# Creationists Are Stupid and Should Admit Their Ignorance



## Guest

What's with these stupid creationists? How dare they disagree with anything wikipedia tells them? They should believe all science and reject their religious notions. Science has won the war against religion, and they should admit their defeat.

Everybody knows that if scientists say it is so, we should all believe it. Their word is law. They are smarter than us (ignore those religious scientists, though, they are just as ignorant). Science is all powerful, and once scientists have spoken on a subject, it is not for us lesser mortals to challenge. If scientists say that evolution is real, then we are stupid to not submissively accept it as gospel.

Science gets to be right all the time, because even when they are proven wrong, why, that is just further proof that science is right, because, hey, that is science. So accept every theory they give you until the next theory comes along to replace it. But reject any other system that dares change in the smallest bit over centuries. Science is the ultimate power - all hail science. Science will tell us what to do. Down with anything not testable by scientific means.

Lets round up all these stubborn religious people who dare defy our combined wisdom obtained through science!


----------



## science

Oh, I mis-posted in the regular thread before I saw this. Should've put it here, in the rant. So, here it is, elaborated:

It's not personal. It's about evidence. Creationists don't have to get smarter; they only have to acknowledge the evidence. Making it personal is an intentional diversion from the actual issue, the evidence. 

Excluding the middle (between "Hail Science" and creationism) is likewise intentionally misleading rhetoric. 

I've seen these techniques before, even on this site.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

And here we have the opposite side of the same annoying coin


----------



## Polednice

The rather amusing thing about this apparent parody is that if the OP had all instances of the word 'science' replaced with 'God', suddenly the religious would think it was completely reasonable.

Enjoy having and eating that cake.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> The rather amusing thing about this apparent parody is that if the OP had all instances of the word 'science' replaced with 'God', suddenly the religious would think it was completely reasonable.
> 
> Enjoy having and eating that cake.


So are you saying the acceptance of science is akin to religious faith?


----------



## science

I'm looking for a middle. Anyone seen a middle around here?


----------



## Dodecaplex

What is your solution, Dr. Mike? Should we all stop studying science and just believe in a 2000-year-old religion without question? Is that what you're trying to say?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> So are you saying the acceptance of science is akin to religious faith?


It's a remarkable attempt at casuistry for you to suggest that. So daring, in fact, that I cannot fathom where on earth you drew that connection from.


----------



## Guest

My position here is that those who claim to be so enraptured by science should stop treating religious people like they are ignorant when they don't accept everything science claims.

Obviously I believe in studying science - I spent 9 years in college doing so.


----------



## Guest

I just think that sometimes the vehemence with which certain people argue the truthfulness of scientific theory and the absolute faith they put in the scientists and their methodology borders on being very similar to religious fanaticism.


----------



## Polednice

The vehemence is not in favour of scientists, but of evidence. Evidence is the most valuable thing we have, and people are right to trust it, and to be suspicious of where it is lacking.


----------



## Guest

And you have examined all the evidence? Or do you take it on faith that the summaries you get in your textbooks are backed by evidence?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Dr. Mike, have you examined the existence of Zimbabwe by yourself? Or do you take it on faith that your maps are backed by evidence?

Not trying to be sarcastic or arrogant here, but I'd much rather trust a scientist than trust someone claiming divine inspiration.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> And you have examined all the evidence? Or do you take it on faith that the summaries you get in your textbooks are backed by evidence?


I'm sorry, but, quite frankly, I think a person who proudly proclaims to believe quite fantastical things without _any evidence at all_ is in no position to criticise another person on how thoroughly they have combed through all primary evidence in support of a particular theory.

It's really quite atrocious that, implicit in this, is the suggestion that certain scientific theories - rather conveniently, the ones that happen to go against particular religious views - are vulnerable on the basis of human error or, worse, deception. That is no better than conspiracy theories.


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> Dr. Mike, have you examined the existence of Zimbabwe by yourself? Or do you take it on faith that your maps are backed by evidence?
> 
> Not trying to be sarcastic or arrogant here, but I'd much rather trust a scientist than trust someone claiming divine inspiration.


Ah, but I am not the one who has problems taking things on faith. I firmly believe in faith. So I can take it on faith that Zimbabwe exists and have no problem with that.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I just think that sometimes the vehemence with which certain people argue the truthfulness of scientific theory and the absolute faith they put in the scientists and their methodology borders on being very similar to religious fanaticism.


Absolute faith in scientists?

Anyway, a couple of Scientists knocked on my door a few years back. Tall, handsome blond fellows. They had some maudlin pamphlets about Science being the only way - lots of mixed metaphors, sentimentality, illustrations of plastic surgery families smiling warmly into a large-print imitation-leather-bound _Nature_ (you could even see Vol. 478 Num. 7370 on the cover, and the page edges in gold), implications that all the materialism and alienation of modern life can be traced to people's refusal to acknowledge Science as the only way.

I told them I wasn't interested, and they said that's ok, but asked if I was confident that I was on the Path to Truth. Confident? I asked. That's right, they said. Confident. One hundred percent.

Well, I hesitated. They seemed so confident. I wanted some of that confidence for myself. You know, my marriage had problems, I was worried about my parents' health, sometimes I didn't feel I'd succeeded enough in life.

One of them held up a copy of the _New England Journal of Medicine_. With this, he said, you can be confident that you're on the One Way to Truth. Then he offered to show me how, and asked again if they could come in. They seemed so nice, I decided to let them in.

Well, we had tea, and one thing led to another. I accepted Science into my heart. Now I go to Lab once a week for a couple of hours to meet other people who worship Science with me. We sing hymns to satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, listen to sermons about things like erbium chloride silicate. It's really uplifting. Now I'm confident that I'm on the only Path to Truth; I frankly cannot tolerate it when people question my Journals. (Some people say our Journals contradict themselves, but those people just don't know how to interpret the Journals. Imagine them thinking that they're smarter than Science!)


