Holy shit. As if Louisiana weren't already bad enough.
Christopher HeddenJun 24, 2012Edit
If
those fools bothered to read the bible they would know that racism and
Christianity do not mix. And as far as I know, good old nessie is a
myth... but you don't need a real life plesiosaur to know that evolution
cannot be true. There is no actual evidence for macroevolution, only
microevolution within a species.
Yes,
lots of direct evidence for "microevolution" (e.g.,
antibiotic-resistant microbes), but I would say there is also evidence
for "macroevolution", both in the fossil record (e.g., evidence of
earlier human species) and the genetic record (e.g., genetic
similarities between humans and chimps).
But somehow, I get the feeling this is not an argument I can win with you, +Christopher Hedden...
But somehow, I get the feeling this is not an argument I can win with you, +Christopher Hedden...
Christopher HeddenJun 24, 2012Edit
you
can if you have evidence. as far as I know the fossil record does not
add up to the working evolutionist theory. so you have that to prove.
Also you have to prove or at least suggest a plausible theory for the
beginning of life on this planet. no one has ever been able to do that
for me.
but hey I'm willing to listen if you are willing to talk about it.
but hey I'm willing to listen if you are willing to talk about it.
+1
Really, +Christopher Hedden, are you ready for this?
It's gonna be long, and in places technical, but here we go.
We start with the problem of Scientific Induction, which proves (and, as you'll see as we go along that I do not use the word "prove" lightly) that scientific theories cannot be proved correct. They can only be proved incorrect. Take Newtonian Mechanics. It was good enough to land us on the moon, but it is wrong. Einsteinian Mechanics provides a better account. But it cannot be proved correct, because no matter how many examples we have of confirmations of its predictions, it could always happen that tomorrow we will observe a disconfirmation.
It is for this reason that the word "theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in the lay community. To a scientist, a theory is a framework that makes a complex pattern of data understandable. We all know that tomorrow it may be proved wrong, but if it is a good theory, it makes a lot of observations understandable. (To a layperson, a "theory" is just a crackpot idea. And that is how the Christian community views the "theory" of Evolution. But that is due to ignorance and propaganda.)
Evolution is a "theory" of the scientific kind (not the lay kind), and as such has proved unimaginably useful as an explanatory framework within biology.
"Where is the evidence?" you ask. You ask that because you do not understand the meaning of "evidence". The "evidence" is nothing less than the success of modern medicine and biology. The theory may be wrong. It is subject to the limits of scientific induction, after all. And indeed, since Darwin died, we have discovered forms of evolution he never imagined. So, in that sense, I suppose you could say he was wrong. But as best we can tell as a science, his ideas were only incomplete; not wrong in the sense of being inconsistent with the data.
Now, you tell me what evidence you have in support of "intelligent design".
It's gonna be long, and in places technical, but here we go.
We start with the problem of Scientific Induction, which proves (and, as you'll see as we go along that I do not use the word "prove" lightly) that scientific theories cannot be proved correct. They can only be proved incorrect. Take Newtonian Mechanics. It was good enough to land us on the moon, but it is wrong. Einsteinian Mechanics provides a better account. But it cannot be proved correct, because no matter how many examples we have of confirmations of its predictions, it could always happen that tomorrow we will observe a disconfirmation.
It is for this reason that the word "theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in the lay community. To a scientist, a theory is a framework that makes a complex pattern of data understandable. We all know that tomorrow it may be proved wrong, but if it is a good theory, it makes a lot of observations understandable. (To a layperson, a "theory" is just a crackpot idea. And that is how the Christian community views the "theory" of Evolution. But that is due to ignorance and propaganda.)
Evolution is a "theory" of the scientific kind (not the lay kind), and as such has proved unimaginably useful as an explanatory framework within biology.
"Where is the evidence?" you ask. You ask that because you do not understand the meaning of "evidence". The "evidence" is nothing less than the success of modern medicine and biology. The theory may be wrong. It is subject to the limits of scientific induction, after all. And indeed, since Darwin died, we have discovered forms of evolution he never imagined. So, in that sense, I suppose you could say he was wrong. But as best we can tell as a science, his ideas were only incomplete; not wrong in the sense of being inconsistent with the data.
Now, you tell me what evidence you have in support of "intelligent design".
+2
I
enjoy the effort they put into disproving evolution. I am awestruck at
their ability to find holes in a science they've never studied. At that
level of genius, one would think the logistics behind the ark story
would come into question. I can't imagine how Noah managed the global
redistribution.
Christopher HeddenJun 24, 2012Edit
i'm so sorry. I really am. please have patience I am in the middle of a conversation.
+2
Yes, it is simultaneously entertaining and horrifying.
I have quite a bit of patience, +Christopher Hedden.
+2
I
back off when they conceit to "I just believe." I don't have a problem
with that. When they start trying to discredit science while supporting a
fairy tale that has zero evidence behind it, I call BS.
+1
I tend to do the same, but I think it's a mistake. Or, at least sometimes a mistake. (Perhaps most of the time, it's wise just to drop the subject.)
But my recent experience with +Christopher Hedden was an awesome counterexample, because he asked me for evidence. That is, bless his heart, rather than just saying "I have faith", he had the guts to challenge me on my own turf. I have to respect that. I think I kicked his ass, as evidenced that he has not answered my challenge, but I respect that he took that on, rather than resorting to the "faith" thing.
But my recent experience with +Christopher Hedden was an awesome counterexample, because he asked me for evidence. That is, bless his heart, rather than just saying "I have faith", he had the guts to challenge me on my own turf. I have to respect that. I think I kicked his ass, as evidenced that he has not answered my challenge, but I respect that he took that on, rather than resorting to the "faith" thing.
+1
I
wouldn't extend the respect until he responds. They always ask for
evidence. They come back with some rare (as of yet)
unexplained phenomena and claim it proves your wrong. If he listens to
your evidence and chooses to look into it further, Ill be floored. I'll
also extend that respect, but not a moment sooner.
