,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
Alex takes the witness stand and incriminates himself. Such is the non-intellectual folly of bottom feeders. No substance, just invective, ad hominem attacks and a masturbatory sense of self importance.
And who is “Us?” Is it the same entity as “We?” Let’s add coward to hypocrite and moron. Oh, and the HRC is no fight for cowards, let alone morons. Take a powder.
Hey, I didn’t start the attacks. They were well established before I posted. However, I won’t back away from a fight.
So, why don’t you take a powder with the other fembot (you seem to like to group together). And collectively change the tampons while you’re there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I rest my case.
On what? Your chosen debating tactics of insults, invective and juvenile behaviour? Your churlish ability to dish it out, but cowardly inability to take it? Or that your belief system is as supremacist and intolerant as the worst of them?
Irwin,
Please explain why Christianity is any more scientifically correct than my Flying Spaghetti Monster theology. Otherwise you’re just blowing hot air.
Joe,
I hate having to explain carbon dating so please check it out on Wikipedia. It is a repeatable reliable mechanism which scientists use to determine the age based on the halflife of Carbon 14, which is a regularly occuring isotope.
Also, I am condescending to some because they fail to see that God = Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s the same thing. A rose by any other name. Maybe you could call FSM “Allah” either way I don’t care. With no evidence showing existence there is no way I can actually believe in something… it’s like believing that communism works.
Well, Jon, as an athiest I gather you don’t believe in God. However, your belief is not based on proof of His existence or non existence, but because that’s what you choose to believe. You also choose to believe in Darwinian evolution, not because it is proven by scientific observation – which would make it an unarguable fact, case closed – but because you choose to believe in it, regardless. You can use ‘scientific method’ and agreement from other adherents to give comfort to your belief, while others can support their belief through personal spiritual encounter, philosophy, theology, as well as science.
Dave says that evolution is proven because anybody can see that whales were once land based and evolved back to the sea simply by looking at the bone construction of their fins. While another person might observe that whales have pretty smart and robust bone construction in their fins. It is whatever the observer would like to deduce.
Now, why does your belief system give you and others the pompous and arrogant attitude expressed in this thread? More so, why do you feel, based on your belief, that that entitles you to debase and demean others and their beliefs? Why the insults and ad hominem attacks?
“I am condescending to some because they fail to see that God = Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Well, then by the same token, I might state that I’m entitled to be demeaning, dehumanizing and condescending towards those who fail to see that Darwinism = Snail brained fascist idiocy.
Both statements being juvenile and having no purpose other than to demean the other.
However, given your spaghetti monster god, I did pose a question much earlier that wasn’t debated:
“In the meantime, physists are having a hell of a time explaining and squaring the Singularity. Or as ET states, “But, since the BigBang introduced time…”
Your belief system becomes as fundamental and fanatical as any other. In fact, check Alex’ comments towards ET on Aristotle. He’s so angry and upset, he’s practically calling ET blasphemous and an apostate. Certainly declaring himself as more pure and rational than ET. Ridiculous.
Once again, where have I challenged carbon 14 dating? Why do you continue to add things to my comments that I didn’t comment on?
Jon I never mentioned carbon 14 or dating of any sort. My point is simply you can draw any line you want from a single point. You choose to see a direct ancestor of modern man in the skeleton of “Lucy”. However that does not mean that “Lucy” was a direct ancestor of modern man. It can be inferred that “Lucy” was any number of things based solely on the desire of the person observing the skeleton. It far more likely that “Lucy” was species of ape that became extinct. After all there have been many many species become extinct. Haven’t seen too many sabre toothed tigers or wooly mammoths lately have you? Did they pass on their genes to another species? I have never heard a biologist say that mammoths evolved into elephants or sabre toothed tigers evolved into cougars, they simply became extinct. Did “Lucy” species evolve into modern man or simply become extinct? Based on available evidence the latter is more likely than the former.
Joe and Irwin,
My point once again about the flying spaghetti monster and god is that NO rational person (see defn above) can assume that they exist and are real. You may feel as if God exists but there exists no proof. Absence of proof for the other side does not equal proof for your side as well. I don’t know either way, as I said before I am a former Christian whose experience both with people and the New Testament made me chose people. I am not a Darwinist, nor am I an atheist, nor do I believe in FSM enough to get into his post death candy shack. I am an agnostic. Having faith in God is the same as having faith in FSM. It’s just faith.
My belief system arrogant? Once again I disagree with you. I use extreme examples because folk like you guys do not respond to the mundane. I have been a regular reader here since the day Kate was added to BT and I’ve seen what you’ve written.
Simply:
1) No rational evidence of a (or any) God.
2) Hypothesis testing is the ONLY system of verifying assumptions rationally.
All the science that keeps your car on the road, the grain growing in the fields, you power on, comes from hypothesis testing.
That is why I as a rational engineer chose to believe that evolution is real and evident and obvious. Same methodology I use to select the proper turbines for your power plants and concrete for your quality of life.
I agree with you that there are a few flaws, but I disagree that we need a fully unified theory within 150 years of the original assumption. Before Newton (Christian Ironically) one could have claimed that we stick to earth because that’s what god wants rather than because Galileo’s faulty yet ultimately correct thesis was universal. Of course he was tortured and banned from writing by the Vatican.
Here are the flaws:
1) Big bang and the law of the conservation of matter. It is impossible to create or destroy matter so how did the universe “start from nothing”.
2) Inanimation to animation. How is it possible that “life” evolved or mutated from “no life”.
I said that Lucy was a pre-human primate, as were many other primates. Just like you were likely breed from shorter parents with smaller feet… just saying. Pre-human means that she was a primate which appeared before humans (homo sapien sapien), not that she was a direct ancestor of humans. Otherwise those of us who speak science and english would have called her a direct ancestor. Please pay attention to what I write, and not what you subscribe to as a prejudice of my views.
