The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer".

I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the other.

YouTube - The Logic Fallacy of Intelligent Design and Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvLnHfw3cOo)

[Hardcore Newbie]

exactly. we can't subscribe to ID beyond "We might have been made" without just making things up.

[burnable]

good stuff. most of the time when people argue this, they've convinced themselves of the conclusion before gathering the info. wanting to believe something is an enemy to logic, science, intellect, and everything that will produce a stable and truth-seeking mind.

I don't think evolution and creationism have to conflict. After studying a natural phenomenon exhaustively, Einstein tended to deduce that there was an ineffable and mystical intelligence behind it, but that didn't mean he was ready to say "all hail God of Abraham, thy hand worketh in all things." People are too quick to do that, to satisfy their minds with an exoteric and explicit conclusion. Do they really think the complexities of life are a representation of a fluorescent guy sitting on a golden throne in heaven? If he was there, do you think he would have expected us to use our god-given, viable intellects to come to such a ludicrous conclusion?

The smartest people who've ever lived, after profound studies and mind-blowing realizations, often reach the conclusion that there is much more to what they've found, and that they simply do not have the capacity to comprehend it. Why do religious zealots think that they know the answers doing infinitely less, often no more than praying and subscribing to a special feeling in the heart, often comparable to the emotions that prevail during a romance movie?

The difference between a romance movie and a religious doctrine is that the movie didn't have thousands of years of culture and often many preceding generations of believers telling you it's factual. It's too easy to believe when there is that much support for it, even if it tortures your capacity to reason. I'm just glad there are those of us in the world who respond to what intellect, nature, and practical science have to say. Wouldn't 'god' want us to have allegiance to those things rather than popular opinion? WWJD?

[dragonrider]

This is great. It's an idea I have kind of been circling for awhile without a good way to state it succinctly. Thanks.

[yokinazu]

i studied creationism in school. in the only class where it should be taught: mythology.

[jdmarcus59]

This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer".

I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the other.

YouTube - The Logic Fallacy of Intelligent Design and Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvLnHfw3cOo)

it holds no water

[Hardcore Newbie]

it holds no water
How does it not hold water? Stating something doesn't make it true.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How does it not hold water? Stating something doesn't make it true.

But believing it does!

[Mr. Clandestine]

I don't think he was meaning to insult the maker of this video, as much as he was simply pointing out that everything found in this video could be applied to the illogical fallacies in evolutionists theories. The video maker is completely entitled to his opinions, and he's right about one thing: creationists can't prove him wrong without resorting to religious texts of their own personal belief system. But, when you go and make a statement that "an evolutionist doesn't need address a creationists arguments directly, they need only point out that they consider these arguments to be illogical..." you instantly lose much credibility, and just come off as being obstinate.

It's just as logical (or illogical) for one to assume that they were created by an intelligent designer as it is to assume - and without empirical proof - that this beautiful world, with all of its many complexities, was designed by random chance and brought forth by an enormous galactic explosion which was generated from nothingness. Both seem to be fallible propositions, and both could be entirely wrong for all we know. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster DID create everything we see and know. And I'm sure that those who faithfully & respectfully adhered to this theory will one day be welcomed into Meatball Heaven with open noodles! But there's no reason to openly bash another persons beliefs just because you believe them to be wrong. You can civilly debate against your opposition, but we all know that these debates rarely remain civil for very long...and this applies to both sides of the debate.

Think about it...I could practically re-make this entire video, replace "creationist" with "evolutionist", and get the same response from creationists that this video is getting from evolutionists. That doesn't make it any more "logically infallible", quite the opposite actually, it makes it equally as unfeasible for all the same reasons.

[dragonrider]

No, the video would not work if you switched the two arguments.

Evolution is a theory built on observation of the natural world and a logical explanation for what is observed. Creationism/ID is not. The strength of creationism/ID arguments is primarily that evolutionary theory does not FULLY explain all of the observed phenomena. Creationism/ID arguments work by poking holes in evolutionary theory and then filling those holes with God or an "intelligent designer." So creationism/ID does not stand on its own merits, it relies on the weakness of evolutionary theory.

As the video points out, that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. A hole in one theory does not translate into greater weight for an alternative theory. That kind of logical fallacy could be used to support any kind of alternative theory, even those that are patently absurd, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The alternative theory must stand on its own merits.

So the video would not work if you switched the two theories. Evolutionary theory DOES stand on it's own merits --- there are logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory, so it does not rely on the same logical fallacy that creationism/ID does. It does not in any way rely on holes in the creationism/ID arguments. In order for creationism/ID to be interchangeable with evolution in the video, creationism/ID would have to also have logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR its conclusions and not rely on holes in evolutionary theory.

