NationStates Jolt Archive

As a science student I have heard too much about intelligent design/creationism but I have never heard about it in a class room.

I have recently been given a intelligent design book by a door to door deliverer. As a biology student I asked her what science she had studies. She replied that she stopped at 9th grade.

I asked her what testing had been done. She replied that it wasnt needed as the theory explained everything.

I asked about a reference in the book about the colours of gas bodies in space and commented about how each atom had a different colour spectrum that already explained it. She said that she never heard about it before.

I finally asked if she was followed any religion and she shouted I was closed mined and left angrily.

Just wondering is anyone else close minded to intelligent design

Oh also here is a nice video that explains most of the parts of why Intelligent design if far from science http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200&feature=related

Who is that guy talking? I swear he works for the BBC.

Oh... just about everyone on this board. We ate everyone who was for creationism/ID for breakfast long ago.

Probably but it does go on about most of the reasons why it is a load of ****

Non-religious, believe in evolution and SLIGHT ID.

As in, I think there's a higher power/intelligence that existed before our universe. Do I think that said power decided to invent the echidna? Hell no. ID fails on a colossal level. Just ask yourself: if there is a Creator, why did he leave it to us to invent alcohol?

I believe in God. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in physics. Intelligent design is not science.

I believe in and worship the Goddess. Intelligent Design is not science. Whether or not we were created or are the children of mere chance, science requires a testable hypothesis and the use of existing evidence. ID is beyond unscientific.

I used to live in the same city as the Discover Center (the assholes behind this), but they wouldn't try going door to door there. Way too sensible a place for ID crap in our schools.

Just ask yourself: if there is a Creator, why did he leave it to us to invent alcohol?

Alcohol occurs naturally... It's fermented...
Oh, nevermind.

I believe in and worship the Goddess.

Goddess?

Alcohol occurs naturally... It's fermented...
Oh, nevermind.

Correction to my own statement: God didn't invent Miller Time, and that pretty much disproves him in my book.

It's not so much that I'm closed minded. It's just that I have no interest in bullshit. ID is not science in pretty much the same way that I'm not an NHL hockey player.

I believe that there is a Master Creator (God) behind the science. *shrugs*

Goddess?

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism). Broadly, I could either be called an eclectic Neopagan or a very, very eclectic Wiccan.

I believe that there was a Master Creator (God) behind the science. *shrugs*

Me too. The zoo kepper who got lazy and just threw all the exhibits together. Wait, are we just God's 5th grade science project?!

I believe that there is a Master Creator (God) behind the science. *shrugs*

It doesn't matter if there is a master creator behind the science or not. It doesn't change the science.

In the debate over ID/creationism, it doesn't matter whether there is a creator behind the science or not. The creator part is not the science part. What makes ID bullshit, in my opinion, is the claim that it is science. It just isn't.

It doesn't matter if there is a master creator behind the science or not. It doesn't change the science.
All right, that does it. I'm gonna kick your ass. Get over here.

All right, that does it. I'm gonna kick your ass. Get over here.

God told me to do it. ;)

Anyone who thinks ID is a science is doesnt know what science is.

Anyone who thinks this makes me close minded is an idiot.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.
I would be interested to hear how you "know" those things, because all the information you say doesn't exist, science says does exist. And since I agree with science, I'd be inclined to say you don't know what you say you know. You believe it. Not the same thing.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.

Prove it.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.

This is illogical.

1) Hybrid carcasses are a red herring.

2) Genes aren't sentient and there's no reason they would have to be.

3) Plenty of failed species. See Homo Erectus.

4) Dinosaurs are only from the last 10,000 years if you're incredibly stupid.

5) Your God is a poor God indeed if his call to you is to fight against science and reason and to declare those who seek both to be against religion. As a deeply religious person, I find your assertions patently and offensively false.

Prove it.

But I read it on the internet! It must be true!

I believe in God. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in physics. Intelligent design is not science.
^ ^

This, pretty much -- thought I don't have a BS in physics.

But I read it on the internet! It must be true!

If only it were that simple to shape reality. My agenda would be so much closer to fruition.

ID can be refuted by three words: Arguments from incredulity.

Example:

(Evolutionist): So, uh... how do you explain the eye?

(Creationist): It's such a complex structure that God must have designed it.

(E): Then why is it so susceptible to disease? And failure? And imperfections?

(C): [Silence].

or

(C): The humanities (arts, music, etc) can't be explained by evolution. God must have instilled a love for music in us.

(E): But that's basically saying, "IDK why, but I believe God is the answer."

(C): No, it isn't!

(E): Evidence?

(C): No, but do you?

(E): Only a hundred different textbooks. Naivety fail.

^ ^

This, pretty much -- thought I don't have a BS in physics.
No worries Kat, anyone can BS physics...






*runs, and runs fast* :D

No worries Kat, anyone can BS physics...






*runs, and runs fast* :D

Check out my sig.

I spit in physics' face.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.


1. Everything you say doesnt exist does indeed exist. This isnt O'riely land. Repeating something over and over again doesnt make it more true.
2. Not believing absured 2000+ year old fairy tales doesnt make me anti-God. There are many other reasons you would call me that, but at least pick logical ones.
3. What are you smoking and can I have some? Share, man.

Oh... just about everyone on this board. We ate everyone who was for creationism/ID for breakfast long ago.

I miss them. Every time one shows up they only post like once and I don't get to ask them anything.

I miss them. Every time one shows up they only post like once and I don't get to ask them anything.

Ill save some for you next time.

^ ^

This, pretty much -- thought I don't have a BS in physics.

Kat knows this already but for those of you less familiar with me:

I wasn't trying to brag or be one of those forum elites with PHDs in everything, a blackbelt in karate and whatever other expertises happen to be convenient to any potential conversation. I was merely demonstrating that a person can understand science and have faith without the desire to legitimize faith through false science.

You don't need a degree in science to understand that faith and science need not meet.

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, *SNIP*
Alright, ignoring the math issue for a second, I'd like to state that any odds are NOT impossible, just highly improvable. Improvable does not mean impossible. Lots of things are improvable but they DO happen. It is highly improvable for a meteorite to make it through the Earth's atmosphere and slam into the hood of a traveling car, but it HAS happened.

Just saying.

If only it were that simple to shape reality. My agenda would be so much closer to fruition.

Well that would explain why the pills didn't make my penis larger...

Check out my sig.

I spit in physics' face.

Your valedictorian is stupid. :p

Funny thing is, with 26,992 posts, kinda hard not to believe that you lasted this long w/o some sort of post-secondary education.

3. What are you smoking and can I have some? Share, man.

Same especially his last two sentences, I am wtf was that all about.

I miss them. Every time one shows up they only post like once and I don't get to ask them anything.
You just need to get here faster. ;)

Well that would explain why the pills didn't make my penis larger...

I have reason to believe that you are supposed to feed the pills to your penis. Try it out. *nod*

Funny thing is, with 26,992 posts, kinda hard not to believe that you lasted this long w/o some sort of post-secondary education.

Tacos helped. :)

You just need to get here faster. ;)

Man, if they leave after one post it doesn't matter if I get there before everyone else.

Well that would explain why the pills didn't make my penis larger...

No, that's because God has a master plan for you, that doesn't involve a massive man-member.

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.

Man, if they leave after one post it doesn't matter if I get there before everyone else.

What you need to do is get there before the poster post his one post and refute his argument before he posts it and then...

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.
Maybe they developed intelligence, started thinking scientifically, and God smote them for being anti-him.

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.

Because there never was any Tyrannosauri. *nods*

Is it 'eses' or 'i'? I used 'i' based on such words like cactus, octopus and hippopotamus.

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.

The most probably explanation for this phenomenon is that creationists are in denial about the extinction of dinosaurs because of highly developed imaginations.

Because there never was any Tyrannosauri. *nods*

Is it 'eses' or 'i'? I used 'i' based on such words like cactus, octopus and hippopotamus.

In this case, the bolded is the grammar fail. That's the singular past participle for be, am, is, was, were, are, etc.

In this case, the bolded is the grammar fail. That's the singular past participle for be, am, is, was, were, are, etc.

Well thank you, I should have said were. But then again as I was going for the stupid comment you could say I deliberately did that. Due to my past posts, however, it would be obvious to most people that was not the case.

ID can be refuted by three words: Arguments from incredulity.

Example:

(Evolutionist): So, uh... how do you explain the eye?

(Creationist): It's such a complex structure that God must have designed it.

(E): Then why is it so susceptible to disease? And failure? And imperfections?

(C): [Silence].

or

(C): The humanities (arts, music, etc) can't be explained by evolution. God must have instilled a love for music in us.

(E): But that's basically saying, "IDK why, but I believe God is the answer."

(C): No, it isn't!

(E): Evidence?

(C): No, but do you?

(E): Only a hundred different textbooks. Naivety fail.

I hate to disagree, but I've not read much on the provenance of the desire for beauty being explainable through evolution. I can't see how reveling in a sunset or a lovely view is in any way an advantage against selection for extinction.

I'm far from religious, but I can certainly see some things that science cannot satisfactorily explain. People ask me if I'm going to church when they see me in hiking gear early on a Sunday morning. I just say "yes" and go to the summit of the altar of nature and pray.

Because there never was any Tyrannosauri. *nods*

Is it 'eses' or 'i'? I used 'i' based on such words like cactus, octopus and hippopotamus.

Never? And the fossils?

Correction to my own statement: God didn't invent Miller Time, and that pretty much disproves him in my book.

Dude, if anything that shit comes out of the Pit.

I hate to disagree, but I've not read much on the provenance of the desire for beauty being explainable through evolution. I can't see how reveling in a sunset or a lovely view is in any way an advantage against selection for extinction.

1.) Evolution does not explain people's desire to create art or their appreciation of it.

Response:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing how something is explained doesn't mean it can't be explained.

2. Art is a form of creativity, and creativity has obvious evolutionary advantages (for example, allowing us to think up new and better tools).


2.) Evolution does not explain human personality, emotions, and the human mind in general, which make man distinct from animals.

Source:
Morris, John D., 2003. Is man a "higher" animal? Acts & Facts 32(7) (July), d.

Response:

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.




Both garnered from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Enjoy.

Never? And the fossils?

The fossils were made by anti god religion hating so called scientists who made them up so they could get some attention and because they just felt like causing trouble and wanted to get back at the church. The bones were placed in the ground after, if you do proper carbon testing you will see they are at most only 200 years old and they used the bones of animals which had died changed them around and said look dinosaur that means there is no god and there was no one called Jesus so there.


Before you reply to this, my post you quoted and this one isn't meant to be taken seriously. I was merely stating what some people might state. You can continue this if you want, my responses may get sillier and sillier but by all means try and argue with me. You're just a closed minded person who refuses to see facts when they are given to you :p The views in this post and that other one aren't my own

1.) Evolution does not explain people's desire to create art or their appreciation of it.

Response:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing how something is explained doesn't mean it can't be explained.

Nope. I haven't said I don't believe something. I've merely said I've found no evolutionary support for artistic creativity.

2. Art is a form of creativity, and creativity has obvious evolutionary advantages (for example, allowing us to think up new and better tools).

These are not the same things. An artist is not a toolmaker, save perhaps inventing tools to help them express themselves.

2.) Evolution does not explain human personality, emotions, and the human mind in general, which make man distinct from animals.

Source:
Morris, John D., 2003. Is man a "higher" animal? Acts & Facts 32(7) (July), d.

Response:

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

Aside from being a flip answer, please tell me you're not saying that the cave painter got more pussy than the guy with the bigger muscles and more battle victories.

2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.

Or at least that's how humans prefer to see them. Dogs developed cute behaviors to endear them to humans, who selected the more friendly near-wolves for preferential treatment.

The fossils were made by anti god religion hating so called scientists who made them up so they could get some attention and because they just felt like causing trouble and wanted to get back at the church. The bones were placed in the ground after, if you do proper carbon testing you will see they are at most only 200 years old and they used the bones of animals which had died changed them around and said look dinosaur that means there is no god and there was no one called Jesus so there.


Before you reply to this my post you quoted and this isn't meant to be taken seriously. I was merely stating what some people might state. You can continue this if you want, my responses may get sillier and sillier but by all means try and argue with me. Your just a closed minded person who refuses to see facts when they are given to you :p The views in this post and that other one aren't my own

I understand.

Call:

"God buried those fossils to test your faith in Him."

Response:

"Dude, I think God put YOU here to test MY faith."

I love the Carbon-dating Creationist argument. The bones MUST HAVE belonged to giants, or the wicked beasts outside Eden. Then, carbon-dating arrives. Suddenly, carbon-dating is unexplainably (not a word, but you get it) incorrect and inaccurate! How magical!

I understand.

Call:

"God buried those fossils to test your faith in Him."

Response:

"Dude, I think God put YOU here to test MY faith."

Gold :D

Anyone who thinks ID is a science is doesnt know what science is.

Anyone who thinks this makes me close minded is an idiot.

Well, at least we agree on something.

ID can be refuted by three words: Arguments from incredulity.

Example:

(Evolutionist): So, uh... how do you explain the eye?

(Creationist): It's such a complex structure that God must have designed it.

(E): Then why is it so susceptible to disease? And failure? And imperfections?

