>> ^bareboards2:

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

The biological imperative to reproduce isn't abhorrent at all. What I was specifically referring to (in an admittedly oblique way) was the instinct in males to copulate with females regardless of their wishes. As utterly vile as we regard, rape is common in the natural world.

@Unaccommodated

Humans are no longer a part of the competitive 'survive and procreate' gene-war that is the natural world, or at least we're in the process of struggling our way out of that tangle. Very soon, our evolution will be defined by wholly non-naturalistic parameters.

We are not starving. Nothing is going to eat us. Our decisions are not made purely by instinctual drives. Of course it's usually accurate to say that we're still subject to the laws of physics and their emergent systems; it ought to be obvious contextually that's not the nature I'm suggesting we have surpassed.

Your appeals to natural law are inapplicable to human endeavour.

At the most fundamental level of our existence, more fundamental even than physical law, we are individual consciousnesses possessing a general intelligence - inherited, admittedly, from an evolutionary heritage that is no longer relevant; from which we should always strive to divorce ourselves.

Marriage is ultimately whatever we want it to be. One thing I do not want it to be is a state-driven instrument of social conformity.

First of all, we can all tell that you are an absolutist at heart. Especially, when it comes to religion and science in second as of course you've allowed religion to trump scientific findings. You even go as far as contending the possibility that an evil force was working on my behalf while I was a believer (to make it clear to all i was a Mormon, which is of course off limits according to @shinyblurry ).

I already explained to you that I was willing to accept the conclusions of science about evolution and the long history of the Earth after I became a Christian, but after I investigated them I found the evidence to be totally insufficient to hold either view. It's funny that atheists like to repeat the tired old line of "you don't understand anything about science" and actually never demonstrate any scientific knowledge at all. I actually know a lot more about evolutionary theory than most atheists I meet, because I have extensively researched both sides of the issue. If you think that you're so schooled in the theory, let's see how much you actually know.

Yes, I believe in absolute truth. If you don't believe in absolute truth, could you tell me if you believe that absolutely?

The scientific side is hilarious. The book linked to is , right off the bat, intelligent design--they claim to know all and complain that science doesn't know it all. Second, when I hear the terms micro and macro evolution or transitional fossils on the Internet I can be guaranteed that an evolution debate versus those that do follow the scientific theory and principles behind it and the furiously religious with their "alternative evidence" is very close at hand.

You accuse me of ignorance yet here you are judging the book to be unworthy of your time, and dismissing it utterly. That is pretty ignorant. As it has challenged evolutionary biologists, I am 100 percent certain it will challenge you. If you are so dogmatic as to dismiss any other viewpoint, you're the one who doesn't understand science. Clinging to a particular theory with a religious fervour is exactly what science isn't. btw, you do know that micro and macro evolution are terms used by evolutionary biologists to distinguish between changes in allele frequencies on or above the species level, right?

I've spent more of my life learning about the natural world than I ever did about religion. One, because it's useful, I can use it in a practical way. Two, it gives me insights into things I would have never had otherwise. I don't get involved in scientific versus religious "science" debates on the Internet for a few reasons. One, the argument WILL end at the same spot it started. Two, to truly learn science you NEED to practice it and read about it--as much as you would spend on your religious studies and activities. Three, you must learn that you are standing in a valley with no view of your surroundings (understanding wise); but, if you try hard you can stand on the shoulders of giants (like Einstein) and see beyond the valley, even to the horizon. This is why it is so easy for so may scientists to easily dismiss EVERY critique from the religious side--you truly have no idea how little sense some of what is said makes. It's why I dismiss what you have said @shinyblurry (science wise); you are not the first to make the insinuations you have, they've already been dealt with elsewhere.

Maybe one day you'll get to the top of the mountain:

Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow


>> ^kceaton1

@shinyblurry

I'll try to respond to a few of those.

First of all, we can all tell that you are an absolutist at heart. Especially, when it comes to religion and science in second as of course you've allowed religion to trump scientific findings. You even go as far as contending the possibility that an evil force was working on my behalf while I was a believer (to make it clear to all i was a Mormon, which is of course off limits according to @shinyblurry ).

The scientific side is hilarious. The book linked to is , right off the bat, intelligent design--they claim to know all and complain that science doesn't know it all. Second, when I hear the terms micro and macro evolution or transitional fossils on the Internet I can be guaranteed that an evolution debate versus those that do follow the scientific theory and principles behind it and the furiously religious with their "alternative evidence" is very close at hand.

I've spent more of my life learning about the natural world than I ever did about religion. One, because it's useful, I can use it in a practical way. Two, it gives me insights into things I would have never had otherwise. I don't get involved in scientific versus religious "science" debates on the Internet for a few reasons. One, the argument WILL end at the same spot it started. Two, to truly learn science you NEED to practice it and read about it--as much as you would spend on your religious studies and activities. Three, you must learn that you are standing in a valley with no view of your surroundings (understanding wise); but, if you try hard you can stand on the shoulders of giants (like Einstein) and see beyond the valley, even to the horizon. This is why it is so easy for so may scientists to easily dismiss EVERY critique from the religious side--you truly have no idea how little sense some of what is said makes. It's why I dismiss what you have said @shinyblurry (science wise); you are not the first to make the insinuations you have, they've already been dealt with elsewhere.

