregnancy has increased drastically over the years.”
-It is quite a good system; they have ad-campaigns from time to time encouraging young people to get tested for STD’s if they are sexually active and general information campaigns as well.
“I don’t see as offensive, it just calls more attention because it is unusual compared to the average. I bet you would be much more shocked to see a man kissing a pig ”
True I would probably be very surprised to see that 
)? Then it wouldn’t call so much attention and everybody would be happy 
-Ok, then I just misinterpreted you
On the other hand wouldn’t it be good if it wasn’t so unusual (not the pig-kissing
“Spanish would allow you to visit more countries, so it is probably the best option. If you are willing to come to South America, I would recommend south of Argentina on the borders with Chile. It is one of the most beautiful places you can be. Look up Patagonia”
Unfortunately I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future, I guess I have to make due with short trips on my vacations… I am hoping to make it over to China to visit a friend next year, keeping my fingers crossed that it will happen. Maybe I’ll take some extra time off work (with no pay) to stay a bit longer.
-Yup, I figured that Spanish would get me the furthest, and I guess I could also at least be able to ask/understand some of the absolute basics of Portuguese in that case. Right now I don’t know more than ‘obrigado’ and ‘muito bom’ from being in Portugal for the Boom-festival some years back
Yes, I’ve heard and read about Patagonia and it’s a place I really want to visit. There’s a lot of places I really want to visit on my list, so I guess I just have to save up a fortune, quit my job and go travelling again
Do you have any recommendations on places to go in Brazil? I don’t know much about your country and most of it comes from such films as Cidade de Deus and similar ones, I’m guessing they don’t show the most positive aspects of your country (even though it’s a really good movie)? No, wait, I just remembered seeing another movie a while back that was really good as well, O Homem Que Copiava. It was a charming comedy that seemed more positive
“24, working as financial analyst for a technology company”
-Nice, is it a fun job? Seems complicated to me, but that might be because I never took an interest in financials.
Have a nice Easter!
“I do guess this depends a lot on the society in general, if there’s an acceptance of homosexuality (like in Sweden) I guess this wouldn’t be a problem”
-My feeling is that even if there is acceptance of homosexuality, there may not be acceptance of promiscuity or exhibitionism. In this point, I guess these parades are more bound to negative impacts instead of positive ones. The focus of these groups should be showing the rest of society that they are normal people. Dressing in leather or half naked is not the best way to do that.
“I’ll give you a short history lesson”
-Quite interesting, but I believe it has lost its meaning already. I would bet most people attending these events are not aware how they started, and even if they are, I believe they have already earned most of their rights and should do more focused parades if they wish (Parades with clear goals instead of just shouting out their sexual preferences). As it stands nowadays, it generally gives a bad impression of these groups.
“Mostly we’re in agreement here as well, as I said if the sex-ed is taught in a bad way it can have the opposite effect.”
- Unfortunately Brazil’s education is in terrible shape, so I don’t think they are prepared to handle this as it should. We have no sex-ed at all, so just showing random videos of homosexual behavior is not going to help anything.
“I’m not quite sure how you mean that they would be promoting homosexual behavior though”
-Children generally don’t have any kind of attraction at all until they start hitting puberty, so I believe showing homosexual behavior to younger children can promote experimentation by observation. Not that they will grow into homosexuals, but it is just an extra addition to an already extremely sexualized environment we live in today.
“On the other hand wouldn’t it be good if it wasn’t so unusual? Then it wouldn’t call so much attention and everybody would be happy”
-I believe it is unusual because it affects a smaller percentage of the population. If you stop to think about sexual practices, any one practiced by a minority only is likely to have a shocking factor to it. Keep in mind that I am not saying they are wrong.
“Do you have any recommendations on places to go in Brazil?”
-Rio de Janeiro is a great place to visit, people usually like going there. Also Brazil’s Northeast has some beautiful places to visit – especially beaches, if you can stand the heat.
Also, if you liked Cidade de Deus, I would recommend watching “tropa de Elite” (Elite Squad), it is even better.
“Nice, is it a fun job? Seems complicated to me, but that might be because I never took an interest in financials.”
There is lots of pressure as you are handling money, but I love it.
-It is fun if you like numbers
Hope you had a nice easter yourself, how is it over Sweden? Here in Brazil people go on a chocolate craze, but I guess very few remember of the religious side.
“My feeling is that even if there is acceptance of homosexuality, there may not be acceptance of promiscuity or exhibitionism. In this point, I guess these parades are more bound to negative impacts instead of positive ones. The focus of these groups should be showing the rest of society that they are normal people. Dressing in leather or half naked is not the best way to do that.”
Maybe not as much leather though…
-I can understand your feelings towards this. I do have to wonder though; don’t the heterosexuals behave in a similar manner when it comes to the carnival and some other festivities? From what I’ve seen in pictures there seems to be quite a few half-naked people on the streets celebrating from time to time
By the way, wouldn’t it get really hot wearing leather in you climate? Doesn’t sound comfortable
“Quite interesting, but I believe it has lost its meaning already. I would bet most people attending these events are not aware how they started”
-That might very well be true; I was just trying to put the name of the parade into perspective. I also think that the people organizing the parades are aware of the origins.
“Unfortunately Brazil’s education is in terrible shape, so I don’t think they are prepared to handle this as it should. We have no sex-ed at all, so just showing random videos of homosexual behavior is not going to help anything.”
-Ouch. Well, then I think it’s far more important to put the effort into developing a good sex-ed program for the schools then to care about specific minorities. If the classes are good then they will learn everything needed from there, including acceptance of people who are different from themselves.
“Children generally don’t have any kind of attraction at all until they start hitting puberty, so I believe showing homosexual behavior to younger children can promote experimentation by observation.”
-Personally I’m not sure that kids would experiment more than they already do in either case, and in general I think experimentation is something positivt.
“but it is just an extra addition to an already extremely sexualized environment we live in today.”
-This I do agree to. I think that too much in our society is sexualized, be it how the Americans shy away from even the natural parts by censoring TV and setting (in my opinion) ridiculous age limits to something where a nipple is being shown (and at the same time it’s ok for small kids to watch a large portion of violence), or the way sex is used in commercials to sell almost anything and of course how objectifying it is made…
“I believe it is unusual because it affects a smaller percentage of the population. “
-1 out of 10 is of course a minority, but it’s still quite a large part of the population.
“Rio de Janeiro is a great place to visit, people usually like going there. Also Brazil’s Northeast has some beautiful places to visit – especially beaches, if you can stand the heat.”
After travelling in south east asia I have a big problem standing the cold in Sweden instead…
-Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.
I am not much of a beach person, but I enjoy it as relaxation from time to time. I can stand the heat though, I love it
“Also, if you liked Cidade de Deus, I would recommend watching “tropa de Elite” (Elite Squad), it is even better.”
-Yes, I have planned on watching that one, I have it at home waiting. I just feel I have to be in the mood for a (I’m guessing) rather depressing movie at times…
“Hope you had a nice easter yourself, how is it over Sweden? Here in Brazil people go on a chocolate craze, but I guess very few remember of the religious side.”
-Probably about the same then, there’s not much religion involved (since Sweden is quite un-religious I guess that’s not so strange) and people eat a lot of chocolate (I’m allergic so no chocolate for me).
What might be slightly different though is that kids dress up as witches and the parents gives them big eggs filled with candy
Take care, and have a good weekend!
@MAD
I posted a comment but I don’t think it went through. Occasionally my comment is invisible rather than “awaiting moderation,” and still get’s posted so I’ll wait another day or 2 and see if it posts. If not I’ll try to find a way to get it up there. Probably posting it in pieces. It was pretty long.
lol
God bless.
Let’s try splitting this in half since it’s being stubborn, lol.
“A theory wouldn’t be upgraded to the level of theory if it was conflicting with another theory since there would be something wrong which means they can’t both be true.”
-I’ll grant you that in the case of science, but in the expression of ideas, I have my theory (idea), they have theirs which both are viable as far as I’m concerned, but only one is right.
“if there’s been a mistake somewhere it gets found out and corrected, isn’t that something good?”
-It is good, but that was never my argument from the beginning. My argument was in the fact that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years whereas science (more specifically, evolution since that has a date on it for purposes of what I’m stating) has changed it’s idea continuously over the past 150 years. It’s good too change to get more accurate answers, but if the answers are already known then there’s no need for updates. Just in hindsight, there’s 2 possibilities. Either the Bible is wrong and it needs changes because it’s false, or it was right the entire time which is why it hasn’t had changes.
“you say that is your belief, then how can you say it’s the same as I say when I say that I don’t have a “belief” in science.”
-Just because you say you don’t have a belief in something doesn’t nullify that which defines it as such. In short, I can say I don’t have the flu, but if I exhibit symptoms that are defined as having the flu, then it doesn’t matter what I say. I’m certain you’ve heard of the phrase “actions are louder than words.” This is a good example of it.
“I still don’t understand how you can call science faith-based”
-Where are you getting that from? I didn’t use that in the last post (or at least, in the designated area you’re quoting me from), unless you’re speaking in a certain context I’m unaware of.
“but you just wait until you start working for real and end up under an incompetent boss who is a real jerk, then you’ll prefer to stay out of his way instead”
-Because the blind are leading the blind in this case. A faulty and imperfect person leads another whereas the “boss” I’m describing is beyond such faulty qualities.
“To use your analogy I would say that if there is a boss who expects me to do a certain job, I would prefer it if he came to me, introduced himself and then I would gladly do the job I’m hired for”
-He would if He weren’t pushed away by those preceding you. During the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden He was very much interactive and alive in their day-to-day life. It was once they rebelled and pushed God away that He became less and less interactive by more and more rebellion. God gave us free will. If we want to push Him away, He’ll allow it (granted this is just a nut-shell version with a lot of complications to go over).
“science doesn’t say that your ideas of supernatural entities are impossible, only that they can’t be tested to show they are true”
-So let’s test that idea. Let’s go through some things you believe can’t be tested and let’s see what we can find, shall we?
Where would you like to start? Define what we’re testing.
“it is possible to show that something is true, false or incomplete.”
-Now we might be getting somewhere. So is your argument true, false, or incomplete and how do you determine it as such? Let’s see how far we can get.
“So could you explain how your argument affects science in any way?”
-The origin of this disagreement was that logic/semantics could or couldn’t be used as a valid argument against something of science (anything in general really, but we’re focusing on science). I have clearly shown it can be because to say otherwise is self-defeating. That being said, unless my argument itself is logically flawed, it is useful in determining truth and not an arbitrary concept.
“Are you saying that this discussion wouldn’t be any different if you were actually talking to someone who had a degree in a scientific field and had been working as a scientist?”
-Depends. If we’re speaking on their knowledge of the subject, then no, it wouldn’t be the same from a commoner to someone who’s been educated and studied all about it. As for the outcome of a certain topic and it’s viability, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest because there would be more viable information for one side than the other regardless of how educated one is. However, this is why reading is so important or to do some kind of word-a-day definition exercise to further expand ones vocabulary because as a wise man once said, those absent of a good vocabulary, are incapable of truly complex and critical thought (that’s the gist anyway…).
“we don’t have the knowledge of the actual workings to be relevant”
-In other words, we’re stupid, they’re smart. All bow to the superiors. Lol, this is kind of what you implied last time, but I’m not going to really discuss this as it is one’s own opinion and it’s an entirely different argument for another day that I’ve prepared for.
“““And what I pretty much said was that a large part of the evidence only supports evolution” -And I believe otherwise.” -So why did you only mention that one part of the evidence supports both views when I asked what else then similarities (which was the only one you mentioned).”
–Those are 2 different things. Believing what a majority of the evidence supports and what certain evidence supports both sides are not the same.
“““So you think that by discussing an extensive scientific theory, that you haven’t read or done any in depth research of…” -That’s a pretty big assumption/assertion.” -Which I base on your argumentation in this thread.”
–I have gotten multiple different explanations of science and other various, yet related, topics on the subject but I don’t come to the conclusion that they haven’t researched it. At best, simply that they don’t understand from what they’ve learned (or not learned), or that the person they’re talking to has a different idea.
“I’m just saying that if you catch me in a logical fallacy then it’s most likely because I haven’t grasped exactly how science works. You haven’t refuted science by arguing with me.”
-I can gladly accept that you don’t know everything, nor does anyone else, but saying I haven’t refuted any of science in the process is basically playing monkey in the middle here. “Oh, I don’t have it, it’s that person over there.” I turn around and it’s the same story. It happens more often than you believe that people put it off on others believing the answer is somewhere else. If it’s elsewhere, then people shouldn’t have a problem finding it.
“Because it takes a bigger man to admit you made a mistake and correct it than to say you never make mistakes”
-But if the latter is true and one doesn’t make mistakes, then it doesn’t matter if you have the courage to admit you made a mistake and fix it. In the end, it never was correct, nor was what it changed to.
“Also, you said earlier that you would like it if all information was possible to show what is true without any involvement of faith. Then how can you compare something that you claim has never made mistakes but at the same time can’t be shown as truth without any faith involvement, to something that can show truth without any faith involvement?”
-Read carefully. I would “like” all information to be that way. Not I “must” have all information that way to make a valid decision in life. Therefore, if there’s never enough information to make a 100% definitive answer, then I will gladly suffice for the greater percentage. It may be 99.9%, is that .1% reasonable to doubt it? Not really.
“scientific knowledge is a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. The scientific method is a method of inquiry that must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning”
-I fail to see the difference. One is the body itself of facts and knowledge while one gains those facts and that knowledge. They still deal with possessing truthful information. Unless I misunderstand my previous comment in it’s past context, it still makes sense here.
“Within science there are plenty of methods that can show the gathered knowledge is true”
-That’s not the argument. We’re not looking for a method to find information to use the method with to see if it yields accurate results. That’s more circular reasoning.
We’re not looking for the method under the method. We’re specifically focusing on the basic groundwork itself. The method that all the specified methods for specific fields branch off of. You described it in the previous comment: “The scientific method is a method of inquiry that must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
“School is supposed to give us a general understanding on different topics, not down to the small details that we are discussing in this thread”
-Well put, I can agree to that contrary to my previous statements.
“If you go to driving school you don’t learn every step of the process of how a car is manufactured or how the intricacies work, you learn how to drive it”
-Went a little too far with the analogy here though. When discussing science itself, it makes sense to hit the general points and not all the specifics, but you refer to everything about the car (instead of driving the car) whereas we wouldn’t cover absolutely everything in science (such as geology, biology, weather, etc), just the intricacies of science itself (or, to use the analogy, driving itself). I understand what you’re going for, just a bit too extreme in my opinion.
“Why would you say that the pressure is on the school and not on you? If you lack some knowledge be it due to a poor teacher in school…”
-That’s exactly why I said it.
“…or just your own inattention in class”
-Also plausible. They were rather boring.
“Also, what one person sees as the idea that require the least amount of faith is probably not the same thing as someone else who looks at the same data”
-I’m glad we can agree that you can get different interpretations from the same thing. That’ll be useful information later to refer back to (possibly).
Doesn’t want to post to 2nd half, so we’ll see how many times I have to split this. o.O
“…wouldn’t the entire world belong to one religion otherwise? Or none at all?”
