Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[cybrsage]

LOLERZ! You want to re interpret the words, Man is made in the Image of God as a "spiritual" only meaning and not the literal one? Despite VOLUME of religious documentation stating to the contrary at the time? I'm talking of works from dead sea scrolls, to hieroglyphs, to later writings done by "saintly scholars" that all state the same fucking thing. Man is physically made in the image of God. God made everything at once on this planet for mankind. That nothing changes because God made it and thus God is infalliable so no changes are ever needed to what he created perfectly in the first place.

You have a very interesting interpretation of things. I think you are using a very Christian interpretation...

The Dead Sea Scrolls say what you are saying? Can you link to it?

Those are writings from texts, scrolls, and even later scholarly interpretations denoted later. Then along comes science and says, "Hold the phone! shit changes!" Now you got a gap of those religious morons that try to come up with every fucking illogical reason imaginable to state science is wrong, and those religious morons that try to reinterpret what was said in the past based on current knowledge so that the con still feel comfy in their delusions of an all powerful deity that looks over them.

Your bigotry is showing.

I already quoted the RAMBAN earlier, go back and read what he wrote.

Just like in science, the way we understand things changes as our knowledge grows. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought of another easy to see example, and it works well because it is Jewish:

Prior to eating, a blessing is said while washing one's hands. It goes:

Baruck atah Adonai Eloheinu, melech haOlam, asher kidishanu b'motvotav vitzivanu al netilat yadayim.
Blessed is the Lord our God, king of the universe, who sanctifies us by His commandments and commands us regarding the washing of the hands.

The ACTUAL words are "the lifting of the hands". It is understood that the way to spiriturally lift the hands is by washing them while blessing God. It does not say washing anywhere in there, but that is understood in what is not said.

 

[heymrdj]

I'm still waiting for 100% infallible proof of a macro evolution, IE that things change from one thing to another, not just simple variant look alikes.

Asians and blacks may look different, but they are still homo sapiens, I have not seen a white home sapien become equus (though danial radcliff tried).

I have not seen evidence of an avian that was divisibly avian and reptilian at the same time.

There's lots of these "missing links" that I still haven't seen 100% undeniable proof of. That it did exist, that the fossils actually do belong together and weren't just dug out of some mass grave where a tarpit used to be, and that aren't dated with crappy ass hole filled carbon dating methods.

 

[cybrsage]

Where have you been? The next stage in human evolution:

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm still waiting for 100% infallible proof of a macro evolution, IE that things change from one thing to another, not just simple variant look alikes.

Asians and blacks may look different, but they are still homo sapiens, I have not seen a white home sapien become equus (though danial radcliff tried).

I have not seen evidence of an avian that was divisibly avian and reptilian at the same time.

There's lots of these "missing links" that I still haven't seen 100% undeniable proof of. That it did exist, that the fossils actually do belong together and weren't just dug out of some mass grave where a tarpit used to be, and that aren't dated with crappy ass hole filled carbon dating methods.

Here are detailed accounts of speciation, with appropriate literature references:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Now, I'm fairly certain you're going to reply something along the lines of "you can't be 100% certain of X," at which point I will again inform you that you misunderstand what science is. Scientific Theory is not absolute truth in the sense that you understand it. It is the best explanation of a series of observations that is available. It must, however, be predictive and falsifiable. i.e. there must be some prediction from your theory that we can subsequently observe.

I am not out to tell you that natural selection is true and that ID is false. That's a strawman and besides the point. Natural Selection is instead a well supported theory that makes many useful, verifiable predictions about how life on Earth Works. If you want to elevate ID to the level of science, please inform me of the many important and falsifiable predictions that it makes that contradict natural selection.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Avast ye landlubbin swine, this thread be filled with blaspheme against the one and only Flyin' Spaghetti Monster! The teachin's o' the Flyin Spaghetti Monster shall be taught in science class!

 

[randomrogue]

 

[Ninjahedge]

Why do religious people have such a problem believing that maybe, just MAYBE, their "God" "created" things exactly the way that science is finding?

Are these the same idiots that believe that God is an old grandfather, caucasian, sitting on a throne because omnipotence means "he" can't stand, or float, or be young?

The sooner these people learn to accept that Evolution may BE "intelligent design", in that, if a permutation does not work, it does not continue, and that if there are changes that it is possible that they can be accommodated for "automatically", the sooner we can get back to focusing on more important things.

Like what lady Ga-Ga will be wearing next to corrupt the minds of our youth...

 

[HypX]

Why do religious people have such a problem believing that maybe, just MAYBE, their "God" "created" things exactly the way that science is finding?

Well actually Occam's razor would apply in that case and make "God" totally redundant. Just saying...

 

[zinfamous]

I'm still waiting for 100% infallible proof of a macro evolution, IE that things change from one thing to another, not just simple variant look alikes.

Asians and blacks may look different, but they are still homo sapiens, I have not seen a white home sapien become equus (though danial radcliff tried).

