[Closed] blind faith - creationists

Why do you feel the need to constantly question her?

It's always her that brings it up, normally in the context 'now i'm a christian...."

i question her beliefs because i'm amazed at the whole blind faith thing. As i said it's not the belief in god it's the ' i don't know my opinion on matter X we haven't discussed it at church yet'

You don't sound like much of a friend to me.

hmmm to be honest I have been but at some point i've had enough of the shit and can't support her anymore.

How do her beliefs affect your friendship?

being told i'm going to hell a lot is really beginning to grate.

Ok, fair enough tomthumb...but you didn't make that clear in your OP.

Don't think I'd be friends with someone who told me I'm going to hell.

Move on...she's responsible for her own life...whatever her choices!

deadly darcy.
i dont believe in global warming at all.

the romano british had tempratures 3 degs higer than us.
the post medieval period was about 4 degs colder than now.
if you examine temprature core rates you will find it is getting warmer but at a slower rate than it did in the Iron age!! and i dont recall evern finding an iron age car...

why don't you just mind your own chuffin' business!

If I thought a good friend of mine suddenly couldn't appreciate the beauty of the garden without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it, I'd question him or her too. Like weeds, it's easier to displace these stupid ideas when they're fresh. It will be easier to topple fundamentalism if we tackle moderate religions first. I'm all for telling them it's a load of shite.

you will find it is getting warmer

Lets not hijack the thread here, but there you go, you said it yourself, it's getting warmer, just like I said. Now, stick your tin hat on and start a different thread if you want to discuss the extent of human contribution or whether it has any bearing at all.

Urm..didnt you start that darcy?

i dont believe in global warming at all.

the post medieval period was about 4 degs colder than now.

You do realise that you've proven the existence of global warming, one sentence after you've chosen to deny it.

Mans input into the change is neither here nor there.

Grrr...don't fall for it trailmonkey, don't...I'm tempted, but it would just be too easy

I'm all for telling them it's a load of shite too, but if a friend of mine had chosen some wacko church to attend, I'd maybe question a couple of times and then leave well alone!
My own Mother goes to church every single week, sings in the choir every week etc...but if I ask her if she believes in god she just looks at me strangely! Don't think she has ever even thought about it...it's just one of her weekly social events!
As I said, tomthumb's friend must have some real "reason" for suddenly finding the "imaginery friend" and it is her choice, not his.

But there is global colding as well!!
There has been at least 10 ice ages followd by 'global warming' in this epoch alone!! i think an ice age is far more likily- the planet heats before it gets cold...
he he i like playing devils avacardo or whatever he said.

To pull the thread back some..Im a lapsed catholic BTW. But I like to think that god but all the elements together and us animals came out of the oven. It matters not what then evolved from what, as we are all a creation. and its science.
This girl sounds like she is crying out for some help and religion is an answer. But its one of many answers. I prefer beer.

When I speak of 'proof', I mean something that is 100% FACT, as opposed to 'very probable'.

i always find it puzzling that religious types so often demand that science provide absolute proof of stuff, when religion so often denies proof, insisting instead on faith; the anathema of proof.

while no absolute proof has been provided, i am convinced by large amounts of consistent evidence that many scientific theories are accurate descriptions of the world around us. i reserve the right to throw any or all of these theories out when evidence arises that shows them to be bunkum.

it is this behaviour that constitutes science. IMO, natch.

Well said FoxyChick - and your OP was spot on imo. Going by what thomthumb had originally said I too, also got the impression that he was giving her an unessarily hard time, not what you would expect from a friend.

How 'bout this

"Whilst i appreciate that you have different beliefs to me, I feel that sometimes our 'discussions' about it get in the way of our friendship, and the constant arguing is upsetting me. How 'bout we call a truce, and agree to differ"

the romano british had tempratures 3 degs higer than us.

Did they have mercury thermometers, then? 😉

I do love these 'discussions'. For the record, I am an agnostic, and see the benefits in both religious observance, and in trusting in scientific 'facts'.

But, I'll keep an open mind.

