dawkins ftw

[REIMktg]

you misunderstood me. what i'm saying is that your position is that of an agnostic based on what i've read (as is mine as it happens), so i don't see why you're claiming it to be a theistic one.

-p

The reality is that I have no idea how all of this fits together. I believe in a God for other reasons leaving the exact issues of how that God put it all together open. That may be where you see my crossover.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

I'm randomly jumping in here.

As I was reading from Dr. William Lane Craig (who slaughtered Hitchens at Biola)

I've never seen Craig intellectually trump Hitchens in a debate, and I have seen them all. Crag's premises are a cumulative effort based on his own fact that ancient texts are 100% true and verified testimony. Literally everything he says is based on this. His argument for first cause is even worse.

I may be presuming here, but you appear to be religious. You accept micro evolution (due to the overwhelming evidence of evolution) but just wish macro evolution would not be presented as pure fact in the classroom. That's understandable, but at the same time not.

What do you think the purpose of a high school science class is? Do you think it's to present students with a bunch of ideas and say "This is what the evidence says, BUT this intelligent design can also happen, it's up to you to study and decide."? I don't think it is. That would be philosophy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming in favor of macro evolution. The goal in a science class should be to teach these principles as fact, so that either:

1) They can be strengthened over the years with study.

2) They can be refuted by equally opposing rationale.

This is the entire basis for the scientific method, which has given science ridiculous progress and discovery over the years. Religion hasn't discovered anything in thousands of years.

 

[greenleaves]

First, LOL at the open minded people who use logic and deduction to come up with a theory based on no evidence, while dismissing theories that have a ton.

But just for the sake of making fun of the 'non believers':

BluuueJammm - Homo Erectus pictured here on an evolution site....

I can find people that look like this today. So what are you telling me?

Seriously? You know people like that? Do you mind introducing them to the scientific community? And I hope you don't mean black people, because if you do; you are either racist, or in desperate need of eyeglasses.

but why so much faith in evolution which is sketchy at best?

So... let me get this straight. You won't read the evidence that exist on evolution. But yet you consider yourself qualified enough to pass judgement on that evidence which you are too lazy too read? And then say that people who did read the evidence and believe in it are closed minded?

You do realize that people that believes in evolution due to having read (as opposed to seeing a 15second youtube video or done two 5 second google searches) about all the evidence, is going to believe in any theory that 'disproves' evolution, when such a superior theory to the development of species appears. (superior as defined by science)

 

[Ar Scion]

of course it can, no matter how many times you state otherwise. the feeling of a warm cup of tea in my hand and people feeling that an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent entity is speaking to them are entirely different things. one is caused by clearly observable stimuli and the other isn't.



if you're talking about understanding the brain, it is the most complex single thing we know of; us studying it is like cavemen trying to study seo - it's gonna be slow going that doesn't mean it's unknowable or that us not understanding it thoroughly and entirely somehow equates to proof of god



for one, because we aren't quite ready to accept that dichotomy. ever heard of unified theory?



it might be hard to imagine, but there are plenty of people who like to think for themselves. i'm barely familiar with dawkins, never mind his views on everything

-p

We must be talking about two different things because I remember you admitting that the models on which our knowledge is based do not give us qualia, but only more scientific data.

And therefore we cannot measure qualia in any meaningful way. The size of brightness, the depth of doubt, the weight of monotony, the frequency of happiness are all meaningless properties of non-objects.

And that all our measurements contingent to qualia are merely correlated symptoms such as brain activity, behavior and stimuli manipulation, not the actual sensations, emotions or ideas themselves.

What data you got to refute this, bro?

The fact that we're already working on nuclear fusion but can't explain how sound waves oscillating at 440 Hertz results in the sound that the key of A produces says something.

This isn't some "god of the gaps" bullshit, this is a bridge that will never be crossed because mathematics, that non-corporeal, abstract extension of logic that does not exist in any real sense outside of our mind can only produce more mathematics, nothing else. And logic is the foundation of science.

