The God Delusion & The Virus of Faith

All the news that's new and approved. We want your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Moderator: EG Members

User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

The God Delusion & The Virus of Faith

Post by psi29a »

Below are two clips about 45min a piece about religion and the world it effects. The shocking title does no justice to the incredible arguments that Richard Dawkins makes against religion and its assault on reason and science. Whether or not you agree with the content, this documentary must give you pause. Narrated by Dawkins, who is an incredible thinker and is very passionate about his arguments. The gem of these documentaries is an interview with Ted Haggard, who gets all uppity when he is challenged by Dawkins as someone who is "telling people what to think". Not to be missed.



Last edited by psi29a on Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

I'll definitely look at those when I go home.

As much as I agree with you about Dawkins about his argumentation, I find him to be very (too?) agressive sometimes. I know it's his style, and what he's confronted with is madenning, but his blood pressure goes too high sometimes.

I read an interview of him and a high-profile scientist who was clamoring his faith in Times. If Dawkins was more credible from an argumentative point of view, he also appeared like a mad dog in front of the other guy. Sometimes this style can be detrimental to the cause you defend.
Image
User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

Quite frankly, everyone should believe what they wish. And they shouldn't be going on and preaching about their beliefs, be it for or against religion. Doing so makes you a missionary, for either side. However (and without having seen the movies), when religions step on grounds they have no place stepping on, defence IS necessary. If possible without getting emotional about it, but hell, atheists are only humans, too.
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

Except we are not talking about beliefs here. We are talking about steel-hard facts.

And it's not even about opposing religion really: it's quite clear that on this regard, it's like comparing apple and orange. Science works for advancing human knowledge, nothing more. It doesn't try to tell you what is good to think. It just lay down facts, and usually an reasonable interpretation of them. At least that's how it's supposed to work if your facts are solid.
Image
Kekiro
imanewbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:46 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Kekiro »

Isn't religion kinda like communism, without the talk about god?
just a thought.
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

Kekiro wrote:Isn't religion kinda like communism, without the talk about god?
just a thought.
No, it is not.

They are two different words, meaning that you can not substitute one for the other as each word carries with it distinctions, there may be overlapping parts but they define two different things hence why we have two words to begin with.

From the AHD:
com·mu·nism
n.

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
and...
re·li·gion
n.
A.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

B.
1. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Make a better argument please.
User avatar
ZoddsNo1Fan
This is my new home
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm
Location: US, east

Post by ZoddsNo1Fan »

Evolutionists fight back about the "dillusion" which is religion. Evolutionists can argue about "religion" as much as they want i dont care. As you have suspected from my previous post that yes i am a "christian" as religion goes. However, i dont like to catagorise/stereotype my faith in that which i know exists. I DO know that once i never had this happiness, peace, or wholeness that i had before i found what i did.

He talks about evolution as though its the savior of the world. As tho it has NO justification of dispovement (when the fact is is that religious leaders/scientific leaders in their field are merly pointing out why certain evolution views dont work). Its not just the religious groups that are questioning evolution but scientists are seeing contradictions to evolutionary theory and publishing their findings.

Joseph Stalin believed in evolution and he slaughtered his people with evolution in mind, he didnt mention that. Hitler was merly pointing out the survival of the fittest evolutionary point(didnt mention that). The students that carried out the Columbine shooting wore evolution shirts reading, "Survival of the fittest" he didnt metion that. Ever since evolution has been intruduced into public schools there has been a substantial increase in the number of teen pregnancies, violence, grades dropping etc. People are tought they are animals and act acordingly(perhaps evolution is the radical, fanatic view that needs put down). Evolution is under heavy fire because they cant PROVE any of their claims and many people(me included) think that evolution should not be tought in schools until it CAN be proven.

He talked about evolution as though it were fact when in reality the only noticable evolution is MICRO evolution(adaptation). MACRO evolution however gets to be far fetched as well as many other claims such as fossil records(not millions of years). The FACT is that EVOLUTION IS THE RELIGION being tought in public schools and scientists/parents object to it being tought as a flawLESS/proven topic(when it clearly is not).

