Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Okay so if I concede to the Creationist's point that Evolution is JUST a theory, how does that help them again?
By the way I totally DON'T concede anything to the Creationists, and to learn why the Creationist's "It's just a theory" argument is fully of dinosaur crap just click here.
A book by Edward O. Wilson, "The Social Conquest of Earth", has just been published and has been described as a groundbreaking book on evolution. Wilson, a Harvard biologist, is recognized as the most celebrated heir to Darwin.
The book directly addresses the questions of religion, philosophy, and science.
Check out the reviews on Amazon. It is a very important book that many on IM should appreciate.
Gryphen, I'll believe your far-fetched EVIL-ooshun "theory" when you can show me a talking monkey. Clearly, if evilution is true, then there has to be a monkey that can talk, but is not yet so evolved it can work in investment banking, for example. Until then, I gotta say, the whole rib thang seems a LOT more plausible.
And if Darwin invented evolution, as you claim, why didnt he ever evolve wings or an extra arm, which many would find useful?
And while you're looking for the monkey, I would also enjoy seeing some swarthy plate spinners like they used to have on the Ed Sullivan Show and early Alice Cooper concerts. And what happened to the trained dog acts? The ones with skirts and cowboy hats?
And you know what else I havent seen in ages? Diet Dr. Pibb! Now THAT was a beverage! I could really go for one right now, even tho it's still early.
Speaking of dogs, the other day I saw a coyote run out of my backyard, across a busy boulevard and down a long side street until it turned into someone else's backyard. He seemed to be in a hurry. Can coyotes tell time?
Well, Gryphen, I have to say, I definitely prefer this manner of respectful debate of Creationism vs Godless Science to the snarky mockery (or is it mocky snarkery?) one usually finds on your blog. It's only thru such discussion that the TRUTH about the LIES of Science will be revealed and accepted by the general public.
But seriously, I'd really like to see that talking monkey. Thank you.
What does a monkey talking have to do with evolution? If a human wasn't taught how to speak a language, he couldn't communicate with others except by sign language. If a monkey is taught sign language, and they have been taught that in the past, they could "talk" to humans. Go to Sea World and you can watch trainers and dolphins communicating with other.
Darwin didn't "invent" evolution, he observed in nature traits in animals and plant life and developed a logical theory for others besides himself to study further. He, along with thousands of other scientist further observed and discovered further evidence that supported their theory, and they continue today to add to that knowledge base.
You ask if coyotes can tell time. Besides not just coyotes, how can other animals on earth, such as birds, whales, and even Monarch butterflies know when to migrate. And not just animals, how do plants know when to flower or drop their leaves?
But I would also like to know, where is the physical evidence that God created man and the world around us. For instance, show us physical evidence the universe was created in 7 days. And by physical evidence, I mean something we all can put our hands on and see for ourselves that this thing you provided can have no other possible explanation for it being there. The Bible was written by man, so it's a creation of man that can only be believed by faith in what it says. Show us physical evidence or proof that what it say is true.
Chances are very high that neither you, or any of your fellow believers will not try to answer my question. The reason is simple, you can't.
What they do every time they spew this garbage is show not only how scientifically illiterate they are, but also how illogical. It's called the fallacy of ambiguity. the·o·ry
Definition of THEORY 1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art(the theory and practice of medicine) 2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena (a theory of organic evolution)—see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory 3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
Evolution falls under definition Two, they try to put it under definition Three. DOLTS.
Sorry, Gryphen, it's a "faith" thing. Not based on anything solid, no evidence, no reasoning, It's a faith in God telling the story, therefore whatever scientists' hypothesis draws out, which may shake old studies and bring in new improved studies about the dawn of the creation of the world and of man brings debates and arguments. Besides, whatever we believe today will not flinch one inch of the past.
But, when believers in God are taunted, teased, used, killed, hated, robbed, assaulted, etc., by this "new improved man evolved over millions of years", they are not impressed much. They want a connection with a perfect creator, they will search their heart for him. You just can't chalk off what people really want in their soul of souls, heart of hearts. It's may be ignorant to some to want to believe in a creator who had a Plan A, then Plan B, and who wrote his Word through the prophets. And that the Word is life, it draws men to God. It seems to have that warm penetrable promise that all things gone wrong were not in vain, that a man's SOUL will live forever and in a perfect joyful tearless painless protected place from all the evil connivings of men who choose wicknedness.