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> Ah, but I am not the one who has problems taking things on faith. I firmly believe in faith. So I can take it on faith that Zimbabwe exists and have no problem with that.


In that case, I assume you'd also take it on faith that evolution is true and would have no problem with it. Or, perhaps, you decide to reject evolution and instead take it on faith that creationism is true. In any case, I'd be interested in knowing how you decide to have faith in one thing and reject the other.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I'm sorry, but, quite frankly, I think a person who proudly proclaims to believe quite fantastical things without _any evidence at all_ is in no position to criticise another person on how thoroughly they have combed through all primary evidence in support of a particular theory.
> 
> It's really quite atrocious that, implicit in this, is the suggestion that certain scientific theories - rather conveniently, the ones that happen to go against particular religious views - are vulnerable on the basis of human error or, worse, deception. That is no better than conspiracy theories.


No, implicit in my statement was how hypocritical it is that people who criticize one group for taking things on faith are so willing to take other things on faith because they simply trust the source more. I'm not the one who suggests that accepting things for which we have not personally viewed the evidence is wrong. So you accept the utterances of the "priests" of science. You trust more that a scientist will tell you the truth than a religious person. But ultimately you have to exercise some faith in those providing you with the narrative you accept. I'm not saying that is wrong, nor am I saying that what they are telling you is wrong. But deciding to reject faith puts you in a tougher situation where, to truly be intellectually honest, you are going to need and go investigate all the things you accept yourself.

Take, for example, the scientific consensus on global warming. How much false information has been pedaled to people? Even if the grand narrative is true, much that is false has been spread, to the point that many people accept those falsehoods, and reject attempts to convince them otherwise. Like the notion that global warming was melting the ice on top of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Or the narrative that polar bear populations were dwindling due to global warming (thank you Al Gore), only to find out that the population is at least stable, if not increasing? Or the "scientific" evidence of glaciers receding reported by the IPCC that turned out to be anecdotal evidence from mountain climbers over the years? But "true believers" in science only go one direction in their beliefs in regards to science, and it is usely based on blind faith in a narrative they like - global warming, or evolution, or what have you.


----------



## Polednice

Post #16, not like; _love_!


----------



## Kopachris

Dodecaplex said:


> In that case, I assume you'd also take it on faith that evolution is true and would have no problem with it. Or, perhaps, you decide to reject evolution and instead take it on faith that creationism is true. In any case, I'd be interested in knowing how you decide to have faith in one thing and reject the other.


I can't speak for Dr Mike, but I decide to have faith in one thing and reject the other by reasoning out which makes more sense for God to use and is simplest to understand. It's a matter of philosophy, really.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Post #16, not like; _love_!


Thanks, man. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> In that case, I assume you'd also take it on faith that evolution is true and would have no problem with it. Or, perhaps, you decide to reject evolution and instead take it on faith that creationism is true. In any case, I'd be interested in knowing how you decide to have faith in one thing and reject the other.


Oh, but I haven't said here what my take on evolution is. Unlike so many others, I don't know how true it is. Yes, it exists. But as an explanation for the emergence of all biological diversity on this planet? That is a pretty big extrapolation.

Science has its limitations. It is like a computer - it is only as good as the programmer. I am still working out my own ideas on how science and my religious beliefs mesh. Until I have absolute faith in the actions of science, I'm not willing to reject my religious beliefs just because a bunch of people on an internet forum say so.


----------



## science

I saw a middle! It was here!



DrMike said:


> Until I have absolute faith in the actions of science, I'm not willing to reject my religious beliefs just because a bunch of people on an internet forum say so.


Nevermind. It's gone now.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I'm sorry, but, quite frankly, I think a person who proudly proclaims to believe quite fantastical things without _any evidence at all_ is in no position to criticise another person on how thoroughly they have combed through all primary evidence in support of a particular theory.
> 
> It's really quite atrocious that, implicit in this, is the suggestion that certain scientific theories - rather conveniently, the ones that happen to go against particular religious views - are vulnerable on the basis of human error or, worse, deception. That is no better than conspiracy theories.


Well of course scientific evidence is vulnerable to human error! Are you saying it isn't? It is also vulnerable to technological advancement. Our knowledge of everything is limited by our capabilities to observe. Why, we are now confronted with the possibility that there exists a particle that can travel faster than the speed of light - which wouldn't have been possible before we had the capability to test such a notion.

I don't promote conspiracy theories - sure, there are certainly examples of people who have knowingly falsified information. I have, rather, a healthy faith in the fallibility of man.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I have, rather, a healthy faith in the fallibility of man.


No need for faith there. We have plenty of evidence of that!


----------



## Igneous01

the words that will end it all, right here, right now. The words that will stop this debate and argument for all eternity and all time.

Fundamentalism and Extremism corrupts knowledge. The moment you become fundamentalist and gamble everything on a notion/belief/idea/theory, is the truth lost. This applies to both science and to religion. Besides the claims people make about belief in stories in the bible as literal translation, what about those quirky theories like the big rip? Trying to cash in on the end of days with the idea that all of the universe will be torn apart, with limited study. Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism.
Extremism.
More-Fundamentalism.
Die-for-your-beliefs-ism.
Second-hand-beliefs-without-examining-them-yourself-ism


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> No, implicit in my statement was how hypocritical it is that people who criticize one group for taking things on faith are so willing to take other things on faith because they simply trust the source more. I'm not the one who suggests that accepting things for which we have not personally viewed the evidence is wrong. So you accept the utterances of the "priests" of science. You trust more that a scientist will tell you the truth than a religious person. But ultimately you have to exercise some faith in those providing you with the narrative you accept. I'm not saying that is wrong, nor am I saying that what they are telling you is wrong. But deciding to reject faith puts you in a tougher situation where, to truly be intellectually honest, you are going to need and go investigate all the things you accept yourself.


