Quote:
Originally Posted by wolftrapper78
Yep,Agree with Second Paragraph..if you don't have Faith,why belive in anyone of them??
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolftrapper78
Yep,Agree with Second Paragraph..if you don't have Faith,why belive in anyone of them??
Evidence? :inquisitive:
https://img437.imageshack.us/img437/...600p2gg.th.jpg
Look, look theres a brachiasaurus having a little dip in the pond, just before Noah saves him. Talk about make it up as you go along. Hilarious. :laugh4:
Edited because I can't stop laughing
Did you chose one of the things that actually have been observed, on purpose? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Anyway. No I haven't seen tectonic plates moving as they are slightly to big to observe changes that meassured in cm/year. ~;p
Please no! He is evangelical about evolution and thinks religion (not creationism) is superstition and sees science as a weapon to fight it with. He is almost as bad as this Kent Hovind person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
The bible is not a science text book. We are not supposed to read the bible to find out how the earth was made. We are supposed to read it to find out why the earth was made and what our response to our existence should be. Similarly, science is not a tool for fighting religion; it is to help us understand the way the universe works.
Richard Dawkins may go out of his way to make statements that annoy the religious, and that may make him a bad mannered person. But his beliefs can be tested against evidence, and he could be proved wrong. They therefore have some meaning.
There is no possible observation about the world that could prove Hovind's views wrong. Whatever we see or do, he has the catch all answer "God did it". His views therefore have no meaning.
Please don't think Dawkins abrasive style puts him down on an intelectual par with a creationist.
"Beliefs" is not the correct term for scientific notions based on current evidence and exposed to possible falsification by new evidence. The correct term is "theories". My problem with Dawkins is that he treats them as if they are beliefs and tries to convert people to them. His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it with the sword of scientific understanding is not testable against evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by English Assassin
I strongly challenge the notion that only testable hypotheses have meaning. What about the idea that all human beings deserve equal treatment? You can't test that belief against evidence, but you could hardly call it meaningless.Quote:
They therefore have some meaning.
I do place them on a par, because one uses science as if it is religion and the other used a religious text as if it is science.Quote:
Please don't think Dawkins abrasive style puts him down on an intelectual par with a creationist.
Well, isn't it? I don't see how there is a stronger evidence base for most religions than there is for, say, believing that walking under ladders is bad luck.Quote:
thinks religion (not creationism) is superstition
Any person of faith who claims their beliefs are founded on objective, testable evidence is lying. If your belief system means that you are only going to accept things for which there is objective evidence, then sure, all other faiths are superstions, but I would claim your refusal to consider things outside the realm of objective evidence is itself a faith. What evidence do you have that this is the best system on which to base your life?
It may not be the best system to base your life on but theories with less assumptions are more likely to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?Quote:
His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it with the sword of scientific understanding is not testable against evidence.
Originally posted by Duke of GloucesterSo, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?Quote:
His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it
Baal
Zeus
Jupiter
Zoroaster
Muhammad
Jesus
Horus
Ra
Jahweh
Baha'i
Jainism
Scientology
Shinto
And on and on....
It's meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
The comment is more based on TV interviews that he has given. I have only read sections of "The Selfish Gene" and none of his other works.Quote:
I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?
None of them. Religion enables its followers to get in touch with the something spiritual that transcends the physical world. If followers of a religion perceive they do this through their religion - if it gives them a religious experience - then it is effective. Of course you might argue that it is "all in their minds" and you may be right, but the experience enriches their lives, then it is valid. No scientific experiment is going to validate or falsify their claims. As Richard Feynman said "The laws of physics don't tell us whether God exists or not so we are free to hold strong opinions one way or the other".Quote:
So, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?
All of them. If anyone claims that following a particular ritual or praying to Jesus, Allah, Jove they will get, or worse can give you in return for a small donation, an advantage in their next exam, business deal, sporting event, courtship, military endeavour then that is superstition. It isn't the way it works unfortunately
I am not sure about this. If you don't rely on assumptions that turn out to be true, your conclusions will be incomplete. However the question about whether something is literally true is less important, in a religous context that exploring what it means. This is where Hovind gets it wrong. The implications of the Genesis story for believers' relationship with God is what is important, not whether it happened exactly as described. (It can't have happened exactly as described because there are different, contradictory accounts in Genesis 1 and 2)Quote:
It may not be the best system to base your life on but theories with less assumptions are more likely to be true.
Being disapproving of something is not the same as disproving it.
I know i should leave this alone but...
Before coming on to this morning's brilliant thought (!), a word about my logical positivism that DoG pulls me up on. As an intellectual position I realise this is about as fashionable as a kipper tie, suffering as it does from problems such as being meaningless on its own terms (DoG could have skewered me by offering the statement "only falsifiable statements have meaning" as being itself unfalsifiable and therefore according to me meaningless). However it seems to me this is essentially the Cretan paradox again, and the answer is that the logical positive approach applies, valuably, to statements about things in the world, ie things we see, feel, touch, and so on. It is dubious or invalid when applied to ethical statements.
