blind faith – creationists

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”

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

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

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….

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

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:

you might want to elaborate on that mud shark some off us can do an epistemological debate !!!

As a theory evolution is one of the most robust that science has at present to doubt that is like doubting the earth is round and that we orbit the sun ….yes these also may be wrong if every observation we make is a mass halucination but it does seem somewhat remote….there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is not as described. Still people’s propensity to doubt that which has evidence and belief that which has none- religion, horoscopes, homeopathic remedies,psychic abilities etc-is almost boundless.

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….

We can of course keep moving the goalposts! The accepted understanding of “facts” would have been acceptable if scientists had proved the authenticity of the Tourin shroud. Carbon dating would have been the gods work! As it was religion retreated into its “philosophical” “what is truth”? “what are facts”? role.
Accepted science reinforces Darwins theories and only by understanding theories relationship to other theories and facts we can be sure the basis of Darwin’s evolution theory is by most accepted definitions a fact.

Interpreting facts in the way I suspect you refer to allows us to doubt the “fact” that we exist. We can question the reality of everything we see, how we see them and even our understanding of our own consciousness.
We could give credence to the concept that we don’t exist but are really the subject of a computer program/game being executed on supercomputer. As outrageous as this sounds we don’t and may never know if this is the case. Those diverting scare resources into investigating this would be ridiculed however it has the same scientific merit as debating differing concepts of truth.
Retreating into this purely philosophical debate offers nothing to explain what we consider to be the world we inhabit and is simply the cry of those who have nothing to contribute except trying to rubbish a science that strives to offer real world contributions, these viewpoints are quite rightly marginalized.

surfer – Member

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!

Yeah right, well teapots do exist – I remember we had one in our house when I was a kid. Dark brown I think it was.

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

Here’s a FACT: If it’s written by Christopher Booker, it’s probably not worth reading.

I do love a good creationist/religion thread. Throwing global warming in could just create a perfect internet storm!

Yeah right, well teapots do exist – I remember we had one in our house when I was a kid. Dark brown I think it was.

I have just enjoyed a particularly nice post run brew myself.

I was referring to the Bertand Russell flying model however!

I am neither stupid, nor mad, so I don’t believe in religion. I won’t apologise if I offend anyone!

Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma. It’s all about realising that you can freely think for yourself. If you are the type who is easily intimidated into toeing the line, you’ll probably be a religious person. If you are inquisitive by nature and with half a brain, you will realise that all religion is superstitious rubbish and is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, science uses a methodology of logic and makes no assumptions to unanswered questions – this would be unsafe.

It is because of our openness to learn and rationalise, that we have made important discoveries about our world. We therefore know that these old scriptures and traditions are a nonsense. It still shocks me how many people subscribe to this folklore!

For some lighthearted (and not so light hearted entertainment) on the matter, google Pat Condell. He’s a ex-standup comedian who’s satirical and clever videos are a breath of fresh air!

Spongebob, you claim that “I am neither stupid, nor mad” and yet, you then go on to also claim “Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma”, which suggests that you are in fact, very stupid 😯

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!
Meanwhile with the climate change fundamentalists it’s always one of two things:
Cold than usual winter – just a blip, doesn’t change the fact it’s getting warmer
Hotter than usual summer – that’s definitive proof of global warming.

You did notice it wasn’t the sceptics going on a trip to the Arctic in an attempt to prove something from one year’s data?

Here’s a FACT: If it’s written by Christopher Booker, it’s probably not worth reading.

To be fair, whilst he does come out with a lot of guff, he does also quite often bring important issues to light and is spot on in his reasoning. Your post is an ad-hom attack, hence more worthless than anything he writes.

To the OP:
show her this thread… 😉

To be fair, whilst he does come out with a lot of guff, he does also quite often bring important issues to light and is spot on in his reasoning. Your post is an ad-hom attack, hence more worthless than anything he writes.

He managed to get some many inaccuracies into one column, that there’s an award for bad writing on climate change named after him. My “ad-hom attack” will not be read by thousands of Telegraph readers who will take what he writes as fact and so did not need backing up; others are doing a very good job of that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate-change-daily-telegraph-christopher-booker

Spongebob, you claim that “I am neither stupid, nor mad” and yet, you then go on to also claim “Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma”, which suggests that you are in fact, very stupid

What Gus said.

I know a Christian who has a solid background in Materials Physics, a PhD in growth and characterization of magnetic multi-layers and is a world-renowned authority in X-Ray metrology and a leading researcher in the field. He’s probably stupid or mad, eh?

