Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[youngterrier]

Hey, your knowledge of evolutionary science is impressive. You are among the most accomplished parties on this board on that subject. I enjoy reading your posts, especially because I learn from them.

And I said before, ID is not science, most notably because its essential thesis -- that evolution is the intentional product of an intelligent designer -- cannot be tested by scientific experiment or observation.

On the other hand, the contention that evolution is not the product of an intelligent designer is as equally incapable of being tested by the scientific method.

For these reasons, I don't think ID is appropriately included within a science curriculum. As I said earlier, ID is a philosophical and theological issue and actually ties into centuries of philosophical tradition discussing the nature and manifestations of a God.

It's unfortunate that scientists tend to be so narrowly educated in our society that they often overlook philosophy and theology. Even Stephen Hawking claims that, because the universe (or multi-verses), and its laws, can operate independently of a creator, that implies that they do operate independently of a creator. That's a false assumption.

Take Cleets; a brilliant free-thinking guy, and yet he feels the need for a God. That seems to hold true for most of mankind. Where does that need come from? I certainly think its absurd to say it comes from some delusion, because you are essentially then claiming there is a mass delusion of man -- a contention which is irrational, because man is the most rational of all beings here on earth. To ignore this question, as so many men of science do intentionally or unintentionally, is in itself irrational.

The contention of many is that the advances of science would eventually negate the question of God, but that has not proven true, because here we are in the 21st century, and God is still very much a part of the human experience. God remains, because science, for all its beauty, cannot tell us "why." And we need to know why. Knowing how is not enough for us. Without God, there is no why, and at some point you have to say there must be a why, so there must be a God; or,

The alternative is that our existence has no why, and that the existentialists were right, and our existence is absurd. That is why I admire the existentialists -- because at least they freely admitted the consequences of their lack of belief. In contrast, we have modern secular humanists who say there is no God, but then try to find meaning to our existence. That lacks reason, because if there is no over-arching objective source for our existence, then there is no over-arching meaning for our existence -- other than we are the most evolved of earth's creatures.

There is a great scene in The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan and Alyosha have this remarkable discussion. Alyosha declares that Ivan (a great intellectual) is an atheist, but Ivan responds that he accepts the existence of God, essentially because there is no alternative for a creature who can only perceive three dimensions (he then goes on to explain why he has issues with the nature of God). And I think that is important to recall. No matter how advanced you become in science, understand that it is not rational to draw ultimate conclusions about God based on what can be tangibly experienced through our senses. What is rational is to acknowledge that we can experience (and sense) a part of what is ultimately real. As much science and physics as we understand, there are innumerable scientific truths that we have not even begun to experience, and an innumerable scientific truths that we will never know. So it is ultimately not even rational to place complete trust in our pursuit of science.

I have no problem trusting the concept of evolution, though, especially since it has been a contention of philosophers and theologians for hundreds of years that the entirety of the human experience is an evolutionary one. As we learn, discuss, grasp, and think, we are evolving toward greater truth and understanding. Many theologians have claimed that the Bible is recounting of man's evolving relationship with God, recording a process of manifestation and discernment by which we draw closer to an understanding of God (and also explaining why there is, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, a more merciful God depicted as the Bible itself evolves). So to accept biological evolution means that you accept that we are evolving in both substance and in form. That's actually a very exciting idea.

This conversation, unfortunately, is due to be hijacked but thanks for listening and its regrettable we cannot continue this discussion here.

The last two posts:

YT - don't take a message board too seriously.

JJ - your stripped down definition of God without all the b.s. is very appealing.

Kalm: You act as if I do, the whole point of said post was to say that I don't

JJ-We're having about 3 dozen different discussions at once,

We aren't talking about the existence of God, as I believe that's almost a nonsensical question in some respects. We're talking about facts and falsehoods; reality and fiction. To some, philosophy is a great subject to make insights within reality, but without a proper basis of reality, philosophy is useless. We get this basis of reality through science. That's not to say certain postulations are useless and not to be made under any circumstances, I just feel that the worth-while and "knowable" truths about existence are better understood through the scientific process than the means of metaphysical modal logic postulations. I honestly feel that metaphysics is somewhat useless without a grounding of actual physic, and if there is one thing that modern physics has taught us, it's that the universe(especially on the quantum level) is counter to our intuitions. This kind of neutralizes philosophy for such postulations on such things, because our logic is useless because what is observed is counter to the logic.

With this uncertainty, nothing is a given, and in many ways Descartes's "I think therefore I am" seems to be the only truth of which any of us can know. We're like maggots, born in decaying meat, and the only way out and discovering truth is to take one fact at a time, and to change our positions once evidence arises that disproves it.

The question of God is a multi-layered question and once your definition of God is established, we can evaluate credence to such claims. If there is one thing to be believed in, it's the process of elimination. The existence of God, when broadly defined is impossible to disprove, but I think it is quite easy to disprove God the more defined he becomes through Religion and theism.

But again, this is a different philosophical question with no bearing on the thread. The process of elimination thoroughly debunks biblical creationism and intelligent design, and the idea of "creation" itself is a different question all together.