I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

And I will also assert that if you search those same threads or search outside this forum, you will not find empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer. The most you will find are examples of phenomena that supporters of creationism/ID claim are not explained by evolutionary theory, and the claim that those holes in evolutionary theory are evidence in favor of creationism/ID.

[Hardcore Newbie]

"an evolutionist doesn't need address a creationists arguments directly, they need only point out that they consider these arguments to be illogical..." you instantly lose much credibility, and just come off as being obstinate.
How so? If all someone is going is bringing illogical arguments in a specific way, then you point out the kind of faulty logic they're using to present their case, saving you time of disproving each case on it's own, to showing what type of argument they're using and why it can be disregarded.


Think about it...I could practically re-make this entire video, replace "creationist" with "evolutionist", and get the same response from creationists that this video is getting from evolutionists. That doesn't make it any more "logically infallible", quite the opposite actually, it makes it equally as unfeasible for all the same reasons.Evolution doesn't get it's proof by disproving ID or creationism. Evolution's strength doesn't come from ID or creation's weakness, evolution's strength comes from it's own observations tests and conclusions.

What test can one possibly conduct to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?

[Mr. Clandestine]

No, the video would not work if you switched the two arguments.

Yes, the video would. I said that this principle would apply directly to those who view themselves as creationists, and in return, it would produce a similar outcome/response. Just because you refuse to believe in it doesn't equate to it being an illogical fallacy, you see?


Evolution is a theory built on observation of the natural world and a logical explanation for what is observed. Creationism/ID is not.

A logical explanation, affirmed by a group of people who think along the same lines. There is no observation that the big bang theory happened...there are only concepts of what it could have looked like, should it have ever actually happened. The same rule applies to creationists. We can't prove to non-believers that our theory is infallible, so we merely project how we think it happened. No different from most of the theories presented in evolutionist propaganda, you understand? It's a nice theory in most respects, but it's largely undocumented because there is very little to document. It was all a generalization to begin with and people ran with it.


Creationism/ID arguments work by poking holes in evolutionary theory and then filling those holes with God or an "intelligent designer."

Okay, let's run with this. Evolutionists/big bang theorists/pragmatists merely survive, yet rarely flourish, in these arguments based on their own secular reasoning. Many point out links that they deem the most coherent to them and stick by their convictions, just like many creationists are prone to do, regardless of whether or not they are factually relevant. The point is, this is a matter of personal opinion...and many, but not all evolutionists understand that their premise behind all this incessant bickering revolves around unattainable truths. Or myths. There are, of course, some facts strewn about, on both sides mind you, but both sides seem reluctant to want to believe one another and are quick to simply point out the others biased sources. I'm not offended by this, though I prefer not to force my beliefs on another person. So why then does it offend so many people when I tell them that I believe God created this universe...as opposed to a big explosion that came from nowhere in particular? I am, after all, just expressing my own personal opinion. It offends them because it's contrary to their personal beliefs. Some people simply don't take that as well as others.


As the video points out, that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

That all depends on a persons definition of "logic". Which, in my opinion, can mean a system of applicable reasoning used to further one's sense of knowledge on a particular subject. You consider it a fallacy, I do not. What makes me incorrect? Your opinion on the matter? I don't think so...


It does not in any way rely on holes in the creationism/ID arguments.

Correct, it relies on debasing one theory for another. I won't bother pointing out the holes commonly found by creationists, because I'm sure you don't want to hear it for the umpteen billionth time. You should respect that creationist don't want to hear that "you're right, and we're wrong" because so-called scientists have gathered all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and bundled them all together into a unified (but largely unjustified) theoretical concept. There may be a few bits and pieces of evidence, but it's nothing conclusive...otherwise it wouldn't still be a theory, it would be an irrefutable fact. I can go on to say that numerous historical documents have been recovered in the past that prove that the authors of many biblical documents were true to their word. But does this make my faith in ID an irrefutable fact? No. It makes it a scenario that's plausible to me, and therefore, I'll stand by it.


In order for creationism/ID to be interchangeable with evolution in the video, creationism/ID would have to also have logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR its conclusions and not rely on holes in evolutionary theory.

As I just said, we have plenty of logical arguments based on empirical evidence recovered from tombs, historical archaeological sites, and the like. I don't rely on holes in evolutionary theory, I merely point them out when an evolutionist has the lack of courtesy to do the same for me. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy to simply disagree with that person and move on.


I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:


And I will also assert that if you search those same threads or search outside this forum, you will not find empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer. The most you will find are examples of phenomena that supporters of creationism/ID claim are not explained by evolutionary theory, and the claim that those holes in evolutionary theory are evidence in favor of creationism/ID.

Make assertations all you want, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I've found plenty of empirical evidence pointing to an intelligent designer, but would I expect you to believe it? Definitely not. You're dead-set in your own beliefs, just as I am...and it would be inconsiderate of me to try and take that from you. Your assertation is pretty funny, though...because all you're able to present is identical phenomena that correlates indirectly to the theories you're trying to pass off as infallible! So-what if a scientist stumbled upon a fossil of a species that appears to have possibly evolved? For all they know, they may have uncovered an entirely different animal altogether. After all, it's just bones and partially definable characteristics that they assume are from the same class of animals. Forget that they've been dead for thousands of years (or according to some scientists, billions of years), and that their arguments are rendered baseless by the fact that few scientists were actually studying/documenting these animals during the time they were alive...it all happened after the fact. Nevermind that, though...it's merely conjecture, and can still be passed off as plausible.

Scientists are discovering new species all the time, will continue to do so, and will probably continue to claim that it all somehow correlates to the initial origin of species in some obscure manner. They'll be right as long as there are people out there willing to believe it. Because it's just not possible for me to prove them wrong.

...just like it's not possible for you to prove me wrong. Get over it, there's no need to become offended because someone on par with your critical reasoning skills can actually believe in this 'nonsensical fallacy' and get away with it. I must just be an idiot who's got a way with words. No other way to explain it...right?

[Mr. Clandestine]

How so? If all someone is going is bringing illogical arguments in a specific way, then you point out the kind of faulty logic they're using to present their case, saving you time of disproving each case on it's own, to showing what type of argument they're using and why it can be disregarded.

Ah-ha! That's exactly what I'm trying to prove...that I consider many of these arguments to be illogical, lending me viable reasons why I think they can be disregarded. Not all of them, keep in mind...I actually agree with a good bit of evolutionist theories, even some that directly contradict my own theories of creation. But rarely are there any that actually disprove my theories...they merely disagree with them. I'm very open to differences in opinions, because it better helps me to understand how I can reach a common-ground with those that vehemently disagree with me. I don't like arguing, because it's not a constructive use of my time. And while I know that mutual understanding just isn't always possible, I still enjoy being able to "agree to disagree", then walking away (or further discussing) the topic with some degree of humility and some sense of understanding.


Evolution doesn't get it's proof by disproving ID or creationism. Evolution's strength doesn't come from ID or creation's weakness, evolution's strength comes from it's own observations tests and conclusions.

You're right that all scientists don't have to rely on poking holes in creationists theories to prove their case, but neither do all creationists. We've pointed out several matters that we deem factually relevant to us, such as historical documents pointing to the authenticity of our religious scripture. How is that any less tangible than a pile of bones that's estimated to be between a few thousand and billions of years old? It's only faulty logic when you consider the source of the objection. It makes perfect sense to the originating party.


What test can one possibly conduct to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?

I could go so far as to base my conclusion on the various degrees of the Anthropic Principle, but that would be too subjective. There are plenty of theorems, but what's to say that they'd mean anything to you...even if they mean something to me? Take for instance:

"God does exist".

Basis propositions:

(1) Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent beings.

Is that proof? No, but it's not an illogical theory.

As I was saying to Dragonrider, it's simply not possible for me to prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an intelligent designer (God) created this world and everything in it. I can point out reasons why I believe He does exist, but I'm sure much of it would fall on deaf ears. And that's okay, I have no problem with letting you believe whatever you so desire. My only problem is, and always has been, when I am the target of unscrupulous people who become angry at me for making the same choice that they made at some point in the past. The only difference being that I chose a different set of standards. It's easy to disagree with someone, and I think that's why I am attacked for my religious beliefs so frequently. But it's also easy to disagree with someone, while at the same time listening to their reasoning behind the decision they made, and having constructive conversations that provide insight to each party. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not out to try and disprove every bit of evolutionist theory that I come across...so I appreciate when the favor is returned by not telling me that I'm wrong simply because I have no tangible proof.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Ah-ha! That's exactly what I'm trying to prove...that I consider many of these arguments to be illogical, lending me viable reasons why I think they can be disregarded.
You have to show how it is illogical.


You're right that all scientists don't have to rely on poking holes in creationists theories to prove their case, but neither do all creationists. We've pointed out several matters that we deem factually relevant to us, such as historical documents pointing to the authenticity of our religious scripture.
Care to show a sceptic your historical documents?


How is that any less tangible than a pile of bones that's estimated to be between a few thousand and billions of years old?
Which pile of bones is estimated to be either thousands or millions of years old?


It's only faulty logic when you consider the source of the objection. It makes perfect sense to the originating party.
There aren't two versions of logic.


"God does exist".