-Not necessarily. We all have different opinions, even if something is concrete in what it says. There are those people, and then there are those who rationally have a different opinion on something less established which is much more reasonable. There are people that disagree about the orbital pattern of the earth today on whether it’s geocentric or heliocentric (hope I got that right). Not everyone thinks the same established way.
“to me it sounds like you have your views and opinions set in stone (written in stone maybe
) and you seem absolutely sure that everything you have discovered is the only way that is possible to interpret and anyone who has a different opinion is flat out wrong”
-I could say the same thing about you.
Just because I oppose what you say and offer an explanation against it doesn’t mean I’m unchanging and my ways are absolute. It just means I have a difference of opinion and I see fault in what you say, therefore I express that disagreement.
“And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals”
-And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?
“So you’re saying that if there isn’t enough food to sustain a large population and nowhere to go to get more food, then it still wouldn’t be beneficial for the population as a whole?”
-Most certainly not.
“True that there’s a greater risk of contracting AIDS through anal sex, but lots of straight people indulge in that as well, so it’s not exclusive to homosexuals.”
-It’s not a natural way to have sex either. Avoiding it altogether avoids the greater percentage of the problem altogether. Not just AIDS but the others mentioned as well.
“I understand what you’re saying but since I see nothing wrong with homosexuality this comparison your making just doesn’t fit”
-We’re more on a view here of “if my premise is right, then I’m right” and vice versa. It’s more of an all or nothing approach and I doubt we’re going to get any further.
“I think I was referring to studies showing that the most important part of a child’s upbringing is that it’s loved and wanted, not the gender of the parents”
-And I agree, but I never spoke about what’s the most important. Simply what would be the best environment for a child to grow up in, which is indeed loving parents, but also (in addition to) a mother and a father. Not both of one gendered parent.
“I was more interested in understanding how nature could be against something that has been created by nature?”
-I’ve already said it multiple times. It doesn’t benefit anything. If everything were gay, everything would die. Even if they tried, they’d do more damage to themselves than if they didn’t try at all.
“You could also say that it benefits life when two gay people adopt a child that would otherwise grow up in an orphanage”
-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.
“I believe that morals stem partly from the fact that we all have feelings and we instinctively know that something that hurts me would hurt you as well and partly I believe that we developed some of our morals out of living together and noticing that we needed some rules. I don’t understand why morals have to come from any other place than from us humans?”
-You’re still not explaining where morals originate (taking both possibilities into account, either evolution being true or God existing). Just how we discover them. You’re not the first to try though.
“So if you chose to you could fall in love with another man?”
-That’s what homosexuality is. A choice. It’s not something you’re born with, it’s a choice you make (then again, this is more on my beliefs and can’t be proven/disproven very well). It’s something in your control. I’m not saying it’s an easy choice because choices vary in their difficulty to make them. It’s harder to make a choice in the emergency room to save someone’s life than it is to choose a color for a powerpoint presentation slide. We all struggle with certain choices differently. For me, homosexuality isn’t a hard choice to decide against, for others, it is. We all have different intensities of struggles. It doesn’t mean that those that struggle more with a certain situation are stuck there or that’s “who they are,” just that they need to work harder. My struggle is quitting when things get hard. For my uncle-in-law, that’s nothing, but for me, I have a hard time staying attached to projects until they’re finished.
“Earlier you said I only explained how I thought we had “discovered” morals, that’s not what I meant at all, I think that’s how we developed morals”
-At best, your example shows how they were discovered. It can be developed too if you want, but regardless of the terminology, it does not explain how they were created; where they originated which is one of the critical things that pro-evolutionary theorists must find an answer to.
“I also wouldn’t agree that your view requires the least amount of faith since it entails a supernatural being that cannot be proven to someone who doesn’t have that faith beforehand”
-All things require a certain amount of faith to believe it’s right (using your previous example about putting your hand in a bucket of water, you trust that your senses are accurate enough to feed you that information and process it), so your question is rather redundant.
“Just because you call something a law doesn’t mean it has anything in common with other things that are called laws”
-Then let’s define it and discover if the moral law applies.
“Constitutions etc. is man-made laws that we have written, how are they comparable to laws of nature for examples”
-Because we know their origins whereas we don’t know the origins of the laws of nature. Therefore, if we’re discovering where a law comes from (be it an intelligence or a non-intelligent entity), then we need to use something that we know where it came from.
“I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity”
-But no one knows exactly where it came from.
“I also don’t agree that there are moral absolutes”
-This goes back to the red light/green light example. Is it right for some people to go at red lights while others go at green? No. Therefore relativism in this sense is false. This has already been discussed.
“So you are saying that everyone on this planet have an innate feeling of what is right and what is wrong”
-In the plainest way, indeed.
““Since all origin-known laws have an intelligence behind them, we can logically conclude that the moral law has an intelligence behind it’s origin.” -Now you are making big assumptions here. As I mentioned, the law of gravity does not have an intelligence behind”
-You’re making a bigger one because we don’t know if gravity was an invention of God or an invention of nature (if it was the creation of an intelligence or of a non-intelligence). This is why I said “origin-’known’” laws as opposed to “origin laws” because some laws’ origins are unknown. My argument still stands as an intelligence behind the moral law as the greatest probability.
“I still can’t understand the logic behind your reasoning that you are using throughout, that somehow an intelligent being that cannot be seen and can only be known through faith, can be the explanation that requires the least amount of faith”
-Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith? I believed intellectually before making a volitional decision. Intelligence and emotional ways to faith are merely springboards to help those into making the volitional decision to be committed.
“As I’ve said numerous times before, this has nothing to do with science as you still claim”
-My comment from 2 paragraphs up says otherwise.
“Anything that is supernatural cannot be tested in a controlled environment and it can only be based on faith”
-Now we’re getting somewhere. However, we need to define a very important detail. What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?
“You are saying that the moral isn’t the actual action itself but that the action in one case is a sin and another it isn’t”
-In accordance to your example, the moral is that it’s wrong to sin and demands rightful judgment. Still using your example, the moral of atoning for this sin did not change itself, merely how it is atoned (through Christ rather than the law). If you want to talk about the moral of killing someone, that’s another story.
“If morals aren’t based on actions but on something defined in the bible, then how about all the people who don’t believe that sinning are morally wrong?”
-That’s not what was being discussed. You gave an example of why people stoned others and that we don’t do it now to back up your idea that the moral changed. I gave a counter-argument. Never once did I say anything about morals as defined in the Bible, your example merely takes them into account.
“Do you base all your moral beliefs on the bible?”
-It’s possible to do so to my knowledge.
“I think that in some cases red can mean it is ok to turn right”
-Yes, but that’s not the analogy as you’re trying to redefine. Is it, or is it not ok for someone to go through an intersection at a red light “because red means go” to them to where they don’t suffer consequences? If it’s ok, then moral relativism is true, but it contradicts reality as we know it because red is not applicable to mean “go,” thus, moral relativism is false. If it’s not ok, then moral relativism is false anyway.
“Isn’t that moral relativity, that whether a specific action is moral or not depends on the situation?”
-Relativism contradicts our common sense and our reactions. Those who claim to be relativists would never want their spouse to be relatively faithful. They would want them to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong.
It won’t let me post the rest of my comment on that last section so I’ll just clarify differently if there’s still misunderstanding. Jeez, trying to post this whole thing was more annoying than you can imagine, lol.
God bless.
“I posted a comment but I don’t think it went through.”
-I wonder if Failblog doesn’t like us writing a book in every comment
“I’ll grant you that in the case of science, but in the expression of ideas, I have my theory (idea), they have theirs which both are viable as far as I’m concerned, but only one is right.”
-But you were discussing science and scientific theories, why would you mix that up with unscientific ideas? Either you stick to discussing science or everything in this part of the discussion is meaningless. If you find both ideas viable then you choose which idea seems more likely, but that has nothing to do with science that’s what’s in your mind.
“My argument was in the fact that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years whereas science (more specifically, evolution since that has a date on it for purposes of what I’m stating) has changed it’s idea continuously over the past 150 years. “¨
-While I agree that a lot of science has been changed when more information has become available evolution hasn’t. There have been lots of minor changes, yes, but the basic of the theory is still the same.
“Just in hindsight, there’s 2 possibilities. Either the Bible is wrong and it needs changes because it’s false, or it was right the entire time which is why it hasn’t had changes.”
-So are you claiming that every historical part in the bible that is possible to check is 100% correct? Everything in the OT has happened exactly the way it says in the bible?
“Just because you say you don’t have a belief in something doesn’t nullify that which defines it as such.”
-I agree with this sentence, but I don’t understand why you would say it requires belief when something is provable. I would say that the definition of being able to prove something is that it doesn’t require belief.
““I still don’t understand how you can call science faith-based”
-Where are you getting that from?”
-From you (further back) saying that “It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right[..]”, thus implying faith is needed to “believe” in science.
“He would if He weren’t pushed away by those preceding you.”
-That doesn’t matter the least to me. If we’re still using the analogy of a boss then I don’t care what happened before I started working there, I still expect the boss to greet me and explain my work. If I started working in a place and were told that the boss won’t see me because someone else made a mistake years back I’d be very suspicious
“So let’s test that idea. Let’s go through some things you believe can’t be tested and let’s see what we can find, shall we?
Where would you like to start? Define what we’re testing.”
-Are you serious here? Then let’s just take the basis of religion, does god exist? How can you test that?
““it is possible to show that something is true, false or incomplete.”
-Now we might be getting somewhere. So is your argument true, false, or incomplete and how do you determine it as such? Let’s see how far we can get.”
-Are you referring to my sentence above? It is true since you can take any scientific finding (or hypothesis) and show that there is either reproducible proof for every step leading up to the find, or you can show that it is possible to falsify and therefore it is false, or you can show that we just don’t have enough information to show either. Haven’t we been over this before?
““So could you explain how your argument affects science in any way?”
-The origin of this disagreement was that logic/semantics could or couldn’t be used as a valid argument against something of science (anything in general really, but we’re focusing on science). I have clearly shown it can be because to say otherwise is self-defeating. That being said, unless my argument itself is logically flawed, it is useful in determining truth and not an arbitrary concept.”
-No, the argument was that you can’t affect science by defeating me with logic/semantics. I was saying you have to go to the source, the scientific texts describing how science works and argue from there. Not some layman’s knowledge of science.
“As for the outcome of a certain topic and it’s viability, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest because there would be more viable information for one side than the other regardless of how educated one is.”
-But if one person has no idea how to put forth their arguments it doesn’t matter if they’re good or bad he will lose the discussion anyway.
“However, this is why reading is so important or to do some kind of word-a-day definition exercise to further expand ones vocabulary because as a wise man once said, those absent of a good vocabulary, are incapable of truly complex and critical thought (that’s the gist anyway…).”
)
-I fully agree here, which is kind of the point I was trying to make, if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side (not making a statement about our debate here
““we don’t have the knowledge of the actual workings to be relevant”
).
-In other words, we’re stupid, they’re smart. All bow to the superiors. “
-I would say you totally misunderstand me here. Why would intelligence have anything to do with what I’m saying? It is possible to be incredibly smart but if you have no education it doesn’t help much. All I am saying is that I lack the deeper knowledge of how science works because I have never really studied it. I’m not trying to say that people who aren’t scientists are more stupid I am just saying that within the field of science I have significantly less knowledge then someone who has studied it therefore it is possible to defeat me in semantic argumentation because I lack the understanding of some parts of science.
If we talk about, say an experiment that has three steps.
1. Fill a pot with water. 2. Use the stove to make the water boil. 3. Put an egg in there for 3 min to boil (I’m not quite sure how long eggs usually boil since I’ve never boiled an egg in my entire life
If I have heard of this experiment but I have only been educated in steps 1 and 3, then it is quite obvious that I would never win an argumentation against someone claiming it isn’t possible to boil eggs with this experiment.
“Those are 2 different things. Believing what a majority of the evidence supports and what certain evidence supports both sides are not the same.”
-I’m not quite sure I follow. The discussion started about ID vs. evolution in the American courts. All the evidence that was put forth in the cases (from the scientists) supports evolution. Some of the evidence (of which you have mentioned one piece) supports creation as well. You seemed to imply that there was a lot of evidence that supported both sides and I asked what else. With the answer you gave me this time I’m just more confused
“It happens more often than you believe that people put it off on others believing the answer is somewhere else. If it’s elsewhere, then people shouldn’t have a problem finding it.”
-Which might be because you argue this with people like me who haven’t researched these parts? I got drawn into this discussion with you because it seemed that there were some parts of basic science it seemed like you were lacking. I understand it was probably more that you were trying to snare your discussion partners into semantic fallacies, but I didn’t get that at the time. Then I discovered that you are quite an interesting person to debate with and I wanted to get to know a bit more about how you reach your conclusions, what made you believe what you believe for the first time and so on (which you might have noticed in our discussion when I’ve tried to steer away from the science parts to more philosophical or theological parts). I haven’t been that interested in the science parts and I haven’t done much research but you have all the time pushed further into parts of science that I don’t have so much information about but still felt I should answer to the best of my knowledge.
If you’ve had this same discussion with lots of other people who also haven’t done their research then of course you’ll get the same answer.
I agree that it might not be too hard finding the answers but at the moment I even have a hard time just answering due to a lack of time, any further research into a field that I don’t need to delve that deep into to understand the basic workings of isn’t on my agenda anytime soon
I’m also not that sure it is that easy to find. We have sometimes been talking about very specific parts of science, the different methods used, different fields and so on. To actually find the inner workings of all of this would require a lot of time and patience, especially if you’re trying to go deeper then Wikipedia
“if there’s never enough information to make a 100% definitive answer, then I will gladly suffice for the greater percentage. It may be 99.9%, is that .1% reasonable to doubt it? Not really.”
-If you’re talking about religious faith I don’t think we will agree of the percentages
I would still say that being 99.1% sure about something means there is doubt. If it isn’t possible to show something to be 100% true then it isn’t a fact. You can still make a reasonable assumption on what is true but as I said before, when faith is involved then it is your ideas/preconceptions/faith that enters into the equation when you decide how likely something is and what the most likely truth is. That’s why I have been saying that what is the most probable truth to you isn’t the most probable to me.
“One is the body itself of facts and knowledge”
-Yes.
“while one gains those facts and that knowledge.”
-No. The scientific method is only a means of conduct to use to show that things can be facts or to show theories as viable. There are other methods that are used to find facts within science.
“Well put, I can agree to that contrary to my previous statements.”
-Nice, one more point we can agree to. Too bad we only agree to each others miniscule points
“I understand what you’re going for, just a bit too extreme in my opinion.”
-Fair enough. As I said at the end, I didn’t have time to read my comment through and see if I could have made a better analogy. My point got through though and that’s what’s important… I’ll try to sharpen my skills in making analogies from now on, even though I guess that as always I’m going to think that I have made up a brilliant analogy, just to read it again after a couple of minutes and notice all the faults, or even send the comment and have you point out all the faults
““…or just your own inattention in class”
-Also plausible. They were rather boring.”
