Because there are difference classes of evidence, that’s why, nothing sinister.
In this thread we only have 42fish.
Sorry
It’s a bummer that the truth is insulting, but there yeah go.
And paleontologists are unaware of this?
To mangle a phrase, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.
Many ‘pulled in the wool’ creationists have opted for a strategy of willful ignorance. Many of them cling to it because they believe that their religion demands it. I’ve had debates with creationists who pretty much, and without a trace of shame, announce that they are mortal, their mortality scares them, but that by believing in their particular brand of Christianity and not questioning it, they’ll live forever.
Faced with the obviousness of the truth, that we really do die, forever and without caveat, many people simply retreat into fear. Or lunacy. Or both. Convincing someone of the truth, when they believe that the truth will send them to a place called Hell, is virtually impossible.
Add to that a whole host of other reasons, ranging from a desire to believe that mankind is somehow ‘special’ to simple antipathy for scientific rationalism, and there are simply some folks who do not want to know the truth. With willful ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain.
Non-scientists, who can’t be bothered to check up on the basic methodology, evidence, technology, etc… involved in the field they’re discussing, will latch onto almost any conman who sells them a bill of goods. Someone says that radiocarbon dating is totally unreliable? Good enough for them. Some guy claims that even though two of all the damn beetles on earth would probably have filled most of the Ark, that all things are possible with God… well, that’s a comforting explanation, no more digging required. Someone tells you that no transitional fossils have been found? Well, by golly, let’s not look to see if there are records of serpentine fossils that have legs or whales once had legs.. If someone tells you that these things don’t exist, take them at their word. (Then again, that the gene involved happens to be called Sonic hedgehog doesn’t help matters)
These are people who think in binary terms, who assume that if there isn’t evolution, there must be creation. And not just any form of creation, but creation by their specific God. What can you really even say to something like that? “Nuh unh?”
There are of course some people who are open to learning, and simply believe in “creationism” because that’s what their parents taught them. For them, a reasoned discussion of the facts will certainly prove sufficient, if they’re honestly interested in knowledge. Those, whoever, prize ignorance above knowledge, because their ignorance makes them feel good… well, they’ve effectively achieved functional brain death, as their minds are deliberately made incapable of learning, growing, changing, or really ‘hearing’ anything that contradicts what they ‘know’.
So, let 'em be. As long as they’re not trying to indoctrinate your children with religious idiocy in a science classroom, and as long as they’re not trying to change the nation’s laws to drive us back into the dark ages, let them rant and rage. They won’t be convinced by reason. They can’t be convinced, as they hold faith to be superior to reason.
A scientist comes up with an hypothesis, collects data, tests his hypothesis, and then confirms or rejects it, always allowing it to be falsified at a later date. A True Believer comes up with a conclusion, and then looks for data to support it, discarding any data that contradicts it. It’s like trying to explain particle physics to someone who won’t even accept that there are atoms, because they’re not mentioned in the bible. Or trying to explain neurological processes to someone who has decided that grey matter is simply some sort of radio antenna for the “soul”.
Tip your hat, wish them a good day, and move on.
To which class would you assign fossils? And what, if anything, distinguishes that class from the class of evidence – observed preturbations of planetary orbits, spectral analyses of starlight, background radiation, particle trails in a cyclotron, etc. – from which physicists and cosmologists derive, by what to a layperson might appear very indirect and circuituous chains of reasoning and calculation, their highly consistent and compelling theories about the laws of physics and the structure of the universe?
I am a layperson that has done a lot of reading in science, the methods, and such. I know about “circuituous chains of reasoning and calculation, their highly consistent and compelling theories about the laws of physics and the structure of the universe.” I have no argument with theories, only when they are introduced as fact. Getting back to the OP, this thread is about Creation vs. Evolution. Now I don’t agree with many of the things creationists say, such as the Bible is truth, the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old. Actually the whole debate is not really that important. But what is important to the creationists is their belief in God, an afterlife, and morality. None of these things can science disprove. Yet science is attacking the very foundation of religion by saying evolution, the big bang, etc, is evidence God had no hand in the creation of the universe. Usually said as “There is no evidence for God.” These are fighting words and they will be countered by people like Dr. Hovind and others. The presentation of creation was well done, it scored many points that the scientists couldn’t answer. So my advice is to carefully look through that video and prepare your own that does answer his claims properly and honestly. The general public will not accept “the science of evolution is just too complicated for you to understand.” You try that, and you will lose, the public does not see science, and scientists as “superior authority” figures who should not be questioned. That day is gone in America, we question everyone. If you can not produce good solid evidence to what you claim in a form the general public can understand, then you best quit saying there is no God, afterlife and such in order to preserve the credibility you still have left.
Truth is never insulting, surprising, but never insulting.
You know that Christianity is a theory, right? With zero evidence supporting it no less. Whereas evolution has every piece of biological data we’ve ever collected supporting it. Everything. Nothing has ever been collected that refutes it.
Nothing.
Does it seem like the smart money is on J-dizzle?
Not off topic, at all, and not an insult but an observation.
A great many potentially serious discussions have been derailed when posters were sidetracked from the topic of the thread to respond to your baseless assertions or your illogical claims. That is a fact. My only point was to encourage other posters to not be sidetracked by your interruptions. If you find it insulting to have your posts correctly categorized, then change your posts.
As to your “forgiveness,” I will accept it in the spirit in which it was offered: as an insincere and condescending effort to insult me by pretending to hold some higher moral ground. Just as when you “comfort” posters by telling them to not be afraid of some odd, idiosyncratic belief that you put forth as “Truth,” you are simply trying to slip your own insults into the discussion under the pretense of charity.
And yet, you just claimed that my true statement was insulting. What a surprise!
Sweet, sweet Irony. It tastes of burning.
-Cem
This would be relevant only if lekatt were a Christian. As he is not a participant in any of the various denominations of Christianity, you are attacking the wind.
Why attack some group to which he does not belong as though it refuted his points?
“Are you willing to be exposed to higher-level science courses taught by non-creationists?”
If the answer is “No” then you do not believe in science and no further discussion is necessary.
If the answer is “Yes” the current controversy is moot.
Ahh, back to the lie that “Science” is doing some particular thing when the reality is that it is a very tiny percent of active scientists who happen to dabble in various forms of philosophical conjecture (and who are actually countered by a few believing scientists who make no such claims, at all–believing scientists who are scorned or ignored by Hovind and his ilk). By setting up this false claim, you are then able to spin the rest of the discussion. Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that actually asserts either that a god does not exist or that God had no hand in Creation or recognize that you are making up fairy tales to attack real science.
But those fighting words are not scientific fighting words, but philosophical fighting words. And Hovind is simply a liar. There are no points n Hovind’s presentation that cannot be answered. There are glib lies told by Hovind that require too much time to explain to a science-ignorant audience to fit into a time-bound debate. Since, generally, when Hovind is pitted against a scientist, the scientist does not realize the depth of Hovind’s dishonesty and is ill-prepared to provide the hour of explanation that each of Hovind’s lies require for rebuttal, Hovind looks, to the uneducated, as though he has scored more points. It is a cheap trick that proves only that Hovind is a grat huckster.
Doesn’t the silly book written in the 70’s he cowtows to say Jesus is magic? In any case, I supposed that he rode the jesus train.
You know that Christianity is not a theory but a system of beliefs, right? These two concepts are vastly different.
Which, naturally, logically and fully debunks all issues of faith. Obviously, since nothing to date or in the far seeable future refutes evolution this means Christianity and all beliefs held within are invalid because, as everyone knows, the basis of faith is to dispute evolution and science, not to recognize and validate the humbling possiblity that there are some things in this universe that are larger, more powerful and more important than us. Faith is mearly a platform to disprove all scientific theory. Forget about the difference between Faith and Science being that Faith is about believing in things that are unprovable and Science is about proving things that are unbelievable.
The two are unrelated and, as such, incapable of canceling each other out. It would be like trying to put out a fire with a phone call, totally unrelated.
Hmmm… Let’s see…
Scenario one:
Johnnie is theistic:
There is a God - Johnnie enjoys the afterlife
There is no God - Nothing happens in the afterlife
Scenario two:
Johnnie is atheistic:
There is a God - Johnnie is in some deep shit
There is no God - Nothing happens in the afterlife
It seems to be a push if there is no God, a loss if there is a God and Johnnie is an atheist. The only possible positive outcome is if Johnnie is a theist and there is a God.
Since the only people who consistantly bet on a push are those who go to Vegas and think they hit it big because the Change machine payed out for them, I think the smart money is on the J-man.
Come in here, dear boy, have a death cookie,
and no premarriage nookie.
You’re gonna go high,
to heaven when you die,
you’re gonna make it if you believe
Jesus loves you.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it riding the Jesus train, yeah, yeah.
Well, in as much as a faith-based-belief-system does not pretend to be based on facts, logic, or reason, then sure. Honest religious folks will tell you that they have faith and that’s enough for them. Dishonest folks, like many of the "creationists"will try to substitute their faith for facts.
But, that’s beside the point here. Lobohan was rather obviously poking fun at the common anti-rational assertion that evolution is “just a theory”, as if scientific theories were imagined up after a night of hard drinking.
Faith, as such, cannot be logically debunked because faith is the belief in something without any factual support. Talking about debunking faith is a bit like dancing about architecture.
Faith and science can coexist quite easily as long as those in both camps don’t try to apply their particular metric, be it faith or evidence, to the other side. On that much we are agreed.
With my above comment still standing, certain matters of faith are soundly debunked by reason. A seven day creation, the gods sitting atop Olympus, etc…
To the degree that religious beliefs contradict facts, they are perforce wrong. To the extent that they touch on matters outside the scope of rational inquiry, they are best approached as aesthetic conceits, and not much can be said about them. Evolution does debunk certain religious beliefs, like biblical literalism, for example. That it why some bible beaters are profoundly hostile to learning anything about it.
No, no, no, and yet again no.
That’s the fallacy of false dichotomy and its specific use here has been used to sucker more than a few folks over the ages.
There are numerous possibilities if there is a God (or gods) ranging from them not caring an unlit fart as to whether or not you believe in them, to them having predestined you for damnation anyways, to you believing in the wrong God. Maybe Ahura Mazda is angry at you for being a Christian, yes?
Does that hold any weight with you? If not, why would an a-theist worry about the Christian God being upset with him any more than he’d worry about Odin being perturbed that he wasn’t out spilling blood on the battlefield in His name?
Not any more than it’s a loss for Christians if Odin is pissed off at them for all that ‘turning the other cheek’ crap.
Or as one of the earliest martyred rationalists said, before she was torn to pieces by an angry mob “To rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force.”
Or if God is actually omnibenevolent and doesn’t care if you know of Him, believe in Him, or worship Him. Or if the only choices aren’t “no God” and “the Christian God”. Etc.
Yog Sothoth will eat your soul for that, you know? Isn’t it safer to believe in Him and offer him blood sacrifices, as He demands, than to believe in Jesus? After all, if Yahweh exists, at least after he had his personality makeover in the first few centuries of the first millennium, then he’s a nice guy, and wouldn’t consign His children to an eternity of torment for simply not having faith. Only a real bastard of a father would ever do that.
So it’s a push, right?
Yog Sothoth, on the other hand, is an evil motherfucker and will do stuff to you that can’t even be described in polite society. Surely it’s safer to bet on him, right? Right?
So it’s a push one way, and eternal unspeakable torment at the hands of the Old Gods on the other hand. Only a Vegas gambling fool wouldn’t offer obeisance to Yog Sothoth.
Actually, nd_n8, the only way to get to heaven is to send me $100, upon receipt of which I will put in a good word for you with god. Think about it:
Scenario 1: **nd **gives me the $100:
**DCMS **really does have the inside track with god: **nd **goes to heaven;
**DCMS **is lying: **nd **is out $100 but it doesn’t matter because he is dead
Scenario 2: **nd **does not give me $100:
**DCMS **really does have inside track with god: **nd **goes to hell
**DCMS **is lying: **nd **is out $100 but it doesn’t matter because he is dead
As you can see, the only smart thing to do is to send me $100. Why take a chance with your eternal soul?
I will provide my address by PM to anyone interested in going to heaven. $100 is an introductory offer, subject to change without notice.