Fair enough. I'll wait till he responds. Then we'll both get to see. (IF he responds.)
Christopher HeddenYesterday 12:10 AMEdit
Collapse this comment
As
far as theories go- they are part the scientific method as far as I am
concerned. hypothesis is interchangeable with theory. and I understand
your issue with definitions. but the problem you are having with the
"layman" is that you are not proving things satisfactory to HIS results.
Why do you complain about people lacking the understanding that you
have, when you refuse to discuss things in terms that are universally
accepted.
So based on MY understanding of what a theory is (hypothesis) evolution doesn't have enough physical real world evidence to support the claim. sure, there are a TON of similarities between animals. Enough so that the logical conclusion is common ancestry. The problem with this idea is that it is logical reasoning only. Where is the evidence? we should have our missing links in the form of fossils right? where are they? as far as I know (feel free to prove me wrong)
every missing link in evolutionary stages between any species has been found as a fraudulent claim. Especially the missing link between man and ape. and really this is the only important one- because who is going to care about the common ancestry between the giraffe and a horse. Where is the proof in the fossil record. Please show me.
As far as a workable theory (hypothesis) for the beginning of life on earth... your community is so full of mismatched ideas. And look at the pain of arguing with this kind of reasoning. I have to chase down as many concepts as anyone can imagine to disprove them.
Miller–Urey experiment failed completely because we know that our atmosphere never contained the same environment that created amino acids. and once this is found out, the evolutionists scramble- to find any plausible (or at least unprovably plausible) idea.
On The Backs of Crystals - Michael Ruse, Expelled
(I will have you note that this guy certainly likes to use the word theory like the layman)
and do me a favor don't take this video as an insult. don't let your pride be damaged. Instead recognize this type on incongruent thinking as a problem. As with any hypothesis used in the scientific method, we must be able to perform an experiment and be able to repeat the results. It is impossible for us to use these theories because they require just as much faith as intelligent design.
As far as intelligent design goes. The proof of a creator comes easily when we examine the universe through cause and effect. what created the universe as we know it- the big bang. what created the big bang- (insert answer) what created that (insert answer) and on and on. eventually you come to the conclusion that there had to have been an "unnatural" origin. unless you would like to go on imagining things in a backwards and infinite fashion until you die.
As far as religion goes. I cannot prove that Christianity is correct. I can prove to a certain logical extent that other religions are incorrect- as they do not coincide with a factual basis in reality. there are things that are obviously incorrect in the koran (adam was supposedly 90 feet tall etc). reincarnation is a mathematical impossibility and so on and so forth. but I challenge you to find a verse in the old testament that conflicts with the scientific facts (not theories) that we know about our world. and heres a perfectly reasonable stipulation- they must be illogical statements about the facts. there are certainly metaphorical ideas that are not meant to be interpreted as facts. and keep in mind that the old testament was written in Hebrew.
I tell you to look into the old testament (first five books, or the torah) because the new testament, while certainly important to christianity is not strictly speaking "the word of god". The new testament to me at least is more or less individual diaries that chronicle the ministry of jesus. these passages were not divinely inspired, as the old testament claims to be.
but hey, find me that fossil of the missing link, or create a valid experiment (to our earth) that explains the existence of amino acids. those are the things that I and most people will require to think about evolution as a fact.
Science is not the realm of unreasoned faith, and I hate it when you claim things that require faith- and still have the nerve to claim yourselves reasoned individuals. You are committing the same "sin"
So based on MY understanding of what a theory is (hypothesis) evolution doesn't have enough physical real world evidence to support the claim. sure, there are a TON of similarities between animals. Enough so that the logical conclusion is common ancestry. The problem with this idea is that it is logical reasoning only. Where is the evidence? we should have our missing links in the form of fossils right? where are they? as far as I know (feel free to prove me wrong)
every missing link in evolutionary stages between any species has been found as a fraudulent claim. Especially the missing link between man and ape. and really this is the only important one- because who is going to care about the common ancestry between the giraffe and a horse. Where is the proof in the fossil record. Please show me.
As far as a workable theory (hypothesis) for the beginning of life on earth... your community is so full of mismatched ideas. And look at the pain of arguing with this kind of reasoning. I have to chase down as many concepts as anyone can imagine to disprove them.
Miller–Urey experiment failed completely because we know that our atmosphere never contained the same environment that created amino acids. and once this is found out, the evolutionists scramble- to find any plausible (or at least unprovably plausible) idea.
On The Backs of Crystals - Michael Ruse, Expelled
(I will have you note that this guy certainly likes to use the word theory like the layman)
and do me a favor don't take this video as an insult. don't let your pride be damaged. Instead recognize this type on incongruent thinking as a problem. As with any hypothesis used in the scientific method, we must be able to perform an experiment and be able to repeat the results. It is impossible for us to use these theories because they require just as much faith as intelligent design.
As far as intelligent design goes. The proof of a creator comes easily when we examine the universe through cause and effect. what created the universe as we know it- the big bang. what created the big bang- (insert answer) what created that (insert answer) and on and on. eventually you come to the conclusion that there had to have been an "unnatural" origin. unless you would like to go on imagining things in a backwards and infinite fashion until you die.
As far as religion goes. I cannot prove that Christianity is correct. I can prove to a certain logical extent that other religions are incorrect- as they do not coincide with a factual basis in reality. there are things that are obviously incorrect in the koran (adam was supposedly 90 feet tall etc). reincarnation is a mathematical impossibility and so on and so forth. but I challenge you to find a verse in the old testament that conflicts with the scientific facts (not theories) that we know about our world. and heres a perfectly reasonable stipulation- they must be illogical statements about the facts. there are certainly metaphorical ideas that are not meant to be interpreted as facts. and keep in mind that the old testament was written in Hebrew.
