NationStates Jolt Archive

Accepting for the sake of argument, is different from categorical acceptance.

It is?

It is?

Yes, because you're not really believing it to be true. You're just pretending to, so as to form hypothetical arguments.

Let me put it this way then. Just because someone thinks they know something, doesn't mean they actually know something.

Right. So none of us can be sure we really KNOW anything.

This is the kind of argument that should be easily settled by looking at a dictionary.
I'm looking at my dictionary. It doesn't seem to be doing much, just sitting there on my shelf. Perhaps it would work better if I shouted at it?

Yes, because you're not really believing it to be true. You're just pretending to, so as to form hypothetical arguments.

The first half of your response is what I've been telling you for two pages, now.

indeed. or even just thinking about the math example.

...which supported the fact that 'truth' is not a condition for 'knowledge' or 'belief'. And.. .that's about it.

Right. So none of us can be sure we really KNOW anything.

Depends on whether you believe it's ever possible to prove a proposition to be completely true.

Right. So none of us can be sure we really KNOW anything.

there are (presumably) a few things we can be sure of. but yes, knowing that you know is a rather thorny issue.

The first half of your response is what I've been telling you for two pages, now.

You've been telling me for two pages that accepting for the sake of argument is merely pretending to accept something? Then what's the issue, since you seem to know the difference between accepting something, and pretending to.

You're right. None of us really 'knows' anything.

You don't know that.

You don't know that.

*head explodes*

You don't know that.

I know.

;)

Maybe this should be a separate thread?

You've been telling me for two pages that accepting for the sake of argument is merely pretending to accept something? Then what's the issue, since you seem to know the difference between accepting something, and pretending to.

I've been telling you for two pages that "...you're not really believing it to be true".

One can accept, without 'knowing' or 'believing'. And none of those things require that what is known, believed, or accepted... is true.

...which supported the fact that 'truth' is not a condition for 'knowledge' or 'belief'. And.. .that's about it.

no. stop just responding to things and think.

the claim in the math example is that billy knows that 2+2=19. either he is right or he is wrong about this. if truth is not a condition for knowledge, then billy is right. is he?

if truth isn't a condition for knowledge, then 'to know' merely means 'to think'. what, then, is it when we think true things (for the right reasons, etc.)?

I've been telling you for two pages that "...you're not really believing it to be true".


I said this is the case specifically when you're accepting for the sake of argument, not when you're accepting something in general.


One can accept, without 'knowing' or 'believing'.

No, one can only pretend to accept something as true without believing or knowing it.

Maybe this should be a separate thread?

Actually I think it's fairly relevant, since it's clear enough that a lot of people do, for whatever reasons, think the question changes with the use of the verb phrase, to 'believe in.' And that probably influenced the results of the OP poll.

GnI, if you can, what is your definition of 'believe'? And what is your definition of 'know'? And what is your definition of 'accept'?

Actually I think it's fairly relevant, since it's clear enough that a lot of people do, for whatever reasons, think the question changes with the use of the verb phrase, to 'believe in.' And that probably influenced the results of the OP poll.

To believe in, and to believe actually have different implications:

from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe

* The transitive verb believe and the phrasal verb believe in are similar but can have very different implications.
o To “believe” someone or something means to accept specific pieces of information as truth: believe the news, believe the lead witness. To “believe a complete stranger” means to accept a stranger's story with little evidence.
o To “believe in” someone or something means to place faith in that person or concept: believe in liberty, believe in God. To “believe in one's fellow man” means to place faith in mankind.
* Meanings sometimes overlap. To believe in a religious text would also require affirming at least the major principles. To believe a religious text might likewise imply placing one's faith in it, in addition to accepting its statements as facts.

To believe in, and to believe actually have different implications:

from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe

though they get close on things like 'i believe in bigfoot'

I still don't get it though. If you don't believe x (or accept x as true, which is the same thing), and you don't know x, EDIT: or you don't believe or know something relating to x (like that you believe, or know, that x is possible for instance), what else is there?

I accept the theory of evolution as rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.


For instance, what the hell is the difference between these two sentences:

I accept the theory of evolution as rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.

I believe the theory of evolution is rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.

Other than that obviously the two sentences would be used in different contexts. However, they are both giving you exactly the same information.

"Believe" is perfectly valid and "proper." But I take it your point is that Americans in general don't know this and answered the way they did as a result.

Doesn't really do a lot to restore my "belief" in humanity.

Yes, as a matter of fact I think it could skew the argument and the response.

If there is one thing I've learned it's that many (most?) Americans are scientifically ignorant and biblically ignorant.

They do not understand the basics of science, i.e. the difference between a Theory, a hypothesis and a law. I've had people tell me, quite seriously, that if there was enough evidence for evolution it would be a "law" and not "just a theory."

Clearly they do not understand that, in science, laws are a part of theories.

The really bad news is that these people are influenced by impressions and 10 second sound bites. The really, really bad news is that some of them vote from time to time.

I'm of the opinion that using "believe" and "faith" when refering to evolution or science yields a small victory to the forces of darkness.

In war, you yield no advantage if you can avoid it. I take the Culture War in the U.S. very seriously (as we all should) and the evolution vs. creationism front in that war is one upon which I am engaged.

Maybe this should be a separate thread?

For serious! All my lovely spam has been eaten up by Serious Business.

How do you guys, like, function?

For serious! All my lovely spam has been eaten up by Serious Business.

How do you guys, like, function?

They have an IV drip of spam, which just gets them over the line of Christian Bale Srs into slightly bearable levels of srs.

They have an IV drip of spam, which just gets them over the line of Christian Bale Srs into slightly bearable levels of srs.

. . .

I don't think there is an ounce of spam in some of these posters bodies. Truly, it makes me heart ache : (

. . .

I don't think there is an ounce of spam in some of these posters bodies. Truly, it makes me heart ache : (

Probably not an ounce, no, but about 2/3 of one.

But it fluctuates. Some days, these cats can spam with the best of them. I've seen it happen.

Plus, I'm not sure if you left before the arrival of Jhaha/Hammu/BfC/GoAR/Sgt. There's a man who'll knock your socks off. There's hope left for this place, trust me.

Only by the most stretched of definitions of GUFT. Even if it were all one unified force, the poster was clearly referring to a single particular manifestation of that force, one that we've known from pretty much the beginning of astronomy and E&M has fuckall to do with planetary orbits.

What if (s)he is a proponent of the Electric Universe theory?

This is the kind of argument that should be easily settled by looking at a dictionary.

:D:D:D:D:D:D

As for the whole 'knowledge versus belief' argument, I think one of the problems is that we look at them as two separate and unchanging categories. But, in reality, it's not really like that.

We say we know something because it's been proven, or there is evidence for it, but mixed up in that knowledge is a belief in the truth of empirical observations and causation and a whole bunch of other things that we don't have proof or evidence for.

And we also have things that move from one to the other. Through the process of learning, we move ideas from one category to another, or we realise that some of our 'knowledge' has beliefs in it, or vice versa.

Anyways, all that to say that the whole thing is somewhat chaotic and fluid and doesn't really lend itself to neat categorisation. I find it useful, at these times to stop thinking in nouns, and think in verbs instead.

So, rather than talk of a knowledge or belief in evolution, I would say that I am learning that the theory of evolution gains more and more scientific evidence as time goes on.

Depressing.

What if (s)he is a proponent of the Electric Universe theory?

Then I have nothing but pity for him/her.

As for the whole 'knowledge versus belief' argument, I think one of the problems is that we look at them as two separate and unchanging categories.

nah, knowledge is a subset of belief.

all things we know are things we believe - for if we did not believe them to be true in what possible sense could we know them? but not all things we believe are things we know (even if we think they are), because we are both wrong about a lot of shit and only accidentally right about a bunch of other shit.

belief is a subjective cognitive attitude of accepting some proposition as true. knowledge is something like an objective relation between our beliefs and the world.

nah, knowledge is a subset of belief.

all things we know are things we believe - for if we did not believe them to be true in what possible sense could we know them? but not all things we believe are things we know (even if we think they are), because we are both wrong about a lot of shit and only accidentally right about a bunch of other shit.

belief is a subjective cognitive attitude of accepting some proposition as true. knowledge is something like an objective relation between our beliefs and the world.

This is such a pile of horseshit.

I've done extensive research in topics like 'fairy tales' and religion, and 'know' a lot about the subject, but 'believe' somewhere between little and none. I accept very little of it as 'true'.

The fact that you keep trotting out this obviously false premise doesn't make it any less false.

This is such a pile of horseshit.

I've done extensive research in topics like 'fairy tales' and religion, and 'know' a lot about the subject, but 'believe' somewhere between little and none. I accept very little of it as 'true'.

The fact that you keep trotting out this obviously false premise doesn't make it any less false.

you are making a fairly trivial error in subject.

to know the story of snow white and the seven dwarves is to know how it goes. it is not to know that it is a true story. thus the belief you have is about how the story goes, not its status as non-fiction.

you are making a fairly trivial error in subject.

to know the story of snow white and the seven dwarves is to know how it goes. it is not to know that it is a true story. thus the belief you have is about how the story goes, not its status as non-fiction.

Snow white and the seven dwarves isn't that of which I speak - I'm referring more to things like the consecutive wars between Fomorians, Fir Bolg, Tuatha de Daanan, Daoine Sidhe, etc

I know who the factions were, and the histories of the champions, and where those elements turn up (often much, much) later in other literature (the "King Arthur" legends, for example, being the Christianised version, with adapted, or just plain stolen, elements).

I 'know' all this 'history', without ANY of it needing to be true. (The fact that some of it IS true, is coincidental to my knowledge).

Snow white and the seven dwarves isn't that of which I speak - I'm referring more to things like the consecutive wars between Fomorians, Fir Bolg, Tuatha de Daanan, Daoine Sidhe, etc

that's nice. the point is still that you know how it goes, you can tell the story. the object of belief and knowledge is the content of the story, not its truth.

so if i say something like,
"i know snow white - it's the one where the boy grows up in the jungle raised by wolves"
we have to say that i am incorrect - what i believe to be snow white is actually the jungle book. my claim to know snow white is based on a mistaken belief.

What wrong with knowledge simply being a "justified true belief" and ignoring anything Gettier says about the matter?

What wrong with knowledge simply being a "justified true belief" and ignoring anything Gettier says about the matter?

i'd be nice if we could even get that far. we're hung up on people accepting that knowledge is a particular sort of belief at all, let alone what sort it is.

Good luck finding it.

Stupid is pretty much everywhere.

I know, eve in places where intellect supposedly abounds.

The more educated are more likely to believe in Evolution? Those that arent educated as highly are less likely to believe? Go figure.

Bah, don't you mean those that have only been taught about evolution and everything else is wrong.

Teach the controversy. :tongue:

So its not just education, but that plays some role.

Since previous polling shows that attendance of religious events is constant across all levels of education, than surely religion doesn't have a large effect on people's belief of evolution? And yes I am aware of how stupid that sounds but it is Sunday morning and I have a hangover.

Plus, I'm not sure if you left before the arrival of Jhaha/Hammu/BfC/GoAR/Sgt. There's a man who'll knock your socks off. There's hope left for this place, trust me.
Sgt?

Dammnit, there's more personalities than rent here. *grits teeth*
...and, i don't think she's been here for most of him.

Bah, don't you mean those that have only been taught about evolution and everything else is wrong.

Teach the controversy. :tongue:
Oh yes, it'll be taught in the same class as "physics alternatives".
As in, "gravity is just a *theory*, so let's experiment with other things and make sure people don't religiously believe in gravity."
Field trip.
:)

Sgt?