As for Human evolution; I'm not denying that Humans have 'evolved' in some sense, and developed new skills throughout history. Well, throughout the history we are aware of, anyway. The History that has been recorded for us (although it's interesting to note that much of our historical information is in fact contained in documents such as the Torah,Bible, etc...)

But I'm skeptical at all Scientific claims, and I think we've established that science does not always provide absolute factual proof of certain things.

See, the thing is, most of us 'believe' in stuff that scientists tell us. They present us with their findings, and research. They can often show us 'proof' that only the most insane would deny.

But there's a fair bit of murky science; stuff which is mostly supposition based on evidence of related things, rather than being the Truth.

I think Human 'Evolution' comes into this area.

Now, the irony of followers of Science, dismissing religion as something which lacks 'proof', are happy to accept, as the Truth, stuff which is equally unproven.

Like, Jupiter is a big planet X miles from Earth, and consists of X chemicals and what not.

No Human has ever been to Jupiter, to collect any samples. So how can they claim, as gospel, stuff for which they have no evidence?

Eh?

It's just guesswork. Informed, educated, well-considered guesswork, no doubt. But still guesswork.

Right. Human Evolution.

Where is there factual evidence of the point at which monkeys gained all sorts of skills and abilities, which defined them as 'Human'?

Why is there only one intelligent species on a planet with loads of diverse species?

As for missing link 'proof'; what, so a few mash-up skeletons and some bits and bobs found nearby are 'proof'?

As I've mentioned before, I'm not denying the possibility that we are evolved from apes (I've been to some parts of South London, where there is surely much evidence to support such theories). I'm just musing on the possibility that we are not.

Or, what if some Alien life-form came to Earth at some stage, and chose one Ape species, and decided to take over the host creatures/infect them/had some form of technology to give the creature 'intelligence'?

I know, it's the stuff of Science Fiction (Sic); preposterous, 'unbelievable'.

But it might be true!

There's a lot of unexplained stuff out there. But maybe it's an idea, to try and consider arguments from all sides, before naively deciding that one course of answer-making is the 'right' one.

This is probbly a bit too heavy for some of youse.

Ah well.

This is probbly a bit too heavy for some of youse.

Cor too fukking right mate - my brain hurts now.

But then I do come from Sarf Landan 🙁

Rudeboy agian some great valid points.
You should come down the pub next time i meet up with the uni lot!
LOL.

Woohoo! Grizzlybollocks is back! Where've you bin?

Guido; I'd be happy to!

I do enjoy stuff like this, actually. S'very inertesting.

Well, for me, anyway. Seems like Croydon Man is struggling a bit, with such a philosophical discussion...

But, I'll keep an open mind.

But I'm skeptical at all Scientific claims

That's some classic Fred right there.

Where is there factual evidence of the point at which monkeys gained all sorts of skills and abilities, which defined them as 'Human'?

In your case, I'll agree, the evidence of actual development is yet to be established 😉

There isn't going to be "a point" in our prehistory when Apes stopped being apes and changed into Humans. The evolutionary steps took millions of years. the fossil record demonstrates it.

The aliens thing might be true, but there's no evidence for it, so...it becomes a bit tricker to prove, no?

LOL! Some right cheeky buggers on here!

Ok, so why jolly well have not chimpanzees 'evolved' anywhere like Humans?

Too busy scratting their arses?

Seems like Croydon Man is struggling a bit, with such a philosophical discussion.

Yeah well I'm having trouble with the keyboard.

Do you think it would help if I placed it on the floor where me hands are ?

Of course not having any proper thumbs doesn't help 🙄

Rudeboy me too. but i feel bad for the thread hyjack.
Will have to think of another topic- how about men- better than women?

(Reads Gus' post; jumps up and down, screeching with laughter. Surprisingly similar to the behaviour of certain apes...)

how about men- better than women?

No no no no no no no...

Women are better, anyway. FACT. Scientifically proven. By me.

how about men- better than women?

Wrong forum for that sort of gay bollox

Oi, Gus; there's no need for that sort of hateful prejudicial language.