I tell you to look into the old testament (first five books, or the torah) because the new testament, while certainly important to christianity is not strictly speaking "the word of god". The new testament to me at least is more or less individual diaries that chronicle the ministry of jesus. these passages were not divinely inspired, as the old testament claims to be.
but hey, find me that fossil of the missing link, or create a valid experiment (to our earth) that explains the existence of amino acids. those are the things that I and most people will require to think about evolution as a fact.
Science is not the realm of unreasoned faith, and I hate it when you claim things that require faith- and still have the nerve to claim yourselves reasoned individuals. You are committing the same "sin"
Craig LeeYesterday 11:49 AM
Collapse this comment
+2
See I told you so. lol +Christopher Hedden is
making the same argument that was made when the Earth was discovered as
not the center of the universe or that it was not supported by turtles,
or it was round, or it was older than 6,000 years. We don't have
"sufficient" evidence. Anything Science disclaims with irrefutable
evidence is then immediately dismissed as nothing more than a metaphor.
If the book is gods word then why is it turning into nothing more than a
book of metaphors?
The religious argument: 1. Not enough evidence 2. That did happen but god had a hand in it. 3. Anything in my book that is outlandish today is now a metaphor.
How many times has science reversed a theory and said god was a better theory? How many times has the word of god been reduced to a metaphor because science disproved it? There are people still milling around Mt. Cyanide looking for the wreck of the ark. Ridiculous!
The religious argument: 1. Not enough evidence 2. That did happen but god had a hand in it. 3. Anything in my book that is outlandish today is now a metaphor.
How many times has science reversed a theory and said god was a better theory? How many times has the word of god been reduced to a metaphor because science disproved it? There are people still milling around Mt. Cyanide looking for the wreck of the ark. Ridiculous!
Christopher HeddenYesterday 11:52 AMEdit
lol, I never said that evolution happened but god did it. respond to what I wrote you nerd.
Craig LeeYesterday 11:56 AM
+1
And
then the good christen resorts to name calling. Typical. I'm done, the
evidence is all written down and more is added everyday. I wont waste
anymore time with a name calling irrational person. Now you can use your
last line and tell me where I'm going. Good day sir.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 12:03 PMEdit
never
claimed to be a good christian stop backing away when it becomes easy. I
asked you to prove a few things. these things would be accepted for the
basis of proof if it were any other feild of study. you are just as
emotionally invested as any christian. don't be that way. be objective.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 12:12 PMEdit
btw.
you can't prove that the earth isn't the center of the universe (it
most likely isn't) and the bible never claims that the earth is 6
thousand years old (there is no timeline for the garden of eden). you
are not dealing with someone who accepted everything that they have been
force fed. I have been objective about everything, which is why I think
arguing the matter is still worth it, because truth matters more than
faith.
John HummelYesterday 3:13 PM
Collapse this comment
+1
+Christopher Hedden it
is a huge mistake (a common one, but nonetheless huge) to equate
"theory" with "hypothesis". A theory is an explanatory framework. A
hypothesis is a specific prediction or idea about how one, or at most a
few, particular observations might turn out and why. Theories give rise
to hypotheses; they are not equivalent.
It is a property of logic that theories can never be "proved" correct; the best you can do is disprove them. This fact it so well known (among scientists), and so important, that it even has a name: The Problem of Induction (or sometimes The Problem of Scientific Induction).
If you disbelieve something just because it cannot be "proven" then you must literally disbelieve everything (with the posible exception of mathematics and logic; and even mathematics cannot be deductively proved to have anything to do with numbers, but that's a long and complicated story). We cannot even "prove" that gravity will exist 10 seconds from now. So maybe you should doubt gravity, too.
It is a property of logic that theories can never be "proved" correct; the best you can do is disprove them. This fact it so well known (among scientists), and so important, that it even has a name: The Problem of Induction (or sometimes The Problem of Scientific Induction).
If you disbelieve something just because it cannot be "proven" then you must literally disbelieve everything (with the posible exception of mathematics and logic; and even mathematics cannot be deductively proved to have anything to do with numbers, but that's a long and complicated story). We cannot even "prove" that gravity will exist 10 seconds from now. So maybe you should doubt gravity, too.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 3:40 PMEdit
Collapse this comment
Well
there are things that can be proved empirically with logic only. These
things are irrefutable truths and I value them highly. and since we CAN
know some things as complete truths... in relation we can know certain
things that are not true. Completely true and false answers built on the
basic foundations for knowledge.
Like I said, I cannot prove christianity on this basis. but I have not been able to disprove it either (based on irrefutable truth, or universally accepted knowledge... gravity does exist, this is universally accepted.). if you would like to disprove christianity BASED on evolution, then you must be able to empirically prove evolution with logic and universally accepted facts.
christianity is a i/1, unprovable in the first category because it has no basis for irrefutable truth with logic only. At the same time as far as I know, the bible does not conflict with ideas that are universally accepted. yes, some of the ideas are outlandish, (Noah's Ark) but I have never read anything that conflicts DIRECTLY with science.
Evolution on the other hand is a 1/i. it makes completely and perfect logical sense to assume that all life started out as one single organism (miraculous mathmatical odds although they may be) and then through mutation and natural selection we arrive at speciation. The problem is that this logic is not backed with facts that are empirically observable. we can only observe evolution with enhanced perception, or faith. Give me the evidence to make a 1/1 for the case for evolution. Or make the case for christianity a 0/0. Do both if you can.
Like I said, I cannot prove christianity on this basis. but I have not been able to disprove it either (based on irrefutable truth, or universally accepted knowledge... gravity does exist, this is universally accepted.). if you would like to disprove christianity BASED on evolution, then you must be able to empirically prove evolution with logic and universally accepted facts.
christianity is a i/1, unprovable in the first category because it has no basis for irrefutable truth with logic only. At the same time as far as I know, the bible does not conflict with ideas that are universally accepted. yes, some of the ideas are outlandish, (Noah's Ark) but I have never read anything that conflicts DIRECTLY with science.