Is it so wrong to WANT to know there is something better after this life? The dying could tell us a story or two. Many sense a spiritual comfort that they can't explain. No anthropoligist can explain this.
A spiritual connection to God is a beautiful thing. Don't knock it til you've tried it.
Children are "taught", not "born", to believe in God, or many gods.
Yes, everyone wants to know what happens after they die -- after all, it is the biggest mystery of life. But some (and more all the time) have come to believe that to die is to finish with one's life, and, just as one is not sentient during sleep, then death is simply the same as eternal sleep. However, the ego has great difficulty entertaining that idea, and so posits that there may be sentience in another life. They think there may be a heaven where everyone they've ever known will be "there", or they may believe that their ego will be re-incarnated into another life. Or, if they've been taught to believe in hell (where they're sure to go if they've been bad), then that's where they'll end up. A clever and dastardly way of trying to make people behave... What most who believe in an afterlife cannot imagine is that there will be no "there" there, and neither will they.
You need to read your Freud and your Marx. And yes, it is a bad thing, because in many instances, it keeps people a) form really living their lives NOW, HERE, authentically, with being towards death. (that's Heidegger - and PAscal was wrong.) It also can keep them from really trying to improve thei rlot here, and subject themselves instead to oppression based on some afterlife reward - ever wonder why many of the capitalist owners REQUIRED their employees in the mills to attend church? BTW, that's where the phrase Religion is the opium of the people comes from - just like addicts, religion allows oppression and quiets justified revolt. It is no coincidence that many of the "founding father" revolutionaries where enlightenment thinkers in the process of throwing off theism for deism and on the road to secular/scientific thinking.
Ah, but they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I am a scientist. I believe in the scientific method. And each new scientific discovery only increases my awe for the Great Unknown - God, whatever you want to call it out there.
And when the believers of God, taunt, tease, torture and prosecute those of science, we are not impressed much either.
The "It's a faith thing" argument vs. evolution and science always amuses me. What gives me comfort is knowing there are people of faith who can set their faith aside, and accept scientific proof as valid.
(And my "people of faith", I include all faiths and beliefs.)
I don't think that creationism fits that definition of hypothesis. "...scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." How do you test "an invisible man in the sky with supernatural powers made it happen"?
I want to know- When my oldest was little he loved dinosaures. There were only a few he had a little book and couldname them. Now they have found all kinds of themeven little tiny ones of different time frames. how could the earth only be 7-10 thousand yrs old? doesn't make sense. How come there are differnt kinds of people ? differnt skulls ans bodies all this happen in this time frame/ doesn't make sense. Why isn't God just waying his fingure to make the world a better place? They can'r answer any questions like this. Why would God want them to save every fetus yo a life of no food, water, slave labor and being sexually exploited????
And then there's this crap form Laddie, Blah, blah so appropriately named, right?
There has been an in-house rebellion by NASA scientists, as well:
http://www.americanthinker.com...
Uh, no there is little in-house about retirees. Some of these guys worked on the Apollo missions! while age can be a good asset in some fields, it isn't in science where you need to be cutting edge and current.
Anyway, Huffpo has a great rebuttal: The EPA website says that "Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood." It goes on to say that "The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
What does NASA say?
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”
But back at the pee pond, there's this: also form LaddieBB Those who refuse to debate the issue and rely solely on manipulated and discredited data, which they refuse to submit to peer review, are the real flat-Earthers. The original flat Earth folks were the ones who relied on their own authority as proof of their collective wisdom. Call that whatever you wish, but do not call it science, because it is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Anybody whose argument against evolution hinges on the notion that it is just a "theory" is an ignoramus that has no idea of the scientific usage of the word. Such an argument is reserved for morons utterly unfamiliar with the scientific method and indeed science in general.