As for the thread hi-jack; well I apologise too, but it was such a fascinating subject.

Maybe if the OP gets his friend to read this thread, it might cheer her up?

I don't mean to be insensitive. I do hope she finds her own peace. Does sound like she's struggling with a few things right now.

Don't abandon her. That's the very worst thing to do.

Never abandon someone. It's a cowardly act.

[i]Ok, so why jolly well have not chimpanzees 'evolved' anywhere like Humans?[/i]

Remember, evolution doesn't stop, it just takes a loooooooong time, they are evolving.

there's no need for that sort of hateful prejudicial language.

Sorry - I blame it on my selfish gene

🙄

Ok, so why jolly well have not chimpanzees 'evolved' anywhere like Humans?

Because you're working on the assumption that everytime a species evolves, the old species dies out, ie, chimps become humans then die. It doesn't work like that. [b]Some[/b] chimps could have evolved to suit a different habitat/ set of conditions whereas another colony 100 miles away, had no need to. One set evolves, the other stays the same.

So how can they[scientist] claim, as gospel, stuff for which they have no evidence?

Eh?

It's just guesswork. Informed, educated, well-considered guesswork, no doubt. But still guesswork

The whole point of science and its methodology is to learn by observation-gaining DATA. Everything science says has evidence ...it may be from a poorly constructed experiment lacking reliability or validity but it will still have EVIDENCE.

Why do you write so much about a subject matter -evolution- and a process - science- that you clearly do not understand?

Why do you write so much about a subject matter .................... that you clearly do not understand?

Because he's not giving a lecture ?

My own Mother goes to church every single week, sings in the choir every week etc...but if I ask her if she believes in god she just looks at me strangely! Don't think she has ever even thought about it...it's just one of her weekly social events!

That would really annoy me! I think her vicar should have a chat....

i think the OP needs to consider one thing.

Are you trying to bang her, or not.

if not, forget about her.

"[i]Who knows FOR DEFINITE what happened in the beginning?[/i]"

No-one does. Not the religionistas. Not Dawkins and his evangelical atheists. Science having all the answers? I don't think so. That money pit experiment in Swizzerland was supposed to answer the big question wasn't it. Fine old crock o' shite that turned out to be.

For what it's worth, I've genuinely enjoyed Rudeboy's postings on this. Seems he in the only person to have put any real thought into his *[b]OWN[/b]* opinions rather than the usual blind scorn poured on anyone professing any sort of faith.

When I speak of 'proof', I mean something that is 100% FACT, as opposed to 'very probable'.

I'm more than happy to admit that I believe in the scientific process. I feel RudeBoy is playing Devil's Advocate and is showing definiate signs of being blinkered in his acceptance of ideas and theories. For example, a reliance upon a normally tangible physical object to e.g. measure a certain distance is not always needed. To test this idea one could nip down to B+Q and buy a tape measure AND a laser/ ultrasonic measurer and measure the distance between an appropriate pair of objects. Or, if still questioning the benefit of satellite based technology, use a mobile phone to order a GPSr from a friend/ supplier in another country. Just because the process is not overtly visible does not mean that it is not there. It can however be detected, measured and recorded in a repeatable way.

RudeBoy- you give more questions than you accept answers, not always a bad thing. But I have a single question for you. What is your definition of proof? If that is not known, argument to persuade/ dissuade you is possibly worthless.

Look at it this way.

Do you want/would you allow creationism to be taught to your children as a serious alternative to the scientific consensus?

And if the answer is yes, would you be prepared to allow Scientology to be taught as a serious alternative to your current religion?

Trouble with having an open mind is people keep throwing a load of rubbish into it...

...coat

Havent read the whole thing but I pretty much agree with every word Deadlydarcy said, which is becoming a worrying trend! 😉

Evolution is a proven scientific fact. The fact that some people choose not to see the evidence or read the scientific literature is not evidence against it. Its the equivalent to running round the room shouting with your fingers in your ears.