[JoltinJoe]

JJ-We're having about 3 dozen different discussions at once,

We aren't talking about the existence of God, as I believe that's almost a nonsensical question in some respects. We're talking about facts and falsehoods; reality and fiction. To some, philosophy is a great subject to make insights within reality, but without a proper basis of reality, philosophy is useless. We get this basis of reality through science. That's not to say certain postulations are useless and not to be made under any circumstances, I just feel that the worth-while and "knowable" truths about existence are better understood through the scientific process than the means of metaphysical modal logic postulations. I honestly feel that metaphysics is somewhat useless without a grounding of actual physic, and if there is one thing that modern physics has taught us, it's that the universe(especially on the quantum level) is counter to our intuitions. This kind of neutralizes philosophy for such postulations on such things, because our logic is useless because what is observed is counter to the logic.

With this uncertainty, nothing is a given, and in many ways Descartes's "I think therefore I am" seems to be the only truth of which any of us can know. We're like maggots, born in decaying meat, and the only way out and discovering truth is to take one fact at a time, and to change our positions once evidence arises that disproves it.

The question of God is a multi-layered question and once your definition of God is established, we can evaluate credence to such claims. If there is one thing to be believed in, it's the process of elimination. The existence of God, when broadly defined is impossible to disprove, but I think it is quite easy to disprove God the more defined he becomes through Religion and theism.

But again, this is a different philosophical question with no bearing on the thread. The process of elimination thoroughly debunks biblical creationism and [b intelligent design[/b], and the idea of "creation" itself is a different question all together.

I want to respond to the bold.

(1) Do you really think that the question about the existence of God is nearly non-sensical? I think it is probably the most important question we ever face, individually and collectively.

(2) I'm not sure if you can really say metaphysics is useless without an understanding of physics. You say the modern physics, especially on the quantum physics level, is proving that reality (ok, you said the universe) is counter-intuitive. But metaphysicists have been saying that for centuries. I find it ironic that Hawking and others claim that modern physics has rendered metaphysics unimportant, when it is clear (at least I think it is clear) that physics is just now catching up to metaphysics, and proving many of its older contentions.

(3) I think it is easier to dispute a more specific concept of God, but I'm not sure it is so easy to disprove a more specific concept. Nonetheless (I know you will consider this off point), I concluded years ago that Christianity is the most logical belief system. Why? You have to decide first, assuming a God, he is personal or impersonal? To make matters short, if you conclude that God is a personal God (and I think that is the more logical God, one who actually cares and relates to us), then I find it most plausible to believe in the most personal God, one who came to live among us.

Moreover, as I studied the history of Christianity -- the fact that it survived the brutal execution of its leader and then, from a handful of adherents (almost all of whom were themselves executed for spreading their faith), spread throughout a hostile empire in which being a Christian was a capital offense for which death was administered in the most painful, barbaric and public way -- I began to marvel that it survived at all.

There really is no rational explanation why the bloody crucifixion of Jesus did not cause his handful of followers to disperse in fear, to be lost in history forever. And yet Jesus of Nazareth -- an obscure son of a carpenter who lived in the first century in a remote outpost of the Roman Empire -- has become the most significant figure in all of history. Besides, I like Jesus -- like Jefferson, I think he is the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived.

(4) I'm not sure why you say that "the process of elimination" debunks "intelligent design," at least if you have a conception of intelligent design which simply postulates that evolution is not only "not random" but ultimately a mystery directed by a greater mystery.

[SeattleGriz]

Damn you guys. Your civil discussion has ruined a perfectly good trolling thread by Capn!

[kalm]

Kalm: You act as if I do, the whole point of said post was to say that I don't

Good, but as much as I enjoy reading your posts, could you pare it down a bit?

[youngterrier]

Kalm: You act as if I do, the whole point of said post was to say that I don't

Good, but as much as I enjoy reading your posts, could you pare it down a bit?

My ego won't allow it.....

[SeattleGriz]

Great to finally connect with you YT (Cleats is a whore). Self admittedly, I still haven't exactly wrapped what you posted in your flagellum post in my mind yet. I am more of a visual person. Anyway, so please watch this video and let me know if you agree?

[youtube][/youtube]

By the way Matzke is a frequent visitor on the ID pages. Very interesting debate.

I, obviously am skeptical of some of the points, but am too busy to reply right now.

Soak it in and I will try to rebut in a couple days.

[D1B]

Hey Joe,

That existence has no meaning without god is YOUR fucking opinion.

That the existentialists were right, is YOUR fucking opinion.

Your worldview is essentially derived from the depressed prose of a 19th century Russian author!??

It's no wonder you hold such a low estimation man - which is what religion, especially christianity, wants people to believe.

[D1B]

JJ-We're having about 3 dozen different discussions at once,

We aren't talking about the existence of God, as I believe that's almost a nonsensical question in some respects. We're talking about facts and falsehoods; reality and fiction. To some, philosophy is a great subject to make insights within reality, but without a proper basis of reality, philosophy is useless. We get this basis of reality through science. That's not to say certain postulations are useless and not to be made under any circumstances, I just feel that the worth-while and "knowable" truths about existence are better understood through the scientific process than the means of metaphysical modal logic postulations. I honestly feel that metaphysics is somewhat useless without a grounding of actual physic, and if there is one thing that modern physics has taught us, it's that the universe(especially on the quantum level) is counter to our intuitions. This kind of neutralizes philosophy for such postulations on such things, because our logic is useless because what is observed is counter to the logic.

With this uncertainty, nothing is a given, and in many ways Descartes's "I think therefore I am" seems to be the only truth of which any of us can know. We're like maggots, born in decaying meat, and the only way out and discovering truth is to take one fact at a time, and to change our positions once evidence arises that disproves it.