As good a definition of the scientific use of “theory” comes from the United States National Academy of Sciences:
“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
Darwinian evolution is just such a well established theory. Not once in nearly 160 years if unrelenting attacks have the basics of Darwin’s theory been disproven. Quite the contrary, Darwin’s observations have been confirmed and sustained thousands of times. Darwinian evolution is as much immutable scientific fact as is gravity.
Yet, the toothless tribe continues to tilt at that Darwinian windmill.
Scientists would quickly alter or even jettison Darwin’s theory if there is ever presented a new SCIENTIFIC theory which displaces it, one that is based upon the best interpretation of the available evidence and is sustained by replicable testing. The “intelligent” design folks have not presented and will not present such a theory because they eschew scientific method in favor of blind devotion to Bronze Age mythology.
We indulge these morons at our own peril. When we let them dumb down scientific curriculum in schools in order to not offend their delicate sensibilities by not threatening their deeply held superstitions, we have consigned ourselves to being unable to produce the next generation of doctors, scientists, and researchers. How long can we last without those professions?
There is NO middle ground on this subject, no room for compromise. These uninformed buffoons are simply demonstrably wrong on the facts and letting them govern on the basis of their ignorance will be dangerous to our continued existence.
I have to agree with everything in your post. There's an interesting series of video's on You Tube, that explain evolution science in depth. They're rather long, but educational.
The Cassiopia Project have put them up as "fair use", can't tell you how many rainy days I've taken advantage of by learning from them.
A book by Edward O. Wilson, "The Social Conquest of Earth", has just been published and has been described as a groundbreaking book on evolution. Wilson, a Harvard biologist, is recognized as the most celebrated heir to Darwin.
ReplyDeleteThe book directly addresses the questions of religion, philosophy, and science.
Check out the reviews on Amazon. It is a very important book that many on IM should appreciate.
Thing is, the action of natural selection is no theory but a plain fact; creationists wish to argue even that!
ReplyDeleteGryphen, I'll believe your far-fetched EVIL-ooshun "theory" when you can show me a talking monkey. Clearly, if evilution is true, then there has to be a monkey that can talk, but is not yet so evolved it can work in investment banking, for example. Until then, I gotta say, the whole rib thang seems a LOT more plausible.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Darwin invented evolution, as you claim, why didnt he ever evolve wings or an extra arm, which many would find useful?
And while you're looking for the monkey, I would also enjoy seeing some swarthy plate spinners like they used to have on the Ed Sullivan Show and early Alice Cooper concerts. And what happened to the trained dog acts? The ones with skirts and cowboy hats?
And you know what else I havent seen in ages? Diet Dr. Pibb! Now THAT was a beverage! I could really go for one right now, even tho it's still early.
Speaking of dogs, the other day I saw a coyote run out of my backyard, across a busy boulevard and down a long side street until it turned into someone else's backyard. He seemed to be in a hurry. Can coyotes tell time?
Well, Gryphen, I have to say, I definitely prefer this manner of respectful debate of Creationism vs Godless Science to the snarky mockery (or is it mocky snarkery?) one usually finds on your blog. It's only thru such discussion that the TRUTH about the LIES of Science will be revealed and accepted by the general public.
But seriously, I'd really like to see that talking monkey. Thank you.
If Brisdull were only a little smarter, she'd find her ghostwriter right here! Beauty...
DeleteThank you Beldar for enlivening a slow day.
DeleteWhat does a monkey talking have to do with evolution? If a human wasn't taught how to speak a language, he couldn't communicate with others except by sign language. If a monkey is taught sign language, and they have been taught that in the past, they could "talk" to humans. Go to Sea World and you can watch trainers and dolphins communicating with other.
DeleteDarwin didn't "invent" evolution, he observed in nature traits in animals and plant life and developed a logical theory for others besides himself to study further. He, along with thousands of other scientist further observed and discovered further evidence that supported their theory, and they continue today to add to that knowledge base.
You ask if coyotes can tell time. Besides not just coyotes, how can other animals on earth, such as birds, whales, and even Monarch butterflies know when to migrate. And not just animals, how do plants know when to flower or drop their leaves?