This much is self evident. If you disagree, have a specific explanation ready. None of that "trust me, science will fix this somehow" shit because I showed you how it won't unless it can somehow violate the laws of logic.

 

[REIMktg]

I'm randomly jumping in here.
I've never seen Craig intellectually trump Hitchens in a debate, and I have seen them all. Crag's premises are a cumulative effort based on his own fact that ancient texts are 100% true and verified testimony. Literally everything he says is based on this. His argument for first cause is even worse.

I did capitulate that it was not a slaughter in an earlier post. Though Craig specifically left out all appeals to the texts etc in the Biola debate. Craig did win, but I imagine even that would be debated by others with an opposing view.

I may be presuming here, but you appear to be religious. You accept micro evolution (due to the overwhelming evidence of evolution) but just wish macro evolution would not be presented as pure fact in the classroom. That's understandable, but at the same time not.

What do you think the purpose of a high school science class is? Do you think it's to present students with a bunch of ideas and say "This is what the evidence says, BUT this intelligent design can also happen, it's up to you to study and decide."? I don't think it is. That would be philosophy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming in favor of macro evolution. The goal in a science class should be to teach these principles as fact, so that either:

1) They can be strengthened over the years with study.

2) They can be refuted by equally opposing rationale.

This is the entire basis for the scientific method, which has given science ridiculous progress and discovery over the years. Religion hasn't discovered anything in thousands of years.

I do not care if Intelligent design or Creation is even mentioned in the classroom. It would be nice if, even if in a separate class, students were taught about the presumptions and basis for which all of their other classes are taught. When I went to school, I was never told that the transitional drawings and even skeletons in the schools and museums were speculative models - I thought they were found that way and 100% true. We were never taught the presumptions of Science and this was in High School classes taught by the local 4 year university professors for full university credit - not some remedial science program.

Teach science, teach history, but then add a class teaching logic, reason, and the ways in which these other classes are developed. Can't anyone around here see how that would benefit the mind of the student? Forcing them to challenge assumptions, develop new conclusions and not to assume the status quo.

Its like the old anecdote with Physicists where they only want new physicists on certain projects because they will try things and make things happen that the older physicists knew was an impossibility. If we teach students without having them know the leaps of faith that form the basis of their knowledge and studies, how do we expect them to grow and challenge the future?

Once again, leave religion out - I could care less. But teach what is. How is this place so narrow minded not to see this? What am I missing in this communication?

 

[REIMktg]

First, LOL at the open minded people who use logic and deduction to come up with a theory based on no evidence, while dismissing theories that have a ton.

I have not dismissed the theory as much as challenged it. I have even stated that micro changes can and do happen - fine.

Seriously? You know people like that? Do you mind introducing them to the scientific community? And I hope you don't mean black people, because if you do; you are either racist, or in desperate need of eyeglasses.

lol. I'm not certain that guy even looks black, but your presumption that I did surely is racist. Of course I do subscribe to this type of PC, but dont pull the race card on me, it will not work. I may be white but I was delivered in the 1970's by a black doctor, was raised in an 80% black neighborhood, and.... well lets just say my non racist credentials are strong.

Look around in society, there are so many shapes and sizes of faces and skulls it is amazing. Also, there is an amazing amount of differentiation in the underworld of people in this society that never allow themselves to be seen in society. There are many people with highly varied facial structures alive today.

But, now that you mention it. Evolution clearly justifies racism, something no one around here ever disputes with logic. If evolution were true and we are all not created in the image of the Creator, well then, all humans are different and have evolved from different "lines" therefore some may just be better than others.... no? Now for me, I believe in a Creator God that created us in a single image. How about you? Where is racism not justified?

So... let me get this straight. You won't read the evidence that exist on evolution. But yet you consider yourself qualified enough to pass judgement on that evidence which you are too lazy too read? And then say that people who did read the evidence and believe in it are closed minded?