Dammnit, there's more personalities than rent here. *grits teeth*
...and, i don't think she's been here for most of him.

Our dear friend Sgt. Toomey. And with such opportunities for creating mayhem by introducing new versions of himself, who can blame him?

EDIT: While I've got you, I've always wanted to know, what does Grave_n_idle's quote in your sig mean?

Bah, don't you mean those that have only been taught about evolution and everything else is wrong.

Teach the controversy. :tongue:


There is no controversy.

There is science. There is religion. And there is bullshit.

Science is taught in classes about science. Religion is taught in church and in classes about religion. There are no classes for bullshit. They are not needed, apparently.

There is no controversy.

There is science. There is religion. And there is bullshit.

Science is taught in classes about science. Religion is taught in church and in classes about religion. There are no classes for bullshit. They are not needed, apparently.

Uhh.. don't they teach bullshit in Church during classes about Religion?

Yes, I did go there...

Uhh.. don't they teach bullshit in Church during classes about Religion?

Yes, I did go there...
Yes, you did, proving my point that people don't need to take classes to spew crap. :p

Yes, you did, proving my point that people don't need to take classes to spew crap. :p

You know me, always helpful.

that's nice. the point is still that you know how it goes, you can tell the story. the object of belief and knowledge is the content of the story, not its truth.


I'm wondering what's motivating your phrasing. You say 'story', and then you run on into Jungle Book and Snow White - so - I'm wondering why you're differentiating between the history of the Fir Bolg/Fomorian war, and the history of, say, the America/Vietnam war....?


so if i say something like,
"i know snow white - it's the one where the boy grows up in the jungle raised by wolves"
we have to say that i am incorrect - what i believe to be snow white is actually the jungle book. my claim to know snow white is based on a mistaken belief.

I don't have to believe that America and Vietnam had something of a contratemps to know the 'story'. I don't have to believe that the Fomorian and Fir Bolg had a little tete-a-tete to know the story. I've seen the movie with the battle at Helm's Deep, I don't have to 'believe' it to 'know' it.

And you've singularly failed to show any such thing.

And now you're attempting to equate knowing what a thing is CALLED, with 'knowing' it, or 'believing' it...

Our dear friend Sgt. Toomey. And with such opportunities for creating mayhem by introducing new versions of himself, who can blame him?

EDIT: While I've got you, I've always wanted to know, what does Grave_n_idle's quote in your sig mean?

Roughly, "There is something rotten in the state of the Gospel"... in Klingon. Everyone knows that the Bible, like Shakespeare, is better in the native Klingon.

Roughly, "There is something rotten in the state of the Gospel"... in Klingon. Everyone knows that the Bible, like Shakespeare, is better in the native Klingon.

:fluffle:

Oh yes, it'll be taught in the same class as "physics alternatives".
As in, "gravity is just a *theory*, so let's experiment with other things and make sure people don't religiously believe in gravity."
Field trip.
:)

Make them watch "Levity"?

I don't have to believe that America and Vietnam had something of a contratemps to know the 'story'.

That is EXACTLY the point that FS was making, exactly.

edit: but it's still a belief, you believe you know the story, but you may be confusing the story with something completely different, and you may not know the story at all.

That is EXACTLY the point that FS was making, exactly.

It... is? He was trying to make the point that belief and knowledge share no implicit borders?

I missed that.

See the edit

That is EXACTLY the point that FS was making, exactly.

edit: but it's still a belief, you believe you know the story, but you may be confusing the story with something completely different, and you may not know the story at all.

Which is quibbling over the NAME of the story, as I already pointed out.

...'thinking I know Snow White' but talking about Robin Hood, doesn't mean I don't 'know' either story, it just means I'm using the wrong name for at least one of them.

And neither situation would connect to my 'belief' of the story, regardless of my 'knowledge' of the story.

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

So the man said to God, "what's a million years to you?"
God said, "a second."
So the man said to God, "what's a million dollars to you?"
God said, "a penny."
So the man said to got, "will you give me a penny?"
God said, "yes I will. In a second."

Which is quibbling over the NAME of the story, as I already pointed out.

...'thinking I know Snow White' but talking about Robin Hood, doesn't mean I don't 'know' either story, it just means I'm using the wrong name for at least one of them.


This is really, really simple. Can you really not extrapolate? Seriously, use your initiative. Do you not understand that you may not know the story of snow white at all, not even under a different name? You merely believe you do?

I'm wondering what's motivating your phrasing.

i'm attempting to clear up a rather obvious confusion on your part over one particular usage of the terms 'know' and 'believe'. in the particular context of storytelling, english allows a shorthand way of saying

1) "i am correct about what i believe to be the content of the story" ("i know x")
2) "i am correct about what i believe to be the content of the story and i believe the story to be true" ("i believe in x")*

this shorthand does not hold across other parts of the language.

consider the math example again. if billy claims to know that 2+2=19, he is not merely saying that he knows the story of how to do math, even though he doesn't believe that 2 and 2 make 19. in fact, he is making a stronger claim than if he merely claimed to believe that 2+2=19. in both instances, billy is claiming that he thinks that you get 19 when you add 2 and 2. the subject of belief/knowledge in both instances is the same, and so the distinction between claiming to know in the one and believe in the other isn't a change in subject, as it is in your examples. rather, it is about billy's subjective sureness that he is right. when he claims to know that 2+2=19, he claims that he is relatively sure of it.

but, of course, he is wrongly sure, because 2 and 2 do not make 19. this wrongness undermines his claim to know it. he doesn't know it at all, in fact. because in order to know the solution to a math problem, billy has to actually get it right. but he certainly believes it.

or consider these two statements. "he thinks it is raining" and "he knows it is raining". in both sentences, we are describing someone's belief that it is raining out currently. so what distinguishes them? do they mean exactly the same thing?

* and when we want to claim an even stronger form of 2, we actually do add a "and i know it is true" sort of clause

i'm attempting to clear up a rather obvious confusion on your part over one particular usage of the terms 'know' and 'believe'. in the particular context of storytelling, english allows a shorthand way of saying

1) "i am correct about what i believe to be the content of the story" ("i know x")
2) "i am correct about what i believe to be the content of the story and i believe the story to be true" ("i believe in x")*

this shorthand does not hold across other parts of the language.

consider the math example again. if billy claims to know that 2+2=19, he is not merely saying that he knows the story of how to do math, even though he doesn't believe that 2 and 2 make 19. in fact, he is making a stronger claim than if he merely claimed to believe that 2+2=19. in both instances, billy is claiming that he thinks that you get 19 when you add 2 and 2. the subject of belief/knowledge in both instances is the same, and so the distinction between claiming to know in the one and believe in the other isn't a change in subject, as it is in your examples. rather, it is about billy's subjective sureness that he is right. when he claims to know that 2+2=19, he claims that he is relatively sure of it.

but, of course, he is wrongly sure, because 2 and 2 do not make 19. this wrongness undermines his claim to know it. he doesn't know it at all, in fact. because in order to know the solution to a math problem, billy has to actually get it right.

or consider these two statements. "he thinks it is raining" and "he knows it is raining". in both sentences, we are describing someone's belief that it is raining out currently. so what distinguishes them? do they mean exactly the same thing?

* and when we want to claim an even stronger form of 2, we actually do add a "and i know it is true" sort of clause

Maybe Billy actually DOES know that 2+2=19.

Whether it does, or not, is irrelevent. (He could be right, and we're all behind his curve on the new new math).

Maybe Billy actually DOES know that 2+2=19.

if he does, then to know is the same as to believe. which sorta undermines your previous line of argument entirely.

There is no controversy.

There is science. There is religion. And there is bullshit.

Science is taught in classes about science. Religion is taught in church and in classes about religion. There are no classes for bullshit. They are not needed, apparently.

And my joke went straight over your head. Did you miss the smilie?

And my joke went straight over your head. Did you miss the smilie?
No, I didn't miss the smilie. I guessed you were joking again, but, well...look, please don't take this personally, but...well...I'm sorry, but I don't find your jokes all that funny. They just sort of lie there in a thread, seeming kind of helpless, and, well...I just wanted to kill that one because I thought it was suffering.

No, I didn't miss the smilie. I guessed you were joking again, but, well...look, please don't take this personally, but...well...I'm sorry, but I don't find your jokes all that funny. They just sort of lie there in a thread, seeming kind of helpless, and, well...I just wanted to kill that one because I thought it was suffering.

:eek:

:hail:

Murv, that was simultaneously the second meanest and the absolute funniest thing I have heard (more or less) today.

I disappear for the weekend and this thread explodes. If anyone asked me any questions, link em so I dont get accused of dodging :p

:eek:

:hail:

Murv, that was simultaneously the second meanest and the absolute funniest thing I have heard (more or less) today.
Only the second meanest? Shit.

Actually, it was little meaner than I mean it to be. But it's true, I don't laugh at his jokes. It's me, not him.

I disappear for the weekend and this thread explodes. If anyone asked me any questions, link em so I dont get accused of dodging :p
RTFT, lazy sot! :p

Only the second meanest? Shit.

Actually, it was little meaner than I mean it to be. But it's true, I don't laugh at his jokes. It's me, not him.


It would have been the meanest but at 7:30 this morning I found out they hired someone else to take the full time position my job place has been holding over my head for 2 years. Even in today's economy, they have me on borrowed time now; fuck them.

RTFT, lazy sot! :p

No.:p

if he does, then to know is the same as to believe. which sorta undermines your previous line of argument entirely.

You just don't get it.

He could 'know' that 2+2=19 even while he 'believes' that it really equates to 4 (as I suspect most Christians 'know' that Jesus is real, whilst at the same time actually 'believing' that it's nothing more than an emotional crutch - and it's the 'belief' part they try to squash).

He could 'know' that 2+2=19 even while he 'believes' that it really equates to 4

in what way is this not insane? has anyone ever used words in that manner?

He could 'know' that 2+2=19 even while he 'believes' that it really equates to 4

lol wut

It would have been the meanest but at 7:30 this morning I found out they hired someone else to take the full time position my job place has been holding over my head for 2 years. Even in today's economy, they have me on borrowed time now; fuck them.
Bastards. I'll put a curse on them.

in what way is this not insane? has anyone ever used words in that manner?

Simply, because 'belief' and 'knowledge' are often different animals.

Simply, because 'belief' and 'knowledge' are often different animals.
Aye, but separate? Using your example, how could I 'know' that 2+2=19 without believing it?

Obviously, your using the word 'know' not to mean 'justified true belief'... so what do you mean by it?

Aye, but separate? Using your example, how could I 'know' that 2+2=19 without believing it?

Obviously, your using the word 'know' not to mean 'justified true belief'... so what do you mean by it?

It is universally understood that "to know" is "to have sex with".

*backward somersaults out of thread*

It is universally understood that "to know" is "to have sex with".

i wonder if the sex is better with calculus or arithmetic?

i wonder if the sex is better with calculus or arithmetic?

I pick her but for all the wrong reasons! :D

http://kissmymath.com/news/

Aye, but separate? Using your example, how could I 'know' that 2+2=19 without believing it?

Obviously, your using the word 'know' not to mean 'justified true belief'... so what do you mean by it?

I'm not buying the 'justified true belief' and I've seen no good reason to even consider it valid. People believe things they don't 'know' and 'know' things they don't believe. Clearly the two are not connected, of necessity - and where the two paths cross, it's coincidence more than design.

i wonder if the sex is better with calculus or arithmetic?

You give me hope for this forum.

Sheesh.

No, I didn't miss the smilie. I guessed you were joking again, but, well...look, please don't take this personally, but...well...I'm sorry, but I don't find your jokes all that funny. They just sort of lie there in a thread, seeming kind of helpless, and, well...I just wanted to kill that one because I thought it was suffering.

