KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

rivet · **Reply #861 on:** March 30, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

There is a god, but I think people want him to take the blame for everything we create. I think he established our surroundings and has let us run things. He/she is not one to control everything, but one who sets the physical rules as to how things run. If we fuck up the place, it isn't his/her fault, it's ours. When we blame god for things like cancer and other terminal diseases, we ignore what we've done to our environment and our need to blame someone other than ourselves.

sheriff andy · **Reply #862 on:** March 30, 2015, 01:01:59 AM

Is there? I can't say for certain, nobody can.
Just like man evolved from some ooze over millions of years, creation is a theory. Neither can be proven. At least no without a time machine.

For myself, yes I believe, because I choose to.
Because I like the idea that when my life is over this isn't the end of it all.
Because it gives me a bit of inner peace to believe.

Also because if you read the new testament, the actual teachings of Jesus, and not someones "but what that really means is..." but just his words and teachings, there's some pretty good shit there on how to live and treat others.

Also because I work around death a lot, and I know that on whole, those who believe seem to go easier, calmer and with less fear than those who don't.

IdleBoast · **Reply #863 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:47:09 AM

Technical point on the use of the term "theory".

In casual conversation, a theory is a nice idea that may or may not be wrong, we don't really know.

In science, however:

A hypothesis an idea that might work, but lacks convincing evidence. For instance, the concept of parallel universes is a hypothesis. There are hints in the equations that they could exist, but no evidence to back it up.

A theory is worlds away from a hypothesis. It is an idea that has been tested to destruction, and survived. It is the best possible way of describing or explaining a concept or phenomenon with the available evidence.

This is not a secret definition. Anybody that has passed high-school science should know the difference between the two uses of the word theory, but it is a common, but ultimately dishonest tactic of the Creationist movement to deliberately misuse the word.

They refer to evolution as "just a theory", as if it were a nice idea that doesn't really hold up to examination.

In fact, evolution is a theory in the same way that electricity is just a theory (yet the lights still come on), gravity is just a theory (yet we remain firmly on the ground and planets never stray from their orbits), quantum mechanics is just a theory (yet the chips in your computers work), fusion is just a theory (yet the Sun still shines).

Evolution happens. We can observe it on a daily basis, even without the fossil record.

-------------------

In my experience (and I have been having this argument for many years), the real reason creationists are desperate to dismiss evolution, unexamined, as "just a theory", is because the facts of evolution show that any religion with a creator god is worshipping a fraud:

1. If evolution is true, then the god is a con man, claiming to have created from scratch a universe that already existed. The theological equivalent of selling the Eiffel Tower to a passing tourist.

2. If evolution is not true, then the god is a deliberate deceiver, creating a universe with all the signs of great age already intrinsic in its structure. That's the theological equivalent of faking an antique.

Worse, in option 2, if the residents of the created world take that world at its face value, they find themselves condemned to eternal punishment purely for believing what their god presented to them.

sheriff andy · **Reply #864 on:** March 30, 2015, 12:14:21 PM

Actually I don't have a problem with evolution. As you say, it's happening right before my eyes.

One thing I do find terrible interesting, and it seems, most hardcore creationists and evolutionist seem to miss. Neither idea is mutually exclusive.

There is nothing in the bible that says the world was created as we know it today, that it was a static thing.
Nothing in evolutionist belief can explain how the whole process got started.

As someone stated here before, I don't think the bible is the unquestionable word of god. It was written by man, inspired? probably,, but open to error. It was written thousands of years ago, and had to be put in a form that people of that time could relate to and understand.

To tell them that some creator (like a bio-chemist in a lab) started a process up and let it run where it would, would not have been understandable.

Does God personally intervene? Possible, but if so I think it is extremely rare. I think God's attitude is more like "I give you this place, do what you will, but be able to answer for how you treat each other when your done."

MissBarbara · **Reply #865 on:** March 30, 2015, 02:35:17 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 10:47:09 AM

Technical point on the use of the term "theory".

In casual conversation, a theory is a nice idea that may or may not be wrong, we don't really know.

In science, however:

A hypothesis an idea that might work, but lacks convincing evidence. For instance, the concept of parallel universes is a hypothesis. There are hints in the equations that they could exist, but no evidence to back it up.

A theory is worlds away from a hypothesis. It is an idea that has been tested to destruction, and survived. It is the best possible way of describing or explaining a concept or phenomenon with the available evidence.

This is not a secret definition. Anybody that has passed high-school science should know the difference between the two uses of the word theory, but it is a common, but ultimately dishonest tactic of the Creationist movement to deliberately misuse the word.

They refer to evolution as "just a theory", as if it were a nice idea that doesn't really hold up to examination.