Basis propositions:

(1) Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent beings.
You state that this is not proof, this is a supposition. You are supposing that anything that resembles a language is made by intelligent beings. But the language of math disproves that. Yes, we may have come up with the symbols so we can interpret the language (numbers and operations) but math occurs in nature. Otherwise, different regions could use different math formulae and still be "right".

Now "could" math be created with some form of ID? of course, but it doesn't make that supposition because it hasn't been observed. Math is something we discovered, we don't suppose beyond that discovery.


Is that proof? No, but it's not an illogical theory.
Actually it does defy logic, for one could suppose anything, and have it be on equal ground with another supposed belief. Why is this supposition exempt from that?


I can point out reasons why I believe He does exist, but I'm sure much of it would fall on deaf ears.
If these theories are logical or have proof, spit 'em out :D


My only problem is, and always has been, when I am the target of unscrupulous people who become angry at me for making the same choice that they made at some point in the past. The only difference being that I chose a different set of standards. It's easy to disagree with someone, and I think that's why I am attacked for my religious beliefs so frequently.
I don't believe in attacking people, I do believe in attacking beliefs. If people aren't basing their life around logic, then what standard are they basing it on... superstition? randomness? mood? suppositions?


Please don't get me wrong, I'm not out to try and disprove every bit of evolutionist theory that I come across...so I appreciate when the favor is returned by not telling me that I'm wrong simply because I have no tangible proof.That's good to hear, as disregarding information on evolution does nothing to help anyone else's viewpoint anyways.

But people will not believe you if you have claims without backing proof, it's that simple. Otherwise, I could tell you that I flew yesterday by flapping my arms really fast, and cry foul when someone calls me a liar.

[Mr. Clandestine]

You have to show how it is illogical.

I can point to arguments made before me, hardly any of which are original, but I figured you were probably tired of hearing them...and it's not my intention to turn this into the same drab argument that's already been reproduced countless times. It's also only going to point out why I think it's illogical, but most likely wouldn't hold the same meaning for you. Again, I'm not fond of pushing my beliefs on others because it tends to just start arguments, but if I had to point out one illogical evolutionist flaw, it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance. I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance. And conversely, I attribute all the ugliness in this world to the actions and deeds of humans.


Care to show a skeptic your historical documents?

Not sure what you're asking here. I could show plenty of skeptics of these historical documents, hell...the Catholic Church is sometimes one of the biggest critics. Ever heard of the Gospel According to Saint Thomas? It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church considers these documents to be the work of a heretical author (even though they recognize Didymus Judas Thomas as one of the most respected apostles), but of course, would never revise their canonical texts to allow this scripture into the Holy Bible. But I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...so I'm blatantly refusing to listen to the Catholic Church, and taking my own stance on this subject. Not that I'm a Catholic anyway, but you get my point. Most Christians aren't fond of having any disputes with the Catholic Church, especially ones that the Church considers to be heresy.


Which pile of bones is estimated to be either thousands or millions of years old?

I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.


There aren't two versions of logic.

But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.


You state that this is not proof, this is a supposition. You are supposing that anything that resembles a language is made by intelligent beings. But the language of math disproves that.

But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.


If these theories are logical or have proof, spit 'em out :D

If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.


I don't believe in attacking people, I do believe in attacking beliefs.

But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.


That's good to hear, as disregarding information on evolution does nothing to help anyone else's viewpoint anyways.

But people will not believe you if you have claims without backing proof, it's that simple. Otherwise, I could tell you that I flew yesterday by flapping my arms really fast, and cry foul when someone calls me a liar.

This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.

[dragonrider]

I knew this thread would quickly turn into one of those in which each post is an incredibly long series of quotes and rebuttals. I find that style hard to read and even harder to write. I guess it is the only way to handle some of these topics in this kind of medium, but it makes me wish I could just sit down and talk some of this through, because it would go a lot faster and there woudl be fewer misunderstandings.

Anyway, I am not going to post a long series of quotes and rebuttals because it seems to take me all day to compose one of those. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Can someone tell me if there is a quicker way to quote a series of snippets than to quote the entire original post and then chop out the parts you don't want? And how do you do that 20 times in one post?

There is one quote I do need to rebut, because it is a complete misunderstanding of what I said, and the misunderstanding indicates that someone thought I said something idiotic, which is not the case:



Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:


That quote is in reference to my statement:


I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.


If you read what I said, I think we are in agreement. This forum is the last place I would look for evidence for any of my beliefs! Gawd! I come here mostly to read about people's crazy stoned pot-smoking stories and get new cannibis recipes! Somehow, against my better judgement, I get sucked into these other discussions, but I do not come here to learn about science or religion!