He’s probably stupid or mad, eh?

Probably not, but he’s certainly balancing his undoubted brilliance with some stupidity. Yin and Yang.

Yin and Yang

What are those – some strange mystical forces ?

Probably not, but he’s certainly balancing his undoubted brilliance with some stupidity. Yin and Yang.

Just like all the stupid people who are able to make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books?

What are those – some strange mystical forces ?

Purely meant in an ironic balance type metaphor, but I’ll withdraw it if it was a little sophisticated. Strike it from the testimony.

Just like all the stupid people who are able to make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books?

Now there’s pure irony for you…I think it’s Christians, Jews, Muslims (just covering three of the bigger ones here) that make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books…or is that what you meant?

Purely meant in an ironic balance type metaphor

Ah, I see that you have appeared to have missed the the ironic content of my reply – oh well, never mind 🙄

Ah, I see that you have appeared to have missed the the ironic content of my reply – oh well, never mind

I didn’t have you down as that sophisticated gg…I do apologise 😆 😳

Me sophisticated ? LOL ! ! ! You were right first time mate – I’m just a simple soul with very little understanding of complex issues 😯 🙁

My “ad-hom attack” will not be read by thousands of Telegraph readers who will take what he writes as fact and so did not need backing up

I’m sorry? You think that an ad-hom attack is justified provided you can back it up? But then you can’t actually be bothered and rely on Monbiot to do it for you? Well I’ve got news for you – even Monbiot wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that all which Booker writes is rubbish.

How about you tell me what’s wrong with the original article which you dismiss solely because Monbiot has said that Booker writes a load of rubbish in other articles. Or can you not do that because Monbiot hasn’t attacked that particular article, so disciples like you have nothing to quote?

just leave her. tell her you have little or no respect for her due to her beliefs (blind belief), that you cannot tolerate her due to her being unable to tolerate your gay mate and that she is a hypocrite when you consider she herself is/was a lesbo.

personally, i **** hate religion.

alternatively get her to read this…… (shamefully ripped quote from wiki)

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

I ‘did the teapot’ she said i was ridiculous, i mentioned i had as much proof as she did, she said miracles were proof, i said no they could be used to suggest god, and i’d like to see one. then i got abused! oh well. she’s gone all remorseful for the ‘friday dinosaur incident’ as it will be known as.

I’m just leaving it – don’t have time for the crap anymore.

I ‘did the teapot’ she said i was ridiculous

You did the teapot ? 😯

Well I’m not **** surprised that she said you were being ridiculous 😕

You did this ? ? ?

Proof of the missing link ???

Just check out JEJames logo on their adverts !!!!
It’s as plain as a Bulgarian pinup !!!!

Proof if proof were needed. Nuff said.

I am quite a clever chap, and do not have a history of being led around by the nose in my thinking.

The only reason I can see for getting religion (which I do not rule out entirely) is that it might provide a set of answers which are more satisfactory than those left in my largely materialistic (in the sense of being in no way spiritual) life which revolve around getting laid, keeping my tiresome job and paying for various things which are increasingly expensive and dull before dying, probably from eating too much butter.

In the time leading up to dying of butter I try to be nice to people, largely because it helps with my personal comfort if they are nice to me back, and it sometimes helps with the getting laid.

Deciding to take up religion might well make all this a bit more interesting. I am well aware that in no particularly true sense did god create the world. However, putting him in there as a piece of one’s worldwiew and a reason for doing things slightly differently might well be rather interesting and satisfying.

In that sense it does not matter at all whether it is all true, any more than it matters whether York City FC are actually the best football team in the country. It gives you something to do at weekends, and some sort of motivation. 🙂

A nice kidney risotto.

“religion … might provide a set of answers which are more satisfactory than those left in my largely materialistic … life”

BigDummy. That’s, IMO, the most intelligent comment on this thread so far.

Creationists worry me though. I don’t think you need to be so literal to be faithful. And you end up defending the indefensible. But maybe that’s just me being reductionist.

Another observation though: Atheists have become terribly dogmatic, even rabid in their remarks.

I’m still waiting for RudeBoy to define ‘proof’ – his posts are a little bit worthless without that 🙂

In that sense it does not matter at all whether it is all true, any more than it matters whether York City FC are actually the best football team in the country. It gives you something to do at weekends, and some sort of motivation

BD, that is easily the best expression of my thoughts I have read. Chapeau to a truly great man 🙂