-Agreed, I had some problems not falling asleep during some lessons in technology, not quite sure what the subjects name is, technology is just a direct translation of what it was called in Swedish, I kind of chose the wrong major in high school (I think it’s the equivalent of HS, I was there for three years the age span is approx 15-18) focusing on technology and physics which I found utterly boring. By technology here I mean calculating breaking points for different materials and how to read/draw design specs for construction… I really didn’t know what this meant before applying but at least I had the opportunity to specialize in computers after a while and do some programming.
“I’m glad we can agree that you can get different interpretations from the same thing.”
-As long as there is faith involved, haven’t I been saying that from the beginning?
“I could say the same thing about you.
Just because I oppose what you say and offer an explanation against it doesn’t mean I’m unchanging and my ways are absolute. It just means I have a difference of opinion and I see fault in what you say, therefore I express that disagreement.”
-I was speaking about how you look upon the bible. As I haven’t done any research I’m not saying that what you’re saying is wrong in any way, I was merely trying to say that it sounded like when you have reached a conclusion on a passage in the bible that would be the only way possible to interpret said passage if you are a rational and logical person.
I do guess this is what I sound like as well in our discussions except I don’t have a base-faith to start off with. If anyone can give me conclusive evidence (that is not based on faith in any step of the way) that what I’m saying is wrong I’ll accept it.
I do admit that any religion could be true but since it can’t be proven I will continue to live as a heathen
““And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals”
It isn’t a conscious choice.
-And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?”
-No, which is why I made the argument
“It’s not a natural way to have sex either. Avoiding it altogether avoids the greater percentage of the problem altogether. Not just AIDS but the others mentioned as well.”
-But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex. There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?
I have a slight problem with your assumption that something wouldn’t be natural just because it doesn’t fit in the norm or because there is a higher risk for contracting something.
“I’ve already said it multiple times. It doesn’t benefit anything. If everything were gay, everything would die.”
I’m just using semantics here; if something is created by nature it is natural no matter how much you or anyone else loathes it.
-And I heard you every time you said that
I agree though that an entire population being gay wouldn’t be natural because it has never happened and the population would be extinct in a generation, but around 10% of a population is quite natural since that’s the way it works for most (if not all) species on this planet.
“-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.”
-But this scenario is a current one in the world today. There are orphans and there are homosexuals that adopt kids. Why would the scenario be void? Also since society through a lot of our history hasn’t accepted anyone who is different there have been many kids born to people who are homosexuals but have been forced to act their opposite or not be accepted in society.
“You’re still not explaining where morals originate (taking both possibilities into account, either evolution being true or God existing). Just how we discover them. You’re not the first to try though.”
-Is it really that hard for you to understand that I don’t think that morals have any deeper origin then the brains of our ancestors? I do not think they were discovered by our ancestors I think we developed them, or created them or just noticed things were easier in a certain way and then kept going until it was something that was clear to everyone.
As I’ve also said I think that morals change, therefore I think it’s more likely that they sort of evolved throughout our existence, probably stemming from empathy, and are still evolving.
“At best, your example shows how they were discovered. It can be developed too if you want, but regardless of the terminology, it does not explain how they were created; where they originated which is one of the critical things that pro-evolutionary theorists must find an answer to.”
-I moved that quote up here since it concerns the same topic. You have my answer above, but I want to know what this has to do with evolution? We haven’t discussed morals in correlation to evolution before so where did that come from? Morals have no place within the theory of evolution.
“So if you chose to you could fall in love with another man?”
-That’s what homosexuality is. A choice. It’s not something you’re born with, it’s a choice you make (then again, this is more on my beliefs and can’t be proven/disproven very well). It’s something in your control. I’m not saying it’s an easy choice because choices vary in their difficulty to make them.[..] For me, homosexuality isn’t a hard choice to decide against, for others, it is.”
-Well, I’d say it is possible to maybe not prove, but at least try. As I said, would it be possible for you to actually fall in love with another man? You say it’s not hard for you to NOT be a homosexual (In my opinion because you weren’t born as one), but would it actually be possible for you to decide to be one? That would be the same level of hardship as the opposite. Have you during your years of growing up been able to choose to fall in love (and I’m not just talking about an infatuation) with someone? Or have you maybe never been in love, and therefore you think it is possible to choose?
In my world that wouldn’t be anything resembling a choice. I would say it is impossible. I can agree that how you act on your feelings is a choice, I could go through the motions of homosexual behavior without being gay (and vice versa) but I still wouldn’t be able to control the chemicals that flow through my brain to that level that I could fall in love by choice. Believe me, I have wished deeply both to be able to fall in love with someone as well as wanting to fall out of love… I know it is possible to suppress feelings to a certain level, which would help trying to fall out of love, but I’ve never heard of the opposite unless you count taking drugs and then you know it’s artificially inflicted and it won’t last.
“All things require a certain amount of faith to believe it’s right (using your previous example about putting your hand in a bucket of water, you trust that your senses are accurate enough to feed you that information and process it), so your question is rather redundant.”
).
-I don’t agree here. Putting my hands in water and coming to the conclusion that they get wet is a reproducible experiment that can be made by anyone and always yield the same result (preferably with their own hands though or mine would look like raisins very soon
““Just because you call something a law doesn’t mean it has anything in common with other things that are called laws”
-Then let’s define it and discover if the moral law applies. “
-From Wikipedia: Law is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions
I would say that the moral law could be seen as guidelines, but they are not enforced by anything other than your own conscience (as long as you don’t break any societal laws).
I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.
If you check natural law in Wikipedia (which is what I guess you’re talking about with your moral law) you get this: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning “man-made law”, not “good law”; cf.posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.
You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.
“Because we know their origins whereas we don’t know the origins of the laws of nature. Therefore, if we’re discovering where a law comes from (be it an intelligence or a non-intelligent entity), then we need to use something that we know where it came from.”
-But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar. I would also argue that this moral law that you defined seems to be closer to laws of nature than to any manmade laws, and since we don’t know where they come from shouldn’t that mean that it’s more likely we don’t know where they come from? If I’ve only seen pencils in my entire life and then someone presents a pen to me, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that the pen is made from a similar material as a pencil?
““I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity”
-But no one knows exactly where it came from. ”
-Which was exactly my point
““I also don’t agree that there are moral absolutes”
-This goes back to the red light/green light example. Is it right for some people to go at red lights while others go at green? No. Therefore relativism in this sense is false. This has already been discussed.”
-I don’t agree to either of your statements here. First as I said before, the color of the lights depends on what we as a people have decided together, not by any natural law. You can’t compare something you say is innate in everyone with an agreement that we have made. To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?
“““Since all origin-known laws have an intelligence behind them, we can logically conclude that the moral law has an intelligence behind it’s origin.” -Now you are making big assumptions here. As I mentioned, the law of gravity does not have an intelligence behind”
-You’re making a bigger one because we don’t know if gravity was an invention of God or an invention of nature (if it was the creation of an intelligence or of a non-intelligence). This is why I said “origin-’known’” laws as opposed to “origin laws” because some laws’ origins are unknown. My argument still stands as an intelligence behind the moral law as the greatest probability.”
-And I meant that the assumption was that you compared it to the origin-known laws rather than to the more similar law of gravity (still according to your definitions since I’m not even convinced there is anything like a moral law) and that you try to deduce the origins to anything based on the origins on something similar.
“Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith? “
-Is it possible to believe in god without faith?
““As I’ve said numerous times before, this has nothing to do with science as you still claim”
-My comment from 2 paragraphs up says otherwise.”
-Your comment concerned finding an unknown through an assumption that it ought to be the same origin as something similar. How is that scientific?
““Anything that is supernatural cannot be tested in a controlled environment and it can only be based on faith”
-Now we’re getting somewhere. However, we need to define a very important detail. What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?”
-That depends on the situation. If you’re trying to test how something reacts in space you need a vacuum chamber, if you want to know how chemicals react together you need a lab. I don’t really know what a controlled environment for something supernatural would be, only that it have to be possible to recreate the situation exactly the same no matter how many times you try and the results have to be the same. How would you suggest that is done?
“In accordance to your example, the moral is that it’s wrong to sin and demands rightful judgment. Still using your example, the moral of atoning for this sin did not change itself, merely how it is atoned (through Christ rather than the law). If you want to talk about the moral of killing someone, that’s another story.”
-I wasn’t talking about sin at all in my original example. I was saying that people thought it was ok to kill someone else. It wasn’t immoral to take someone’s life. Since I am not religious I don’t really know why you connected my talk about stoning people to some biblical sin, I just used an example that in the OT people stoned others to death. It has been common practice throughout the world in different times and different cultures to see it as ok and even the moral thing to do to kill other people. In different cultures and different times it is seen as the absolutely most evil thing possible to kill another human being. No matter what the reason. So yes, I was trying to talk about the moral of killing someone, which was the story I thought I was already talking about
“That’s not what was being discussed. You gave an example of why people stoned others and that we don’t do it now to back up your idea that the moral changed. I gave a counter-argument. Never once did I say anything about morals as defined in the Bible, your example merely takes them into account.”
I didn’t give the example as WHY people stoned others; I gave to example of people stoning others. The moral of the time was that it was ok to kill another human.
-Since it seems you misunderstood me, than apparently I thought we were discussing something else
““I think that in some cases red can mean it is ok to turn right”
-Yes, but that’s not the analogy as you’re trying to redefine. Is it, or is it not ok for someone to go through an intersection at a red light “because red means go” to them to where they don’t suffer consequences? If it’s ok, then moral relativism is true, but it contradicts reality as we know it because red is not applicable to mean “go,” thus, moral relativism is false. If it’s not ok, then moral relativism is false anyway.”
-I still don’t know why you connect an agreement made by people to something you say is innate in all humans. Are you trying to say that green and red are somehow innately understood? That it would not have been possible for legislators to decide that green would mean stop? I want to know how you mean that this is connected to morals.
“Relativism contradicts our common sense and our reactions. Those who claim to be relativists would never want their spouse to be relatively faithful. They would want them to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong.”
-But people can change their views during their lifetime. I mean when I was younger I had relationships where I didn’t care if she had different partners and vice versa since the relationships were more based on sex than on love. Today when I’m in a more serious relationship I don’t want her to have other partners. Also when I was younger I figured the death penalty could be defended but today I don’t think that the state has a right to kill anyone. My morals have changed while I’ve grown up; I think it’s quite obvious that there are different morals in different cultures and through different times so I wonder on what you base your view that all people have the same moral and that it is unchanging?
“It won’t let me post the rest of my comment on that last section so I’ll just clarify differently if there’s still misunderstanding. Jeez, trying to post this whole thing was more annoying than you can imagine, lol.”
-I guess I will see for myself in a little while now. Crossing my fingers that it will work.
Take care!
“But you were discussing science and scientific theories”
-No, I was discussing the validity of theories, however, it seems we had a different understanding of what a ‘theory’ was.
“There have been lots of minor changes, yes, but the basic of the theory is still the same.”
-My point is the Bible hasn’t changed, in it’s basics or specifics. Just looking at that aspect alone, why is there any need to believe something that can’t make up it’s mind in the past 150 years about what happened in the past over something which hasn’t been changed in a couple thousand years.
“So are you claiming that every historical part in the bible that is possible to check is 100% correct? Everything in the OT has happened exactly the way it says in the bible?”
-Provided we have the knowledge to discover if what it says it’s true (and most importantly, that it doesn’t contradict itself in any part of it’s own text), then yes. If it’s vague then we won’t really know for a fact. Although, in my opinion, I’d like to see some behind-the-scenes of the flood and whatnot when I get there.
“I would say that the definition of being able to prove something is that it doesn’t require belief.”
-You believe that your data is accurate enough to give you the correct results, do you not? You may not require a lot of faith that it’s true, but you do require faith nonetheless. You just happen to utilize .01% (example) of faith, which is a good thing because you don’t require very much faith to believe something as true. This is what we should use to determine what idea has the greatest validity.
“From you (further back) saying that “It takes a lot of faith to believe science is right[..]”, thus implying faith is needed to “believe” in science.”
-I can see how you would get that impression, and now that I think about it, you’re right to an extent. As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.
“If we’re still using the analogy of a boss then I don’t care what happened before I started working there, I still expect the boss to greet me and explain my work. If I started working in a place and were told that the boss won’t see me because someone else made a mistake years back I’d be very suspicious”
-You misunderstand me. If the others preceding you have had a negative influence in the “meeting of the boss,” then how many times does it have to go wrong before one realizes it’s not the best approach? The difference is God has perfect standards so it’s more of a one-shot deal. This doesn’t mean God refuses to intervene or have connection and relationship with those who seek him, it just means those prior to you have made that decision difficult for the entire population. As stated in the Bible, the actions of the father can have lasting consequences for their children.
“Then let’s just take the basis of religion, does god exist? How can you test that?”
-Well we have the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral Law argument (as we’ve been discussing a bit earlier). I’m sure you’re aware with some, if not all of these arguments and their basic constructs. Since we’re already discussing the Moral Law in a prior engagement, which of the remaining 2 interests you? Perhaps you already have counter-arguments for one.
“No, the argument was that you can’t affect science by defeating me with logic/semantics. I was saying you have to go to the source, the scientific texts describing how science works and argue from there. Not some layman’s knowledge of science.”
-So you’re taking the faith approach in which you believe the answer for science is out there, you just want to say I’m wrong and point off in the distance saying the answer is out there.. somewhere. You’re playing a nutshell game where I’m trying to find the nut under one of the 3 shells. The problem is, I’ve yet to find the nut, even by looking under every shell. I don’t see how you can believe I’m wrong when you don’t even know if you’re right. If science isn’t faith-based, you’re not proving any otherwise very well.
“if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side”
-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).
““while one gains those facts and that knowledge.” -No. The scientific method is only a means of conduct to use to show that things can be facts or to show theories as viable.”
-Still doesn’t address the latter of my paragraph.
“Nice, one more point we can agree to. Too bad we only agree to each others miniscule points”
-I agree. Hey, another agreement! Darn, not a major point though…
“I was merely trying to say that it sounded like when you have reached a conclusion on a passage in the bible that would be the only way possible to interpret said passage”
-If there’s other conflicting information then I will gladly address it. I’ve said that before. Just because there’s another interpretation doesn’t mean it’s right and I’m wrong in an instant; and if a passage isn’t clear and there could be multiple, plausible and viable interpretations then I won’t be too dogmatic because it’s a verse based on opinion more than objective reasoning.
“““And I was trying to express that moving on to other areas with more food isn’t a conscious decision made by the animals” -And suddenly turning homosexual in times like that is?” -No, which is why I made the argument
It isn’t a conscious choice.”
–That doesn’t explain that it isn’t a conscious choice, that explains that they’re not going to turn homosexual in times of hardship. I do give you a great amount of respect for that clever tactic though. As I said before, reactions are a great way to determine the truth behind those who hide behind masks and shrouds of smoke (enjoy this video showing the practice in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUXTFceilo). Keep it up.
“But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex”
-Not unless someone had it prior which would then be transmitted through blood, semen, etc.
“There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?”
-Apples to oranges my friend. Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.