As an exercise in logic please replace where I wrote god with Vishnu and where I wrote Flying Spaghetti Monster with God. Try rationalizing your point of view now.
Sincerely,
“Dave says that evolution is proven because anybody can see that whales were once land based and evolved back to the sea simply by looking at the bone construction of their fins. While another person might observe that whales have pretty smart and robust bone construction in their fins. It is whatever the observer would like to deduce.”
Um, no, you friggin’ idiot, the bone structure he’s talking about is totally separate from their fins. Whales literally have vestigial legs buried in the blubber of their midriff – it has nothing to do with their tails. They’re clearly evolved from an animal which had four legs AND a tail. The tail stayed and became more useful, while the fore-limbs turned into fins, and the rear limps disappeared into the belly. Dolphins have a similar feature, although less pronounced – you can only see it in the embryonic stage of their development. Meanwhile sharks, which are descended from a line of ocean-dwelling animals, lack any sort of vestigial limbs.
Seriously, do some research before spouting off. All of this stuff is common knowledge, and is easy to confirm. You’ll look a lot less ignorant if you at least have a vague idea of what we’re talking about.
Alex,
We should be careful in calling these guys idiots. Sometimes they’re quite bright but when god gets thrown into the mix rationality and fact go out the window.
Lets just say they’re like Obama and they’ve been listening to Rev. Wright too much.
Jon my point of view is extremely rational and in fact is far more rational than yours. That you don’t want to accept a universal Will, Reason and Presence behind all exists simply shows you to be a lesser engineer than you would have us believe.
I too trained as an engineer. I haven’t done any engineering for years now but when I look at the structure and function of living things I am humbled at the handiwork that went into it. As an engineer I would dearly love to design something like DNA. I would love to be able to build even the most basic virus let alone the differentiated cells that comprise living bodies such as birds, reptiles and mammals. I would love to design a stem cell that if you put it one place in a body it becomes a heart cell or move it over a few cm and it becomes a liver cell. I would love to be able to design a body that is self perpetuating, feeding itself, cleaning itself and able to move about walking, swimming or flying. I would love to design a body that repairs and even generates its own replacement as it wears out. Failing that I would love to be able to re-install ‘life force’ after a body dies through accident or illness.
You see Jon in your rush to deny Someone greater than you, you are clinging to the impossible and claiming it is true. As I mentioned earlier on this post I too was an atheist and fully immersed in Darwinian evolution. Once my sense of self importance was removed I began to look at Darwinian evolution and soon realized that none of it adds up. Life doesn’t come from non living things. Things do not come from nothing. Without a governing Will, Reason and Presense, none of our “physical laws” work. BTW I have also had opportunity to see those afore mentioned physical laws be abrogated. But that’s for another day.
In the mean time I would suggest you open your mind and shut down your ego and you might find a far deeper Truth than the nonsense you learned in school.
On what? Your chosen debating tactics of insults, invective and juvenile behaviour? Your churlish ability to dish it out, but cowardly inability to take it? Or that your belief system is as supremacist and intolerant as the worst of them?
Wow, Daisy you sure make this forum a better place I can’t thank you enough. I have been reading your act on this forum for awhile now it is something to be proud of.
“We should be careful in calling these guys idiots. Sometimes they’re quite bright but when god gets thrown into the mix rationality and fact go out the window.”
I know. I just find it difficult to keep my frustration in check sometimes – even more so when dealing with an intelligent individual who simply refuses to think. Ignorance I can cure, but there’s no real fix for wilful blindness.
Oh, while we’re on the topic, I figured some of you who DON’T like getting all your “facts” from the bible might be interested in this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
To sum it up: in only 30 years, a small lizard species on an isolated island managed to switch from a mostly carnivorous diet to a largely herbivorous diet. And, get this: they evolved an entirely new feature in their intestines which allows them to efficiently process high-cellulose plant matter. Truly fascinating stuff! If the creationists want a modern-day example of one species evolving into another, just point them at these little guys 🙂
The bottom feeding motor mouth erupts again. Of course I’ve seen whale skeletons, “friggin’ idiot.” As I said, to somebody who wants to fit everything into the preconceived notion of evolution, then the articulated bone structure of the fins will appear as if the whale evolved from a land based creature. As they say, ‘everything will appear as a nail, if all you’ve got is a hammer.’ However, another person might observe that whales have a pretty smart and robust bone structure, uniquely suited to their environment and body mass.
If you’d like to believe the evolution theory as applied to the whale, then you’ll also have to explain why a land based creature would evolve in order to exist in a new environment that it presumably doesn’t need – the sea. And where did this evolution take place, on land or in the sea? And why would a creature evolve from the sea to the land – as Darwin would have it – only to devolve back to the sea? Or was that evolve? None of which makes any logical sense.
Jon,
As I mentioned before, if there was irrefutable proof of God, that would erase choice, wouldn’t it? The same goes for evolution. However, I do appreciate that at least you admitted the obvious, that belief in evolution is indeed a choice.
The belief system itself is not arrogant. I was commenting on what I’ve observed by the attitudes exhibited by many adherents. This thread for example.
I neither have to rationalize God, nor defend him. I happen to believe in him through personal encounter and I have kept the courage of my conviction and knowledge, despite what others may do in his name. It’s a big, interesting reality, with more depth than simply the physical/material.
Neither am I offended by Darwinism, or much else for that matter. People are entitled to believe in what they will. I only find it offensive when the dogma is so rigid that debate is closed and anybody with a different POV is attacked, mocked and rejected. That to me is beyond authoritarian, it’s totalitarian and wrong.