The question of God is a multi-layered question and once your definition of God is established, we can evaluate credence to such claims. If there is one thing to be believed in, it's the process of elimination. The existence of God, when broadly defined is impossible to disprove, but I think it is quite easy to disprove God the more defined he becomes through Religion and theism.

But again, this is a different philosophical question with no bearing on the thread. The process of elimination thoroughly debunks biblical creationism and [b intelligent design[/b], and the idea of "creation" itself is a different question all together.

I want to respond to the bold.

(1) Do you really think that the question about the existence of God is nearly non-sensical? I think it is probably the most important question we ever face, individually and collectively.

(2) I'm not sure if you can really say metaphysics is useless without an understanding of physics. You say the modern physics, especially on the quantum physics level, is proving that reality (ok, you said the universe) is counter-intuitive. But metaphysicists have been saying that for centuries. I find it ironic that Hawking and others claim that modern physics has rendered metaphysics unimportant, when it is clear (at least I think it is clear) that physics is just now catching up to metaphysics, and proving many of its older contentions.

(3) I think it is easier to dispute a more specific concept of God, but I'm not sure it is so easy to disprove a more specific concept. Nonetheless (I know you will consider this off point), I concluded years ago that Christianity is the most logical belief system. Why? You have to decide first, assuming a God, he is personal or impersonal? To make matters short, if you conclude that God is a personal God (and I think that is the more logical God, one who actually cares and relates to us), then I find it most plausible to believe in the most personal God, one who came to live among us.

Moreover, as I studied the history of Christianity -- the fact that it survived the brutal execution of its leader and then, from a handful of adherents (almost all of whom were themselves executed for spreading their faith), spread throughout a hostile empire in which being a Christian was a capital offense for which death was administered in the most painful, barbaric and public way -- I began to marvel that it survived at all.

There really is no rational explanation why the bloody crucifixion of Jesus did not cause his handful of followers to disperse in fear, to be lost in history forever. And yet Jesus of Nazareth -- an obscure son of a carpenter who lived in the first century in a remote outpost of the Roman Empire -- has become the most significant figure in all of history. Besides, I like Jesus -- like Jefferson, I think he is the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived.

(4) I'm not sure why you say that "the process of elimination" debunks "intelligent design," at least if you have a conception of intelligent design which simply postulates that evolution is not only "not random" but ultimately a mystery directed by a greater mystery.

Just your opinions.

There is a rational explanation. You just refuse to admit it.

Christianity owes its staying power soley to brute force. Rulers, tyrants, politicians, kings and queens, from Constantine to George W. Bush, saw in christianity the awesome power to scare, tax and control people. It's the perfect scam:

Tell people they will live forever in heaven if they follow rules. Keep em dumb and reliant on the church/state in order to receive salvation. Also, if they fail to follow said rules, let em know they'll be tortured, killed, ostracized, mutilated or raped - like god would have had it.

For 1900 years, if you weren't a christian in the western world, you suffered at the hands of the state.
Christianity is powerful because western nations are powerful. Western nations are powerful because commerce, science and critical ethical inquiry ultimately rule the day.

Jesus, a "sublime moral philosopher!" Nothing original came from "Jesus." No eywitnesses ever wrote anything about "jesus." What we know of jesus was authored decades to centuries after he was purported to be alive.

[JoltinJoe]

Jesus, a "sublime moral philosopher!"

Really, you think so little of Thomas Jefferson.

Go away. You're a detriment to interesting discussion here.

[D1B]

Jesus, a "sublime moral philosopher!"

Really, you think so little of Thomas Jefferson.

Go away. You're a detriment to interesting discussion here.

You're a member of a cult. You've had catholic bullshit pounded into your head since birth. I will be here every step of the way to expose your lies, opinions promoted as facts and your half-truths.

Jefferson existed 200 years ago. If he knew what we now know and have seen, he would be a secular humanist.



Joe, dress it up all you want, but you're a catholic because you were born into a catholic family. If you were born in Iraq, you'd be muslim. That's it. Nothing else. Religion is involuntary for a majority of the world.

You are a victim and you're continuing the cycle of child abuse with your kids. They'll grow up and do the same to their kids. This is why christianity is still around, for now.

[youngterrier]

Great to finally connect with you YT (Cleats is a whore). Self admittedly, I still haven't exactly wrapped what you posted in your flagellum post in my mind yet. I am more of a visual person. Anyway, so please watch this video and let me know if you agree?

[youtube][/youtube]

By the way Matzke is a frequent visitor on the ID pages. Very interesting debate.

I, obviously am skeptical of some of the points, but am too busy to reply right now.

Soak it in and I will try to rebut in a couple days.

I'd have to agree simply because I am not an expert on evolution. I just understand the function and how it would theoretically work, but the details are sketchy. Macroevolution is simple to explain (and show, don't let anyone tell you that macroevolution doesn't happen because it HAS been observed MULTIPLE times), but microevolution, especially with proteins, and flagellums, etc is pretty complex without an understanding of cell functions, vocabulary, etc (as I will admit that I am not good at that stuff and I almost wish I could go back to biology and relearn it). I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I have learned a lot after watching multiple videos on the "debate" on youtube along with books by Richard Dawkins (whom one cannot undermine how brilliant of an evolutionary biologist he is) and continue to better understand it the more I see it discussed or debated.