Indeed, we all have to admit that we have 'faith' (I think 'trust' is a much better word to use here) in our sources, _but the source is so, so important_, and you don't give that fact justice. It is a million times wiser to trust a group of scientists than it is to trust figureheads of religion. The suggestion that this isn't true is so ludicrous that I'm not going to waste my time countering it.

Any argument against evolution (or global warming or whatever else) is based on human error or deception. Errors and deception happen in every area of human endeavour - it's inescapable. But it is _not possible_ for those mistakes to be so severe that the whole notion of evolution is actually undermined. Whatever evidence has been sat on or falsified, the evidence genuinely in favour of these theories remains overwhelming.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Science has its limitations. It is like a computer - it is only as good as the programmer.


yes, but science evolves when you confute a theory with logic arguments and evidences. ReligionS are "all inclusive package", when you take even the most illogic things for granted.
Creationism is confuted by logic and evidences on so many levels that it's incredible so many people believe in it.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Well, then, soldier on with your search for enlightenment, Dr. Mike.

On an unrelated note, here's an inspiring figure whom we can all thank for his remarkably insightful works.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> It is a million times wiser to trust a group of scientists than it is to trust figureheads of religion. The suggestion that this isn't true is so ludicrous that I'm not going to waste my time countering it.


I'm not so sure about that. Let's say that you hear that a group of 100 people believe A, and a group of 100 million people believe B. A is a new idea, which has undergone some research and makes quite a bit of sense. B is a very old idea, that's been around for millennia, and has undergone much more research than A and also makes a lot of sense. Assuming that it's impossible to know for certain whether A or B is correct, would it be wiser to believe in A, which only has the support of a handful of people, or to believe in B, which has the support of many more people?

To better put things into perspective, how about a more personal example: your friend, who you believe to be very intelligent, tells you that cats lay eggs (you have never seen or researched cats, yourself, so you are initially agnostic). Everyone else in the room, who, individually, you consider inferior in intelligence to your friend, tells you that cats have live births.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> yes, but science evolves when you confute a theory with logic arguments and evidences. ReligionS are "all inclusive package", when you take even the most illogic things for granted.
> Creationism is confuted by logic and evidences on so many levels that it's incredible so many people believe in it.


How is creationism confuted by logic and evidence? You say it is so on so many levels, give us some examples? And please define creationism, as you understand it, for the purposes of this refutation, because I'm not sure your definition is what I understand it to be.

Science evolves? No it doesn't. Science is a process. Our understanding of things evolves. The at-one-point acceptance that all matter was derived from 4 basic elements did not "evolve" into our understanding of the myriad of elements and the chemistry of life. The one theory was rejected and a new one replaced it - but science remained the same. Science is the process by which we come to these understandings. There is good science, and there is bad science. But there is no evolution in science. New theories don't evolve from old ones - as our knowledge grows, we either come to more fully accept a theory, or we discard a previous one in favor of a new one that has more supporting evidence. To say that science evolves grants some omnipotence to science that implies that our theories are always right, but just change over time. Theories may gain support over time, and be quite widely accepted, but can be turned to crap by a single experiment that proves them wrong. We then don't say that the science evolved. We admit that the previous theory was wrong, and now we think we have a better explanation.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Let's say that you hear that a group of 100 people believe A, and a group of 100 million people believe B. A is a new idea, which has undergone some research and makes quite a bit of sense. B is a very old idea, that's been around for millennia, and has undergone much more research than A and also makes a lot of sense. Assuming that it's impossible to know for certain whether A or B is correct, would it be wiser to believe in A, which only has the support of a handful of people, or to believe in B, which has the support of many more people?


There's not enough information here. It depends on who the people are and what kind of research it was.

If 100 A-people were scientists conducting double-blind trials in peer-reviewed papers, and 100million B-people were religious folks whose research was an encyclopaedic collection of anecdotal evidence, then I'd side with A.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> The at-one-point acceptance that all matter was derived from 4 basic elements did not "evolve" into our understanding of the myriad of elements and the chemistry of life.


That's a totally unfair analogy because the idea of 4 basic elements did not originate in the same scientific method that has been used for the past few centuries. Compare Newton's gravity to our current ideas of gravity, and there's a fair idea of how our perception of the world evolves. Picking some ancient philosophical notion and comparing it with something today which is wildly contradictory is dishonest.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> How is creationism confuted by logic and evidence? You say it is so on so many levels, give us some examples?


the datation of the fossils? Dinosaurs and the evidence of so many species older than man?



DrMike said:


> And please define creationism, as you understand it, for the purposes of this refutation, because I'm not sure your definition is what I understand it to be.
> 
> Science evolves? No it doesn't. Science is a process. Our understanding of things evolves. The at-one-point acceptance that all matter was derived from 4 basic elements did not "evolve" into our understanding of the myriad of elements and the chemistry of life. The one theory was rejected and a new one replaced it - but science remained the same. Science is the process by which we come to these understandings. There is good science, and there is bad science. But there is no evolution in science. New theories don't evolve from old ones - as our knowledge grows, we either come to more fully accept a theory, or we discard a previous one in favor of a new one that has more supporting evidence. To say that science evolves grants some omnipotence to science that implies that our theories are always right, but just change over time. Theories may gain support over time, and be quite widely accepted, but can be turned to crap by a single experiment that proves them wrong. We then don't say that the science evolved. We admit that the previous theory was wrong, and now we think we have a better explanation.


ok, i agree on that. 
But: if a scientific theory can be confuted by logic and evidences, why the same can't be said of religious stories? Why do you accept "adam and eve" in spite of this?