“I have a slight problem with your assumption that something wouldn’t be natural just because it doesn’t fit in the norm or because there is a higher risk for contracting something”
-If it brings about more problems/harm than solutions/productivity/good (or any equivalent) then it would be classified as “unnatural.” If it’s contrary to the course of nature, then it’s “unnatural.”
“if something is created by nature it is natural no matter how much you or anyone else loathes it”
-I refer you to the above paragraph along with the added statement of “if we were spawned by nature, then you would have a slight edge. If not, then any leverage you had prior is unusable.”
““-There wouldn’t be a child if it’s parents had been homosexual thus rendering your scenario void.” -But this scenario is a current one in the world today. There are orphans and there are homosexuals that adopt kids. Why would the scenario be void?”
-Because I was speaking about the parents of the orphan, still relating to the unnatural aspect of homosexuality.
“Is it really that hard for you to understand that I don’t think that morals have any deeper origin then the brains of our ancestors?”
-That’s exactly the problem. There’s no “natural origin” at all. Any explanation for it only describes how it was discovered, not how it came to be. Not how it began existing. It can’t “have any ‘deeper’ origin than the brains of our ancestors” if there’s no origin at all.
“I do not think they were discovered by our ancestors I think we developed them, or created them or just noticed things were easier in a certain way and then kept going until it was something that was clear to everyone.”
-That still only describes how we could have discovered morals. The idea that there was an easier way to do something existed prior to their knowledge of figuring it out (just as mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school or developing mathematical formulas). They did ‘not’ create it, they found it. So, again, where did morals come from? Where did morality originate? I have a viable answer, where’s yours?
“As I’ve also said I think that morals change”
-You’ve yet to prove moral relativism either. Every example you’ve given to explain how morals ‘changed’ has been explained.
“We haven’t discussed morals in correlation to evolution before so where did that come from? Morals have no place within the theory of evolution”
-In a nutshell, if we have morals today, then they must’ve come from somewhere. Where’d they come from? There’s 2 viable options that you and I are dealing with. Evolution or Creation. It must have resulted from one or the other, which one was it and why?
“Have you during your years of growing up been able to choose to fall in love (and I’m not just talking about an infatuation) with someone? Or have you maybe never been in love, and therefore you think it is possible to choose?”
-My personal opinion on it is irrelevant, I’ve listed the reasons as to why it’s a choice.
“I don’t agree here. Putting my hands in water and coming to the conclusion that they get wet is a reproducible experiment that can be made by anyone and always yield the same result”
-So can the frog example I gave much earlier. The conclusion of the result is still wrong.
“I would say that the moral law could be seen as guidelines, but they are not enforced by anything other than your own conscience”
-We’re not really focusing on the enforcing of it, just the idea that it permeates everyone in a way (which would be one example showing it to be a law).
“I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.”
-In a sense, you are right, but unless those laws are radically different for different moral reasons from other laws around the world then it would otherwise support the moral universality and deny relativism.
“You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.”
-Because they’re the only laws in which we “know” the origins of. It doesn’t really help to bring up natural laws as an argument against my arguments for the moral law because there’s nothing to compare the natural laws to. They just exist. The connection of it’s origin is skewered to us; we’ve been trying to rebuild that connection for a long time, possibly throughout the course of all human history.
“But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar”
-A law isn’t similar to a law?
“I would also argue that this moral law that you defined seems to be closer to laws of nature than to any manmade laws, and since we don’t know where they come from shouldn’t that mean that it’s more likely we don’t know where they come from?”
-Very well, let’s use the law of gravity. Well, from the information we have, laws have law givers, ergo, it’s logical to assume (if anyone is going to assume anything) that the law of gravity has a law giver. The point of this paragraph being, it doesn’t matter if it’s closer to a law of nature or not. It still begs the question, does a law have a law-giver?
“If I’ve only seen pencils in my entire life and then someone presents a pen to me, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that the pen is made from a similar material as a pencil?”
-We’re talking about the origins, not the law itself. So, to rephrase your analogy, if you know how all pencils are made, then it would be logical to assume if someone handed you a similar, but slightly different utensil, that it was made a similar way and/or from a similar design(er). To add on, your analogy only implies intelligent design by implying pens and pencils are similar by producing a similar end result (writing) in which
“““I’d say a more fitting comparison would be the law of gravity” -But no one knows exactly where it came from. ” -Which was exactly my point”
–How could that be your point? You were stating how my example showing laws have lawgivers was incongruent because laws of nature are different from laws of man. If you’re saying no one knows where morality came from then it’s your word against mine with the difference being that I have something to support my view while refuting the arguments you use to explain yours.
“First as I said before, the color of the lights depends on what we as a people have decided together, not by any natural law”
-And is anyone opposed in saying they should be able to go at a red light? Anyone proposing that red means go to them as opposed to green for everyone else? I don’t remember reading about it in the news.
More importantly, we’re confusing an absolute command with a relative culture. “What” we do is agreed upon, that we need to regulate traffic flow (otherwise we’d all crash into each other through intersections), but “how” we do it may differ (whether it’s traffic lights, stop signs, men doing aerobics in the streets, whatever).
“You can’t compare something you say is innate in everyone with an agreement that we have made”
-We all agree it’s wrong to go at red lights just as we all agree it’s wrong to kill a person.
“To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?”
-Because sinning is a rebellion against God. If people don’t believe in God or simply reject Him, then sinning isn’t as big of a problem for them. However, we are made in His image and I believe that alone has permeated us in ways that we can’t ignore.
“And I meant that the assumption was that you compared it to the origin-known laws rather than to the more similar law of gravity”
-We don’t know where gravity came from. We’re trying to discover where the moral law came from. If we use something we don’t know then how can we possibly gain any understanding? If you want to argue about the relation of the moral law to intelligence or non-intelligence or something then let’s discuss that, but as for the former, logic dictates that in order to understand something you have to relate it to something understandable. Since all origin-known laws are intelligence-made, it would make sense to say the origin-unknown laws are the same. Now, if we were going to transition to an argument of relation of man-made laws to natural laws then we can continue in a different direction, but we’re going to have to clarify something here. This transition into this argument is not about man-made laws versus natural laws. It’s an argument about intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws.
“Is it possible to believe in god without faith?”
-That wasn’t my point, nor did I reference God at all for that matter. “Who says you need to see something for it to be real? Who says something like this can “only” be known through faith?”
“Your comment concerned finding an unknown through an assumption that it ought to be the same origin as something similar. How is that scientific?”
-Are you saying a law isn’t related to a law?
“”What would be something that’s a “controlled” environment to you?” -That depends on the situation. If you’re trying to test how something reacts in space you need a vacuum chamber, if you want to know how chemicals react together you need a lab”
-So a controlled environment is just something you can appeal to the senses, it’s not something you can use your mind for in reasoning, logic, deduction, etc? I’m certain I’d be able to know about the likelihood of a rainbow appearing if I know the conditions for it, regardless of the fact that the weather is physically out of my control.
On a separate note, the Big Bang is a supernatural event itself since everything that happens concurrently and continuously in the universe (post-Big Bang) is considered “natural,” therefore, whatever created the universe has to be above the natural in order to create the natural (ergo, ‘supernatural’), yet the Big Bang is believed to be true through the sciences.
“I was saying that people thought it was ok to kill someone else”
-No they didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be justified.
“I just used an example that in the OT people stoned others to death. It has been common practice throughout the world in different times and different cultures to see it as ok and even the moral thing to do to kill other people”
-Provided they have the justifiable means to do so. For the Islamic faith, you have to be against Islam (in a nutshell). That’s a justifiable means to kill someone. For Judaism, you have to have sinned. That’s a justification. If killing were ok, there wouldn’t be any justifications. We wouldn’t make excuses for doing the wrong things.
“But people can change their views during their lifetime. I mean when I was younger I had relationships where I didn’t care if she had different partners and vice versa since the relationships were more based on sex than on love. Today when I’m in a more serious relationship I don’t want her to have other partners. Also when I was younger I figured the death penalty could be defended but today I don’t think that the state has a right to kill anyone. My morals have changed while I’ve grown up”
-You’re confusing absolute morals with changing behavior (which is to say you confuse what ‘is’ with what ‘ought’ to be). What people ‘do’ is subject to change, what they ‘ought’ to do is not. This is but a small piece of your paragraph, but it’s the most important and this is all I can say at this time.
“I think it’s quite obvious that there are different morals in different cultures and through different times so I wonder on what you base your view that all people have the same moral and that it is unchanging?”
-This goes back to what I said several paragraphs ago. ‘What’ we do is agreed in all societies (be it health care, directing traffic flow, or breaking down on terrorism), but ‘how’ we do it is debatable. Having different plans to achieve the same goals does not support moral relativism, it dismantles it and rebuilds it into the support structure of an absolute moral law.
God bless.
Hey.
I just wanted to say that I haven’t forgotten about you, I’ve just had a lot to do at work and also some other stuff going on… I will answer eventually
Take care!
Don’t worry about it. I’ve been busy with school and work myself, lol. Hope you’re enjoying yourself.
God bless.
Hmm, I have posted a comment but I don’t see it which I always do normally. I did try to post it again but then I got a message saying “It looks like you tried to say that already”.
Oh well, I’ll wait until tomorrow and then I’ll post again unless I see something.
I posted my reply about a week ago and checked on it a couple days later. It said it was still awaiting moderation.
I looked again today to find out that it had been deleted! I reposted it and I’ll keep my eye on it’s approval in the meanwhile.
Must’ve been God’s will…
Lol, I just think Failblog isn’t enjoying moderating our conversation after so long. Can’t blame ‘em, it would irritate the crap out of me. o.O
This lol lives on on the front page
Part 2
“My personal opinion on it is irrelevant, I’ve listed the reasons as to why it’s a choice.”
-I would say that your personal opinion is relevant, it tells me if you believe that humans can choose the person we love or not since you are saying that homosexuals can. You haven’t given any valid reasons as to why it would be a choice; you have only been dismissive based on your opinions and what you deem as unnatural.
“So can the frog example I gave much earlier. The conclusion of the result is still wrong.”
-No, since not everyone doing this exact same experiment would reach that faulty conclusion and it would not stand any sort of peer review.
“We’re not really focusing on the enforcing of it, just the idea that it permeates everyone in a way (which would be one example showing it to be a law).”
-Then show me that it permeates everyone. You have not shown to me that there is a notion of the same morality in different people in different places.
““I would also argue that some laws (like the ones made up in a society) affect only the people living or visiting that society whereas you seem to say that the moral law affects everyone on this planet the same way.”
-In a sense, you are right, but unless those laws are radically different for different moral reasons from other laws around the world then it would otherwise support the moral universality and deny relativism.”
-I stopped reading after “you are right”
As usual I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that all man-made societal laws are coming from the same place?
““You have been trying to compare the moral law with manmade laws, and I don’t agree that it is possible.”
-Because they’re the only laws in which we “know” the origins of. It doesn’t really help to bring up natural laws as an argument against my arguments for the moral law because there’s nothing to compare the natural laws to. They just exist.”
-Wouldn’t that mean that you could use the same argument for natural laws then? That they “must” have a creator since all manmade laws have a lawgiver? Or could it possibly be so that the moral law just exists?
““But if we don’t know where it comes from then it is quite a big leap to just assume that it has a similar origin as something that you perceive as similar”
-A law isn’t similar to a law?”
-I am not convinced that your definition of morality as a law. Just because you define morality as a law doesn’t mean it is similar to a manmade law. I also think that the step you take, saying that because you believe morality has similarities with manmade laws would imply that a creator has made it. In that case I would see it as more likely that if you compare it to manmade laws, that would imply that the moral law is also manmade, created by humans (or our ancestors).
“Very well, let’s use the law of gravity. Well, from the information we have, laws have law givers, ergo, it’s logical to assume (if anyone is going to assume anything) that the law of gravity has a law giver. The point of this paragraph being, it doesn’t matter if it’s closer to a law of nature or not. It still begs the question, does a law have a law-giver?”
So in your comparison I would rather say that all the laws we know the origin of has a human law-giver, therefore it would be more logical to assume that other laws have human law-givers.
-Ok, here you say half of what I said earlier
“And is anyone opposed in saying they should be able to go at a red light? Anyone proposing that red means go to them as opposed to green for everyone else? I don’t remember reading about it in the news.
More importantly, we’re confusing an absolute command with a relative culture. “What” we do is agreed upon, that we need to regulate traffic flow (otherwise we’d all crash into each other through intersections), but “how” we do it may differ (whether it’s traffic lights, stop signs, men doing aerobics in the streets, whatever).”
-I don’t see the absolute command here. And as I have been trying to say since you started using the traffic light analogy, I don’t see your connection to morality.
“We all agree it’s wrong to go at red lights just as we all agree it’s wrong to kill a person.”
-But we don’t all agree that it is wrong to kill a person. The US has capital punishment as a difference to Sweden.
It is also possible for a society to decide that we should switch to red meaning go, similar to 1967 when the Swedish government decided that all the traffic in Sweden should be driven on the right side of the road instead of the left.
““To some people sinning is immoral, while other people don’t believe it is. How is that not moral relativism?”
-Because sinning is a rebellion against God. If people don’t believe in God or simply reject Him, then sinning isn’t as big of a problem for them. However, we are made in His image and I believe that alone has permeated us in ways that we can’t ignore.”
-I still don’t understand how it isn’t relative then? If there is absolutely nothing in me saying that it is wrong to sin (just take some “minor” sin like masturbation which is recommended in sex-ed in Sweden since it helps kids get to know their bodies) then how could there be an absolute moral encompassing me?
Also, if I actually know what is morally right, then how could I possibly do the opposite? If I had a feeling about all things in absolutes, then I doubt it would be hard to make the correct decisions.
Strange, there seems to be something close to the end of my comment that is the problem… My first comment is about half of what I had written, so it can’t be the length, my part 2 is about half of what was left since I couldn’t post the rest in one comment, here’s another split…
“If you want to argue about the relation of the moral law to intelligence or non-intelligence or something then let’s discuss that, but as for the former, logic dictates that in order to understand something you have to relate it to something understandable.”
-I can agree that it is good to relate to something understandable but I would say that the similarities have to be larger than your comparison of moral laws to manmade laws.
“Since all origin-known laws are intelligence-made, it would make sense to say the origin-unknown laws are the same.”
-Not really, I still don’t see the similarities except the semantic ones, that you call morality a law.
“we’re going to have to clarify something here. This transition into this argument is not about man-made laws versus natural laws. It’s an argument about intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws.”
-Again, when you say intelligence-based I guess you mean manmade since we don’t have anything else to compare to. Does this also mean that you think that natural laws are non-intelligence-based? In that case, what makes a moral law more similar to a manmade law than to a natural law?
“Are you saying a law isn’t related to a law?”
-This was from when I was saying that your method of discerning the origins wasn’t scientific. Why would it matter if a law is related to a law if you add assumptions without being able to prove anything?
“So a controlled environment is just something you can appeal to the senses, it’s not something you can use your mind for in reasoning, logic, deduction, etc? I’m certain I’d be able to know about the likelihood of a rainbow appearing if I know the conditions for it, regardless of the fact that the weather is physically out of my control.”
