I think we're just treading water here. Had I realied Inuyushi was a creationist a few pages back, I would have just used crayons.
Logic and reason wont work on him. The guy believes in magic. He believes evolution is a lie, the big bang was a hoax, and all of science is a ploy by the devil.
You can't debate with that kind if individual.
The guy doesn't even know what cosmic dust is. He doesn't even know what macro evolution is. He's just using buzz words at this point and he doesn't even realize how stupid it makes him look.
As it stands the mystery of how the universe began is just that still a mystery. No one on this earth can give a definite answer when asked that question. Science brings us the closest we've been to it giving us theories that help us to grasp at the explanation of how life began. Some choose to look to science to explain what can not be explained and others choose to look to faith. As of right now we should stop wasting our time bickering and trying to feel superior to others and work to come to further understand it in our own ways.
Simply put: There's not need for there to be both.
Big Bang cosmology offers a pretty clear path for celestial development that's founded in observable evidence and a plethora of tested models, both in the quantum and natural physical levels.
Creationism offers a hypothesis based on an idea by sheep herders thousands of years ago and has been debunked as a credible explanation for a while now.
There is also the rather obvious clockmaker paradox when addressing creationism.
Am I going to have to bring up a handy-dandy Jaerik quote from the Evolution thread?
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
It's entirely possible to interpret the Bible as a metaphor of creation, and still believe in the Big Bang and the gradual evolution of the universe and life as we know it.
That's actually the Catholic Church's official position on the matter.
A complete denial of the overwhelming scientific proof of evolution is a uniquely American protestant (and Islamic fundmentalist) phenomenon.
The problem doesn't arise from people's beliefs. You are complete entitled to believe the world was created on the back of a turtle supported by white elephants if you want (as hundreds of millions of people in the world do). It's no sweat off my back.
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
Yes, I'm fully aware that he is an atheist, but even he recognizes that there is a possible cohesiveness for the people who wish to believe so.
In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]
I would make a suggestion to you Neosutra... You seem like an intelligent person and back your words up well. Here's the rub, people are going to believe what they want to believe and you can not force them to believe something else unless you have irrefutable proof (in which some cases some people will still refute but nuts to those guys). The fact is there is no irrefutable proof as of yet and yes as you stated "Big Bang cosmology offers a pretty clear path for celestial development that's founded in observable evidence and a plethora of tested models, both in the quantum and natural physical levels."
Now you can convince people to join your side with sound reasoning and definitely need some respect. You come off as abrasive (not so much as Jet) and when you insult people you've pretty much lost them right there. I would suggest, if your intention is to educate or sway people to your way of thinking, that you take a softer approach and take a tone of understanding as well as guiding them towards the goal. If this is just a pissing contest over who is more correct and such then continue on.
I'm just unsure as to what the end game is for people here... are you trying to win people over or are people here just to call each other dumbasses and flex their superiority cuz it makes em feel so darn good? If we're actually trying to educate eachother then you know we are definitely not going abou tthis the right way on any side... I miss the ideal days where people could disagree and not walk away from the conversation calling eachother names and spoutin' the hate...
Am I going to have to bring up a handy-dandy Jaerik quote from the Evolution thread?
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
It's entirely possible to interpret the Bible as a metaphor of creation, and still believe in the Big Bang and the gradual evolution of the universe and life as we know it.
That's actually the Catholic Church's official position on the matter.
A complete denial of the overwhelming scientific proof of evolution is a uniquely American protestant (and Islamic fundmentalist) phenomenon.
The problem doesn't arise from people's beliefs. You are complete entitled to believe the world was created on the back of a turtle supported by white elephants if you want (as hundreds of millions of people in the world do). It's no sweat off my back.
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
Yes, I'm fully aware that he is an atheist, but even he recognizes that there is a possible cohesiveness for the people who wish to believe so.
Actually you missed his point entirely.
Quote:
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
Am I going to have to bring up a handy-dandy Jaerik quote from the Evolution thread?
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
It's entirely possible to interpret the Bible as a metaphor of creation, and still believe in the Big Bang and the gradual evolution of the universe and life as we know it.
That's actually the Catholic Church's official position on the matter.
A complete denial of the overwhelming scientific proof of evolution is a uniquely American protestant (and Islamic fundmentalist) phenomenon.