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> That's a totally unfair analogy because the idea of 4 basic elements did not originate in the same scientific method that has been used for the past few centuries. Compare Newton's gravity to our current ideas of gravity, and there's a fair idea of how our perception of the world evolves. Picking some ancient philosophical notion and comparing it with something today which is wildly contradictory is dishonest.


Its not really ancient philosophical notion tho, Archimedes during this ancient time period invented levers and pulleys, and even discovered the law of the lever - which we still use today. So, no, i think its totally fair.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> There's not enough information here. It depends on who the people are and what kind of research it was.
> 
> If 100 A-people were scientists conducting double-blind trials in peer-reviewed papers, and 100million B-people were religious folks whose research was an encyclopaedic collection of anecdotal evidence, then I'd side with A.


Did you participate in those double-blind trials in peer-reviewed papers? If not, then the evidence supporting A is just as anecdotal as the evidence supporting B.


----------



## Guest

Sure - what in the creation story precludes dinosaurs?


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Did you participate in those double-blind trials in peer-reviewed papers? If not, than the evidence supporting A is just as anecdotal as the evidence supporting B.


Kopa, is that you? This statement really surprises me, and it tells me not to go any deeper into this discussion if you truly believe that. If this were true, then we would have an intellectual free-for-all - we could trust no one, and we would be better off following the herd. I'm willing to place my trust in people who, over the years, have deservedly gained that trust.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Sure - what in the creation story precludes dinosaurs?


the fact the the homo sapiens appears 130000 years ago, while dinosaurs's extinction happened 65.000.000 years ago?
And what about the homo erectus or the homo abilis?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> That's a totally unfair analogy because the idea of 4 basic elements did not originate in the same scientific method that has been used for the past few centuries. Compare Newton's gravity to our current ideas of gravity, and there's a fair idea of how our perception of the world evolves. Picking some ancient philosophical notion and comparing it with something today which is wildly contradictory is dishonest.


Okay, then what about the notion in the 20th century that genes were carried by proteins, until Watson and Crick helped unravel the structure of DNA and in doing so revealed the nucleic acid encoding of genes? Surely the scientific method was not so different back in their day as it is now?

Or what about the broad acceptance today in the field of immunology of the existence of regulatory T cells, where only a decade or two ago people smirked at the idea?

Is going from one idea to something completely opposite truly evolution?

Was it an evolution in our understanding of the earth when the Greeks were able to show mathematically that it was, in fact, round, and not flat? Or was it a refutation?

Let's face it - science is the process by which we are constantly trying to prove ourselves wrong. The scientific process necessitates that the hypothesis be falisfiable. If not, it cannot be tested through science. The history of science is littered with numerous former "truths." I accept that evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for how the biological diversity on this planet came to be. But I am not so married to the notion that I will shed big tears if evidence to the contrary is discovered - and there must be that possibility, or else evolution is not a scientific theory.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> the fact the the homo sapiens appears 130000 years ago, while dinosaurs's extinction happened 65.000.000 years ago?
> And what about the homo erectus or the homo abilis?


What about them? You still haven't told me where dinosaurs preclude creation - simply because the evidence shows dinosaurs pre-dated humans? But if you read the account of creation, you will see that humans were the last of God's creations. So, in a sense, there is no contradiction here. I am not one that believes that the 6 creative periods were, literally, 24-hour days. I don't know how long they were. But it doesn't say that God created X in one day. It said that he created X, and called that period a day.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Okay, then what about the notion in the 20th century that genes were carried by proteins, until Watson and Crick helped unravel the structure of DNA and in doing so revealed the nucleic acid encoding of genes? Surely the scientific method was not so different back in their day as it is now?
> 
> Or what about the broad acceptance today in the field of immunology of the existence of regulatory T cells, where only a decade or two ago people smirked at the idea?
> 
> Is going from one idea to something completely opposite truly evolution?
> 
> Was it an evolution in our understanding of the earth when the Greeks were able to show mathematically that it was, in fact, round, and not flat? Or was it a refutation?
> 
> Let's face it - science is the process by which we are constantly trying to prove ourselves wrong. The scientific process necessitates that the hypothesis be falisfiable. If not, it cannot be tested through science. The history of science is littered with numerous former "truths." I accept that evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for how the biological diversity on this planet came to be. But I am not so married to the notion that I will shed big tears if evidence to the contrary is discovered - and there must be that possibility, or else evolution is not a scientific theory.


There is so much inconsistency here, and I've only been on these threads messing about because I'm bored, that I'm not going to bother with this one.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Kopa, is that you? This statement really surprises me, and it tells me not to go any deeper into this discussion if you truly believe that. If this were true, then we would have an intellectual free-for-all - we could trust no one, and we would be better off following the herd. I'm willing to place my trust in people who, over the years, have deservedly gained that trust.


That's exactly it. I don't trust any particular group more than any other. I take ideas from everywhere, do my best to understand the reasons behind them, and form my own ideas and beliefs. I believe in God. I believe in some parts of the Bible literally, other parts metaphorically. I take information from peer-reviewed sources and synthesize a new understanding based on what I already knew and what I just learned. I never take any source at face value; I never go all-or-nothing. If something doesn't make sense to me, I research it more. If it still doesn't make sense, I don't accept it. If an idea makes sense, I incorporate it into my understanding, whether there's evidence for it or not (as long as there's no evidence _against_ it). It's a very pragmatic approach, though sometimes messy.

In short, I don't follow the Bible, or the Standard Model, or M-theory, or Evolution, or any other particular theory. I follow my combined understanding of all of these theories. Trust in the source has no bearing on whether or not I believe something--only whether or not the idea makes sense. Forgive me if I'm waxing poetic. This entire discussion has stirred up my soul.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> What about them? You still haven't told me where dinosaurs preclude creation - simply because the evidence shows dinosaurs pre-dated humans? But if you read the account of creation, you will see that humans were the last of God's creations


yes, the last day in a week. 
"Hey, but Bible would not be taken literally!"
Sure, so why i have to believe literally to Adam and eve?