Given that there are physical things that we can see and touch that are evidence for/consistent with/explained by the theory of evolution, I think it is correct for me to demand that the world should be measurably different depending on whether any statement about those facts is true or false. A statement that makes no possible difference to the real world depending on whether it is true or false is, by my lights, meaningless. For example, the statement that the entire world was created five minutes ago by God, complete with my memories, yesterdays posts in this thread, fossils, and so on, has no meaning.
Note incidentally that I don't say that a meaningless statement might not be true. That would be a different issue. God might indeed have created the world five minutes ago. The point is that there would be no measurable difference between a world in which he did and a world in which he did not, and so the statement that he did is not worth any further consideration. What could we add by debating or investigating it?
Now, today's brilliant thought is to riff on this idea that science is what we see. (OK, they said tested through observation to be accurate). They seem to take that quite literally. If you read the cartoon on the first page, the strong nuclear force appears to have been replaced by Jesus as the reason for the stability of the atomic nucleus, presumably because no one has ever observed the strong nuclear force directly.
But consider: it is true we only infer the existence of the strong nuclear force because of numbers appearing on machines when we do experiments, but our whole perception of the world is similarly indirect. This is a old observation. I believe that the sun exists, but I only infer that from photons arriving in my eyes (or more accurately still, because of neuron activity that I beleive is associated with photons arriving in my eyes). I believe that New Zealand exist, but the evidence is indirect. I have never directly perceived the sun, or New Zealand, and indeed I am not sure what it would mean to do so.
So really this is just hyperbolic doubt all over again. Mr Hovind really has to be with Descartes in rejecting not just scientific theories about events that he cannot see because they are in the past, but also those that he cannot see because they are too far away, too small, or, really, anything not relating to his own mental states. He can't pick on evolution just because he thinks the bible says something different. After all, he has never actually experienced the bible any more than I have experienced evolution. He thinks he has had mental experences consistent with reading what he describes as a "bible", but that is far from being the same thing.
To be fair to Hovind, that cartoon thing is by Jack Chick, although it does quote something Hovind has said about evidence for human evolution.
Attacking the nonsense from the other side, statements such as "Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him" and that Jesus "sustains all things by his powerful hand" are powerful spiritual claims (Claims about the unity of nature which we associated more with Eastern mysticism than with Christianity) about the nature of Jesus and his relation to creation. To reduce them to a level of explaining nuclear physics is to belittle them in a way that borders on sacrilege.
lol funny man.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"
Yes, well I wouldn't take issue with that.Quote:
To reduce them to a level of explaining nuclear physics is to belittle them in a way that borders on sacrilege.
Sure, it was invented some time after the Book of Joshua...Quote:
Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"
In what direction does a vibration travel?Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Apart from the fact that I am sure about it, I agree with you. If one reads the Bible as a description of the genesis and ontology of the universe, he or she will get it all wrong. If one reads the Bible as a source of wisdom, he or she may gain it. And that counts for believers and unbelievers alike.
Sure, Jurassic Park I-III.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Elaborate please.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Ohh please; my vegas nerve has just recovered from laughing at this drivel....:sweatdrop:Quote:
There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.
I'm sorry to go against my fellow manxman but...PAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
The Earth is over 3 billion years old, Dinosaur evidence (i.e. fossils, footprints, eggs etc) stop completely at the K-T boundary, the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (around 65 mya), and Human evidence starts at around 3 mya with the founding of 'Lucy' an upright ape of the family austrolapithecus, if my maths is correct that is a seperation of...oooh...62 million years.....this is all scientific fact.
The only area Creationists and Evolutionists really have any right to argue about is the beginning of the Universe, because Evolution has been proved and will continue to be proved until all the fundamentalist Creationists have wiped egg off their faces....the only area that truly should remain open for discussion is the Creation, an area which I am personally still waiting for a good enough answer.
*steps of podium*
No. I disagee. Let's keep the discussion on how man learned to fly by observing pterodactyles and furthermore helped those poor triceartops lay thier eggs in a neat pile, after all I do like a good belly laugh at such cretinous ideas.
:mad: :elvis: :sneaky: :wideeyed: :rolleyes4: :wink3:
Okay, I'll bite.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Such as?
You mean you did'n't click on the link? This guy knows it all, he has the answers. Just send a cheque for as much as is in your bank account and he'll tell you. Reminds me a little bit of our new Nigerian friend we just adopted in the backroom. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Quoting the late Bill Hicks, in Revelations:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hicks
They wouldn't have called them Dinosaurs since the term wasn't invented until very recently. Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs (land and sea respectively).
Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs
Well apart from saying something ridiculous like "surely the books that made up Genesis being the oldest books in the bible" , I will leave it with ,if this really really old book of Job uses words like bronze and iron bars to describe the "dinosaur" then how can it be that old ?
Are these people that are advocating that T. Rex lived amongst the Caesars serious?
I shall never be amazed at the ignorance of some homo sapiens.
Can someone reveal to me where it is stated in the Bible that Moses, et al, interacted with the 'terrible lizards'?
Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!" :inquisitive: