quote:Hey, I have respect for agnostics. But then I tend to group you guys in with Athiests.
*Thinks someone missed my point*
Other than that, pretty good post.
But these threads always remind me of a role play I did with two buddies of mine prior to fully embracing doubt and uncertainty. It really annoyed the youth minister. We were supposed to role play a discussion of an atheist, a believer of some sort, and an agnostic. This is what we did:
(Agnostic in the middle) Atheist: "There is no God" Agnostic, facing atheist: "You might be right." Believer: "There is a God." Agnostic, turning to believer: "You might be right."
Then we all sat down. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and gravity isn't that much more of a fact than evolution... At least in the way you describe it, Jay.
We're still not sure how gravity works at really tiny distances, with really tiny particles.
Which is why you get the quantum/relativity breakdown, and all the ongoing work towards a single unified theory that explains both without contradicting itself.
posted
I observe that some people have been comparing me to Jay. Now, snarkiness is one thing, but I'd like to point out that I am irrational on subjects that concern values and ethics, where there isn't a right answer. Comrade Jay, on the other hand, is irrational on scientific subjects where there exists proof, and the proof is overwhelmingly in evolution's favour.
I mean, just three points : Any origins theory needs to account for carbon (and other isotope) dating, far-away stars, and layering of fossils. Evolution/cosmology does so very neatly. What is the creationist answer? Until Jay can answer this, he has absolutely no business 'knowing' that evolution is false and pretending that this is scientific evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix raises an excellent point with the whole "Okay, if life was brought here from another planet, was it created or did it evolve?" And oddly, the few atheists I know who believe this are split on that question. Some believe that life spontaneously arose in a quasi-Mormon way, as beings of pure light and knowledge decided to develop shells of matter; some believe that life did in fact evolve somewhere else; and some believe that life has always existed in this universe, moving from universe to universe as each ended (although I don't know where they think that life came from in its original universe, or even if it had an original universe at all.) Two separate British humorists, both atheists, have speculated that life on this planet began as a consequence of humans meddling with time machines, thus producing ourselves. So YMMV. *grin*
-----
"I think that education should reflect the culture one lives in. We should learn about other cultures, true, but, in America at least, the Bible and Christian beliefs are a pretty large part of the local culture."
Great. In a sociology or theology or current affairs classroom, that's a great idea. But until Creationism resembles science, which even Intelligent Design has yet to do despite its desperate attempts, it has no place in a science classroom. I don't insist that people teach English in my Math classes, or Home Ec. in my French classes, or put chocolate in my peanut butter. When the Christians come up with actual science, they can teach it.
"What is the creationist answer? Until Jay can answer this, he has absolutely no business 'knowing' that evolution is false..."
Based on links that both Jay and Farmgirl have provided, KoM, I believe that they believe that they do have answers to those questions. Now, you and I may disagree, but they don't feel like other proofs are necessary.
posted
Well this has really expanded into everything under the sun. Since nothing I will show you will make a lick of difference I’m not really sure it’s worth my time. Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution. We’ve discussed far away stars to great lengths in another thread. And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood. And yes What about carbon dating? I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, what you just said shows that you have no idea how science works. Or about the evolutionary theory. This is the problem with creationary "theory" and the people who support it. It isn't a scientific theory backed by research and hard evidense with a hypothesis. And all those attacks on evolution make no sense.
quote:And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood.
Bullshit. They show many layers, spread out over millions, upon millions of years. If it was a single global flood it would be one layer, if any. Whats more is, the contients shift over time. Its called plate tectonics. This is what creates mountains and allows us to see the fossil layers. It also means, that at one point or another many parts of the world that are now above ground were once under water. Places that have never been under water, don't have nearly as many fossils, if they have any. Thats why fossils are hard to find. If you wanna know more about how it works check this out: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question609.htm
quote:’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Its not a matter of promoting one theory over another in schools. Its a matter of one being actual scientific theory, supported by piles of evidense and researched using the scientific method and the other being bullox supported by those who are religious. Just look at its hypothesis: that god created the world (basically). This is not a hypothesis that can be disproven. An essential part of the scientific method is that there be a hypothesis that can be disproven through observation and analysis. That cannot be. The fact that you believe it has just as much validity as evolution shows you have absolutely no understanding of science. If you want to argue science go take a couple of science classes, basic high school level will do, and come back. Then we can argue science.
quote:Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
Carbon dating is often used as an all encompassing term for radioisotope dating.
posted
"Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution."