And what about the fact that there were older species similar to Homo sapiens?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> There is so much inconsistency here, and I've only been on these threads messing about because I'm bored, that I'm not going to bother with this one.


Ah, well then, that shows me! I stand corrected! If only I knew this was the statement that would win me all arguments!


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ :lol:

text


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> yes, the last day in a week.
> "Hey, but Bible would not be taken literally!"
> Sure, so why i have to believe literally to Adam and eve?
> 
> And what about the fact that there were older species similar to Homo sapiens?


Chimpanzees are similar to humans - you don't even need to go back to the fossil record. But again, how does that preclude creation - that there existed a species that was similar to humans that no longer exists? Again, the account in Genesis states that man was the last creation. How does the earlier existence of some non-Homo sapien contradict this in any way?


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> That's exactly it. I don't trust any particular group more than any other. I take ideas from everywhere, do my best to understand the reasons behind them, and form my own ideas and beliefs. I believe in God. I believe in some parts of the Bible literally, other parts metaphorically. I take information from peer-reviewed sources and synthesize a new understanding based on what I already knew and what I just learned. I never take any source at face value; I never go all-or-nothing. If something doesn't make sense to me, I research it more. If it still doesn't make sense, I don't accept it. If an idea makes sense, I incorporate it into my understanding, whether there's evidence for it or not (as long as there's no evidence _against_ it). It's a very pragmatic approach, though sometimes messy.
> 
> In short, I don't follow the Bible, or the Standard Model, or M-theory, or Evolution, or any other particular theory. I follow my combined understanding of all of these theories. Trust in the source has no bearing on whether or not I believe something--only whether or not the idea makes sense. Forgive me if I'm waxing poetic. This entire discussion has stirred up my soul.


I wouldn't say that I'm all-or-nothing, but I certainly wouldn't want to follow your method either which, while on the surface seems personally laudable, amounts to a deal of cherry-picking. There must necessarily come a point where you realise your own limitations, either of time or ability to understand, and so must defer and place trust in someone. At this point, you need to know who to trust, and I think I have chosen well.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I wouldn't say that I'm all-or-nothing, but I certainly wouldn't want to follow your method either which, while on the surface seems personally laudable, amounts to a deal of cherry-picking. There must necessarily come a point where you realise your own limitations, either of time or ability to understand, and so must defer and place trust in someone. *At this point, you need to know who to trust, and I think I have chosen well.*


And that is all we religious people want for you to understand about us. Science cannot answer every question there is, and despite what you may think, evolution doesn't satisfy all of our curiosities about how we came to be. At that point, we have decided to trust in something else that is not scientific, and we believe we have chosen well. You obviously don't share that belief. Nevertheless, there it is.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> I wouldn't say that I'm all-or-nothing, but I certainly wouldn't want to follow your method either which, while on the surface seems personally laudable, amounts to a deal of cherry-picking. There must necessarily come a point where you realise your own limitations, either of time or ability to understand, and so must defer and place trust in someone. At this point, you need to know who to trust, and I think I have chosen well.


At that point, I become agnostic and refuse to give an opinion when asked for one, because I personally hate the idea of appealing to authority. Too many people don't accept an appeal to authority.

I'll go back to lurking, now.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Chimpanzees are similar to humans - you don't even need to go back to the fossil record. But again, how does that preclude creation - that there existed a species that was similar to humans that no longer exists? Again, the account in Genesis states that man was the last creation. How does the earlier existence of some non-Homo sapien contradict this in any way?


the fact that an interval of 65000000 years minus 130000 years is a bit larger than a week? If i have to not take literally this fact (and we are very, very far from literally), why i have to take literally the other fact?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> And that is all we religious people want for you to understand about us. Science cannot answer every question there is, and despite what you may think, evolution doesn't satisfy all of our curiosities about how we came to be. At that point, we have decided to trust in something else that is not scientific, and we believe we have chosen well. You obviously don't share that belief. Nevertheless, there it is.


But there also comes a point - not mutually exclusive with the other point - where you have to accept that you can't know everything, and so you have to stop looking for immediate explanations!!


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> I wouldn't say that I'm all-or-nothing, but I certainly wouldn't want to follow your method either which, while on the surface seems personally laudable, amounts to a deal of cherry-picking. There must necessarily come a point where you realise your own limitations, either of time or ability to understand, and so must defer and place trust in someone. At this point, you need to know who to trust, and I think I have chosen well.


I think Kopachris is simply stating that he is not going to choose sides. He is neutral to all parties.

I agree that there are some moments in life that force you to choose a side, but the people that are independent (enlightened, whatever term you want to use) will simply refuse that notion.

Come to think of it, the whole idea of us/them and sides all seems superficial to me now, its as if our whole life is spent on taking sides to things that dont really exist in the physical world.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> At that point, I become agnostic and refuse to give an opinion when asked for one, because I personally hate the idea of appealing to authority. Too many people don't accept an appeal to authority.


I can understand that, but there are different kinds of authorities to appeal to, some more allowable than others. Obviously, if such a thing existed and we could actually know its thoughts, a deity would be the ultimate authority to appeal to, and no one would deny that; on the human level, citing an individual and their thoughts, in the same manner as 'name-dropping', is useless, but appealing to the _combined_ authority of an academic community where a consensus exists is much more useful.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> the fact that an interval of 65000000 years minus 130000 years is a bit larger than a week? If i have to not take literally this fact (and we are very, very far from literally), why i have to take literally the other fact?


Take it however you like. I'm not trying to convince you here. I am merely saying that your "evidences" that confute creationism are no such thing, as nothing you have said confutes creationism.