Evolution on the other hand is a 1/i. it makes completely and perfect logical sense to assume that all life started out as one single organism (miraculous mathmatical odds although they may be) and then through mutation and natural selection we arrive at speciation. The problem is that this logic is not backed with facts that are empirically observable. we can only observe evolution with enhanced perception, or faith. Give me the evidence to make a 1/1 for the case for evolution. Or make the case for christianity a 0/0. Do both if you can.
Craig LeeYesterday 4:04 PM (edited)
+Christopher Hedden you
already admitted intellectual defeat. I wear the badge of nerd with
honor. Thank you and again good day sir. Oh and even the pope has
conceited that evolution is the truth, but he adds, god had a hand in
it. You're also arguing with the pope.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 4:04 PMEdit
if
you say so, have a good day. I think john has enough intestinal
fortitude to hash this out with me. you seem to be under the impression
that this is a win and lose scenario. where as I think that not having
the discussion is a lose lose scenario. Bye nerd, you are welcome.
Craig LeeYesterday 4:07 PM
You're
arguing the definition of a theory vs hypothesis. Hardly an
intellectually stimulating conversation. These are also well defined
terms.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 4:09 PMEdit
like
I said, you are struggling against the laymans definitions. argue in
the terms of your opponent if you really think your opinion is worth it.
I'm not here to talk about argument etiquette, I want an adult
discussion about ideas... what does it matter how I express myself?
Christopher HeddenYesterday 4:14 PMEdit
nerd
is a term of endearment, it was an honest impulse, no offense was
intended. besides you used it as an excuse to deny the validity of the
argument. what a weak position, willing to give up having the discussion
at the first sign of "valid excuse". leave the argument to john, he
seems to be engaged and unlikely to be offended. or, "forgive" my
intrusion onto your pride and start giving me the evidence I asked for-
in either direction.
Craig LeeYesterday 4:15 PM
+1
Your
one minute video discusses the question of "How do we get life from
nothing." If you hold to the theory of everything comes from something,
then you have to ask where god comes from. Did he or it come from
nothing? This is referred to as the "turtles all the way down problem".
Science has recently discovered that stuff does come from nothing. Also
that nothing has weight.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 5:23 PM (edited)Edit
Collapse this comment
what
science has evidence of, is that something came from no understandable
process. you cannot prove that virtual particles are not the end result
from some unknown cause.
and its not my video, but I understand your point. the documentary plays to the crowd, like every documentary it is meant to play on the fears and pride of the audience, so while it is biased to the creationist perspective I was raising a valid point about incongruent thinking in the science community.
and as far as my argument for creation not being able to exist in a cause and effect fashion in an infinite backwards direction, it is meant to help grasp the nature of a being (god) outside of time, with no relation to the cause and effect rule that everything we know (at least thus far) is subject to.
and if you are able to prove that matter can spontaneously exist, without cause... you have to ask about the dimensions which matter exists in.
btw, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the big bang theory support that time had to exist before the expansion of the extremely compressed matter? something to do with the gravity affecting spacetime and thus the ability for anything to move?
and its not my video, but I understand your point. the documentary plays to the crowd, like every documentary it is meant to play on the fears and pride of the audience, so while it is biased to the creationist perspective I was raising a valid point about incongruent thinking in the science community.
and as far as my argument for creation not being able to exist in a cause and effect fashion in an infinite backwards direction, it is meant to help grasp the nature of a being (god) outside of time, with no relation to the cause and effect rule that everything we know (at least thus far) is subject to.
and if you are able to prove that matter can spontaneously exist, without cause... you have to ask about the dimensions which matter exists in.
btw, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the big bang theory support that time had to exist before the expansion of the extremely compressed matter? something to do with the gravity affecting spacetime and thus the ability for anything to move?
Craig LeeYesterday 4:31 PM
Collapse this comment
+1
Science
is working on the problem through quantum physics. The hadron collider
is unraveling the mysteries of the universe every day now. My problem
with religion is that for 2000 years it has tried with great passion to
stifle progress. It has placed scientists under arrest and called for
their deaths. If religion was left unchecked we would still be in the
bronze age.
You would probably agree the bible does not contain scientific facts. It is a collection of stories written hundreds of years after the claimed death of christ. The translations are a moot issue as it is written ancient Hebrew. I have to question why the religious are so offended by science. Science isn't trying to disprove the bible. That is a side effect, but not its goal. Why can't religion let people unlock the secrets of the universe without intervening? The only solution to that question, that I can comprehend, is they have something to hide. Religion is a very profitable business.,
You would probably agree the bible does not contain scientific facts. It is a collection of stories written hundreds of years after the claimed death of christ. The translations are a moot issue as it is written ancient Hebrew. I have to question why the religious are so offended by science. Science isn't trying to disprove the bible. That is a side effect, but not its goal. Why can't religion let people unlock the secrets of the universe without intervening? The only solution to that question, that I can comprehend, is they have something to hide. Religion is a very profitable business.,
Craig LeeYesterday 4:50 PM
Collapse this comment
+1
I
think your science is a little dated Christopher. As is mine, I'll
admit, I don't have a direct line to Bill Nye the Science guy. The big
bang theory is the accepted theory, but you'd be hard pressed to now
find a scientist who believes there was nothing before the bang. One
theory they are working on is that the universe is forever expanding and
contracting. Every solar system has a black hole in it. Black holes
consume everything. In Hawkings latest book, he has found some evidence
that suggests that the big bang may have came from a black hole that
filled up until it imploded in on itself. Keep in mind I haven't read
his latest book yet, and this is extremely simplified information as I
understand it.