The problem doesn't arise from people's beliefs. You are complete entitled to believe the world was created on the back of a turtle supported by white elephants if you want (as hundreds of millions of people in the world do). It's no sweat off my back.
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
Yes, I'm fully aware that he is an atheist, but even he recognizes that there is a possible cohesiveness for the people who wish to believe so.
Actually you missed his point entirely.
Quote:
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
That was his point.
Yeah..Fully aware that the bottom portion has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The top is what is applicable to this discussion though.
I would make a suggestion to you Neosutra... You seem like an intelligent person and back your words up well. Here's the rub, people are going to believe what they want to believe and you can not force them to believe something else unless you have irrefutable proof (in which some cases some people will still refute but nuts to those guys). The fact is there is no irrefutable proof as of yet and yes as you stated "Big Bang cosmology offers a pretty clear path for celestial development that's founded in observable evidence and a plethora of tested models, both in the quantum and natural physical levels."
Now you can convince people to join your side with sound reasoning and definitely need some respect. You come off as abrasive (not so much as Jet) and when you insult people you've pretty much lost them right there. I would suggest, if your intention is to educate or sway people to your way of thinking, that you take a softer approach and take a tone of understanding as well as guiding them towards the goal. If this is just a pissing contest over who is more correct and such then continue on.
I'm just unsure as to what the end game is for people here... are you trying to win people over or are people here just to call each other dumbasses and flex their superiority cuz it makes em feel so darn good? If we're actually trying to educate eachother then you know we are definitely not going abou tthis the right way on any side... I miss the ideal days where people could disagree and not walk away from the conversation calling eachother names and spoutin' the hate...
I'm not really here to pursuade people that believe in creationism that Evolution/Big Bang Cosmology are legitimate solutions. There is a plethora of information these people can read and research if they're truly interested in learning.
I was a missionary in India and a youth pastor before I became an atheist. I argued just as they argue now, and nothing (and I mean nothing) would have convinced me otherwise. Not nice talks, not subtle links to information.
The thing that turned me wasn't some event, or one amazing debate where someone showed me wrong. It was the gradual education I received as I got my degree in physics/biology/chemistry, combined with several rigorous years of study into the history of religion.
Thus, since it is impossible to actually convince the creationists of their logical/scientific error, I commit myself to simply representing the scientific theories and calling fallacies for what they are.
More to the point: Ideas such as creationism -need- to be shunned. When someone comes up and says a magic flying elephant farted out the universe 300 years ago, we as a society -need- to be able to say "no, actually that's not what happened". If people aren't there to stand up and apply those standards, we are in danger of losing the progress we've made thus far as a species (take a look at texas school board of education). Ignorance is well funded and fundamentalism is ACTIVELY attempting to re-write history.
It's our jobs as rational free thinkers to hold our ground and call *** for what it is. It isn't to convert the theists to our ways, it's to prevent the loss of knowledge we've fought so hard to obtain.
Am I going to have to bring up a handy-dandy Jaerik quote from the Evolution thread?
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
It's entirely possible to interpret the Bible as a metaphor of creation, and still believe in the Big Bang and the gradual evolution of the universe and life as we know it. That's actually the Catholic Church's official position on the matter. A complete denial of the overwhelming scientific proof of evolution is a uniquely American protestant (and Islamic fundmentalist) phenomenon. The problem doesn't arise from people's beliefs. You are complete entitled to believe the world was created on the back of a turtle supported by white elephants if you want (as hundreds of millions of people in the world do). It's no sweat off my back. The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
Yes, I'm fully aware that he is an atheist, but even he recognizes that there is a possible cohesiveness for the people who wish to believe so.
Actually you missed his point entirely.
Quote:
The problem arises when people aren't content with their own beliefs, and try to hijack the political and educational systems to stop teaching or funding evolution -- a belief of which will be vitally important for our country to ever compete in the medical, geological, astrophysical, biological, and scientific fields of the future.
That was his point.
You're trying to tell me that he only made one point? I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Though I do agree the one you pointed out was definitely one of the points he was trying to make.
It was more along the lines of people can beleive whatever the hell they want to and that isn't the problem. It becomes a problem if they take the belief and try to use it to set us back a century and not allow us to remain globally comepetitive.