(C): [Silence].

or

(C): The humanities (arts, music, etc) can't be explained by evolution. God must have instilled a love for music in us.

(E): But that's basically saying, "IDK why, but I believe God is the answer."

(C): No, it isn't!

(E): Evidence?

(C): No, but do you?

(E): Only a hundred different textbooks. Naivety fail.

(C): And so's your face.

(E): That doesn't even make sense!

- Scrubs

Nope. I haven't said I don't believe something. I've merely said I've found no evolutionary support for artistic creativity.



These are not the same things. An artist is not a toolmaker, save perhaps inventing tools to help them express themselves.



Aside from being a flip answer, please tell me you're not saying that the cave painter got more pussy than the guy with the bigger muscles and more battle victories.



Or at least that's how humans prefer to see them. Dogs developed cute behaviors to endear them to humans, who selected the more friendly near-wolves for preferential treatment.

Actually art does have evolutionary purpose. It is what has allowed us to create languages and develop into the complex beings we are today.

And before you say "link!?", you should read the book Visual Anthropology.

Actually art does have evolutionary purpose. It is what has allowed us to create languages and develop into the complex beings we are today.

And before you say "link!?", you should read the book Visual Anthropology.

So cave art leads to, say, heiroglyphics? I'll buy that.

But that's not what I'm talking about. The need for Beauty. The ability to see it in almost anything, depending on perspective. That's the sense I'm not seeing evolutionary pressures selecting for or against.

I hear a choral work that's in tune and executed perfectly, and shivers run up and down my spine and I may even cry. Why? What's the evolutionary advantage in being moved by Beauty?

Accepting intelligent design is as insane as accepting the idea that canada is a conspiracy invented by lawn gnomes and hitler's floating brain.


...please don't tell me you believe in the second one too...

Accepting intelligent design is as insane as accepting the idea that canada is a conspiracy invented by lawn gnomes and hitler's floating brain.


...please don't tell me you believe in the second one too...Surely no one would lie about something that big.

Because there never was any Tyrannosauri. *nods*

Is it 'eses' or 'i'? I used 'i' based on such words like cactus, octopus and hippopotamus.

Technically, the plural of Tyrannosaurus is...

Tyrannosaurus.

Technically, the plural of Tyrannosaurus is...

Tyrannosaurus.

Oh well what is the singular?

Goddess?


Pagan thing, atributing a femanine principle to teh creative force. Makes sense to me, even the bible says god is both male and female.

Pagan thing, atributing a femanine principle to teh creative force. Makes sense to me, even the bible says god is both male and female.

God is a hermaphrodite! :eek:

God is a hermaphrodite! :eek:

*nods* Damn straight! I worship God under his stagename Trixe!:D

What's the evolutionary advantage in being moved by Beauty?

An off the cuff answer, beautiful women get laid.
Another off ther cuff answer that has already been alluded to, boring people without personality or depth also tend to not get laid.

I voted non-religious/not science, since that most closely resembles my position.

I am an agnostic, and while I know of nothing that rules ID out as a possibillity, it remains unproven speculation. I also believe its used by assholes as a way to get the door open to Creationism in schools.

Technically, the plural of Tyrannosaurus is...

Tyrannosaurus.Technically, there is no plural. It doesn't refer to the individual specimens, but the taxon.
For the individual beast, you have singular Tyrannosaur and plural Tyrannosaurs

If there's a higher being, at most it created the laws of physics. I can see Him working on it: "Now let's create a universe where the entropy is always increasing, while systems in it strive for minimum free energy, and nothing can surpass the speed of light etc. blabla.... Now, I'll put in insane amount of condensed mass right here and..." BOOOMMM!!! :D

IMO, ID is for people who can't grasp that a million, let alone a billion, years is an awful mind-boggling amount of time. Besides, I don't think the design of the human body is that great, really...

Nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design.


Of course, I sort of oppose parts of the evolution theory too. Specifically the part that says man evolved from apes... that's the biggest insult you could give to an Ape!

An off the cuff answer, beautiful women get laid.
Another off ther cuff answer that has already been alluded to, boring people without personality or depth also tend to not get laid.

Actualy I saw a study the other day that say that fat women get laid more than thin women. Make of that what you will.

Nope. I haven't said I don't believe something. I've merely said I've found no evolutionary support for artistic creativity.I don't see why artistic creativity wouldn't simply be a side-effect of 'general' creativity; which has numerous survival advantages (like creating civilization, or, in general, creating, as the term implies.)

Actualy I saw a study the other day that say that fat women get laid more than thin women. Make of that what you will.

Maybe in the US, but thats because there are a lot more fat women...

Actualy I saw a study the other day that say that fat women get laid more than thin women. Make of that what you will.

Well I suppose it goes on the old theory that fat women give better sex because they don't know when the next time they are going to get laid so they make the most of it and do almost everything. Where as thin women know they are going to get laid and so will just be mediocre. Not that all thin women will be like that by those that are so far up themselves they can't see daylight and when you ask what the time is just turn away as if I was trying to pick them up, piss off I wasn't trying to pick you up and wouldn't want to get with you even if you paid me, stupid bitch I asked for the fucking time I couldn't care less what you looked like you could have been a fat bastard who's name was Jim and I still would have asked you, seriously do these women think that everybody wants the screw them? [/:soap:]

Well I suppose it goes on the old theory that fat women give better sex because they don't know when the next time they are going to get laid so they make the most of it and do almost everything. Where as thin women know they are going to get laid and so will just be mediocre. Not that all thin women will be like that by those that are so far up themselves they can't see daylight and when you ask what the time is just turn away as if I was trying to pick them up, piss off I wasn't trying to pick you up and wouldn't want to get with you even if you paid me, stupid bitch I asked for the fucking time I couldn't care less what you looked like you could have been a fat bastard who's name was Jim and I still would have asked you, seriously do these women think that everybody wants the screw them? [/:soap:]

E-Frued says you are sexually frustrated.

I do believe in god and I have no problem with the theory of evolution, but lets at least admit it's a far from perfect explanation - not only because of the "missing-link" but also because the primary idea that evolution occurs by a combination of natural selection and mutation has never been observed.

There is plenty of evidence that evolution - in that species change over time - happens. But there is nothing disprove this from being Intelligent evolution...

As for my vote - I didn't. According to my religious views God has a hand in everything but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that I know how he goes about doing this. Personally I think that a lot of people who "believe" in evolution are taking it a lot farther than anything Darwin ever said ... Ive even heard people say that evolution proves there is no god - WTF, how? As far as ID - well it's crap but only because they use religion as an excuse for not bothering to even try to understand the world around them. I guess people are lazy and like easy answers, be that evolution or ID.

PS Evolution is not an easy answer but how many people who "believe" in it really understand it - or have read Origin of the Species?

E-Frued says you are sexually frustrated.

lol

E-Frued would be correct at this point in time.

However, when this particular incident happened I wasn't. I was just asking for the time, and she acted as though I was trying to pick her up and shut me down (really what sort of pick up line is "Do you have the time?"). All I ask for is a bit of common courtesy at least say you don't know. It is just something that bugs me how people can bee rude at times over tiny things.

lol

E-Frued would be correct at this point in time.

However, when this particular incident happened I wasn't. I was just asking for the time, and she acted as though I was trying to pick her up and shut me down (really what sort of pick up line is "Do you have the time?"). All I ask for is a bit of common courtesy at least say you don't know. It is just something that bugs me how people can bee rude at times over tiny things.

She literally wouldn't give you the time of day.


Don't feel bad about being sexually frustrated, I would lay down good money that says you have had more action more recently than I have.

I do believe in god and I have no problem with the theory of evolution, but lets at least admit it's a far from perfect explanation - not only because of the "missing-link" but also because the primary idea that evolution occurs by a combination of natural selection and mutation has never been observed.

There is plenty of evidence that evolution - in that species change over time - happens. But there is nothing disprove this from being Intelligent evolution...

As for my vote - I didn't. According to my religious views God has a hand in everything but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that I know how he goes about doing this. Personally I think that a lot of people who "believe" in evolution are taking it a lot farther than anything Darwin ever said ... Ive even heard people say that evolution proves there is no god - WTF, how? As far as ID - well it's crap but only because they use religion as an excuse for not bothering to even try to understand the world around them. I guess people are lazy and like easy answers, be that evolution or ID.

PS Evolution is not an easy answer but how many people who "believe" in it really understand it - or have read Origin of the Species?

What missing link exactly are you talking about? There are in fact gaps in the fossil record, which is understandable given that fossilisation isn't that frequent, and that the evidence is buried at various depth. But the record we found so far is easily complete enough to thoroughly support the theory of evolution.

Also, "The origin of species" is outdated. If you want to know something about the current level of knowledge, I would suggest a more recent work, "The Blind Watchmaker" is a good start.

She literally wouldn't give you the time of day.

:D

Don't feel bad about being sexually frustrated, I would lay down good money that says you have had more action more recently than I have.

You just need to show off your cooking skills more. ;)
But from posts in that thread I thought you were saying you had a missus? Or is this post just you doing what you do in 85% of your posts?

I do believe in god and I have no problem with the theory of evolution, but lets at least admit it's a far from perfect explanation - not only because of the "missing-link" but also because the primary idea that evolution occurs by a combination of natural selection and mutation has never been observed.

There is plenty of evidence that evolution - in that species change over time - happens. But there is nothing disprove this from being Intelligent evolution...

As for my vote - I didn't. According to my religious views God has a hand in everything but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that I know how he goes about doing this. Personally I think that a lot of people who "believe" in evolution are taking it a lot farther than anything Darwin ever said ... Ive even heard people say that evolution proves there is no god - WTF, how? As far as ID - well it's crap but only because they use religion as an excuse for not bothering to even try to understand the world around them. I guess people are lazy and like easy answers, be that evolution or ID.

PS Evolution is not an easy answer but how many people who "believe" in it really understand it - or have read Origin of the Species?


Heh heh I too belive in God but when you look at evolution, it is clear to see how correct it is. It is not far from perfect, it is in fact almost the perfect solution.

As to observation, of course it has been, but I suppose now we shall get the guff about micro vs macro evolution?

You just need to show off your cooking skills more. ;)
But from posts in that thread I thought you were saying you had a missus? Or is this post just you doing what you do in 85% of your posts?

No I ain't got no missus, it is mostly spam I'm posting here though.

Accepting intelligent design is as insane as accepting the idea that canada is a conspiracy invented by lawn gnomes and hitler's floating brain.

yes, of course...Nothing to see up here in Canada...Move Along...

*Into mic*
This one knows too much.

*herds SL into unmarked black van*

lol

E-Frued would be correct at this point in time.

However, when this particular incident happened I wasn't. I was just asking for the time, and she acted as though I was trying to pick her up and shut me down (really what sort of pick up line is "Do you have the time?"). All I ask for is a bit of common courtesy at least say you don't know. It is just something that bugs me how people can bee rude at times over tiny things.


The other side of that of course, is that people make incorrect assumptions quite offten, easpecily if the same sort of things happen to them all the time.

In the case of a pretty woman, she may get hit upon all the time, and so expects that behovour from any unknown male that approaches her.

No I ain't got no missus, it is mostly spam I'm posting here though.

Join the club, I meant the jokes that take up so many of your posts. Keep them coming.

The other side of that of course, is that people make incorrect assumptions quite offten, easpecily if the same sort of things happen to them all the time.

In the case of a pretty woman, she may get hit upon all the time, and so expects that behovour from any unknown male that approaches her.

That's true I suppose and she will only take the ones she wants to be with. If she continues to raise the bar than she doesn't get as much sex. Which may go back to that statement you made.

But really why would anyone think "Do you have the time?" is a pick up line?

I have two questions for those engaged in the side argument about whether a sense of beauty has an evolutionary benefit:

1) What makes you think you know enough about how all the aspects and traits of living creatures affect their survival for you to judge whether any given aspect/trait contributes to it or not? Lots of animals display behaviors very similar to human aesthetic tastes -- everything from choosing a mate by how well they display their bodies and strengths to those species of birds and marine life that build elaborate nests or mating bowers that have no purpose but to attract a mate. Does that not suggest that that aesthetic taste may actually have or be an effect of something that does contribute to survival, if it apparently occurs in so many forms across so many species?

2) You do realize that there is more than one standard of beauty, right?

OK, three questions:

3) You do also realize that aesthetic tastes, abstract thinking, and ability to communicate are all brain functions that do clearly have evolutionary benefit and that such things as art are just an effect of them, right?

That's true I suppose and she will only take the ones she wants to be with. If she continues to raise the bar than she doesn't get as much sex. Which may go back to that statement you made.

But really why would anyone think "Do you have the time?" is a pick up line?

Heh coz it works?

That's true I suppose and she will only take the ones she wants to be with. If she continues to raise the bar than she doesn't get as much sex. Which may go back to that statement you made.

But really why would anyone think "Do you have the time?" is a pick up line?

Trying to think of a pick up line for that one...

Do you have the time?

Its 10:35

Possible lines:
No, the time for me baby!
You could have me any time!
Cuz I got the time for you!

There's three...

Heh coz it works?

Does it really? *Ponders actually using it next time as a pick up line*

Hey SaintB, I like those haha

Does it really? *Ponders actually using it next time as a pick up line*

Hey SaintB, I like those haha

I might start a thread on pick up lines now... I made one last year and it was pretty funny.