:(

My mum thinks my jokes are funny. (I guess you don't think that was funny either)

Nah you're alright, I suppose I sometimes have a habit of doing a few lame jokes.

Good satirist I am not.

I disappear for the weekend and this thread explodes. If anyone asked me any questions, link em so I dont get accused of dodging :p

Do your own dirty work.

But since you asked.

And this is not an attack against your argument or anything, simply a point of contention I would like to discuss.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14512721&postcount=539

I'm not buying the 'justified true belief' and I've seen no good reason to even consider it valid. People believe things they don't 'know' and 'know' things they don't believe. Clearly the two are not connected, of necessity - and where the two paths cross, it's coincidence more than design.

you'll note that you didn't answer the question

THUNDERDOME!!!


C'mon people. Some creationist stand up against us ebil libruhls.

I think that this contraversy is potentially confusing. From this thread alone we do not know the questions that were asked. It is false to say that creationism is the opposite of evolution. I bet that most creationists are also believers in evolution as was Darwin himself.

There are certainly some rather scary religious fanatics who completely reject evolution. Those people are on the lunatic fringe.

There are also people that believe that life began spontaneously on Earth in a primordial soup. These people are atheistic crackpots.

Although it is impossible to know the truth at this point as to the origins of life and the role, if any, of the divine, it is my belief that scientific research is a sacred and holy activity in that it is our best means of figuring out how God works. This certainly gets the religious nutjobs freaked out because they do not like to realize that their views are wrong and have a tough time dealing with it.

I hope that I am not flaming or trolling by saying that the Mormon view of natural history is absurd. The idea that fossils are placed in the Earth by the devil to lead men astray is absurd. Then again, we all have the right to believe what we believe and I do not want to insult Mormons. I thing that their ideas are often wrong. I do not think that they are necessarily bad people for having those beliefs. I view this belief as an insane religious belief and I hope that this is a fringe view.

From this thread alone we do not know the questions that were asked.

from the link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx) in the first post:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif

I know some creationists and they are actually quite reasonable and tolerant of people who believe in evolution. Just because somebody doesn't believe in something that is a scientific fact, doesn't mean that they are anti-science.

I think that this contraversy is potentially confusing. From this thread alone we do not know the questions that were asked. It is false to say that creationism is the opposite of evolution. I bet that most creationists are also believers in evolution as was Darwin himself.

There are certainly some rather scary religious fanatics who completely reject evolution. Those people are on the lunatic fringe.

There are also people that believe that life began spontaneously on Earth in a primordial soup. These people are atheistic crackpots.
How do you know they are wrong?

I mean, I can see why you would dismiss people who choose to reject demonstrable facts rather than adjust their beliefs to include them. But I don't see how it is "crackpot" to look at available theories and say, "I like this one." Also, how is it "atheistic" crackpotism? If religious people can also accept the science in evolution, then why can't religious people also support the primordial soup concept?

Although it is impossible to know the truth at this point as to the origins of life and the role, if any, of the divine, it is my belief that scientific research is a sacred and holy activity in that it is our best means of figuring out how God works. This certainly gets the religious nutjobs freaked out because they do not like to realize that their views are wrong and have a tough time dealing with it.

I hope that I am not flaming or trolling by saying that the Mormon view of natural history is absurd. The idea that fossils are placed in the Earth by the devil to lead men astray is absurd. Then again, we all have the right to believe what we believe and I do not want to insult Mormons. I thing that their ideas are often wrong. I do not think that they are necessarily bad people for having those beliefs. I view this belief as an insane religious belief and I hope that this is a fringe view.
Your hopes will be dashed, I'm afraid. Since this is not a thread about Mormonism and nobody has talked about Mormons except you, and you do use words like "absurd," "insane," and "fringe" to describe their beliefs, and you bring them up apropos nothing in the thread, I'm afraid you are, actually, flaming and trolling as well as insulting Mormons. Why did you feel the need to do that in this thread?

I think that this contraversy is potentially confusing. From this thread alone we do not know the questions that were asked. It is false to say that creationism is the opposite of evolution. I bet that most creationists are also believers in evolution as was Darwin himself.


No, they are opposites. Creationism is more than simply "god put it in motion". Moreover the poll was quite clear and specific, it asked the participants if they believed in the theory of evolution. That was all it asked.

I know some creationists and they are actually quite reasonable and tolerant of people who believe in evolution. Just because somebody doesn't believe in something that is a scientific fact, doesn't mean that they are anti-science.

indeed, they could also just be ignorant. the test is what happens when you show them the fossils.

I know some creationists and they are actually quite reasonable and tolerant of people who believe in evolution. Just because somebody doesn't believe in something that is a scientific fact, doesn't mean that they are anti-science.
Are you attempting to expand "creationist" to mean "anybody who believes in a creator deity"? That is not what it means. Creationism is a very specific idea that states that the world was created as described in the Bible. Creationists are those who espouse creationism. Because of its insistence on the literalism of the Bible and the story of Genesis, creationism is inherently anti-science, because the available science contradicts Genesis. This is evidenced by the fact that creationists position creationism as a counter argument to evolution, i.e. they oppose the idea of evolution.

Obviously (despite some people's denial of this), it is perfectly possible for a religious person who believes in a creator deity to also accept the fact of evolution. But it is not possible for a creationist to do that, because creationism specifically rejects evolutionary theory.

from the link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx) in the first post:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif

Thanks. The question does not mention creationism though. It only asks if the audience believes in darwin's theory of evolution.

Your hopes will be dashed, I'm afraid. Since this is not a thread about Mormonism and nobody has talked about Mormons except you, and you do use words like "absurd," "insane," and "fringe" to describe their beliefs, and you bring them up apropos nothing in the thread, I'm afraid you are, actually, flaming and trolling as well as insulting Mormons. Why did you feel the need to do that in this thread?

I do not think I insulted Moromns although I certainly argued my point that the natural history view of Mormons is nonsense. The Mormon view that the world is only like 5,000 years old and that any fossil evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil is about as crazy as it gets. This is the opposite of science.

Science is fundamentally the pursuit of truth by observing nature. Mormon natural history is the pursuit of truth by reading what a prophet said and purposefully ignoring observations of nature.

That was my point. I hope that I clarified it.

Are you attempting to expand "creationist" to mean "anybody who believes in a creator deity"? That is not what it means. Creationism is a very specific idea that states that the world was created as described in the Bible. Creationists are those who espouse creationism. Because of its insistence on the literalism of the Bible and the story of Genesis, creationism is inherently anti-science, because the available science contradicts Genesis. This is evidenced by the fact that creationists position creationism as a counter argument to evolution, i.e. they oppose the idea of evolution.

Obviously (despite some people's denial of this), it is perfectly possible for a religious person who believes in a creator deity to also accept the fact of evolution. But it is not possible for a creationist to do that, because creationism specifically rejects evolutionary theory.

Yes, (rightly or wrongly) my understanding of creationism is the concept that life has divine origin. I understand the Mormon view that I mentioned earlier as a sub-belief within the umbrella of creationism.

During the first week of biology class in 6th grade, our teacher prefaced his discussion of biology by pointing out that evolution and all biological science is a theory and that there are other theories held by religious groups throughout the world and that he was not going to get into the religious theories out there. I think he handled the subject beautifully.

In subsequent science classes the divine was mentioned only on the subject of the origin of life. I am not sure if the origin of life was ever addressed by Darwin. However, it was addressed by people who studied pasta noodles in jars.

I think that this contraversy is potentially confusing. From this thread alone we do not know the questions that were asked. It is false to say that creationism is the opposite of evolution. I bet that most creationists are also believers in evolution as was Darwin himself.

There are certainly some rather scary religious fanatics who completely reject evolution. Those people are on the lunatic fringe.

There are also people that believe that life began spontaneously on Earth in a primordial soup. These people are atheistic crackpots.


Yes, atheists are all crackpots. Only a crackpot would believe life could arise without divine intervention. :rolleyes:

During the first week of biology class in 6th grade, our teacher prefaced his discussion of biology by pointing out that evolution and all biological science is a theory and that there are other theories held by religious groups throughout the world and that he was not going to get into the religious theories out there. I think he handled the subject beautifully.

He did not, because that statement suggests that "theory" and "scientific theory" are the same thing. That is like saying a bow to shoot arrows with is the same thing as the bow of a ship.

I'm not buying the 'justified true belief' and I've seen no good reason to even consider it valid. People believe things they don't 'know' and 'know' things they don't believe. Clearly the two are not connected, of necessity - and where the two paths cross, it's coincidence more than design.
I, too, have qualms over the JTB theory of knowledge, but I still think knowledge has an intimate connection with belief.

Moreover, what is your answer to the question? What do you mean by 'know', and how can I hold 'knowledge' without believing it?

EDIT: If I know the name of my friend is Bob, surely I believe my friend is called Bob?



Are you attempting to expand "creationist" to mean "anybody who believes in a creator deity"? That is not what it means. Creationism is a very specific idea that states that the world was created as described in the Bible.
No it's not; at least, it's perfectly valid to use 'creationist' to describe "anybody who believes in a creator deity", which includes most religious people.

Sure, in the West in recent years, 'creationist' is used mostly in reference to Christian Young Earth Creationism, but I think that's a poor road to travel down. We don't want to tar all creationists with the same YEC brush.

Perhaps a distinction between Big-C Creationists and small-c creationists would help; in the same vein as Big-L and small-l libertarians, etc.

you'll note that you didn't answer the question

You'll notice that the question hinged on the assumed 'definition'. There's no point in answering a question which is blatantly obvious, if you just remove the artificially-added-unnecessary-and-unjustified extra qualifiers.

I, too, have qualms over the JTB theory of knowledge, but I still think knowledge has an intimate connection with belief.

Moreover, what is your answer to the question? What do you mean by 'know', and how can I hold 'knowledge' without believing it?

EDIT: If I know the name of my friend is Bob, surely I believe my friend is called Bob?


I could link you to websites on 'angel-ology'. I've done quite a lot of research on the subject, over the years. It's a whole pursuit... sometimes artistic and sometimes more 'academic'... sometimes even almost scientific, once you make allowances for the subject matter.

One of the projects I did on angels involved cataloging (what turned out to be) thousands of 'recorded' angels - and then cross-referencing the accounts and the data (sometimes just a name, sometimes whole accounts of manifestations, sometimes description of the angel and what the angel 'does'). Cross-referencing enabled me to spot dozens of duplications, for example - angels that appear under two very similar names that share an etymology link, or an angel that appears under two very different names, but are identical in every respect but name. Sometimes those names turn out to be titles given to the angel.

To me an interesting project, at that time.

Now, I have mountains of data stored around here, somewhere - a huge pile of knowledge that I don't actually have any belief in, at all.

I could link you to websites on 'angel-ology'. I've done quite a lot of research on the subject, over the years. It's a whole pursuit... sometimes artistic and sometimes more 'academic'... sometimes even almost scientific, once you make allowances for the subject matter.

One of the projects I did on angels involved cataloging (what turned out to be) thousands of 'recorded' angels - and then cross-referencing the accounts and the data (sometimes just a name, sometimes whole accounts of manifestations, sometimes description of the angel and what the angel 'does'). Cross-referencing enabled me to spot dozens of duplications, for example - angels that appear under two very similar names that share an etymology link, or an angel that appears under two very different names, but are identical in every respect but name. Sometimes those names turn out to be titles given to the angel.

To me an interesting project, at that time.

Now, I have mountains of data stored around here, somewhere - a huge pile of knowledge that I don't actually have any belief in, at all.