Call it God, Allah whatever, i dont even care, all i know is that someone, something is there watching over me. I give freely to churches/organizations of all "religions" who have a just cause, and without hessitation. I love how this man goes on about the "delusion" of religion when the fact of the matter is is that from the dawn of the known history of man there is recollection of a greater power. Did man evolve from an ape to comprehend, "Hey you know what, maybe theres some supernaural power residing over the universe. Lets make a religion!" when clearly(if evolution is correct) the only thing a species should be worrying about is how to survive(amazing huh?).

He makes religion look like a giant scam that tries to steal peoples money when in truth many of these organizations have tens of misionaries/other outreachings they donate to and are merly getting by week by week. He doesnt mention that. I will give all i have if it had to come down to it for a just cause. Call it crazy, call it whatever you want, i know that i have something these people dont and i feel for the people who have never experienced it. Its that one thing many millionaires talk about. That one special thing that they search for but never find.

You read story after story about people who have it all (they were chosen via natural selection/survival of the fittest, smarter/stronger) still feel as tho they are missing something. They know theres something more to it. They go through life, living in the world and all the luxeries it has, never to experience the wholeness that this faith has given me. The funny thing is is that in all truth i am the richer man even though i only have enough to get by.

Call it stupidity or what have you but its true. I have something they will NEVER have in this life or the next and that is a personal relationship with the one who forged me. I know he/it is there, he/it sees my every move, i can feel his/its presence, i am blessed and theres nothing anyone can do to take this away from me.
Last edited by ZoddsNo1Fan on Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

All that you have to do is prove that God either exists or does not exist. Well, you and I can't, there for God is not falsifiable .

Feel good all you want, but just as you can type what you did, I can give you counter examples that paint any religion as hypocrites. Atheists and Agnostics are living proof that you can live and enjoy life since you only get one chance. There are no second chances, there is no after life.

Check it out, as an agnostic I volunteer, I donate my time and money to causes I think are important, and I'll be active in my child's PTA and a staunch supporter of the sciences.

Look around you: all that has been made by humans, by human hands. That house, the tv, the Internet, the forum you type in, the bombs that fall from the sky, and the ak-47. They are all tools that are devoid of any attribute of 'good' or 'evil'. It is also niave to paint anything as either 'good' or 'evil' and that is what christians do.

This is overly simplistic by believing in God, you stifle any ability to reason and discover things that may contradict your own beliefs.

Atheists and Agnostics follow where the evidence leads them. If it leads to God, great. Till then, I only care about your ability to reason, I don't care for your religion. I support any cause that makes you question, theorize, and decide for yourself. That is true freedom, freedom from belief.

If you have to believe, then it isn't science.

PS: Who got us into a war in Iraq, Christians. Who slaughters many in the name of God (crusades, reconquesta, inquisition, Isreal's existence, etc)? You guessed it, those who believe in God. Sorry, it isn't as one sided as you paint with Stalin. The point is, just as people use the name of God to kill people, people also used Evolution as a basis for killing people as well. You can use all sorts of tools to kill people, from b2-stealth bombers honing in on iraqi civilians to racks and torture devices in Spain while murdering Muslims and Jews.

Problem is that some people are killing for a belief, while others co-opt a tool to support their point and justify their actions. That by no means excuses the latter of their actions.
Last edited by psi29a on Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ZoddsNo1Fan
This is my new home
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm
Location: US, east

Post by ZoddsNo1Fan »

If you have to believe, then it isn't science.
Then dont believe in evolution. Its cant be tested in lab. Its not proven

I totaly agree with differential views, i am a very open person. The only issue i have ever had with evolution is that you must BELIEVE in evolution (accept the theory) in order for it to be true. Micro evolution(even though it should be labled as adaptation) is proven and factual, Macro evoltuion, creation of a totaly new species via isolation/change, has never been proven and never will on this earth. In essence evolution is FAITH and you must BELIEVE in it for it to be true. So why then is the RELIGION of evolution (with darwin as the religious leader) being tought as fact in public schools/mass media?
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

ZoddsNo1Fan wrote:Then dont believe in evolution. Its cant be tested in lab. Its not proven
My wife just called you ignorant, I would have to agree.

