Creation and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

No. I said three things:

1) I don't care much about "competing alternatives." I find god theories unimpressive on the whole. They follow the same patterns of reasoning as a conspiracy theory. They're stupid. I detected flaws in Tim's assessment of evolutionary theory, so I attempted to correct them. When I intend to address the god theories, I will tell you so. Besides, science has very little to do with the fact that I am an atheist. Frankly, I find atheists who insist that atheism is proven by science as an argument against religion to be stupid. Most people have figured out what faith is by the time they've reached second grade. If people really cared how science affected the plausibility of their beliefs, there wouldn't be a single religious person on the planet, with the exception of schizophrenics. You don't become an atheist because of science unless you are depressingly uninspired and a bit of a twit.

2) It isn't feasible for life as we know it to have burst into being, fully formed. Though "impossible" is a bit of a dirty word, it's fitting if we're thinking in terms of the natural, observable behavior of matter.

3) The Earth would have to be old for life to have had time to develop as far as it has.

I wasn't trying to impress you. If I wanted to impress you, I'd stand on my head.

Obviously, I'm not about to dispute about your tastes in "competing alternatives." Though, I certainly could, with the faith-based approach that you advocate.

Given that you are disputing an argument, not that the matter burst into being fully formed, but rather that God set it all into existence, and (for whatever perverse reasoning) added clues which are easily misinterpreted and in contradiction to His own so called "holy word" (by which I mean the bible), your faith in what is and is not feasible must also be called into question. There is NO way to disprove someone else's faith in this way.

This kind of argument is outside the realm of science, as it fundamentally violates the faith upon which science is built.




That would be cool.

I wonder how much pleasure TimT takes in watching his different forms of damned going at one another?

I wasn't trying to. I was disputing Tim's claims about evolution.

Faith? Science has been around ever since a little creature similar to a marmoset ventured into a cave to find out what was in it. Why do you have such difficulty understanding something that is clear to a marmoset? Son of a b***h, this is vexing.

Ah, so by science you simply mean the attempts to explain our environment, and thus including religion? Ah, I didn't realize that you were pre-modern. Very well then.

Modern scientific method is certainly more sophisticated than the antics of a marmoset, but yes, its basis and point is the same as it was when we were swinging from the trees. Why am I explaining this to you? I have a vast collection of porn, and it is far more entertaining. Usually, when I think of masochism, I think in terms of whips and chains. I was just trying to explain to Tim the thinking behind evolutionary theory because he didn't appear to completely understand it. This is excusable, so I made an effort to explicate the reasoning behind it. That's all that I wanted to do here, and I didn't have any intention of playing word games with someone who seems to be more interested in butting heads than having any kind of productive discussion.

You and Tim are simply butting heads as well. If you don't see the importance of faith to the scientific method, then we are discussing more than the meanings of words here. As long as you equate science and religion as fundamentally the same though, in goals as well as means (the specifics of the method being unimportant compared to the broader issues for this), then yes, this discussion is simply one between two holding the same viewpoint, and you'd be better off with your porn.

Why teh hell r u surfin da interwebs when u havez pron?

Faith is intuitive. Scientific method is just a system that we use to sort data into useful conclusions. Hey, science is a handy bit of software. So is Excel, but I wouldn't use Excel to go out in search of ultimate meaning. Scientists are just cogs in a machine, and most of them don't seem to mind. Those MIT boys are sure having fun, and more pleasure to them. Religion just rubbed me the wrong way. I feel cleaner and healthier without it.

No. It just doesn't work that way, at least not in Methodist Christianity.

Probably not. I got kind of lost by Protestantism's backlash against humanist philosophy. Still stuck in the medieval church, where science was being conducted, under the assumption that God exists.

That's not how it works in the empirical sciences. Read the name. This is what we're taught in schools: that science which is based upon empirical observation or experimentation. You may not agree with the views of Ronald Fisher, but the general principles on which he based his methodology were sound.

The medieval sciences were based upon the EXACT same thing. Just with one additional unverifiable (and thus an issue entirely outside of science's purview). But, the basis of reproducibility is equivalently one of faith.

I know, and so were the antics of the marmosets who were AS.

Still with you...

And BANG! I'm lost. I don't get your point. Pardon me, kind sir, but I must be mentally deficient. Do my poor, weak mind a good turn, and explain what the f**k you're getting at.

Part of the modern scientific method (and usually an assumption from earlier) is the reproducibility of observations. Without this, the whole of empirical science would not be the same. But, this is simply a matter of faith - no different from believing the opposite.

It still appears that your wit is far beyond my own, dear sir. Please don't give me up as uneducable just yet, though, and explicate this matter further for my humble mind. Should it appear to me that you are saying that scientists believe that all observations can be reproduced? I was under the impression that their statement on reproducibility was based upon the fact that reproducible observations are all that they can f*****g work with, not upon any denial of unique, irreplicable observations.

On the radiocarbon issue, I'm doing some research on it now.

I've been happily admitting it (the possibility of disproval that applies to even the most commonly accepted scientific theories) all along, though you don't appear to be very good at reading anything I've written. You keep repeating the same points like a mantra and ignoring evidence cited to the contrary. I get the impression that you are not open to having your views changed. Speaking of which, do you want to share what the Humanist conspiracy you mentioned earlier is trying to accomplish? I'm honestly curious.

Ideally, schools would teach how the scientific method works, and how evolution works. Doing this and doing it competently would certainly produce fewer people who reject it because of extremely basic misunderstandings in those areas. That is certainly a better thing to teach children than "God did it, don't ever question that".

Oh, and Creationism is not a "competing alternative" to anything. Giving the theory of natural selection equal time with creationism is like giving equal time to those who claim the earth is round vs those who claim that it's flat.

On radiocarbons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating answers your assertion, in the opening paragraph. Also, radiocarbons are not the be-all and end-all of dating, especially for truly ancient things. Potassium-argon dating is an example of an alternative method that bears out the same conclusions.

(edit) Found an article that specifically addresses this accusation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity

Perhaps you could define what this vague "catastrophe" you mention is?