But there's two ways of looking at it.

You don't believe in the stories as being true accounts of factual phenomena, but you do believe that the actual stories exist. i.e. you don't believe in angels, but you do believe there are stories about angels.

So, in a way, you know and don't believe, and in another way you know and believe.

I could link you to websites on 'angel-ology'. I've done quite a lot of research on the subject, over the years. It's a whole pursuit... sometimes artistic and sometimes more 'academic'... sometimes even almost scientific, once you make allowances for the subject matter.

One of the projects I did on angels involved cataloging (what turned out to be) thousands of 'recorded' angels - and then cross-referencing the accounts and the data (sometimes just a name, sometimes whole accounts of manifestations, sometimes description of the angel and what the angel 'does'). Cross-referencing enabled me to spot dozens of duplications, for example - angels that appear under two very similar names that share an etymology link, or an angel that appears under two very different names, but are identical in every respect but name. Sometimes those names turn out to be titles given to the angel.

To me an interesting project, at that time.

Now, I have mountains of data stored around here, somewhere - a huge pile of knowledge that I don't actually have any belief in, at all.

But then how is this definition of knowledge any different from "information"?

But there's two ways of looking at it.

You don't believe in the stories as being true accounts of factual phenomena, but you do believe that the actual stories exist. i.e. you don't believe in angels, but you do believe there are stories about angels.

So, in a way, you know and don't believe, and in another way you know and believe.

Right - so knowledge and belief aren't intrinsically connected. They can coincide, but they don't have to.

One of the projects I did on angels involved cataloging (what turned out to be) thousands of 'recorded' angels - and then cross-referencing the accounts and the data (sometimes just a name, sometimes whole accounts of manifestations, sometimes description of the angel and what the angel 'does'). Cross-referencing enabled me to spot dozens of duplications, for example - angels that appear under two very similar names that share an etymology link, or an angel that appears under two very different names, but are identical in every respect but name. Sometimes those names turn out to be titles given to the angel.

To me an interesting project, at that time.
Interesting stuff indeed.

Now, I have mountains of data stored around here, somewhere - a huge pile of knowledge that I don't actually have any belief in, at all.
Hmmm.

You certainly have a whole amount of knowledge in your research, but I'm fairly sure you wouldn't attest that you know that, say, Gabriel is an angel who exists. I agree the whole knowledge of fictional characters makes problems for the JTB theory, but I think you do both believe and know that Gabriel is an angel; as long as we caveat that statement with a clause like 'according to other people' or 'in x belief system to which I don't subscribe'.

I can both believe and know that Superman can fly, while believing and knowing Superman ain't real.

But then how is this definition of knowledge any different from "information"?

Information doesn't have to be 'known' - I could give you the mountains of data I had, and it would be 'information', but you wouldn't 'know' it, until it entered your head. Maybe.

During the first week of biology class in 6th grade, our teacher prefaced his discussion of biology by pointing out that evolution and all biological science is a theory and that there are other theories held by religious groups throughout the world and that he was not going to get into the religious theories out there. I think he handled the subject beautifully.

I hope he was clear about the differences between a scientific theory and a lay-theory as well.

Otherwise, he didn't really handle it very well at all.

Interesting stuff indeed.


Hmmm.

You certainly have a whole amount of knowledge in your research, but I'm fairly sure you wouldn't attest that you know that, say, Gabriel is an angel who exists. I agree the whole knowledge of fictional characters makes problems for the JTB theory, but I think you do both believe and know that Gabriel is an angel; as long as we caveat that statement with a clause like 'according to other people' or 'in x belief system to which I don't subscribe'.

I can both believe and know that Superman can fly, while believing and knowing Superman ain't real.

Do you think you could believe that Superman was real, whilst simultaneously really knowing that he wasn't?

Information doesn't have to be 'known' - I could give you the mountains of data I had, and it would be 'information', but you wouldn't 'know' it, until it entered your head. Maybe.

So knowledge is information one has stored in their memory, then? Essentially digested information.

I do not think I insulted Moromns although I certainly argued my point that the natural history view of Mormons is nonsense. The Mormon view that the world is only like 5,000 years old and that any fossil evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil is about as crazy as it gets. This is the opposite of science.

Science is fundamentally the pursuit of truth by observing nature. Mormon natural history is the pursuit of truth by reading what a prophet said and purposefully ignoring observations of nature.

That was my point. I hope that I clarified it.

Yes, (rightly or wrongly) my understanding of creationism is the concept that life has divine origin. I understand the Mormon view that I mentioned earlier as a sub-belief within the umbrella of creationism.

During the first week of biology class in 6th grade, our teacher prefaced his discussion of biology by pointing out that evolution and all biological science is a theory and that there are other theories held by religious groups throughout the world and that he was not going to get into the religious theories out there. I think he handled the subject beautifully.

In subsequent science classes the divine was mentioned only on the subject of the origin of life. I am not sure if the origin of life was ever addressed by Darwin. However, it was addressed by people who studied pasta noodles in jars.
I still do not see why you feel the need to focus on Mormons or Mormonism at all. They are not the subject of this thread. I am going to assume that you have some kind of issue with Mormonism that you don't have with other religions, chalk it up to you trotting out a pet peeve, and ignore all subsequent Mormon comments by you.

Also..."pasta noodles in jars"...? Wtf? Are you referring to vermicelli? Are you aware that vermicelli are also a species of worm? Were you making a little jokey-poo?

Do you think you could believe that Superman was real, whilst simultaneously really knowing that he wasn't?

only in the sense of a suspending disbelief in a particular context. otherwise, no, of course not.

No it's not; at least, it's perfectly valid to use 'creationist' to describe "anybody who believes in a creator deity", which includes most religious people.

Sure, in the West in recent years, 'creationist' is used mostly in reference to Christian Young Earth Creationism, but I think that's a poor road to travel down. We don't want to tar all creationists with the same YEC brush.

Perhaps a distinction between Big-C Creationists and small-c creationists would help; in the same vein as Big-L and small-l libertarians, etc.
No, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and reject this argument. I am only interested in using terms as they are currently used by the majority of people currently involved in the current issue. Currently. In the real world.

You can play your never-ending word games with FS and GnI, if you like. In the current debate "creationist" refers to people who prefer the Biblical story of creation over the scientific study of species. Some of them are YEC people, some are not. But it is not used to describe religious people who also accept evolutionary theory, not by either side of the debate. I'm living in the now on this matter. I am not interested in how the words may have been used in other times and places and in other contexts.

So, in a way, you know and don't believe, and in another way you know and believe.

indeed, only in the former the knowing and believing adhere to different propositions, while in the latter they are about the same thing.

So what exactely is so horrifying about believing in creationism, intelligent design or a mix of evolution & creation instead of pure darwinism?

Do you think you could believe that Superman was real, whilst simultaneously really knowing that he wasn't?
No, for I think the knowledge that Superman isn't real would be prompted (for what of a better term) by the belief that Superman isn't real, as well as other beliefs; from 'mundane' ones such as a belief that there exists a publishing house called DC, to 'grander' beliefs such as the belief in a material universe.

I think we need to separate one's own knowledge, and knowledge of knowledge. I can hold both the knowledge of x', accompanied by the belief x and a myriad of other beliefs, but also the knowledge that others believe x.

So knowledge is information one has stored in their memory, then? Essentially digested information.

Sounds like a reasonable definition, to me.

only in the sense of a suspending disbelief in a particular context. otherwise, no, of course not.

You don't think people can 'know' something deep down, and 'believe' something that contradicts it?

You'd love Georgia - it's the number one argument against Atheism, around here.

But it is not used to describe religious people who also accept evolutionary theory, not by either side of the debate.

except, perhaps, the evolutionary creationists

So what exactely is so horrifying about believing in creationism, intelligent design or a mix of evolution & creation instead of pure darwinism?
Nothing, although it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what evolution is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace science with religion by injecting religion into areas in which it cannot apply or work. Like teaching religion in science classes as if it were science. Or like using religion as the foundation for laws governing medical and scientific research.

You don't think people can 'know' something deep down, and 'believe' something that contradicts it?

i'd have a better sense of how to answer this question if you would get around to defining the terms you are using. because the way you are using them seems very far removed from both technical discussions of knowledge and belief, and our everyday usages of them.

except, perhaps, the evolutionary creationists
You can apply my comments to Chumbly to yourself as well.

So what exactely is so horrifying about believing in creationism, intelligent design or a mix of evolution & creation instead of pure darwinism?

The fact that most people have no frigging clue whatsoever what their beliefs entail or what they are based on.
You do not wish to feed the people that claim to be Creationists, but do not even know genesis. Or the supporters of evolution who believe that the current theory has not changed a single bit since Darwin wrote his book. The people that think the theory of evolution claims humans evolved from monkeys. The people that believe evolution says a dog will grow wings if you throw it off a cliff. The people that think evolution and creationism are the only two options. The people that do not know what a theory is. The people who only believe in evolution because they hate Christians. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The widespread lack of basic education and knowledge, and the shocking willingness to believe whatever nonsense they are told as long as it fits their worldview is what is horryfying.

Yes, atheists are all crackpots. Only a crackpot would believe life could arise without divine intervention. :rolleyes:

I'm so glad someone agrees with me.

No, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and reject this argument. I am only interested in using terms as they are currently used by the majority of people currently involved in the current issue. Currently. In the real world.
Great, because here, in the real world, the majority of people on the planet believe in a deity or group of deities who created the Earth/the Universe; they believe in a creationist theory. When discussing these theories in RE/theology courses I've taken in the past, they're described as 'creationist'; along with no other term being more suitable, I don't see why the term should have to be solely linked to a bunch of YEC folks who've got a lot of attention recently.

EDIT: Contrary to your suggestion, the term is used to describe those who believe in evolution and a creator God. I attended an amusing little discussion at my parent's church recently where they, the minister and the rest of the congregation attested to being creationists, while all happily accepting evolution. Indeed, they were discussing just this problem; this tarring of all.

What would you call those non-Christian religious theories which posit a creator god(s)?

You can apply my comments to Chumbly to yourself as well.

could, but won't. especially since there actually are people who call themselves evolutionary creationists - even eugenie scott has used the term (http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum)

http://ncseweb.org/files/images/Fig-3-1-continuum-agnostic.jpg

I'm so glad someone agrees with me.

I know! Those damn atheists. They're such extremists. Did you know that some of them even write books to explain and defend their ideas? The horror!

I know! Those damn atheists. They're such extremists. Did you know that some of them even write books to explain and defend their ideas? The horror!

I know. It's rather disgusting.

Nothing, although it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what evolution is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace science with religion by injecting religion into areas in which it cannot apply or work. Like teaching religion in science classes as if it were science. Or like using religion as the foundation for laws governing medical and scientific research.

Alright, I understand and sympathise.

Although, the same could be said as an argument against atheism / science, simply by replacing some words...

"it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what creationism is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace faith with science by injecting science into areas in which it creates immorality and evil. Like teaching science classes and neglecting creationism. Or like using science as the foundation for laws governing morals and values, or medical research."

See? I'm not trying to attack anyone here. Just trying to make clear that your arguments can be used in the same way against you. What I'm trying to say is, your argument only sounds reasonable to a person already thinking science>religion, while the opposite of your argument only appeals to persons thinking religion>science, etc...

so you still didn't quite answer my question :(

To be completely honest, I think it would be perfect if a balance between the two could be found. Like a smart fella once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I don't believe in decent men. I've only ever heard anecdotal evidence for their existence. Anecdotal evidence which was easily refuted, "Oh, sure, he cheated on his girlfriend, lied to her about it, and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. But truly, he is a really good guy!"