However, you have back-peddled and are not trying to create a rational argument to be fare micro-evolution can be tested. Macro-evolution can also be tested, but it takes a LONG time to do so which means it isn't out of the realm of possibility for testing which is different than being plan 'ol unfalsifiable.

Here is how you test it, you take sharks which haven't had a need to evolve in millions of years and you put them in separate environments that encourages different things. Then you clock them over the years along with a control group in normal sea conditions.

Yes this would take a long time, however the evidence suggests and the hypothesis is that you will start to see adaptations to environment and random variations in offspring. Continuing these over generations you will see differences. Wait, we did this experiment before.. with dogs! Though we didn't think it was an experiment at the time.

It is reasonable portray evolution as a scientific theory in which it is adjusted, described, and bettered over time. If we find a flaw, or evidence that suggests the hypothesis is wrong we go with. Scientists go where the evidence is, not where it is not.

The idea to figure out why, not leave it up to the God (of the gaps) to fill in what areas we do not understand. I don't want you, or any other person (Christian or not) to deny anyone''s ability to perform the scientific process.


I'll post it again in case you missed it the first time.

And here we go!
Berkley University wrote:Misconception:
"Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable."

Response:
Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.
Need more science? Here ya go.

ImageFossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time.

ImageStudying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution.

ImageArtificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory.

ImageLaboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.

* Visit the PBS Evolution Web site to learn about John Endler's research on wild guppies, a great example of direct experimentation.

* Learn more about lines of evidence for evolution

If you have to believe something to be true, then it isn't science.

PS: Evolution is science, not faith. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes. Other decisions specifically uphold a school district's right to require the teaching of evolution.

Darwin's idea that evolution generally proceeds at a slow, deliberate pace has been modified to include the idea that evolution can proceed at a relatively rapid pace under some circumstances. In this sense, "Darwinism" is continually being modified. Modification of theories to make them more representative of how things work is the role of scientists and of science itself.

Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors. Scientists have not rejected Darwin's natural selection, but have improved and expanded it as more information has become available. For example, we now know (although Darwin did not) that genetic mutations are the source of variation acted on by natural selection, but we haven't rejected Darwin's idea of natural selection — we've just added to it.
Last edited by psi29a on Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

Zodd#1Fan post was to say how religion is great for him. You know what? I'm trully happy for you. I do. I'm just going to point the fact that you strongly suggest that you have something other don't, faith, and that makes you a "happier" (dare I say superior) being. That's just one of the hypocrisies Psi was talking about. Your argument about race cleansing by dictators is just preposterous, as they were just disguising their own hate under the cover of a scientific work.

But that's not what we are arguing about here. What we are debating here is the fact that religious views on humanity natural history is in total contradiction with scientific facts. That could be OK, the problem is that some people of the religious community are trying to shoving their views down our throats. And that against reason.

I have no problems with people believing (and I insist: believing) in ID. Just do not try to impose it as THE truth without any other arguments than faith. Pointing out holes in a scientific work is just too easy, especially for something as documented as evolution.

I will just add one thing: the whole fallacy of ID is its starting hypothesis: God exists. If you start a scientific argument with this in mind, anything you say can not be relevant to the discussion, as only facts can be considered relevants in such discussion. However, as I said before, I'm not so sure Dawkins serve the cause that well by being so agressive at times.

Edit: I can't believe what I just read. We don't BELIEVE in evolution, cretin. It's a proven event, unlike God. We can test it in labs, research it, unlike God. How can one be so dense. You have the rhetoric of a middle schooler.
Last edited by Albator on Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Libaax
Of The Abyss
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:21 am
Location: Hell if i know

Post by Libaax »

What annoys me is that why cant we believe in both science and god.



I believe in god, allah in this case but doesnt mean i am blind to science and evolution.