In summary, I would agree with you that time did exist before the big bang. I would say that it is beyond our understanding at the moment, but I have confidence we will find the answer (hopefully in my lifetime but I'm not holding my breath). I accept that cause and effect shows we don't have all the answers yet. However, if you hold science to cause and effect you must also hold god to the same laws of physics and that means something came before god. Call it what you may, the chicken or the egg, or turtles all the way down.
In summary, I would agree with you that time did exist before the big bang. I would say that it is beyond our understanding at the moment, but I have confidence we will find the answer (hopefully in my lifetime but I'm not holding my breath). I accept that cause and effect shows we don't have all the answers yet. However, if you hold science to cause and effect you must also hold god to the same laws of physics and that means something came before god. Call it what you may, the chicken or the egg, or turtles all the way down.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 4:59 PM (edited)Edit
Collapse this comment
I
have no problem with science, progress in the realm of ideas makes
civilization what it is- like you said. As far as the bible being
written a few hundred years after the death of christ... it was
reorganized by the institution of the church and some things were
removed from it, because they lacked the qualities that all of the other
books included. this is a matter for scholars, people who study the
languages and origins... is that what you were referring to?
if not I suggest you read a bit more on the origin of the old testament. The book aligns with history extremely well. it does not CONFLICT with scientific fact, and for such an old work, if it were fiction and a human creation, I believe you would find some serious flaws in it. The Qur'an has some serious issues when it comes to science, and it is extremely old. reincarnation is a mathematical impossibility, and this rules out buddhism and hinduism. but as far as ancient texts go, there still are not any conflicts within it that I am aware of.
this is impressive, because if it were a human creation, the writer would have to write stories that never conflicted with knowledge he never had.
yes there are divine miracles, that neither of us have any proof for, in either direction. but there are no outlandish claims that go against what we know- for certain. here's an example of what I am talking about.
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#external
from this we can easily understand that the quran is a man made fiction, where as the bible still does not conflict. It is an i/1
religious fanatics are threatened because of human nature, we act irrationally in the face of things that counter or engage our pride, fear or pleasure. they perceive science as a threat, as you do religion. I percieve the lack of truth as a threat. which should explain my motivation.
yeah, religion is profitable, and it disgusts me that people who are supposedly more morally altruistic, might just be predators on the weak minded. but that does not deter me from it, it just makes me watchful of who I listen to.
there is a great counter argument for a scientifically driven society, but I have rambled on for too long and it is your turn to address the misconceptions I may have, or attack from a different angle.
if not I suggest you read a bit more on the origin of the old testament. The book aligns with history extremely well. it does not CONFLICT with scientific fact, and for such an old work, if it were fiction and a human creation, I believe you would find some serious flaws in it. The Qur'an has some serious issues when it comes to science, and it is extremely old. reincarnation is a mathematical impossibility, and this rules out buddhism and hinduism. but as far as ancient texts go, there still are not any conflicts within it that I am aware of.
this is impressive, because if it were a human creation, the writer would have to write stories that never conflicted with knowledge he never had.
yes there are divine miracles, that neither of us have any proof for, in either direction. but there are no outlandish claims that go against what we know- for certain. here's an example of what I am talking about.
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#external
from this we can easily understand that the quran is a man made fiction, where as the bible still does not conflict. It is an i/1
religious fanatics are threatened because of human nature, we act irrationally in the face of things that counter or engage our pride, fear or pleasure. they perceive science as a threat, as you do religion. I percieve the lack of truth as a threat. which should explain my motivation.
yeah, religion is profitable, and it disgusts me that people who are supposedly more morally altruistic, might just be predators on the weak minded. but that does not deter me from it, it just makes me watchful of who I listen to.
there is a great counter argument for a scientifically driven society, but I have rambled on for too long and it is your turn to address the misconceptions I may have, or attack from a different angle.
John HummelYesterday 4:59 PM
+1
+Christopher Hedden It is not my goal to disprove christianity based on anything. Christianity is not falsifiable -- i.e., it is not provably
wrong, except in some details. (By the way, do not mistake the
statement that christianity is unfalsifiable as stating a strength of
christianity; a theory that is unfalsifiable is worthless.) It is you,
not I, who is looking for proof here.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:02 PM
+1
Ill
answer as I read your response. 1st paragraph, yes that is what I was
referring too. 2nd No serious flaws in the old testament. How about
talking snakes. Mass incest as we all come from two people. People
having hundreds of children.
Jay FillebrownYesterday 5:05 PM
+1
This
post has gotten a little off the topic, but I appreciate the honest and
open discussion without the personal attacks. And I say nerd is only an
insult if you allow it to be.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:07 PM
The
Koran is largely stolen from the christian bible and embellished upon.
As was the christian bible stolen from older religions, too many to
list. "the writer would have to write stories that never conflicted
with knowledge he never had." I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:12 PM
The
church claims 62 miracles, all of which can be dismissed as
coincidence. God has never healed a severed limb. When a cancer goes
into remission when it is thought it won't, you can call that a miracle
and it may feel like one but it doesn't mean there was a divine
intervention.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 5:19 PMEdit
the
church or the bible claims 62? like I said, i'm not concerned with
individual accounts of divinity (paraphrasing) the human perception is
usually flawed in some way or another. I am concerned with the validity
of the old testament, and if it remains uncountered you won't convince
me of anything. or attack the problem from the other direction and give
me empirical evidence of speciation.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:20 PM
+1
I
don't perceive religion as a threat. It is a threat. Take for example
the fight to teach creationism in schools. How is that not a threat? Or
the many cases where religion has gone on crusades and witch hunts.
Atheists to my knowledge have never gone on a christian hunt. Muslims
have gone as far as to call for the deaths of writers and cartoonists.