I don't believe in them, and I know they don't exist. Just like I don't believe in ghosts or unicorns, and I know they don't exist either. Perhaps one day I'll see a ghost, and then I'll believe in them. Although it'll probably be like all the "decent" guys I know, and just turn out to be a trick of the light or deception of the senses.

I know! Those damn atheists. They're such extremists. Did you know that some of them even write books to explain and defend their ideas? The horror!

You know what is even worse ? Some people actually READ those books !
How DARE they ! Books are for prominent display in your home, to point at when you wish to comment at society and to be fed to you in easily quotable chunks by a priest or so. Where would we be if people actually read them ???

Alright, I understand and sympathise.

Although, the same could be said as an argument against atheism / science, simply by replacing some words...

"it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what creationism is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace faith with science by injecting science into areas in which it creates immorality and evil. Like teaching science classes and neglecting creationism. Or like using science as the foundation for laws governing morals and values, or medical research."

See? I'm not trying to attack anyone here. Just trying to make clear that your arguments can be used in the same way against you. What I'm trying to say is, your argument only sounds reasonable to a person already thinking science>religion, while the opposite of your argument only appeals to persons thinking religion>science, etc...

When it comes to figuring out the reality of the physical world, I would say the debate between science and religion was settled some time ago when science produced useful things but religion did not. And those who would object but still use technology demonstrate that they don't really believe what they claim to believe.


so you still didn't quite answer my question :(

To be completely honest, I think it would be perfect if a balance between the two could be found. Like a smart fella once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

You do know he meant religion in a rather different way than you are using it, right? When he used "religion" in that context, he essentially meant a deep and abiding sense of awe for the Universe as far as science can reveal it. He found the idea of deities and whatnot rather strange.

You know what is even worse ? Some people actually READ those books !
How DARE they ! Books are for prominent display in your home, to point at when you wish to comment at society and to be fed to you in easily quotable chunks by a priest or so. Where would we be if people actually read them ???

Why, if people read books themselves, they might actually learn to think for themselves! And if they read books from a variety of authors with different views...



I don't even want to speculate about what might happen.

I know! Those damn atheists. They're such extremists. Did you know that some of them even write books to explain and defend their ideas? The horror!

Ew, books!

Still, I agree with Aquinas. Life had to start somewhere. Otherwise the atheist is just as much of a crackpot as the woman Stephen Fry quoted on QI who explained that the earth was standing on a turtle shell. And when asked upon what the turtle was standing, she explained "another turtle!" When pressed, she expressed in frustration "It's just turtles, all the way down!"

You know what is even worse ? Some people actually READ those books !
How DARE they ! Books are for prominent display in your home, to point at when you wish to comment at society and to be fed to you in easily quotable chunks by a priest or so. Where would we be if people actually read them ???

If there's something worse than books, it's people who read them -_-

Why, if people read books themselves, they might actually learn to think for themselves! And if they read books from a variety of authors with different views...



I don't even want to speculate about what might happen.

LOL!!!!

Sweetie, people learning to think for themselves is not something you have to worry about. Not on a widespread scale, at least.

LOL!!!!

Sweetie, people learning to think for themselves is not something you have to worry about. Not on a widespread scale, at least.

That's a relief. But we ought to ban books, just in case!

But if we can them, what will we burn for warmth in the winter?

Still, I agree with Aquinas. Life had to start somewhere.

Sure. But what exactly is the difference between saying "I don't know how it happened" and "God did it in ways we can not comprehend" ?

In practice: nothing. Except the first one is far less condenscending to other opinions.

When it comes to figuring out the reality of the physical world, I would say the debate between science and religion was settled some time ago when science produced useful things but religion did not. And those who would object but still use technology demonstrate that they don't really believe what they claim to believe.

Eh, in my opinion both have produced things of greatness and things of evil. I don't hate either. And I don't think many people totally object technology (maybe some crazy hippee would?) though darwinism =/= technology.

You do know he meant religion in a rather different way than you are using it, right? When he used "religion" in that context, he essentially meant a deep and abiding sense of awe for the Universe as far as science can reveal it. He found the idea of deities and whatnot rather strange.

Yea, I was wondering if I was completely right to quote him there, though I still think a mix of both is preferable ;)

But if we can them, what will we burn for warmth in the winter?

People of course. As God commanded.

Sure. But what exactly is the difference between saying "I don't know how it happened" and "God did it in ways we can not comprehend" ?

In practice: nothing. Except the first one is far less condenscending to other opinions.

The second one takes longer and makes people assume annoying things?

People of course. As God commanded.

But.....fetuses are people. I can't burn fetuses......


You know who's not people though? Those brown ones.......also the homos.

I'm getting banned for this I know it

Eh, in my opinion both have produced things of greatness and things of evil. I don't hate either. And I don't think many people totally object technology (maybe some crazy hippee would?) though darwinism =/= technology.

Contrary to popular belief, the theory of evolution is not some lone island in our sea of knowledge. While creationists would like you to for instance believe that nuclear physics is utterly wrong where it comes to dating, they have yet to explain why it works so well in other areas. We have microwaves, x-rays and no more Nagasaki after all.

The lovely thing about science is that everything connects; though admittedly the grand unification has not yet been achieved ;)

The lovely thing about science is that everything connects...
The lovely thing about everything is that everything connects.

Contrary to popular belief, the theory of evolution is not some lone island in our sea of knowledge. While creationists would like you to for instance believe that nuclear physics is utterly wrong where it comes to dating, they have yet to explain why it works so well in other areas. We have microwaves, x-rays and no more Nagasaki after all.

The lovely thing about science is that everything connects; though admittedly the grand unification has not yet been achieved ;)

How do you mean? I like to believe that there is a higher Being, something which could indeed be called God, who has created the universe as we see it. He/She might even have set the whole process called "evolution" in motion. I don't say nuclear physics is a myth ;)

Pick a definition for creationist and stick with it already. This vagueness is confusing the hell out of me...

How do you mean? I like to believe that there is a higher Being, something which could indeed be called God, who has created the universe as we see it. He/She might even have set the whole process called "evolution" in motion. I don't say nuclear physics is a myth ;)

He was referring to Young Earth Creationists who do. Who, for instance, say that radiometric dating is wrong when it measures the ages of the earth, but fail to explain how the exact same physics that goes into radiometric dating works perfectly in other areas of research.

I still do not see why you feel the need to focus on Mormons or Mormonism at all. They are not the subject of this thread. I am going to assume that you have some kind of issue with Mormonism that you don't have with other religions, chalk it up to you trotting out a pet peeve, and ignore all subsequent Mormon comments by you.

Also..."pasta noodles in jars"...? Wtf? Are you referring to vermicelli? Are you aware that vermicelli are also a species of worm? Were you making a little jokey-poo?

I was referring to vermicelli but it was not a joke. For a while the whole topic of the origin of life bizarrely seemed to be centered on trying to put some chemicals in a jar and put some vermicelli in it and seal the jar and see if the noodle comes to life. Once it actually "happened" and the noodle started moving around but this was because something funky grew on the noodle and caused it to move a little. This is one of the most bizzare chapters of the history of science. It was the only experiment ever to conclude (albeit falsely) that life can originate from a primordial soup.

Pick a definition for creationist and stick with it already. This vagueness is confusing the hell out of me...
Aye, I think Young Earth Creationists (YEC) works the best. Might as well call folks by what they subscribe to.

See also FS's post (Thttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14518813&postcount=619).

I was referring to vermicelli but it was not a joke. For a while the whole topic of the origin of life bizarrely seemed to be centered on trying to put some chemicals in a jar and put some vermicelli in it and seal the jar and see if the noodle comes to life. Once it actually "happened" and the noodle started moving around but this was because something funky grew on the noodle and caused it to move a little. This is one of the most bizzare chapters of the history of science. It was the only experiment ever to conclude (albeit falsely) that life can originate from a primordial soup.

...http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/emotes/emot-what.gif

How do you know they are wrong?

I mean, I can see why you would dismiss people who choose to reject demonstrable facts rather than adjust their beliefs to include them. But I don't see how it is "crackpot" to look at available theories and say, "I like this one." Also, how is it "atheistic" crackpotism? If religious people can also accept the science in evolution, then why can't religious people also support the primordial soup concept?

The primordial soup concept is ridiculous. It assumes that life can be spontaneously created from nothing except chemicals and energy. This is a crackpot notion with no basis in science because nothing like this has ever been accurately observed. It is right up their with some fringe religious beliefs for goofiness.

The primordial soup concept is ridiculous. It assumes that life can be spontaneously created from nothing except chemicals and energy.
Why is that such a ridiculous assumption?

I mean, we're not talking about sentient life or anything here, but single-cell organisms, blurring the line between plant and... non-plant; what is essentially chemicals and energy.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;14518712]I still do not see why you feel the need to focus on Mormons or Mormonism at all. They are not the subject of this thread. I am going to assume that you have some kind of issue with Mormonism that you don't have with other religions, chalk it up to you trotting out a pet peeve, and ignore all subsequent Mormon comments by you.QUOTE]

I am not sure what you are missing. First, as I stated earlier, I am not picking on Mormons. I am pointing out that their position on the origin of the Earth and of geology and paleontology is an outright rejection of observable natural phenomenon not based on ignorance but on the view that any natural observations that indicate contrary to their official teachings are placed their by Satan to guide men astray from the truth and to test their faith.

I do not know if this is a pet peeve. It is something I disagree with because I have faith that God is the creator and that demonic forces (if they even exist) have nothing to do with creation. I believe that fossils are excellent records of evolution in action across time.

Why is that such a ridiculous assumption?

I mean, we're not talking about sentient life or anything here, but single-cell organisms, blurring the line between plant and... non-plant; what is essentially chemicals and energy.

It is absurd because it is a belief in pseudo-science. It is the belief in something that has never been observed in nature. You can take any mix of chemicals in a sophisticated laboratory and zap them with whatever and you will not create a living organism plant, non-plant, single-cell, nothing. If you did, all of a sudden you would have proven that spontaneous devellopment of life was possible and you would win the Nobel Prize of Awesome.

The primordial soup concept is ridiculous. It assumes that life can be spontaneously created from nothing except chemicals and energy.

given that
1) all it takes is chemicals and energy to create the building blocks of life
2) the building blocks of life are, you know, the necessary building blocks
and
3) there was a time before there was life
abiogenesis just sort of follows logically. the exact pathways are still being figured out, but it pretty clearly happened.

It is absurd because it is a belief in pseudo-science. It is the belief in something that has never been observed in nature. You can take any mix of chemicals in a sophisticated laboratory and zap them with whatever and you will not create a living organism plant, non-plant, single-cell, nothing. If you did, all of a sudden you would have proven that spontaneous devellopment of life was possible and you would win the Nobel Prize of Awesome.

"It hasn't been replicated, therefor it's wrong"? Interesting.

So all those theories we had millennia ago about gravity and the position and movement of bodies in space were actually wrong before we had sophisticated enough instruments/technology to provide proof?

It is absurd because it is a belief in pseudo-science. It is the belief in something that has never been observed in nature. You can take any mix of chemicals in a sophisticated laboratory and zap them with whatever and you will not create a living organism plant, non-plant, single-cell, nothing. If you did, all of a sudden you would have proven that spontaneous devellopment of life was possible and you would win the Nobel Prize of Awesome.

Agreed. The best answer is still "We do not know for certain how it happened. Yet".

given that
1) all it takes is chemicals and energy to create the building blocks of life
2) the building blocks of life are, you know, the necessary building blocks
and
3) there was a time before there was life
abiogenesis just sort of follows logically. the exact pathways are still being figured out, but it pretty clearly happened.