My point in my original quote was that I didn't need to present a case here for evolutionary theory because it is well covered in this forum, and outside of it. If you look at the people who have posted in this thread, they are all the same people who have participated in those other threads I am talking about, so let's not waste time rehashing all of those arguments and stick to the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that there is a logical fallacy in saying that if one thing is not true, then a particular alternative is true. That is not an argument rooted in Logic.

Like Mathematics, Logic is a codified system of reasoning with very strict rules. Those rules prohibit certain kinds of fallacies that everyone uses everyday. Many of the logical fallacies that people use everyday are accepted forms of reasoning, but they are not logical according to the codified rules of Logic. For example, someone might say, "George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, so if he says Iran wants The Bomb, it's not true." First, you might not accept the premise at all, and I do not mean to open up a political discussion. (Please, God. No!) But if you were to accept the premise of the statement, that George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, then you might accept the conclusion of the statement. But the argument is not rooted in Logic. According to the rules of Logic, it is a logical fallacy to say that just because a person has always lied in the past, that any particular statement they make is not true, even if that is an acceptable form of reasoning for most people.

The video points to a different kind of logical fallacy that is somtimes used in the argument for creationism/ID as a scientific theory. The video is limited in its scope, and the particular fallacy it discusses is the kind of argument that states: because evolution cannot explain this particular phenomenon, for example irreducible complexity, it is logical to conclude that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. You may or may not accept the premise that evolutionary theory fails to explain the particular phenomenon, but even if you do, it is a logical fallacy according to the rules of Logic to arrive at the conclusion that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. It might be an acceptable kind of reasoning for some people, but it is a logical fallacy.

Now I am not going to say that anyone here has made that kind of argument. So I do not want to hear anyone say that I have misstated their personal arguments for creationism/ID. I am just saying that I have heard those kinds of arguments before, and those kinds of argumants are rooted in a logical fallacy.

Another kind of logical fallacy that is not discussed in the video that I have sometimes heard used as an argument for creationism/ID is an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority fallacy is an argument that is sort of like the George Bush example I gave, but which takes a positive form, instead of a neagitve form. It's an argument based on the idea that a particular authority is always right, so anything that authority says is true. In some creationism/ID arguments, the authority is the Bible, scripture or religious authorities. Again, I am not attacking anyone's particular arguments made in this thread. And I accept that some people feel that appeals to the authority of the Bible, scripture or religious authorities are an acceptable kind of reasoning. I am just saying that those kinds of arguments are a form of logical fallacy according to the codified rules of Logic.

Personally, I do not care whether other people believe in evolution or in creationism/ID. I am not going to attack another person's beliefs. But if a person claims that their beliefs are scientific or logical, then I will take them seriously and discuss whether they have followed the methods required by these strict systems of reasoning. I object to arguments that claim to be logical, when in fact they are fallacies according to the strict rules of Logic. Science also has strict rules and methods, and I object when people make arguments that they claim are scientific, when those arguments violate the rules and methods of science. My objections are not an attack on that person's belief's, they are a defense of science and logic.

Likewise, I do not like it when people misuse science to desparage another person's beliefs. For example, I do not like it when a person argues that God does not exist simply because he cannot be proven to exist. That is a misuse of science. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and science needs to be honest about its limits in order to maintain it's credibility.

I defend the separation of science and religion. Both are limited in scope and need to keep out of each other's turf, otherwise they both come away tainted. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that there does not need to be a conflict between religion and science, and i think that is true as long as each keeps within it's own scope. Picture this kind of discussion:

"I believe that the universe began in a cosmic explosion and the natural processes of physics, biology and evolution shaped everything we see in the world today."

"Do you believe that God had anything to do with it?"

"It doesn't matter to me whether God exists. I can't prove it either way. I just like understanding how it all works, and I think that as long as we keep investigating the physical world, we will eventually understand all of the physical processes we see occuring in the universe."

"Well, I believe that God created all the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in it."

"Got any proof of that?"

"No, I have no physical proof. It's what I have always been taught by the people I respect most, and when I look at the awesome wonder of nature, I feel in my soul that it must be a divine creation and part of a larger purpose and plan."

"So it is not a scientific conclusion, it's a belief?"

"Yes, it is my belief."

"That's cool. Got any weed?"

"Got some of God's green herb right here!"

"Awesome! Want to get high and go look through my telescope?"

[Mr. Clandestine]

Anyway, I am not going to post a long series of quotes and rebuttals because it seems to take me all day to compose one of those. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Agreed, it can get monotonous very fast when you have so many particular quotes you want to respond to. I'll refrain from picking apart your post, to make it easier on both of us! ;)


If you read what I said, I think we are in agreement. This forum is the last place I would look for evidence for any of my beliefs! Gawd! I come here mostly to read about people's crazy stoned pot-smoking stories and get new cannabis recipes! Somehow, against my better judgment, I get sucked into these other discussions, but I do not come here to learn about science or religion!