We are all threatened by religion. You and me alike.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 5:36 PMEdit
Collapse this comment
I believe that religion brings with it morality, another basis for civilization. look at the eugenics movement in the 1920's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
we were killing people, based on the idea of creating a better species. this is an obvious spawn from darwinism. and while you can claim that it was wrong all you want, you have no idea how your children's children will respond to the ideas that you are enforcing. I am willing to bet that we have not learned our lesson yet on that front.
when you get someone to abandon the church, because you believe that you have evidence, really what you are doing is supporting ideology that cannot yet support society on its own. So I have a valid claim in perceiving the threat you present.
religion is not a threat, at least in America. so what if the youth are indoctrinated with supposed "fairy tales" while they are young. when you say that this behavior is threatening really, you are just exclaiming that you don't believe your position is well enough supported to withstand the argument.
and yes, sadly i understand that evil will always be done in the name of god, you cannot say that is has not been done in the name of science either. really the statement should be that human beings act despicably, and will use any cause to justify it.
The muslim nation is a geopolitical movement as far as I am concerned, and it does pose a threat to society. at the point when the balance of voters in this country are majority muslim, we will cease to be a nation. but that is neither here nor there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
we were killing people, based on the idea of creating a better species. this is an obvious spawn from darwinism. and while you can claim that it was wrong all you want, you have no idea how your children's children will respond to the ideas that you are enforcing. I am willing to bet that we have not learned our lesson yet on that front.
when you get someone to abandon the church, because you believe that you have evidence, really what you are doing is supporting ideology that cannot yet support society on its own. So I have a valid claim in perceiving the threat you present.
religion is not a threat, at least in America. so what if the youth are indoctrinated with supposed "fairy tales" while they are young. when you say that this behavior is threatening really, you are just exclaiming that you don't believe your position is well enough supported to withstand the argument.
and yes, sadly i understand that evil will always be done in the name of god, you cannot say that is has not been done in the name of science either. really the statement should be that human beings act despicably, and will use any cause to justify it.
The muslim nation is a geopolitical movement as far as I am concerned, and it does pose a threat to society. at the point when the balance of voters in this country are majority muslim, we will cease to be a nation. but that is neither here nor there.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:38 PM
Who
wrote the old testament? Anonymous authors wrote the old testament. It
was common practice to attach a famous name to a piece to give it merit.
It was said moses wrote the first series of books. Scholars will mostly
agree it was a collection of anonymous authors. The writing styles are
too different. The same stories have been told long
before Christianity came along. Virgin birth, born on 25th of Dec. the
death and resurrection etc..
Christopher HeddenYesterday 5:43 PMEdit
the
torah (first five books) were supposedly given to moses by god. if the
torah is in error, then god must be. if there are no conflicts, then you
have an author who was either extremely lucky, or the author had an
advanced understanding of how things worked. please stop making me say
this over and over.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:44 PM
What if it was an indoctrination of children to the muslim religion? Is that okay? How about Hindu?
Craig LeeYesterday 5:45 PM
Torah
is known to be a written work as admitted by your own scholars. Do you
mean to tell me god changed up his writing style as he went along?
Christopher HeddenYesterday 5:49 PMEdit
Doesn't
matter to me, I can disprove enough of those religions to make people
question the basis for truth. truth is what matters.
Craig LeeYesterday 5:55 PM
I'd agree with that statement. With one spelling correction those all religions.
John HummelYesterday 5:59 PM (edited)
+1
+Christopher Hedden As a statistical statement, you may be surprised to learn that, on average, atheists are more
ethical, by various measures, than religious folk. And the reason is
not hard to understand: On average, atheists are more like to be
well-educated and progressive in their views. So your claim that
"religion provides morality" is empirically false. Religion tries
to dictate morality, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for a
person to have it. And again, statistically, you are better off not
having religion if your goal is to be moral.
Craig LeeYesterday 6:00 PM
+2
Christianity
brings morality? Christianity has only existed for the last 2000 years.
People have inhabited the Earth for at least 100,000 years, and yes
fossil evidence does support that claim and suggests possible 250k
years. How did we manage to survive that long without morals?
Craig LeeYesterday 6:01 PM
+1
+John Hummel I think a ditto would have sufficed. I just read the morality claim. I missed that one in my rant.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 6:08 PMEdit
I
believe that religion brings with it morality, another basis for
civilization. stop misquoting me please. it serves no purpose
Craig LeeYesterday 6:12 PM
+2
Whether
Christianity "brings morality" or "brings with it morality", doesn't
matter. The point I made was morality exists with or without
Christianity.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 6:13 PMEdit
Do you conclude the correlation between morality and the success of society?
John HummelYesterday 6:15 PM
+2
Yes, I believe there is a relation. Given that, and given what I told you earlier about atheists being more moral, the conclusion is that society would be better without religion.
Christopher HeddenYesterday 6:22 PMEdit
Collapse this comment
yes
but that correlation exists between intelligence and education- not a
lack of belief. not all are inclined to be as educated as you are. are
you accounting for all of the people who cannot afford (either by
natural ability or financial means) your level of intelligence and
education. regardless of provable or unprovable truth- religion still
plays a vital role. I do not see how naturalism and evolution are
prepared to fill the shoes for the masses, if you will. see my point?
think its irrational?
still, you have yet to disprove or prove anything to me. we have spent so much time skirting the issues that I need to be addressed. it feels like all i'm doing is defending non issues.
i'm taking a break from this for a while. please save whatever arguments you have for later, because I don't want a gigantic workload when I am ready to come back to it.
thanks, have a good night
still, you have yet to disprove or prove anything to me. we have spent so much time skirting the issues that I need to be addressed. it feels like all i'm doing is defending non issues.
i'm taking a break from this for a while. please save whatever arguments you have for later, because I don't want a gigantic workload when I am ready to come back to it.
thanks, have a good night
Craig LeeYesterday 7:24 PM
Collapse this comment
+1
Your two questions:
1. "The fossil record does not add up to the working evolutionist theory" show me a fossil.