When I consider the eye, in fact, all of which makes a human being, I consider it a greater leap of faith that somehow these things randomly evolved and are meaningless. I guess Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, did as well.
You might want to check Zipf’s language law and junk DNA, for a recent surprise.
Right of centre,
Well, unfortunately, until now I haven’t read anything from you. Do you write anything of any insight or significance that I may be missing?
…off in the distance a dog barks.
http://startitup.org/larson.jpg
“As I said, to somebody who wants to fit everything into the preconceived notion of evolution, then the articulated bone structure of the fins will appear as if the whale evolved from a land based creature.”
Apparently Jon was being overly generous when he suggested that you might not an idiot. You’re still taking about the tail (or the fins now?), even after I took the time to explain to you that we’re discussing a totally separate body part, which is hidden within the body of the whale. I’m not sure how you expect to have a discussion about evolution when you don’t even seem to be able to parse a very basic comment about anatomy.
Here, educate yourself:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
I know, I know, it’s not a bible quotation, but trust me, it’ll do you good to read something else for a change. Also, check out the article about the lizards I linked to earlier. I’d love to hear your “thoughts” (I use the term with some trepidation) on the matter.
Alex: One of the most important concepts in ‘science’ is that you open your mind to all potential causes of observed phenomena.
For the sake of argument let us take your assertions about these lizards at face value. Let us assume that it is true that these lizards suddenly grew a multi-chambered stomach like bovines and thus are now able to eat grass instead of meat.
There are two possibilities here either random chance allowed this to happen in such a short time or else an unseen intellegence guided the digestive tract of these lizards to so modify.
Now I don’t know about you but I would place more credence in the second cause than the first. A small, isolated population would likely starve to death than grow a different gut in a matter of 30 years without guidance from its Creator.
Of course not knowing the facts and with the disrepute that ‘scientists’ have fallen into (AGW, Rocks falling off Mars, etc.) I’m not sure how much to believe about this story. AGW has produced how much false evidence? The rock from Mars fell off Mars how exactly. Lizards growing a new gut???
AGW wants to control our society, NASA wants to go to Mars, and evolutionary biologists have for over a century and a half tried to produce evidence that supports their atheistic position.
When it comes to evidence given by agendized scientists I’m with Harry Truman who used to say “I’m from Missouri; show me”.
“Alex: One of the most important concepts in ‘science’ is that you open your mind to all potential causes of observed phenomena.”
Not really: you need to be open to unlikely explanations, sure, but “The Bearded Guy In The Sky Did It” is so unlikely as to be laughable, and is, more importantly totally untestable. An even more important aspect of science is that there has to be some way of confirming or dismissing (or at leas testing) a hypothesis – in other words, the hypothesis should be falsifiable. As you’ve demonstrated by your “suggestion” here, religion is not falsifiable. No matter what sort of argument I advance, you can always answer with “God Did It”, and there’s no way for me to disprove your claim. Ergo, your claim is useless.
“There are two possibilities here either random chance allowed this to happen in such a short time or else an unseen intellegence guided the digestive tract of these lizards to so modify.”
See what I mean?
Actually, random chance didn’t do it – natural selection did. But no matter what I can prove to you, you’re always going to claim that God had a hand in it. Even if I could prove to you conclusively that natural selection alone is more than enough to make this kind of change (and I could, given enough time to teach you genetics and statistics) you’d just claim that even though natural selection could have been responsible for the change, God probably tweaked things here and there. That’s because your beliefs aren’t based on reason, and as such they can not be addressed in a logical manner. You are always going to believe what you believe because there is no rational way for anyone to disprove it.
“and with the disrepute that ‘scientists’ have fallen into”
That’s quite possibly one of the dumbest statements in this entire thread. And that’s saying a lot.
“When it comes to evidence given by agendized scientists I’m with Harry Truman who used to say ‘I’m from Missouri; show me’.”
I’m with ya on that one: show me “god”.
Well, apparently your god, natural selection, decides to naturally select some animals over others (or is it random chance?). Nonetheless, why would Natural Selection decide to evolve an animal, out of the sea – as Darwin would have it – grow legs and adapt to the land, only to reverse the whole process and return it to the sea, for no apparent reason at all? Sounds completely illogical. Or is macro evolution like climate change, it can evolve and devolve at the same time and both are correct? Aristotle might have a problem with that.
Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc?
None of you have addressed the not so small controversy physists are having in explaining the Singularity.
Though, I think we’ve found the missing link. The unthinking, irrational moron, Alex, who somehow confuses himself as being intellectually superior.
Alex I would love to show you God but you are blinded by your arrogance.
But it you really want to “see” God go away from the city at night and look up. Stand in awe of the infinite number of stars in the infinite number of galaxies and realize they have their being IN HIM and kept in their place by HIM.
Go to the mountains and climb the lofty crags and realize that the mountains too have their existence in HIM.
Go look at an ant colony or a bee hive. Watch the busy little creatures communicating and helping each other and realize that they are God’s creation.
Go to the worst slums you can find. Live there and launch a small co-op to help the people find relief from their lot in life.
Then having done so, filled with awe, filled with wonderment, filled with love, humble yourself fall on your knees and ask for forgiveness. In that very instance you shall know that God not only exists but loves you with a deep burning love that human language is inadequate to describe.
Alternatively you could simply ask God to reveal Himself to you. Some of my dearest Christian friends began their discovery of God with a statement like this. God I know you don’t exist but just in case could you reveal Yourself to me?
Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc? -Daisy
If these questions need to be asked by you then you havent picked up a book about evolution. This is a level one question.
It’s like saying “I know everything about cars but why are the tires round?”
I cant believe we have wasted our time with a “home schooled” poster.