Agreed, once again. I signed up in this forum for the exact same reason you did, yet still somehow manage to either incite theological discussions or end up on the receiving end of theoretical arguments pretty frequently. I must admit, though, it has been a long while since I've had the time to give my personal point-of-views on the matter...and it's bringing back some fond memories!

As for the correlations you pointed out about George Bush, I agree with them wholeheartedly, too. I harbor a little disdain towards evangelical Christians, especially hypocritical ones, and have just never been able to take anything he says or does seriously. Not because of his religious preference, even though I don't agree with many evangelical principles, but because of his enormous sense of greed for power. He and Cheney, alike. And while I can't say that I'd vote for Hillary in the upcoming elections, I do think this country is due for a change in political policy. Don't worry, I detest political arguments as much as you do. At least with theological debates, both sides can generally walk away with a good understanding of the argument they just had. With political debates, usually everyone just ends up yelling at one another, then walking away angry because they got yelled at. It's so inane.


"That's cool. Got any weed?"

"Got some of God's green herb right here!"

"Awesome! Want to get high and go look through my telescope?"

LOL! That's awesome! More people need to be able to think along these lines and stop thinking along the lines that divide us. There's always room for difference in opinion, in fact, that's healthy. But when someone gets so completely up-in-arms just because they can't settle a disagreement with another person civilly, it's just sad. I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from with my arguments, even if you find little logic behind my theories. That shows that you have an open mind.

Take care.

[palerider7777]

i like how the guy or whoever starts off by saying it's dumb to believe in 1 or the other. as there could be another way all this happened, but then call only the people that believe in id stupid, and starts to show his true colors, and what he really believes in evo.and the thing is if this is true and there is no god. like most on here believe then thats means all this is happening with no purpose, and that means our life really has no purpose at all. as we all just happened now that makes me feel good about life. wow we all have no purpose that has a good ring to it, and to think i thought there was a reason to all this bullshit, "life" guess not.

[palerider7777]

As for the correlations you pointed out about George Bush, I agree with them wholeheartedly, too. I harbor a little disdain towards evangelical Christians, especially hypocritical ones, and have just never been able to take anything he says or does seriously. Not because of his religious preference, even though I don't agree with many evangelical principles, but because of his enormous sense of greed for power. He and Cheney, alike. And while I can't say that I'd vote for Hillary in the upcoming elections, I do think this country is due for a change in political policy. Don't worry, I detest political arguments as much as you do. At least with theological debates, both sides can generally walk away with a good understanding of the argument they just had. With political debates, usually everyone just ends up yelling at one another, then walking away angry because they got yelled at. It's so inane.

i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about





i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about

[Krogith]

Good thing I don't belive in the Bible just because Holes can be poked into science. What Got me started was the fact the in job It talks about Galaxys, the earth being a sphear, The Earth is Hanging apon Nothing. The Bible is not a science text book nor does it try to be one but when it talks about science it's right. In Ecclesiates 1:7 it discribs how water cycles,

These things seem like nothing to some im shure, But we have to remember Job was written by B.C.E. .1473 , and people still thought the earth was Flat untell 1492 C.E. thats some 3000 years earlyer the bible had it down.

In fact the common thinking at the time was Earth sitting on elephants backs standing on a turtle.

Then when you start getting into prophecy, the detail it Crazy. Like the Fall of Babylon, was writen 200 years in advance. The name of the conquering leader is written, then even going into detail of how babylon would be taken.

[Mr. Clandestine]

i like how the guy or whoever starts off by saying it's dumb to believe in 1 or the other. as there could be another way all this happened, but then call only the people that believe in id stupid, and starts to show his true colors, and what he really believes in evo.and the thing is if this is true and there is no god. like most on here believe then thats means all this is happening with no purpose, and that means our life really has no purpose at all. as we all just happened now that makes me feel good about life. wow we all have no purpose that has a good ring to it, and to think i thought there was a reason to all this bullshit, "life" guess not.

Well, in defense of many atheists and general non-believers in intelligent design, they don't place their morals and life-purpose in the same boat that religious people place theirs. For instance, I'm a Christian, and can base my morals around the teachings of my Savior, Jesus Christ. But if one chooses not to follow the teachings of Christ, they still have a moral prerogative to do what's right. For instance, theft and murder are sins in my religion, but to a non-Christian they're simply not the right thing to do. Regardless of how one chooses to view religion in general, the Golden Rule has always been a good one: you should treat other people in the same way that you'd want to be treated.

These people have a very well-meaning purpose in life, well, most of them. I have no qualms with someone who doesn't believe what I do, yet still strives to better themselves and the world around them with their actions.

