|
|
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,239 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,239 Likes: 1 |
Taking a poll. After 40 pages (phone) and 819 replies how many of you have changed your mind and converted to one side or the other?
Can I have an amen?
Let's Go Brandon! FJB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,929 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,929 Likes: 5 |
As IQ increases, doubt of evolution decreases.
Yeah, the "from goo to you by way of the zoo" cretins are brilliant! Just ask them. LOL I have been hearing remarks like this since the '70s from my dearest Aunts, Uncles, cousins, and Grandparents. Each one of which I love dearly. And their motivation is easily understood. To admit the slightest chance that evolution has happened on this planet, or is currently happening would be Heresy. Their minds are permanently closed to the slightest possibility of evolutionary fact, for such an admission would destroy everything they have devoted their entire life to. And it would destroy (in their mind) their chance at Salvation and eternal life. How could one even coherently evaluate or discuss the subject when afflicted with such prejudice?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
The thing is, no one truly knows much that actually happened a few centuries ago, let alone at the beginning of time or of first life, thanks to the fact that the victors write the history. I accept natural selection, but in no way believe people or animals emerged from a primordial slime. We, and other species are made with such incredible features and abilities that distinguish all species, that I would suggest not to believe a Creator was involved takes far more faith than does believing in the Creator. And I apologize for the cretin reference. 
Last edited by RickyD; 08/02/19.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,569 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,569 Likes: 8 |
Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest....” Yes, they're suggestions, not proof. Like religious relics suggest that biblical stories are true. They all *suggest* whatever a person's faith allows them to believe. Keep "helpin", it's makin my job a lot easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Of course they are proof. What else would constitute proof and why are they not proof? Don't be so ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility. The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question. You're apparently incapable. It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Never mind the Universe, the planet earth is not a closed system..... Materialism emphatically says otherwise. No it doesn't. Even basic astrophysics tells us that Sun provides the earth with energy input. The Earth is an open and closed system The Earth is a closed system for matter''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised?
The Earth is an open system for energyIt is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''
I read the
reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science. ''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.'' Your distinction between science and philosophy is analytically silly but a standard canard trotted out by Darwinists when some high-level thinker points out the logical flaws in the philosophy of neo-darwinism. In any event, Nagel recognizes that the odds are essentially impossible for evolution. The quote above does not tame those odds. See my prior reference to the math of physicist Gerard Schroeder on the long odds. I am not the one to make a distinction between science and philosophy. The distinction is there. It was a distinction that was recognized a long time ago. It's not even contraversy. You guys try every silly trick in the book to defend faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
About the only thing I've got out of all this rannygazoo is that true believers of the psychosomatic theory's of Chas. Darwin are taken as proven fact, infallible and anyone that questions it must be hopelessly insane because they question the belief that logical theory is indeed proven fact. It's both fact and theory, as pointed out. Evolution happens, theory is the exploration of how it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3 |
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”
HP Lovecraft
Some folks on this thread have gone mad and fled from the light, others haven't. Who has and who hasn't will be a matter of interpretation, carry on.
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Modern Science has discovered the cause of Black Death in the Dark Ages
yet with cHristians at the time, Anti-Semitism greatly intensified throughout Europe as Jews were blamed for the spread
of the Black Death.
A wave of violent pogroms ensued, and entire Jewish communities were killed by mobs or burned at the stake en masse.
The Black Death was also seen by many to be caused by the fury of God upon an errant people.
clutching Bibles and sending prayers didn't prevent or stop the bacterium effects of the Black Death epidemics.
so much for 'faith".
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Modern Science has discovered the cause of Black Death in the Dark Ages
yet with cHristians at the time, Anti-Semitism greatly intensified throughout Europe as Jews were blamed for the spread
of the Black Death.
A wave of violent pogroms ensued, and entire Jewish communities were killed by mobs or burned at the stake en masse.