I have not seen evidence of an avian that was divisibly avian and reptilian at the same time.

There's lots of these "missing links" that I still haven't seen 100% undeniable proof of. That it did exist, that the fossils actually do belong together and weren't just dug out of some mass grave where a tarpit used to be, and that aren't dated with crappy ass hole filled carbon dating methods.

lol.

are you one of those dudes that understands evolution to mean that you descended from monkeys?

 

[shira]

You go ahead and write Berkely University and explain how their science department is wrong and you know far more than they do about evolution. Better yet, travel to them and film it...that way we all get to see them laugh at you.

What can we say about the intellectual honesty of a person making the bolded point when that same person posts (in a different thread) a well-known diagram of temperature cycles going back thousands of years and then tells us that the diagram proves that the views of thousands of climate scientists - who obviously aren't unaware of the diagram - are incorrect?

 

[cybrsage]

Why do religious people have such a problem believing that maybe, just MAYBE, their "God" "created" things exactly the way that science is finding?

Agreed. Judaism has no problem with evolution. In fact, it makes God even MORE amazing. Think about it, which would be harder to do, poof every creature into existence, or cause the Big Bang to happen in the exactly needed way to cause all the laws of nature to form, which caused stars to form, and planets to form, and life to form, and end with humanity, which was His goal at the start?

The former sounds far harder to me.

 

[cybrsage]

What can we say about the intellectual honesty of a person who brings non-related threads into the discussion to form an amazing logical fallacy?

I changed your quote to more accurately reflect your statement. I have to say, I do not know why you would create such an amazing logical fallacy. You will have to tell us.

 

[HypX]

Agreed. Judaism has no problem with evolution. In fact, it makes God even MORE amazing. Think about it, which would be harder to do, poof every creature into existence, or cause the Big Bang to happen in the exactly needed way to cause all the laws of nature to form, which caused stars to form, and planets to form, and life to form, and end with humanity, which was His goal at the start?

The former sounds far harder to me.

If his goal is to create humanity, why create hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, then wait 13 billion years, so that one planet circling one of these stars would have human life? Rather indirect don't you think?

Also this is very nearly the belief system of Deism.

 

[shira]

You go ahead and write Berkely University and explain how their science department is wrong and you know far more than they do about evolution. Better yet, travel to them and film it...that way we all get to see them laugh at you.

What can we say about the intellectual honesty of a person making the bolded point when that same person posts (in a different thread) a well-known diagram of temperature cycles going back thousands of years and then tells us that the diagram proves that the views of thousands of climate scientists - who obviously aren't unaware of the diagram - are incorrect?

I have to say, I do not know why you would create such an amazing logical fallacy. You will have to tell us.

Instead labeling an argument an "amazing logical fallacy," why don't you explain to us what the "amazing logical fallacy" is?

In this thread, you clearly think that the fact that the science department at Berkeley consists of scientists is a slam dunk argument that they know a hell of a lot more about their field of research than an ATPN poster. You think the an ATPN poster claiming to know more than they do is so outrageous as to be laughable.

But in the climate change thread, your posts clearly demonstrate that you believe that you know a hell of a lot more about climate change than the vast majority of climatologists. Somehow you didn't think that the notion of an ATPN poster knowing more than qualified scientists in the field was laughable back then.

Now, stop evading and provide us with a detailed analysis of why you're not a hypocrite.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If his goal is to create humanity, why create hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, then wait 13 billion years, so that one planet circling one of these stars would have human life? Rather indirect don't you think?

Also this is very nearly the belief system of Deism.

Well, that is where our own petty ego comes in.

We believe, since we are the Grand Poo-bah of Earth, that somehow any Deity out there would have naturally made us the greatest in the universe.

To think that we are not the focus of creation is just, well, UNTHINKABLE!!! (OMG! Literally...)

The thing that bugs me also is when you look at most of the tales in the Bible, you see a common thread. Anything that is too complex gets written into an Analogy or Parable. Jesus did this all the time. Talking about breaking bread as a metaphor for sharing in life and a plethora of other comparisons.

But yet, when a story comes out that the Earth was created in 6 days and that God needed a day off at the end?

Tell me, how did "god" create Heaven and Earth in a day when there were no "days" yet? IT IS A PARABLE! A STORY!

you start talking about God creating the sun from a condensing mass of hydrogen and starting nuclear fusion, about the 4 BILLION years that the earth was a hunk of rock too hot for water, about the paramecium that developed the start of life in our oceans and you will get a bunch of blank stares followed by a story-teller being nailed to a tree.

You say everything happened in 6000 years and, well, that sounds reasonable! Oh, we all came from one family that humped like squirrels and whose first sons had a fight that ended in death? Sure! Sounds great!

If God had a forehead he would be smacking it repeatedly on seeing the stupidity of his own creation. Hopefully we are but a prototype and that we will gradually develop (or "evolve") into something a bit less savage, intolerant and ignorant.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Now, stop evading and provide us with a detailed analysis of why you're not a hypocrite.