[Mr. Clandestine]

i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about

I'd like to hear Ron Paul's name mentioned more often. I can relate to many of this policies and beliefs - not just the MMJ ones, though they help! - and respect him as a man and possible presidential hopeful. I think he'd be better off running as an Independent, as Guiliani & Romney seem to be leading the polls for the Republicans, but I heard he managed to generate over $4 million in campaign contributions in just one day of last week! When he starts spending that money, I have a feeling the MSM and general public will start hearing his name more frequently.

[Mr. Clandestine]

In fact the common thinking at the time was Earth sitting on elephants backs standing on a turtle.

LoL, that is an interesting opinion...I must admit!


Then when you start getting into prophecy, the detail it Crazy. Like the Fall of Babylon, was writen 200 years in advance. The name of the conquering leader is written, then even going into detail of how babylon would be taken.

Careful, when you start delving into apocalyptic prophecies, you tend to stir the melting pot of unscrupulous atheists. Though I do agree that this has all been prophecied, along with many other matters, long before anyone had any reason to make such a prediction.

[dragonrider]

Another thing that I think complicates these discussions is a difference in the use of terms.

When I speak of Logic, I am speaking of a specific branch of philosophy that codifies how arguments are formed. It is like Mathematics in that it has strict rules. The various forms of fallacy are codified as well. The video in this thread talks about one form of logical fallacy with respect to how it is applies to one argument in the evolution vs creation debate.

But the words "logic" and "logical" are often not used in such a strict way in common usage. So when someone says, "you are not being logical," they often mean, "you are being unreasonable." When I say, "that is a logical fallacy," what I mean is, "your conclusion does not follow from your premise, because it is not formulated as a stricly Logical argument." It does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is not a reasonable thing to assert (although that might be the case too, and I do object to the formulation of the argument), and it is not meant to say, "you are unreasonable."

I think sometimes a video like this wants to have it both ways, or at least fails to clarify the scope of what exactly it is saying. The assertion it makes, that this one particular argument is a logical fallacy, is absolutely correct. But I think maybe it also wants to suggest that intelligent design in general is unreasonable as a belief by saying it is "illogical," without actually saying so.

Proponents of intelligent design sometimes do the same thing. The example that comes to mind is the effort in certain states in the US to get textbooks that teach evolutionary theory stamped with words to the effect of, "Evolution is only a theory, not a fact." In a strict scientific sense of the words "theory" and "fact," that statement is absolutely correct --- evolution is a theory. But the comoon usage of the terms "theory" and "fact" are not the same as the strict scientific usage, so the phrase sounds like it is diminsihing evolutionary theory by suggesting it is an unsubstantiated idea. And I think that is the intent of those who would like to see the phrase on the books. The honest truth in scientific terms is that evolution is a very well founded theory, substantiated by many facts.

There are many other examples of scientific terms that have different meanings in common usage, and examples on both sides of intentional misuse of terms to desparage the other's line of thinking.

[Hardcore Newbie]

...it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance.
Evolution doesn't state this.


I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance.There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.

You're also stating that the complexity you see before you cannot have been here all along, but something more complex to create that complexity could have always existed?


It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ... I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...
I was calling myself the sceptic, I was looking for these historical documents that validate your belief system.

It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.


I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.
I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.

Carbon dating has limitations, but carbon dating still works when you are apparent of its shortcomings.


But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.
Dragon rider has an excellent post on what logic means, and he's written it quite well, so I won't retell what he's eloquently told. Suffice to say this example will show how logic will give us the correct belief.

Q: Do aliens exist?

A1: "Of course not, there's no proof"
This is illogical because of the axiom -absence of proof does not equal proof of absence-. We can state this axiom to be true because we can show many instances where it shows itself to be true, which I can demonstrate if you'd like, but I'll assume for the time being that you agree.

A2: "There might be aliens, you never know"
This is logical, because we know that without full and complete knowledge on a subject, that nothing can be taken as an absolute.

A3: "Of course there are aliens, the universe is huge"
This is illogical, because it assumes that a set rule is true without even testing it. It's akin to saying "Of course it was designed, it's too complex to come about any other way"

Having gone through three possible answers, the most logical answer is the "maybe" answer. If you want to believe that aliens exist, that's up to you, but you can't state that your belief in aliens has anything to do with proof, because you'd clearly be wrong.

Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.

So back to the original intention, if i were to state that aliens don't exist, and you stated that they were possible, you'd have the most logical argument. I can claim my argument to be of sound logic, but if I'm not following logical rules, then I'm obviously lying or I'm mistaken.


But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.
Again I have to disagree. The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.

Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.