----------



## jalex

DrMike said:


> I accept that evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for how the biological diversity on this planet came to be. But I am not so married to the notion that I will shed big tears if evidence to the contrary is discovered - and there must be that possibility, or else evolution is not a scientific theory.


Possibility but not probability. I would do more than eat my boxer shorts on television if the theory of evolution itself (not the mechanisms by which it operates or other details) is ever shown to be wrong. I have no emotional ties to it, it would have no problem were it shown to be false, but the body of evidence telling us that all creatures now alive today developed generation by generation from a single living ancestor is so overwhelming that it quite simply isn't going to be shown wrong. It's reached the point where we can speak of the theory of evolution as we would of atomic theory or cell theory. To refuse to commit to it on the basis that there is a possibility (inevitable in the scientific method) that it is false is poor reasoning.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Take it however you like. I'm not trying to convince you here. I am merely saying that your "evidences" that confute creationism are no such thing, as nothing you have said confutes creationism.


No, i'd like to know why you can consider literally one part of the story and not the other. It seems pretty elastic this faith.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> I agree that there are some moments in life that force you to choose a side, but the people that are independent (enlightened, whatever term you want to use) will simply refuse that notion.


Again, cute but impractical. There are so many things that I simply cannot be sure of, complex scientific theories counted among them, but when they enter the public arena, and when they become the basis of governmental policies, then I _have_ to choose a side, and I have to be well-equipped to pick the side best for the advancement of human knowledge and achievements. Without engaging in these things, you risk being a poor citizen through apathy, however poetically your intellectual 'pacifism' is maintained.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> But there also comes a point - not mutually exclusive with the other point - where you have to accept that you can't know everything, and so you have to stop looking for immediate explanations!!


Oh, I have never claimed to know everything. And nothing in my religious beliefs makes the claim to knowing everything. There is much we don't know. I believe that God exists, and that we are his creations. But I don't know exactly how he did it. I don't know how dinosaurs fit in. I don't know whether God created all life exactly as it is, or if he created lower species and let time and selection do its work. I don't know how you go about creating a world. There are so many things I don't know that God has not provided us with an immediate explanation for.

But I have faith that He knows. And I believe he wants me to constantly learn as much as I can about the world around me - His creation - because I believe that I will carry whatever intelligence I acquire in this life into the next, and so it behooves me to continue to learn.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> No, i'd like to know why you can consider literally one part of the story and not the other. It seems pretty elastic this faith.


Really? You can't distinguish allegory form literal? Let me give you a hint here - the part where they talk about not pointing out the beam in your neighbors eye while ignoring the mote in your own - they weren't talking about pieces of wood in eyes. This only ever seems to be a problem for people who don't want to accept the Bible in the first place, and try to force on the rest of us some false dichotomy that either the Bible is completely literal, or it is completely allegorical. Guess what - it is both!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh, I have never claimed to know everything. And nothing in my religious beliefs makes the claim to knowing everything. There is much we don't know. I believe that God exists, and that we are his creations. But I don't know exactly how he did it. I don't know how dinosaurs fit in. I don't know whether God created all life exactly as it is, or if he created lower species and let time and selection do its work. I don't know how you go about creating a world. There are so many things I don't know that God has not provided us with an immediate explanation for.


If you're quite happy not knowing these things, then why do you feel the necessity at all to use God as an explanation for things that science has yet answered?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> If you're quite happy not knowing these things, then why do you feel the necessity at all to use God as an explanation for things that science has yet answered?


You put the cart before the horse. You think I came to a point of no longer knowing, and then chose to place God in that void. It wasn't that way. It is because I have faith in God from my personal experiences and through studying scripture that I have the explanations that I do.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> Again, cute but impractical. There are so many things that I simply cannot be sure of, complex scientific theories counted among them, but when they enter the public arena, and when they become the basis of governmental policies, then I _have_ to choose a side, and I have to be well-equipped to pick the side best for the advancement of human knowledge and achievements. Without engaging in these things, you risk being a poor citizen through apathy, however poetically your intellectual 'pacifism' is maintained.


thats not what I meant. But really how hard is it to examine something and make a decision of whether or not to believe it? That doesn't mean spending countless hours researching trying to prove it empirically or disproving it. I haven't simply adopted ideas from a science book without some demonstration and without thinking about them.

So, it looks like we are debating as to whether or not take a leap of faith on something because authorities have announced it? Which is funny, because I thought that's what we are trying to disprove of in this thread.

for example: Bad driving related to bad genes? I dont buy that one at all, just because some scientists conducted a study, doesn't mean I am going to instantly believe it, on the notion that they are scientists.


----------



## Chrythes

So in essence - you believe that God created the universe and life on earth, while the Atheists believe that the universe came to existence from nothing (Which is possible when we know that the energy of our universe is equal to zero) and that life was created only because earth had the ultimate environment for it to be created? 
What would make you reconsider your faith DrMike?


----------



## jalex

DrMike said:


> Science cannot answer every question there is


What kinds of questions are you thinking of?


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> I can understand that, but there are different kinds of authorities to appeal to, some more allowable than others. Obviously, if such a thing existed and we could actually know its thoughts, a deity would be the ultimate authority to appeal to, and no one would deny that; on the human level, citing an individual and their thoughts, in the same manner as 'name-dropping', is useless, but appealing to the _combined_ authority of an academic community where a consensus exists is much more useful.





Polednice said:


> Again, cute but impractical. There are so many things that I simply cannot be sure of, complex scientific theories counted among them, but when they enter the public arena, and when they become the basis of governmental policies, then I _have_ to choose a side, and I have to be well-equipped to pick the side best for the advancement of human knowledge and achievements. Without engaging in these things, you risk being a poor citizen through apathy, however poetically your intellectual 'pacifism' is maintained.