But I would also like to know, where is the physical evidence that God created man and the world around us. For instance, show us physical evidence the universe was created in 7 days. And by physical evidence, I mean something we all can put our hands on and see for ourselves that this thing you provided can have no other possible explanation for it being there. The Bible was written by man, so it's a creation of man that can only be believed by faith in what it says. Show us physical evidence or proof that what it say is true.
Chances are very high that neither you, or any of your fellow believers will not try to answer my question. The reason is simple, you can't.
Lighten up, Durham. Beldar is a satirist, and a damn funny one! (Apparently, too few IM readers are familiar with the famous Conehead family.)
DeleteThanks, Beldar! Your satirical analysis is spot - on.
DeleteWhat they do every time they spew this garbage is show not only how scientifically illiterate they are, but also how illogical. It's called the fallacy of ambiguity.
ReplyDeletethe·o·ry
Definition of THEORY
1
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art(the theory and practice of medicine)
2
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena (a theory of organic evolution)—see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory
3
: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
Evolution falls under definition Two, they try to put it under definition Three. DOLTS.
Sorry, Gryphen, it's a "faith" thing. Not based on anything solid, no evidence, no reasoning, It's a faith in God telling the story, therefore whatever scientists' hypothesis draws out, which may shake old studies and bring in new improved studies about the dawn of the creation of the world and of man brings debates and arguments. Besides, whatever we believe today will not flinch one inch of the past.
ReplyDeleteBut, when believers in God are taunted, teased, used, killed, hated, robbed, assaulted, etc., by this "new improved man evolved over millions of years", they are not impressed much. They want a connection with a perfect creator, they will search their heart for him. You just can't chalk off what people really want in their soul of souls, heart of hearts. It's may be ignorant to some to want to believe in a creator who had a Plan A, then Plan B, and who wrote his Word through the prophets. And that the Word is life, it draws men to God. It seems to have that warm penetrable promise that all things gone wrong were not in vain, that a man's SOUL will live forever and in a perfect joyful tearless painless protected place from all the evil connivings of men who choose wicknedness.
Is it so wrong to WANT to know there is something better after this life? The dying could tell us a story or two. Many sense a spiritual comfort that they can't explain. No anthropoligist can explain this.
A spiritual connection to God is a beautiful thing. Don't knock it til you've tried it.
Children are "taught", not "born", to believe in God, or many gods.
DeleteYes, everyone wants to know what happens after they die -- after all, it is the biggest mystery of life. But some (and more all the time) have come to believe that to die is to finish with one's life, and, just as one is not sentient during sleep, then death is simply the same as eternal sleep. However, the ego has great difficulty entertaining that idea, and so posits that there may be sentience in another life. They think there may be a heaven where everyone they've ever known will be "there", or they may believe that their ego will be re-incarnated into another life. Or, if they've been taught to believe in hell (where they're sure to go if they've been bad), then that's where they'll end up. A clever and dastardly way of trying to make people behave...
What most who believe in an afterlife cannot imagine is that there will be no "there" there, and neither will they.
You need to read your Freud and your Marx. And yes, it is a bad thing, because in many instances, it keeps people a) form really living their lives NOW, HERE, authentically, with being towards death. (that's Heidegger - and PAscal was wrong.) It also can keep them from really trying to improve thei rlot here, and subject themselves instead to oppression based on some afterlife reward - ever wonder why many of the capitalist owners REQUIRED their employees in the mills to attend church? BTW, that's where the phrase Religion is the opium of the people comes from - just like addicts, religion allows oppression and quiets justified revolt. It is no coincidence that many of the "founding father" revolutionaries where enlightenment thinkers in the process of throwing off theism for deism and on the road to secular/scientific thinking.
DeleteAh, but they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I am a scientist. I believe in the scientific method. And each new scientific discovery only increases my awe for the Great Unknown - God, whatever you want to call it out there.
DeleteAnd when the believers of God, taunt, tease, torture and prosecute those of science, we are not impressed much either.
The "It's a faith thing" argument vs. evolution and science always amuses me. What gives me comfort is knowing there are people of faith who can set their faith aside, and accept scientific proof as valid.