Anyway, I was just helping you come up with a solution to the problem.

Much appreciated mate :)

Does it really? *Ponders actually using it next time as a pick up line*

Hey SaintB, I like those haha

Course it does man. Not a pickup line as such, but an opening, and excuse to go up and talk to that girl.

Course it does man. Not a pickup line as such, but an opening, and excuse to go up and talk to that girl.

Well maybe I should try it then. :) And if I get shut down I get shut down :p

Course it does man. Not a pickup line as such, but an opening, and excuse to go up and talk to that girl.

Damn, I actually had a mental image of me asking for the time and her just melting into my arms....

But a full blown conversation? You are asking for far too much.

My view is that intelligent design insults G-d. He's way smarter than that.

I believe that He created the laws of evolution (and all of science). He also set up the universe in such a way that intelligent life would eventually evolve according to His plans. How did He do this?

He's G-d. He's infinitely smart.

Damn, I actually had a mental image of me asking for the time and her just melting into my arms....

But a full blown conversation? You are asking for far too much.

Heh it goes summit like this.

'Excuse me luv have you got the time?'

'Yeah it 9:30'

'Cheers, and do you know what time the next bus is due'

'Umm not really, there's the time table though'

'Ohh shit, yeah heh sorry'

'Hah, that's okay'

'Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?'

Etc...

Heh it goes summit like this.

'Excuse me luv have you got the time?'

'Yeah it 9:30'

'Cheers, and do you know what time the next bus is due'

'Umm not really, there's the time table though'

'Ohh shit, yeah heh sorry'

'Hah, that's okay'

'Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?'

Etc...

Oh beleive me I know how to make conversation, but I'm too tried to attempt such a thing right now. I am actually thinking that I shall finally after 36 hours.. go to bed. Right after i wash the dishes...

Heh it goes summit like this.

'Excuse me luv have you got the time?'

'Yeah it 9:30'

'Cheers, and do you know what time the next bus is due'

'Umm not really, there's the time table though'

'Ohh shit, yeah heh sorry'

'Hah, that's okay'

'Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?'

Etc...
"Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?"

Answers (pick one):

-- "Yes, I do mind."

-- "You can ask..."

-- "Mrs. Not Interested."

Back to the drawing board. :p

"Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?"

Answers (pick one):

-- "Yes, I do mind."

-- "You can ask..."

-- "Mrs. Not Interested."


And what a beeeaaautiful save!

Back to the drawing board. :p

I don't have a drawing board... maybe that's the whole problem!

"Pete by the way, do you mind if I ask you your name?"

Answers (pick one):

-- "Yes, I do mind."

-- "You can ask..."

-- "Mrs. Not Interested."

Back to the drawing board. :p

Heh of course if the woman aint interested in you theres nowt you can do about it huh, but if she is then she's gonna say yes huh.

You don't know till ya try though huh.

And what a beeeaaautiful save!



I don't have a drawing board... maybe that's the whole problem!
Hehe, while I waste time on NSG, I'm printing, for an art sale this weekend, novelty items I am pleased to call "parting cards" (as opposed to greeting cards). They are for getting rid of annoying people. I just finished printing a stack of ones for use in bars that read: "Thanks, but I am: married / not interested / seeing someone else / looking for someone else (check all that apply)"

They're big sellers. I kind of hope people don't actually use them, though, just carry them in their wallets/purses for a laugh.

Hehe, while I waste time on NSG, I'm printing, for an art sale this weekend, novelty items I am pleased to call "parting cards" (as opposed to greeting cards). They are for getting rid of annoying people. I just finished printing a stack of ones for use in bars that read: "Thanks, but I am: married / not interested / seeing someone else / looking for someone else (check all that apply)"

They're big sellers. I kind of hope people don't actually use them, though, just carry them in their wallets/purses for a laugh.

That is awesome!


The best drop off line I ever heard (not directed to me, I rarely get the cold shoulder actually, I'm as outgoing RL as I am here) was "No, sorry. The Cat won't let me have any pets."

That is awesome!


The best drop off line I ever heard (not directed to me, I rarely get the cold shoulder actually, I'm as outgoing RL as I am here) was "No, sorry. The Cat won't let me have any pets."
Ha! Golden! :D

Ha! Golden! :D

Good luck with your parting cards, I am going to put on some Stones and wash my dishes before I faint...

Good luck with your parting cards, I am going to put on some Stones and wash my dishes before I faint...
Hm... You have created in my mind an interesting image of your day. :D I'm off, too. These poison notes won't package themselves.

I recently read a viewpoint that can vaguely be described as intelligent design if you really stretch the definition. And it's not dumb.

First, we have to assume there is a god. Next, we assume that evolution as we know it is largely correct. Now, in order for evolution to work, novelty has to exist. We can't live in a predetermined universe. Unless god planned for us to have all the problems associated with bipedalism, which would make for a shitty god.

So, we ask ourselves why does evolution exist? The idea is that god intelligently designed the universe so that rational, sentient beings would eventually evolve. Apparently, evolution is god's way of making beings that have free will. That's what it's designed for.

As you can see, since it deals with motivations and intentions, it lies outside the sphere of science, which removes it from possible conflicts with science. It also neatly resolves the issue of evil and suffering in the world (necessary consequences of evolution and free will) which is helpful.

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.

After the Great Flood, global temperatures dropped* and the Tyrannosaurs, along with every other big animal, couldn't handle the colder climate and slowly died out. Ancient myths about dragons and biblical references to sea monsters are evidence that dinosaurs of some sort were around during early post-Flood settlements.

*because surface temperatures were initially kept higher by a sphere of water surrounding Earth's atmosphere, which created a sort of super-powered Greenhouse Effect. God made the Great Flood by allowing the sphere of sky-water to collapse onto Earth's surface. After the Flood, no more Greenhouse, so everything got colder.

In case you were still curious.

Hehe, while I waste time on NSG, I'm printing, for an art sale this weekend, novelty items I am pleased to call "parting cards" (as opposed to greeting cards).

Wait, this is way more interesting than Creation Science. Printing how? Screen? Letterpress? Dot-Matrix?

I believe in God. One of my majors is biology. ID is nonsense and not science.

This is illogical.

1) Hybrid carcasses are a red herring.

2) Genes aren't sentient and there's no reason they would have to be.

3) Plenty of failed species. See Homo Erectus.

4) Dinosaurs are only from the last 10,000 years if you're incredibly stupid.

5) Your God is a poor God indeed if his call to you is to fight against science and reason and to declare those who seek both to be against religion. As a deeply religious person, I find your assertions patently and offensively false.

All of this, except Homo Erectus is one of our ancestors, so not so much failed as changed.

No creationist I've talked to has ever explained why there are no more Tyrannosauruseses. I want to know, damn it.

They didn't make it to the ark... :p

They didn't make it to the ark... :p

But Jesus rode them !

They didn't make it to the ark... :p

Exactly, God hates freaks. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jNeKUDnY8)

Inteligent Design is the work of creationists - it exists solely in an attempt to discredit logicial systematic science. Is it closed minded to reject propoganda intended to confuse mislead and otherwise hoodwink people into blindly following a version of events that is as likely as the flying spagetti monster creating the universe by farting into a coffee cup unforunatly yes. In order to deal with ID you have to hear out the fools peddling this crap and than use rational reasonable debate to show they are wrong if they dont accept that you at least have a point they are closed minded.

Just wondering is anyone else close minded to intelligent design

Nope - extremely openminded about it. As soon as they show me a reason to put it above the other 37 billion or so ideas about how we came to be I am more than willing to give it ample attention.

However, I fear that until that time I will need to stick with the ideas that have some backing, can be tested and have proven to be useful. My time is after all not infinite - and I am certain many schoolchildren agree.

It is a commonly known fact that jesus rode dinosaurs on the moon with Sarah Palin whilst advising her on her foreign and domestic policies, they then didn't go extinct they just flew into heaven with Jesus as they were an original form of life created by god and he got sick of us abusing them like the Flintstones did, or they were daemons and went to hell or something equally crazy.

not that we've found a massive crater dating to circa 65 million years ago in south America and major volcanic events dating to the same period leading to a major climatic shift at all

ID is the most laughable crass attempt to rival fact with fiction of modern times, it's an utter travesty that ID makes it into any classroom outside religious studies. Its not science it doesn't even resemble a proper theory its just an attempt to say look evolution can't yet explain this animal so god must have done it.

I have no problem with someone believing in a god or higher power, that's there prerogative, but ID vs an easily provable scientific theory?

sorry my language is a little barbed but I'm sick of watching atheism and science being raped in the same barbed manner by religion and then religion demanding respect whenever atheism or science shouts back even when one is based on reason and experiment and the other is based on 2000 year old books

It is a commonly known fact that jesus rode dinosaurs on the moon with Sarah Palin whilst advising her on her foreign and domestic policies, they then didn't go extinct they just flew into heaven with Jesus as they were an original form of life created by god and he got sick of us abusing them like the Flintstones did, or they were daemons and went to hell or something equally crazy.

not that we've found a massive crater dating to circa 65 million years ago in south America and major volcanic events dating to the same period leading to a major climatic shift at all

ID is the most laughable crass attempt to rival fact with fiction of modern times, it's an utter travesty that ID makes it into any classroom outside religious studies. Its not science it doesn't even resemble a proper theory its just an attempt to say look evolution can't yet explain this animal so god must have done it.

I have no problem with someone believing in a god or higher power, that's there prerogative, but ID vs an easily provable scientific theory?

sorry my language is a little barbed but I'm sick of watching atheism and science being raped in the same barbed manner by religion and then religion demanding respect whenever atheism or science shouts back even when one is based on reason and experiment and the other is based on 2000 year old books

There is nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design.

Oh yeah, don't worry about the language...

There is nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design.

Oh yeah, don't worry about the language...

thanks:p

at the moment in the UK large numbers of faith schools have recently opened there doors to students, these are schools partially funded by religious groups in order to spread there dubious messages and keep people divided.

ID is creeping into science labs using this route, so basically these kids are being taught "don't worry if we cant yet explain it don't use your scientific minds just say god did it shut up pay your taxes and be a good little idiot"

it's just, these are the countries future scientists and we are filling there heads with drivel.

I remember the RS lesson in which my teacher tried to explain ID to my class.....and how i proceeded to rip it to shreds in front of her at the age of 14. It has more holes in as a theory than a colander which has been used as target practice by the SAS

I remember the RS lesson in which my teacher tried to explain ID to my class.....and how i proceeded to rip it to shreds in front of her at the age of 14. It has more holes in as a theory than a colander which has been used as target practice by the SAS

I like this kid.. can we keep him?

+1 to SaintBs last post

All of this, except Homo Erectus is one of our ancestors, so not so much failed as changed.

Oops? Homo Neaderthalus was it? I can never remember which is which.

ID is certainly not a science, any more than a drawing of a cake is a real cake. I don't believe in any form of god or creator. I find that it is a lazy way of looking at the universe around us. Like rounding off pi; too big to contemplate, therefore abriviate it.

It's Neandertalis CD but your point still stands.

Wait, this is way more interesting than Creation Science. Printing how? Screen? Letterpress? Dot-Matrix?
Just on my own little tinpot HP decent-res inkjet printer. These are just prototype designs to market test the idea, yet they still sell very well for prices that I would want to retail "real" ones at anyway.

thanks:p

at the moment in the UK large numbers of faith schools have recently opened there doors to students, these are schools partially funded by religious groups in order to spread there dubious messages and keep people divided.

ID is creeping into science labs using this route, so basically these kids are being taught "don't worry if we cant yet explain it don't use your scientific minds just say god did it shut up pay your taxes and be a good little idiot"

it's just, these are the countries future scientists and we are filling there heads with drivel.

I remember the RS lesson in which my teacher tried to explain ID to my class.....and how i proceeded to rip it to shreds in front of her at the age of 14. It has more holes in as a theory than a colander which has been used as target practice by the SAS
Personally, I'm trying to make myself look forward to a new Dark Age because the last time that happened, being a well educated intellectual with an interest in understanding the real universe was cool because you got to dress it up in all that goth devil-connected stuff and give names like "Illuminati" to your gang of nerdy friends down the pub every Saturday. And hopefully, this new Dark Age, like the last one, will be followed by a Renaissance in which we will all get rich off the products of our secret researches (and if we're lucky, that will happen faster than last time due to the Jesus-miracle of telecommunications and the interwebs).

Personally, I'm trying to make myself look forward to a new Dark Age because the last time that happened, being a well educated intellectual with an interest in understanding the real universe was cool because you got to dress it up in all that goth devil-connected stuff and give names like "Illuminati" to your gang of nerdy friends down the pub every Saturday. And hopefully, this new Dark Age, like the last one, will be followed by a Renaissance in which we will all get rich off the products of our secret researches (and if we're lucky, that will happen faster than last time due to the Jesus-miracle of telecommunications and the interwebs).

I don't think i have ever said anything like this before... but your way of thinking is sexy!

I don't think i have ever said anything like this before... but your way of thinking is sexy!
Thanks. :D (It was the part about getting rich that did it for you, wasn't it? ;))

Personally, I'm trying to make myself look forward to a new Dark Age because the last time that happened, being a well educated intellectual with an interest in understanding the real universe was cool because you got to dress it up in all that goth devil-connected stuff and give names like "Illuminati" to your gang of nerdy friends down the pub every Saturday. And hopefully, this new Dark Age, like the last one, will be followed by a Renaissance in which we will all get rich off the products of our secret researches (and if we're lucky, that will happen faster than last time due to the Jesus-miracle of telecommunications and the interwebs).

Isn't that what the 80s and 90s were? A Dark Age where geeks met in their secret, underground cabals to play the dread Dungeons and Dragons and consider the value of highly pixelated usenet porn leading to the renaissance of the 90s where they all got stinking rich?

Isn't that what the 80s and 90s were? A Dark Age where geeks met in their secret, underground cabals to play the dread Dungeons and Dragons and consider the value of highly pixelated usenet porn leading to the renaissance of the 90s where they all got stinking rich?
That was just practice.

Thanks. :D (It was the part about getting rich that did it for you, wasn't it? ;))

No it was that whole process there. The getting rich part just made me want to hold that thought down and give cuninlingus to it though...

That was just practice.

Oh. Shit.

I was getting all of my highly pixelated, low quality usenet porn organized again.

I suppose I should put away the dice, too?

No it was that whole process there. The getting rich part just made me want to hold that thought down and give cuninlingus to it though...
Ah, I see. Looks like I'll have to design a set of greeting cards quoting that speech, to offset the parting cards. :D

Oh. Shit.

I was getting all of my highly pixelated, low quality usenet porn organized again.

I suppose I should put away the dice, too?
No, no, you can hang onto the dice (euphemism). Practice makes perfect, after all.

No, no, you can hang onto the dice (euphemism). Practice makes perfect, after all.

you can handle my dice any time Mur.

Ah, I see. Looks like I'll have to design a set of greeting cards quoting that speech, to offset the parting cards. :D

Ahh shit I really need to go to bed... g'night NSG.

you can handle my dice any time Mur.
Beggar. :p

Beggar. :p

pft please, like you haven't wanted to and were just waiting for the go ahead.

pft please, like you haven't wanted to and were just waiting for the go ahead.
Oh, is that the problem? You haven't flashed the green light? :D Well, get flashing, brother. Stand out there on the street corner and flash away till I get there. Now, keep flashing. Don't let up. :p

(Kidding -- you know I :fluffle: you.)

I really don't know what theories are set forth in intelligent design. I do know that the odds against evolution are impossibly large, and there is no evidence of natural selection occurring in the past or present. No hybrid carcasses, no modern day evolutionary adaptation manifests itself, no evidence of a genetic consciousness which would allow for pre-sentient self-selection of desirable traits, no failed transitional species in the fossil record (despite a couple of elaborate hoaxes perpetrated with primate skeletons). The two main classes of extinct creatures are ones which mankind has caused their extinction (recent) and those whose extinctions were caused by as yet undetermined cataclysms (in the last 10,000 years - maybe a flood? An asteroid? An ice age? A combination?)

The odds of God having created these traits are much higher than random chance. The only rationale for evolution, the only reason it exists, is as a propaganda tool for those who are anti-God. It makes sense that the state acquiesces to these forces and enables the spreading of evolutionary propaganda, because if the state had to acknowledge a higher power than itself, it would have to restrict itself according to that power's laws.

1. There is NO EVIDENCE of natural selection ever happening? Seriously? Do you have any idea how incredibly easy that statement is to disprove?

2. What the heck is a "hybrid carcass," and what does it have to do with this discussion? I mean, I could show you a dead mule if you like. Would that make you feel better?

3. A...genetic consciousness...? Oh dear. Out of curiosity, have you read anything about genetics, like, ever?

4. Humans are a transitional species. Dogs are a transitional species. T. rex was a transitional species. Everything is a transitional species, because it features non-identical descendants of non-identical ancestors. I will never understand what creationists think they mean by this argument.

5. I can't even answer your bit about the "two classes" of extinctions and "as yet undetermined cataclysms," because it's so silly I don't even know where to begin. Easiest answer: please, for the love of God, go read a scientific textbook or two. Please?

6. Last, but decidedly not least: Evolution is not "anti-God" to any sane human being. I happen to believe in God. I also believe that he gave me eyes and ears and a brain so I could use them, and that it is a disgustingly rude response to that gift to spend my life going, "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" every time I am presented with information that doesn't easily fit within my preconceived beliefs.

1. There is NO EVIDENCE of natural selection ever happening? Seriously? Do you have any idea how incredibly easy that statement is to disprove?

2. What the heck is a "hybrid carcass," and what does it have to do with this discussion? I mean, I could show you a dead mule if you like. Would that make you feel better?

3. A...genetic consciousness...? Oh dear. Out of curiosity, have you read anything about genetics, like, ever?

4. Humans are a transitional species. Dogs are a transitional species. T. rex was a transitional species. Everything is a transitional species, because it features non-identical descendants of non-identical ancestors. I will never understand what creationists think they mean by this argument.

5. I can't even answer your bit about the "two classes" of extinctions and "as yet undetermined cataclysms," because it's so silly I don't even know where to begin. Easiest answer: please, for the love of God, go read a scientific textbook or two. Please?

6. Last, but decidedly not least: Evolution is not "anti-God" to any sane human being. I happen to believe in God. I also believe that he gave me eyes and ears and a brain so I could use them, and that it is a disgustingly rude response to that gift to spend my life going, "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" every time I am presented with information that doesn't easily fit within my preconceived beliefs.

I think this response can be summed up with the following:

http://lolwut.eu/images/lolwut.jpg

I think this response can be summed up with the following:

http://lolwut.eu/images/lolwut.jpg

Well, yes, that does pretty well sum it up, but it's more fun to go ahead and rant. :tongue:

6. Last, but decidedly not least: Evolution is not "anti-God" to any sane human being.

disagreed. while the truth of evolution does not necessitate the non-existence of god, it did (and does) utterly undermine one of the only true puzzles which made god seem like a reasonable fallback position. hence dawkins' line about darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheists. before darwin we had to rely on the humean argument that showed that gods are not a particularly good explanation for biological complexity, but didn't really offer anything else in their place. the design argument at this point is so thoroughly destroyed that attempting to defend it just gets you laughed at.

beyond that, we have the empirical evidence that those who study evolution are pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists. not only does evolution make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but it also makes it significantly more difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled theist.

I'm religious, yet I don't believe it really matters how the universe was created. It was started by God, and that's all I believe. I'm not trying to decipher our genetic code, or clone a prehistoric animal, so it really doesn't matter to me. For me, it doesn't matter if the Universe is 6000 years old, or six billion. The point is, we are here now, and should make the best of it.

disagreed. while the truth of evolution does not necessitate the non-existence of god, it did (and does) utterly undermine one of the only true puzzles which made god seem like a reasonable fallback position. hence dawkins' line about darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheists. before darwin we had to rely on the humean argument that showed that gods are not a particularly good explanation for biological complexity, but didn't really offer anything else in their place. the design argument at this point is so thoroughly destroyed that attempting to defend it just gets you laughed at.

beyond that, we have the empirical evidence that those who study evolution are pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists. not only does evolution make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but it also makes it significantly more difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled theist.

There's a pretty big difference between not requiring a God and being opposed to God. I'd also like to see some evidence for your last statement, since I can imagine no reason why evolution would make believing in God any more difficult or less fulfilling.

There's a pretty big difference between not requiring a God and being opposed to God. I'd also like to see some evidence for your last statement, since I can imagine no reason why evolution would make believing in God any more difficult or less fulfilling.

all of the arguments for gods existing hinge on gods being necessary in some sense. every time we show that gods are not in fact necessary, we undermine not only the particular argument but also the set of reasons held as justification for believing that gods exist. and since we like to believe things for reasons, it becomes increasingly intellectually unsatisfying to believe something when you know you have no good reasons for doing so.

There's a pretty big difference between not requiring a God and being opposed to God. I'd also like to see some evidence for your last statement, since I can imagine no reason why evolution would make believing in God any more difficult or less fulfilling.
Ditto. Free Soviets' argument sounds like a biased argument by someone who happens to be anti-religious, not very different from the biased arguments of those who are anti-science. Both require the arguer to ignore evidence. For example:

1) Explaining nature is NOT the only, nor even the main, purpose of religion, so even though evolution does not depend on a god to work, that does not in any way erase other functions of religion. Because of this, accepting evolution, in and of itself, does not undermine religious belief. Therefore, evolution is not anti-god.

2) The claim that there is empirical evidence that the majority of people who study evolution are atheistic is unsupported. Even if we allow the claim, the fact remains that enough people who study evolution do also have religious belief to show that evolution is not, in and of itself, anti-god.

3) Free Soviets, not being a theist, is in no position to make assertions about whether it is possible for theists to remain "intellectually fulfilled" in the face of evolution. Such an assertion is as ridiculous as Wuldani's remarks.

Taken together, FS's argument appears to be dependent on biased assumptions and unsupported blanket assertions, similarly to a creationist's arguments. Bias undermines critical thinking on both sides of the issue, apparently.

all of the arguments for gods existing hinge on gods being necessary in some sense. every time we show that gods are not in fact necessary, we undermine not only the particular argument but also the set of reasons held as justification for believing that gods exist. and since we like to believe things for reasons, it becomes increasingly intellectually unsatisfying to believe something when you know you have no good reasons for doing so.
Tell me something, FS: If you show that a ladder is not necessary for laying carpet, have you shown that ladders have no use in life? Have you undermined the justifications for believing that ladders are useful items?

I put it to you that you do not know and therefore cannot account for all the things that various religions may consider gods necessary for. That being the case, your assertion that proving that belief in gods is not necessary for understanding how life forms on Earth develop over time undermines the need for gods in general is nonsense, because that is not the one reason why religions think gods are necessary.

Hehe, while I waste time on NSG, I'm printing, for an art sale this weekend, novelty items I am pleased to call "parting cards" (as opposed to greeting cards). They are for getting rid of annoying people. I just finished printing a stack of ones for use in bars that read: "Thanks, but I am: married / not interested / seeing someone else / looking for someone else (check all that apply)"

So I know who to blame if I ever get one of these. :p

Pagan thing, atributing a femanine principle to teh creative force. Makes sense to me, even the bible says god is both male and female.

She already answered.
I wasn't quite sure what she meant.




Personally I don't think that if "God" existed it would be female or male.

She already answered.
I wasn't quite sure what she meant.


He. Thank you very much.

any "god" that existed would by necessity be androgynous as both male and female aspects are apparent in the world around us

load of rubbish thought up by a bunch of goat-herders anyway

load of rubbish thought up by a bunch of goat-herders anyway

And atheism is a bunch of rubbish thought up by a bunch of Opium and Cocaine addicted 19th century aristocrats. Don't be intolerant of other people's views, or your own fall into question as well.

Actualy I saw a study the other day that say that fat women get laid more than thin women. Make of that what you will.

Leftover instincts. In ancient times (if you believe they existed), when three meals a day weren't guaranteed, it was expected that everyone have some paunch on them. Women, especially, were seen as beautiful if they were heavier -- just look at any ancient African or Native American civilization's female artwork. Moving AWAY from the art subject, though, this was because of a natural propensity of the human then to eat whenever it could.

Increased ability to survive --> increased ability to procreate --> man spreading his seed around by instinct. Win.

1) Explaining nature is NOT the only, nor even the main, purpose of religion, so even though evolution does not depend on a god to work, that does not in any way erase other functions of religion. Because of this, accepting evolution, in and of itself, does not undermine religious belief. Therefore, evolution is not anti-god.

that is not really related to my argument. my argument is that evolution absolutely trashes one of the 'big three' arguments for the existence of god, the teleological argument. fucking obliterates it, wipes it off the map, makes it sorta embarrassing to have held it before darwin even.

and this isn't some piddly little footnote of an argument, but one of the biggies. so big that pretty much everyone who makes an argument for the existence of god makes some version of it. aristotle, augustine, aquinas, etc. and here we have something that destroyed it, making the case for god vastly weaker than it was before - and given that it was sorta the last standing of the big three, it was the final nail, really. hence the bit about intellectually satisfied atheists, again.

2) The claim that there is empirical evidence that the majority of people who study evolution are atheistic is unsupported.

"Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics", Ecklund and Scheitle, Social Problems, Vol. 54, Issue 2, pp. 289–307

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3114/religiousbeliefdy5.jpg

i count that as 41% of biologists being completely atheist, another 29.9% that is atheistic (agnostics don't believe in god), and a somewhat indeterminate 7.7% that clearly isn't standardly religious. for the hell of it, let's count a third of the last group as atheistic (for those that believe in Justice! or some such as opposed to karma). that gets us to 73.5% atheistic.

Even if we allow the claim, the fact remains that enough people who study evolution do also have religious belief to show that evolution is not, in and of itself, anti-god.

no, it shows that it isn't an absolute method of getting rid of god-belief. it still looks ridiculously effective to me. better than science in general - though that looks pretty damn efficient relative to the general public, where the number climbs all the way into the single digits! maybe even topping 10% depending on what we count!

3) Free Soviets, not being a theist, is in no position to make assertions about whether it is possible for theists to remain "intellectually fulfilled" in the face of evolution.

yes, because we all know free soviets was never a theist. he certainly didn't get religious scholarships from his church to go to college or anything. he has absolutely no place to stand on this, not even with his empirical and testimonial evidence.

Tell me something, FS: If you show that a ladder is not necessary for laying carpet, have you shown that ladders have no use in life? Have you undermined the justifications for believing that ladders are useful items?

usefulness has nothing to do with existence

i count that as 41% of biologists being completely atheist, another 29.9% that is atheistic (agnostics don't believe in god),

Actually, it is quite possible to be agnostic and still believe in a deity. It is a matter of the difference between believing and knowing. So I don't think you can necessarily count that percentage in the atheist camp.

Also, because of the use of the capitalized "God", rather than a more generic deity/deities, it could be that some of the "agnostic" respondents were essentially saying that they were agnostic on the topic of the Abrahamic God, even if they do believe in some form of the divine that wasn't specifically discussed here.

It is good to see at least one "other higher power" question in the survey, but it is still overwhelmingly Western religion specific and that particular question may not catch respondents with more of a pantheistic view of the divine. Given that they were only surveying those at US universities, I suppose that isn't surprising. At least they're improving over the old studies.

I do find it interesting that they found social factors - marital status, children, etc. - to correlate more strongly with religiosity than field.

that is not really related to my argument. my argument is that evolution absolutely trashes one of the 'big three' arguments for the existence of god, the teleological argument. fucking obliterates it, wipes it off the map, makes it sorta embarrassing to have held it before darwin even.

and this isn't some piddly little footnote of an argument, but one of the biggies. so big that pretty much everyone who makes an argument for the existence of god makes some version of it. aristotle, augustine, aquinas, etc. and here we have something that destroyed it, making the case for god vastly weaker than it was before - and given that it was sorta the last standing of the big three, it was the final nail, really. hence the bit about intellectually satisfied atheists, again.
First, you have decided that this is one of the "big three" arguments for the existence of god, but I would counter that with "which god?" It is only a big issue in the three Abrahamic religions. Despite their claims to the contrary, they do not represent all the religions in the world. So your blanket statement about the effect evolution has on "religion" remains false on the grounds that it is a blanket statement about "religion," not a specific statement about those religions.

Second, for those religions in which it is an important argument, you yourself acknowledge that it is only one of three big arguments for their god, so elimination of that one argument does not necessarily address the other ones, nor does it erase the perceived needs that those arguments address. Therefore, my point stands that acceptance of evolution is not anti-god, because it does not negate an individual's need for a god.

"Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics", Ecklund and Scheitle, Social Problems, Vol. 54, Issue 2, pp. 289–307

i count that as 41% of biologists being completely atheist, another 29.9% that is atheistic (agnostics don't believe in god), and a somewhat indeterminate 7.7% that clearly isn't standardly religious. for the hell of it, let's count a third of the last group as atheistic (for those that believe in Justice! or some such as opposed to karma). that gets us to 73.5% atheistic.
As Dempublicents explained before I returned, 41% is not the majority, agnostic does not guarantee atheistic leanings, and belief in justice or karma most certainly does not indicate lack of religious belief unless you are deliberately fudging your numbers to make up an argument.

no, it shows that it isn't an absolute method of getting rid of god-belief. it still looks ridiculously effective to me. better than science in general - though that looks pretty damn efficient relative to the general public, where the number climbs all the way into the single digits! maybe even topping 10% depending on what we count!
Yes, of course it looks effective to you, because you have decided to fudge your numbers by arbitrarily deciding that agnostics are atheistic and people who believe in karma don't also believe in god(s) (the Hindus will be surprised to hear that), and otherwise just make up a bunch of stuff that would allow you to ignore the existence of religious people who are also good scientists.

yes, because we all know free soviets was never a theist. he certainly didn't get religious scholarships from his church to go to college or anything. he has absolutely no place to stand on this, not even with his empirical and testimonial evidence.
Did I say you were NEVER a theist? No, actually, I didn't. Your appeal to your own authority fails for the reasons outlined above.

usefulness has nothing to do with existence
Oh, I see. Well, let me correct my statement then: Your argument amounts to, since ladders are not used to lay carpet, that proves roofers don't exist.

Actually, it is quite possible to be agnostic and still believe in a deity. It is a matter of the difference between believing and knowing. So I don't think you can necessarily count that percentage in the atheist camp.

ah, but they included a "doubt but believe" option too, so anyone who took the agnostic option was presumably claiming that that did not accurately reflect their views.

I am religious.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It has no evidence besides "Um, shit is complicated," which isn't evidence at all. It is not testable, you can't do experiments on it, and there are no observations in the natural world that really, upon analysis, support it at all.

In fact, if anything, it is refuted by observing life in the natural world. ID's proponents often use the eye as an example of complexity that couldn't evolve by chance. This is rather uninformed of them. There is a vast range of different eyes that occur in the world's many species, from the most primitive, cells that are sensitive to either the presence or absence of light, to ones as advanced as ours, to eyes that are even more advanced and complex than ours. Given an advantage in seeing better, organs to do so will evolve.

ah, but they included a "doubt but believe" option too, so anyone who took the agnostic option was presumably claiming that that did not accurately reflect their views.
Presumption, eh? "Doubt but believe" what? If I were a professional scientist, presumably given to strict clarity of thinking, I would be inclined to avoid such a fuzzily worded option. I do not believe the existence of that option is that meaningful.

6 people? Are you fucking kidding me? 6 people said ID is the "scientific truth"? Do these people not know what it means to be a "scientific truth"? Do these people not understand science?

God damn it people. Believe in ID all you want. But dont try this crap with me.

I am religious.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It has no evidence besides "Um, shit is complicated," which isn't evidence at all. It is not testable, you can't do experiments on it, and there are no observations in the natural world that really, upon analysis, support it at all.

In fact, if anything, it is refuted by observing life in the natural world. ID's proponents often use the eye as an example of complexity that couldn't evolve by chance. This is rather uninformed of them. There is a vast range of different eyes that occur in the world's many species, from the most primitive, cells that are sensitive to either the presence or absence of light, to ones as advanced as ours, to eyes that are even more advanced and complex than ours. Given an advantage in seeing better, organs to do so will evolve.
Apparently, you don't exist because your acceptance of the concept of evolution has proven that there is no such thing as a god (any kind) and, thus, has eliminated your need for religion.

Apparently, I don't exist, either, for the same reason.

I am not close minded to intelligent design, I recognize that anything outside of this universe is beyond modern science's capability to solve. I am however very closed minded to organized religions.

An off the cuff answer, beautiful women get laid.
Another off ther cuff answer that has already been alluded to, boring people without personality or depth also tend to not get laid.

"Beauty" with a capital B. Not pulchritude. I'm not talking about allure.

Apparently, you don't exist because your acceptance of the concept of evolution has proven that there is no such thing as a god (any kind) and, thus, has eliminated your need for religion.

Apparently, I don't exist, either, for the same reason.

How very odd. How do non-existent entities such as ourselves post on forums? Can anybody see our posts? Do those exist?

Did somebody just say something?

6 people? Are you fucking kidding me? 6 people said ID is the "scientific truth"? Do these people not know what it means to be a "scientific truth"? Do these people not understand science?

God damn it people. Believe in ID all you want. But dont try this crap with me.

9 if you count those who call themselves non-religious.

ah, but they included a "doubt but believe" option too, so anyone who took the agnostic option was presumably claiming that that did not accurately reflect their views.

But, again, those questions were restricted to "God" - often thought of as exclusive to the Abrahamic deity, rather than a more general take on divinity.

9 if you count those who call themselves non-religious.

I wrote them off as jokes, no one can be that stupid.

First, you have decided that this is one of the "big three" arguments for the existence of god, but I would counter that with "which god?"

all gods that anyone has ever cared to create an argument to prove the existence of beyond "i hads a visions!"

there are only so many routes you can go when some asshole demands an argument for why they should believe your gods exist independent of your say so. first cause, necessary existence, and "gee, look at how complex and purposeful the world is" are the obviously promising ones. do you have some others we should be looking at?

It is only a big issue in the three Abrahamic religions.

i always knew plato and aristotle were fucking jews

Second, for those religions in which it is an important argument, you yourself acknowledge that it is only one of three big arguments for their god, so elimination of that one argument does not necessarily address the other ones

the others have been known to be shit for longer (plantiga still holds out hope for the ontological argument, but his version is still awful)

As Dempublicents explained before I returned, 41% is not the majority

didn't actually make that claim. i called them pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists.

agnostic does not guarantee atheistic leanings

it does when you also have the option of saying you believe but doubt. they chose the non-belief option. and even if we assume that these sticklers for the word knowledge were really sloppy in reading the rest of the options, unless you are positing that the vast majority of self-proclaimed agnostics are actually people who believe in god, that still gets us to an outright majority of atheists.

and belief in justice or karma most certainly does not indicate lack of religious belief unless you are deliberately fudging your numbers to make up an argument.

i was making a distinction between believing in non-theistic higher principles and non-personal theistic forces, guessing that some small percent of people might answer in that fashion. but fine, we can subtract out 1.4% from the atheistic total.

ignore the existence of religious people who are also good scientists

um, how was i ignoring them? i was explicitly noting how few of them there are given the source population from which they are derived, and then noting that biology seems particularly lacking in god-belief. i gave my (partial) explanation. you are going to need to offer an explanation of your own.

But, again, those questions were restricted to "God" - often thought of as exclusive to the Abrahamic deity, rather than a more general take on divinity.

"believe in higher power that isn't god" was also an option. any believers that are skeptical of knowledge about gods ought have answered affirmatively to either that, "believe but doubt", or even "believe in god sometimes". by not doing so, they held that they don't believe in the existence of gods (or at best consider it effectively unimportant in the face of perceived issues of epistemic access, which amounts to the same thing).

9 if you count those who call themselves non-religious.

I like the group effort thing, for the last option.

6 people? Are you fucking kidding me? 6 people said ID is the "scientific truth"? Do these people not know what it means to be a "scientific truth"? Do these people not understand science?

No, they don't understand truth.

"believe in higher power that isn't god" was also an option.

Indeed, but even that doesn't describe all types of theism - especially as it seemingly restricts it to a single entity.

any believers that are skeptical of knowledge about gods ought have answered affirmatively to either that, "believe but doubt", or even "believe in god sometimes". by not doing so, they held that they don't believe in the existence of gods (or at best consider it effectively unimportant in the face of perceived issues of epistemic access, which amounts to the same thing).

Making assumptions like this isn't a good idea in this type of study. Much like the problem with the design of such studies, you're making too many assumptions about the respondents beyond what was actually said.

First of all, as I already pointed out, every question but the "higher power" one was restricted to a single deity - God. Even that one seemed to restrict it to a single entity.

Meanwhile, every question was not posed to those surveyed separately. They were simply asked which best described their views. Someone certainly may feel stronger about their agnosticism than their belief, and thus choose only that option. And someone who felt that the survey didn't really cover their beliefs may have chosen that one to represent the fact that they are skeptical about the Abrahamic God in particular.

This is the problem with religiosity studies - religion is too diverse to catch in a small set of questions - particularly when the questions chosen are always skewed by the surveyor's experience with religion.

Indeed, but even that doesn't describe all types of theism - especially as it seemingly restricts it to a single entity.

everyone that believes in several higher powers believes in a higher power

Making assumptions like this isn't a good idea in this type of study. Much like the problem with the design of such studies, you're making too many assumptions about the respondents beyond what was actually said.

and your free-wheeling what ifs make communication impossible, assuming that educated people would make all sorts of weird readings, effectively just to screw with a study with rather obvious intentions.

"believe in higher power that isn't god" was also an option. any believers that are skeptical of knowledge about gods ought have answered affirmatively to either that, "believe but doubt", or even "believe in god sometimes". by not doing so, they held that they don't believe in the existence of gods (or at best consider it effectively unimportant in the face of perceived issues of epistemic access, which amounts to the same thing).

But those are both different things.

If someone is an agnostic theist, they believe that there is a God but there is no way to prove him. It's not doubting that God exists, it's doubting that God can be proven to exist. And they didn't pol for agnostic theism, they just polled for agnosticism.

Think of it this way:
"Fermat's Last Theorem is true but unprovable", "I doubt Fermat's Last Theorem is true" and "I waver between thinking Fermat's Last Theorem is true and thinking it's false" are three totally different statements.

everyone that believes in several higher powers believes in a higher power

But do they think of it in those terms?

The term "higher power" is typically used to discuss a single entity. Someone who believed in a set of deities may or may not use that type of terminology.

and your free-wheeling what ifs make communication impossible, assuming that educated people would make all sorts of weird readings, effectively just to screw with a study with rather obvious intentions.

Not at all. I'm talking about the reality of religiosity studies - which is that they are incredibly difficult to draw information from.

It isn't that people would intentionally make "weird readings" or screw with the researchers (although that is always a possibility in this type of survey). It's that respondents read these questions through the lens of their own belief structure. If it isn't a "standard" belief structure - of the type the surveyors were expecting, the responses are also unlikely to be what they would expect.

Religion is such a diverse subject that getting distinct information is very difficult. And, as I pointed out before, the questions are inevitably skewed towards the researcher's experience with religion - which may or may not be comparable to that of the respondents.

But those are both different things.

If someone is an agnostic theist, they believe that there is a God but there is no way to prove him. It's not doubting that God exists, it's doubting that God can be proven to exist. And they didn't pol for agnostic theism, they just polled for agnosticism.

the kind of doubts were not specified, but fair enough. though in that case, the last option is the one they should have went with.

basically, all of the believing options were covered, though they didn't give a specifically agnostic believer option. but if you believe at all, there was an option for you that was not the agnostic one. any 'believer' that values their agnosticism over believing is not relevantly a believer at all.

But those are both different things.

If someone is an agnostic theist, they believe that there is a God but there is no way to prove him. It's not doubting that God exists, it's doubting that God can be proven to exist. And they didn't pol for agnostic theism, they just polled for agnosticism.

Think of it this way:
"Fermat's Last Theorem is true but unprovable", "I doubt Fermat's Last Theorem is true" and "I waver between thinking Fermat's Last Theorem is true and thinking it's false" are three totally different statements.

Exactly. I would probably have selected the "agnostic" option myself, because I choose to believe in a god of sorts but know perfectly well that there is no way to prove said deity's existence, nor do I feel any compulsion to do so. Most scientists I have encountered tend to be sensible enough to recognize that God's existence or nonexistence does not fall within the realm of things that can be proven or disproven, and thus consider themselves agnostic in some form; to categorize every agnostic as an atheist is patently absurd.

Exactly. I would probably have selected the "agnostic" option myself, because I choose to believe in a god of sorts but know perfectly well that there is no way to prove said deity's existence, nor do I feel any compulsion to do so. Most scientists I have encountered tend to be sensible enough to recognize that God's existence or nonexistence does not fall within the realm of things that can be proven or disproven, and thus consider themselves agnostic in some form; to categorize every agnostic as an atheist is patently absurd.

let's not lose sight of the issue here. biologists in USia are 41% atheists, 30% agnostic. the USian public as a whole (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) is 1.6% atheist and 2.4% agnostic (with an additional 6.3% being 'secular unaffiliated'). this is an absolutely huge difference. explain to me why this is the case.

i count that as 41% of biologists being completely atheist, another 29.9% that is atheistic (agnostics don't believe in god), and a somewhat indeterminate 7.7% that clearly isn't standardly religious. for the hell of it, let's count a third of the last group as atheistic (for those that believe in Justice! or some such as opposed to karma). that gets us to 73.5% atheistic.


Agnostics don't know what they believe, they don't really count.


Are your arguments are pretty much invalidated when you take into account that Darwin thought his Theory of Evolution absolutely proved the existence of god.

Agnostics don't know what they believe, they don't really count.

nah, agnostics are not undecided or apathetic. not if they are using the term right. they actually hold an even more stringent belief than the atheists, the claim that it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not.

Are your arguments are pretty much invalidated when you take into account that Darwin thought his Theory of Evolution absolutely proved the existence of god.

wtf?

How very odd. How do non-existent entities such as ourselves post on forums? Can anybody see our posts? Do those exist?
I suppose it depends on how much time Free Soviets spends explaining to us why we don't fit into reality. At least we might have a chance of existing in his mind.

I suppose it depends on how much time Free Soviets spends explaining to us why we don't fit into reality. At least we might have a chance of existing in his mind.

dude, learn to read. nowhere have i suggested anything of the sort.

all gods that anyone has ever cared to create an argument to prove the existence of beyond "i hads a visions!"
Seriously, you are being ridiculous. The above statement is patently untrue. It is both silly and offensive, the way you presume to tell all religions in the world how they formulated their ideas and why.

there are only so many routes you can go when some asshole demands an argument for why they should believe your gods exist independent of your say so. first cause, necessary existence, and "gee, look at how complex and purposeful the world is" are the obviously promising ones. do you have some others we should be looking at?
I see, so you are declaring that you know why religions have gods based on what some people came up with to put off "assholes" who ask questions that force their own answers? Well, that at least explains your mindset on this.

You want others to look at? Try looking at all the reasons people believe in gods that have nothing at all to do with creation myths.


i always knew plato and aristotle were fucking jews
Who Plato and Aristotle fucked is not relevant to the fact that you are wrong.

the others have been known to be shit for longer (plantiga still holds out hope for the ontological argument, but his version is still awful)
Nice to see you fall back on trollish insults when you have no argument.

didn't actually make that claim. i called them pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists.
You claimed that the majority of people who study evolution are atheistic. You failed to establish that.

it does when you also have the option of saying you believe but doubt. they chose the non-belief option. and even if we assume that these sticklers for the word knowledge were really sloppy in reading the rest of the options, unless you are positing that the vast majority of self-proclaimed agnostics are actually people who believe in god, that still gets us to an outright majority of atheists.
I am not the one making assumptions about what other people think in order to shoehorn them into whatever cubbyhole is under discussion at the moment. I know that agnostics themselves fall into a much wider range of belief variations than you are allowing for.

i was making a distinction between believing in non-theistic higher principles and non-personal theistic forces, guessing that some small percent of people might answer in that fashion. but fine, we can subtract out 1.4% from the atheistic total.
And I was stating that you have absolutely no basis on which to assume that a person who believes in "non-theistic higher principles" does not also believe in one or more deities. Again, you are making an assumption in order to pad out your sample group.

um, how was i ignoring them? i was explicitly noting how few of them there are given the source population from which they are derived, and then noting that biology seems particularly lacking in god-belief. i gave my (partial) explanation. you are going to need to offer an explanation of your own.
I maintain that you manipulated your data to a point that we may as well say you just made it up, and that you have not established that they are so few in number at all.

Also, you are now contradicting yourself. Three guesses how.

dude, learn to read. nowhere have i suggested anything of the sort.
Dude, learn to ease up on the literalism. I was not representing your argument. I was making fun of you and your absolute certainty.

But do they think of it in those terms?

The term "higher power" is typically used to discuss a single entity. Someone who believed in a set of deities may or may not use that type of terminology.



Not at all. I'm talking about the reality of religiosity studies - which is that they are incredibly difficult to draw information from.

It isn't that people would intentionally make "weird readings" or screw with the researchers (although that is always a possibility in this type of survey). It's that respondents read these questions through the lens of their own belief structure. If it isn't a "standard" belief structure - of the type the surveyors were expecting, the responses are also unlikely to be what they would expect.

Religion is such a diverse subject that getting distinct information is very difficult. And, as I pointed out before, the questions are inevitably skewed towards the researcher's experience with religion - which may or may not be comparable to that of the respondents.
This, exactly.

And this is why it is never correct to stand on blanket generalizations about religious beliefs as if such generalizations are hard facts.

dude, learn to read. nowhere have i suggested anything of the sort.

Dude.. you realize Mury is not a dude right?

Dude.. you realize Mury is not a dude right?
I'm not sure if it was him, but I know someone once was corrected on that and went into a whole tirade about how "dude" is supposedly gender neutral. *shakes head* It hardly matters anyway on the 'net.

I'm not sure if it was him, but I know someone once was corrected on that and went into a whole tirade about how "dude" is supposedly gender neutral. *shakes head* It hardly matters anyway on the 'net.

But is not, that's why they invented Dudette...

Seriously, you are being ridiculous. The above statement is patently untrue. It is both silly and offensive, the way you presume to tell all religions in the world how they formulated their ideas and why.

I see, so you are declaring that you know why religions have gods based on what some people came up with to put off "assholes" who ask questions that force their own answers? Well, that at least explains your mindset on this.

You want others to look at? Try looking at all the reasons people believe in gods that have nothing at all to do with creation myths.

i don't fucking care why people believe in gods. i don't care why they came up with them. i don't care what they get out of it. this is about arguments intended to prove that those gods exist. since 'i totally dreamed it' isn't convincing, thoughtful theists around the world moved on to real arguments, with the best ones broadly falling into those three types. others have all more or less been flat out fallacious appeals to consequence or authority or run into the more general problems of evil and divine command theory.

unless you have something else to offer...?

You claimed that the majority of people who study evolution are atheistic. You failed to establish that.

no. my numbers showed it, but it was not my claim. go check.

I'm not sure if it was him, but I know someone once was corrected on that and went into a whole tirade about how "dude" is supposedly gender neutral. *shakes head* It hardly matters anyway on the 'net.

it was me. dude.

no. my numbers showed it, but it was not my claim. go check.

Oh, you mean this?:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3114/religiousbeliefdy5.jpg

Funny, I don't see shit about "Do you believe in evolutionary theory, yes or no?"

Even assuming EVERY biologist in this survey of yours is an evolutionist, well, hell, more than 70% thinks there's SOME shred of truth in religion in the first section; something around 29.2% believe in God or some higher power (theism), 30% are Agnostic (which actually means that they feel there is no way to prove God's existence one way or another, making them a noncountable), and 41% are atheist (do not believe in God). 29.2%:41%? That is not a commanding majority at all for atheist biologists.

Once again, this is moot, because you have no polls where both religious beliefs and evolutionism are simultaneously presented. Until then, your arguments are presumptive speculation.

i don't fucking care why people believe in gods. i don't care why they came up with them. i don't care what they get out of it. this is about arguments intended to prove that those gods exist. since 'i totally dreamed it' isn't convincing, thoughtful theists around the world moved on to real arguments, with the best ones broadly falling into those three types. others have all more or less been flat out fallacious appeals to consequence or authority or run into the more general problems of evil and divine command theory.

unless you have something else to offer...?
I'm not trying to offer you anything. Since you can remember that it was you who went on that "dude" tirade with me ages ago (see below), surely you can also remember that I do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to try to "prove" the existence of deities; that I do not believe that factuality or historical accuracy exist in religion, nor do you need them for a religion to be "true"; that, in my personal opinion, people who do insist on literal, factual truth for their religions are missing the point of religion; and -- this last one should be easy for you because it's in this very thread -- I know that evolution is science and religion is not, and evolution is fact and religion is not. (And yet I have religious beliefs. Go figure.)

What I am objectiing to is you claiming that evolution obviates the need for god(s). That just does not follow, for the reasons I have previously stated.

If you wanted to say that the ability to present evidence for evolution negates the arguments of creationists, I would agree with that. But that, of course, is not what you said.

no. my numbers showed it, but it was not my claim. go check.
I looked at your numbers. I maintain that they do not say what you think they say. They are insufficient to support your claim.

it was me. dude.
Ah, so religion is not the only thing you enjoy being wrong about.

Oh, you mean this?:

nope. my claim was made before the data backing it up was posted. you didn't grasp what the claim was in the first place.

Even assuming EVERY biologist in this survey of yours is an evolutionist, well, hell, more than 70% thinks there's SOME shred of truth in religion in the first section

pz myers agrees with that statement. it tells us nothing.

something around 29.2% believe in God or some higher power (theism), 30% are Agnostic (which actually means that they feel there is no way to prove God's existence one way or another, making them a noncountable), and 41% are atheist (do not believe in God). 29.2%:41%? That is not a commanding majority at all for atheist biologists.

only 1.6% of the general public are outright atheists. explain this disparity. go go go!

What I am objectiing to is you claiming that evolution obviates the need for god(s).

didn't really claim that, in any broad sense of 'need'. it would really help for you to go reread my posts. start here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227404&postcount=144)

Free Soviets, what is your point, exactly?

That it's somehow impossible to accept science while also being religious?

Free Soviets, what is your point, exactly?

That it's somehow impossible to accept science while also being religious?

no.
two related things:

firstly, that evolution utterly destroyed one of the major arguments for the existence of god, thus allowing for greater intellectual satisfaction for atheists than was previously available with just hume's argument against it (which essentially said the teleological argument is somehow unsatisfactory, without giving the killer account of exactly how that darwin did - though it did foreshadow it in some ways). thus it is anti-god in the sense of removing a key argument held to prove that god exists and thereby undermining rational belief in god.

secondly, people that work in evolution-centric fields are ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the public at large, and noticeably less so even compared to people in other highly educated fields (who are also ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the wider public). this general relation has held for decades. so i propose that there is something about working in such fields that engenders atheism and agnosticism, and thus is anti-god in the direct empirical sense that working in an evolutionary-type field (or, perhaps, interest in working in one) somehow leads to significantly reduced god-belief levels.

Free Soviets, what is your point, exactly?

That it's somehow impossible to accept science while also being religious?

I'd say it's hard, but probably not impossible. If you turn your scientific mind to the precepts of religion and test them, you'll find they don't hold up. At least there has to be some kind of agreed cognitive dissonance going on.

It's not so much that I'm closed minded. It's just that I have no interest in bullshit. ID is not science in pretty much the same way that I'm not an NHL hockey player.

I have spent far more of my life wishing I was an NHL hockey player than wishing there was a god.

I've also spent a lot of time asking god to let my hockey team win, so if there is a higher power, I guess I could understand if said higher power was not real happy with me. But I'm not really happy with it, either!

"Did you pray?"
"I did, Tom. I know it's hard to believe, but I prayed for wisdom."
"And none came?"
"It never has. And I'm a little pissed off about that."

no.
two related things:

firstly, that evolution utterly destroyed one of the major arguments for the existence of god, thus allowing for greater intellectual satisfaction for atheists than was previously available with just hume's argument against it (which essentially said the teleological argument is somehow unsatisfactory, without giving the killer account of exactly how that darwin did - though it did foreshadow it in some ways). thus it is anti-god in the sense of removing a key argument held to prove that god exists and thereby undermining rational belief in god.
Rational belief in god? What is that?"

secondly, people that work in evolution-centric fields are ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the public at large, and noticeably less so even compared to people in other highly educated fields (who are also ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the wider public). this general relation has held for decades. so i propose that there is something about working in such fields that engenders atheism and agnosticism, and thus is anti-god in the direct empirical sense that working in an evolutionary-type field (or, perhaps, interest in working in one) somehow leads to significantly reduced god-belief levels.
Perhaps the very "defined" god of Abrahamic religions.

I'll admit that I left Christianity for several reasons that included the fact that its dogmas and such went completely against what I knew from science, and often even sounded quite silly. Christianity is not all religious belief though.

Myself I have no problems with evolution, evidence of it is everywhere and the history of life on Earth is a very fascinating subject, one that the further back we go the less we know due to how rare our snapshots of the past are. Despite the fact that new fossils are always being found, there's still probably so much more that's evolved on this planet that we don't know about. When I am old and dying, we'll still probably, despite likely knowing much more, be only scratching the surface of the various paths evolution has taken.

However, none of that I really see as conflicting with my spiritual beliefs. I'm not sure why it should.

I'd say it's hard, but probably not impossible. If you turn your scientific mind to the precepts of religion and test them, you'll find they don't hold up. At least there has to be some kind of agreed cognitive dissonance going on.

Depends on the religion. My spiritual beliefs aren't really very testable and don't concern the physical world that science is the best method for learning about.

Oh and don't try to go and tell me what the precepts of my religion are, either. I can't stand it when people make assumptions about what I believe.

Rational belief in god? What is that?"

a thing people used to believe was possible, until the atheists and intellectually honest smart theists trashed all of the arguments for it. all of this talk about god being unprovable is just liberal theology trying to maintain its place in a world passing it by - a modern reaction to the fact that the old time religion didn't work out. (the other response was the fundamentalist response - which is basically a big "fuck you!" to reason and modernism)

Perhaps the very "defined" god of Abrahamic religions.

are you claiming that scientists in evolutionary fields are rejecting abrahamic religions for shinto and effectively lying about all that atheism and agnosticism business?

a thing people used to believe was possible, until the atheists and intellectually honest smart theists trashed all of the arguments for it. all of this talk about god being unprovable is just liberal theology trying to maintain its place in a world passing it by - a modern reaction to the fact that the old time religion didn't work out. (the other response was the fundamentalist response - which is basically a big "fuck you!" to reason and modernism)
I am not a purely rational being. I don't need my spiritual beliefs to be rational.


are you claiming that scientists in evolutionary fields are rejecting abrahamic religions for shinto and effectively lying about all that atheism and agnosticism business?
Nope.

I'd say it's hard, but probably not impossible. If you turn your scientific mind to the precepts of religion and test them, you'll find they don't hold up. At least there has to be some kind of agreed cognitive dissonance going on.

Not any more than is necessarily present in science itself. At some point, you make the investiture of faith. In science, it comes at the level of accepting that you can extend what you've seen to what will occur (repeatability). In religion, it comes in accepting that something you cannot see, but can feel, is present.

I am not a purely rational being. I don't need my spiritual beliefs to be rational.

This. I can't imagine pretending to be a purely rational creature. It must be so horribly boring.

This. I can't imagine pretending to be a purely rational creature. It must be so horribly boring.

Heh this makes no sense at all. Do you find that when you do have periods of rationality then, that they bore you?

I am not a purely rational being. I don't need my spiritual beliefs to be rational.

that's nice.

This. I can't imagine pretending to be a purely rational creature. It must be so horribly boring.
Apparently, if you play it right, it can also be horribly annoying.*


*I'm kidding, of course. I do not actually believe FS's argument is all that rational.

disagreed. while the truth of evolution does not necessitate the non-existence of god, it did (and does) utterly undermine one of the only true puzzles which made god seem like a reasonable fallback position. hence dawkins' line about darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheists. before darwin we had to rely on the humean argument that showed that gods are not a particularly good explanation for biological complexity, but didn't really offer anything else in their place. the design argument at this point is so thoroughly destroyed that attempting to defend it just gets you laughed at.


This is rather silly. I think there are much more important puzzles, which are infinitely more important than the complexity life, such as simply the question of being qua being, even the question of merely why existence rather than non existence? Why isn't there nothingness? In fact, in the history of philosophy, the teleological argument has only been a very very small part of it, and also, for 99.9% our history, the teleological argument has never intended to be a scientific argument. Also, the design argument has not been destroyed, it's premise hasn't been shown to be untrue (you can't since it's unfalsifiable, and hence not scientific), it's just been shown to be not necessary. I still think the teleological argument has some good points to think about, as long as you don't treat it like a science.


beyond that, we have the empirical evidence that those who study evolution are pretty much the most atheistic group of people on the planet besides physicists. not only does evolution make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but it also makes it significantly more difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled theist.

But there are still plenty of theistic evolutionists and physicists.

Referring to your post in which you asked me to go back and read your posts again:

I have read every single word you posted in this thread. My reading of your argument all along has been exactly as you explained when asked to, below.

So let's focus on the following condensed explanation, since it is what I thought you were saying from the beginning.

no.
two related things:

firstly, that evolution utterly destroyed one of the major arguments for the existence of god,
CORRECTION: It utterly destroyed ONE VERSION of ONE MAJOR ARGUMENT of SOME SECTS OF SOME RELIGIONS. That is NOT applicable to religion in general nor to any religion that does not use that particular argument and/or does not use their creation myths in that particular way. Such religions all remain unaffected by the destruction of an argument they do not make. Therefore your remarks about the effect of evolution on religion in general are false because they are overbroad.

thus allowing for greater intellectual satisfaction for atheists than was previously available with just hume's argument against it (which essentially said the teleological argument is somehow unsatisfactory, without giving the killer account of exactly how that darwin did - though it did foreshadow it in some ways).
I feel sorry for atheists if their intellectual satisfaction is so reliant on what other people say, if they really could never be confident that they knew what they knew or felt what they felt or thought what they thought until someone else came along to hand them an explanation of their thoughts. In fact, to be honest, I kind of doubt that such a lack of intellectual satisfaction was ever an issue for more than a few individuals. But that would fit in with the rest of your argument, which is entirely dependent on stretching a very narrow point to try to cover a very broad assertion.

thus it is anti-god in the sense of removing a key argument held to prove that god exists and thereby undermining rational belief in god.
Only it doesn't. See above.

secondly, people that work in evolution-centric fields are ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the public at large, and noticeably less so even compared to people in other highly educated fields (who are also ridiculously less likely to believe in god than the wider public).
As I stated before, your use of the numbers on this is suspect. You have not addressed the objections raised. For that reason, I continue to object to this assertion. It may very well be true, but YOU have not established it within your argument.

this general relation has held for decades. so i propose that there is something about working in such fields that engenders atheism and agnosticism, and thus is anti-god in the direct empirical sense that working in an evolutionary-type field (or, perhaps, interest in working in one) somehow leads to significantly reduced god-belief levels.
Your proposal is noted, but I dismiss it as lacking foundation. I do so on the grounds of the weaknesses in your argument outlined above. You should know that correlation is not causation. You have failed (a) to establish that the incidence of atheism within evolutionary studies really is as great as you say and (b) to establish any cause of atheism among those who study evolution. Having failed to establish point (b), you also fail to support your assertion that evolution undermines rational belief in god.

only 1.6% of the general public are outright atheists. explain this disparity. go go go!
What the fuck poll are you using for that? Most I've seen peg it at 14%.

Funny, I don't see shit about "Do you believe in evolutionary theory, yes or no?"


99.84% of all scientists in relevant disciplines in the United States accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)

that's nice.

Yep.

99.84% of all scientists in relevant disciplines in the United States accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)
It will be very nice of you to fix the flaws in FS's original argument for him. Of course, no reasonable person would dispute that scientists overwhelmingly accept the precepts of science, and I do not think TGLT was doing that. Rather, I think he was, as I have been, pointing out FS's failure to construct his argument properly.

It will be very nice of you to fix the flaws in FS's original argument for him. Of course, no reasonable person would dispute that scientists overwhelmingly accept the precepts of science, and I do not think TGLT was doing that. Rather, I think he was, as I have been, pointing out FS's failure to construct his argument properly.

Mur, I don't know why you still bother.

It will be very nice of you to fix the flaws in FS's original argument for him. Of course, no reasonable person would dispute that scientists overwhelmingly accept the precepts of science, and I do not think TGLT was doing that. Rather, I think he was, as I have been, pointing out FS's failure to construct his argument properly.

The use of the word "evolutionist" makes it hard for me to give s/he the benefit of the doubt. As for FS's argument, I still have no idea what it actually is, and whatever it is I probably wouldn't want to try and argue.

I'd say it's hard, but probably not impossible. If you turn your scientific mind to the precepts of religion and test them, you'll find they don't hold up. At least there has to be some kind of agreed cognitive dissonance going on.

What "precepts of religion"? Your statement kind of assumes that there is some sort of one-size-fits-all religious belief, and that's just not accurate. One of the major tenets of my personal religious framework is "being a selfish dick to others is bad, and will lead to a less fulfilling life than being a nice person." How exactly does science prove this statement wrong?

Mur, I don't know why you still bother.
Neither do I. I know he will never correct his errors and never back down, either. When I get caught up with FS this way, I always end up putting him on ignore for a few weeks just to enjoy the illusion of him stopping being wrong over and over.

Neither do I. I know he will never correct his errors and never back down, either. When I get caught up with FS this way, I always end up putting him on ignore for a few weeks just to enjoy the illusion of him stopping being wrong over and over.

Yeah... I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish either. Basically he's just calling us idiots for not being atheists. I hate it when people proselytize to me, no matter what it's about.

What "precepts of religion"? Your statement kind of assumes that there is some sort of one-size-fits-all religious belief, and that's just not accurate. One of the major tenets of my personal religious framework is "being a selfish dick to others is bad, and will lead to a less fulfilling life than being a nice person." How exactly does science prove this statement wrong?

Well, if you constructed a situation in which one group of people were dicks and one were not and after sixty or seventy years surveyed them to determine happiness, that'd be a start. You'd need to account for the myriad other variables, though, and I'm not sure how. Maybe have a sample size of a few thousand, or million, or billion, or fuck we're all in the experiment now aren't we.

This is rather silly. I think there are much more important puzzles, which are infinitely more important than the complexity life, such as simply the question of being qua being, even the question of merely why existence rather than non existence? Why isn't there nothingness?

which falls to the same infinite regress or arbitrary stopping point problems of all cosmological arguments, as well as the anthropic principle.

In fact, in the history of philosophy, the teleological argument has only been a very very small part of it, and also, for 99.9% our history, the teleological argument has never intended to be a scientific argument.

i deny the first part, on the grounds that more or less all of the big names in the history of philosophy addressing arguments about the existence of god (for and against) have made it one of their central points of discussion. it usually hasn't been held as the argument, but one of several. i contend, with dawkins, merely that it was kind of the last one standing.

the creationists trying to claim it as science has nothing to do with its philosophical destruction. the argument itself just doesn't work in the face of darwin.

Also, the design argument has not been destroyed, it's premise hasn't been shown to be untrue (you can't since it's unfalsifiable, and hence not scientific), it's just been shown to be not necessary. I still think the teleological argument has some good points to think about, as long as you don't treat it like a science.

"complexity requires designers" is unfalsifiable? only if we assume the conclusion, and hold that the designer exists and is necessarily involved even if we cannot see it. which makes the argument go from being bad to worse, since the point was to take something intuitive to humans about complex/beautiful/orderly things and derive a proof for god from it, whereas this type of argument would derive a conclusion about god's impact on complexity from the premise 'god exists'

But there are still plenty of theistic evolutionists and physicists.

but why so few? does it not strike you as something in need of explanation that biologists are so atheistic?

Well, if you constructed a situation in which one group of people were dicks and one were not and after sixty or seventy years surveyed them to determine happiness, that'd be a start. You'd need to account for the myriad other variables, though, and I'm not sure how. Maybe have a sample size of a few thousand, or million, or billion, or fuck we're all in the experiment now aren't we.

Hehe, indeed! Which is why my scientific brain mostly looks at my own life and says, "Well, gee, when I do nice things for people, I generally feel happy, whereas when I act like a bitch, I generally feel rotten about it. Ergo, while I await further evidence before reaching a definite conclusion, I find my belief that it is better to be nice supported by the current data." ;)

Yeah... I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish either. Basically he's just calling us idiots for not being atheists. I hate it when people proselytize to me, no matter what it's about.
Same here. I also hate it when people who are not stupid fail or refuse to acknowledge the irony in their own arguments. The fact that FS is making broad, sweeping statements about WHAT IS about things he cannot possibly know, that he is claiming evidenciary support that does not exist, that he is manipulating data to try to make up that lack, that he is ignoring or blankly dismissing without analysis contradictory evidence, and that he is trying to carry an argument on non sequiturs and logical leaps, AND that he does not see that this is exactly what ID/creationists do when promoting their views...adds up to irony.

At first it's amusing, then it gets frustrating, and after a while it's just irritating.