You do realize that people that believes in evolution due to having read (as opposed to seeing a 15second youtube video or done two 5 second google searches) about all the evidence, is going to believe in any theory that 'disproves' evolution, when such a superior theory to the development of species appears. (superior as defined by science)

I'm qualified to post on an internet forum that is not even related to the topic, that's about it. As for reading the evidences, I studied up 20 years ago, but do not have the time these days. That's why I do through the evidence presented, pick a single point and look into the credibility of that point. But it never pans out as I stated and documented above. Who has time for all of this crap? I have a family investments, businesses, and contract employees that rely on me.

 

[greenleaves]

Can't anyone around here see how that would benefit the mind of the student? Forcing them to challenge assumptions, develop new conclusions and not to assume the status quo.

Its like the old anecdote with Physicists where they only want new physicists on certain projects because they will try things and make things happen that the older physicists knew was an impossibility. If we teach students without having them know the leaps of faith that form the basis of their knowledge and studies, how do we expect them to grow and challenge the future?

Once again, leave religion out - I could care less. But teach what is. How is this place so narrow minded not to see this? What am I missing in this communication?

You changed your point. No one argued against what you are saying. Like all creationists/ID/reptiles from outerspace believers when they are cornered.

 

[Moxie]

the typical evolutionist has the self interest to avoid the accountability inherent with the Christian God.

Even if science can prove that there is a god and he kicked off the big bang, the theory of evolution would not be changed and it would still be just as solid as it is now. The Vatican understands this. Why can't you?

I think it should be a whole class. Teaching students to critically understand the world, how conclusions are drawn and the facts behind what is real and what is not. This would in fact take the steam out of many anti-religionists who always want to see the proof of Jesus or proof of God etc - OK - let's look at the world as a whole critically and understand what we really do and do not know.

So if you took this class you would be just as open to Islam or Hinduism as you are to Christianity?

Critical thinking involves understanding the concept of probabilities and how they are arrived at. Knowing and not knowing are black and white concepts. If you're going to have a special class teaching about how we don't really know if Napoleon existed, then you also have to explain why it is highly probable that he did. Historians didn't randomly pull Napoleon out of their ass, just like scientists didn't randomly pull evolution out of theirs.

So, now how is religion contrary to science other than I am arguing intelligent design and others arguing that increasing order came from disorder?

You've been arguing against evolution and not arguing for intelligent design. There's a difference.

I didn't say "contrary", I said "not relevant", in the same way that religion is not relevant to the Weather Channel. Every human on earth could believe that god creates the weather, but that wouldn't change the scientific process used to make weather forecasts.

 

[REIMktg]

You changed your point. No one argued against what you are saying. Like all creationists/ID/reptiles from outerspace believers when they are cornered.

Where did I change my point. I cannot believe I took the time, but I actually just read through all my posts in this thread and do not see what you are referring to - show me what I missed.

 

[greenleaves]

I have not dismissed the theory as much as challenged it. I have even stated that micro changes can and do happen - fine.

Yes you challenged it. But with what? It is kind of like me 'challenging' your idea that the creek that sounded in your house was a normal sound produced by the contraction and expansion of construction matterials under the influence of shifting temperature changes, to then try and 'challange' it with the 'theory' that it was a ghost.

Look around in society, there are so many shapes and sizes of faces and skulls it is amazing. Also, there is an amazing amount of differentiation in the underworld of people in this society that never allow themselves to be seen in society. There are many people with highly varied facial structures alive today.

It is amazing the shit people say to make their cookie ideas look sound. You will not find any head with that shape in our society. Yes, external FACIAL appearances may vary, but the underlaying skelectual structures remain through all humans, with SLIGHT changes in difference races. Nothing even close to the picture.

But, now that you mention it. Evolution clearly justifies racism, something no one around here ever disputes with logic. If evolution were true and we are all not created in the image of the Creator, well then, all humans are different and have evolved from different "lines" therefore some may just be better than others.... no? Now for me, I believe in a Creator God that created us in a single image. How about you? Where is racism not justified?