I thought I would create a post from the Daisy template, part one act superior, then give an explanation and then insult at the end.
Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc? -Daisy
If these questions need to be asked by you then you havent picked up a book about evolution. This is a level one question.
It’s like saying “I know everything about cars but why are the tires round?”
I cant believe we have wasted our time with a “home schooled” poster.
I thought I would create a post from the Daisy template, part one act superior, then give an explanation and then insult at the end.
Joe,
The nonsense I learned in school makes sure that hospitals have power. It has also saved far more lives than any religion.
For example:
The delivery of fresh potable water and the removal of sewage (in conjunction with other things) has already prevented the deaths of 1 billion children since I was born in 1983.
You’re making an assumption that has no factual basis. This. is. the. issue. a. scientist. has. with. religion.
DNA is cool so God must have done it? Please carefully consider what Alex has been saying this whole thread.
Please note that many if not most conservative positions come from the rational. There’s no “I feel therefore it is true” which is rampant in socialism. You’ve just chosen (or maybe have been chosen?) God as your issue of irrationality rather than socialized medicine, or public broadcasting.
Joe – “Jon my point of view is extremely rational and in fact is far more rational than yours. That you don’t want to accept a universal Will, Reason and Presence behind all exists simply shows you to be a lesser engineer than you would have us believe.”
Until you can show that there is a “Universal Will” I will continue to believe that there isn’t or that there might be with no proof. It doesn’t take a super intelligent dolphin who used to have legs to see that life on earth isn’t static.
As I wrote earlier I am not an atheist. Please don’t subscribe things to me, I am agnostic. I don’t believe that a god exists because I have been given no reason or proof to believe so.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Personal experience time (those same types of experiences that Christians say bring them closer to god).
I lived in Thailand when I was young. I moved away from home, at the time I was Christian. I also believed that those who know of Jesus as the path to God who have chosen not take take him as their personal saviour will be judged.
At the time I was living with a Thai family who already had a religion. They gave to the poor, clothed and sheltered an idiot North American Zealot and maintained the “Christian Virtues” like compassion and patience.
I quickly began to see through the experience that “God was giving me” (or so I thought at the time) that God was an asshole. Many religions that all claim to be the one and only way. Constant civil wars, wars, bombings, terrorism were taken out in his name. I was almost blown up in Hat Yai by some muslim insurgents. They were also acting as tools of God. The God.
Then I started reading more about it. The Coucil of Nicea, the inclusion of books that were obvious forgeries and the exclusion of books because they didn’t fit into the Dogma.
Then I looked at the history of the Vatican. Then of the inquisition. Then I read about the history of Rome (Gibbon). And I realised that the only constant in all of humanities major failures has been the unquestioning belief of something, be it God or Marx or The Perfect Man or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
That’s why I reject your point of view. We have the opportunity to think and to question and to reject or accept. You have obviously seen something different than me, but you must understand that I have seen something different from you.
I’m just glad that we have moved away from the Puritan times where I would have been burned as a witch for saying such things.
ROC already answered Irwin, so I won’t bother to reply in detail. His mistakes are so basic that he really has no place in this discussion.
Joe:
“Alex I would love to show you God but you are blinded by your arrogance.”
In other words “If only you believed in God, I could show him to you!”. Sorry, but your circular arguments don’t hold any water here. Besides which, you want me to believe in God based purely on your say-so, yet you think I’M arrogant? Please, don’t be a hypocrite.
“Stand in awe of the infinite number of stars in the infinite number of galaxies and realize they have their being IN HIM and kept in their place by HIM.”
Like I said, circular argument. “There must be a god because the sky is so pretty and God made the sky”. Sorry, doesn’t cut it.
As an infantryman I spent many, many, MANY nights awed by the spectacle of the night sky. I saw in it the glory of the universe. It didn’t say to me “Look, an invisible dude made me”, it said “LOOK! Look at how much more there is to learn!”.
That’s the difference between me and you: you’re happy to answer every question with “God did it” and leave it at that, while I yearn to understand as much about it that I possibly can. If it were up to people like you, we’d still believe that the sun rises and sets because a mighty God drives it across the heavens in his chariot. All you need to do in order to realize how silly religion is, is to look back at past religions and realize that people believed in those just as fervently as you believe in your own. Whether it’s Greek Gods, Norse Gods, Aztec Gods, or the goddamn Cargo Cults, they’re all equally silly. Just like Christianity, they make for an interesting read, but as a means to understanding the universe they’re a dead-end. Even if we assume that there IS a God, organized religion is still an utter waste of time.
And, finally, Jon:
Thank you for sharing your story. I’m always fascinated by the journey that people take either away from or toward religion. Yours is rather unique, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. It sounds like you went through a hell of a journey to get where you are.
By the way, I was also agnostic up until just recently. I never much cared about what people believed in, and I didn’t really see a way of proving or disproving the existence of God, so I figured the rational thing to do was leave the question in limbo. Then, a few months ago, I read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, and it answered all the nagging little questions I still had. I’d suggest that you pick up a copy if you haven’t done so already. Even if you don’t find it convincing, it’s at the very least an interesting study of organized religion.
irwin:
Thanks for your defence of reason and your reasonable arguments.
It is truly amazing to see how frightened a certain segment of our friends here are of one chapter of a much larger book and how much energy they expend go to discredit the entire book.
Had to step aside for Easter celebrations this weekend. We’re kind wacky, us Orthodox, in our insistence that the crucifixion and resurrection happened after the Last Supper, that is the Passover Meal. It makes more sense than the Last Supper happening after the crucifixion.
And skimming through the comments, it’s also interesting that a response to a simple request for scientific proof that one species can evolve into another species triggers such personal attacks.