-For something to be testable and repeatable you need to be able to experiment so logic deductions and such are useful when trying to formulate a hypothesis or trying to calculate something, but you can’t find the evidence to natural sciences through it. It is a part of how you find the answers but not the whole.
Of course you would be able to know the likelihood of a rainbow appearing, but to test your hypothesis you need a controlled environment where you can actually control these parameters so the test can be reproduced in exactly the same way by anyone and be given the same results.
“On a separate note, the Big Bang is a supernatural event itself since everything that happens concurrently and continuously in the universe (post-Big Bang) is considered “natural,” therefore, whatever created the universe has to be above the natural in order to create the natural (ergo, ‘supernatural’), yet the Big Bang is believed to be true through the sciences.”
-No. The big bang theory starts with the big bang, which is when our universe exists. It doesn’t say what created the big bang. The big bang in itself isn’t supernatural but we don’t know what caused it, yet at least.
“No they didn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be justified.”
-So you can do anything you want as long as someone decides it is justified?
“Provided they have the justifiable means to do so. For the Islamic faith, you have to be against Islam (in a nutshell). That’s a justifiable means to kill someone. For Judaism, you have to have sinned. That’s a justification. If killing were ok, there wouldn’t be any justifications. We wouldn’t make excuses for doing the wrong things.”
-There have existed societies where the strongest person (or group) makes the rules, they don’t need any kind of justification for what they do. If they wanted to kill someone it was ok, no justification needed. There exist dictatorships today where the leaders don’t need any justification for killing.
I’m still not quite sure what you are actually talking about though (surprised?), is there an absolute morality in that killing someone is immoral and no matter what justification is used it will always be wrong, or are you saying that if it is justified it can be acceptable?
One more thing, if people justify killing, wouldn’t their justification for something be based in a morality? You say that for Jewish people it would be ok to kill someone for sinning, isn’t the notion of sinning based on the bible and the Torah which is also the basis for their view of morality?
Now that was strange, the problem with my posting seems to have been in my comment just above, I figured I’d try changing something and wrote Jewish people instead of the short form, then the comment passed… is it disrespectful to talk of the people of that faith somehow? When I write it like this it could be understood to mean people of a certain ethnicity instead of my meaning of people belonging to the religion… oh well time to post the final part…
“You’re confusing absolute morals with changing behavior (which is to say you confuse what ‘is’ with what ‘ought’ to be). What people ‘do’ is subject to change, what they ‘ought’ to do is not. This is but a small piece of your paragraph, but it’s the most important and this is all I can say at this time.”
-But how would I know what ought to be?
“This goes back to what I said several paragraphs ago. ‘What’ we do is agreed in all societies (be it health care, directing traffic flow, or breaking down on terrorism), but ‘how’ we do it is debatable. Having different plans to achieve the same goals does not support moral relativism, it dismantles it and rebuilds it into the support structure of an absolute moral law.”
-So what are the absolutes in morality? If you say that is what we all start out from and then make our choices, where can I find a listing of what is actually right and wrong to do?
I might have to apologize a bit, my mood have been a bit up and down during the days I’ve written this answer and I know I sound a bit harsh in some places I hope you don’t take it too hard. I guess that I am also getting a bit tired of repeating myself so many times in the parts of the discussion where I feel you just don’t get what I’m saying (as I’m sure you feel as well) and that shines through a bit.
Anyway, I hope you haven’t missed me too much and that you’re having a nice summer. Here in Sweden it’s finally warm and sunny which is what I’ve been waiting all too long for.
@ReemZ: Wow, does this mean there’s even more people actually following our discussion? I have to say I’m impressed, I doubt I’d have the energy to follow something as winding as this
Take care.
Apparently we keep having the same problems continuously. It seems I’ll have to isolate my comment again.
“You haven’t given any valid reasons as to why it would be a choice; you have only been dismissive based on your opinions and what you deem as unnatural”
-Well first off, I said from the very beginning that since we don’t know every person’s entire life, we can’t make the greatest of confirmations on the subject when it comes to mental actions. I know a majority of my brother’s life and as such I’m able to to explain many things based off of him.
Second, I don’t deem it unnatural. Nature itself does along with the other factors I mentioned.
“No, since not everyone doing this exact same experiment would reach that faulty conclusion”
-Exactly. Ergo, we have the people who get the right conclusions, and those that get the wrong ones. We have those who look at a fossil and say, “wow, look what evolution did” and we have those who say, “wow, look what the flood did.” We get different conclusions of the same evidence. Both are valid to their own extents which allows for those who believe one theory to think it’s true, but one is wrong because they contradict each other’s results. This is the dilemma in the example of the frog which relates to the dilemma we have here.
“Then show me that it permeates everyone. You have not shown to me that there is a notion of the same morality in different people in different places”
-I already have in the example of “What” we do over “How” we do it. “What” we do is agreed upon in all societies, but “How” we achieve those same goals can be relative.
“I stopped reading after “you are right”
”
-Then you must’ve seen the “in a sense” preceding it, meaning “not exactly.”
“As usual I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that all man-made societal laws are coming from the same place?”
).
-I believe all laws based off an intelligence prove exactly that. That all laws come from an intelligence (go figure, I’m sure that was hard to decipher based on the first sentence/premise
“Wouldn’t that mean that you could use the same argument for natural laws then? That they “must” have a creator since all manmade laws have a lawgiver? Or could it possibly be so that the moral law just exists?”
-I fail to see the point you’re making, but if you’re saying that natural laws are evidenced that all laws are natural then it doesn’t work that way as we don’t know the origin of natural laws. Nor are all laws (or even “some” for that matter) witnessed to be produced by a non-intelligent entity.
“Just because you define morality as a law doesn’t mean it is similar to a manmade law”
-Again, I feel I need to point out that this is not a debate over man-made laws and natural laws. This is intelligence-based laws and non-intelligence-based laws. And apparently we need to define law again. I’m assuming the dictionary definition is no longer acceptable.
“I also think that the step you take, saying that because you believe morality has similarities with manmade laws would imply that a creator has made it. In that case I would see it as more likely that if you compare it to manmade laws, that would imply that the moral law is also manmade, created by humans (or our ancestors).”
-Replace man-made with intelligence-made and you’re correct that it originates with intelligence. However, you have yet to provide a comprehensible explanation as to how morals were created if they evolved with our ancestors.
“I would rather say that all the laws we know the origin of has a human law-giver, therefore it would be more logical to assume that other laws have human law-givers”
-But since humanity did not create natural laws (and is instead bound to them without the immediate ability of contravening them) then your conclusion is false.
I believe in magical unicorns that fly through the sky and watch over us, and NOBODY CAN TELL ME OTHERWISE!
Hhmph. *Crosses arms, puffs cheeks*
If you were following the conversation (which I don’t blame you if you don’t as it’s quite lengthy) you’d notice that we are rationally discussing the existence of a God.
Haha, I wouldn’t quite say that we are managing that much in this discussion but thanks for reading
Ok, I’ll try again… Strange that the comment seems to post like it should, it said awaiting moderation this time as well and then after a few days it just disappeared. You’d think that if there was something the moderators didn’t like they’d somehow tell us so we could stop doing the same mistake…
Ok, I guess I’ll try splitting my comment to see if that works any better.
Hey there, I’m back
Let’s see if we can manage to get this discussion rolling again… if we really want to spend all that time in front of the computer instead of being outside in the shining sun…
Who am I kidding, I’m at work and I can’t really do that from outside (the sun gives too much reflections on the screen).
“No, I was discussing the validity of theories, however, it seems we had a different understanding of what a ‘theory’ was.”
-I thought you were talking about scientific theories since in the beginning of this part of the discussion you tried applying those criteria. If we go back to April 13, you wrote:
““No, that’s not what I’ve been saying about science. I have said that the scientific method can show that a theory is viable”
-And how viable that theory is in opposition to other theories determines which one is best to be taken as true, therefore there is a level of faith involved.”
This is (the latest place) where you defined what theories we were talking about and this is what we have been discussing.
So that you are saying now that we are talking about different theories seems very strange, I have been trying to explain to you that there can’t be two scientific theories that are viable and the same time contradictory, which you have been implying. I have been saying that in that case we are not talking about science. Up until this comment I have been trying to say that this isn’t possible within science and you have contradicted me. Now you say that you have been discussing something entirely different?
In that case I guess you want me to compare a scientific theory that can be proven and tested with someone’s idea that is not possible to prove just because both of these are as viable to you? Sorry, I don’t really see the point in trying to show that in one case you have proof that makes faith unnecessary and in the other case you need faith. If you feel the need to press this point further that’s ok, but I don’t really think I’ll have much more to add (unless I once again have completely misunderstood what you’re saying)
“My point is the Bible hasn’t changed, in it’s basics or specifics. Just looking at that aspect alone, why is there any need to believe something that can’t make up it’s mind in the past 150 years about what happened in the past over something which hasn’t been changed in a couple thousand years.”
-First of all I wouldn’t say that science have changed its mind that much. Normally when scientists discover something new that is added to our already existing knowledge, it usually doesn’t discard it. (e.g. Newtons theory of gravity didn’t change just because Einstein came up with his theory of relativity or the theory of evolution that is unchanged in its base even though an enormous amount of information has been added since Darwin).
Secondly, (you say in the next paragraph that everything in the bible that is possible to check is 100% true), I would like to see some of this evidence you are talking about that shows the bible is true since I have never seen more than some historical points that are more or less correct. Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith.
I guess this is part of why we can’t agree on hardly anything in our discussions, you think that science requires belief and that religion requires less belief since you find it more compelling/believable whereas I don’t. Part of the problem has been that almost every time you have tried telling me that there is evidence for something you have meant it in a ‘in my world this is what takes the least amount of faith’-way, this is usually not the same answer that I would say requires the least amount of faith but that is not the reason I keep talking, I want you to prove these things to me in a way that I would accept, that doesn’t require any amount of faith. If you don’t think this is possible then I think we can leave all discussions about proving things.
“As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.”
-And every time I tried explaining this you mixed up science with one of the methods used in science.
“You misunderstand me. If the others preceding you have had a negative influence in the “meeting of the boss,” then how many times does it have to go wrong before one realizes it’s not the best approach? The difference is God has perfect standards so it’s more of a one-shot deal. This doesn’t mean God refuses to intervene or have connection and relationship with those who seek him, it just means those prior to you have made that decision difficult for the entire population. As stated in the Bible, the actions of the father can have lasting consequences for their children.”
-You’re probably right that I don’t understand you I also don’t really know why we keep this analogy, but anyway in my book it is never correct to let one person be seen as guilty of something that his parents did/the people preceding him.
“Well we have the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral Law argument “
-The Teleological argument is built on semantics and logic and assumptions (assuming there’s a purpose), there is no evidence anywhere that can be tested in a scientific environment so that has no bearing on actually being able to prove something.
The Cosmological argument is based on logic and assumption, assuming there is a cause.
The Moral Law argument, you haven’t even managed to explain to me what makes it a law and as you know I don’t find it plausible that there exists a common unchanging moral law, and there still isn’t anything in there which is testable.
As you probably notice, I haven’t read up on these arguments and I’m not really interested in discussing them to any length, what we were talking about before was that science doesn’t disregards your ideas as untrue, only that they can’t be tested in a scientific way and are therefore not interesting from a scientific standpoint. You said to give an example which I did and you answer with logic and semantic arguments. For someone to show me that a god exists there would have to be actual proof (e.g. a divine intervention) that can be repeated ad infinitum and producing the same results.
“So you’re taking the faith approach in which you believe the answer for science is out there, you just want to say I’m wrong and point off in the distance saying the answer is out there.. somewhere.”
-No, I’m saying I usually know the answer but I am not proficient enough in either semantics, logic or the English language to put my answers in a way that does justice to science. Also I normally know the general answer to these things but your way of argumenting takes it down to much finer details that I don’t have the full understanding of and neither the time to find out.
““if you’re good enough at debating and expressing yourself it is easier to win argumentations even if all the facts aren’t on your side”
-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).”
-I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here. Are you saying that if I’m bad at debating I would still have a chance as long as the debate is about logic deduction?
“Still doesn’t address the latter of my paragraph.”
-I tried going back to the previous comment, and the one before that… I think I’m lost here, what doesn’t it address?
“Just because there’s another interpretation doesn’t mean it’s right and I’m wrong in an instant”
-That’s not what I meant, I meant that by the way you argue it sounds rather like the opposite, that since you have done your research you can dismiss all other interpretations instantly. I’m in no way saying you are wrong (or right for that matter ) just that it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.
“That doesn’t explain that it isn’t a conscious choice, that explains that they’re not going to turn homosexual in times of hardship. I do give you a great amount of respect for that clever tactic though.”
-Thanks, embarrassingly enough it wasn’t meant as a tactic though. It all started with you saying that there couldn’t be anything beneficial with homosexuality and I said it could. I didn’t mean anything more than that
““But the risk of contracting AIDS is still there, even through just simple heterosexual sex”
-Not unless someone had it prior which would then be transmitted through blood, semen, etc.”
-And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?
““There is a higher risk of contracting the disease if you work within healthcare, does that mean it’s not natural to care for people?”
-Apples to oranges my friend. Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.”
-How can you say it’s an invalid comparison? You stated that people should avoid anal sex altogether because it is an increased risk of contracting AIDS. Working in healthcare gives an increased risk as well. Is it because you see one of the acts as unnatural that you say they can’t be compared? Is it because one is something you see as necessary to our society and the other is something done for pleasure? In other cultures, like ancient Greece for example, it was seen as a natural part of society for men to have sex with boys. In some tribes in New Guinea they have a ritual for boys to become men that basically means that the older men in the village have sex with the boys, thereby giving them the seed of life.
Wow, I guess I started rambling a bit here As you might see I just don’t understand your reasoning.
“If it brings about more problems/harm than solutions/productivity/good (or any equivalent) then it would be classified as “unnatural.” If it’s contrary to the course of nature, then it’s “unnatural.””
-Ok, so we don’t have the same definition of the word. To me natural means more or less “from nature”. Since homosexuality is present in about 10% of all different species on this planet I see it as natural.
I do wonder about your definition, can you explain what it is that you see as the starting point? What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?
Who decides what it the course of nature? How can you even be sure that nature has a course?
“That’s exactly the problem. There’s no “natural origin” at all. Any explanation for it only describes how it was discovered, not how it came to be. Not how it began existing. It can’t “have any ‘deeper’ origin than the brains of our ancestors” if there’s no origin at all.”
-I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals. If they developed morals then the origin would be their brains. Simple as that.
“The idea that there was an easier way to do something existed prior to their knowledge of figuring it out (just as mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school or developing mathematical formulas). They did ‘not’ create it, they found it. So, again, where did morals come from? Where did morality originate? I have a viable answer, where’s yours?”
-Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge? What do you base that on? I wouldn’t say math existed before someone invented it, how do you come to that conclusion?
You are making very (at least to me) farfetched assumptions here and then you try to claim that you have a viable answer that would require me both to just accept your assumptions and then add another variable (god) to make them plausible.
““As I’ve also said I think that morals change”
-You’ve yet to prove moral relativism either. Every example you’ve given to explain how morals ‘changed’ has been explained.”
-Ok, how about slavery? Not too long ago it was morally accepted to own slaves. Today it is not.