Number 1 is a false premise. Although living organisms are chemicals and energy, it has never been proven that all it takes are chemicals and energy to create life. That is the whole point of why the primordial soup theory is pretty much like believing in a giant spaghetti monster created the universe.

Sure. But what exactly is the difference between saying "I don't know how it happened" and "God did it in ways we can not comprehend" ?

In practice: nothing. Except the first one is far less condenscending to other opinions.
I don't mind the agnostic view. I just mind the OMG OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD!! which I find just as overbearing and obnoxious as the Christian extremist view.

Agreed. The best answer is still "We do not know for certain how it happened. Yet".

That is absolutely true. Everyone but extreme zealots would agree with you on that point. Even the pope would probably agree that we do not yet know how life began. Regardless of whether we have faith in some atheistic primordial soup or in a divine act as the cradle from which sprang forth life, we still do not know how it happened.

"It hasn't been replicated, therefor it's wrong"? Interesting.

So all those theories we had millennia ago about gravity and the position and movement of bodies in space were actually wrong before we had sophisticated enough instruments/technology to provide proof?

It is not necessarily wrong. It is just silly to say that it is correct unless it can be demonstrated accordingly. Until then it is just a matter of faith.

I was referring to vermicelli but it was not a joke. For a while the whole topic of the origin of life bizarrely seemed to be centered on trying to put some chemicals in a jar and put some vermicelli in it and seal the jar and see if the noodle comes to life. Once it actually "happened" and the noodle started moving around but this was because something funky grew on the noodle and caused it to move a little. This is one of the most bizzare chapters of the history of science. It was the only experiment ever to conclude (albeit falsely) that life can originate from a primordial soup.

1. I've never heard of this before.

2. "Scientists" are not in the habit of conducting experiments by "putting some chemicals in a jar and seeing if something comes to life."

3. If, as you claim, this happened (which I doubt) and something "funky grew on the noodle"... umm, wouldn't that be life?

Number 1 is a false premise.

no, it really isn't. experiments under a wide range of conditions have created the various organic molecules necessary. turns out that it's pretty easy.

Actually I do believe that recent experimentation has seen spontanious single cell organism creation based on conditions as they are believed to have been. One moment let me look it up.

I don't mind the agnostic view. I just mind the OMG OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD!! which I find just as overbearing and obnoxious as the Christian extremist view.

Everyone is an agnostic except for the people on the fringes. Everyone who says I do not know if there is a God but I think there is acknowledges the possibility of the existance of God and the possiblity of the non-existence of God. These people are the faithful agnostics. Those who say that they do not know but suspect that there is no God are the atheistic agnostics.

I would say that most religious people are faithful agnostics. I would say that most suicide bombers and people who castrate themselves and where white nike shoes and poison themselves in order to go to the Hale Bop Comet are non-agnostics. Most atheists are probably atheist agnostics in that they mostly seem to be a fairly reasonable bunch of folks.

Ah here we go, not QUITE done yet, but close, RNA strands from the primordial soup:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

Actually I do believe that recent experimentation has seen spontanious single cell organism creation based on conditions as they are believed to have been. One moment let me look it up.

If that is the case it should have been major news. That would be the biggest discovery in science to date.

Oh. My. God.

I can't spam this whole freaking forum alone, you guys! I need some help!

1. I've never heard of this before.

2. "Scientists" are not in the habit of conducting experiments by "putting some chemicals in a jar and seeing if something comes to life."

3. If, as you claim, this happened (which I doubt) and something "funky grew on the noodle"... umm, wouldn't that be life?

1. I encourage us to look it up and report back with our findings. It happened a long time ago is all I recall.

2. We are not talking about very modern scientists. I think that the one that started moving might have been a control that had no chemicals.

3. No this was contamination. A bunch of bacteria or something got into the jar adhered to the pasta grew and made it move a little.

The point was not can we find a living thing to grow on pasta. The point was to make the pasta come alive itself. Again, this sounds pretty wierd because it was wierd.

Everyone is an agnostic except for the people on the fringes.

I would say that most religious people are faithful agnostics.

I think this is a pretty bold statement with nothing to back it up. I think if you asked most regular church-goers if they were agnostic, the answer would be a resounding "no". And I'll bet anything you like that Pope Benedict would not say that we "don't know" the origin of life.

Ah here we go, not QUITE done yet, but close, RNA strands from the primordial soup:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

clearly this is intelligent design!

I think this is a pretty bold statement with nothing to back it up. I think if you asked most regular church-goers if they were agnostic, the answer would be a resounding "no". And I'll bet anything you like that Pope Benedict would not say that we "don't know" the origin of life.

The point of faith is that you do not know 100% for sure that something is true that you believe in. In your heart and soul you may feel like you know it to be true but you do not know it to be true. If we knew something to be true we would not need faith. That is the beauty of faith.

It is not necessarily wrong. It is just silly to say that it is correct unless it can be demonstrated accordingly. Until then it is just a matter of faith.

No, until it is demonstrated it is a hypothesis. Please provide some evidence for this pasta based experiment. I think you are thinking of the Miller-Urey experiment
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
which featured no Italian food at all.

Oh. My. God.

Cue "belief vs. knowledge" debate.

Oh. My. God.

Cue "belief vs. knowledge" debate.

we already did. it was decided that it is possible to know that 2 and 2 make 19 while at the same time believing that they make 37.

1. I encourage us to look it up and report back with our findings. It happened a long time ago is all I recall.

2. We are not talking about very modern scientists. I think that the one that started moving might have been a control that had no chemicals.

3. No this was contamination. A bunch of bacteria or something got into the jar adhered to the pasta grew and made it move a little.

The point was not can we find a living thing to grow on pasta. The point was to make the pasta come alive itself. Again, this sounds pretty wierd because it was wierd.

Please provide some sort of source for this experiment, because no scientist for the last hundred years would have tried it. It's simply impossible to remove all biological contamination from the pasta, which renders any results invalid.

Ah here we go, not QUITE done yet, but close, RNA strands from the primordial soup:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

Amazing! This is really impressive science!

Please provide some sort of source for this experiment, because no scientist for the last hundred years would have tried it. It's simply impossible to remove all biological contamination from the pasta, which renders any results invalid.

I would love to but alas I am just remembering stuff from over half a lifetime ago. I will get back to you if I can find something about it on the internet.

I do not know about you guys but all of this talk of vermicelli is making me want to have Italian food for dinner.

Cue "belief vs. knowledge" debate.

It's a bit late for that!

Please provide some sort of source for this experiment, because no scientist for the last hundred years would have tried it. It's simply impossible to remove all biological contamination from the pasta, which renders any results invalid.

I think this was some old school science.

I think this was some old school science.

I think you are just mistaken about the details of the Miller-Urey experiment. Or your school science teacher was just making shit up.

I would love to but alas I am just remembering stuff from over half a lifetime ago. I will get back to you if I can find something about it on the internet.

Reminds me of the Andrew Crosse scandal. (Well, reminds me of hearing about it - the actual event was a bit before my time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse#Controversy

A controversy that was, it seems, entirely made up by religious people. Much like the 'controversy' over evolution.

No it's not; at least, it's perfectly valid to use 'creationist' to describe "anybody who believes in a creator deity", which includes most religious people.

Only if you want to confuse people.
Sure, in the West in recent years, 'creationist' is used mostly in reference to Christian Young Earth Creationism

The word was never used, anywhere, until it was coined as a term for opponents of evolution.

Do Creationists really believe it is possible to populate an entire species based on a single reproductive pairing? I mean how many years must we put up with debating the scientific merits of religious mythology? There is no doubt value in looking with a critical eye at evolutionary biology or astrophysics, and questioning what you see instead of accepting it blindly. But when your sole purpose to do so is to cover up the fact that your alternative 'theory' is God Did It With God Magic it becomes patently clearly the person is not trying to be critical, but to sell their religious beliefs under a false pretense.

All of which seems highly non-righteous to me, but this is after all, politics, and not science or religion at all.

It is absurd because it is a belief in pseudo-science. It is the belief in something that has never been observed in nature.
You're being too strong; I believe that dark matter is a good explanation for much of what is going on in the universe, though it has never been observed in nature, and I wouldn't call it 'pseudo-science'.

I'm not saying 'life originated in this way, just that it doesn't seem completely infeasible.


we already did. it was decided that it is possible to know that 2 and 2 make 19 while at the same time believing that they make 37.
I don't believe we did.

(Boom boom!)

Only if you want to confuse people.
Only if those people are too focused on one small group of YEC folks.

The word was never used, anywhere, until it was coined as a term for opponents of evolution.
On the contrary, it appears (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism) to have been used in the (sensible) way I use it since the mid-1800s.

I looked online and it seems that the spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter was generally accepted as true up until Louis Pasteur came on the scene. For a while there were recipes on how to create different animals such as mice and flies. I think that the vermicelli experiments were done during this pre-Pasteur period. Since pasta was involved I bet that it was done in italy. If science is still being taught the way it used to be taught, all you guys have to do is ask one of your kids (I am childless and thus of no help there) maybe it was mentioned in one of their textbooks.

On the contrary, it appears (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism) to have been used in the (sensible) way I use it since the mid-1800s.
I see no such citation, and have never heard of any such usage.

I looked online and it seems that the spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter was generally accepted as true up until Louis Pasteur came on the scene. For a while there were recipes on how to create different animals such as mice and flies. I think that the vermicelli experiments were done during this pre-Pasteur period. Since pasta was involved I bet that it was done in italy. If science is still being taught the way it used to be taught, all you guys have to do is ask one of your kids (I am childless and thus of no help there) maybe it was mentioned in one of their textbooks.

Do you really think things like this are taught in science classes? You could do with getting your facts straight before trying to use them to construct an argument.

I kept finding some reference to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein wherein she talks about experiments of a Dr. Darwin involving vermicelli in a test tube that moved on its own. I do not know if this helps anyone or if anyone other than me is even looking on the interney trying to figure this out.

Do you really think things like this are taught in science classes? You could do with getting your facts straight before trying to use them to construct an argument.

I learned about it in science class so yes. It was in a life science class and we talked about the history of our understanding of the origin of life.

I looked online and it seems that the spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter was generally accepted as true up until Louis Pasteur came on the scene. For a while there were recipes on how to create different animals such as mice and flies. I think that the vermicelli experiments were done during this pre-Pasteur period. Since pasta was involved I bet that it was done in italy. If science is still being taught the way it used to be taught, all you guys have to do is ask one of your kids (I am childless and thus of no help there) maybe it was mentioned in one of their textbooks.

There's a mention of an experiment where meat was left uncovered and another covered and maggots appeared on the uncovered meat.....but that's about it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/francesco-redi

[QUOTE=Chumblywumbly;14519353]You're being too strong; I believe that dark matter is a good explanation for much of what is going on in the universe, though it has never been observed in nature, and I wouldn't call it 'pseudo-science'.
QUOTE]

if dark matter and anti matter are the same things, I have heard that it has been observed in nature and is very rare and very dangerous stuff.

There's a mention of an experiment where meat was left uncovered and another covered and maggots appeared on the uncovered meat.....but that's about it.

Yes that is the sort of stuff that was going on when someone supposedly saw a noodle move a little in a jar.

if dark matter and anti matter are the same things

Uh, they aren't.

if dark matter and anti matter are the same things, I have heard that it has been observed in nature and is very rare and very dangerous stuff.

They (almost certainly) aren't. Before saying things, try learning even the slightest bit of information about what you're talking about.

They (almost certainly) aren't. Before saying things, try learning even the slightest bit of information about what you're talking about.

I was just asking.