However even accepting that science in this area has some work to do to dot some I's and cross some T's it doesnt mean the belief in invisible friends is equally valid! This seems to be the the de facto position of believers that beacuse it cant be proved not too exist their is a 50% proabability that it does exist. Flawed logic and the same logic that can be extended to fairies, Spaghetti monsters and teapots etc!

Thing is, Science hazzunt actually proved that the World is X million years old, just presented hypotheses based on the findings of mere mortals. What if they're fundamentally wrong?

Science constantly changes its opinion on this however given that many religions believe that the earth is 6000 years old and man walked hand in hand with Dinosaurs this is a bit rich. Religious estimates are based on absolutely no evidence whilst scientific observations are based on emerging science as oppose to a 1st century understanding!

Its one thing to put an alternative view but another to put forward a view so ridiculously out of step with evidence and then to infer you are an intelligent doubter.

(although it's interesting to note that much of our historical information is in fact contained in documents such as the Torah,Bible, etc...)

Its also interesting to note that religion has led to the murder and torture of those with new ideas based on emerging science for centuries.
Those that hypothosised that the Earth orbited the Sun were tortured and killed. Scientists that determined the earth was not flat were ridiculed. All scientifically proven since but religion would have ensured this evidence was suppresesed and its proposers killed.

Whilst the bible has held some valid scientific facts. Those who wrote and adhered to its teachings have never been at the forefront of science but have spent centuries stifling it.
Most of the worlds greatest inventions and most beautiful art has been created by those with a belief in god this only proves it prevalence not its truth.

As Hitchins wrote, "that which what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

In the spirit of keeping an "open mind"

[img] [/img]

Interesting thread we have here.

Evolutionary theory is itself evolving. Darwinian Evolution used to be taken as the only evolutionary mechanism, but there are other mechanisms of evolution that have been proposed over the years and are now being accepted as "fact".

And secondly, there is of course the philosophy of science, again offering many different scientific paradigms. It seems that quantum mechanics is now only able to offer explanations of probability, and the more we study the very building blocks of life, the more they seem to be evading any form of sensible explanation. So we have moved from mechanical equations to mere theories of probability, that something might be here, that when we observe it, reality is changed, and that we never truely get to grips with it.

Goethe offered a science of qualities, but was wildly dismissed at the time. Science seems to just dismiss any ability to copy with qualities, and can only offer quantification of matter. Whether or nopt this bothers anyone depends on where you are on the scientific paradigms debate.

Of course, science also "proves" that before we perceive physical objects, we apply meaning to those objects, so the chances of ever being able to have a science where "facts" out there can be agreed up, independent of observers, well that's a whole different discussion too.

And finally, quite a fun article in The Telegraph today on the perils of how science can be corrupted

[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html [/url]

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of that article?

to mere theories of probability, that something might be here, that when we observe it, reality is changed, and that we never truely get to grips with it.

That may or may not be true but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Isnt this a bit like saying our GPS device got us across a continent to find a blade of grass and because at the end of the journey it could only offer us accuracy of 1 sq metre it must be useless. Lets go back to the divining rod as that must be equally as valid! I would prefer we continued to rely on the method that got us this far and admit it needs improving.

If other methods appear that offer similar or increased accuracy then maybe our old methods need to be replaced. At the heart of this is scientific method.

And finally, quite a fun article in The Telegraph today on the perils of how science can be corrupted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html

I just read this - hilarious. You need a lot more data than less than one year in that kind of thing. I always find climate change arguments really funny. On the people who deny the climate changing it is always one of two things:

Really hot summer - just a blip, nothing to see here, move along!
Slightly cold winter - OMG! Climate change isn't happening! See? It was the aliens that did it!

Evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Well I'm not sure about that! But then being more of a philosophical bent than a scientific one I tend to have a problem with so called facts....

[i]But then being more of a philosophical bent than a scientific one I tend to have a problem with so called facts.... [/i]

I'm reminded of the line in Indiana Jones where he's teaching his class and says "Archeology is the search for FACTS. Not truth. If it's truth you're after, Dr Tyree's philosophy class is just down the hall".

In the meantime I'm going to find RudeBoy's car and put one of these on it:

[img] [/img]