Carson: Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil

[fskimospy]

Settled science is the enemy of science in the sense that they're saying they have complete knowledge and there is no longer a need to research a theory, and it becomes closed to any further inquiry.

Welcome Geocentricism 2.0!!

That is of course not what it means and I'm pretty sure you know that.

I'm engaging with you honestly about this issue despite your attacks on my character and repeated statements of persecution, so it seems only fair that you return the favor.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure Ptolemy and his supporters said the same thing.

If you are genuinely trying to compare the standards of inquiry and evidence that has led to our understanding of evolution and the standards of inquiry and evidence that led to the formation of the Ptolemaic System you are nuts.

I have no idea why you have chosen this hill to die on. If you genuinely believe that rejecting evolution as a tool of the devil and believing in a 6 day creation for all life on earth is not a rejection of the scientific method I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is of course not what it means and I'm pretty sure you know that.

I'm engaging with you honestly about this issue despite your attacks on my character and repeated statements of persecution, so it seems only fair that you return the favor.

But what does "settled science" imply, Eskimospy?

(and I do appreciate your honest engagement here, and will return the favor).

You have to look at this from a layperson's POV. It sure does mean, when I hear it being a layperson, that it no longer open to question.

I think this is the message being sent.

 

[fskimospy]

But what does "settled science" imply, Eskimospy?

(and I do appreciate your honest engagement here, and will return the favor).

You have to look at this from a layperson's POV. It sure does mean, when I hear it being a layperson, that it no longer open to question.

I think this is the message being sent.

Settled science to me means that it's something regarded as a given when conducting research. For example when someone writes a paper on biology today they don't write it from a perspective of whether or not evolution is true, that's just part of the basic assumptions in the paper.

Similar things for papers on most kinds of physics, etc. That gravity exists and acts in a certain way on the scale that most things we do on earth is settled science. There are areas of research that might look into exactly how gravity behaves in certain situations, but that it exists and is a thing is not really debated.

None of that means if some stupendous new discovery comes along that we can't revisit those conclusions, but absent some large change there just isn't much point to it. That's settled science to me.

 

[Retro Rob]

Settled science to me means that it's something regarded as a given when conducting research. For example when someone writes a paper on biology today they don't write it from a perspective of whether or not evolution is true, that's just part of the basic assumptions in the paper.



Similar things for papers on most kinds of physics, etc. That gravity exists and acts in a certain way on the scale that most things we do on earth is settled science. There are areas of research that might look into exactly how gravity behaves in certain situations, but that it exists and is a thing is not really debated.

None of that means if some stupendous new discovery comes along that we can't revisit those conclusions, but absent some large change there just isn't much point to it. That's settled science to me.

"Settled" means: "resolved", "complete" "end", "fix", "rectify" seeing we are speaking in the past tense, in this context.

When people here "settled", they think "done". Hence, the idea conveyed is no more inquiry is needed

There is political reasons to use this loaded word.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you are genuinely trying to compare the standards of inquiry and evidence that has led to our understanding of evolution and the standards of inquiry and evidence that led to the formation of the Ptolemaic System you are nuts.

The comparison was made to show how stubbornly people try to hold on to theories for one reason or another.

Seeing that evolution has much deeper moral and philosophical implications than scientific ones (like, evolution supposes there is NO GOD needed and thus, life has no purpose and no need to obey a Creator), there is plenty reason to make sure this theory holds.

Atheistic scientists are the more dangerous, because no evolution absolutely opens the door for creation, though, not automatically -- and they are the ones who will make certain that God is left out of the picture at all costs, even by modifying and patching over inconsistencies.

 

[fskimospy]

The comparison was made to show how stubbornly people try to hold on to theories for one reason or another.

Seeing that evolution has much deeper moral and philosophical implications than scientific ones (like, evolution supposes there is NO GOD needed and thus, life has no purpose and no need to obey a Creator), there is plenty reason to make sure this theory holds.

Evolution does not suppose that at all, actually. Evolution makes no statement as to the origin of life.

Atheistic scientists are the more dangerous, because no evolution absolutely opens the door for creation, though, not automatically -- and they are the ones who will make certain that God is left out of the picture at all costs, even by modifying and patching over inconsistencies.

Why would atheistic scientists be more disposed towards eliminating god than theistic scientists inserting god?

If you think there are inconsistencies with evolution, what are they? I don't think I'm aware of a single one that actually threatens the fundamental theory of evolution that does not stem from a lack of understanding of the person making the attack. (seriously)

 

[fskimospy]

"Settled" means: "resolved", "complete" "end", "fix", "rectify" seeing we are speaking in the past tense, in this context.