My pride is a fault of mine--I won't allow myself to appeal to any higher authority. I prefer to create my own authority in a debate. You have a point about the risk of being a poor citizen through apathy, however. I have had the luxury of being able to thoroughly research any political issue before voting on it; your post makes me realize that I may not always have that luxury. In such cases, I will likely fall back on some sort of "higher authority" to make my vote for me. Which authority I choose will depend on the nature of the issue, though. Peer-reviewed journals can't solve _every_ problem (copyright, for example).

:tiphat:


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Really? You can't distinguish allegory form literal? Let me give you a hint here - the part where they talk about not pointing out the beam in your neighbors eye while ignoring the mote in your own - they weren't talking about pieces of wood in eyes. This only ever seems to be a problem for people who don't want to accept the Bible in the first place, and try to force on the rest of us some false dichotomy that either the Bible is completely literal, or it is completely allegorical. Guess what - it is both!


ok, but so why it can't be allegorical even the story with adam and eve? Maybe "adam and eve" means simply "first homo sapiens". So this is not even in contradiction with the theory of evolution. But in this case "creationism" means nothing, because one could accept creationism AND evolutionism. But i don't think that the supporters of creationism see the two things reconcilable in any way, so they believe in the story of the seven days too.


----------



## Kopachris

jalex said:


> What kinds of questions are you thinking of?


I've got one: should intellectual property laws give creators the power to impoverish the consumers?

Eh, never mind. This isn't the time or place for a discussion about intellectual property laws.


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> for example: Bad driving related to bad genes? I dont buy that one at all, just because some scientists conducted a study, doesn't mean I am going to instantly believe it, on the notion that they are scientists.


Course you shouldn't believe it after a single study. That would be reckless and hasty. It's when, as the opinion of scientists shifts over years to a consensus that bad driving is related genes due to further studies providing more and more evidence for this proposition, you continue to reject their findings that a problem arises. We have long since passed this stage with evolutionary theory, to the point where in the West it is as difficult for a Creationist to be taken seriously in the biological sciences as it is for someone who denies the existence of atoms to be taken seriously giving lectures at CERN, or a Flat Earther to be taken seriously anywhere.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> I've got one: should intellectual property laws give creators the power to impoverish the consumers?
> 
> Eh, never mind. This isn't the time or place for a discussion about intellectual property laws.


Does God have something to say on that?


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Does God have something to say on that?


No, but I'm sure Stallman does.


----------



## Kopachris

jalex said:


> Course you shouldn't believe it after a single study. That would be reckless and hasty. It's when, as the opinion of scientists shifts over years to a consensus that bad driving is related genes due to further studies providing more and more evidence for this proposition, you continue to reject their findings that a problem arises. We have long since passed this stage with evolutionary theory, to the point where in the West it is as difficult for a Creationist to be taken seriously in the biological sciences as it is for someone who denies the existence of atoms to be taken seriously giving lectures at CERN, *or a Flat Earther to be taken seriously anywhere.*


I've been to one of their forums. Those people are crazy very zealous! 

EDIT: We don't have a strike-through tag? Why not?


----------



## Igneous01

Heres my take on this whole thread:






go to 17:10


----------



## Rasa

Religion makes me violently frustrated.


----------



## Kopachris

Igneous01 said:


> Heres my take on this whole thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go to 17:10


I watched the whole thing. That was actually quite entertaining.


----------



## graaf

As Sam Harris said - what do you say to a Christian who "doesn't believe in science", to persuade him that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Do you demonstrate experiment and interpret it using logical reasoning? No, because he does not value reason and evidence - our minds are weak compared to God's wisdom, and our senses are deceptive... Dead end.

The only thing you can do is to point out the staggering hypocrisy of that same believer when he goes to a doctor in hope of (completely scientific) treatment instead praying the illness away. Not that he will acknowledge that either, but let's hope some day doctors can acknowledge that:


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Does God have something to say on that?





Kopachris said:


> No, but I'm sure Stallman does.


I stand corrected: it looks like Jesus is all for digital piracy.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I accept that evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for how the biological diversity on this planet came to be.


My work here is done.


----------



## graaf

science said:


> My work here is done.


Not so fast:


----------



## kv466




----------



## norman bates




----------



## science

norman bates said:


>


That's it in a nutshell.

So let's realize that the reason religion does so badly at telling us how the universe works only means that it really shouldn't try to do that.

There are other things that science can't do so well that religion can do much better: create communities, affirm the worth of people, motivate us to act virtuously or to try to become virtuous people, and so on.

When we get the right tools doing the right jobs, everything will go much more smoothly.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

God invented Science! 

(puts this little note on the ground of the thread room, and goes and watches from behind a bunker)


----------



## amfortas

Huilunsoittaja said:


> God invented Science!


If only the Catholic Church had believed that as much as Galileo did.


----------



## Kopachris

Huilunsoittaja said:


> God invented Science!
> 
> (puts this little note on the ground of the thread room, and goes and watches from behind a bunker)


God invented man; man invented science; therefore, God invented science. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if we're considering an all-powerful, all-knowing God who tuned the physical laws of the universe to create a specific result. If He knew those laws would produce science (which we can only assume He did, being omniscient), we can say that He produced science.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> God invented man; man invented science; therefore, God invented science. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if we're considering an all-powerful, all-knowing God who tuned the physical laws of the universe to create a specific result. If He knew those laws would produce science (which we can only assume He did, being omniscient), we can say that He produced science.


If we take God to be a real thing, then yes, I suppose the above is right. But, regardless of the truth of that claim, I think it's rather a shame that this detracts from mankind's great achievements. Again, the good things we do are thanks to the glorious almighty; the bad things we do are because of our own flaws. Sick and twisted, if you ask me!


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> If we take God to be a real thing, then yes, I suppose the above is right. But, regardless of the truth of that claim, I think it's rather a shame that this detracts from mankind's great achievements. Again, the good things we do are thanks to the glorious almighty; the bad things we do are because of our own flaws. Sick and twisted, if you ask me!