People are different. Get over it. The line that divides racists from non-racists is not the belief in a fairy tale reality where everyone is equal, but in the connotations. I believe different races are different (gasp!), and even different in different things (I'm jewish, I know in general we jews suck at sports, I know black people kick as in that, so what? I 'm good at other things), but I do NOT believe different races are SUPERIOR. See the difference? I'm sure you will mumble all the info together to try and make your view seem reasnable, but I think it is actually quite well layed out.

I'm qualified to post on an internet forum that is not even related to the topic, that's about it...

Nope, your not. You are talking out of ignorance. And you are only making an ass out of yourself by doing so.

Think of it this way, what if someone who knew nothing about internet marketing said it was 'impossible' to make money online. What if after confronted with evidence to the contrary they said some stupid shit like "Who has time for all of this crap? I have a family investments, businesses, and contract employees that rely on me. "

Would they be 'qualified to post on an internet forum about online marketing', or would that person simply be 'qualified to make an ass of themselves'?

 

[greenleaves]

Where did I change my point. I cannot believe I took the time, but I actually just read through all my posts in this thread and do not see what you are referring to - show me what I missed.

Your first post on the thread:
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/147306-dawkins-ftw.html#post1591354

I wish everyone would simply be honest and lay their cards on the table.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" source I see no claim of a creator here, simply that the simplest explanation would be that there is an intelligent explanation.

Evolutionists need to state that they believe in micro evolution and then, without proof, extrapolate out that this includes macro-evolution. They should also stop showing drawings and modeled skeletons of transitional ape to human forms when the speculation is based on a femur, or single skull, of whatever. Where's the honesty in that?

All the fake BS from evolutionists that is taught as pure fact is ridiculous.

Students should be told what we know, what we do not know, and the conclusions we have made. Not simply, this is what is, when in fact, it isn't.

This is just you dismissing evidence which you are, per your own admission, ignorant of. Just like the retard who barely can use a computer, admits to knowing nothing about computers and yet has come the 'logical conclusion' that you can't make money on the internet because theories that prove so are weak.

 

[REIMktg]

Even if science can prove that there is a god and he kicked off the big bang, the theory of evolution would not be changed and it would still be just as solid as it is now. The Vatican understands this. Why can't you?

I have understood this and pointed out that understanding in this specific thread. Though I am a prtestant and the Pope is not really someone I look to - after all he purports to have the ability to dispense grace and forgive sin, wow, now that's quite a claim.

So if you took this class you would be just as open to Islam or Hinduism as you are to Christianity?

Critical thinking involves understanding the concept of probabilities and how they are arrived at. Knowing and not knowing are black and white concepts. If you're going to have a special class teaching about how we don't really know if Napoleon existed, then you also have to explain why it is highly probable that he did. Historians didn't randomly pull Napoleon out of their ass, just like scientists didn't randomly pull evolution out of theirs.

No shit ---- and yes, I would be open to all of those religions. Why does society insist on hiding the truth and packaging facts to fit a particular agenda? Teach with an open mind, lay all the cards on the table, I trust in the power of reason.

You've been arguing against evolution and not arguing for intelligent design. There's a difference.

I really do not know much about the ID approach. As for evolution, I am simply stating, once again, put all the cards on the table, not just those that support a particular agenda and narrative.

I didn't say "contrary", I said "not relevant", in the same way that religion is not relevant to the Weather Channel. Every human on earth could believe that god creates the weather, but that wouldn't change the scientific process used to make weather forecasts.

I understand your point, though it could have been made clearer, and in response all I have to say is..... no shit.

 

[REIMktg]

Your first post on the thread:
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/147306-dawkins-ftw.html#post1591354

So I made a cited quote from an ID website I google'd to counter someone that mentioned a "Creator" - yet that is left out of ID theory somehow. Once again I am not an advocate of ID.

I did not advocate for that theory in the post, read it again. In fact later in the post I presented the same "put the cards on the table" argument I have maintained throughout the thread. Nice try though.

