NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

Love the bias. "Pure and simple", "Despite that obvious truth", "supposedly scientific"

WTF? Nothing but the naked eye to see.... oh.... no dinosaurs in the peanut butter. Also I'm not very knowledgeable about this sort of thing... but I'm pretty sure that peanut butter doesn't contain the necessary ingredients to turn into life. The fact that life exists on this planet is so improbable that you just CAN'T say things like that. Those people make me so mad!

In conclusion. Considering the probability of life being created. A few hundred jars of peanut butter and the fact that all the food in the world doesn't grow legs and run away doesn't constitute an experiment.

"You may smile at this, but hopefully you'll never forget it".

Nope, he's right, I will never forget it. I'll never forget what a complete idiot he's made of himself by doing that.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

Maybe you can't, but other people certainly can.

Maybe you can't, but other people certainly can.

really? so please answer the other part of that statement which you conveniently ignored...

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...


The only way you could proove this is by talking to every religious person on the planet which I doubt you have. Which makes your statement 100% bullshit.

really? so please answer the other part of that statement which you conveniently ignored...

I take it you're refering to "How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?"?

Many theists regard religion and science as operating in different spheres; I think it was Galileo who said "The Bible tells us how to get to Heaven, not how the heavens go round".

The only way you could proove this is by talking to every religious person on the planet which I doubt you have. Which makes your statement 100% bullshit.

Please. Engage your brain before posting matey.

Now have a good long think about what you have posted. See the problem? Yes?

Good.

i cant watch video. whats the gist of his argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?The scary thing is that this rubbish is not even supposed to be a joke.

I take it you're refering to "How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?"?

Many theists regard religion and science as operating in different spheres; I think it was Galileo who said "The Bible tells us how to get to Heaven, not how the heavens go round".

Yes. Thats a good delineation. Does not mean its correct though.

I suppose this boils down to how much one is willing to trust a religious scientist to keep the two spheres apart.

i cant watch video. whats the gist of his argument?

God created peanut butter?

i cant watch video. whats the gist of his argument?he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature

Yes. Thats a good delineation. Does not mean its correct though.


I see, so your arrogance means you have psycich powers to know that he doesn't really believe in what he is saying.


I suppose this boils down to how much one is willing to trust a religious scientist to keep the two spheres apart.

Many of the most important scientists have been religious.

Many theists regard religion and science as operating in different spheresAlthough they are supposed to give explanations for the selfsame real world.

I see, so your arrogance means you have psychich powers to know that he doesn't really believe in what he is saying.



Many of the most important scientists have been religious.

dude....you are embarrassing yourself now...

dude....you are embarrassing yourself now...

I see you have nothing in your defence impart from ad hominem attacks. Is it ironic that you seem to be the most irrational debator here so far?

Yes. Thats a good delineation. Does not mean its correct though.

Did I say it was?

I suppose this boils down to how much one is willing to trust a religious scientist to keep the two spheres apart.

For the most part, yes, I would trust them.

God created peanut butter?

he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature

no really, you watched the thing, whats his point?

and yeah, you are being asses in that you lump all religious people into the mold of "stupid creationist" and smush them together without regard for their actual personalities, intelligence or beliefs.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

kind of an overstatement isnt it?

I see you have nothing in your defence impart from ad hominem attacks. Is it ironic that you seem to be the most irrational debator here so far?

Sonny...you came out with the 100% bullshit post. You then decided to engage in hyperbole and a dash of invective.

All I did is ask you to think and consider. Later I asked you not to embarrass yourself.

Ad hominem....a phrase used far too often and badly to boot. Just because your blood pressure rose because you did not like my reply does not make an ad hominem.

As for your last statement...might be...might not be...but you saying it does not make it true.

/is this getting through to you yet?

Did I say it was?

oh good grief! circle jerk! LOL



For the most part, yes, I would trust them.

So there is no conflict of interest?

kind of an overstatement isnt is?

odd that....looks like a question to me....

Sonny...you came out with the 100% bullshit post. You then decided to engage in hyperbole and a dash of invective.

All I did is ask you to think and consider. Later I asked you not to embarrass yourself.


Consider what?


Ad hominem....a phrase used far too often and badly to boot. Just because your blood pressure rose because you did not like my reply does not make an ad hominem.


I didn't get angry because I didn't like what you said. I got angry because you are dodging the debate. But yes, avoiding ones argument and attacking the poster instead is an ad hominem.


As for your last statement...might be...might not be...but you saying it does not make it true.

What statement are you referring to?

odd that....looks like a question to me....

of a rhetorical nature but i was inviting you to either agree that you had overstepped the line of logic or defend your statement.

Consider what?



I didn't get angry because I didn't like what you said. I got angry because you are dodging the debate. But yes, avoiding ones argument and attacking the poster instead is an ad hominem.