I actually have much less of a problem with people that understand big bang cosmology and evolution, but just put a "maker" behind all of it. At least with that they're not actively trying to disregard all current scientific data.
Ofcourse they still don't get passed the obvious clockmaker paradox, so they're just as silly. Just a lot less silly than pure creationists.
If you can disprove Evolution and the multitude of theory's that it is based upon. Why are you arguing and not collecting your Nobel Prize?
Because everyone that tries gets dis-credited for thinking outside the box. I don't need to disprove it to you. This thread is proof that you're not willing to think outside of your box. Sure, I'm not either but I have read as much of the claims about Evolution/Atheism/etc as I have the patience to.
This is golden. Absolutely golden.
Like "Print this out and frame it because this is the point in life I realized I was going to have to stand up for people that believe this crap when I'm a lawyer" level of golden.
Edit: "I'm afraid they'll laugh at me for being different just like I laughed at them for demanding proof for everything BAW BAW!"
I would make a suggestion to you Neosutra... You seem like an intelligent person and back your words up well. Here's the rub, people are going to believe what they want to believe and you can not force them to believe something else unless you have irrefutable proof (in which some cases some people will still refute but nuts to those guys). The fact is there is no irrefutable proof as of yet and yes as you stated "Big Bang cosmology offers a pretty clear path for celestial development that's founded in observable evidence and a plethora of tested models, both in the quantum and natural physical levels."
Now you can convince people to join your side with sound reasoning and definitely need some respect. You come off as abrasive (not so much as Jet) and when you insult people you've pretty much lost them right there. I would suggest, if your intention is to educate or sway people to your way of thinking, that you take a softer approach and take a tone of understanding as well as guiding them towards the goal. If this is just a pissing contest over who is more correct and such then continue on.
I'm just unsure as to what the end game is for people here... are you trying to win people over or are people here just to call each other dumbasses and flex their superiority cuz it makes em feel so darn good? If we're actually trying to educate eachother then you know we are definitely not going abou tthis the right way on any side... I miss the ideal days where people could disagree and not walk away from the conversation calling eachother names and spoutin' the hate...
I'm not really here to pursuade people that believe in creationism that Evolution/Big Bang Cosmology are legitimate solutions. There is a plethora of information these people can read and research if they're truly interested in learning.
I was a missionary in India and a youth pastor before I became an atheist. I argued just as they argue now, and nothing (and I mean nothing) would have convinced me otherwise. Not nice talks, not subtle links to information.
The thing that turned me wasn't some event, or one amazing debate where someone showed me wrong. It was the gradual education I received as I got my degree in physics/biology/chemistry, combined with several rigorous years of study into the history of religion.
Thus, since it is impossible to actually convince the creationists of their logical/scientific error, I commit myself to simply representing the scientific theories and calling fallacies for what they are.
More to the point: Ideas such as creationism -need- to be shunned. When someone comes up and says a magic flying elephant farted out the universe 300 years ago, we as a society -need- to be able to say "no, actually that's not what happened". If people aren't there to stand up and apply those standards, we are in danger of losing the progress we've made thus far as a species (take a look at texas school board of education). Ignorance is well funded and fundamentalism is ACTIVELY attempting to re-write history.
It's our jobs as rational free thinkers to hold our ground and call *** for what it is. It isn't to convert the theists to our ways, it's to prevent the loss of knowledge we've fought so hard to obtain.
Join the fight brother.
That's the main point, there is absolutely no room for religion in our attempts to move along and progress as a nation. What you believe is one thing, but when you take a public service position and try to peddle these ideas onto others and demand children get taught these fairy tails, you are no longer doing a public service. You are destroying our for fathers idea of a great nation and embarrassing the rest of the rational thinkers. :( The fact we have people running for President who believe in creationism scares the hell out of me to be frank.
That's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-religious. He hit it on the head: we have to solve problems to get better. It's how we progress.
Religion takes out that step of figuring out the problem. It just says "Don't question, the answer is 'God'". He hits a lot of it without even mentioning religion.
How can we go higher, keep going forward, if we stifle ourselves?
I would agree with you. But there is a part of me that wants to allow people to maintain their freedoms even if it comes with the consequence of slower progress.
Call me hopeless, but dare I say that I have "faith" that humanity will eventually rid itself of these crutches and boldly step forward.