This is just you dismissing evidence which you are, per your own admission, ignorant of. Just like the retard who barely can use a computer, admits to knowing nothing about computers and yet has come the 'logical conclusion' that you can't make money on the internet.

Is your reading comprehension low? You've been hitting too much of that herb. I stated that I do not have the time to make this a life pursuit, to me it is not that relevant as stated in previous posts. But, as I have pointed out, when I take a random point in any cited data dump from evolutionists, it always comes to the same thing - a femur, a skull or whatever and then another femur or skull 10 MM years later and I am supposed to agree with the connection.

Once again. The arguments on this always regress into each side digging in tot heir safe haven points.... At this point I am advocating that the schools teach students exactly how these ideas are formulated and the exact ways evidence is used - just as I did in the post you cited - leave religion ID etc out - I do not care - just be honest about the positions presented. Why is this so hard to get? Is everyone afraid the poor student will not understand?

 

[greenleaves]

Is everyone afraid the poor student will not understand?

When I was taught evolution, I was shown how our drawings was based on little bits of skeletons. So your point is mute. Is that so hard to accept and understand?

Talking about extrapolating info; you extrapolated your experience as a student into the experience of all students.

See, I know what you did. All you anti-evolution people do the same. You will take a valid argument, that NO ONE WOULD OPOSE, like 'evolution should be taught with all the facts, including the ones that are lacking' and then mix it in with wacko shit like
"All the fake BS from evolutionists that is taught as pure fact is ridiculous.".
or
"Evolutionists need to state that they believe in micro evolution and then, without proof, extrapolate out that this includes macro-evolution."

So that if you get called out on the wacko part, you can always fall back on the sound part of your argument and claim we have a reading disorder.

I'm 100% sure if you posted just the part of 'evolution should be taught with all the facts' WITHOUT the wacko shit, your post would have been ignored. And I have a sneaking suspicion you know this.

P.S. There is more to it then just those fragments. If you tell me there is a building there, I could say; "that isn't true; I only see a brick and a piece of metal". Of course, if you look at the whole picture, you would understand. Obviously, you don't care to. But you are arrogant enough to believe you can give an valid opinion on a topic which you know nothing about (seriously, if all you can quote are bone fragment arguments, you obviously don't know the whole picture.

 

[Wattsy]

The typical evolutionist has the self interest to avoid the accountability inherent with the Christian God.

In all my time debating this issue that has to be the most ridiculous point I've heard. You actually think the entire scientific community are misrepresenting their findings so that they don't have to start worrying about those pesky 10 commandments?

 

[monies]

Open your eyes. I gave specific monetary examples in that thread. Not theory, specific facts. By the way, I only claim to know "shit" when I actually do, otherwise I always qualify my remarks unlike most around here.



I am not saying others have not examined the facts. You are accusing me of what I am not. Your arguments are curious most likely rooted in a defense mechanism because I have challenged your beliefs. Maybe not on evolution, but in previous threads regarding housing and making money in Bubbles. Crap even in that thread LukeP capitulated in part saying he saw my point - who are you?



I have granted your point earlier, several times, why are you still arguing the issue - both positions can retreat to solid safe haven positions. Does it make sense, yes it does. Does that make it true, no, and it is certainly not something certain enough to lead my world view - would you bet your life on it?

Go ahead and criticize - as for your other posts you fail to acknowledge the real world examples I gave that confront your view and understanding of economics.

defense mechanism? nigga please

Your real world examples don't mean shit. As I said for the, I don't know, tenth time, you only look at the side that fits your view. "Oh look housing prices are affordable now." That's not a fucking "real world" example. Your only looking at the current situation ignoring the jobs and resources wasted as a result of the malinvestment of the housing boom. Sure prices have dropped but there are also less people with the money to buy those houses. And yes I would bet my life on the fact that malinvestments are bad as a whole, no matter how low the price falls to as a result of the liquidating market. But anyway I didn't come in this thread because I felt inclined to correct you on your previous economics bullshiting as you believe. I've already done that.