Will you concede, Jay, that I have done so? Specifically, an atheist who believes that life always existed as pure energy before taking form and seeding itself across the universe does not believe in evolution as it is commonly understood. Am I right?
And note that I'm being wacky, here. If you're just looking for atheists who believe in some form of evolution but not specifically Darwinian evolution, which is what's commonly meant, there are thousands of 'em out there. Frankly, I think this is a very important point; there are lots of atheists who believe in different ways life was created, even if -- by definition -- they don't believe that God did it.
Since the whole point of your "show me an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution" challenge was to suggest that atheists make up this monolithic "religion" with a belief in Darwinian evolution, the obvious fact that not all atheists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are Darwinian evolutionists should put the lie to that pretty quickly.
"I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research."
Jay, there is not a scientist in the world who'd be willing to make this claim. When the scientists in the field list as one of their fundamental organizing principles a belief in scripture -- meaning that all evidence collected must be interpreted according to that scripture -- then you aren't engaging in science.
I know we've discussed the importance of peer review on this board before. Were you here for any of those discussions?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Alcon said it pretty well, but I can't resist.
quote:Since nothing I will show you will make a lick of difference I’m not really sure it’s worth my time.
That's fine, you don't have to. In fact, I do wish you'd keep your silliness to yourself and not corrupt the innocent young people who may read this thread.
quote:Especially since I can’t even say a blatantly obvious statement like find me an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution.
Well, how about Lysenko, the Soviet biologist? Certainly an atheist, but not a believer in Darwinian evolution.
quote:We’ve discussed far away stars to great lengths in another thread.
No, we didn't. There were precisely three posts on the subject. Yours being a mere link to an AiG page full of the usual claims that 'we have shown this, that and the next thing' without a word on how it was shown.
quote:And yes, I agree with you on the layering of fossils, since they show billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth is a huge problem for evolutionary thinking since it points to a global flood.
Dear me. How did the global flood manage to sort the fossils so nicely into strata, so that we never find T. rex next to Smilodon? That's a pretty good accomplishment for water.
quote:And yes What about carbon dating?
The usual exaggerations and half-truths.
quote:I’ll be willing to say that scientific creationism is a theory too. But its research is just, if not even more, valid then evolutionary theory research. It is totally unfair to promote one theory over the other in supposedly unbiased state run schools.
Not to mention those poor Flat-Earthers, who don't get equal time for their views due to the religious conspiracy of Round-Earth Scientists.
Here's a further point for you to consider : How did evolutionary theory get to this point? There was a time when everybody believed in creationism. You can't very well postulate that the Liberal Media Conspiracy (tm) was pushing evolution in the nineteenth century, since it didn't exist. So how did the Evil Atheists convince the world population their theory was good? Could it be - gasp! - that it fits the evidence?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, they haven't released it yet, but I heard that some scientists at Los Alamos found an even smaller particle that makes up quarks and that carved into the side of each one is "God was here."
I just have to say that this made me laugh pretty hard.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Great. In a sociology or theology or current affairs classroom, that's a great idea. But until Creationism resembles science, which even Intelligent Design has yet to do despite its desperate attempts, it has no place in a science classroom. I don't insist that people teach English in my Math classes, or Home Ec. in my French classes, or put chocolate in my peanut butter. When the Christians come up with actual science, they can teach it.
You make a good point, Tom. Note that I always said "touch on" rather than "teach" because the biggest "evidence" for creationism appears to be a literal interpretation of Genesis. Everything else seems to be grasping at straws to support that. I just think it would be a respectful thing considering the number of people in this nation who believe thusly, to touch on it in a respectful, unmocking way. Addressing that it exists rather than "teaching" it.
KoM's concern about "polluting" the young, impressionable minds is silly, since it appears that a strong belief in the literal translation of Genesis is necessary to accept creationism to begin with. There just isn't enough evidence for it on science alone to convince. Whether or not kids have this strong belief is a private matter having to do with how they were taught in their families and churches. Fearing that religious beliefs are some dangerous poison that must be kept from the minds of our young is as silly as believing evolution will keep people from God.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