What statement are you referring to?

Because you don't even know what the frikkn debate is yah big galoot! yeesh! :p

to balance this out:
http://www.devilducky.com/media/54259/

"Dear God
you're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring
the babes you drown
It's the same the whole world round
Dear God
I don't believe in you"

"Just imagine if you're wasting your entire life going to church and it all adds up to nothing. This cognitive disonance causes anxiety within you, but the thing is Atheism can cure you of this anxiety by providing scientific explanation"

gotta love John Safran

Because you don't even know what the frikkn debate is yah big galoot! yeesh! :p

The general debate of this thread is "How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?", but your generalization provoked another debate and is rellavent.

he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature

Good summary (Youtube is my browser's kryptonite, see). What dullards.

of a rhetorical nature but i was inviting you to either agree that you had overstepped the line of logic or defend your statement.

Overstepped the line of logic? No...don't think so.

Defending my statement...sure but from what? Only (unless I am missing something) RLI made any refutation using Galileo..

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

no really, you watched the thing, whats his point?he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature. he doubts the possibility that life could have been created by forces of nature. and he believes to prove it by pointing to the fact that in jars of peanut butter no new life is created. ever.

and yeah, you are being asses in that you lump all religious people into the mold of "stupid creationist" and smush them together without regard for their actual personalities, intelligence or beliefs.well, if they say they are christians, then their beliefs are pretty much the same, aren't they?
and after all, how can you be christian and not be a creationist? if there was no creation and no adam and eve and no (original) sin, then the whole point of jesus dying for humanity's sin(s) is lost.

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

Evolution isn't supposed to. That's Abiogenesis' job.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

Thats not evolution either. Infact thats just a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.no-one ever claimed that any life form evolved out of a rock. what's your point really?

The general debate of this thread is "How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?", but your generalization provoked another debate and is rellavent.

Generalisation.....um....qualified further in my post. Sorry your argument does not fly in this thread. Outside of the confines of my posit you are right though.

to balance this out:
http://www.devilducky.com/media/54259/

"Dear God
you're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring
the babes you drown
It's the same the whole world round
Dear God
I don't believe in you"

"Just imagine if you're wasting your entire life going to church and it all adds up to nothing. This cognitive disonance causes anxiety within you, but the thing is Atheism can cure you of this anxiety by providing scientific explanation"

gotta love John Safran

Utter genius.

I wonder how many of the people he annoyed understood the irony though.

Generalisation.....um....qualified further in my post. Sorry your argument does not fly in this thread. Outside of the confines of my posit you are right though.

Is this the qualification?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...


Thats not a qualification, that is just an assumption. Not all religious people need to validate the scientific world on the teachings of their religion, especially since many religious folks think that the supernatural is outside of the scientific and material universe.

Overstepped the line of logic? No...don't think so.


really so you could never talk to a hindu about baseball? you could never discuss the french revolution with an animist? you couldnt possibly get a reasonable discussion of earl grey vs oolong tea with a rabbi?

"You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious."

Is this the qualification?



Thats not a qualification, that is just an assumption. Not all religious people need to validate the scientific world on the teachings of their religion, especially since many religious folks think that the supernatural is outside of the scientific and material universe.

Yep that'll be the one.

Interesting idea that you posted but you cannot delineate between the supernatural and natural if you are religious as you would see Gods hand in everything.

he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature. he doubts the possibility that life could have been created by forces of nature. and he believes to prove it by pointing to the fact that in jars of peanut butter no new life is created. ever.

you mean this guy LOOKS for new life in all the jars of peanut butter he opens? *shudder* if there is new life in there, i dont want to know, thats what preservatives are for


well, if they say they are christians, then their beliefs are pretty much the same, aren't they?
and after all, how can you be christian and not be a creationist? if there was no creation and no adam and eve and no (original) sin, then the whole point of jesus dying for humanity's sin(s) is lost.

only for your strawmen. in the real world there are almost as many beliefs as their are christians. after all, if all christians believed the same wouldnt they all have the same denomination?

Yep that'll be the one.

Interesting idea that you posted but you cannot delineate between the supernatural and natural if you are religious as you would see Gods hand in everything.

But that doesn't mean you have to believe that what God did completely contradicted what happened naturally. And even if you did believe that God had some part in it, doesn't mean you can't have a rational debate.

really so you could never talk to a hindu about baseball? you could never discuss the french revolution with an animist? you couldnt possibly get a reasonable discussion of earl grey vs oolong tea with a rabbi?

"You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious."

And what is the title of the thread?

Most of what you mention is subjective anyway and irrelevant to the scientific method...

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

We know, the only people who claim it attempts to do so are confused idiots.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.


:D

Wind up!

But that doesn't mean you have to believe that what God did completely contradicted what happened naturally. And even if you did believe that God had some part in it, doesn't mean you can't have a rational debate.

Well yes it does because eventually you will need to ask the fundamental question...how did this occur. A scientist would say that we have an idea but need more research. A religious person would say that it is the mystery of God...

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.
Evolution doesn't explain that because that has nothing to do with Evolution.
That's abiogenesis which is a wholly different field of study from Evolution.
You, like that idiot with the peanut butter jar in the vid clip, are lumping the two together and then trying to claim that because Evolution can't explain it, Evolution isn't true.
Evolution can't explain abiogenesis because abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with Evolution. You may as well argue Evolution is false because it doesn't explain why the sky is blue or where my house keys are.

Well yes it does because eventually you will need to ask the fundamental question...how did this occur. A scientist would say that we have an idea but need more research. A religious person would say that it is the mystery of God...

I don't see why that would be the case.

In conclusion. Considering the probability of life being created. A few hundred jars of peanut butter and the fact that all the food in the world doesn't grow legs and run away doesn't constitute an experiment.
It does not? look in my fridge, I try to make it assist me with the rent... :)

And what is the title of the thread?

Most of what you mention is subjective anyway and irrelevant to the scientific method...

what about the sentence "You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious." has anything to do with the title of the thread or scientific method?

you crossed the line of logic with that sentence.

even if we DO change your sentence to "you cannot have a rational scientific discussion with a person who is religious" its still wrong. there are many religious scientists in the world.

Evolution is false because it doesn't explain why the sky is blue or where my house keys are.

The explanation for both is check under the bed.

1) Evolution, as mentioned previously, has nothing to do with the origins of life. Abiogenesis (life springing from non-life) was demonstrated to be possible by Stanley Miller in 1953 (wiki it).

2) Religion comes in degrees, and while there are people who feel that science threatens religion, there are also a large number of people who "render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar." In other words, there isn't as much dissonance as some strong atheists claim.

3) Tired as I am of creationists using bogus science to attempt to further their point, I'm getting pretty bored with hardcore atheists assuming that the vocal minority is all there is to religion. I personally am not religious, but I've known enough religious friends who are chemists, biologists, engineers and physicists. They DON'T think "yeah, so then God stuck the carbon atom onto the end of the chain, 'cause he felt like it." Believe it or not, there's room in a human brain for both science and religion, just not a scientific approach to religion or a religious approach to science.

This thread is kind of trollish, as so many such threads are... although I did get a kick out of watching the old guy open the peanut butter to look for dinosaurs, I think the world could do without the invective (which I'm aware I'm contributing to, but still).

If you think peanut butter is a thorn in the side of Evolution then how about the banana:
The Atheist's Nightmare: Bananas (http://www.devilducky.com/media/44860/)

OMG - what about a banana coated in peanut butter?
Surely that would stop a rampaging Atheist in it's tracks.

OMG - what about a banana coated in peanut butter? Surely that would stop a rampaging Atheist in it's tracks.

Yeah, we'd die laughing. :D

The explanation for both is check under the bed.
I did, and all I found was a dead cockroach and two leaves.
Surely this proves there is no God!

If you think peanut butter is a thorn in the side of Evolution then how about the banana:
The Atheist's Nightmare: Bananas (http://www.devilducky.com/media/44860/)

OMG - what about a banana coated in peanut butter?
Surely that would stop a rampaging Atheist in it's tracks.

lol. im shaking just thinking about it!

the banana one is a great example of intelligent design. its just that the intelligence is people, not god.

I don't see why that would be the case.

Personally I'd rather scientists not be put in the position of having to decide between science and the Flying Spag Bol Monster...

what about the sentence "You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious." has anything to do with the title of the thread or scientific method?

you crossed the line of logic with that sentence.

even if we DO change your sentence to "you cannot have a rational scientific discussion with a person who is religious" its still wrong. there are many religious scientists in the world.

Well if you can't figure it out mate then really you are in no position to comment on logic...

you mean this guy LOOKS for new life in all the jars of peanut butter he opens? *shudder* if there is new life in there, i dont want to know, thats what preservatives are foraccording to this guy there should be life because there is matter, energy, and light. and according to (his ideas of) science that's what it takes to create life.

only for your strawmen. in the real world there are almost as many beliefs as their are christians. after all, if all christians believed the same wouldnt they all have the same denomination?so why do they have a common name? 'Christians' surely means something?

lol. im shaking just thinking about it!

the banana one is a great example of intelligent design. its just that the intelligence is people, not god.
I love the moron's unwittingly ironic comment, "If you study a well-made banana...".
Of course it's a well-made banana. It's had centuries of human-applied cross breeding and manipulation in order to create a banana that best suits us.

1) Evolution, as mentioned previously, has nothing to do with the origins of life. Abiogenesis (life springing from non-life) was demonstrated to be possible by Stanley Miller in 1953 (wiki it).

2) Religion comes in degrees, and while there are people who feel that science threatens religion, there are also a large number of people who "render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar." In other words, there isn't as much dissonance as some strong atheists claim.

3) Tired as I am of creationists using bogus science to attempt to further their point, I'm getting pretty bored with hardcore atheists assuming that the vocal minority is all there is to religion. I personally am not religious, but I've known enough religious friends who are chemists, biologists, engineers and physicists. They DON'T think "yeah, so then God stuck the carbon atom onto the end of the chain, 'cause he felt like it." Believe it or not, there's room in a human brain for both science and religion, just not a scientific approach to religion or a religious approach to science.

This thread is kind of trollish, as so many such threads are... although I did get a kick out of watching the old guy open the peanut butter to look for dinosaurs, I think the world could do without the invective (which I'm aware I'm contributing to, but still).

1 - indeed. which makes the video all the more delicious

2 - Errr...its usually the religious who attack science with things other than words...things like guns, rope, fire....you know...unpleasant things when applied in that manner which the irrationalist just lurve...

3 - oh my eyes! my poor eyes! I cannea take it...but you just had to post huh?

Trollish....right. Amazing how people call posts they don't like 'troll/ish'.

New are you? Or are you a puppet? Or should that be muppet?

That movie was so ignorant, it put me in a bad mood.

Well if you can't figure it out mate then really you are in no position to comment on logic...

that is not a defense of your statement.

Wow...I think watching that lowered my IQ.

Using this guys methods, I can prove the theory of evolution with a lump of cheese.

so why do they have a common name? 'Christians' surely means something?

you have been told the answer to that question many times in many threads. that you dont choose to remember or believe it doesnt change the answer.

Wait, did this beat out the banana (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk)as the Atheist's worst nightmare?

that is not a defense of your statement.

No it is not a defense. It was a request.

Wait, did this beat out the banana (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk)as the Atheist's worst nightmare?

Maybe because of stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo

The wild banana looks ferocious...And not very tasty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

It's not a flaw in evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory starts out from the assumption there is life already in existence for evolution to act upon. It's like saying gravity is a flawed theory because it doesn't account for the origin of life.

Generation of life from non-life is, I believe, the theory of abiogenesis.

At any rate, if new life did occur in your peanut butter the odds of you ever noticing are precisely zero. As soon as it was exposed to the current biosphere the fungi, bacteria, and immune responses of the highly evolved life it was in contact with would put an end to it.

Wait, did this beat out the banana (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk)as the Atheist's worst nightmare?



That counts as science all right! :p

No it is not a defense. It was a request.

im sorry that i disturbed you by pointing out your inflamatory hyperbole. its a common mistake, maybe youll do better next time.

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

Kinda missed the part about lightning, oceans, and microscopic cells, didn't you?

to quote south park is this guy high or just incredibly stupid. On youtube someone pointed out thst is NOT evolution it is biogenisi. Oh and
1-Evolution take hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of years
2-When you picked the peanuts they died
3-The peanut butter has chemicals in it
4-new seperate life forms with completely different bio strctures won't just appear for example they showed and ant. Ants are in the animal kingdom peanuts are in the plant kingdom.
5-If what this guy was saying was true I can disprove his theory by saying haven't you ever seen mold on bread

Ohhh, looks like that guy was wrong.

It takes more than a faceless poster on NSG (of all places) to 'disturb' me ;)

Is that a challenge?!? *rolls up sleeves*

im sorry that i disturbed you by pointing out your inflamatory hyperbole. its a common mistake, maybe youll do better next time.

It takes more than a faceless poster on NSG (of all places) to 'disturb' me ;)

It's not a flaw in evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory starts out from the assumption there is life already in existence for evolution to act upon. It's like saying gravity is a flawed theory because it doesn't account for the origin of life.

Generation of life from non-life is, I believe, the theory of abiogenesis.

At any rate, if new life did occur in your peanut butter the odds of you ever noticing are precisely zero. As soon as it was exposed to the current biosphere the fungi, bacteria, and immune responses of the highly evolved life it was in contact with would put an end to it.

Your right also this man doesn't take ito account that peanuts in order to reproduce needs pollinization whearas sells are a sexual and divide and animals sexually reprodues. Rocks have things like moss on them. Moss reproduces, germs split, turn into fish ect, ect

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

I wonder if he gets royalties for that gif....

So LG...as a bastion of reason and aforethought...what think you?

Is that a challenge?!? *rolls up sleeves*

nutter ;)

All Christians do share a few fundamental beliefs, i.e. the "Christ died for my sins," deal. However, to suggest that all Christians must be believe in Creationism because a vocal minority does it:

*drumroll*

Fallacy of Composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)


Also, the suggestion that a rational discussion between religious and irreligious people is impossible is to discount and discredit the VAST contributions of religious people to the DEVELOPMENT of rational discourse. Was Plato an atheist, pray tell?

I wonder if he gets royalties for that gif....

So LG...as a bastion of reason and aforethought...what think you?

"We must view with profound respect the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge." -Thomas Raynesford Lounsbury

he says that because he has never found new life in a new jar of peanut butter, that life could not have been created occasionally out of any matter by light and energy in nature

That is why the youtube guy's theory is COMPLETELY false. Light yes is nessecary for life but does NOT create. Energy is what creates heat and wind NOT life. So if you've ever felt a breeze according to this guy it's life. But this man has never worked in a germ lab. Evolution exists because the common cold mutates to adapt therefore it evolves.

PS: In my Catholic school they said evolutio n is fine as long as you belive God created the universe

All Christians do share a few fundamental beliefs, i.e. the "Christ died for my sins," deal. However, to suggest that all Christians must be believe in Creationism because a vocal minority does it:

*drumroll*

Fallacy of Composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)


Also, the suggestion that a rational discussion between religious and irreligious people is impossible is to discount and discredit the VAST contributions of religious people to the DEVELOPMENT of rational discourse. Was Plato an atheist, pray tell?

the irony kills me! LOL

That is why the youtube guy's theory is COMPLETELY false. Light yes is nessecary for life but does NOT create. Energy is what creates heat and wind NOT life.
Heat is energy and wind is air possessing kinetic energy.

"We must view with profound respect the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge." -Thomas Raynesford Lounsbury

Useful knowledge in this case is knowing that the next time you open a jar of peanut butter you won't be eaten alive by a ravenous carnivorous peanut?

Useful knowledge in this case is knowing that the next time you open a jar of peanut butter you won't be eaten alive by a ravenous carnivorous peanut?

Not unless one believes mice still spawn from dirty straw, maggots from rotting meat and aphids from wet leaves. :p

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

This is an absolute statement. This means that, if even 1 religious person of all the billions that live now and have ever lived is capable of having a rational discussion, or contribution in some way to rational discourse, your statement is, pardon my French, horseshit.

So:
Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas)
Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)
Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard)


Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the definition of irony.

This is an absolute statement. This means that, if even 1 religious person of all the billions that live now and have ever lived is capable of having a rational discussion, or contribution in some way to rational discourse, your statement is, pardon my French, horseshit.

So:
Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas)
Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)
Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard)


Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the definition of irony.

he seems to be very "logic resistant" to either the formal or informal presentation of why he is wrong.

Not unless one believes mice still spawn from dirty straw, maggots from rotting meat and aphids from wet leaves. :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/thumbup.gif

This is an absolute statement. This means that, if even 1 religious person of all the billions that live now and have ever lived is capable of having a rational discussion, or contribution in some way to rational discourse, your statement is, pardon my French, horseshit.

So:
Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas)
Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)
Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard)


Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the definition of irony.

I'm English. Irony is what we do. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

Lolz. "No new life in the peanut butter." I'm not sure, though. There were some brown things in it. :p

it makes me wanna cry sometimes it really does.

what is peoples problem, evolution isnt a threat to anyone its an observation of facts. i have met some religuos people who say that science takes away from the beauty of nature.

i totally disagree, consider the Panda. An animal living in an evolutionry cul de sac, its a carnivor with big teeth and claws but it only eats bambooand not just any bamboo its really picky. it needs to eat a field of the stuff every day to get the equivelent calories of 11 big macs. when it takes a shit the bamboo comes out still green having lost barely any nutrients because bears cant efficiantly digest plants, fish , cats , people and rubbish yes, plants no.

my point is that if god created all things as they are then the panda would be proof of him being a moron, but if it was evolution then the Panda itself would have made all the choices needed to get it into this situation.

in other wordsthe panda became a panda by being a panda.
hence the beauty of nature and the choices it makes for itself can only be emphasised by science.

rant concluded.

if youve read this post from me before then i apologise, i just cant beleive how often i get to use this argument

I'm English. Irony is what we do. ;)

So I take it you've got nothing to back up your statement then?

That was amazing.

Not unless one believes mice still spawn from dirty straw, maggots from rotting meat and aphids from wet leaves. :p

wow spontaneous occurence id forgotten about that peice of C19 shit.

he seems to be very "logic resistant" to either the formal or informal presentation of why he is wrong.

Oh good grief. I'll do this one more time...

The thread is about evolution (which the guy in the video proves he cannot identify) and how irrationalists apply the scientific method.

There. In its basic form. Yes there is a generalistion and is also qualified.

Of course I fully expect (given your current track record on this thread) it to go flying right over your head. Again.

But then who knows....you might surprise me...

So I take it you've got nothing to back up your statement then?

Read the thread daddy-o!

RC began by saying:

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

He then responded to criticism of this statement with:

Please. Engage your brain before posting matey.

Now have a good long think about what you have posted. See the problem? Yes?

Good.

dude....you are embarrassing yourself now...

oh good grief! circle jerk! LOL

Because you don't even know what the frikkn debate is yah big galoot! yeesh! :p

Well if you can't figure it out mate then really you are in no position to comment on logic...

oh my eyes! my poor eyes! I cannea take it...but you just had to post huh?

Trollish....right. Amazing how people call posts they don't like 'troll/ish'.

New are you? Or are you a puppet? Or should that be muppet?

the irony kills me! LOL

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh good grief. I'll do this one more time...

The thread is about evolution (which the guy in the video proves he cannot identify) and how irrationalists apply the scientific method.

There. In its basic form. Yes there is a generalistion and is also qualified.

Of course I fully expect (given your current track record on this thread) it to go flying right over your head. Again.

But then who knows....you might surprise me...

And once again: While some Christians are incapable of understanding and applying/reasoning out the scientific method in relation to evolution, this in no way means that all religious people are. Not every Christian is a Creationist in relation to evolution.

RC began by saying:



He then responded to criticism of this statement with:















Draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to waste any more time on this troll.

troll. once more a word far too overused. its also ever so easy to take things out of context huh RLI? Mind you...having you call me a troll is pretty funny really....given your track record.

troll. once more a word far too overused. its also ever so easy to take things out of context huh RLI? Mind you...having you call me a troll is pretty funny really....given your track record.

To be fair mate you made a pretty untenable statement and then when asked to back it up of withdraw it you basically insulted the other posters.

You have to admit that it does make you come across as pretty trollish.

wow spontaneous occurence id forgotten about that peice of C19 shit.

Well the prick in the video must still believe in it if he thinks that opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding visible life disproves 'Evolution'. Hell, he doesn't even know what science he's attacking. :p

To be fair mate you made a pretty untenable statement and then when asked to back it up of withdraw it you basically insulted the other posters.

You have to admit that it does make you come across as pretty trollish.

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I did not hurl the insults to start with.

People want to address my posts as 100% bullshit or horseshit or any other kind of shit makes me wonder why I should take them seriously.

Lets look at the generalisation...if you are religious (please notice that posters went into the entire Christian meme...despite my stating it was not specific to any religion...which also throws up question marks regarding peoples reading comprehension)...you believe in a God. If you believe in a God and therefore the infallibility of God how would a scientist react to evidence that disproves the existence of God?

I also fail to see how you can be rational and believe in something that has absolutely no empirical evidence for its existence. It is mutually exclusive.

Yes there are scientists who are also religious...thank you to all you wonderful posters who just had to point that out...I never ever knew that /sarcasm.

As for Deus Malam's post with the list of philosophers...refining rational debate does not equal the scientific method.

troll. once more a word far too overused. its also ever so easy to take things out of context huh RLI? Mind you...having you call me a troll is pretty funny really....given your track record.

lol

its not trolling when all he does is post your own responses. you have not ONCE made a logcical defense of your OP.

you dont want to, thats fine. dont pretend that you have refuted anyone or that your post made sense.

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I did not hurl the insults to start with.

People want to address my posts as 100% bullshit or horseshit or any other kind of shit makes me wonder why I should take them seriously.

Lets look at the generalisation...if you are religious (please notice that posters went into the entire Christian meme...despite my stating it was not specific to any religion...which also throws up question marks regarding peoples reading comprehension)...you believe in a God. If you believe in a God and therefore the infallibility of God how would a scientist react to evidence that disproves the existence of God?

I also fail to see how you can be rational and believe in something that has absolutely no empirical evidence for its existence. It is mutually exclusive.

Yes there are scientists who are also religious...thank you to all you wonderful posters who just had to point that out...I never ever knew that /sarcasm.

As for Deus Malam's post with the list of philosophers...refining rational debate does not equal the scientific method.

History of the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method)

Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes)

In addition to Descartes' contributions to the development of the scientific method and the development of a coordinate system still used today, Descartes was also known for his logical discourse on the existence of God, and his work on refining Anselm's Ontological Argument.

lol

its not trolling when all he does is post your own responses. you have not ONCE made a logcical defense of your OP.

you dont want to, thats fine. dont pretend that you have refuted anyone or that your post made sense.

Which part of track record do you fail to grasp?

And then you bleat about not understanding? Too rich...! LOL!

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I did not hurl the insults to start with.

People want to address my posts as 100% bullshit or horseshit or any other kind of shit makes me wonder why I should take them seriously.

Lets look at the generalisation...if you are religious (please notice that posters went into the entire Christian meme...despite my stating it was not specific to any religion...which also throws up question marks regarding peoples reading comprehension)...you believe in a God. If you believe in a God and therefore the infallibility of God how would a scientist react to evidence that disproves the existence of God?

I also fail to see how you can be rational and believe in something that has absolutely no empirical evidence for its existence. It is mutually exclusive.

Yes there are scientists who are also religious...thank you to all you wonderful posters who just had to point that out...I never ever knew that /sarcasm.

As for Deus Malam's post with the list of philosophers...refining rational debate does not equal the scientific method.

you might want to review your OP and the responses to it. i intentionally never used a christian in my pointing out that "You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious." makes no logical sense.

your OP didnt qualify people, rational discussion, or religious. thats not OUR fault, its your bad writing. and even if you want to claim that your post covered " "rational evolutionary discussion" by "christian fundamentalists" you would still be wrong. many devout creationists are capable of having rational discussions of evolution vs creationism. you (or i) not agreeing with their conclusions doesnt make it any less rational a discussion.

Which part of track record do you fail to grasp?

And then you bleat about not understanding? Too rich...! LOL!

so someone you consider a troll can never make a non troll post?

his post refutes that contention.

History of the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method)

Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes)

In addition to Descartes' contributions to the development of the scientific method and the development of a coordinate system still used today, Descartes was also known for his logical discourse on the existence of God, and his work on refining Anselm's Ontological Argument.

No you are right. That was a bad statement on my part.

This is an absolute statement. This means that, if even 1 religious person of all the billions that live now and have ever lived is capable of having a rational discussion, or contribution in some way to rational discourse, your statement is, pardon my French, horseshit.

Now I refer you to the of mine you quoted...which came after the above which you posted on page 6...

See...anyone can be dishonest....or make a mistake. Or set people up.

Anyway...I'm off fer me tea....

so someone you consider a troll can never make a non troll post?

his post refutes that contention.

LOL....thanks for the giggle...

Tea time now....have a good one y'all!

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I did not hurl the insults to start with.

People want to address my posts as 100% bullshit or horseshit or any other kind of shit makes me wonder why I should take them seriously.

Lets look at the generalisation...if you are religious (please notice that posters went into the entire Christian meme...despite my stating it was not specific to any religion...which also throws up question marks regarding peoples reading comprehension)...you believe in a God. If you believe in a God and therefore the infallibility of God how would a scientist react to evidence that disproves the existence of God?

I also fail to see how you can be rational and believe in something that has absolutely no empirical evidence for its existence. It is mutually exclusive.

Yes there are scientists who are also religious...thank you to all you wonderful posters who just had to point that out...I never ever knew that /sarcasm.

As for Deus Malam's post with the list of philosophers...refining rational debate does not equal the scientific method.

You made a daft statement and got called on it.

Either put up some evidence that it's impossible to have a rational conversation with a religious person or withdraw it.

troll. once more a word far too overused. its also ever so easy to take things out of context huh RLI? Mind you...having you call me a troll is pretty funny really....given your track record.

What do you mean by that? Put up or shut up.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

simple. that which isn't proven by science does not mean it does not exsist. it just means it wasn't proven by science.

a couple of Religious nuts is not a sampling of all those who are Religious.

Don't forget that Science also brought us Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons. they also created the Gun, sword, asbestos, Toxic wastes, pollution, it's creations put the world on the brink of Global Warming, the extinction of THOUSANDS of species, the depleation of the oceans... but does that mean all science is bad? no. it just means that like Religion, it's how it's applied.

so can the Irrational Beliefs phrase, and use the proper term. the Mentally Deficient.

Either put up some evidence that it's impossible to have a rational conversation with a religious person or withdraw it.

He'll probably accuse you of trolling now. :rolleyes:

LOL....thanks for the giggle...

Tea time now....have a good one y'all!

and now rli can add this to his list of non responses.

you really havent ever refuted any of my posts. i guess that means you agree with me but are too proud to admit it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

Don't make assumptions that because of one hardcore religious person that it represents the whole of us...

Idiotic Christian filmmakers: the RATIONAL Christian's nightmare.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

Thanks.

Idiotic Christian filmmakers: the RATIONAL Christian's nightmare.

Non-Christians are non too fond of them either.

Evolution does not explain how non-life became life.

If you are a large ball of rock (or even a small rock), you are not reproducing, and hence cannot evolve. This is the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory.

Ummmm. Evolution isn't supposed to explain that. Evolution describes how living organisms change over time. Not quite sure what the study of life's origins is called, but at the core, it's not got a whole lot to do with evolution science.

Idiotic Christian filmmakers: the RATIONAL Christian's nightmare. drop the filmmakers... ;)

Non-Christians are non too fond of them either.except, Non-Christians tend to use those id10t's as the template for Christianity norm.

I love how they try to seem so credible and scientific.

1. It takes more than a few years for life to form. Actually it takes a few billion.
2. Life needed an oxygenless atmosphere.
3. Life needs materials other than in peanut butter. Any matter will not do.

Quite humorous.

1. It takes more than a few years for life to form. Actually it takes a few billion.

As I understand it, the current concensus is that the Earth formed about 4.56 billion years ago and that life emerged about 4 billion years ago.

drop the filmmakers... ;)

except, Non-Christians tend to use those id10t's as the template for Christianity norm.

Only the similarly idiotic ones.

Only the similarly idiotic ones.

agreed!

For those out there that still think that abogenesis could not occur i post an useful linky

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/index.html

Read the whole stuff, please, it's pretty easy.

You know... Even if new life advanced enough to cause peanut butter to spoil were to randomly arise in a jar of peanut butter you simply assume the jar had somehow been contaminated by an outside source. You'd probably return it to the supermarket and say, "Look, this wasn't properly treated and sealed! Bacteria have gotten into the peanut butter and caused it to spoil!"

Then they'd agree with you and give you a different jar.

I wonder why they didn't talk about the preservatives used in the peanut butter.

I wonder why they didn't talk about the preservatives used in the peanut butter.

Because they don't know what they're talking about.

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I did not hurl the insults to start with.

You're joking right?

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious.

You hurled the FIRST insult of the thread! It's starting to sound like you can't have a rational discussion with Rubiconic Crossings . . .

Lets look at the generalisation...if you are religious (please notice that posters went into the entire Christian meme...despite my stating it was not specific to any religion...which also throws up question marks regarding peoples reading comprehension)...you believe in a God. If you believe in a God and therefore the infallibility of God how would a scientist react to evidence that disproves the existence of God?


Sorry, didn't catch this part I was caught up in the ridiculousness of your comment about not being the first to hurl insults. Who says that I hold any of my gods to be in any way infallible?

drop the filmmakers... ;)

except, Non-Christians tend to use those id10t's as the template for Christianity norm.

That's because the idiots are loud enough that occasionally even I forget they aren't the majority.

Idiotic Christian filmmakers: the RATIONAL Christian's nightmare.What is a RATIONAL Christian?

What is a RATIONAL Christian?

They're like rational Christians, but moar 1337.

They're like rational Christians, but moar 1337.

Wouldn't that be R47|0N4L Christians?

What is a RATIONAL Christian?

I'm a rational christian. Fear me. :)

What is a RATIONAL Christian? *Raises hand*

I'm a rational christian. Fear me. :)

*ahem...* fear US. ;)

*Raises hand*



*ahem...* fear US. ;)

They grow more frightened by the second. :)

Peanut butter is clearly anti-science. People who eat it may become infected with creationist mumbo-jumbo.

Peanut butter is clearly anti-science. People who eat it may become infected with creationist mumbo-jumbo.Is peanut butter popular anywhere outside the US?

I'm a rational christian. Fear me. I have always feared you... :)

<goes to pantry to make a creationist mumbo-jumbo sandwich>

That sounds quite delicious, actually.

Peanut butter is clearly anti-science. People who eat it may become infected with creationist mumbo-jumbo.

<goes to pantry to make a creationist mumbo-jumbo sandwich>

<goes to pantry to make a creationist mumbo-jumbo sandwich>

Mumbo Jumbists may find these jokes offensive. :( :D

Mmm... Naked Chocolate Jesus and Peanut Butter...
*develops tasty ideas*

Mmm... Naked Chocolate Jesus and Peanut Butter...
*develops tasty ideas*

Naked chocolate Jesus dipped in peanut butter! It's blasphemously delicious!

[/threadjack]

Mmm... Naked Chocolate Jesus and Peanut Butter...
*develops tasty ideas*

"Hey! you got your peanut butter on my Jesus!"
"Hey! you got your Jesus in my peanut butter!"
... "mmmm"

Resus, Peanut Butter snacks...
It's blasphemously delicious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

Yes, my posts are usually posted when I'm at the peak of sugar highness and usually don't reflect who I am really but listen to this.....


I believe that God's law for the universe is science as much as the Bible is the law He set for us. Speaking out against science is speaking out against God and his wise design for the universe. Thats how I reconciled it personally.

They don't even have their damn theories straight. Evolution isn't about how life got here in the first place. It's about life changing to adapt to its environment in order to survive.

I am a little irritated that the OP chooses to group all the religious in with these weak-minded fools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

You see this is why I am very much against religion.

You cannot have a rational discussion with a person who is religious. It might seem you are but if one needs to validate ones science on the altar of religion...well it makes a mockery of the scientific method...

Oh and please note....this is not about Christians. Nor Muslims or Shinto-ists...its about religion.

How can one reconcile irrational beliefs and science?

That's hilarious.

I'd like to do a similar one in which the aeronautics industry depends on their being no God, otherwise airplanes would crash into heaven.