In fact, evolution is a theory in the same way that electricity is just a theory (yet the lights still come on), gravity is just a theory (yet we remain firmly on the ground and planets never stray from their orbits), quantum mechanics is just a theory (yet the chips in your computers work), fusion is just a theory (yet the Sun still shines).

Evolution happens. We can observe it on a daily basis, even without the fossil record.

-------------------

In my experience (and I have been having this argument for many years), the real reason creationists are desperate to dismiss evolution, unexamined, as "just a theory", is because the facts of evolution show that any religion with a creator god is worshipping a fraud:

1. If evolution is true, then the god is a con man, claiming to have created from scratch a universe that already existed. The theological equivalent of selling the Eiffel Tower to a passing tourist.

2. If evolution is not true, then the god is a deliberate deceiver, creating a universe with all the signs of great age already intrinsic in its structure. That's the theological equivalent of faking an antique.

Worse, in option 2, if the residents of the created world take that world at its face value, they find themselves condemned to eternal punishment purely for believing what their god presented to them.

An excellent post, and props (and a woo) for posting it.

A couple of additions:

Creationists do indeed refer to evolution as "just a theory," as if it were a nice idea that doesn't really hold up to examination. But they use that phrase in order to dismiss it without having to refute it or provide contrary data (of which there is none).

I mildly disagree with your assertion that "the real reason creationists are desperate to dismiss evolution, unexamined, as "just a theory", is because the facts of evolution show that any religion with a creator god is worshiping a fraud." It's not that their God is a fraud as much as it their personal conception of God, and his creation, requires the non-existence of evolution. The details they believe -- God created the world in six days, he created it around 6,000 years ago, he created each and every species as they currently exist, and no new species have arisen since then, etc. -- fly in the face of basic facts demonstrated by evolution.

And I hasten to point out that creationist beliefs are held by a relatively small percentage of believers overall. The Catholic Church, for example, confirmed the viability of evolution well over a century ago.

IdleBoast · **Reply #866 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:46:09 PM

Quote from: MissBarbara on March 30, 2015, 02:35:17 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 10:47:09 AM

Technical point on the use of the term "theory".

In casual conversation, a theory is a nice idea that may or may not be wrong, we don't really know.

In science, however:

A hypothesis an idea that might work, but lacks convincing evidence. For instance, the concept of parallel universes is a hypothesis. There are hints in the equations that they could exist, but no evidence to back it up.

A theory is worlds away from a hypothesis. It is an idea that has been tested to destruction, and survived. It is the best possible way of describing or explaining a concept or phenomenon with the available evidence.

This is not a secret definition. Anybody that has passed high-school science should know the difference between the two uses of the word theory, but it is a common, but ultimately dishonest tactic of the Creationist movement to deliberately misuse the word.

They refer to evolution as "just a theory", as if it were a nice idea that doesn't really hold up to examination.

In fact, evolution is a theory in the same way that electricity is just a theory (yet the lights still come on), gravity is just a theory (yet we remain firmly on the ground and planets never stray from their orbits), quantum mechanics is just a theory (yet the chips in your computers work), fusion is just a theory (yet the Sun still shines).

Evolution happens. We can observe it on a daily basis, even without the fossil record.

-------------------

In my experience (and I have been having this argument for many years), the real reason creationists are desperate to dismiss evolution, unexamined, as "just a theory", is because the facts of evolution show that any religion with a creator god is worshipping a fraud:

1. If evolution is true, then the god is a con man, claiming to have created from scratch a universe that already existed. The theological equivalent of selling the Eiffel Tower to a passing tourist.

2. If evolution is not true, then the god is a deliberate deceiver, creating a universe with all the signs of great age already intrinsic in its structure. That's the theological equivalent of faking an antique.

Worse, in option 2, if the residents of the created world take that world at its face value, they find themselves condemned to eternal punishment purely for believing what their god presented to them.

An excellent post, and props (and a woo) for posting it.

A couple of additions:

Creationists do indeed refer to evolution as "just a theory," as if it were a nice idea that doesn't really hold up to examination. But they use that phrase in order to dismiss it without having to refute it or provide contrary data (of which there is none).

I mildly disagree with your assertion that "the real reason creationists are desperate to dismiss evolution, unexamined, as "just a theory", is because the facts of evolution show that any religion with a creator god is worshiping a fraud." It's not that their God is a fraud as much as it their personal conception of God, and his creation, requires the non-existence of evolution. The details they believe -- God created the world in six days, he created it around 6,000 years ago, he created each and every species as they currently exist, and no new species have arisen since then, etc. -- fly in the face of basic facts demonstrated by evolution.