I see no such citation, and have never heard of any such usage.
This (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=creationism&searchmode=none) site, which cites its sources on its front page, notes that 'creationism' was used as the religious reaction to Darwinism in the 1800s, though it does recognise that 'Creator', as supreme being, was used as far back as the 1300s.

And I'd you ask the question I asked Mura, what would you call those religious theories which posit a creator god(s) as the progenitor(s) of the universe?

I kept finding some reference to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein wherein she talks about experiments of a Dr. Darwin involving vermicelli in a test tube that moved on its own. I do not know if this helps anyone or if anyone other than me is even looking on the interney trying to figure this out.

Okay yeah you're just making this up.

I learned about it in science class so yes. It was in a life science class and we talked about the history of our understanding of the origin of life.

So if you understand that it was taught as an example of pseudo-science, predating Pasteurs scientific experiments, why on earth are you claiming it as a scientific experiment?

I was just asking.

Well, allow me to educate you then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Should do for a start.

In future, try looking up such things yourself before saying them.

So if you understand that it was taught as an example of pseudo-science, predating Pasteurs scientific experiments, why on earth are you claiming it as a scientific experiment?

Because back in the day they did not know about microbiology. There was some speculation but that was it. The noodle was observed to have moved and this seemed to support the idea that life can spontaneously be created from nonlife. However, this was really just an example of a bad experiment because of contamination.

I think you are reading too much into this. This experiment was just an anecdote. What was really fascinating was the creation of RNA in a laboratory. That takes the concept of the primordial soup and for the first time gives it or almost gives it some science to back it up.

I was just asking.
Aye, well there's plenty in science that is conjectured and yet unobserved... but not pseudo-science. Though wariness on these conjectures is advisable.

And if I was, say , a rather pedantic philosophy student, I could point out that there is nothing in the observable world that shows us that observations in the surrounding universe should be (a) trusted, and (b) assumed to be always the case, and thus, according to your earlier definition, all of science is pseudo-science.

But, of course, I'm nothing of the sort.

Well, allow me to educate you then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Should do for a start.

In future, try looking up such things yourself before saying them.

No way! That stuff sounds complicated. I would rather just ask you if the stuff is the same or different and take your word for it.

Aye, well there's plenty in science that is conjectured and yet unobserved... but not pseudo-science. Though wariness on these conjectures is advisable.

And if I was, say , a rather pedantic philosophy student, I could point out that there is nothing in the observable world that shows us that observations in the surrounding universe should be (a) trusted, and (b) assumed to be always the case, and thus, according to your earlier definition, all of science is pseudo-science.

But, of course, I'm nothing of the sort.

Me neither. Interestingly enough, according to Hinduism that is pretty much how the world is. It is all a big illusion. Pretty trippy.

Because back in the day they did not know about microbiology. There was some speculation but that was it. The noodle was observed to have moved and this seemed to support the idea that life can spontaneously be created from nonlife. However, this was really just an example of a bad experiment because of contamination.

I think you are reading too much into this. This experiment was just an anecdote. What was really fascinating was the creation of RNA in a laboratory. That takes the concept of the primordial soup and for the first time gives it or almost gives it some science to back it up.

Perhaps you should learn not to use anecdotes as evidence when trying to make a point.

Evolution is rediculous! The human race was created by the Lord God Almighty, not some cosmic accident!!! Hebrews 11: 1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11:1-3), 4-10 is TOO high to have this many mislead, and misguided.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp60/ajac95/Monkey.jpg

Evolution is rediculous! The human race was created by the Lord God Almighty, not some cosmic accident!!! Hebrews 11: 1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11:1-3), 4-10 is TOO high to have this many mislead, and misguided.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp60/ajac95/Monkey.jpg

What I enjoy about this cartoon is that you're agreeing with the monkey.

Evolution is rediculous! The human race was created by the Lord God Almighty, not some cosmic accident!!! Hebrews 11: 1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11:1-3), 4-10 is TOO high to have this many mislead, and misguided.

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp60/ajac95/Monkey.jpg

Welcome to Nationstates General!

*Pulls flight goggles into place*

Prepare for turbulence!

*does a barrel roll*

is TOO high

seems like

Perhaps you should learn not to use anecdotes as evidence when trying to make a point.

Nah I like anecdotes. They are fun. What the hell is the point of anything if we cant drop funny little historical annecdotes? That would be like a court opinion with just ratio decidendi and no orbita dictum.

Because back in the day they did not know about microbiology. There was some speculation but that was it. The noodle was observed to have moved and this seemed to support the idea that life can spontaneously be created from nonlife. However, this was really just an example of a bad experiment because of contamination.

I think you are reading too much into this. This experiment was just an anecdote. What was really fascinating was the creation of RNA in a laboratory. That takes the concept of the primordial soup and for the first time gives it or almost gives it some science to back it up.

The question is - are you lying or do you genuinely not know?

See - I read a wide variety of stuff, and I have come up with three options, two of which make your 'I was taught it at school' story either a lie, or a complete mis-recollection on your part.

The first - you read this 'vermicelli' story where lots of other people have read it - in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein". It IS there, but it's a little dishonest to say you were taught it at school - unless you 'mean' that you studied that book in English, maybe.

The second option - you are familiar with the work of the 'Creation Scientist' Jospeh Mastropaolo, who has several times referred to the Mary Shelley phrasing in his attacks on evolution. Again - this doesn't really tie in very well with your 'they taught us at school' paradigm.

The third option, is that Joseph Mastropaolo was your teacher. That's possible IF you were studying physiology of biomechanics, at California State University between 1968 or 1994. It doesn't REALLY fit your 'at school' answer, either.


There is actually a fourth option. You've encountered the same research that Mary Shelley was confused about, and are similarly confused about it. It seems unlikely , given what else you've said, and how much science you seem familiar with.

The story you are referring to (as was Mary Shelley), is Darwin's account of re-activation of microscopic 'wheel animals' (also known as vorticella) from a dormant state, with the addition of water.

Mary Shelley may have been making a joke, she may have misunderstood or she may have mis-remembered. It's an outlier possibility that you have been doing the same. But it doesn't seem likely.

Which leaves you with trying to pass off "Frankenstein" as a scientific source... or with recycling Mastropaolo's propaganda.

No way! That stuff sounds complicated. I would rather just ask you if the stuff is the same or different and take your word for it.

Or you could have read the first three lines of each wiki page, where it tells you that one is to do with astrophysics and galaxies, and the other is an extension of the concept of antiparticles.

Or just studied physics at high school.

Alright, I understand and sympathise.

Although, the same could be said as an argument against atheism / science, simply by replacing some words...

"it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what creationism is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace faith with science by injecting science into areas in which it creates immorality and evil. Like teaching science classes and neglecting creationism. Or like using science as the foundation for laws governing morals and values, or medical research."

See? I'm not trying to attack anyone here. Just trying to make clear that your arguments can be used in the same way against you. What I'm trying to say is, your argument only sounds reasonable to a person already thinking science>religion, while the opposite of your argument only appeals to persons thinking religion>science, etc...

Not at all. It could also appeal to people who value both science and religion, but think each has its place.

No way! That stuff sounds complicated. I would rather just ask you if the stuff is the same or different and take your word for it.

*palmface*

Dark matter and dark energy are theoretical substances which, in my understanding (which is certainly limited, as I am a Lit major and a kindergarten teacher and not a scientist), account for the disparity between our best estimate of the mass of the known universe and our observations of the universe's rate of expansion.

Antiparticles have actually been both observed in the natural universe and created under laboratory conditions.

The third option, is that Joseph Mastropaolo was your teacher. That's possible IF you were studying physiology of biomechanics, at California State University between 1968 or 1994. It doesn't REALLY fit your 'at school' answer, either.

Which CSU? There are many.

The story you are referring to (as was Mary Shelley), is Darwin's account of re-activation of microscopic 'wheel animals' (also known as vorticella) from a dormant state, with the addition of water.

Sounds delicious with pesto.

It is not necessarily wrong. It is just silly to say that it is correct unless it can be demonstrated accordingly. Until then it is just a matter of faith.

A scientific theory is an explanation of how things happen(ed), not observed fact.

By your definition, every scientific theory is accepted just as a matter of faith.

Why is creationism only big in USA?

People... 'know' things they don't believe.

No they don't.

No, until it is demonstrated it is a hypothesis.

Technically, until it is tested and adequately supported, it is a hypothesis. Once it has stood up to enough testing, it becomes a theory, and remains so until it is disproven.

Why is creationism only big in USA?

Because all the Muslim fundamentalists are busy doing whatever they do.

Why is creationism only big in USA?

It isn't.

No they don't.

Wow. How can I respond to as overwhelming a response as that?

I've quite clearly shown, several times, things I 'know' but don't 'believe', and you've.... well, haven't done much of anything. Why should I believe you? What have you got... denial is the only card in your hand?

No they don't.

Yes they do. Doublethink.

Because all the Muslim fundamentalists are busy doing whatever they do.

Believing that, everything and all, outside USA can be considered as Muslim Fundamentalism is rather.... (I forgot the word, can someone help me out?)

Wow. How can I respond to as overwhelming a response as that?


It's reciprocal.


I've quite clearly shown, several times, things I 'know' but don't 'believe', and you've

I've yet to see a single example.

Why should I believe you? What have you got... denial is the only card in your hand?

Same to you, why on earth should I believe that people commonly do something logically impossible, almost paradoxical.

I've yet to see a single example.


I'd advise you to search the forums. There's a thread called: "4 out of 10 Americans believe in Evolution", I think - and my posts are probably mainly in there. They shouldn't be too hard to find, they'll have my name somewhere to the left, and an avatar with glowy red eyes.

I know, I know... that's just me, too helpful. No thanks necessary.


Same to you, why on earth should I believe that people commonly do something logically impossible, almost paradoxical.

Because neither of those conditions are true, and you've done nothing to prove they are. (Unless you consider the crushing grip of reason that was your latest 'No they don't' response).

It's not logically impossible, there's nothing paradoxical about it - you've just decided your terms.

I'd advise you to search the forums. There's a thread called: "4 out of 10 Americans believe in Evolution", I think - and my posts are probably mainly in there. They shouldn't be too hard to find, they'll have my name somewhere to the left, and an avatar with glowy red eyes.

I know, I know... that's just me, too helpful. No thanks necessary.


If you're referring to the "I know the x history, but don't believe it", you've already been shown, several times, that is not a legitimate example.


Because neither of those conditions are true, and you've done nothing to prove they are. (Unless you consider the crushing grip of reason that was your latest 'No they don't' response).

It's not logically impossible, there's nothing paradoxical about it - you've just decided your terms.

To know something, is to be aware of a fact. Which means to be aware that some proposition is true. Which means to accept that that proposition is true. And guess what, accepting a proposition as true, is exactly the definition of belief.

If you're referring to the "I know the x history, but don't believe it", you've already been shown, several times, that is not a legitimate example.


No, I haven't. The best you've managed is to trot out the same 'definition', which you somehow think verifies itself? You've not come close to 'showing, several times' anything.


To know something, is to be aware of a fact. Which means to be aware that some proposition is true.


False assertion. The one doesn't lead to the other.


Which means to accept that that proposition is true. And guess what, accepting a proposition as true, is exactly the definition of belief.

You can believe things ABOUT something, without believing THAT thing. You can KNOW that thing, and have beliefs ABOUT it, without believing IT.

In my country, we put creationists into a nuthouse.

We are achieving good results with curing this mental disorder.

No, I haven't. The best you've managed is to trot out the same 'definition', which you somehow think verifies itself? You've not come close to 'showing, several times' anything.
I believe Hydesland is referring to my posts here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14518743&postcount=609) and before, FS's post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14518770&postcount=614), and others.