In terms of having a visual representation, here's where I got the metaphor for numbers that I used other, but it is better communicated:
[youtube][/youtube]

The video does not address intelligent design or IC, but the same concepts do apply on the cellular level, it's just very important to understand that when a protein or something of the sort is evolving, like on the macro-scale, useless mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection, while positive mutations accumulate which will lead to specialization and complexity. This video is pretty good at demonstrating mutations and natural selection as a mechanism for evolutoin.

[SeattleGriz]

Great to finally connect with you YT (Cleats is a whore). Self admittedly, I still haven't exactly wrapped what you posted in your flagellum post in my mind yet. I am more of a visual person. Anyway, so please watch this video and let me know if you agree?

By the way Matzke is a frequent visitor on the ID pages. Very interesting debate.

I, obviously am skeptical of some of the points, but am too busy to reply right now.

Soak it in and I will try to rebut in a couple days.

I'd have to agree simply because I am not an expert on evolution. I just understand the function and how it would theoretically work, but the details are sketchy. Macroevolution is simple to explain (and show, don't let anyone tell you that macroevolution doesn't happen because it HAS been observed MULTIPLE times), but microevolution, especially with proteins, and flagellums, etc is pretty complex without an understanding of cell functions, vocabulary, etc (as I will admit that I am not good at that stuff and I almost wish I could go back to biology and relearn it). I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I have learned a lot after watching multiple videos on the "debate" on youtube along with books by Richard Dawkins (whom one cannot undermine how brilliant of an evolutionary biologist he is) and continue to better understand it the more I see it discussed or debated.

In terms of having a visual representation, here's where I got the metaphor for numbers that I used other, but it is better communicated:

The video does not address intelligent design or IC, but the same concepts do apply on the cellular level, it's just very important to understand that when a protein or something of the sort is evolving, like on the macro-scale, useless mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection, while positive mutations accumulate which will lead to specialization and complexity. This video is pretty good at demonstrating mutations and natural selection as a mechanism for evolutoin.

Out of curiosity, when was the last peer reviewed paper by Dawkins? When did he last work in a lab performing actual science?

[youngterrier]

I'd have to agree simply because I am not an expert on evolution. I just understand the function and how it would theoretically work, but the details are sketchy. Macroevolution is simple to explain (and show, don't let anyone tell you that macroevolution doesn't happen because it HAS been observed MULTIPLE times), but microevolution, especially with proteins, and flagellums, etc is pretty complex without an understanding of cell functions, vocabulary, etc (as I will admit that I am not good at that stuff and I almost wish I could go back to biology and relearn it). I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I have learned a lot after watching multiple videos on the "debate" on youtube along with books by Richard Dawkins (whom one cannot undermine how brilliant of an evolutionary biologist he is) and continue to better understand it the more I see it discussed or debated.

In terms of having a visual representation, here's where I got the metaphor for numbers that I used other, but it is better communicated:

The video does not address intelligent design or IC, but the same concepts do apply on the cellular level, it's just very important to understand that when a protein or something of the sort is evolving, like on the macro-scale, useless mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection, while positive mutations accumulate which will lead to specialization and complexity. This video is pretty good at demonstrating mutations and natural selection as a mechanism for evolutoin.

Out of curiosity, when was the last peer reviewed paper by Dawkins? When did he last work in a lab performing actual science?

He worked at Oxford and UC Berkley, but from what I can tell, he has published 139 times in the last 20 years, with the last time being 2010 (I don't know how up to date this data is) and he was cited an average of 14 times per item:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ZjJkNThlZA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's not including his books and articles, etc of course. His h-index is low, but most of his career has been centered around science education (as that was his position at Oxford)

[Chizzang]

I know this whole thing is frustrating for you Young Terrier
But you have to admit you and Joltin Joe have some similarities

Wait for it... Wait...

You're both recruiters - or seemingly so - and heavily emotionally invested in the outcome.
You both pretty desperately want people to just (gosh darn it) pull their heads out of their asses and see things the way you do

Terrier, You even go so far as to imply that "The God question" itself is just silly
I don't recall your exact words but you certainly imply it's not really that important of a question
And perhaps you were discussing it on it's scientific merits alone - as in not important - which I completely agree with
But as a question that has vexed humanity over the ages, it is THE question of all time...

Sadly for folks who are so resistant to even hearing the question uttered - it lies at the bottom of every open ended scientific mystery - I say sadly because all unanswered science problems ultimately become (to some degree or another) a God question... And this drives some science minded people nuts

The Prime Mover argument will likely never and
It reminds me of a buddy of mine who wrote a paper on the Higgs Boson - and you know where I'm going with this - it's inescapable and even becomes dreary when one is so resistant

I believe in Free Will
It's completely observable and absolute - but the idea of God - because the idea is a big as the Universe is exciting to me and it doesn't bother me when God Recruiters Mob the scene to try and insert some imagined relevance and awaken long dead arguments. That's what recruiters do...

A pretty smart scientist guy named Siegfried Glenzer (who is the preeminent developer of inertial confinement fusion) said to me after his presentation at the press event... Big smile on his face - "I will be content to wrestle with the smaller less significant questions until such a time as I can comment on the larger ones" and "A scientists should have no professional opinion on God other than it's an exciting idea, unless he knows something he is willing to publish that either proves or disproves the concept..." Big smile

Anything other than content neutrality is a distraction...

[Cap'n Cat]

Leave it to Cap'n Cat to bottom line this:

If you believe in God, you are an idiot.