What the fuck poll are you using for that? Most I've seen peg it at 14%.

i linked to it earlier, but i'm using the pew forum on religion & public life survey from last year.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

to get as high as 14% you need to do even more broad lumping than these idiots are jumping on me for. at least my lumping included only those that explicitly opted out of choosing from a set of "i believe in god or a higher power" options. to get above single digits you need to include everybody who just says they aren't affiliated with a religion. see also the wiki article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism)

which falls to the same infinite regress or arbitrary stopping point problems of all cosmological arguments, as well as the anthropic principle.


Yes, but this premise, in itself, can be factored into other arguments.


i deny the first part, on the grounds that more or less all of the big names in the history of philosophy addressing arguments about the existence of god (for and against) have made it one of their central points of discussion. it usually hasn't been held as the argument, but one of several. i contend, with dawkins, merely that it was kind of the last one standing.


I disagree, but I doubt any of us has the time to prove this either way, so we should agree to disagree here.


"complexity requires designers" is unfalsifiable?

Ahah! Now this isn't nescecerally the point of the teleological argument. The teleological argument is usually used to appeal to intuition, it doesn't usually say that the universe is such that it objectively requires an intelligent designer for its formation. More about the apparent complexity, order from chaos, beauty etc... is indicative of an intelligence, not absolute proof.


but why so few? does it not strike you as something in need of explanation that biologists are so atheistic?

Scientists are constantly subjected to the importance of the scientific method and rigorous empirical premises' and logical and testable hypothesis', because of this they tend to use this perspective, now often heavily ingrained in their psyche, on all areas of life. So it's not really a surprise.

Same here. I also hate it when people who are not stupid fail or refuse to acknowledge the irony in their own arguments. The fact that FS is making broad, sweeping statements about WHAT IS about things he cannot possibly know, that he is claiming evidenciary support that does not exist, that he is manipulating data to try to make up that lack, that he is ignoring or blankly dismissing without analysis contradictory evidence, and that he is trying to carry an argument on non sequiturs and logical leaps, AND that he does not see that this is exactly what ID/creationists do when promoting their views...adds up to irony.

At first it's amusing, then it gets frustrating, and after a while it's just irritating.

Hence why it's not worth it. Not to be taken any more seriously than Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons at one's door.

CORRECTION: It utterly destroyed ONE VERSION of ONE MAJOR ARGUMENT of SOME SECTS OF SOME RELIGIONS. That is NOT applicable to religion in general nor to any religion that does not use that particular argument and/or does not use their creation myths in that particular way. Such religions all remain unaffected by the destruction of an argument they do not make. Therefore your remarks about the effect of evolution on religion in general are false because they are overbroad.

the other arguments were undermined earlier. if there are religions that have novel proofs for the existence of god that have not already been dismantled, i'm sure we would all love to see them. if they do not have such arguments, then you would seem to be saying that because some religions do not offer proofs, this is a reason to believe them. which is ridiculous.

and this is not about creation myths. the fact that you still think it is makes me wonder about your comprehension. this is about creation.

I feel sorry for atheists if their intellectual satisfaction is so reliant on what other people say, if they really could never be confident that they knew what they knew or felt what they felt or thought what they thought until someone else came along to hand them an explanation of their thoughts.

one cannot be intellectually satisfied with a position if there is a strong outstanding argument against it's truth for which they have no equally compelling counterargument. one can be content with it, one can stop caring, but one cannot honestly claim to be intellectually satisfied.

it isn't about who said something, but about the arguments that have been made available to us.

As I stated before, your use of the numbers on this is suspect. You have not addressed the objections raised. For that reason, I continue to object to this assertion. It may very well be true, but YOU have not established it within your argument.

41% vs 1.6%. no lumping. explain, motherfucker.

Your proposal is noted, but I dismiss it as lacking foundation. I do so on the grounds of the weaknesses in your argument outlined above. You should know that correlation is not causation. You have failed (a) to establish that the incidence of atheism within evolutionary studies really is as great as you say and (b) to establish any cause of atheism among those who study evolution. Having failed to establish point (b), you also fail to support your assertion that evolution undermines rational belief in god.

i don't need direct causation. the correlation is good enough for my argument, as my argument is about the anti-godishness of evolution; about the allowance of evolution for intellectually satisfied atheists and the intellectual dissatisfaction of theists, and thus a prediction that those who know about evolution are far more likely to be atheists than those that do not. i don't care about the particular paths by which they came to be atheists. even if it is the case that we have a self-selection issue - that preexisting atheists are disproportionately likely to go into biology while theists are disproportionately unlikely to do so - my argument that evolution is anti-god in some sense is satisfied.

As for FS's argument, I still have no idea what it actually is, and whatever it is I probably wouldn't want to try and argue.

that evolution is anti-god in two ways:
a) in that it undermines one of the major arguments for the existence of gods that wasn't inherently fallacious
b) in the same way that science in general and philosophy are - people that accept and work with such things have much lower levels of god-belief than those that don't despite being drawn from the same overall culture.

things got a bit lost in M losing the plot repeatedly and a bunch of people objecting to my lumping people who value their epistemic claim about god being unknowable over any belief that god exists in with the atheistic crowd, but that's the basic thrust.

I disagree, but I doubt any of us has the time to prove this either way, so we should agree to disagree here.

excluding those making a one-off argument and thus just didn't mention it, who exactly are you thinking of that didn't consider the teleological argument one of the biggies?

Ahah! Now this isn't nescecerally the point of the teleological argument. The teleological argument is usually used to appeal to intuition, it doesn't usually say that the universe is such that it objectively requires an intelligent designer for its formation. More about the apparent complexity, order from chaos, beauty etc... is indicative of an intelligence, not absolute proof.

and hume had already questioned that indicativeness, while darwin killed it. now we need to have reasons other than complexity, etc. before we can justly jump to intelligence.

Scientists are constantly subjected to the importance of the scientific method and rigorous empirical premises' and logical and testable hypothesis', because of this they tend to use this perspective, now often heavily ingrained in their psyche, on all areas of life. So it's not really a surprise.

i concur. but anyone who attempts to hold that evolution in particular (or the scientific method in general) is not anti-god in any sense stronger than "a good understanding of evolution doesn't necessitate atheism" is in a bit of a bind as far as explaining this fact of the world.

excluding those making a one-off argument and thus just didn't mention it, who exactly are you thinking of that didn't consider the teleological argument one of the biggies?


No you misunderstand me. It's always been considered one of the biggies, but it's not normally the focus of philosophical discourse, since there's not much you can really say about it. It's rather simple, and not particularly sophisticated.


and hume had already questioned that indicativeness

Sure, but he didn't 'destroy it'.


, while darwin killed it. now we need to have reasons other than complexity, etc. before we can justly jump to intelligence.


I'm not sure exactly how he destroyed it, he may have shown that it doesn't require a designer, but he didn't destroy the overall premise of the teleological argument. Nobody said that evolution itself couldn't be an amazing process. Also, much of the teleological argument wasn't centred around the complexity of life at all, but rather the apparent orderly laws that our universe is bound to etc...


i concur. but anyone who attempts to hold that evolution in particular (or the scientific method in general) is not anti-god in any sense stronger than "a good understanding of evolution doesn't necessitate atheism" is in a bit of a bind as far as explaining this fact of the world.

It's anti-God in the sense that it's a major blow to one of the biggie questions that before had no alternate answers, but now do. But I'm not sure if I would actually call that anti-God.

Heh this makes no sense at all. Do you find that when you do have periods of rationality then, that they bore you?

Given that I never have had a period of pure rationality, and I've never met anyone else who has either, I really can't answer that. Perhaps you should ask FS.

Given that I never have had a period of pure rationality, and I've never met anyone else who has either, I really can't answer that. Perhaps you should ask FS.

where the fuck did this strawman come from?

where the fuck did this strawman come from?

Forgive me. I was merely making a point about the absurdity of assuming that anyone can be entirely rational to Peepelonia. I didn't mean to suggest that you were somehow implying that you were different, merely that he was more likely to believe that you were.

The whole premise is, itself, absurd though. People are not purely rational beings. We are incapable of pure rationality. Religion is irrational. Yes. So is any of a number of other behaviors we engage in. Not the least of which is arguing pointlessly over whose story of world creation can beat up everyone else's story of world creation.

I've never had any problem with the 'And on the first day, God said let there be a fiery meteor and said fiery meteor sufficiently traumatized specific groups of chemicals that it set them on the way to becoming sufficiently self aware that they could move out of the way of any future meteors.'

This also explains both the movies 'Armageddon' and 'Deep Impact'. In general terms, at least. Specific reasons for their creation are best explained by another religious argument involving some sort of supreme evil or prankster god with a twisted sense of humor. I blame Loki.

I've never claimed its science, though, being untestable until the development of a sufficiently powerful time machine. And even then its a bit iffy.

The trouble with pitting ID against evolution is the underlying assumption that evolution teaches how life began. That's simply not true. Evolution is only a theory (more on that in a minute) about how life and individual species develop.

And the "only a theory" thing is not to say there's nothing valid about a theory. This is another problem with the debate. We should be saying "only a hypothesis" instead; in science, a theory is a statement of observation about a phenomenon that's backed up with a lot of observation, measurement, experimentation, etc. as applicable.

(Evolution IS a theory--I'm saying that if we're trying to dismiss something as unproven, "theory" is the WRONG word to use.)

Anyway, intelligent design is not science, because it would require the ability to objectively observe a deity or other intelligent being setting existence into motion. Barring that, we'd have to be able to objectively observe a deity at all, and then ask Him or Her whether S/he created everything. Now, the latter may be possible someday--who knows? We didn't used to know about bacteria, and then someone invented the microscope. But for now, it isn't possible. So there's no point treating it as science. "What if" and "I think" and "it is obvious" are not scientific statements.

I say this and I have religious leanings. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that this one hairless ape knows all about where the universe came from. And again, that's not the point of the theory of evolution in the first place. It says nothing about astronomy, geology or any of the rest of it--it only speaks to biology, and only since life began.

I believe that there is a Master Creator (God) behind the science. *shrugs*

This.

With deeper religious beliefs behind the Master Creator, though that doesn't actually have much to do with this.

I believe that God created everything, and did so intelligently, ergo, ID, I do however believe in Evolution, as the Bible is slightly too vague to rule it out completely, and Evolution has a lot of freakin' evidence. Whats more is that when it comes to my Judgement Day, if God reveals that Evolution did/n't happen... it won't really effect my faith in the more important aspects of what I believe.

...but it also makes it significantly more difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Not at all. This is patently wrong. Reconciling scientific understanding with spiritual beliefs is actually a mark of a theist who wishes for fulfillment, intellectual and otherwise. It's called having a consistent worldview.

...this is about arguments intended to prove that those gods exist. since 'i totally dreamed it' isn't convincing, thoughtful theists around the world moved on to real arguments....

Do you mean scientific evidence for the existence of god?

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

Why would anyone need to explain away a lack of evidence, when there isn't a lack of evidence?

Why would anyone need to explain away a lack of evidence, when there isn't a lack of evidence?

why do you hate freedom?

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time.

ummm.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance)

why do you hate freedom?

Because I'm brown. It's what we do.

And dear lord do I love days off.

Intelligent design is not science, that's why.

If you want to get started on the mountain of evidence for evolution, go to talk.origins.faq

Reading that may keep you busy for the rest of your life.

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

What lack of physical evidence? Given the absolutely overwhelming volume of physical evidence for evolution, you're going to need to be a LOT more specific unless you want people to just keep giving you the obvious answer: go read a freaking biology textbook. In the meantime, here's an easy piece of physical evidence for you: are you absolutely identical to your parents? No? Ta-da!

I don't know who this "we" you speak of who's never seen a beneficial mutation is, but it sure as hell doesn't include me. Are you made up of more than one cell? Do those cells have nuclei? Do you have opposable thumbs? Can you walk upright? Can you form and understand words? Are your teeth capable of both ripping and grinding? Again - ta-da!

Your last paragraph is just hilarious. Yes, it is all a vast conspiracy. Every single scientist ever is in on it. Yup, that's MUCH more plausible than, y'know, the facts actually being the facts.

What lack of physical evidence? Given the absolutely overwhelming volume of physical evidence for evolution, you're going to need to be a LOT more specific unless you want people to just keep giving you the obvious answer: go read a freaking biology textbook. In the meantime, here's an easy piece of physical evidence for you: are you absolutely identical to your parents? No? Ta-da!

I don't know who this "we" you speak of who's never seen a beneficial mutation is, but it sure as hell doesn't include me. Are you made up of more than one cell? Do those cells have nuclei? Do you have opposable thumbs? Can you walk upright? Can you form and understand words? Are your teeth capable of both ripping and grinding? Again - ta-da!

Your last paragraph is just hilarious. Yes, it is all a vast conspiracy. Every single scientist ever is in on it. Yup, that's MUCH more plausible than, y'know, the facts actually being the facts.

Hey! What happened on Sunday? We were expecting you for Shadowrun, had to have someone fill in with your char.

Hey! What happened on Sunday? We were expecting you for Shadowrun, had to have someone fill in with your char.

Oh, poo, I knew I forgot something! I was in Philadelphia with no internet access last weekend; I meant to mention that to you guys beforehand. :p