And I don’t agree that everything has been explained, I was talking about that humans in different places and times have believed it morally correct or incorrect to kill other people (no matter the reasons) and this discussion is continued below…
“In a nutshell, if we have morals today, then they must’ve come from somewhere. Where’d they come from? There’s 2 viable options that you and I are dealing with. Evolution or Creation. It must have resulted from one or the other, which one was it and why?”
-Now you are on thin ice. How can you decide that there are 2 viable options here? None of the options is viable to me. Morality has nothing to do with evolution and I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation. I still find it interesting on a philosophical level to discuss this with you since our beliefs on this subject are so different but I see that you’re only trying to limit the discourse so that if I accept your faulty premise of 2 viable options it would end the discussion since morality isn’t part of evolution (even though I can say it evolves) and that would only leave 1 option.
Part 1
“True, but it’s still possible to determine whether it’s a choice or not based on the numerous accounts of homosexual people in the world”
-Considering that we’ve always ended our discussion in something that requires us to understand one’s mental activities, that’s actually not a definite call you can make.
“But it was you who defined unnatural as to be something that does more harm than good or contrary to the course of nature”
-Yes? I’m focused more on the latter of that. How would it “not” be unnatural if it’s “contrary to the course of nature”? Isn’t that what “contrary” means?
“Then it is also you who define what harm is and what good is, meaning it is you who deem homosexuality as unnatural”
-This is all like saying, “Since I utilize the english language, nothing I say in english is meaningful, it’s just the language itself.” While it does reside with me originally, putting this information in another person’s mouth doesn’t make it any less true or false. You need to focus more on the information itself rather than the medium it comes from.
“As I have said before, if something comes from nature I see it as natural”
-But isn’t that why we’re here? To determine whether we came to be by natural means or intelligence-driven ones? You need to show convincingly that it’s natural just as I have shown it’s unnatural. As far as I’m concerned, I have the upper hand with the explanations I’ve given here. I’ll gladly repeat them if you’re unsure of what they were (after all, we’ve kinda been busy and haven’t responded as quickly as we used to, lol)
“And the ones that get the incorrect conclusion gets sorted out before it means anything since science has to be peer reviewed before it amounts to anything”
-And what good are peer reviews if they view the information the same way as those who derived an incorrect conclusion?
“Also incorrect, you don’t find scientists within biology or geology that would come to these conclusions and show evidence that would stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. If there were, then this would be up for a debate within the scientific community which it is not”
-I beg to differ on all accounts. While it would be painstaking work to find the people who believe contrary to the “scientifically-accepted” belief of evolution, their numbers are noticeable. But there have been so many persecuted for simply bringing up a different idea other than evolution that they wont even bring it up anymore. Archaeologists are the same way. They need to find some proof for evolution so they can continue receiving funding. If they find anything contrary to it they can be out of the job. This was the case for the discoverer of Lucy if I remember correctly. Right as his funding was about up, lo and behold, he found Lucy! (This is just from memory long ago so don’t take me 100% for it as I might’ve unintentionally fudged the details).
Part 2
“No, both are not valid. For something to be valid you have to be able to show evidence that can be validated by your peers”
-Considering that my “peers” can come up to the opposite conclusion with the same evidence then it can most certainly be valid without validation by other people (to say otherwise is to say nothing can be true without more than one person’s confirmation, and if that were the case then not only would I need confirmation from someone else that what you just said is true, but then I couldn’t say anything without getting someone else’s approval of if it’s true or not (which is false). I don’t need someone to verify my answer of 2+2 equalling 4. I can find out if it’s true or not on my own). We can go back and forth as to whether or not something is valid, but the fact of the matter is we can still come to separate conclusions. That’s not the issue anymore. The issue is which of the conclusions is most accurately represented by the evidence?
“There is no dilemma at all, either it is possible to present enough evidence or it isn’t”
-Did I not present enough evidence for my conclusion with the frog? By the way, funny story. Someone actually brought up that joke at work a few weeks ago.
Part 3 (This particular comment is the reason I’m having trouble posting)
“slavery is something that has been accepted as moral in many societies throughout history, but today it’s shunned upon almost everywhere”
-And guess why that is? 2 major reasons (and many old films show this to be the reason as well): One, misinterpretation of Biblical scripture was used to say blacks were inferior, and secondly (and most importantly in my opinion), is evolution itself. Which kind of puts this in a circular argument. People being taught evolution simply see people as higher animals, and obviously there has to be one race that’s more evolved than the rest. Slavery has never been permitted when those who initiate it realize they are equal human beings to those they imprison. It’s only when they think someone is lesser than them in some way that they justify slavery to be ok. The moral did not change, the perspective did. We morally view all “human beings” as equals, but if we “perceive people different than humans” then we rationalize that since they are not human then they are not entitled to the same rights I am and therefore can be dealt with as lesser ‘creatures.’
Part 4
“I was making the point that it seems that you are arguing that all laws that we know the origin of are human-made but you call them intelligence-based since the natural laws cannot be human made […] I don’t think that is a plausible comparison.”
). While it is possible to take the evidence to mean that all laws are therefore created by humanity, it is not valid when looking at natural laws since laws of nature dictate humanity. Therefore, the more reasonable conclusion is that the evidence proves all laws are formed by some kind of intelligence as humans are intelligent entities. It is not a huge leap of faith to believe natural laws were created by an intelligent entity either.
-Ok, I think I understand now. You think I’m misusing evidence to support my viewpoint when you see it as proving something else (albeit something ridiculous, but proving something else all the same). If this is the case, then let me point something out. You got a different conclusion than I did. Did you not? Does this not prove ‘exactly’ what I said a long time ago? That aside, I believe you got the “wrong” conclusion (and yes, it is possible to do so
“Also, when you talk about laws being intelligence-based, do you put humans at the same level as your god?”
-In the sense that we are both intelligent entities, yes. In the sense that humanity is/are god(s) themselves, no.
“As all the laws you are talking about are man-made and all of a sudden you want this specific law to be made by something far beyond the possibilities of humans and yet you see them as similar”
-I see them as similar because they are all “laws.” I see laws as intelligence-based designs because they prove exactly that. If you have conflicting information to this conclusion then I urge you to bring it up soon.
“I don’t think your comparison of any man-made laws to that of natural laws…”
-Let me stop you right there. Try to remember this is a debate over intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws. You seem to want to change it into an argument over man-made laws versus natural laws and have done so for multiple posts. That is not my argument nor has it ever been. I understand how you’re making the connection and how there can be confusion, but unless the difference of man-made laws and natural laws provide any conflicting evidence against the conclusion that all laws are intelligence-based then it is meaningless and therefore discarded.
“Do you think that all philosophical thoughts have been created and then discovered by the philosophers? […] Did the wheel exist before someone discovered it? Why is it not possible that morals might have grown from our empathy and our survival instincts?”
-I think the idea and meaning behind it has been created and we merely discover it. The concept, capabilities and uses for the wheel all existed prior to anyone utilizing it. One merely ‘discovered’ it’s concept, capabilities and uses. Just like it was always best for certain animals to group together for survival. They did not create that idea, they merely discovered it. To repeat for emphasis, it was always best for these animals to group together, whether or not they were in groups. The idea existed prior to them discovering it, therefore it was not created by them and did not originate so. The question is ‘how was’ it created? I have an answer, you haven’t provided one. The reason why is because there is no evolutionary answer. I think I’ve thoroughly beaten this topic to death and it’s probably best that we move on soon.
“Since you haven’t been able to show that morality is the same over time and in different societies…”
-I have indeed done so. In your latest post I haven’t had the chance to respond before you wrote this, but I welcome you to challenge me as much as you can. On the things we are capable of knowing (despite our humanistic limitations) I have answered all your questions and objections.
“When the court in the US decides to execute someone it is justifiable and when done on the street it is not? Are you then saying that in some cases killing people is ok?”
-I’m saying there are justifiable means in which people think it’s ok to do the wrong thing. That doesn’t make morals relativistic.
“I meant that if I actually had the knowledge of an absolute morality then I would know the correct path to take and it wouldn’t be that much of a choice, I mean who wants to do a bad thing if it is possible to choose a good thing?”
-You’d think so, but that’s where sin nature comes in along with deception. In the beginning we knew otherwise. Eve knew otherwise, but she was deceived despite her knowledge and morality and ‘chose’ against it. Adam followed to save his wife. Sin nature has had the grip on humanity ever since. All because of one action. And guess what? They knew better just as you claim you would be different if you had what they had, but they were still defiant.
“I would say it doesn’t make sense because all origin-known laws are laws that humans have talked about and agreed upon. They are all possible to break […] The differences are larger than the similarities; therefore it is a large assumption to say they ought to have been created in the same way”
-You’re confusing the application of laws (morality) with the origin. Yes, laws can be broken. That’s more an argument of morality on how laws may be in place but that doesn’t mean we can’t decide against them (more evidence how morals are not relativistic, but absolute.. more on that later). Applications of laws have nothing to do with whether it was created by an intelligence or not. If anything it could deal with the entity of intelligence that created it (e.g. since humanity is dictated by natural laws without possibility of rebellion, they could not have created them), but it doesn’t exclude an intelligent entity behind the creation of laws altogether.
When you say “created in the same way,” do note that ‘the same way’ in this case is intelligence-based and does not have the kind of restriction that you seem to be putting on it. The entity in which the intelligence comes from does (as explained a couple sentences ago), but the main point behind the idea (whether or not there is intelligence behind something) does not.
“So basically you’re saying that your version of morality supersedes mine? You are so sure that what you believe to be moral is absolute and therefore I am immoral for breaking what you think is supposed to be moral?”
-Assuming I understand what you’re saying, no. I’m saying whether someone identifies something as sin is relativistic based on their belief because sin is rebellion and rebellion is only applicable if there’s something to rebel against. It does not change whether something is moral or immoral; absolute or relativistic. Sin is not only about morals (which is what this whole issue seems to be related to). As I’ve said before, sin is rebellion against God. Rebellion to someone’s will can be anything from not killing someone to not wearing clothing of 2 different materials.
“But some people believe that the strongest sets the rules and all should be allowed to the one who shows the most power. No justification would be needed in that case”
-The justification is right in front of your face. They think they’re superior to others with power so they justify that they can do what they want and no one can deny them otherwise. Everyone is lesser than they are (this relates a lot to the slavery debacle I explained earlier).
“Do god follow these moral laws or are they only for humans? Since you say in the next paragraph that killing someone is immoral and according to the bible the Christian god has killed many people”
-Now you’ve added the element of justice into the mix. If you read about this you will notice that in most cases, God not only gives plenty of warning that if they don’t turn from their sins (the most I think was 400 years), but he tells them exactly what will happen (they’ll get what they ask for which is death). If God was not just in these situations, then neither is any reasonable court system.
“How could the bible suggest that someone be punished by death if killing always is immoral?”
-The wages of sin IS death. One way or another, everyone physically dies due to sin and some die the second death (spiritually). Immorality is not the issue. Justice takes center stage here.
“Yes you’ve said several times that we innately know but I would say it is obvious that many people don’t know. I don’t know it innately”
-That depends on what you think ‘innate’ knowledge is and how it is expressed. It’s not a composition of legalistic wording stating in your mind “killing is wrong as everyone has the right to life and blah blah blah…” It’s closer related to an emotional state which is uncovered best by a reaction. This is why those who are emotionally unstable or are born incapable of feeling empathy do not see why it’s wrong, because that which they have been born with has been disconnected. Similar to not having drivers/system files in a computer so it doesn’t know anything about it nor how to function without it.
“So in gods eye killing someone is not worse than swearing to your parents?”
-No, in God’s eyes, they’re both equally sin. However, that sin can vary in degree. At the same time, all sin has equal eternal consequences. All sins are equal in different ways. In severity, no; but in penalty, yes.
“I thought you were talking about scientific theories since in the beginning of this part of the discussion you tried applying those criteria”
-And you’re probably right. Since our comments are becoming more and more lengthy as well as responded to later and later, it’s hard to recap from memory every discussion, but I try my best.
“I have been trying to explain to you that there can’t be two scientific theories that are viable and the same time contradictory”
-And I have no more reason to argue semantics as we’ve done in the past several posts. So let’s just dive into the question of which idea is the scientific one seeing as we can’t get any further with me saying something along the lines of “which theory is more scientific.”
“I would like to see some of this evidence you are talking about that shows the bible is true”
-The way you worded that is kind of strange. It’s a bit difficult to provide “some” evidence that the Bible is “100% true.” I don’t recall saying it was 100% true, but maybe I did. Regardless of the wording, let’s try to dissect what you’re looking for. There’s the conciseness of Biblical scripture (inerrancy), there’s the entitled validity of Biblical scripture (the history and making of), and there’s scriptural information (knowledge contained within scripture and the culture providing truthful testimony). That’s just off the top of my head, but we’ll go from there.
“Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith”
-You seem to be proving the opposite when it comes to morals and intelligence-based laws.
“I want you to prove these things to me in a way that I would accept…”
-That’s all up to you. I can’t make you accept anything, but I would like you to ponder on something. If someone were to prove Christianity were true beyond a reasonable doubt, would you become a Christian? This is not my ‘subtle’ way of trying to find out something about your spirituality or ‘converting’ you. This is more of a mentality test. I don’t want you to answer this to me as much I want you to answer yourself honestly. It doesn’t matter what you tell me because your decision can be influenced on how you think I’ll react. I want you to be honest with yourself because the choice you make is very vital. If your honest answer is no, you wouldn’t become Christian even if someone were to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was true, then your decision against Christianity is emotional and/or volitional and not intellectual (and vice versa). Feel free to respond back about this, but do note that I will not.
““As I said before, which hasn’t had a viable rebuttal, the idea that science itself discovers truth is conflicting and thereby self-defeating in it’s very nature.” -And every time I tried explaining this you mixed up science with one of the methods used in science.”
-If you mean ‘method’ as in one method to determine what kind of rock you have in Geology and another method for stellar distance, then you confuse what I mean. I recall saying this before as well.
“in my book it is never correct to let one person be seen is guilty of something that his parents did/the people preceding them”
-Who said you were guilty? I said ‘lasting consequences,’ not ‘you are deemed guilty for their actions.’ For example, we are all born with sin nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Their action has a lasting consequence on us.
“The Teleological argument is built on semantics and logic and assumptions (assuming there’s a purpose), there is no evidence anywhere that can be tested in a scientific environment so that has no bearing on actually being able to prove something”
-You said before that testing something had to be in a controlled environment. Do you deny that the mind with it’s logical prowess is a controlled environment?
“The Cosmological argument is based on logic and assumption, assuming there is a cause”
-So then you deny the law of causality?
“As you probably notice, I haven’t read up on these arguments and I’m not really interested in discussing them to any length”
-Then you’re obviously not interested in answering your own question that brought it up, therefore, neither am I in wasting my time to answer it. This is one reason I divide a debate into categories. If you’re not interested in selecting a category enough to the point to answer your own question then there’s no reason I should be interested (and thereby wasting my time) in discussing it.