When people here "settled", they think "done". Hence, the idea conveyed is no more inquiry is needed

There is political reasons to use this loaded word.

I agree! Given the current state of the science further inquiry into whether or not evolution exists is probably not a good use of time. Perhaps that will change someday that would alter this assumption, but until that day it's pretty much decided.

 

[Retro Rob]

Evolution does not suppose that at all, actually. Evolution makes no statement as to the origin of life.

It supposes species came to be absent the hand of a Creator.

THAT in and of itself, has far reaching implications about why we are here and where we are going.

Seriously, this is stuff you should readily understand.

 

[Strk]

The comparison was made to show how stubbornly people try to hold on to theories for one reason or another.

Seeing that evolution has much deeper moral and philosophical implications than scientific ones (like, evolution supposes there is NO GOD needed and thus, life has no purpose and no need to obey a Creator), there is plenty reason to make sure this theory holds.

Atheistic scientists are the more dangerous, because no evolution absolutely opens the door for creation, though, not automatically -- and they are the ones who will make certain that God is left out of the picture at all costs, even by modifying and patching over inconsistencies.

Weird how my lack of belief in god has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is about the ability of life to continue to exist. I'm not sure how that ever got turned into a gotcha moment for atheism except to insecure religious people and condescending atheists.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree!

But above you didn't agree with my definition. In fact, you told me what "settled science" means to you.

EDIT: I was wrong, my bad.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The comparison was made to show how stubbornly people try to hold on to theories for one reason or another.

"It's overwhelmingly supported by the evidence" is a pretty good reason.

Seeing that evolution has much deeper moral and philosophical implications than scientific ones

Evolution has exactly zero moral and philosophical implications, you fucking moron.

(like, evolution supposes there is NO GOD needed and thus, life has no purpose and no need to obey a Creator),

Totally false.

there is plenty reason to make sure this theory holds.

It's called "integrity," an apparently foreign concept to you.

Atheistic scientists are the more dangerous,

Go fuck yourself.

because no evolution absolutely opens the door for creation, though, not automatically

No, not all. There is no scientific formulation of creationism, so there will never be any scientific doors open to it.

-- and they are the ones who will make certain that God is left out of the picture at all costs,

Do you get your panties all in a twist over the way "God is left out if the picture" in the kinetic theory of gases or the germ theory of disease? Did your vagina get all sandy when "God (was) left out of the picture" of the architect's plans for your house? How the fuck can one person be such an idiot?

even by modifying and patching over inconsistencies.

Like what?

 

[fskimospy]

It supposes species came to be absent the hand of a Creator.

THAT in and of itself, has far reaching implications about why we are here and where we are going.

Seriously, this is stuff you should readily understand.

It does not suppose that species came to be absent the hand of a creator at all, actually. It supposes that life on earth came from a common ancestor and its current diversity is the result of gradual change of inherited traits over time.

Nowhere in this does it suppose that the original common ancestor was not created (divinely or otherwise) nor does it assume that the mechanism by which this occurs could not have been created by a creator, divine or otherwise.

Serious question, what led you to believe that? It's badly wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It supposes species came to be absent the hand of a Creator.

No, it doesn't. At all. Small-minded twit.

THAT in and of itself, has far reaching implications about why we are here and where we are going.

Seriously, this is stuff you should readily understand.

Holy shit, you can't be serious.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

CS Lewis came to a similar conclusion when he was an atheist. It's in his preface to The Problem of Pain. But that's not the end of the investigation.

If you're interested:

http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-problemofpain/lewiscs-problemofpain-00-h.html#chapter01



If you'd like to read his inference regarding the origin of religion, it follows immediately from the section I quoted; the whole book's available in the link I provided.

LOL, I've read most of it. Have you? It's the sort of circular-reasoning tripe that can only spew forth from a born-again who makes a living writing nonsense literature. Substitute Jabberwock for god and jubjub bird for Christ and it could have been lifted from most of his popular stories. Twas brillig and the slithy god did gyre and gimbel in the heavens...

 

[Retro Rob]

It does not suppose that species came to be absent the hand of a creator at all, actually. It supposes that life on earth came from a common ancestor and its current diversity is the result of gradual change of inherited traits over time.

I guess I was speaking about the origin of life.

Again, my bad for being wrong on that.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it doesn't. At all. Small-minded twit.


Holy shit, you can't be serious.

Calm down, chief.

I'm sure you're old enough to communicate like someone older than 5 years old.

 

[Charmonium]

You CANNOT be this ignorant:

Job 2:6 - "Then Yahweh said to Satan..."
Matt 4:5 - "The Devil took him [Jesus] along into the holy city"...
Revelation 12:9 - "Down the great Dragon was hurled...the one called Devil and Satan.."

...and many more.

My point is, "Satan" is present in both the Hebrew and Greek Bible, so Satan wasn't "created" by Fundies -- its clearly biblical.

Like I said, shame that you're this ignorant of basic biblical teaching.

In the old testament, Satan is barely mentioned - which is why you don't see many Jews talking about Satan the tempter of souls. People identify the snake in Eden with Satan but this is a connection created by Christians.

As for the New Testament, Satan is mention as are demons, but the issue is a peripheral one. Demons or evil spirits were the cause of disease and other problems. You don't see them as personal tempters. Matthew is one of the few exceptions outside of Revelation.

I would also point out that no mainstream Christian denomination makes an issue of Satan being to blame for our choices. They emphasize personal responsibility not 'the devil made me do it' - which is consistent with the core beliefs of Christianity. The temptation angle is not. The only places you hear Satan and his minions talked about with any sort of zeal are Fundie churches like hard core Southern Baptist and several thousand fringe groups. In fact, SB is probably the only one that might be able to make a legit claim of being 'mainstream'

 

[Retro Rob]

In the old testament, Satan is barely mentioned - which is why you don't see many Jews talking about Satan the tempter of souls. People identify the snake in Eden with Satan but this is a connection created by Christians.

As for the New Testament, Satan is mention as are demons, but the issue is a peripheral one. Demons or evil spirits were the cause of disease and other problems. You don't see them as personal tempters. Matthew is one of the few exceptions outside of Revelation.

I would also point out that no mainstream Christian denomination makes an issue of Satan being to blame for our choices. They emphasize personal responsibility not 'the devil made me do it' - which is consistent with the core beliefs of Christianity. The temptation angle is not. The only places you hear Satan and his minions talked about with any sort of zeal are Fundie churches like hard core Southern Baptist and several thousand fringe groups. In fact, SB is probably the only one that might be able to make a legit claim of being 'mainstream'

You said Satan was something made up by fundies, I proved otherwise.

Why this silly diversion?

 

[Charmonium]

You said Satan was something made up by fundies, I proved otherwise.

Why this silly diversion?

I said they created something that wasn't there, i.e., that Satan is to blame when you fuck up. No mainstream church believes this but idiots like Carson do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Calm down, chief.

I'm sure you're old enough to communicate like someone older than 5 years old.

Oh did I offend your delicate little sensibilities? Oh dear oh my.

Your moronic statements are met with the derision they deserve. Suck it up, you fucking wimp.

 

[nakedfrog]

LOL, I've read most of it. Have you? It's the sort of circular-reasoning tripe that can only spew forth from a born-again who makes a living writing nonsense literature. Substitute Jabberwock for god and jubjub bird for Christ and it could have been lifted from most of his popular stories. Twas brillig and the slithy god did gyre and gimbel in the heavens...

Hey, don't sit there and smear Lewis Carroll for CS Lewis' writings. It's unbecoming.

 

[Retro Rob]

I said they created something that wasn't there, i.e., that Satan is to blame when you fuck up. No mainstream church believes this but idiots like Carson do.

Ok but why couldn't you simply say that the first time?

It's obvious you're saving face.

 

[Charmonium]

Ok but why couldn't you simply say that the first time?

It's obvious you're saving face.

Think what you like. It's only idiots that take the concept of Satan seriously. Even the Catholic Church doesn't do exorcisms any more.

The concept of Satan, demons, evil spirits made sense for most of Western history before we had science to explain things like physical an mental disease. But these morons, just like the Muslim fundamentalist morons, want to take us back to the 12th century.

Science has forced religion to grow up but there will always be a certain portion of the population that still prefers to drag their knuckles when not walking on all fours.

 

[shira]

Settled science is the enemy of science in the sense that they're saying they have complete knowledge and there is no longer a need to research a theory, and it becomes closed to any further inquiry.

Welcome Geocentricism 2.0!!

I haven't checked to see if you've been corrected on this, but "settled science" means a particular area of knowledge that's pretty well accepted to be true and is no longer the specific focus for active research.

But that doesn't mean that an area of "settled science" cannot be "unsettled." For example, it's "settled science" that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. But when the faster-than-light neutrino "anomaly" was announced, scientists didn't reject that result out of hand. Instead, they thoroughly investigated the experimental setup, and eventually discovered that a loose connection and a slightly-fast clock were the underlying cause of the erroneous result.

However, if after exhaustive investigation no error had been found, scientists would have been forced to come up with a better theory than special relativity, to account for faster-than-light particles.