Delete(And my "people of faith", I include all faiths and beliefs.)
I don't think that creationism fits that definition of hypothesis. "...scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." How do you test "an invisible man in the sky with supernatural powers made it happen"?
ReplyDeleteCreationism, pronounced dee-LOO-zhun
ReplyDeletesee: psychics, ghosts, tooth-fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Claus, Jehovah, Allah, Shiva...
Creationism, definition: excuse to oppress stupid people.
I want to know- When my oldest was little he loved dinosaures. There were only a few he had a little book and couldname them. Now they have found all kinds of themeven little tiny ones of different time frames. how could the earth only be 7-10 thousand yrs old? doesn't make sense. How come there are differnt kinds of people ? differnt skulls ans bodies all this happen in this time frame/ doesn't make sense. Why isn't God just waying his fingure to make the world a better place? They can'r answer any questions like this. Why would God want them to save every fetus yo a life of no food, water, slave labor and being sexually exploited????
ReplyDeleteActually, I believe most religious people believe the world is 6,000 years old,but that really doesn't matter because either was it's ridiculous.
DeleteReligion isn't logical,as we all know. That is why they can never answer the following logical argument which goes;
If by definition God is all good and is omniscient, that is by definition has infinite wisdom, awareness, understanding, and insight;
God is omnipotent which means he has absolutely unlimited authority and influence;
God is omnipresent, or in all places at all times;
Why is there sin?
And then there's this crap form Laddie, Blah, blah so appropriately named, right?
ReplyDeleteThere has been an in-house rebellion by NASA scientists, as well:
http://www.americanthinker.com...
Uh, no there is little in-house about retirees. Some of these guys worked on the Apollo missions! while age can be a good asset in some fields, it isn't in science where you need to be cutting edge and current.
Anyway, Huffpo has a great rebuttal:
The EPA website says that "Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood." It goes on to say that "The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
What does NASA say?
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”
But back at the pee pond, there's this: also form LaddieBB
Those who refuse to debate the issue and rely solely on manipulated and discredited data, which they refuse to submit to peer review, are the real flat-Earthers. The original flat Earth folks were the ones who relied on their own authority as proof of their collective wisdom. Call that whatever you wish, but do not call it science, because it is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Doesn't even realize how ridiculous it is.
Anybody whose argument against evolution hinges on the notion that it is just a "theory" is an ignoramus that has no idea of the scientific usage of the word. Such an argument is reserved for morons utterly unfamiliar with the scientific method and indeed science in general.
ReplyDeleteAs good a definition of the scientific use of “theory” comes from the United States National Academy of Sciences:
“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
Darwinian evolution is just such a well established theory. Not once in nearly 160 years if unrelenting attacks have the basics of Darwin’s theory been disproven. Quite the contrary, Darwin’s observations have been confirmed and sustained thousands of times. Darwinian evolution is as much immutable scientific fact as is gravity.
Yet, the toothless tribe continues to tilt at that Darwinian windmill.
Scientists would quickly alter or even jettison Darwin’s theory if there is ever presented a new SCIENTIFIC theory which displaces it, one that is based upon the best interpretation of the available evidence and is sustained by replicable testing. The “intelligent” design folks have not presented and will not present such a theory because they eschew scientific method in favor of blind devotion to Bronze Age mythology.
We indulge these morons at our own peril. When we let them dumb down scientific curriculum in schools in order to not offend their delicate sensibilities by not threatening their deeply held superstitions, we have consigned ourselves to being unable to produce the next generation of doctors, scientists, and researchers. How long can we last without those professions?
There is NO middle ground on this subject, no room for compromise. These uninformed buffoons are simply demonstrably wrong on the facts and letting them govern on the basis of their ignorance will be dangerous to our continued existence.
I have to agree with everything in your post. There's an interesting series of video's on You Tube, that explain evolution science in depth. They're rather long, but educational.
ReplyDeleteThe Cassiopia Project have put them up as "fair use", can't tell you how many rainy days I've taken advantage of by learning from them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY
Its sad that theory is such a misunderstood word
ReplyDelete