“No, I’m saying I usually know the answer but I am not proficient enough in either semantics, logic or the English language to put my answers in a way that does justice to science. Also I normally know the general answer to these things but your way of argumenting takes it down to much finer details that I don’t have the full understanding of and neither the time to find out”
-I guess I can eek out a compliment from all of that for what it’s worth.
“-I can agree, but that’s only limited to when you come up against a matter of certain information of a topic (such as, who invented the first bike? Joe, Bob, or Phil?), not a matter of logical deduction and rationality (such as, it couldn’t possibly have been Joe or Bob because…).” -I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here. Are you saying that if I’m bad at debating I would still have a chance as long as the debate is about logic deduction?”
–No, I’m saying that “good debating” and “expression” can only go so far. You can show a lot of things, but you can’t win them all with that alone. There are certain definites that cannot be ignored or “logically” explained away.
“I tried going back to the previous comment, and the one before that… I think I’m lost here, what doesn’t it address?”
-No clue. I’d search for it if I wasn’t so busy with work and everything. Ahh, we’ll come across it later…
“…it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.”
-That’s implied by all conclusions. You gain enough evidence to make an educated conclusion which negates that which is opposite or in conflict of said conclusion. If this is a bad thing then we should shun science; or all rationale in that case.
“And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?”
-While we don’t know the exact origin of AIDS (merely how it can be contracted from elsewhere), which kind of limits this discussion, there’s a reason it’s called “gAIDS” in some populations. The percentage of homosexual males contracting AIDS is much higher as the sexual activity that is partaken by both partners puts them at a much greater risk.
“How can you say it’s an invalid comparison?”
-I refer you to the comment in which you replied to: “Caring for people and their illnesses is not the same as giving it to them.”
“You stated that people should avoid anal sex altogether because it is an increased risk of contracting AIDS. Working in healthcare gives an increased risk as well”
-In the former scenario, you’re risking being the one who gives someone an infection with no further purpose than pleasure. In the latter, you’re risking receiving it when helping to treat it. People can live without a certain (“immoral” in my opinion) pleasure. We can’t live without treatment.
“In other cultures, like ancient Greece for example, it was seen as a natural part of society for men to have sex with boys”
-Fun facts are no longer fun anymore.. lol.
“Since homosexuality is present in about 10% of all different species on this planet I see it as natural”
-Out of 10%, that’s what you conclude?
“What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?”
-I’m looking at an evolutionary standard of nature. Homosexuality gives no benefit to evolution. As such, I deem it unnatural in one of multiple ways.
“I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals.”
-Which you have not backed up in the slightest. You have shown it was a discovery. Not a development, not a creation, not the origin of morals. Absolutely nothing. We are still discussing morals, the moral law, and intelligence-based laws that are linked to this discussion to which I would say I also have the upper hand (then again it’s my perspective from my perspective, so it’s kind of a biased opinion), but for the most part, I have provided evidence for my theory through my findings, you have not. I think this part of the discussion is concluded. We would only be beating the debate into a worthless pulp at any point past this.
“Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge?”
-I direct you to my prior comment: “mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school [to learn about it]”
“Now you are on thin ice”
-It’s ok, I don’t weigh that much.
“I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation”
-Quite a leap of faith there.
God bless.
Wow… I just posted my latest comment all in one go. At least I got:
MAD
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 8, 2011 at 7:18 am
Or not… The comment just disappeared once again. I will give it one more try since I still get the “awaiting moderation”, and after that I’ll just start to divide it again…
Hi again. Long time no write
Partly because I’ve been on a weeks’ vacation in Hungary, partly because I’ve been busy at home and at work and probably partly because I just forgot 
I hope you still remember more or less what we’ve been talking about…
I feel that before you start reading this I should apologize a bit for the tone I have in a large part of this comment, I am not at the top of my game right now but I feel it would be good if I can finish my comment today since I’m leaving for a weeks’ vacation in Barcelona on Friday
I guess I’ll be in a much better mood in about a weeks’ time.
And now I’m back from Barcelona as well, I didn’t quite manage to post it before leaving, I had a little bit still left to write… and yes, it does feel a lot better after some more vacation, having 30 degrees warm weather and being able to walk around in shorts for a week does wonders for a cold Swede. I think I’ll spend some of the rest of my vacation weeks during winter, that’s when we really need to get away from here
“Considering that we’ve always ended our discussion in something that requires us to understand one’s mental activities, that’s actually not a definite call you can make.”
-Well, not me personally even though from all my friends who are homosexual I’ve never heard anyone saying any different, but from the gathered research made by psychologists, biologists and medical researchers.
“Yes? I’m focused more on the latter of that. How would it “not” be unnatural if it’s “contrary to the course of nature”? Isn’t that what “contrary” means?”
) who try to change the meaning of words to suit their own agenda, I have been in countless debates where people have been calling some ideas they don’t like for socialist ideas when they have absolutely no clue as to what the socialist ideology entails and they just use the word as a derogatory term on anything they don’t like. I’m not saying it’s this bad with unnatural since I at least understand what you are trying to say, but it is quite hard to have a good discussion when we don’t define the words in the same way.
-Because you are making your own definition of the word “unnatural”. If you check a dictionary you get:
Not natural; supernatural or artificial.
Which does not mean ‘contrary to the course of nature’.
I take my definition of ‘natural’ from Websters:
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Which is why I deem homosexuality to be natural.
I guess this part is not very relevant to our overall discussion but I am tired of people (especially over the Internet
“This is all like saying, “Since I utilize the english language, nothing I say in english is meaningful, it’s just the language itself.” While it does reside with me originally, putting this information in another person’s mouth doesn’t make it any less true or false. You need to focus more on the information itself rather than the medium it comes from.”
-See what I wrote above.
It is nothing like saying nothing is meaningless, if you have a definition of harmful that is far different from mine then we are not talking about the same thing which means that first of all we will never understand what the other is saying and secondly anyone reading our conversation will either just get confused or they will thing that both of us are stupid for not understanding the other
“But isn’t that why we’re here? To determine whether we came to be by natural means or intelligence-driven ones?”
-Are you still talking about homosexuality or have you started going into origins or something else?
“You need to show convincingly that it’s natural just as I have shown it’s unnatural. As far as I’m concerned, I have the upper hand with the explanations I’ve given here. I’ll gladly repeat them if you’re unsure of what they were “
-That depends on what you are talking about. I wouldn’t say that you have convincingly shown anything through your explanations, if we’re talking about homosexuality you haven’t shown that it does any harm and if you’re talking about origins you haven’t shown anything that doesn’t involve faith which makes it utterly unconvincing to me and people who actually need proof to be convinced
“And what good are peer reviews if they view the information the same way as those who derived an incorrect conclusion?”
-Which they don’t. As I have tried explaining several times the good thing about peer review is that people don’t think the same way. People come from different cultures, countries and backgrounds. A person raised as a Muslim in Bangladesh who becomes a scientist does not have the same thought patterns as an atheist in Sweden or a Christian in the US. The way we process information is different depending on our background.
“I beg to differ on all accounts. While it would be painstaking work to find the people who believe contrary to the “scientifically-accepted” belief of evolution, their numbers are noticeable. But there have been so many persecuted for simply bringing up a different idea other than evolution that they wont even bring it up anymore.”
-First of all I see your trying to denigrate the scientific facts by calling it “belief of evolution”, secondly if there are a noticeable number of scientists who does not believe in evolution then it wouldn’t be a problem finding them and thirdly just because you say people have been persecuted (without showing any hint of evidence for it) does not make it so.
My guess is that you’re referring to the people who have been trying to debunk the theory of evolution through unscientific means and when it was shown that they didn’t use science or they had faulty reasoning which was discovered by peer review they claimed they were being persecuted.
Having a different idea than evolution is not something that scientists would persecute anyone for, having unscientific ideas and claiming that they are science (like our discussion in the beginning about ID for example) might do it though.
“Archaeologists are the same way. They need to find some proof for evolution so they can continue receiving funding. If they find anything contrary to it they can be out of the job.”
-Also something I don’t believe at all. Please present some evidence of this strange claim.
“Considering that my “peers” can come up to the opposite conclusion with the same evidence then it can most certainly be valid without validation by other people (to say otherwise is to say nothing can be true without more than one person’s confirmation, and if that were the case then not only would I need confirmation from someone else that what you just said is true, but then I couldn’t say anything without getting someone else’s approval of if it’s true or not (which is false). I don’t need someone to verify my answer of 2+2 equalling 4. I can find out if it’s true or not on my own). We can go back and forth as to whether or not something is valid, but the fact of the matter is we can still come to separate conclusions. That’s not the issue anymore. The issue is which of the conclusions is most accurately represented by the evidence?”
-No. Now you are trying to mix science with normal conversation with mathematics. Are you doing this just to be silly or because you are trying to confuse me and whoever might be reading this? We were discussing something that should be scientifically valid, than everyone who has the same conditions will be able to reach the same results. For something to be scientifically valid you need to show conclusive evidence that supports your idea or hypothesis.
The issue is not which conclusion is most accurately represented since you can’t show by scientific means that your idea is valid. As long as there is not enough evidence for an idea I don’t see any reason to compare it to a valid theory.
“Did I not present enough evidence for my conclusion with the frog?”
-No, you haven’t presented anything except a misrepresentation of science with your frog. As I have said several times that experiment had faulty reasoning that wouldn’t have made it through any peer review. It would not be possible to show evidence of your frog hypothesis since it was flawed from start. Your students in the example with the frog didn’t have conclusive evidence for anything they presented. For any possibility of their hypothesis to pass any peer review they would have to first present their hypothesis on why the frog would go deaf and show evidence of how the hearing is affected by the loss of legs and so on. The way you presented the experiment sounds like a bunch of first graders had an idea that has absolutely nothing to do with how science actually works, which I have been trying to explain to you, and then you say this is how science works… You seem to believe that someone seeing something and drawing a conclusion from it is science, it is not.
“This particular comment is the reason I’m having trouble posting”
-Maybe because we’re discussing slavery? I don’t really see why though.
“And guess why that is? 2 major reasons (and many old films show this to be the reason as well): One, misinterpretation of Biblical scripture was used to say blacks were inferior”
-But then I would say that the moral couldn’t be inherent in humans if we could perceive other humans as less than human… If we had such a deep sense of morality I’d think that we also knew what a human was…
“and secondly (and most importantly in my opinion), is evolution itself. Which kind of puts this in a circular argument. People being taught evolution simply see people as higher animals, and obviously there has to be one race that’s more evolved than the rest.”
-Why would one race have to be more evolved than another? People are not higher animals, we are animals. We possess a higher intelligence (at least based on what we as a species have decided intelligence to be) than most other animals but we are not the strongest or the fastest or the best swimmer etc. In what sense do you mean that we would be ‘higher’ than other animals?
“Slavery has never been permitted when those who initiate it realize they are equal human beings to those they imprison. “
-Are you serious? There have been countless of African tribes who keep slaves from their own people, there are many that consider winning a battle gives them the right to enslave the losers and also know that they themselves will become slaves if they lose the battle. In the Roman Empire the gladiators were kept as slaves and forced to fight in the arena but at the same time the good fighters were held in higher regard than an ordinary citizen of Rome so there was definitely no question about them being less than human.
“It’s only when they think someone is lesser than them in some way that they justify slavery to be ok. The moral did not change, the perspective did. We morally view all “human beings” as equals, but if we “perceive people different than humans” then we rationalize that since they are not human then they are not entitled to the same rights I am and therefore can be dealt with as lesser ‘creatures.’”
-But you can use that argument to cop out of anything then. If someone has a lot of money when keeping slaves you will just claim that since he’s rich he thinks he’s above all poor people and therefore he finds it morally acceptable to keep them as slaves. I would say that if there was anything like a ‘moral law’ that permeates everyone then there would also have to be incorporated into the law who it is supposed to encompass. What good is any morality if you can just choose who it encompasses?
“Ok, I think I understand now. You think I’m misusing evidence to support my viewpoint when you see it as proving something else (albeit something ridiculous, but proving something else all the same).”
-No, since you don’t have any evidence you only have a hypothesis which isn’t possible to prove I don’t think what you have presented proves anything at all. All I’m trying to say is that your comparison is lacking since you decide to add meaning to it that isn’t there to start with just because it fits your idea better.
“If this is the case, then let me point something out. You got a different conclusion than I did. Did you not? Does this not prove ‘exactly’ what I said a long time ago?”
-I didn’t reach a conclusion since we were talking about a possibility of where something originated. Even if I would have reached a conclusion that was different than yours it isn’t even similar to what you said a long time ago since then we were discussing science and here we are discussing a possibility, we are not putting forth any hard evidence.
“That aside, I believe you got the “wrong” conclusion (and yes, it is possible to do so ). While it is possible to take the evidence to mean that all laws are therefore created by humanity, it is not valid when looking at natural laws since laws of nature dictate humanity. Therefore, the more reasonable conclusion is that the evidence proves all laws are formed by some kind of intelligence as humans are intelligent entities. It is not a huge leap of faith to believe natural laws were created by an intelligent entity either.”
-I have never argued that it wasn’t possible to reach a wrong conclusion in a discussion between two people
You talk a lot about evidence but you haven’t put forth anything but assumptions and hypothesis (is that correct in plural?), you have taken the fact that some laws are created by humans, and some laws (that in some ways are similar to the created ones and in some ways they are not) we do not know where they originate from, and from there you say that shows that all laws would be created by an intelligence. Sorry, but for me that’s an incredible leap of faith to out of nowhere insert a being that we have absolutely no evidence of into the equation as a possible creator of laws.
“I see them as similar because they are all “laws.” I see laws as intelligence-based designs because they prove exactly that. If you have conflicting information to this conclusion then I urge you to bring it up soon.”
-I’ve been trying to say this before; they are laws according to your definition not in the definition of most other people. I for one had never heard someone refer to morality as a law before you did. You keep comparing laws made by humans to something that is similar but not made by humans and from there you reach a conclusion that everything similar to a human made law must be created by something intelligent. I don’t think you have enough data to reach that conclusion. I am not saying you are wrong (even though I as you know don’t believe in any deity) but I am saying that you need more evidence than a similarity to something else to actually reach a conclusion.
“Try to remember this is a debate over intelligence-based laws versus non-intelligence-based laws. You seem to want to change it into an argument over man-made laws versus natural laws and have done so for multiple posts. That is not my argument nor has it ever been. I understand how you’re making the connection and how there can be confusion, but unless the difference of man-made laws and natural laws provide any conflicting evidence against the conclusion that all laws are intelligence-based then it is meaningless and therefore discarded.”
-That is because you have tried setting the parameters for this debate, I don’t accept them as I find them lacking in evidence. Since you haven’t made any compelling argument of why there should be a supernatural intelligent being suddenly inserted into the discussion I don’t see why you would make a distinction between man-made laws and intelligence-based laws as the only thing we can possible prove at this time is that all intelligence-based laws that we know of have been created by humans.
“The idea existed prior to them discovering it, therefore it was not created by them and did not originate so. The question is ‘how was’ it created? I have an answer, you haven’t provided one. The reason why is because there is no evolutionary answer.”