1) A couple of days ago, I cited the research of Murray Eden of MIT. Through series of scientifically-controlled experiments (the methodology by which is the process by which scientific fact is established) demonstrated that it was impossible to break the DNA chain, since the required mutations would kill the living organism.
The response ( by Alex) at that time was that Eden’s research had been refuted by dozens of scientists and the predictable topic-shift from science to name-calling and attack on religion beyond Chapter I of Genesis.
Other than the fact all Genesis does is state the obvious: we got here somehow and the fact the rest of the Bible deals with ‘now that we’re here, how can we best conduct ourselves?’, the content of the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it has never been proven that one species can evolve into another.
I did not get a chance to question Alex what the alleged refutations (none were given) meant?
If dozens of scientists refuted Eden’s conclusion that it was impossible, the best way to back up that assertion would be to provide proof that not only was it possible, but that it actually happened.
No proof? Then the theory of evolution will remain an evolution.
I guess those who refuted Eden’s conclusions are still working on it and if Eden’s conclusion became accepted, plenty of research grants would be in jeopardy.
2) Saw an interesting assertion that claimed you, I and somebody else were anti-science.
Can’t speak on your behalf, but I enjoy science, what legitimate proveable science has done to help humanity. There are many good things about science.
I like science and I like religion and am capable of appreciating the good in both fields of existence.
3) Also saw a curious assertion that religion is a means of control over others.
My own experience is that it’s more about self-control. I have never read anything that directs me to control other human beings. A succession of priests I have know throughout my life have never taught me methods to control any other human beings.
And, I’m not afraid of an imaginary spaghetti monster, since it simply does not exist. And, if it does, it only exists in the same alternate universe in which species can evolve into other species.
My scientific hypothesis is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster evolved in the minds of some from fear. I’m sure there must be some provable scientific reason for its evolution that our friend would like to share with us.
It’s beyond my understanding, since I cannot control the minds or the thoughts of others.
Actually, left of having a brain, you’ve done a very good job of providing nothing other than insults throughout this thread. I’ve simply returned the favour.
The question I posed and you cited has been asked by scientists and other intellectuals. Obviously you don’t read up on your own pet subject.
BTW, have you ever read Sheldrake? Perhaps a silly question to ask a volunteer for mental imprisonment.
irwin:
When I was much younger and we asked our bishop about what were the most important foundations of our religion and what was the most important thing we needed to know about our religion, his answer was startingly simple.
“The Ten Commandments,” he said.
Much later, I learned the first five dealt with each individual’s relationship with God and the final five deal with individual’s relationships with other human beings.
That’s pretty much the issues that are dealt with every time I listen to what’s being said during services in the church I have gone to since I was four years old.
Here’s something our friends probably did not know.
Darwin was a very religious man all his life. For many years he was the lay leader in his parish.
He never thought his findings contradicted belief in God.
Darwin was asked: “In the chain of evolution, where was the first link?”
Darwin answered: “It was riveted to the throne of the Most High.”
Even Darwin understood that science and religion are not competing visions, but deal with different fields of knowledge.
Even though is theory of species converting into other species remains unprovable, it would seem curious that a person who was a lay leader in his parish would not be religious.
Nice to hear from you, SYF.
The thing that’s most disconcerting here and elsewhere is the fascist like attitudes taken by those who, as Jon stated, choose to believe in evolution. Frank Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, claims in his books that he is paid 40% less than others on faculty because of his belief in God. And that if he renounced his faith, things would be squared.
“Thank you for sharing your story. I’m always fascinated by the journey that people take either away from or toward religion. Yours is rather unique, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. It sounds like you went through a hell of a journey to get where you are.”
This, of course, is one adherent celebrating another on their journey to the true faith. This same person attacked ET, for daring to bring the impure subject of Aristotle and philosophy into the debate. Pretty much branding her as an apostate. While positioning his pious self as being superior in the faith.
I find these people fascinating. In their denial of religion and God they set up their very own version, defending their belief as fanatically and irrationally as any Islamist. Perhaps with the head chopping of kaffirs replaced by the far less messy character assassination.
They reject Crick’s rejection of evolution. They won’t consider the Singularity and its meaning.
Jon, an engineer, rejected ex-Liberal’s opinion out-of-hand, despite the fact that he/she is a micro-biologist and obviously has more education in the area.
I’m free to consider all options and opinions, if they make rational sense. I happen not to believe in the theory of macro evolution, not because of my faith in God, but because it is illogical, full of massive holes, has no more than a pickup truck full of evidence and is impossible to prove through observation. The attitudes of people surrounding and protecting the theory also gives one pause to think. Yet, these types prefer to voluntarily lock themselves away from discovery and consideration of a whole wide, broad and layered reality. They prefer to voluntarily remain in the mental prison of evolutionary theory. Pity.
Jon confuses what the NT actually says and Christ’s example with man’s unjustifiable actions. This is the basis of his rejection:
“I quickly began to see through the experience that “God was giving me” (or so I thought at the time) that God was an asshole. Many religions that all claim to be the one and only way. Constant civil wars, wars, bombings, terrorism were taken out in his name. I was almost blown up in Hat Yai by some muslim insurgents. They were also acting as tools of God. The God.”
That’s simply anger and confusion. Nothing more, nothing less. He also confuses Islam with Christianity, which shows he has little education in either.
As for alex, he’s now solidly convinced by a recent book by Dawkins. Not personal experience. Not all the great and insightful people down through history. All that doesn’t matter. All of them were deluded and most importantly far less intelligent and wise than he himself. For him, true insight starts with himself and ends with Dawkins. History is a wreck visited on by evil Christianists and needs to be jettisoned.
The epitome of pride and arrogance. An old and boring formula.
irwin:
We can add Albert Einstein to the list of religious scientists.