The Black Death was also seen by many to be caused by the fury of God upon an errant people.
clutching Bibles and sending prayers didn't prevent or stop the bacterium effects of the Black Death epidemics.
so much for 'faith". Even today; had an old friend that got cancer. Put his heath in a church instead of cancer doctors. At least he went sooner...
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6 |
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility. The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question. You're apparently incapable. It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that. Sure it is, you just can't answer one. If Iasked you if the sky was blue, three paragraphs later your answer would still be shrouded in a cloud of bullsh**.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility. The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question. You're apparently incapable. It's not a yes or no question. You set your own terms and conditions and when they are not met you feel justified. The answer is: faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. History shows that. Logic tells us that. Sure it is, you just can't answer one. If Iasked you if the sky was blue, thr ee paragraphs later your answer would still be shrouded in a cloud of bullsh**. Maybe simple answers satisfy simple minds, and angry men, but not those who genuinely want to understand the world, which is vast and complex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest....” Yes, they're suggestions, not proof. Like religious relics suggest that biblical stories are true. They all *suggest* whatever a person's faith allows them to believe. Keep "helpin", it's makin my job a lot easier. Futurism July 18th 2014: What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions: • Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related? • Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography? • Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations? Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6 |
Maybe simple answers satisfy simple minds, and angry men, but not those who genuinely want to understand the world, which is vast and complex.
LOL. Here's the question again, and the answer just so you can see the possibilities: Q: If two theories contradict each other, are both negated? A: No. Try it sometime. Free yourself. Yes, "the world" is vast and complex but some things are very simple.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Maybe simple answers satisfy simple minds, and angry men, but not those who genuinely want to understand the world, which is vast and complex.
LOL. Here's the question again, and the answer just so you can see the possibilities: Q: If two theories contradict each other, are both negated? A: No. What you fail to grasp is justification. A belief held without the support of evidence is an unjustified belief from the start. Whether it proves true or false being a matter of epistemological luck, Gettier, etc.
Try it sometime. Free yourself.
Yes, "the world" is vast and complex but some things are very simple.
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason. Here's a start for you - the nature of justification of belief and epistemological luck, I hope it helps; Why not say that knowledge is true belief? The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true. The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6 |
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason.
Took one, many years ago. That's where my yes/no question came from, it's called deductive reasoning in case you're not familiar. It goes like this: You posited that faith-based beliefs could be proven erroneous because there are inconsistencies and contradictions among them. I asked you if the same logic applied to theories, hence my question "if two theories contradict each other, are both negated?" The obvious answer is "no" but you refused to answer the question because it exposes the fallacy inherent in your position that faith-based beliefs can be proven wrong by the contradictions among them. You can't have it both ways. So, using decuctive reasoning,I can conclude that you're incapable of conceding a point even when proven wrong.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Maybe you should take a course in logic and reason.
Took one, many years ago. That's where my yes/no question came from, it's called deductive reasoning in case you're not familiar. It goes like this: You posited that faith-based beliefs could be proven erroneous because there are inconsistencies and contradictions among them. I asked you if the same logic applied to theories, hence my question "if two theories contradict each other, are both negated?" The obvious answer is "no" but you refused to answer the question because it exposes the fallacy inherent in your position that faith-based beliefs can be proven wrong by the contradictions among them. You can't have it both ways. So, using decuctive reasoning,I can conclude that you're incapable of conceding a point even when proven wrong. I have no point to concede. You seem incapable of understanding the nature of justification, the principle that a belief held without the support of evidence - being faith - that belief is either true or false on the basis of epistemological luck. And when we are talking about supernatural beliefs, that is a whole different ballpark when it comes to probability, never mind the lack of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,917 Likes: 15
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,917 Likes: 15 |
Time for a new thread on religion, this has deteriorated.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
509 members (260Remguy, 1minute, 257 roberts, 1badf350, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 59 invisible),
2,429
guests, and
1,224
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,424
Posts18,489,150
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