When i saw in school everything about evolution, it made me believe more in god cause its cant all be random.


Thats why i find these ID people such a joke.



Thanks for the links, psi29 i like watching stuff like this, i hope the guy isnt too aggressive as someone said cause that ruins everything, when you resort stuff like that.
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

Well the agressive part is a personal opinion, I've seen a lot worse. He just uses irony a lot, he's cheeky. Some will say it's necessary in order to carry the message. When you debate of things like this, usually just calmly laying down your points help the debate. It's not always easy when people in front of you are totally hermetic to your arguments.

And I agree with you: science and religion should be able to live together. As I said before, this is 2 distincts worlds. In both cases, the principles guiding both communities should allow them to live together. However science doesn't tell clerics how to interpret the scriptures. So don't try to tell scientists how to interpret their results. It's overreach.
Image
User avatar
ZoddsNo1Fan
This is my new home
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm
Location: US, east

Post by ZoddsNo1Fan »

Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time.

Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution.

Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory.

Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.
Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time.
The Old Archaeopteryx Trick
Having asserted that transitional fossils abound, Isaak proceeds to cite Archaeopteryx (a unique and hotly debated specimen) as an example, declaring that it “is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact).”
Yet concerning Archaeopteryx, at least a few leading authorities on the subject seem to disagree with Isaak:


“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]
Furthermore, the published work of Larry D. Martin et al., A. D. Walker, J. M. V. Rayner, S. L. Olson, K. N. Whetstone and others (all evolutionists) indicate precisely the opposite of Isaak’s assertion—that is, Archaeopteryx has far more bird-like characteristics than reptile-like characteristics.

It should also be mentioned here (especially since it was “overlooked” by both Isaak and Hunt) that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]
Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.
Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies
Isaak continues: “The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild...” He then directs us to:

the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al. (involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in the laboratory), and
the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the archives.
As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.

Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution (“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution.
Whale “Evolution”
One of many examples of the incomplete picture given in Hunt’s FAQ may be found in her treatment of whales. Besides presenting a phylogeny that (much like elsewhere in the FAQ) seems to rely largely on dental records at the expense (in the absence?) of the balance of physiological evidence, she makes mention of Pakicetus, which she describes as “the oldest fossil whale known ... nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole) ... found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious...” What Hunt fails to include in her description of “the oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than:

the back of a mammal skull
two jaw fragments
some teeth
[Readers may see the image linked here for an illustration of just how much “whale evolution” is contrived from how little substance.]

As Hunt notes, these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils in 1983. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an “old whale” any more than to an “old land mammal.” Yet the discoverers (P.D. Gingerich et al.) chose to “interpret” their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents (such as Hunt) have happily parroted their claim ever since.

What do the Experts Say?
Let us recall what some respected evolutionary authorities have said concerning natural selection:

“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]

“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]

“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]

Source: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Last edited by ZoddsNo1Fan on Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

What is your source? By that, I mean the source that wrote your whole post.
Image
User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

Get it into your head, there is no such thing as ORIGINAL adaption. Adapation is the process where the more suitable individuals survive, and the less suitable die out.
Of course you cannot immediately and quickly reproduce that in a lab, but you could over time.

How does breeding work? For breeding dogs, there was never any induced mutation. It was all random variation, and then selection by a breeder. However, we see dogs who look totally different than other dogs. Where does this variation come from? Right, random mutation. It was only in this case humans who sped up the selection process with our own semi-intelligent meddling.
Of course, all different dogs can usually still cross-breed, there has been no speciation. But then, that would be counter-productive to the breeders, too, so necessarily, the selection modified the result of the change.

On the fruit-fly topic: You say that bombarding them with radiation does not constitute random mutation, but it very much does. Radiation has always been a deciding factor in evolution. Initial proto-organism evolution took place under very intense radiation conditions, because there was no ozone layer then. Even now, millions of individual radiation quantums enter our atmosphere at any given time. If they hit you, a mutation might occur. Probably only one in a million of those would be considered beneficial, but then, that's the way evolution works. If it worked any other way it would not have taken millions of years.
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
Eldo
Of The Abyss
Posts: 7435
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Yours or mine?