At least that’s the impression a reader would get from his articles in Time Magazine in the 1930’s.
The text is readily available, as are others on the topic by googling:
Religion and Science.
The evidence has always been there that people with scientific minds also embrace religious truths as important in understanding our universe.
SYF:
“Darwin was a very religious man all his life.”
Man, I’ve heard religious people feed each other some pretty delusional stuff, but that one takes the cake. Hell, even “christiananswers.net” disagrees with you:
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
As for Einstein, while there is certainly evidence that he believed in some sort of God, here is his official stance on religion:
“About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”
—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.
Not that it matters in the slightest what either Darwin or Einstein thought of either religion or God, since those beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with their work. They were men of science who accomplished great things by using their minds – not men of the bible who stuck to outdated dogma in the face of contrary evidence.
Try again?
The nonsense I learned in school makes sure that hospitals have power.
Might I add that the ‘nonsense’ I am speaking of makes sure that there are hospitals to power?
Survival of the fittest eliminates the need for hospitals and thus the need for electricity.
Well Alex if my argument is circular then yours is even more so. God doesn’t exist therefore God doesn’t exist.
My experience was much more along the line of God doesn’t exist therefore God doesn’t exist. Then events began to happen for which there was no plausible explanation. I then began to ask the question, “could God exist?” Then one day I asked Him and He revealed Himself to me in a very personal way. Since then I have been walking with Him and He with me for over 30 years and every so often I am surprised by His Grace as He reveals another aspect of Himself to me.
Now I hold that I was much more ‘scientific’ than you because I asked the question ‘what if’. The scientists of the middle ages were convinced the earth was flat. Then someone asked the question what if. What if the world was not flat. Let’s prove it and the Americas were ‘discovered’. Thus I say that your approach is the same as the flat earthers who refuse to entertain the question ‘what if’.
You see you have a much more closed mind than do I. I mentioned that I don’t believe a scientist simply because he says “it is thus”. A few years ago NASA found a rock in Antarctica that they claimed had fallen off of Mars and contained traces of life. Now I hope you can follow this. Earth is spinning on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Mars travels around the Sun as well. A person finds a stationary rock that has left no trail. That person has no idea when the rock landed and if he is honest he has to admit that he has no idea which direction it came from. Then of course there is the small problem of the gravity well of Mars. How big an impact must have taken place to chip a rock off Mars and make it travel all the way to Earth? In other words you take an infinite number of possibilities (where it came from) and multiply it by an infinite number of impossibilities (rocks falling off planets) and a ‘scientist’ who finds the rock says that it proves there is life on Mars, in other words the scientist out and out lied to further his agenda. You want to believe him you go ahead.
I don’t trust clergy simply because they wear a collar. I test to see if what they say is true and to be perfectly honest much of what they say is not true.
I don’t believe a scientist simply because he is a scientist. I check and test to see if it is plausible and likely and if I can replicate what he has done.
I don’t accept a philosopher ancient or modern simply because he expressed and idea and a concept. Does it fit reality and what are the consequences?
However when millions of people over thousands of years do the same experiment and report the same result I tend to put a bit of credence in what they report. If I conduct the same experiment and attain the same result it pretty much convinces me that I have stumbled upon a bit of foundational truth. Does that mean that I have a lock on truth? No! It means that as we go through life we weigh the evidence with open mind. I reject the “big bang” theory because of its implausibility. Far greater mathematicians than I can not figure out ‘singularity’.
I was listening to Quirks and Quarks on CBC one day and I heard an astrophysicist exclaim that they had discovered that empty space was not empty but full of an energy that was like water about to boil. For an instant matter would appear then disappear almost in the same instant. The scientist in me said “the physicist is nuts”. The Christian in me said “that makes sense”. When the ‘string theory first came out with the idea of there being 11 dimensions 7 of which disappeared during the big bang. My inner scientist said the mathematician has too much time on their hands. The Christian in me said, “I know where those other dimensions went”.
I’ll leave you with this old joke. Science is scaling the mountain of knowledge. Year after year upward it goes. When at last it reaches the pinnacle it is in for another surprise. The theology has been sitting at the top waiting for the science to catch up.
Alex:
I’m curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible.
I have no quarrel with either religion or science. They are specialized fields onto their own.
Yet, you seem to believe science somehow refutes religion, despite millenia of evidence to the contrary in which scientists understood and were inspired in their search for scientific truth by religious tenets.
Darwin’s originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?
Darwin was, in fact, a lay leader in his church and a religious man.
If you read the Hemanns quote you will see the phrase ‘My God …’ Therefore, Einstein did not reject religion itself. He rejected a concept based on the authority of the Church, that is the worship of people in position of authority within the Church rather than its tenets. That’s the way I read it
Now Alex, you touch on an important point.
You say it matters not in the slightest whether Darwin or Einstein though of religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with their works.
I agree with you.
And, that is precisely the point.
Scientific theory should be able to stand on its own merits.
So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you’re wilfully ignorant about (religion).
My interest in science does not negate my interest in religion. They are two different fields of understandings of our universe which enhance each other.
The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above.
Religion is not against the theory of evolution.
Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species.
It’s a total non-sequiter to say that because the theory of evolution remains unproven that somehow religion stands in the way of its proof. It’s science itself that has not proven the theory.
In my scientific understanding, the theory of evolution has about as much chance of being proven as alchemy.
Who or what exactly is it that you’re so afraid will control you?
You have the power within yourself, through your own free will, to make your own choices.
Last I checked, nobody other human being was capable of controlling my life and I blame nobody else for my misery other than myself.
Alex:
Bob Dylan had a very appropriate lyric in one of his songs: ‘Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.’