Now, while I value the merit in pointing out a duplicity in the nature of argument posted by another, I still have to question this:

It would not matter to me if it was Hitler that said the Sky was falling if I look up and see rocks coming out of the heavens.

If someone makes the argument that scientists have a better grasp of evolution than the common man, I would agree, regardless of whether or not he said something different about scientists on another thread. AAMOF, I would say that his post here is probably more salient than on the other thread, weakening THAT argument, not this one.

Taking this difference in ideological position between threads as a validation for disqualifying an argument is questionable. Are YOU saying scientists do not know anything? What is your position on this?


And, after 12 pages, people still can't see that an omnipotent being could have created a universe more complicated than a children's bedtime story is sad.

Hell, maybe we were all created by mice.



42

 

[classy]

The truth of the matter is that true believers could care less what Dawkins says or believes. The only people that get excited about what Dawkins has to say is those who are like minded/hold the same beliefs.

:thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm still waiting for 100% infallible proof of a macro evolution, IE that things change from one thing to another, not just simple variant look alikes.

What do you think is an example of something for which there is "100% infallible proof" in science?

Asians and blacks may look different, but they are still homo sapiens, I have not seen a white home sapien become equus (though danial radcliff tried).

You think evolution proceeds like a ladder, but rather it branches out like a bush or a tree. There may be many different twigs on the same branch, but they are all part of the same branch. For this reason, chordates are still chordates, even while they have branched out to reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Mammals will always be mammals, even while they have branched out to orangutans and whales. Primates will always be primates, even while they have branched out to chimpanzees and humans.

You will have a difficult time accepting evolution when you misunderstand it so thoroughly.

I have not seen evidence of an avian that was divisibly avian and reptilian at the same time.

There's lots of these "missing links" that I still haven't seen 100% undeniable proof of. That it did exist, that the fossils actually do belong together and weren't just dug out of some mass grave where a tarpit used to be, and that aren't dated with crappy ass hole filled carbon dating methods.

Do you accept that DNA testing can determine genetic relationships, like those paternity tests they do on popular daytime talk shows? Do you think we can tell you are related to your parents by looking at your DNA and theirs?

 

[HumblePie]

What do you think is an example of something for which there is "100% infallible proof" in science?


You think evolution proceeds like a ladder, but rather it branches out like a bush or a tree. There may be many different twigs on the same branch, but they are all part of the same branch. For this reason, chordates are still chordates, even while they have branched out to reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Mammals will always be mammals, even while they have branched out to orangutans and whales. Primates will always be primates, even while they have branched out to chimpanzees and humans.

You will have a difficult time accepting evolution when you misunderstand it so thoroughly.


Do you accept that DNA testing can determine genetic relationships, like those paternity tests they do on popular daytime talk shows? Do you think we can tell you are related to your parents by looking at your DNA and theirs?

No, what he and others want to see a modern Cambrian Explosion again on an even more micro timeline scale to prove macro evolution exists. I've said it once and I'll say it again. These people won't be happy until they see a monkey give birth to a toaster with their own eyes. Only then they might accept evolution is true. No amount of fossil records, ability to manipulate DNA, or viewed macro evolutionary changes upon smaller organisms like bacteria will have any effect upon them.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

 

[jihe]

I love how people get so worked into knots defending their little theory as fact. Everything about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe is a theory. There is no empiracle evidence, there is no proof. Until it is validated with 100% unfalterable proof, it's a theorem, and according to this, does not belong in schools.

We don't need anything about God, Buddha, the tree of life, flying spaghetti monsters, evolution, darwinism, or big bang in any public classroom. It is not proven 100% with unfalterable proof.

And before any numbskulls come in here with "well evolution has a substancial amount of proof...we're just still missing things..but we'll find it!" just do like my math teacher told my class. "Shut up, your answer was 99% correct, but in math that's 100% wrong".

Eh... nothing in science has 100% unfalterable proof. That's the thing about science, if some unexplainable phenomenon should arise then there needs to be a new theory explaining it, superseding the previous one. Much like how relativity superseded newtonian mechanics as a better model for gravity. Absolute truth only exists in mathematics, but that's because mathematics are tautologies, extremely convoluted ones, but tautologies nonetheless.

 

[cybrsage]

What a silly quote. Why would anyone want you to stop beliving in your religion?

 

[cybrsage]

people won't be happy until they see a monkey give birth to a toaster with their own eyes.

OUCH! That would HAVE to hurt.

From my point of view, unless it is a four slice toaster, it would prove nothing.

 

[cybrsage]

Instead labeling an argument an "amazing logical fallacy," why don't you explain to us what the "amazing logical fallacy" is?

That is too easy. I am sort of surprised you actually want the spotlight placed on it, since you do it often enough.

But since you asked:

Red herring fallacies
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
  • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Structure
Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers a logical fallacy.[1]
A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")2. Implicit conclusion: "Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon".A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process.A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:
1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well