You can believe things ABOUT something, without believing THAT thing. You can KNOW that thing, and have beliefs ABOUT it, without believing IT.
But you don't know it, you know about it (as you say yourself).

That's quite different from knowing and not believing.

EDIT: I've been rather sloppy; one certainly can believe something without knowing it, that's not what I'm arguing against.

Wow. How can I respond to as overwhelming a response as that?

I've quite clearly shown, several times, things I 'know' but don't 'believe', and you've.... well, haven't done much of anything. Why should I believe you? What have you got... denial is the only card in your hand?

*ponders*

I "know" that my actions don't in any way influence, say, the success or failure of professional sports franchises, but when it comes right down to it I don't "believe" it--I still go nuts when someone says "shutout" and I still adjust what I do in minor ways (what I wear, whether the TV's muted or not) according to the score. Does that count?

I "know" that my actions don't in any way influence, say, the success or failure of professional sports franchises, but when it comes right down to it I don't "believe" it--I still go nuts when someone says "shutout" and I still adjust what I do in minor ways (what I wear, whether the TV's muted or not) according to the score. Does that count?
What do you mean by you 'believe' it?

Do you hold the belief that you have an influence on the success or failure of professional sports franchises?

You can KNOW that thing . . . without believing IT.

No, you can not.

Americans, like this guy (http://freddyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ugly_fat_man_picture-_funfry1.jpg), believe all is created by some god.

Can you know something without accepting it? Perhaps that's the confusion here - defining "accept" "vs "belief"

I believe Hydesland is referring to my posts here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14518743&postcount=609) and before, FS's post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14518770&postcount=614), and others.

Neither of which offers a definition, supports a definition, or 'shows something several times'.

At best - your own experience is the mirror of mine. You associate knowledge with belief. And you make the same discernment I recently referenced - that you can believe something ABOUT something, without believing that thing. FS's post invoked 'technical definition' but didn't show or support it, and made claims about 'everyday usage' which, to be honest, I don't believe even FS believes.

Everyday usage of 'belief' is things that you accept as true. Everyday usage of 'knowledge' is just facts in your head.

If that's what Hydesland is referring to, he's wrong about what he thinks those posts do.

No, you can not.

Why?

What do you mean by you 'believe' it?

Do you hold the belief that you have an influence on the success or failure of professional sports franchises?

Well. Yes.

But the thing is, I KNOW I don't. I know that is crazy and impossible and silly. However, if my team has scored every time I've gone into the kitchen, and they're down by a goal with only minutes remaining, I will go into the kitchen, and if--coincidentally!--they score, while I KNOW rationally they are unconnected, I still believe that my going into the kitchen had some sort of cosmic influence.

The dissonance really does drive me nuts. I always imagine this is what it's like to believe in God.

Neither of which offers a definition, supports a definition, or 'shows something several times'.
Fair nuff.

I'm just attempting to prevent yet another round of "you said this!", "no I didn't!".

At best - your own experience is the mirror of mine. You associate knowledge with belief. And you make the same discernment I recently referenced - that you can believe something ABOUT something, without believing that thing.
I agree, though we've strayed from the original topic of knowing something and believing the opposite.

Hmmm... perhaps a threadsplit is in order?

Why?

well, ok, I read your post and I THINK I see what you're saying.

Let's say that I believe that Columbus set sale in 1875. I believe this to be true. And now someone comes up to me and says "no, dummy, that was in 1492". Now, I don't believe this, I don't believe it happened in 1492, I believe it happened in 1875. However, now that this individual has informed me of the fact that Columbus set sale in 1492, I now know the correct fact. I don't BELIEVE it to be correct, but I know it. I think that's your position.

I would posit differently, however, I do not "know" that it did in fact happen in 1492. I merely know that this individual believes it does. Merely being told a fact (even a correct fact) and thus having the knowledge imparted into my brain doesn't make me KNOW that fact, it just makes me KNOW the fact is believed to be true by someone else.

You seem to be operating under the definition that as long as the fact is in your head, even if you don't believe that fact, you know it. I disagree, you don't "know" something until you've accepted it as true. Until then you only know that others believe it.

However, if my team has scored every time I've gone into the kitchen, and they're down by a goal with only minutes remaining, I will go into the kitchen, and if--coincidentally!--they score, while I KNOW rationally they are unconnected, I still believe that my going into the kitchen had some sort of cosmic influence.
Forgive me for badgering, but what sort of belief are you talking about?

I presume you don't believe that there is a direct causal link between you entering the kitchen and your team scoring... Or do you?

No, I haven't. The best you've managed is to trot out the same 'definition', which you somehow think verifies itself? You've not come close to 'showing, several times' anything.



It's so circular. You give an example, to show how you can know something but not believe the same thing. We show you how that example fails. And then you claim that it's because we're using a 'faulty definition', because 'you can know something but not believe it', which leads us right back where we started.


False assertion. The one doesn't lead to the other.


Wow, this is getting really silly. A fact is by definition, a true position.


You can believe things ABOUT something, without believing THAT thing.

That's EXACTLY what we've been trying to tell you. But you seem to have this stupid idea that knowing ABOUT something, is the same as knowing something.

Americans, like this guy (http://freddyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ugly_fat_man_picture-_funfry1.jpg), believe all is created by some god.

Funny, I am an American, I believe in God, I also believe in science and evolution, I am NOT a bald morbidly obese guy, and I KNOW you are flamebaiting.

You're warned.

Forgive me for badgering, but what sort of belief are you talking about?

I presume you don't believe that there is a direct causal link between you entering the kitchen and your team scoring... Or do you?

Are you trying to tell me that football fans in the U.K. don't have these kinds of superstitions and beliefs??

*sigh* Yes, yes I do "believe" there is a direct causal link. And let me reiterate that I KNOW there isn't. I don't suffer from any psychosis and I am a reasonable person.

Just... not when my team is down a goal/run/basket.

Look, okay. 2003 World Series Playoffs, Red Sox vs. A's. I was a Sox fan at the time (this may explain a lot...), ex boyfriend was an A's fan. The A's took a 2-0 lead in the series. After game 2, he left two of his A's hats at my place. So I hid them. Wrapped them up in a towel and hid them on a shelf. The Red Sox went on to win the next three games and the series.

When he asked where his hats were and I had to take them down from the shelf, he didn't talk to me for two days. All of our friends understood why, I understood why. I had cursed the A's. While I know rationally that my actions and his hats had NOTHING to do with that series, in my heart, we all BELIEVED that they were connected. And still do, in some way.

Are you trying to tell me that football fans in the U.K. don't have these kinds of superstitions and beliefs??

*sigh* Yes, yes I do "believe" there is a direct causal link. And let me reiterate that I KNOW there isn't. I don't suffer from any psychosis and I am a reasonable person.

Just... not when my team is down a goal/run/basket.

Look, okay. 2003 World Series Playoffs, Red Sox vs. A's. I was a Sox fan at the time (this may explain a lot...), ex boyfriend was an A's fan. The A's took a 2-0 lead in the series. After game 2, he left two of his A's hats at my place. So I hid them. Wrapped them up in a towel and hid them on a shelf. The Red Sox went on to win the next three games and the series.

When he asked where his hats were and I had to take them down from the shelf, he didn't talk to me for two days. All of our friends understood why, I understood why. I had cursed the A's. While I know rationally that my actions and his hats had NOTHING to do with that series, in my heart, we all BELIEVED that they were connected. And still do, in some way.

I would posit then that you don't KNOW as absolute certainty that it doesn't have an effect. You probably believe it most likely does not, but if you believe it MIGHT, then I think you can't KNOW it does not.

Are you trying to tell me that football fans in the U.K. don't have these kinds of superstitions and beliefs??
No, but I'd argue that they either, (a) believe the superstition to genuinely work, and don't hold any knowledge of it not working, or (b) know it doesn't work, but repeat the superstition as ritual.

But, as I understand it, you're claiming neither of the above.

Yes, yes I do "believe" there is a direct causal link. And let me reiterate that I KNOW there isn't.
Would you say that the knowledge of the superstition's uselessness includes a belief that it doesn't work, i.e. a contradictory belief?

When he asked where his hats were and I had to take them down from the shelf, he didn't talk to me for two days. All of our friends understood why, I understood why. I had cursed the A's. While I know rationally that my actions and his hats had NOTHING to do with that series, in my heart, we all BELIEVED that they were connected. And still do, in some way.
Then I'd say your 'knowledge' isn't actual knowledge, for you don't believe it fully. If you genuinely believe that curses exist, that superstitions have effect, then I don't see how you can also believe/know the opposite.

Though I realise I'm begging the question somewhat.

we already did. it was decided that it is possible to know that 2 and 2 make 19 while at the same time believing that they make 37.

If there is one thing I KNOW AND BELIEVE about NSG, having already had a debate NEVER STOPS YOU FROM REPEATING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't honestly believe there are 50 pages of unique points in this thread, do you???

It's a bit late for that!

:headbang:

And a bit late for the abortion/gay rights/pedophilia/religion/evolution debate, as well. And yet they are repeated ad nauseum. I mean, what is even the point anymore? At least all the innuendo, "that's what she said" and spam is lighthearted and funny.

well, ok, I read your post and I THINK I see what you're saying.

Let's say that I believe that Columbus set sale in 1875. I believe this to be true. And now someone comes up to me and says "no, dummy, that was in 1492". Now, I don't believe this, I don't believe it happened in 1492, I believe it happened in 1875. However, now that this individual has informed me of the fact that Columbus set sale in 1492, I now know the correct fact. I don't BELIEVE it to be correct, but I know it. I think that's your position.

I would posit differently, however, I do not "know" that it did in fact happen in 1492. I merely know that this individual believes it does. Merely being told a fact (even a correct fact) and thus having the knowledge imparted into my brain doesn't make me KNOW that fact, it just makes me KNOW the fact is believed to be true by someone else.

You seem to be operating under the definition that as long as the fact is in your head, even if you don't believe that fact, you know it. I disagree, you don't "know" something until you've accepted it as true. Until then you only know that others believe it.

Your last paragraph comes close... and we disagree. I don't see how you justify 'knowing' with the assertion it must be 'true', and I think we thrashed that one a few pages back.

I'm trying to thinkl of an eloquent and explanatory way of phrasing it... but, until I do - consider the agnostic theist - and try to apply knowing, believing, and truth, objectively.

See? I was right!

If there is one thing I KNOW AND BELIEVE about NSG, having already had a debate NEVER STOPS YOU FROM REPEATING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't honestly believe there are 50 pages of unique points in this thread, do you???

Yeah, spread the ennui around. Cheers!

You can believe things ABOUT something, without believing THAT thing.

precisely. pre-fucking-cisely. the reason is because the things to be believed in those two instances are different things. specifically, the 'about' formulation translates to something like, x believes y about z. the 'that' formulation, on the other hand, translates as x believes z.

consider the agnostic theist - and try to apply knowing

The agnostic theist does not know if God is real.


, believing,


but believes he is.


and truth, objectively.

He does not believe it is possible to objectively know the truth of whether God is real or not.

The agnostic theist does not know if God is real.



but believes he is.



He does not believe it is possible to objectively know the truth of whether God is real or not.

So, knowledge and belief do not match, and truth cannot be determined.

You seem to be operating under the definition that as long as the fact is in your head, even if you don't believe that fact, you know it.
Your last paragraph comes close...

in addition to being really weird, that makes your attempt to get billy off the hook of knowing that 2 and 2 make 19 by saying that he does know such fall right the fuck apart. unless you further seek to claim that 'fact' means any sort of cognitive content at all or something.