A: You have outdated science that suggests we went from an ape to man and we are missing fossils from these changes. You said "There is no actual evidence for macroevolution [sic]." We have fossil evidence that demonstrates all of the stages of macro evolution in dinosaurs. We have more evidence than I can write so I'll refer you here to get up to speed: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
2. "Suggest a plausible theory for the beginning of life on this planet."
A: We don't know yet. The hypothesis being scrutinized right now is a molecule, that is simple enough to be created by the processes and elements present on a young Earth, but complex enough to be susceptible to Darwinian evolution.
There is my answer. I feel this is a better explanation than anything religion has given us. Religion will continue to use the "god did it" one answer fits all solution that we atheists refer to as the "god of the gaps". The news is both good and bad depending on which side you stand, but science is quickly filling those gaps my friend, believe it or not.
1. "The fossil record does not add up to the working evolutionist theory" show me a fossil.
A: You have outdated science that suggests we went from an ape to man and we are missing fossils from these changes. You said "There is no actual evidence for macroevolution [sic]." We have fossil evidence that demonstrates all of the stages of macro evolution in dinosaurs. We have more evidence than I can write so I'll refer you here to get up to speed: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
2. "Suggest a plausible theory for the beginning of life on this planet."
A: We don't know yet. The hypothesis being scrutinized right now is a molecule, that is simple enough to be created by the processes and elements present on a young Earth, but complex enough to be susceptible to Darwinian evolution.
There is my answer. I feel this is a better explanation than anything religion has given us. Religion will continue to use the "god did it" one answer fits all solution that we atheists refer to as the "god of the gaps". The news is both good and bad depending on which side you stand, but science is quickly filling those gaps my friend, believe it or not.
John HummelYesterday 9:01 PM
Collapse this comment
+1
+Christopher Hedden You
could (should) have skewered me on a much more fundamental point: I (1)
agreed that better morals lead to better society (your thesis), (2)
noted a correlation between atheism and better morals, and from that (3)
concluded that societies would be better off without religion.
While I happen to believe my conclusion is correct, the logic I used to justify it is flawed. Specifically, the leap from (2) to (3) assumes that the correlation stated in (2) implies a causal relation (as in "atheism causes people to have better morals"). But (3) only follows form (1) and (2) if this causal relation is assumed. And the data I cited to support (2) do not imply a causal relation. On the contrary, I explained the relation in correlational terms (e.g., "better educated people tend to be atheist", as in being better educated causes both atheism and better moral behavior. Conclusion: Atheism is an effect of the same thing that causes moral behavior [i.e., better education], but does not, itself, cause moral behavior.)
The point: I used flawed logic against you and you didn't even notice. Don't try to engage a (good) scientist in a logical debate about about science unless you're really prepared to defend your own logic and understand your opponent's.
Here is my advice to you (honestly, I'm trying to help you out here, against my own better judgment): You will never convince any scientist (or, for that matter, any thinking person who understands logic) of your case by starting with "evolution hasn't been proved." Dude, we scientists know that gravity hasn't been "proved", so we are unimpressed with the claim that "evolution has not been proved." It just tells us you're a rube who knows noting about science or logic.
If you wanna make your case, you gotta start from a different angle. What angle? Can't help you there.
While I happen to believe my conclusion is correct, the logic I used to justify it is flawed. Specifically, the leap from (2) to (3) assumes that the correlation stated in (2) implies a causal relation (as in "atheism causes people to have better morals"). But (3) only follows form (1) and (2) if this causal relation is assumed. And the data I cited to support (2) do not imply a causal relation. On the contrary, I explained the relation in correlational terms (e.g., "better educated people tend to be atheist", as in being better educated causes both atheism and better moral behavior. Conclusion: Atheism is an effect of the same thing that causes moral behavior [i.e., better education], but does not, itself, cause moral behavior.)
The point: I used flawed logic against you and you didn't even notice. Don't try to engage a (good) scientist in a logical debate about about science unless you're really prepared to defend your own logic and understand your opponent's.
Here is my advice to you (honestly, I'm trying to help you out here, against my own better judgment): You will never convince any scientist (or, for that matter, any thinking person who understands logic) of your case by starting with "evolution hasn't been proved." Dude, we scientists know that gravity hasn't been "proved", so we are unimpressed with the claim that "evolution has not been proved." It just tells us you're a rube who knows noting about science or logic.
If you wanna make your case, you gotta start from a different angle. What angle? Can't help you there.
Christopher Hedden8:06 AMEdit
Really guys? cool. Well I will get back to you at the expense of my leisure, since you can't afford me to have it.
Christopher Hedden5:28 PMEdit
I'll
start with john, and just so you know I am done arguing or discussing
or what have you. But not for the reason you wish I would go away. you
have satisfied me, because you have admitted in uncertain terms that you
have no real evidence for your belief. This is what I like to call
faith. Don't feel bad, I knew it would come to this.
If there were such an evidence for your belief system, we would all be well aware of it. You resorted to your pathetic logical trap in an attempt to shame me into defeat. this is not winning the argument by real means. and so what if I didn't "skewer" your incorrect point on the MOST illogical point. who cares? wrong is wrong, and why should I spend time thinking about how something is further incorrect than I already know it to be? gravity doesn't need to be proved to anyone john. Affirming or denying gravity has no real world impact on our life. Unlike Evolution.
Your attempt to end the argument is very rational, because you know it can't be won. And I am ok with this, as I said I cannot prove christianity either- but I do not go around claiming that anyone who doesn't hold the same belief system is wrong- for a fact. I might believe it, but in the first place I have no empirical proof- just like you. and in the second place this type of behavior only serves to stir up trouble. You criticizing how parents in Louisiana choose to raise their children is an utter tragedy. You feel pride in your sense of community when you can ridicule others for the non factual basis for their faith - and you in turn have to rely on unsupported faith yourself.