@shinyblurry As much as you do know in the religious; you lack an equal amount in the sciences.

No waste left behind, except when there is -- consider the eons old refuse we're currently burning as fossil fuel. The reason so little seems to be wasted in the natural world is that something has evolved to use almost all of the available waste streams.

The video conflates two different ideas: the design life for a manufactured product, and consideration of how to handle that product at the end of its life. It's hard to imagine an iphone so perfect that it wouldn't be irresponsible not to plan for its demise at the time of manufacture.>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^Buttle:
Perhaps it's worth reflecting on the apparent fact that we ourselves seem to be programmed to fail after, roughly, grandparenthood. Seems to have worked fairly well for our species, as well as many others.
except when you fail, where's no waste left behind. If you can make my iphone fail the same way, I think you'd be a very rich man.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

Your conflation of islam with judiasm and christianity not-withstanding, the explanatory power therein describes no less than, the condition of man, the nature of truth, world history, the natural world, all of the fundemental questions of life, and how to know God personally. Quite a lot of explanatory power, I would say.

But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you

Or perhaps you just don't have anything intelligent to say because you don't understand the subject matter as well as you portray yourself to, so you weakly justify your cop-out by attacking me instead of the argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry said: blah blah blah same old non-arguments blah blah blah
It is rather hilarious that you go on about "explanatory power", of which the Abrahamic faiths have none. But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you.

All I ever get out of these debates is that one side is fighting to pollute and destroy in the name of profit. It's their right to do so, says god and liberty, and capitalism, etc.

Anybody who disagrees is a big government, nanny state, socialist hippy, tree hugging devil worshipper.
I think if Jesus came back and made a fuss about murdering off chunks of the natural world for cash, he'd be disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

Alarmist? Socialist? Communist? Intellectual? Elite? Community organizer? Professor at a podium?

Sharing is bad, and smart people are evil, and this planet is disposable, amen.

>> ^Issykitty:

Fake! That is a marionette made of toothpicks.


But it isn't made of toothpicks!

Or did you downvote me because you want to enjoy the natural world and destroy it too?

Which one which one! I have to know!

>> ^Peroxide:

Beautiful. Good thing our civilization isn't causing the destruction of the natural world, and the next great extinction or anything...
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html
I hate to be Debbie Downer, but lets wake up people, let's make sure future generations can enjoy the beauty of the natural world too.

Well, we might not survive the mess we make of the planet, but life will.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/06/what_mother_nature_thinks_of_u/sweetnature.jpeg

Beautiful. Good thing our civilization isn't causing the destruction of the natural world, and the next great extinction or anything...

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

I hate to be Debbie Downer, but lets wake up people, let's make sure future generations can enjoy the beauty of the natural world too.

If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural. I suggest you follow the logical conclusions of the things you believe. Your wish for a natural explanation for the beginning of the Universe will not happen because you click your heels..it could only happen if a materialist explanation makes sense, which it doesnt. I've read plenty of books and I know that science hasn't answered any of these questions, has not progressed on them one inch. It has just mired in more and more speculation..universe appears designed? no problem, lets just have infinite universes (that we can never detect) can't reconcile newtonian physics with quantum mechanics? no problem, lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother! More than that, just the creation of life itself is steeped in idiocy..abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief. If you believe in that you have a religious faith.

If it wasn't so stupid and toxic to the human mind, i would laugh..again, for the kids not paying attention, asking whether the Universe was deliberately created is entirely credible, as recognized by the greatest minds who have ever lived..and anyone saying it isn't is just closed minded and arrogant, and doesn't understand that these questions go a little deeper than the puddle they are playing in.

>> ^jmzero:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...
Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.
Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?
You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.
The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...


Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.

Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?


You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.

The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

For me, it's not a matter of taking offense. I'm not even remotely offended and neither should anyone else be. Instead, I'm concerned about the ridiculously stupid things that humans have a tendency to do when they inject ideas of a rational agent into horrific events which had no manner of sentient involvement, simply because they can't cope with the reality that bad things happen and don't need a reason outside of the natural world.

You're not offended, yet you are concerned that people still attribute things both good and bad to the whims of supernatural deities. Is that accurate?

You just have to read some history books to learn how many retarded things we've done because of that. And sometimes, it manifests in subtle ways.

I've written it before and will again: anyone who ignores the good that religions hath wrought hasn't studied enough history or is being intellectually dishonest.

So yeah, what he said - insanely stupid. Anyone who thinks that sort of shit is living 500+ years in the past.

Faith is faith. Millions of people today still embrace this proven failure. But what are ya gonna do?

For me, it's not a matter of taking offense. I'm not even remotely offended and neither should anyone else be. Instead, I'm concerned about the ridiculously stupid things that humans have a tendency to do when they inject ideas of a rational agent into horrific events which had no manner of sentient involvement, simply because they can't cope with the reality that bad things happen and don't need a reason outside of the natural world.

You just have to read some history books to learn how many retarded things we've done because of that. And sometimes, it manifests in subtle ways.

So yeah, what he said - insanely stupid. Anyone who thinks that sort of shit is living 500+ years in the past.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Here we have the same gargle of atheists going out of their way to get pissed off at one man's opinion. It's fun to be offended...the religious equally enjoy being offended by what they deem blasphemous.