Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[Lonbjerg]

There were a LOT of people who witnessed what they believed to be Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and wrote about it. There were many more who witnessed acts of God and also wrote about it. The evidence seems to point to something supernatural going on back then. For all we know it could have been Aliens. If that is the case than it is the prank of all pranks. However, to suggest it was all made up shows true lack of intelligence. It seems quite clear to me that everything couldn't have happened exactly the way it was written in the Bible but people sure like to dismiss the whole account over some discrepancies written over 2000 years ago.

No there wan't.
The sources CLAIM to be from ~40 years after his alleged death...but the originals are missing in action
But sources from the time he was supposed to live don't mention him.
Infact the romans wrote nothing about him.
Zip.
Zil.
Nada.

And they were know for writing everything down...form what they ate...to howm they fucked...to whom they killed.

Why does religious people lie so much?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Told you that you would still refuse to show it. Troll.

Show what? Support for a claim I haven't made?

Yeah, I'm the troll here. Right.

 

[cybrsage]

Show what? Support for a claim I haven't made?

You claimed that my statement that he did not show any support is a faith based belief. In order for my statement to be faith based, there would have to be no evidence to support it. This means you say there was support for his position (which would invalidate my claim), I want you to show this proof. Since you therefor claim he posted support for his position, you need to quote this proof.

It is not a hard concept, I am sure you already understand it.

Since I will assume you are smart enough to understand this simple concept, and you refuse to support your claim, this means you are a troll.

Yeah, I'm the troll here.

At least you are starting to admit it. That is the first step in getting better.

 

[mattpegher]

First, I didnt bother reading all the posts, so I appoligize if this has been brought up.

There seems to me to be one major disconcordance between the idea of creationism and intelligent design and the definition of the Judeochristian god.

By definition the judeochristian (and I would propose the definition of any) god would be omnipotent and omniscient. These prerequisites hold much more power than most give them credit. They mean that god would know the end results of any action that he chose to enact. Creationism and intelligent design contradict that premise, because they require a god that needs to tweak his creation, a god that is somehow not capable of getting it right the first time. These "theories" require a god that is not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.

I will say that any scientific theory will change based on available evidence, but in science classes we should only teach theories that have at least some evidence behind them. Sure you can say that there may be two or more theories, ie quantum, string, wave. But each theory must be backed by what physical evidence is responsible for each theory, and what evidence is contradictory to that theory. The truth may be some quantum-string theory but that doesnt mean that preceeding theories can be advanced without some empiric evidence.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

First, I didnt bother reading all the posts, so I appoligize if this has been brought up.

There seems to me to be one major disconcordance between the idea of creationism and intelligent design and the definition of the Judeochristian god.

By definition the judeochristian (and I would propose the definition of any) god would be omnipotent and omniscient. These prerequisites hold much more power than most give them credit. They mean that god would know the end results of any action that he chose to enact. Creationism and intelligent design contradict that premise, because they require a god that needs to tweak his creation, a god that is somehow not capable of getting it right the first time. These "theories" require a god that is not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.

I will say that any scientific theory will change based on available evidence, but in science classes we should only teach theories that have at least some evidence behind them. Sure you can say that there may be two or more theories, ie quantum, string, wave. But each theory must be backed by what physical evidence is responsible for each theory, and what evidence is contradictory to that theory. The truth may be some quantum-string theory but that doesnt mean that preceeding theories can be advanced without some empiric evidence.

If you don't think there's evidence, and volumes of it, to support the theory of evolution then that is a failure of yours, not the other way around. Please go read up on evolution. I've already suggested two books: "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dawkins, and "Why Evolution Is True" by Coyne.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It is not a hard concept, I am sure you already understand it.

Since I will assume you are smart enough to understand this simple concept, and you refuse to support your claim, this means you are a troll.




At least you are starting to admit it. That is the first step in getting better.

Why does you writing here contradict your "values" defined by your superstition?
Are you deliberatly intellectual dishonest..or are you just ignorant about the "teachings" of your superstition?

 

[beginner99]

I am saying that there is purpose behind evolution, extinction, mutation.

No there isn't and if you claim so you haven't understood a bit about evolution and especially natural selection.

The real beauty about it is if you actually understand it you will see that once started it is unavoidable. That's why it is a general law of nature.

Any form of life need a mean to pass information (genes) to the next generation, eg the building plans. And that naturally involves copying and any copying process introduces errors. and hence no avoiding evolution. (note: if there is 1 species with 100 copying fidelity it would die out very quickly)

 

[mattpegher]

If you don't think there's evidence, and volumes of it, to support the theory of evolution then that is a failure of yours, not the other way around. Please go read up on evolution. I've already suggested two books: "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dawkins, and "Why Evolution Is True" by Coyne.

Sorry, I think I lost you, I firmly believe in evolution. My statement is that Intelligent design and creationism are contradictory to the definition of god, if you believe one exists.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, I think I lost you, I firmly believe in evolution. My statement is that Intelligent design and creationism are contradictory to the definition of god, if you believe one exists.

Well either that or it just makes him capricious.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Sorry, I think I lost you, I firmly believe in evolution. My statement is that Intelligent design and creationism are contradictory to the definition of god, if you believe one exists.

Yeah, it looks like I misread your post. My bad.

 

[Onceler]

No there isn't and if you claim so you haven't understood a bit about evolution and especially natural selection.

The real beauty about it is if you actually understand it you will see that once started it is unavoidable. That's why it is a general law of nature.

Any form of life need a mean to pass information (genes) to the next generation, eg the building plans. And that naturally involves copying and any copying process introduces errors. and hence no avoiding evolution. (note: if there is 1 species with 100 copying fidelity it would die out very quickly)

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

Not only is it possible, it's highly probable. Do you realize how many planets there are out there?

 

[Paul98]

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

What you mean is i I don't understand how all this came together by chance.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't conceive of a possible outcome does not mean it could not, or cannot happen.

 

[mattpegher]

The key is that order cannot exist without chaos. The nature of chaos allows for small pockets of concentrated order.

 

[IronWing]

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

You are correct. Rigid physical laws and chemical principles applied the whole way. Chance is in there as well but is subordinate to physics and chemistry.

 

[Lonbjerg]

There is no Fing way all this came together by chance.

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of "chance"
Take a deck of cards.
Shuffle them.
And then note the order.
The calcualy the likelyhood that you got just that order of the cards.
The number is astronomical.
But none the less...that is how it vent.
Despite the incredible low odds that you got just that order.
Like it or not.

 

[Elfear]

I think it's fine if religious discussion takes place in religious classes and scientific discussion takes place in science classes. But when discussing the origins of the universe and evolution I think teachers need to start with a disclaimer "Science really has no idea how life began or how organisms have progressed from that time, but this is our best guess."

 

[sandorski]

I think it's fine if religious discussion takes place in religious classes and scientific discussion takes place in science classes. But when discussing the origins of the universe and evolution I think teachers need to start with a disclaimer "Science really has no idea how life began or how organisms have progressed from that time, but this is our best guess."

No.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I think it's fine if religious discussion takes place in religious classes and scientific discussion takes place in science classes. But when discussing the origins of the universe and evolution I think teachers need to start with a disclaimer "Science really has no idea how life began or how organisms have progressed from that time, but this is our best guess."

This is a problem. The problem is that what is taught in science classes is knowledge- rather than skills-based. If science classes taught skills, there would be no need for such a disclaimer, even if it were warranted (which it isn't), because at any time in their life, an individual would ideally be able to access the information and thinking necessary to formulate their own view about the plausibility and historical accuracy of any given topic.

And for the record, I agree with Sandorski. No. Just...no.

 

[cybrsage]

Why does you writing here contradict your "values" defined by your superstition?
Are you deliberatly intellectual dishonest..or are you just ignorant about the "teachings" of your superstition?

Can you restate this in the form of a complete thought?

 

[cybrsage]

Not only is it possible, it's highly probable. Do you realize how many planets there are out there?

12.5? Am I close?

 

[cybrsage]

First, I didnt bother reading all the posts, so I appoligize if this has been brought up.

There seems to me to be one major disconcordance between the idea of creationism and intelligent design and the definition of the Judeochristian god.

By definition the judeochristian (and I would propose the definition of any) god would be omnipotent and omniscient. These prerequisites hold much more power than most give them credit. They mean that god would know the end results of any action that he chose to enact. Creationism and intelligent design contradict that premise, because they require a god that needs to tweak his creation, a god that is somehow not capable of getting it right the first time. These "theories" require a god that is not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.

While I support the current theory of evolution (since it now includes saltation and punctuated equilibrium), I do not get why you say God altering things means He is not omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient..

God could easily have said "This will create what I want provided I tweak things here, here, and here, so this is what I will do." Being omni-stuff, God can do all this with the only reason needed being that He wanted to. Sure, He could have just set everything in motion at the start to create the desired end point as well (evolution), but maybe He simply likes being personally involved in the process. Who knows.

Not saying He did alter things, just that I don't get why you say it would be a problem.

 

[Elfear]

This is a problem. The problem is that what is taught in science classes is knowledge- rather than skills-based. If science classes taught skills, there would be no need for such a disclaimer, even if it were warranted (which it isn't), because at any time in their life, an individual would ideally be able to access the information and thinking necessary to formulate their own view about the plausibility and historical accuracy of any given topic.

And for the record, I agree with Sandorski. No. Just...no.

Right, but knowledge implies knowing something which science cannot say in relation to the origins of the universe. I firmly believe that science is a worthwhile and important part of schooling but we need to let students know that some aspects are just our best guess so far.

 

[Matt1970]

No there wan't.
The sources CLAIM to be from ~40 years after his alleged death...but the originals are missing in action
But sources from the time he was supposed to live don't mention him.
Infact the romans wrote nothing about him.
Zip.
Zil.
Nada.

And they were know for writing everything down...form what they ate...to howm they fucked...to whom they killed.

Why does religious people lie so much?

The Roamns wrote about Jesus but not until after his death. How is that a Lie?

You also refer to 40 years after his death which is when many Scholars tend to believe the Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written, however the Pauline epistles, written decades before the gospels, provide some of the earliest written accounts of the teachings of Jesus.