I'm so glad that you are a good scientist who understands logic. It makes understanding your behavior that much more entertaining. Here's a real big clue nerdshy, your logic doesn't impress me, because it lacks prudence. your "wisdom" overexerts itself and I find it completely useless. You think I can't spend time thinking about the most rational and logical way to get my point across? I choose not to because it is a lost medium, it serves no purpose in anything- besides making you feel intellectually superior.
We have arrived at an impasse, because you cannot prove yourself right or wrong. I personally do not need to. The scientific agenda is halted and slowed every time someone like me chooses to open their mouths. And every time you protest against the church as a ruling ideology, you collapse the building blocks of our current society to a certain degree. Your belief system will never include a more or less standardized system of morality. You can claim that atheists are inclined to be more "moral" (by whatever laughable standard you wish) but you cannot argue that you and those like you encourage morality in any form besides perhaps to obey the law. And since the law is only governed by the morality of society we have a system of eventual decline. Just like the eugenics movement- just like the holocaust. your movement is doomed to fail regardless of how silly the ideas of religion. Common morality is not part of the society you would like to establish.
Science will always prevail- the progress of knowledge doesn't need to halt for anyone, including god. I laugh at whatever fool that chooses to claim that god doesn't wish for us to explore. But what you are trying to progress is not science. You are trying to further your own system of faith- because it lacks the framework for real science.
To Craig, I admire you sir. you stuck it out even when you felt like this was just going to be the regular kind of nitpicking clash I am sure you are used to. I appreciate you addressing the topics I wished to discuss- eventually. I will make you a promise. I will read ALL of that coursework, if you read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=nancy+pearcey+total+truth&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=11762807259&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8218946931360833149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_5t6cr68d0i_b
Initially I was a little dissapointed that you couldn't come up with the evidence I asked for, it suggested that you didn't know any off the bat. but its really not a big deal. I will read what you asked me to and I will be diligent in my studies if you will be diligent with the book I asked you to read. knowledge (right or wrong) isn't anyone's enemy.
And then my friend, you had the balls to say that you didn't know of a plausible start to life on this planet. You were honest enough to say that it was only a hypothesis and it was being scrutinized. I admire your courage. It was honest of you.
To both of you fine gentlemen. I am done having this conversation with you. You had the opportunity to present real evidence (in either direction) that either my claim was false or your claim was true. I cannot say I think you used your time wisely.
If you feel the need you may have the last word if you wish, Craig if you would like to accept my offer for mutual education just add me to a circle.
Have a good day.
If there were such an evidence for your belief system, we would all be well aware of it. You resorted to your pathetic logical trap in an attempt to shame me into defeat. this is not winning the argument by real means. and so what if I didn't "skewer" your incorrect point on the MOST illogical point. who cares? wrong is wrong, and why should I spend time thinking about how something is further incorrect than I already know it to be? gravity doesn't need to be proved to anyone john. Affirming or denying gravity has no real world impact on our life. Unlike Evolution.
Your attempt to end the argument is very rational, because you know it can't be won. And I am ok with this, as I said I cannot prove christianity either- but I do not go around claiming that anyone who doesn't hold the same belief system is wrong- for a fact. I might believe it, but in the first place I have no empirical proof- just like you. and in the second place this type of behavior only serves to stir up trouble. You criticizing how parents in Louisiana choose to raise their children is an utter tragedy. You feel pride in your sense of community when you can ridicule others for the non factual basis for their faith - and you in turn have to rely on unsupported faith yourself.
I'm so glad that you are a good scientist who understands logic. It makes understanding your behavior that much more entertaining. Here's a real big clue nerdshy, your logic doesn't impress me, because it lacks prudence. your "wisdom" overexerts itself and I find it completely useless. You think I can't spend time thinking about the most rational and logical way to get my point across? I choose not to because it is a lost medium, it serves no purpose in anything- besides making you feel intellectually superior.
We have arrived at an impasse, because you cannot prove yourself right or wrong. I personally do not need to. The scientific agenda is halted and slowed every time someone like me chooses to open their mouths. And every time you protest against the church as a ruling ideology, you collapse the building blocks of our current society to a certain degree. Your belief system will never include a more or less standardized system of morality. You can claim that atheists are inclined to be more "moral" (by whatever laughable standard you wish) but you cannot argue that you and those like you encourage morality in any form besides perhaps to obey the law. And since the law is only governed by the morality of society we have a system of eventual decline. Just like the eugenics movement- just like the holocaust. your movement is doomed to fail regardless of how silly the ideas of religion. Common morality is not part of the society you would like to establish.
Science will always prevail- the progress of knowledge doesn't need to halt for anyone, including god. I laugh at whatever fool that chooses to claim that god doesn't wish for us to explore. But what you are trying to progress is not science. You are trying to further your own system of faith- because it lacks the framework for real science.
To Craig, I admire you sir. you stuck it out even when you felt like this was just going to be the regular kind of nitpicking clash I am sure you are used to. I appreciate you addressing the topics I wished to discuss- eventually. I will make you a promise. I will read ALL of that coursework, if you read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=nancy+pearcey+total+truth&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=11762807259&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8218946931360833149&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_5t6cr68d0i_b
Initially I was a little dissapointed that you couldn't come up with the evidence I asked for, it suggested that you didn't know any off the bat. but its really not a big deal. I will read what you asked me to and I will be diligent in my studies if you will be diligent with the book I asked you to read. knowledge (right or wrong) isn't anyone's enemy.
And then my friend, you had the balls to say that you didn't know of a plausible start to life on this planet. You were honest enough to say that it was only a hypothesis and it was being scrutinized. I admire your courage. It was honest of you.
To both of you fine gentlemen. I am done having this conversation with you. You had the opportunity to present real evidence (in either direction) that either my claim was false or your claim was true. I cannot say I think you used your time wisely.
If you feel the need you may have the last word if you wish, Craig if you would like to accept my offer for mutual education just add me to a circle.
Have a good day.
No comments:
Post a Comment