I agree, and my personal philosophy (I've been sharing a lot more of that lately than I'm usually comfortable with...) holds that we still have every right to be proud of ourselves for our achievements. After all, even if J.J. Abrams writes and directs the movie, credit must be given to _everyone_ who participated in its creation. Similarly, even if God directs the universe, credit must be given to those who He directs. Equal blame should also be placed on God and man for the bad things that happen, since I don't believe that God is _only_ interested in doing things that we would consider "good." That's how I resolve the "if God is so loving, why would He allow war, famine, etc.?" question--being a perfect combination of all elements, He's more neutral than that, and describing Him with human psychology is erroneous because He's not human. Kind of unconventional, but it works for me.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> If we take God to be a real thing, then yes, I suppose the above is right. But, regardless of the truth of that claim, I think it's rather a shame that this detracts from mankind's great achievements. Again, the good things we do are thanks to the glorious almighty; the bad things we do are because of our own flaws. Sick and twisted, if you ask me!


Your concept of right and wrong are a bit flawed. When we are doing good, we are following God's will. We we are doing bad, we are disobeying his will. That isn't that difficult a concept. And God doesn't step in and use us like puppets. He created us, blessed us with the talents we have - those are God-given - and then allows us to either use those talents, or waste them, and then be judged according to how we acted.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Your concept of right and wrong are a bit flawed. When we are doing good, we are following God's will. We we are doing bad, we are disobeying his will. That isn't that difficult a concept. And God doesn't step in and use us like puppets. He created us, blessed us with the talents we have - those are God-given - and then allows us to either use those talents, or waste them, and then be judged according to how we acted.


Well, I was describing one of a million possible interpretations of scripture, each of them as valid as each other because no person on earth has the authority to arbitrate. If God does exist, you don't know his will - you just live by your idea of it. As such, there's not really much point in either of us talking to each other about theological specificities. I was just trying to make the point that I think it's a shame that _some_ people have the urge to see the achievements of mankind as not purely thanks to our own ingenuity.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Your concept of right and wrong are a bit flawed. When we are doing good, we are following God's will. We we are doing bad, we are disobeying his will. That isn't that difficult a concept.


But actually it is...

I'm sure we've all already done the Euthyphro thing, just wanted to throw a wrench in the machinery.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


>


Right - there is no curiosity or intellectual history in religion. Trite characterizations of religious thought in this way reveal the lack of intellectual honesty of those who would create such. If science is so superior to faith, how is it that such inferior arguments are actually pedaled?


----------



## graaf

To me, "my book is 2000 years old, so your argument is invalid" sounds so close to:


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Right - there is no curiosity or intellectual history in religion. Trite characterizations of religious thought in this way reveal the lack of intellectual honesty of those who would create such. If science is so superior to faith, how is it that such inferior arguments are actually pedaled?


Speaking of inferior arguments, the chart doesn't say (or even imply) that there is no curiosity or intellectual history in religion.

It's about _how_ that curiosity and intellectual history work. On the left side there is nothing but observation; on the right side arguments from authority (such as scriptural authority, and so on) dominate. Those arguments can be enormously complicated, and require a great deal of creativity, intelligence, and education - Scholasticism is a good example.


----------



## Luchesi

Isn't it inevitable for humans to develop religions to explain things and then to go on and create the scientific method to take off from there, so to speak.

Will advanced AI, after it's transcended us, develop its own religion --- and what would that religion look like?

Of course religion offers answers where there can be none at all. For example, subatomic particles are merely bumps in the fields that they couple with. It's not a very satisfactory picture to us humans, because we LIVE (and theorize) in the illusionary macro world. But hey that's what it is...


----------



## SixFootScowl

graaf said:


> As Sam Harris said - what do you say to a Christian who "doesn't believe in science", to persuade him that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Do you demonstrate experiment and interpret it using logical reasoning? No, because he does not value reason and evidence - our minds are weak compared to God's wisdom, and our senses are deceptive... Dead end.


I do not know any Christians who don't believe in science. I do know many Christians who refuse to accept tenuous "theories" (hypothesis is the better word here) such as evolution, that are accepted by the masses because they are told that all reasonable scientists accept it. But that does not prove anything, and evolution cannot be proved. Variation and natural selection can be proved, but that is within existing genetic information, not the major changes presumed by those who promote evolution.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread was resurrected from the distant past where TC did not have a restriction on religious or political discussion for non-musical topics. Please continue any discussion of these topics in the Groups section.


----------



## Strange Magic

As mmsbis suggests, there is plenty of religion downstairs in Groups--4, count 'em 4 Religion Groups. And you could start your own!:angel::devil:


----------



## Botschaft

mmsbls said:


> This thread was resurrected from the distant past where TC did not have a restriction on religious or political discussion for non-musical topics. Please continue any discussion of these topics in the Groups section.


Few visit those. It would perhaps be better to open up a separate subforum for discussions on 'sensitive' topics such as this one.


----------



## mmsbls

In the past members could talk about politics and religion in the Community Forum. The moderators found that in a large percentage of such threads members attacked other members (or each other) leading to deleted posts, infractions, and large expenditures of moderators' time. Given that TC is about music and not politics or religion, moderators felt that allowing these discussions was not beneficial to TC or its members. So the current rules for threads in the Community Forum were instituted.

We know the Group areas are utilized far less than the regular forum, but we still feel that discussions on purely religious or political topics lead to more problems than benefits.


----------



## Krummhorn

Improbus said:


> Few visit those. It would perhaps be better to open up a separate subforum for discussions on 'sensitive' topics such as this one.


There are well over 190 forums dedicated to sensitive political topics. Here on Talk Classical we talk about music.


----------