-I have provided an answer it’s just that you don’t accept it because it doesn’t fit with your view of it. As I have said countless times I believe that morality grew out of our ability to feel empathy and so on. You haven’t debunked what I am saying in any other words than expressing that you believe morality was already there when humans discovered it.
Why would there be an evolutionary answer? The theory of evolution has nothing to do with morality. Is this another attempt to mix up irrelevant parts with the theory of evolution as you did when you claimed abiogenesis was part of evolution? I know I sound annoyed but considering the lengthy discussion we had when you tried saying that abiogenesis was part of evolution I thought you actually understood what the theory of evolution entailed.
“I’m saying there are justifiable means in which people think it’s ok to do the wrong thing. That doesn’t make morals relativistic.”
-Ok, so it is always wrong to kill someone? It is never morally right to execute a prisoner?
“Applications of laws have nothing to do with whether it was created by an intelligence or not. If anything it could deal with the entity of intelligence that created it (e.g. since humanity is dictated by natural laws without possibility of rebellion, they could not have created them), but it doesn’t exclude an intelligent entity behind the creation of laws altogether.”
-I am not saying that it excludes an intelligent entity from being behind the creation of the laws, but there is nothing that suggests there would be considering that the only thing we have to base your assumption on is that the laws we know to be created have been created by humans and you can choose whether or not to follow them whereas we don’t know what (if anything) created the natural laws and they are not possible to break.
“When you say “created in the same way,” do note that ‘the same way’ in this case is intelligence-based and does not have the kind of restriction that you seem to be putting on it. The entity in which the intelligence comes from does (as explained a couple sentences ago), but the main point behind the idea (whether or not there is intelligence behind something) does not.”
-I’m not entirely sure of what you are saying here. All I was trying to say is that there is a greater difference between man-made laws and natural laws than there are similarities.
“Assuming I understand what you’re saying, no.”
-:-D
I think we both suffer from not understanding each other way too often in our discussion, but since we both seem to be about equally stubborn we keep going anyway.
“I’m saying whether someone identifies something as sin is relativistic based on their belief because sin is rebellion and rebellion is only applicable if there’s something to rebel against.”
-I think I understand and actually agree here
Does this mean that I am not sinning since I don’t believe in a god?
“Now you’ve added the element of justice into the mix. If you read about this you will notice that in most cases, God not only gives plenty of warning that if they don’t turn from their sins (the most I think was 400 years), but he tells them exactly what will happen (they’ll get what they ask for which is death). If God was not just in these situations, then neither is any reasonable court system.”
-But I thought you said earlier that the moral is absolute, that killing someone is always wrong. Or are you saying that as long as I tell the people that if they don’t do as I command (or God in this case) then it is ok to kill them when they don’t follow orders? Then it wouldn’t be about justice but justification as you have pointed out.
“The wages of sin IS death. One way or another, everyone physically dies due to sin and some die the second death (spiritually). Immorality is not the issue. Justice takes center stage here.”
-Ok, so it is morally acceptable to kill someone who has sinned?
“-That depends on what you think ‘innate’ knowledge is and how it is expressed. It’s not a composition of legalistic wording stating in your mind “killing is wrong as everyone has the right to life and blah blah blah…” It’s closer related to an emotional state which is uncovered best by a reaction.”
-But I got the feeling before that you thought sinning was immoral then wouldn’t you get at least a feeling of doing something wrong when doing something that is a sin? If we keep using me as an example I have never felt anything negative connected to masturbation for example, only positive feelings.
“The way you worded that is kind of strange. It’s a bit difficult to provide “some” evidence that the Bible is “100% true.” I don’t recall saying it was 100% true, but maybe I did. Regardless of the wording, let’s try to dissect what you’re looking for. There’s the conciseness of Biblical scripture (inerrancy), there’s the entitled validity of Biblical scripture (the history and making of), and there’s scriptural information (knowledge contained within scripture and the culture providing truthful testimony). That’s just off the top of my head, but we’ll go from there.”
-I’m not sure you’ve said 100% either, but you’ve said that you know that what is in the bible is true, that’s probably where I was coming from in this part. I think that what I mostly want out of this part is that you show me evidence to back up that all (or at least most) of the bible can be shown to be true. I know that some parts of it are historically correct in that they describe events that took place and have been recorded by several other historians or that have been found through e.g. archeologists. I have never seen anyone present non-faith based evidence of any of the supernatural parts of the bible. I am not sure this would be possible though and that’s why I’m curious as to how it is possible to show.
““Of course you know that I don’t take anything that isn’t 100% scientifically provable as evidence; there cannot be any need for faith”
), which means that I don’t claim to have an answer, just thoughts about the subject. If someone claims that what they are saying is the truth, I do need evidence to believe it as truth, otherwise I can accept it as a plausible idea or even a likely one, or as we have discussed earlier, the idea that requires the least amount of faith. But as I said, if it requires any level of faith I would not see it as being true.
-You seem to be proving the opposite when it comes to morals and intelligence-based laws. ”
-I thought I was quite clear that in that discussion I was not speaking from a scientific viewpoint, I have only been discussing my own ideas and theories (and I use theory here as it is used in conversations, not as a scientific theory
“That’s all up to you. I can’t make you accept anything, but I would like you to ponder on something. If someone were to prove Christianity were true beyond a reasonable doubt, would you become a Christian?”
-The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that it depends on what type of evidence put forth. If someone could prove that the Christian God existed but nothing more I would likely be a deist (even though I’m not sure it would be called such if there was actual evidence and no faith necessary) but I probably wouldn’t adhere to any organized religion. The way I view different religions I see all the bad and the good that have come out of them and I think it’s quite obvious that a lot of religious leaders of any faith have been taking care of themselves rather than the congregation. Within the organized religions there have been many people who have gotten to their positions because of a hunger for power rather than a zeal for religion. So what I’m basically saying is I don’t like the idea of following authority figures
If it would be possible to prove without a doubt that the entire Christian religion was true then I don’t see how I could be anything but a Christian. I might not agree with everything within the religion or the rules for example, but if I knew it was true it wouldn’t really matter. I mean, I don’t approve of a lot of things the Swedish government is doing but I live here and I abide by the laws put forth. I do try to change the things I don’t like in society by partaking in demonstrations and similar things but I still follow the normal code of conduct.
If we’re speaking specifically about Christianity, to get me to follow that religion I would have to first be convinced that everything bad that has come out of it was really rooted out, here I’m speaking of everything from the crusades and the inquisition to the more recent scandals of child molestation and the churches indirect helping in spreading AIDS by refusing to allow their followers to use condoms and such things (yes, I know I am writing of very different denominations and that most people are good people just trying to make the world a better place).
If the current right-wing government we have in Sweden suddenly started to do things to improve the lives of everyone here instead of just the richest I still wouldn’t trust them, it would take a long time and many good actions to convince me, I guess it’s the same with religion for me.
“Who said you were guilty? I said ‘lasting consequences,’ not ‘you are deemed guilty for their actions.’ For example, we are all born with sin nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Their action has a lasting consequence on us.”
-I guess I equated being born with sin as being guilty. I still think that this notion of sin is something put in place by your God and if it was a benevolent god then it wouldn’t carry over to another generation
“You said before that testing something had to be in a controlled environment. Do you deny that the mind with it’s logical prowess is a controlled environment?”
-Of course it is not. The brain reacts differently depending on mood and what chemicals are flowing through it. The synapses in the brain are different from one day to another depending on your experiences.
“So then you deny the law of causality?”
-Why would I need to do that? As far as science can know we don’t have enough data from the time when the universe was created to know what happened. If something did cause the big bang that would have to have been outside of our current universe and we have no idea if the laws of causality or laws of gravity and so forth that exist within our universe existed outside of it.
“Then you’re obviously not interested in answering your own question that brought it up”
-I don’t even remember what the question was
“I guess I can eek out a compliment from all of that for what it’s worth.”
-Well, I am quite impressed (and sometimes frustrated) in your way of arguing, so you’re welcome
“No, I’m saying that “good debating” and “expression” can only go so far. You can show a lot of things, but you can’t win them all with that alone. There are certain definites that cannot be ignored or “logically” explained away.”
-I agree, but we seem to have different opinions on what those definites (is this a real word? I’ve used it several times but word doesn’t seem to accept it) are.
In my case I would say we have certain definites that we have gotten through science that can be proven without the use of any faith that you seem to object to whereas you have shown me things where you claim there is only needed a miniscule amount (which I disagree to) of faith and seem to think that would count as a definite for me.
I think what it boils down to is that both of us have resorted to mostly logic reasoning against the others arguments since we cannot agree on the definites…
““…it sounds like you have found all information that could possibly be available and all other people who have looked at the same passage as you have and drawn different conclusions are wrong.”
-That’s implied by all conclusions. You gain enough evidence to make an educated conclusion which negates that which is opposite or in conflict of said conclusion. If this is a bad thing then we should shun science; or all rationale in that case.”
-I don’t agree… here as well
I would say that some humility is positive in most cases. When I reach a conclusion I don’t automatically assume I’m correct because I think I’ve checked every possible angle of the problem. I am still open to the idea that I might have missed something and that there might exist more information that I’m just not aware of yet. If nothing comes up I will assume I’m correct as far as it’s possible to prove.
I would also say that this is part of the strength of science, that whenever someone reaches a conclusion everyone else is invited to try to break the argumentation or find possible faults in the reasoning or in the information itself. If this shows impossible then the hypothesis might be upgraded to a theory (if that’s what was presented.
““And what is the difference between contracting it from a homosexual act?”
-While we don’t know the exact origin of AIDS (merely how it can be contracted from elsewhere), which kind of limits this discussion, there’s a reason it’s called “gAIDS” in some populations. The percentage of homosexual males contracting AIDS is much higher as the sexual activity that is partaken by both partners puts them at a much greater risk.”
-We do know the origins; it comes from Simian immunodeficiency virus and was transferred from primates to humans. The jump from primates to humans probably happened in late 19th or early 20th century.
I don’t understand why it would limit the discussion even if we didn’t know where it came from. You stated earlier that someone needs to have it to be able to transmit it to someone else (which is quite obvious) and I still don’t understand why that would matter.
It is not a gay disease; anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with someone who is infected has a risk of contracting it, no matter what sexual preference they have. Yes, there is a higher probability to contract it of you have for example anal sex since there are more shallow blood vessels there, but that’s the same even if it’s a heterosexual couple having anal sex, on the other hand if there’s two gay men only having oral sex there’s a very low risk of transmitting the disease.
There’s also a higher risk of getting AIDS among drug addicts in cities where there are no needle-exchange programs since they use the same syringes as other junkies and then risk getting their blood mixed, so it might as well be called hetero-junkie-AIDS by following you logic. Just because it has been given a derogatory name like gAIDS in some places doesn’t mean it has any bearing whatsoever on anything but the fact that some people are bigots
Also, if the disease for some inexplicable reason would be gods punishment on homosexuals (as some people claim, I’m not saying you do even if your rhetoric sometimes implies it, I hope I am just reading you wrong here), then why is it that homosexual women are a lot less likely to ever contract the disease?
I’m skipping over some of the parts we have discussed about homosexuality here partly because I think I gave rise to some new topics in my comment above and partly because I doubt we will get any further along those paths. If you feel you want further discussion feel free to restart the topics
I do however find it a bit disappointing that you didn’t want to continue my line of questions about masturbation that you claimed had repercussions and could be dangerous. I am still very curious as to what you believe could be dangerous and how you back it up.
““What is it that if it takes more harm makes something unnatural? Are you looking at individuals? At humankind? At the earth? At the universe?”
-I’m looking at an evolutionary standard of nature. Homosexuality gives no benefit to evolution. As such, I deem it unnatural in one of multiple ways.”
-But not giving benefit is very different from giving harm.
There’s a lot of different things among humans that have no evolutionary benefit, only a small percentage have green eye color for example, do you see that as unnatural as well?
““I’m not describing that our ancestors discovered something; I’m saying they developed morals.”
-Which you have not backed up in the slightest. You have shown it was a discovery. Not a development, not a creation, not the origin of morals. Absolutely nothing. We are still discussing morals, the moral law, and intelligence-based laws that are linked to this discussion to which I would say I also have the upper hand (then again it’s my perspective from my perspective, so it’s kind of a biased opinion), but for the most part, I have provided evidence for my theory through my findings, you have not. I think this part of the discussion is concluded. We would only be beating the debate into a worthless pulp at any point past this.”
-Ok, so how would you define ‘develop’?
I would say that if a group of people notice that acting in a certain way gives them benefits and from there they build upon that tactic and find that some parts of it works better than others is a form of developing moral.
As I have said several times I have not tried to prove that this is how it was developed, I have been saying that this is how I believe it happened and until someone can show me evidence that I’m wrong (which I am well aware of the possibility that I might be since I don’t have any evidence for this) then I will keep this belief.
As to you saying I haven’t shown an origin, that’s correct, as I don’t think it has a certain origin considering that the morals of people have been changing since time immemorial and it would be impossible to pinpoint a time when humanity started this development.
I don’t understand how you can say you have provided any evidence for your idea though; you have been giving me theories based on faith. I can see how that would satisfy you, but as I’ve stated I don’t see that as evidence since it cannot be proven. I also agree that this part of the debate might have reached its limit though, since you seem to try to argue that this IS how things are when I’m just trying to speculate
““Why do you say it existed prior to their knowledge?”
-I direct you to my prior comment: “mathematics existed prior to anyone going to school [to learn about it]””
-And what is the similarity with morality and mathematics except that you claim they both existed prior to human use of them?
““I don’t consider an option viable unless it is possible to prove it, which can’t be done with creation”
-Quite a leap of faith there.”
-How is that a leap of faith? If it would be possible to prove creation then most people on earth would be creationists in the same way that most people on this planet know that the theory of gravity is a fact since it is possible to prove.
Now it’s time to finish the discussion for this time, take care!
This discussion was so much fun, its a pity it stopped
I know
I especially didn’t think I would get the last word on a walk over, it did seem as if ICWUDT had a lot of patience
I’m happy we managed to entertain you while it lasted at least.
Its funny because last year while you guys discussed this, I had an agnostic position. After dedicating a lot of time researching and I am now leaning towards an atheistic view.
In case you are interested, there are these 2 sites which are amazing at pointing scientific evidence and debunking logical fallacies presented by apologists.
Do a quick google search for: Talk origins and iron chariots
There is also an amazing public show in Texas called “The atheist experience”, which is based around debates for religous and non-religious groups. You can find amazing discussions from this show on youtube or their own website
I am definitely interested. Thanks for sharing.
I have not been discussing this at all actually since this thread, but I’ve been to Talk origins at least. I have to check out iron chariots as well.
) because I’ve recently become a father so Internet chatting has not been a high priority 
I have been hanging a bit at the thinking atheist, they have some interesting videos there and the forum is nice as well. I haven’t been very active though (mostly on politics
I’m glad you decided to post here again, it was quite a fun (albeit sometimes frustrating) discussion
I would be happy to hear from you again!
Take care!
Congratulation!
Meh, fail. Plural, of course.
CongratulationS!
Thank you!
I guess I am in for an interesting time now
I’m already back at work though, I was home for 10 days straight after my son was born but now I have to work again… not fun… but I can look forward to my parental leave next year instead