If one idea makes more sense than the other, then of course you should believe in it. Yes it doesn't make it certainly true but it is still more likely to be true that the others. Hell, ID might turn out to be the correct theory in the future, however you don't discredit the present more solid theory on simply the basis that the less likely theory still has a chance to be true. You refute based on evidence and evidence only. Which you aren't doing.

What your saying doesn't make any sense. It makes more sense as it is backed up with evidence. Instead you're ignoring the evidence (again) and focus on poking holes with the "could", "if", "you never know" and other slightest of plausibilities. The problem is that argument is more meaningless than the idea it is trying to put forth. If everyone in a debate plays by that tactic then no conclusions can ever be drawn.

If you weren't so far up your ass you would see that I was pointing out the flaws in your argument. What are you trying to say with all this off topic bs? Your not directly answering the criticisms put upon you and instead going completely off track into inarguable what ifs. Feel free to try and refute but I ain't gonna reply back if you keep using that same bs tactic of yours. Maybe your doing it subconsciously so you don't know what your saying after all, which in that case I've wasted my time. Fuck.

 

[turbolapp]

That's hilarious. And who says a two thousand old religion can't come up with something new?

 

[turbolapp]

In all my time debating this issue that has to be the most ridiculous point I've heard. You actually think the entire scientific community are misrepresenting their findings so that they don't have to start worrying about those pesky 10 commandments?

It's counter logical too. Trust me, not believing in a magical fairy that will take me away like calgon on speed, sucks. It would be so much easier to let go and let god.

It's a tough path but the courageous won't stop questioning just cause it's tough.

Btw this just popped up on my facebook feed (I thought this an appropriate place to drop it):

Random friend: Life is too precious to ask why things happen. All I know is that I am glad my life is in His hands and not my own.

Soo... don't question anything and escapism.

 

[zimok]

But, as I have pointed out, when I take a random point in any cited data dump from evolutionists, it always comes to the same thing - a femur, a skull or whatever and then another femur or skull 10 MM years later and I am supposed to agree with the connection. Once again. The arguments on this always regress into each side digging in tot heir safe haven points....

False, The only side who uses safe havens is religion.

Science wants to get better, learn and correct itself.

Lets look at some previous religious 'safe havens',

• Earth? Center of the universe!
• Burn witches!
• Earth is 6000 years old, people used to live to over 900!
• Durr, I can spread the waters!
• Dinosaur riding Jesus!
• We're made in Gods image, luuuucky us!
• Bless this baby with water, awww.
• Sinner? Hell!
• Confess to me all your secrets, 'God' will forgive you.
• Scared of the purgatory? Give church your monies!!
• Blasphemy!
• 'My' religion is right! Everyone else is wrong!
• Chosen 'people' woop woop!
• 'Holy' land, omg!

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

I did capitulate that it was not a slaughter in an earlier post. Though Craig specifically left out all appeals to the texts etc in the Biola debate. Craig did win, but I imagine even that would be debated by others with an opposing view.

Can you point out 1 such instance where Craig defeated Hitchens?

t would be nice if, even if in a separate class, students were taught about the presumptions and basis for which all of their other classes are taught.

This seems purposeless in a high school curriculum.

Can't anyone around here see how that would benefit the mind of the student? Forcing them to challenge assumptions, develop new conclusions and not to assume the status quo.

Can't you see that this is the purpose of teaching science? The scientific method was taught in any science class I was in, and that's entirely what you seem to want here.

If we teach students without having them know the leaps of faith that form the basis of their knowledge and studies, how do we expect them to grow and challenge the future?

Are you talking about the leap of faith to believe in macro evolution? What is the purpose of teaching this? It is what all of the evidence supports, so there is no reason to teach it as a "leap of faith". Again, this is the purpose of the scientific method...it self-corrects "leaps of faith" over time.

What am I missing in this communication?

That the scientific method lays out the intellectual basis for what you want - questioning things. You just don't like the data it provides.