And I hasten to point out that creationist beliefs are held by a relatively small percentage of believers overall. The Catholic Church, for example, confirmed the viability of evolution well over a century ago.

Actually, the Pope only accepted that evolution is real in October last year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

Also, in a Gallup poll from 2012:

15% of Americans accept that the theory of evolution is true.
32% believe that evolution is real, but directed by god.
46% believe in the creation story as presented in the bible.

That's a total of 78% of Americans denying the evidence presented to them.

This is interesting:

PhtBtmGrl · **Reply #867 on:** March 30, 2015, 04:21:03 PM

It seems to me that the majority of people who don't believe in evolution, don't believe in it because they don't want to go to hell. Meaning the fear of their soul being placed into eternal damnation is a strong enough driving force, to make them claim the belief of creationism. That somehow by denying evolution they are standing up for a God that will reward them for their loyalty with a eternal life in heaven.

MissBarbara · **Reply #868 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:08:32 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 03:46:09 PM

Actually, the Pope only accepted that evolution is real in October last year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

No, he didn't. Read your own article. Pope Francis condemned, in the words of the article, "pseudo theories of creationism and intelligent design," which are, in essence, creationist theories flowing from Biblical literalism, of the type held by many evangelical Christians, but very few Catholics.

I can't find it at the moment, but there was an official Church document, issued around 1890, that essentially held that the Theory of Evolution was not incompatible with Church teaching. In other words, Francis was simply clarifying a long-held point.

And note how the author "proves" the Catholic Church is "anti-science" -- by citing something that happened close to 500 years ago.

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 03:46:09 PM

Also, in a Gallup poll from 2012:

15% of Americans accept that the theory of evolution is true.
32% believe that evolution is real, but directed by god.
46% believe in the creation story as presented in the bible.

That's a total of 78% of Americans denying the evidence presented to them.

78%? I'm not sure how the 32% that "believe evolution is true" are "denying the evidence presented to them." Plus, where's the remaining 7%?

Nor, for that matter, is Evolution something one "believes in." It's science, and clearly demonstrated science. As such, it's not something one "believes in," or not.

But the fact that 46% "believe in the creation story as presented in the bible" is truly disturbing.

MissBarbara · **Reply #869 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:11:20 PM

Quote from: PhtBtmGrl on March 30, 2015, 04:21:03 PM

It seems to me that the majority of people who don't believe in evolution, don't believe in it because they don't want to go to hell. Meaning the fear of their soul being placed into eternal damnation is a strong enough driving force, to make them claim the belief of creationism. That somehow by denying evolution they are standing up for a God that will reward them for their loyalty with a eternal life in heaven.

This is just my opinion, but I think these people don't "believe" in Evolution because it contrasts with their views of Creation, a view that holds literally to the account of creation in Genesis, and which requires God to have played an actual role in the creation of every single species. It's the most absurd form of reactionaryism.

IdleBoast · **Reply #870 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Farmer Miles on March 30, 2015, 04:10:20 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Also, in a Gallup poll from 2012:

15% of Americans accept that the theory of evolution is true.
32% believe that evolution is real, but directed by god.
46% believe in the creation story as presented in the bible.

That's a total of 78% of Americans denying the evidence presented to them.

Incorrect, though mainly because of the way you have presented the information. It's 46%, which is still an alarmingly high number. Demanding that people must abandon their faith in order to be considered to support scientific fact is neither reasonable nor sensical. Belief that god has a hand in defining everything up to the physical laws of our universe is not mutually exclusive from the understanding of those laws. Whether a person believes evolution is part of a cosmic plan or just a reality of our lonely existence has no relevance to their understanding of the theory itself.

Evolution is random, not directed. Anybody with high-school knowledge of DNA can tell you that.

So, those who believe that evolution is directed are also ignoring the evidence.

46 + 32 = 78.

IdleBoast · **Reply #871 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:55:44 PM

Quote from: MissBarbara on March 30, 2015, 07:08:32 PM

78%? I'm not sure how the 32% that "believe evolution is true" are "denying the evidence presented to them." Plus, where's the remaining 7%?

Because they believe that a demonstrably-random process is directed by a higher being. The 7% probably didn't want to express an opinion in public, or maybe ticked more than one box (I don't know if the survey was written or verbal).

Quote

Nor, for that matter, is Evolution something one "believes in." It's science, and clearly demonstrated science. As such, it's not something one "believes in," or not.

Mea culpe - I slipped into the vernacular of the Believers. Evolution is a fact, but creationists present it as a "world view", or even "a position of faith".

Quote

But the fact that 46% "believe in the creation story as presented in the bible" is truly disturbing.[/quoute]

Absolutely.