[youngterrier]

I know this whole thing is frustrating for you Young Terrier
But you have to admit you and Joltin Joe have some similarities

Wait for it... Wait...

You're both recruiters - or seemingly so - and heavily emotionally invested in the outcome.
You both pretty desperately want people to just (gosh darn it) pull their heads out of their asses and see things the way you do

Terrier, You even go so far as to imply that "The God question" itself is just silly
I don't recall your exact words but you certainly imply it's not really that important of a question
And perhaps you were discussing it on it's scientific merits alone - as in not important - which I completely agree with
But as a question that has vexed humanity over the ages, it is THE question of all time...

Sadly for folks who are so resistant to even hearing the question uttered - it lies at the bottom of every open ended scientific mystery - I say sadly because all unanswered science problems ultimately become (to some degree or another) a God question... And this drives some science minded people nuts

The Prime Mover argument will likely never and
It reminds me of a buddy of mine who wrote a paper on the Higgs Boson - and you know where I'm going with this - it's inescapable and even becomes dreary when one is so resistant

I believe in Free Will
It's completely observable and absolute - but the idea of God - because the idea is a big as the Universe is exciting to me and it doesn't bother me when God Recruiters Mob the scene to try and insert some imagined relevance and awaken long dead arguments. That's what recruiters do...

A pretty smart scientist guy named Siegfried Glenzer (who is the preeminent developer of inertial confinement fusion) said to me after his presentation at the press event... Big smile on his face - "I will be content to wrestle with the smaller less significant questions until such a time as I can comment on the larger ones" and "A scientists should have no professional opinion on God other than it's an exciting idea, unless he knows something he is willing to publish that either proves or disproves the concept..." Big smile

Anything other than content neutrality is a distraction...

Scientists don't deal with the existence of God, and I would disagree with you that God lies at the end of every scientific mystery.......every scientist, well good scientists, approach answering a scientific question if there was no God. There are no satisfactory answers to "God did it,"

but I really don't understand what point your making.

I don't feel there's a compelling argument for God in any circumstances. Outside of religion, theism is futile, and outside of theism, deism is futile.

The question of God is nonsensical (that was the word I used) because if we could apply such a concept in experiment or in science, it would no longer be God. In other words, if God exists, we can't prove it with science as science deals with natural phenomenon so miracles occurring could not be verified and the "mysterious nature" of God would be unpredictable and thus unknowable and unscientific. If we can't use science, the most extensive and rational means of acquiring knowledge of the world around us that ties the reality we all live in together, to verify such entities, then it all becomes subjective. If it is all subjective, it can't be verified. Such an entity, in all of its benevolence would either reveal himself or not to individuals. It would not be up to them, and if I can't believe in something based on the perception that I possess, my perception being defined as something I can evolve but ultimately am not responsible for it's narrowness or openness at any given time, an omni-benevolent being would not really care if I don't believe (thus destroying all religion)

Put it this way-if it's scientifically proven, we'll figure out; if it isn't scientific we never will for sure; if it does exist, it most certainly doesn't matter if you believe in it or not because that narrows down reward and punishment to things of which the individual is not responsible for-perception and who they were born, so really the Creator would have already picked his winners and losers.

So what's my motivation to believe in such a thing? We won't know all of the answers to everything, until we know everything, and we don't even know the extent of what everything may be, if there is a limit at all. So in the meantime, if all the information we have now that points to the existence of a higher being, we could easily logically deflect it as a God of the gaps argument, and all we need is another Charles Darwin to tell us how wrong we are, and on the flip side if we say that conclusive evidence could lie in the things we don't know, how do we know that is right either until we know everything? All of this is said, but it makes no difference logically to invest in such a belief as punishment (if it even exists) will not be based on belief, as a truly benevolent creator would not condemn based on its own mistakes, unless the being is some sort of sadistic prick who doesn't deserve allegiance from anybody anyway.

There's no reason to believe such things because it basically tells us to be content with the world and with not pursuing answers to questions. All of the answers that we need in life are not going to fall out of the sky. All of the answers we need, we need to find ourselves.

[Chizzang]

There's no reason to believe such things because it basically tells us to be content with the world and with not pursuing answers to questions. All of the answers that we need in life are not going to fall out of the sky. All of the answers we need, we need to find ourselves.

This comment ^ completely contradicts statements made by such small minded dullards as Copernicus and Galileo...
And also: No common sense person - with a wit if sense about them - thinks answer fall from the sky
And: No healthy adult thinks God concepts and Science research are somehow enemies, only the angry overly self centered reside there

And under no circumstances do I believe science should somehow "stop" because the idea of God exists
For a science guy you JUMP to some near crazy conclusions...

And my point - that seems to baffle you - is that you're a recruiter just like Joe
And (2nd) the Scientific community will reap far larger rewards and sustain less injury and and less resistance when they simply respected peoples right to ask the question.
Slapping people down spitefully receives spiteful reactions and pretty soon you have a battle on your hands... where you did not before. It's called "making enemies"

I'm on your side - in agreement more than 95% of the way
But you would rather make an enemy of me than an ally
and that seems just odd to me
and this is what I've found throughout the more embattled portions of the scientific community.

Another really smart guy at NIF said once:
"A scientist who can't remain neutral on the subject of God becomes his own evangelist and pollutes the waters he swims in..."

You're well on your way...
Anyway: No worries we're obviously no enemies - I think you're damn entertaining
I'm just throwing ideas out there - all of which you will ignore

[SeattleGriz]

Leave it to Cap'n Cat to bottom line this:

If you believe in God, you are an idiot.

[D1B]

The belief in god or a creator is no big deal and makes sense. The belief in the ridiculous christian god and the dogma the catholics pulled out of their asses to control, torture and rip off people is a whole other story.

[D1B]

Leave it to Cap'n Cat to bottom line this:

If you believe in God, you are an idiot.

He right, SG. The christian god is joke.

[D1B]

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

Hey, your knowledge of evolutionary science is impressive. You are among the most accomplished parties on this board on that subject. I enjoy reading your posts, especially because I learn from them.

And I said before, ID is not science, most notably because its essential thesis -- that evolution is the intentional product of an intelligent designer -- cannot be tested by scientific experiment or observation.

On the other hand, the contention that evolution is not the product of an intelligent designer is as equally incapable of being tested by the scientific method.

For these reasons, I don't think ID is appropriately included within a science curriculum. As I said earlier, ID is a philosophical and theological issue and actually ties into centuries of philosophical tradition discussing the nature and manifestations of a God.

It's unfortunate that scientists tend to be so narrowly educated in our society that they often overlook philosophy and theology. Even Stephen Hawking claims that, because the universe (or multi-verses), and its laws, can operate independently of a creator, that implies that they do operate independently of a creator. That's a false assumption.

Take Cleets; a brilliant free-thinking guy, and yet he feels the need for a God. That seems to hold true for most of mankind. Where does that need come from? I certainly think its absurd to say it comes from some delusion, because you are essentially then claiming there is a mass delusion of man -- a contention which is irrational, because man is the most rational of all beings here on earth. To ignore this question, as so many men of science do intentionally or unintentionally, is in itself irrational.

The contention of many is that the advances of science would eventually negate the question of God, but that has not proven true, because here we are in the 21st century, and God is still very much a part of the human experience. God remains, because science, for all its beauty, cannot tell us "why." And we need to know why. Knowing how is not enough for us. Without God, there is no why, and at some point you have to say there must be a why, so there must be a God; or,

The alternative is that our existence has no why, and that the existentialists were right, and our existence is absurd. That is why I admire the existentialists -- because at least they freely admitted the consequences of their lack of belief. In contrast, we have modern secular humanists who say there is no God, but then try to find meaning to our existence. That lacks reason, because if there is no over-arching objective source for our existence, then there is no over-arching meaning for our existence -- other than we are the most evolved of earth's creatures.

There is a great scene in The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan and Alyosha have this remarkable discussion. Alyosha declares that Ivan (a great intellectual) is an atheist, but Ivan responds that he accepts the existence of God, essentially because there is no alternative for a creature who can only perceive three dimensions (he then goes on to explain why he has issues with the nature of God). And I think that is important to recall. No matter how advanced you become in science, understand that it is not rational to draw ultimate conclusions about God based on what can be tangibly experienced through our senses. What is rational is to acknowledge that we can experience (and sense) a part of what is ultimately real. As much science and physics as we understand, there are innumerable scientific truths that we have not even begun to experience, and an innumerable scientific truths that we will never know. So it is ultimately not even rational to place complete trust in our pursuit of science.

I have no problem trusting the concept of evolution, though, especially since it has been a contention of philosophers and theologians for hundreds of years that the entirety of the human experience is an evolutionary one. As we learn, discuss, grasp, and think, we are evolving toward greater truth and understanding. Many theologians have claimed that the Bible is recounting of man's evolving relationship with God, recording a process of manifestation and discernment by which we draw closer to an understanding of God (and also explaining why there is, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, a more merciful God depicted as the Bible itself evolves). So to accept biological evolution means that you accept that we are evolving in both substance and in form. That's actually a very exciting idea.

This conversation, unfortunately, is due to be hijacked but thanks for listening and its regrettable we cannot continue this discussion here.

If given the choice between retaining your religion and its particular god/dogma OR living without it, but having a beautiful family and the respect of your fellow man - what would you choose?

[youngterrier]

There's no reason to believe such things because it basically tells us to be content with the world and with not pursuing answers to questions. All of the answers that we need in life are not going to fall out of the sky. All of the answers we need, we need to find ourselves.

This comment ^ completely contradicts statements made by such small minded dullards as Copernicus and Galileo...
And also: No common sense person - with a wit if sense about them - thinks answer fall from the sky
And: No healthy adult thinks God concepts and Science research are somehow enemies, only the angry overly self centered reside there

And under no circumstances do I believe science should somehow "stop" because the idea of God exists
For a science guy you JUMP to some near crazy conclusions...

And my point - that seems to baffle you - is that you're a recruiter just like Joe
And (2nd) the Scientific community will reap far larger rewards and sustain less injury and and less resistance when they simply respected peoples right to ask the question.
Slapping people down spitefully receives spiteful reactions and pretty soon you have a battle on your hands... where you did not before. It's called "making enemies"

I'm on your side - in agreement more than 95% of the way
But you would rather make an enemy of me than an ally
and that seems just odd to me
and this is what I've found throughout the more embattled portions of the scientific community.

Another really smart guy at NIF said once:
"A scientist who can't remain neutral on the subject of God becomes his own evangelist and pollutes the waters he swims in..."

You're well on your way...
Anyway: No worries we're obviously no enemies - I think you're damn entertaining
I'm just throwing ideas out there - all of which you will ignore

what century did Copernicus and Galileo live in? The scientific philosophy, if that is what you would like to call it, has changed since then. Heck, Isaac Newton, when he couldn't find an answer (I believe it was to the question of how the planets aligned) simply said "God did it"

The problem you face here is that your definition of God is so loose, that you don't realize the definition of God is. Any attempt to define God somewhat puts him at odds with reality (or at least every attempt I've seen). You can't say the concepts aren't at odds with each other, unless you define God as simple as deistic creator. Anything more than that, such as a tinkerer, at least scientifically concedes that certain events could not possibly happen on their own, and thus there is no reason to find an explanation for them occurring.....but when we find an explanation, that's just another thing that could work well on its own, without God. So, yes, I believe endorsing the concept of God in the scientific world is counter to science because science wants to learn things and find answers. When you have religion or a belief in God, you already have the answers, and so you're going to aim to prove your answers right, even though there is no rational basis to prove them. Every good scientist, in the realms of his scientific career, but not necessarily his personal life, is an agnostic atheist when approaching his work.

I'm sorry, but endorsing any theistic religion with "revealed truth" does in fact endorse the concept of answers "falling out of the sky," so I'm afraid there are plenty of adults (many of them brilliant thinkers), who at least "have a wit of sense about them" who endorse that concept.

You see, most of the scientific field does not talk about these things in public, for the sake of education. Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others were clear non-believers, but did not use the term atheist to describe themselves because they knew/know that that will turn away people from learning science and the truth.

It is not atheism that I promote, it's skepticism, and that's what scientists wish to promote as well, and that is what gets lost in the dialogue. It's very hard to believe someone is a true skeptic if they believe in a higher being of which no substantiated evidence exists other than what they try to look for, but ultimately isn't there. See: The ID crowd.

So yes, I am a "recruiter" because quite frankly I don't care about agnostics--I care about people who do have THE answer. You can postulate whatever you want but if there is no evidence to support your claims, I'm not going to believe you. I'm a firm believer that if you do away with religion, eventually belief in a theistic, interventionalist God goes away and you force everyone to actually try to make a better life for everyone else for their own sake. I'm not of the opinion that religion is the cause of all evil in the world, but I will say irrational, unsubstantiated dogmas of any kind are, whether they be political or religious, and it just so happens that religious dogma has become "excusable" when some of them cause harm......and just because some don't cause harm and do good, that that somehow makes up for it.

[Chizzang]

what century did Copernicus and Galileo live in? The scientific philosophy, if that is what you would like to call it, has changed since then. Heck, Isaac Newton, when he couldn't find an answer (I believe it was to the question of how the planets aligned) simply said "God did it"

The problem you face here is that your definition of God is so loose, that you don't realize the definition of God is. Any attempt to define God somewhat puts him at odds with reality (or at least every attempt I've seen). You can't say the concepts aren't at odds with each other, unless you define God as simple as deistic creator. Anything more than that, such as a tinkerer, at least scientifically concedes that certain events could not possibly happen on their own, and thus there is no reason to find an explanation for them occurring.....but when we find an explanation, that's just another thing that could work well on its own, without God. So, yes, I believe endorsing the concept of God in the scientific world is counter to science because science wants to learn things and find answers. When you have religion or a belief in God, you already have the answers, and so you're going to aim to prove your answers right, even though there is no rational basis to prove them. Every good scientist, in the realms of his scientific career, but not necessarily his personal life, is an agnostic atheist when approaching his work.

I'm sorry, but endorsing any theistic religion with "revealed truth" does in fact endorse the concept of answers "falling out of the sky," so I'm afraid there are plenty of adults (many of them brilliant thinkers), who at least "have a wit of sense about them" who endorse that concept.

You see, most of the scientific field does not talk about these things in public, for the sake of education. Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others were clear non-believers, but did not use the term atheist to describe themselves because they knew/know that that will turn away people from learning science and the truth.

It is not atheism that I promote, it's skepticism, and that's what scientists wish to promote as well, and that is what gets lost in the dialogue. It's very hard to believe someone is a true skeptic if they believe in a higher being of which no substantiated evidence exists other than what they try to look for, but ultimately isn't there. See: The ID crowd.

So yes, I am a "recruiter" because quite frankly I don't care about agnostics--I care about people who do have THE answer. You can postulate whatever you want but if there is no evidence to support your claims, I'm not going to believe you. I'm a firm believer that if you do away with religion, eventually belief in a theistic, interventionalist God goes away and you force everyone to actually try to make a better life for everyone else for their own sake. I'm not of the opinion that religion is the cause of all evil in the world, but I will say irrational, unsubstantiated dogmas of any kind are, whether they be political or religious, and it just so happens that religious dogma has become "excusable" when some of them cause harm......and just because some don't cause harm and do good, that that somehow makes up for it.

This is strong..!!!
I like this reply more than some of your other work - thank you
Unsubstantiated Dogmas and ritualistic mumbo jumbo isn't really my thing either but I am far more gentle with those who find themselves culturally entrapped and haven't "thought their way out" of the snare yet...

I grew up going to church - raised Episcopal
It can take years of neutral observation and painful introspection to extract ones self
and walking up and slapping somebody in the face with an argument they've heard before (science is the answer) and then not so gracefully announcing that they are obviously just stupid - kinda works against you...
I strive for a more gentle approach

But: Here's the zinger
I like the God answer - it makes me feel good - I like feeling good and feeling connected
I don't believe in the Santa Clause God or the tinker with our lives God
Just "God"
I guess The Prime Mover argument God
The thing that started the Thing I love saying that - Beyond that I require no further definition
Something started the thing that exploded and became everything - that's cool with me - it feels nice inside


God: it's just a feeling and I like it... I know that infuriates some but I have no Dogma or Rituals

[youngterrier]

what century did Copernicus and Galileo live in? The scientific philosophy, if that is what you would like to call it, has changed since then. Heck, Isaac Newton, when he couldn't find an answer (I believe it was to the question of how the planets aligned) simply said "God did it"

The problem you face here is that your definition of God is so loose, that you don't realize the definition of God is. Any attempt to define God somewhat puts him at odds with reality (or at least every attempt I've seen). You can't say the concepts aren't at odds with each other, unless you define God as simple as deistic creator. Anything more than that, such as a tinkerer, at least scientifically concedes that certain events could not possibly happen on their own, and thus there is no reason to find an explanation for them occurring.....but when we find an explanation, that's just another thing that could work well on its own, without God. So, yes, I believe endorsing the concept of God in the scientific world is counter to science because science wants to learn things and find answers. When you have religion or a belief in God, you already have the answers, and so you're going to aim to prove your answers right, even though there is no rational basis to prove them. Every good scientist, in the realms of his scientific career, but not necessarily his personal life, is an agnostic atheist when approaching his work.

I'm sorry, but endorsing any theistic religion with "revealed truth" does in fact endorse the concept of answers "falling out of the sky," so I'm afraid there are plenty of adults (many of them brilliant thinkers), who at least "have a wit of sense about them" who endorse that concept.

You see, most of the scientific field does not talk about these things in public, for the sake of education. Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others were clear non-believers, but did not use the term atheist to describe themselves because they knew/know that that will turn away people from learning science and the truth.

It is not atheism that I promote, it's skepticism, and that's what scientists wish to promote as well, and that is what gets lost in the dialogue. It's very hard to believe someone is a true skeptic if they believe in a higher being of which no substantiated evidence exists other than what they try to look for, but ultimately isn't there. See: The ID crowd.

So yes, I am a "recruiter" because quite frankly I don't care about agnostics--I care about people who do have THE answer. You can postulate whatever you want but if there is no evidence to support your claims, I'm not going to believe you. I'm a firm believer that if you do away with religion, eventually belief in a theistic, interventionalist God goes away and you force everyone to actually try to make a better life for everyone else for their own sake. I'm not of the opinion that religion is the cause of all evil in the world, but I will say irrational, unsubstantiated dogmas of any kind are, whether they be political or religious, and it just so happens that religious dogma has become "excusable" when some of them cause harm......and just because some don't cause harm and do good, that that somehow makes up for it.

This is strong..!!!
I like this reply more than some of your other work - thank you
Unsubstantiated Dogmas and ritualistic mumbo jumbo isn't really my thing either but I am far more gentle with those who find themselves culturally entrapped and haven't "thought their way out" of the snare yet...

I grew up going to church - raised Episcopal
It can take years of neutral observation and painful introspection to extract ones self
and walking up and slapping somebody in the face with an argument they've heard before (science is the answer) and then not so gracefully announcing that they are obviously just stupid - kinda works against you...
I strive for a more gentle approach

But: Here's the zinger
I like the God answer - it makes me feel good - I like feeling good and feeling connected
I don't believe in the Santa Clause God or the tinker with our lives God
Just "God"
I guess The Prime Mover argument God
The thing that started the Thing I love saying that - Beyond that I require no further definition
Something started the thing that exploded and became everything - that's cool with me - it feels nice inside


God: it's just a feeling and I like it... I know that infuriates some but I have no Dogma or Rituals

Hey, I don't hate people or think they are stupid for their beliefs, I understand that religion is culturally significant and widespread. It's just one aspect of people's lives that they don't question. In a sense they compartmentalize their skepticism. They'll gladly question any political claim, but when it comes to God.....not so much. People who follow religion aren't stupid, the beliefs are. Francis Collins, to name only one example, is probably one of the best biologists in the world and at the same time is an evangelical Christian. That doesn't give credence to Christianity, or the belief in God, just as the fact that non-believers are generally smarter does not give credence to there not being a God.

I won't go after someone for their beliefs or their right to have their beliefs, but you're damned straight I'm going to come after the philosophical implications of their beliefs. It's like hating conservative political philosophy, but not hating conservatives or thinking those who are conservative are stupid. It's a direct parallel. So, as for a gentle approach, I would consider the defense of homosexuals, non-believers of any certain religion, and the use of scientific facts as "gentle" (and that's only a few examples) because reality and the whole "let's treat people as equal" thing sounds nothing but gentle. JJ's favorite writer Christopher Hitchens put people off with the title of his book, but anyone who heard him speak on occasion would understand that his disdain was well founded in resentment of dogma and superstition, with further outrage at the immoral and unjust actions committed in the name of said dogma and superstition. I echo that sentiments, and won't ever apologize for it.

Belief in God just doesn't warrant attention unless it has tenets or dogma.

[alvin kayak]

Francis Collins is the head of the NIH. That doesn't mean he's a great biologist. It means he can carry a sword for Obama.

He wrote a book about God, so you know his name. Big whoop.