Post by Eldo »

I love how he posted that 'respected evolutionary authorities' part where the quotes are around 30 years ago. It's like scientific development remained static within those 30 years and they can't find any quotes later than that time.
In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies!
I actually did lol'd to the truth of that. I think those creationists were probably expecting those flies to be able to grow into humanoid shape and interbreed with humans.
Image

I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
User avatar
Shisho
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:46 am

Post by Shisho »

Gotta watch part II some other time.

Nice post.

I hope the hobgoblins don't get me!
User avatar
Gaiseric
Tastes like burning!
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: Utah

Post by Gaiseric »

Libaax wrote:When i saw in school everything about evolution, it made me believe more in god cause its cant all be random.
That was Einstein's downfall. He believed God created everything in a way that it could be predicted by man, nothing was random. He wasted the second half of his life trying to come up with a theory that could prove everything.




Thanks for the videos, Psi. I really enjoyed them.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

If logic applies to all natural phenomena, then eventually it should be possible to explain everything. However, putting it all in one formula might be difficult.
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

It won't be in our lifetime that is for sure, but when it comes down to it you don't through out Newton's work because it was supercedded by Einstein, and you are not going to throw out Einstein's work because of work being done in other fields of Quantum Mechanics and M-Theory.

I see perhaps that our definitions are confused, belief supposes a leap of faith. Science has nothing to do with either belief or faith, it just goes where the evidence leads. We still use Newtonian physics on Earth because it is 'good' enough.

M-Theory (evolution of string theory) is something people would love to see happen, it looks great on paper but in the past 10 years we can't test it nor observe it. Does that mean it will NEVER be testable or observable? No, that is why we are building the large Halydron Collider near Geneva so that we can test it, and observe the results, though it will probably take a long time to do.

Macro evolution is another sub-set of Evolution as a whole, (think micro and macro economics), you don't dismiss Evolution because of things in the field that we have not tested yet, because we are still working on it.

Science is about learning and reasoning. Perhaps your gripe with Evolution is because parts of it directly fuck up your world view. There is evidence to suggest the world is round, but we didn't know for sure till we actually sailed around it, though we had calculations and proofs for 2000+ years.

It takes awhile, this isn't fly by night stuff and more importantly we probably won't know the outcome in our lifetime. I'm fine with that. I hope my kids continue to ask the hard questions too.

PS: Found this chart which I thought was interesting and would like to share.

Image


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I also suggest you read the following:
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

This also sums up our stance:
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
User avatar
Killfile
Flexing spam muscles
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
Contact:

Post by Killfile »

Joseph Stalin believed in evolution and he slaughtered his people with evolution in mind, he didn't mention that.
Wow. You're one of those crazy people that thinks that dropping a few historical references makes you look smart aren't you? Better yet, you think that just because you mentioned Joseph Stalin no one would dare defend him.

Oops.

Lemme break out my history degree here, blow some dust off of it, polish up the glass nice and pretty.


Alright then. First off - you're a moron. "Stalin believed in evolution." Wow. Ok, Stalin was a Bolshevik - the successor to Vladimir Lenin who took power from Alexander Kerensky in the increasingly inaccurately named October Revolution (which happened in November). Lenin's ideological roots stem from Marx and as such Bolshevisms shares Marxist roots. Marx, and then Lenin, and then Stalin all rejected religion as the "opiate of the masses." By all accounts they were professional atheists.

So yes, Stalin would have preferred evolutionary biology as an explanation of the origins of the species to "the invisible man in the sky did it." That doesn't mean he "believed" it. Stalin was a professional non-believer. Belief didn't enter into it.

Moving on.

From this cock-eyed notion of faith in the secular theocracy of Soviet Russia (where the species evolves you!) you've decided that Stalin killed his people because of some faith in evolution.