MissBarbara · **Reply #872 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:21:28 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 30, 2015, 07:55:44 PM

Quote from: MissBarbara on March 30, 2015, 07:08:32 PM

78%? I'm not sure how the 32% that "believe evolution is true" are "denying the evidence presented to them." Plus, where's the remaining 7%?

Because they believe that a demonstrably-random process is directed by a higher being. The 7% probably didn't want to express an opinion in public, or maybe ticked more than one box (I don't know if the survey was written or verbal).

Something cannot, by definition, be "demonstrably random."

Survey results presented out of context are next to meaningless. But the word "directed" can have a host of meanings. For example, the two statements "God created the world" and "evolution describes how species arose and fell, by means of natural selection" are by no means incompatible.

Believe me, I share your concern about how scientific fact is deemed "just another opinion" by a segment of the population, and how this segment asserts contrary "facts" in the face of insuperable data.

Athos_131 · **Reply #873 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:23:49 PM

He's on twitter, but I'm not convinced.

https://twitter.com/thetweetofgod

MissBarbara · **Reply #874 on:** March 30, 2015, 10:25:50 PM

Quote from: Athos_131 on March 30, 2015, 10:23:49 PM

He's on twitter, but I'm not convinced.

https://twitter.com/thetweetofgod

If he's on Twitter, then he must, by definition, exist.

Athos_131 · **Reply #875 on:** March 30, 2015, 11:44:11 PM

Quote from: MissBarbara on March 30, 2015, 10:25:50 PM

Quote from: Athos_131 on March 30, 2015, 10:23:49 PM

He's on twitter, but I'm not convinced.

https://twitter.com/thetweetofgod

If he's on Twitter, then he must, by definition, exist.

If that's the case I can't wait to eat at Nihilist Arby's.

https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys

IdleBoast · **Reply #876 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:10:38 AM

Quote from: Farmer Miles on March 30, 2015, 08:38:36 PM

Apparently 32% of Americans are bright enough to at least realise that much.

Are you trying to say that believing in a god for which no evidence exists is a sign of intelligence?

IdleBoast · **Reply #877 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:20:58 AM

Quote from: MissBarbara on March 30, 2015, 10:21:28 PM

Something cannot, by definition, be "demonstrably random."

Yes, it can. If no pattern can be discerned in it at any point, then it is demonstrably random cf the toss of a coin, the roll of a dice, the shuffling of DNA in meiosis...

Quote

Survey results presented out of context are next to meaningless. But the word "directed" can have a host of meanings. For example, the two statements "God created the world" and "evolution describes how species arose and fell, by means of natural selection" are by no means incompatible.

The lack of context is what makes a Gallup poll reliable - they ask random people the question, then analyse the data afterwards.

Actually, I've dug more, and found slightly more up-to-date data, with a slightly more encouraging picture:

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

IdleBoast · **Reply #878 on:** March 31, 2015, 06:55:54 PM

Quote

For instance, while mutation from one generation to the next in genetics appears to be random, evolution itself is much less so. There is a pattern to advantageous genes being reproduced and disadvantageous genes naturally being removed from the gene pool that eventually leads to a fundamentally different organism than the original.

It is a very common error to think there is anything non-random in evolution. There is a random gene-shuffling with every generation, and no genuine pattern to the selection process, since it relies as much on random events (a meteorite strikes, a gust of wind brings a seed to shore just so, the perfect reproductive partner sneezes at the wheel and a brick wall prevents you ever meeting) as it does on positive or negative selection (a mutation provides the perfect adaptation to survive the winter, then the winter was unusually mild and you drown when you could have run over the ice).

IdleBoast · **Reply #879 on:** March 31, 2015, 08:50:18 PM

Quote from: Farmer Miles on March 31, 2015, 08:34:08 PM

Quote from: IdleBoast on March 31, 2015, 06:55:54 PM
It is a very common error to think there is anything non-random in evolution. There is a random gene-shuffling with every generation, and no genuine pattern to the selection process, since it relies as much on random events (a meteorite strikes, a gust of wind brings a seed to shore just so, the perfect reproductive partner sneezes at the wheel and a brick wall prevents you ever meeting) as it does on positive or negative selection (a mutation provides the perfect adaptation to survive the winter, then the winter was unusually mild and you drown when you could have run over the ice).

You're confusing random with complicated. It would certainly be an error to think evolution isn't complicated.

Umm... really, it isn't complicated.

Here in the UK, we teach the concept to 11 year olds.

Maybe that's why we have relatively little problem with creationists over here, because we educate them before they get indoctrinated?

Does God exist?

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast

IdleBoast