It’s obvious you’ve had extremely poor teachers who turned you off an entire field of human understanding of our universe.
It would be better to stick to what you have embraced rather than what you have rejected.
Since you have embraced science and used religion as a strawman for all that is bad, why not just keep the debate about the theory of evolution strictly on scientific merit?
Is it because it cannot be proven, so you have to blame something for this failure? Or, is it because you are a scientist whose research grants are in danger of being pulled?
Or, are you plainly unwilling to accept the scientific truth?
Joe:
You are wrong. God does not make hospitals. Civil engineers do. They do it out of the compassion that is inherent in all men, religious or not.
You joke may be funny, but like most funny jokes it has very little basis in reality. I am not searching for a final answer. I guess Galileo caught up to theology because he recanted when he was being tortured. Descartes showed me that there are no absolutes but for this one.
Irwin,
Yikes. Please seek help. The way you use ad hominem attacks makes me question if you are being truthful and ignorant, or if you writing what you write to show how painful it is to argue with someone like yourself. Also there are Christian Terrorists, like McVeigh and the list I’ve attached at the bottom. They are as Christian as Al Qaeda is muslim. Just because you are ignorant of something (like evolution) does not mean it does not exist.
Others,
Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here.
# Christian terrorist organizations
* Army of God
* Christian Identity
* Aryan Nations
* Christian Patriots
* Lambs of Christ
* Nagaland Rebels
* Tsar Lazar Guard
* White Eagles
* God’s Army
* Ku Klux Klan
* National Liberation Front of Tripura
* Sons of Freedom
* Guardians of the Cedars
* Lebanese Forces
* The Lord’s Resistance Army
* Russian National Unity
# Historical cases of Christian terrorism
* St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, 1572
* Gunpowder Plot, 1605
* Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, 1649-53
* Iron Guard and Lăncieri, 1927-1945
As a note: You can’t make stuff up in online arguments or you will be bested by you betters. Please remember that Irwin. Everything you know about God is false; it’s all in your head.
Jon I see that not only can you not debate you can’t read either. I never said that God built hospitals. I said that Christianity is the impetus behind our modern hospital. In the mean time go and enjoy(?) your petty little helpless hopeless loveless life and when it is over enjoy your non-existence. One favour I ask of you. Please don’t kill anyone else from thinking that you are somehow superior (you know survival of the fittest).
“I’m curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible.”
Because religion has historically worked to stamp out science. During most of Europe’s history, basic medical research was forbidden due to church doctrine. And I don’t think I need to remind you about Galileo. Regaurdless of history, though, science and religion are incompatible due to their very natures – science teaches a critical and sceptical approach to all data, with a high degree of evidence required to “prove” a theory. Religion, on the other hand, says “The Bible says it, therefore it’s so”, and condemns anyone who doesn’t believe to eternal suffering. How you think those two belief systems are compatible is beyond me.
“Darwin’s originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?”
Of course he was interested in it – he was BORN RELIGIOUS, into a society where 99% of the people were religious. That he managed to shrug off the bonds of his indoctrination is nothing short of miraculous, and is a testament to his own intellectual abilities. Try raising your children WITHOUT a religious upbringing, and then see what they think about religion.
“So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you’re wilfully ignorant about (religion).”
Well, for one, because I’m quite clearly more knowledgeable about religion than you are, even though it doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Your argument is ridiculous. It’s like a holocaust denier telling me “Stick to science, since you’re ignorant about the REAL nature of the holocaust”. Do you have any idea how arrogant you appear by voicing such a proposition? That just because I disagree with your religious beliefs, I must be ignorant of religion? Who the hell do you think you are?
“The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above.”
Except you didn’t “articulate” any such reasons. All you did was assert that Darwin and Einstein were both religious, and make a vague reference to a presentation which was torn apart by every relevant expert in the field.
“Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species.”
Well, you’ll excuse me if I side with my own studies, as well as 90% of the scientific world, over your opinion and a few bible-thumping assholes who have a bit of a vested interest in the matter.
Tell ya what, when you can find me a non-religious scientist who claims that evolution as a whole is wrong, THEN maybe I’ll listen to you. It shouldn’t be too hard – the vast majority of the scientific world is either atheist or agnostic. I’m only asking you to find one. Until you manage that, this conversation is over.
“I’m curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible.”
Because religion has historically worked to stamp out science. During most of Europe’s history, basic medical research was forbidden due to church doctrine. And I don’t think I need to remind you about Galileo. Regaurdless of history, though, science and religion are incompatible due to their very natures – science teaches a critical and sceptical approach to all data, with a high degree of evidence required to “prove” a theory. Religion, on the other hand, says “The Bible says it, therefore it’s so”, and condemns anyone who doesn’t believe to eternal suffering. How you think those two belief systems are compatible is beyond me.
“Darwin’s originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?”
Of course he was interested in it – he was BORN RELIGIOUS, into a society where 99% of the people were religious. That he managed to shrug off the bonds of his indoctrination is nothing short of miraculous, and is a testament to his own intellectual abilities. Try raising your children WITHOUT a religious upbringing, and then see what they think about religion.
“So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you’re wilfully ignorant about (religion).”
Well, for one, because I’m quite clearly more knowledgeable about religion than you are, even though it doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Your argument is ridiculous. It’s like a holocaust denier telling me “Stick to science, since you’re ignorant about the REAL nature of the holocaust”. Do you have any idea how arrogant you appear by voicing such a proposition? That just because I disagree with your religious beliefs, I must be ignorant of religion? Who the hell do you think you are?
“The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above.”
Except you didn’t “articulate” any such reasons. All you did was assert that Darwin and Einstein were both religious, and make a vague reference to a presentation which was torn apart by every relevant expert in the field.
“Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species.”
Well, you’ll excuse me if I side with my own studies, as well as 90% of the scientific world, over your opinion and a few bible-thumping assholes who have a bit of a vested interest in the matter.
Tell ya what, when you can find me a non-religious scientist who claims that evolution as a whole is wrong, THEN maybe I’ll listen to you. It shouldn’t be too hard – the vast majority of the scientific world is either atheist or agnostic. I’m only asking you to find one. Until you manage that, this conversation is over.
Dude, you missed more than a few. How about the Albigensian Crusade? Yet, add up the the worst the west can be accused of doing (the Crusades? The Inquistion? the Spanish Conquest? WW1? WW2? Throw them all in, even undeservedly so)
Versus 270 million dead kaffirs.
-Not Including Muslims
“Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here.”
I can’t name one. However, I can say that Time Magazine’s front cover declared God Dead in the 60’s, if I’m not mistaken. I’m still wondering why Nietzsche’s estate didn’t sue.
Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here.
Right back at you: Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that PROVES that evolution exists.
Your constant appeal to expertise is getting more than a littly wearisome.
“Versus 270 million dead kaffirs.”
Yipee. So Christianity slaughtered less people than Islam. So what? It certainly wasn’t for lack of trying. If, during the Crusades, your religious leaders could have wiped out the entire Muslim world, do you think that they would have hesitated for a second?
My problem isn’t with Christianity – it’s with religion as a whole. Choosing between the different religions is like trying to differentiate between Weed, Mushrooms, LSD, and Crack Cocaine. Sure, some are less bad than others, but none are good.
are less bad than others, but none are good.
Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.
And you thought Christianity was nonsense!
Alex,
This.
Joe,
You’re wrong. Hospitals exist because people care for other people, correlation does not equal causation.
Irwin,
Wow.
Joe,
Science is done by experts. Period. Anything else is junk science.
Also,
If you make an incredible statement like God exists, it’s up to you to back it up in a way that others can see.
I made a long comment that somehow never got posted. The gist of it, though, is this: since the majority of the scientific community is either Atheist or Agnostic, it should be no problem for our religious friends here to find a non-religious scientist who thinks that evolution is junk. So….care to point out one?
Back to science by the elite, science by the majority eh. I guess ‘science’ therefore is pretty much infallable then isn’t it.
BTW Jon and Alex are you so blinded by your bigotries that you can’t see that what you are doing is reducing humanity back to the dark ages? Only the ‘scientist’ knows. Only the material published in ‘science’ journals it truth. We mere humans dare not question ‘science’.
Science simply means “to observe”. I see an event happen and I come up with an idea as to why it happens. I test that idea and I tell someone else about my observation and that person comes up with an idea about puts it to the test and as a result of many people observing and testing a concensus is arrived at.
Those concensus’ are constantly being challenged and updated. Most scientists thought the earth was flat. Most scientist once thought that the stars were close to earth. Most scientists thought the sun moved around the earth.
Later scientists disagreed.
I have observed something I refer to as God. Millions of other people have likewise observed a thing called God. Some people have come to believe in God without that observation just as you have come to accept evolution without actually observing it based on the testemony of the people who have observed God. Some others have never observed God but like the idea and so create a concept of God that still others follow.
What you need to realize is that people like me, like Irwin and like a goodly number of others on this blog have had interaction with God. As such we are entitled to use that experience in a ‘scientific’ way to explain the origin of the universe and the beginnings of life. In fact you would be amazed at the number of recognized ‘scientists’ that I meet in Church on Sunday. They are in Church because they have experienced God first hand. They are not in church because some clergyman is using mind control and is offering them heaven in the afterlife. In fact heaven in the afterlife rarely comes up when I talk with them. Their minds are too occupied trying to understand that thing we call God that we have all met and interacted with. Now I know that your greatest desire is to cling to your godless delusion and as a scientist and a man of God I won’t interfere. I only want to let you know that most of us on this side of the debate started out where you now sit. Why did we move to this side? Science. We observed, we tried to come up with a logical explanation and we discovered a treasure trove of information left by centuries of people who had observed the samd God.
“I am basing my opinion on macro-evolution on the facts – there is no fossil evidence of one species evolving out of another. If you want to believe this, fine, that is up to you. Read up about the Cambrian explosion. I am a molecular biologist and I have to let the facts speak for themselves.” – ex-Liberal
Deal with it.
“Back to science by the elite, science by the majority eh.”
Nope, just basic logic. Since you’re clearly unable to understand the science, I thought I’d try a different approach. It’s quite simple really – if 90% of all scientists are non-religious, yet 0% of scientists who disparage evolution are non-religious, what do you think the most likely explanation is? Also, while you’re at it, account for the fact that most of the religious scientists ALSO support the theory of evolution.
“BTW Jon and Alex are you so blinded by your bigotries that you can’t see that what you are doing is reducing humanity back to the dark ages? Only the ‘scientist’ knows.”
Hardly. I’m not saying that “only the scientist knows”, I’m saying that “only you few are being wilfully blind”. The evidence is there for everyone to examine, and the vast majority of people agree with it. Meanwhile you want us to ignore the evidence just because your interpretation of the bible says it’s wrong. Sorry, but it aint gonna happen.
“Science simply means “to observe”. I see an event happen and I come up with an idea as to why it happens. I test that idea…”
Right, let me know when you’ve figured out how to test “God Did It!!!”. And no, sitting around in prayer circles and talking about your hallucinations doesn’t count as testing.
Just wanted to add something:
“I only want to let you know that most of us on this side of the debate started out where you now sit. Why did we move to this side? Science.”
That’s actually really funny 🙂 It’s good to see that you’ve got a sense of humour at least. Thanks for the laughs, and take care!