Stalin killed a lot of people. Did he kill some people that might have been considered "undesirables?" Probably. But you mis-characterize the Stalinist terror if you equate it with Eugenics. Stalin killed the Red Army Officer Corps - pretty much all of it - because he feared a military coup. Stalin killed Jewish Doctors because he thought they were trying to poison him (this was in his later years when he was a bit... more... crazy). Stalin killed the Ukraine -- pretty damn near all of it, some 30,000,000 people -- to pay for industrial machinery.

And that's ignoring the millions he sent charging into Nazi machine-gun fire unarmed and untrained because it was cheaper than building more guns.

All total Stalin killed, was responsible for the deaths of, or disappeared some 70,000,000 people. Of those, only a tiny insignificant fraction were part of any sort of Eugenics program.

Let's leave Stalin out of this. I know he's an easy target to pick on but you're outclassed on this one. Did he experiment with Eugenics? A little. But then so did everyone from Oliver Wendel Holmes on up. Technically the Virginia Eugenics Laws - the basis for the Nazi Eugenics Programs - have never been overturned.
Carthago delenda est!

--Killfile @ [Nephandus.com]
Image
Kekiro
imanewbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:46 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Kekiro »

I had a creationist (forgive me if i spelled it wrong) preaching at my school, with him was his child. it was obvious that his child was always with him when he was preaching since he knew the answers to all the questions the creationist asked.
now, we live in a world (the "western" world) where we are supposed to have freedom of choice, can decide for ourselves what we want to believe and have control over our own lives, right?
But tell me, how can you have all that if you from your birth have been told that there is a god and he created the world and everything in it and bla bla. I watched one of the god channels the other day at my friends house, i watch it whenever i can since it is hilarious (if youre an atheist). anyway apparently it was a show for kids, they were in this big...well since i dont know an apporpriate word for it lets call it a classroom, well this guy was introducing someone he claimed was the smartest kid on earth. he entered the "stage" and started talking about sins, keep in mind this guy is about 8 years old and talking to a bunch of kids. anyway he went on for a while and then explained that every sin, even the little ones would all add up in your glass of sins (he was actually using a glass of water to describe it), now he named a cop of tiny sins like coming home late from school since you went to your friends house for a lil while and stealing a cookie from the cookie jar and eating it before dinner. and with each sin he mentioned he put a drop of some black stuff in the glass of water, resulting in it becoming more and more black. and after a while he said something like "and now look at this, all those little tiny sins have added up to this mess". and then he asked if anyone wanted to drink it, a lil guy came up and had a sip. then the smart guy asked "how did it taste?" the lil guy shook his head and the smart guy said "not good, eh? just like sins".
then he said something like "but fear not! even if you have sinned and got into this mess you can be cleansed (not sure that was the word he used but hey). if you talk to jesus and ask for his forgiveness he will cleanse you (...), and now look" he held up a glass with some water looking liquid and told the kids that it represented jesus, he then poured it into the glass that was not filled with black water. the black water turned into...water again and all the kids were amazed.

now, the society and parents arent giving these children a chance to decide for themselves, they will grow up to be hard-core christians.
if anything, this should be a "sin".
User avatar
Skullkracker
Dirty Sennin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:10 pm
Location: outta this world

Post by Skullkracker »

as I understand you claim that kids become "hardcore" christians becouse their parents tell them to

now I know many christian parents and their kids, and believe me, it is not predestined

of course, parents tell their kids what they believe in, and when I have kids, I will also tell them what I believe in, but if anyone forces their children to think as they do, they are dumb
as I mentioned, I know youngsters from christian families
some of them became christians too, some of them did not

on the other hand, at school we are taught that the only possible explainations of human existence are big bang and evolution

so how are we doin' with 'em options again?
Image
Kekiro
imanewbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:46 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Kekiro »

now correct me if im wrong but the "period of learning" is between age 3-6 or something and we learn about "big bang" at the age of 10?
and when a child starts asking questions, what would his/her christian parents say? "oh there are different theories and it is up to you to decide ho-ho-ho".
Post Reply