If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.
I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance. Ignorance can be, and usually is, a dangerous thing, which is why I want to prevent others from being so.

The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.

Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?


But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.
An attack on a belief is not an attack on the person. Is telling a child that Santa isn't real an attack of some sort? No, it's truth. No matter how heart broken a child is from hearing this seemingly bad news, no matter how much they are in denial, it's not an attack on the child.


This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.Needing proof is not circular logic. The scientific method of proof means that it must be able to be reproduced. This is why the scientific method takes precedence over any other type of proof.

I can tell anyone that I can fly by flapping my arms, but if I can not produce results over and over, then have I really proven anything?

[Krogith]

LoL, that is an interesting opinion...I must admit!



Careful, when you start delving into apocalyptic prophecies, you tend to stir the melting pot of unscrupulous atheists. Though I do agree that this has all been prophecied, along with many other matters, long before anyone had any reason to make such a prediction.

yeah the elephant thing is funny you can find some crazy ideas they had back in thoses times. The elephant one came from asia I think.

[dragonrider]

yeah the elephant thing is funny you can find some crazy ideas they had back in thoses times. The elephant one came from asia I think.

I don't even remember where I heard this but it went someting like this:

"The earth rests on the back of an elephant."

"Well, what does the elephant stand on?"

"The elephant stands on the back of a turtle."

"Then what does the turtle stand on?"

"The back of another turtle."

"Then what does that turtle stand on?"

"It's turtles all the way down..."

That one always cracked me up for some reason.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Evolution doesn't state this.

But evolutionists commonly do. Evolutionists are quick to tell a creationist to look up to the sky, and observe that microwave radiation is and has been permeating the open space of the universe since the beginning of time. But, my main objection to this theory is this: how can they predetermine when "time" actually began? They simply can't. They can claim that solar systems, planets, life, etc., were the result of millions upon billions of years of accumulation of matter by gravitational forces, as well as other mystifying phenomena, but the proof isn't as evident to me as it is to them. As for evolutionist theory regarding the evolution of species, it's common for someone to refer to biological evolution as infallible logic, because biological evolution can be observed in laboratories. But, even after all of their theories have been propagated, and they seem pretty conclusive in the fact that humans share commonalities with chimpanzees in terms of DNA structure, they rarely are open to admit that human DNA also shares a lot of commonalities with mushrooms! (There's a fungus among us.)


There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.

Unfortunately for creationists, we generally limit ourselves to these two sets of existential circumstances. Being unwilling to deviate from this belief is what is keeping most creationists in the dark. I'm willing to believe that evolution is possible (if not probable) because I see that certain organisms do, in fact, evolve. Other creationists may disregard this concept completely so as to adhere to their own personal beliefs, or just to be stubborn. But, even with all the so-called "evidence" pointing towards the sky claiming that the universe created itself, or simply always existed, I still find it hard to believe that these extraordinary circumstances just fell into place on their own, and without at least some assistance from the God that I believe to be true. I simply cannot wipe God from my mind simply because I am having difficulty proving that He's real, and especially when no one can logically prove that he isn't real.


It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.

Actually, in these particular texts, Jesus makes few claims that He is the Son of God. The only way to validate these claims would be to ask the Man, Himself. And because that's not really an option for sane individuals, we'll just have to rely on our faith.


I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.

It's a little crude, but interesting to read nonetheless: CHAPTER 7 - DATING METHODS Part 1 (http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm)

There are others, but some are obviously written by creationists. I try to only keep relevant and seemingly non-biased reports bookmarked, so let me know if you're interested in seeing more. Though most of them only point out the same arguments you've probably already heard dozens of times.


Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.

Well, it does actually...because of the inherent possibility of truth. You're right that one would not be backing their beliefs with fact, but that doesn't always mean that it's impossible for it to be factual. It just means that scientific studies haven't been able to prove it yet. Keyword: "yet".


The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.

I could just go on to say that I wasn't referring to mathematical equations in the same sense that I was referring to principles of language in general. You made that correlation, but I was just trying to correlate the interpretation of coded language to the discoveries that mankind has made.


Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.

I don't necessarily attribute mathematics to being a form of language as I do to it being "the science or branch of knowledge dealing with measurements, numbers and quantities." Does that make either of us wrong? No. It just means we have varying opinions on the definition/origin of mathematic principles.


I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance.

Ignorance can be a dangerous thing, you're right. But I only consider blind faith in religion (believing only because you were told to do so) ignorant, not believing because you honestly have faith in what is being taught. My faith revolves around many things...my belief in intelligent design, my own findings in scriptures (even the heretical ones denied by the granddaddy of all orthodox Christian churches), the faith that I witness in others, and so on. I'm not ignorant for adhering to my faith...maybe a bit stubborn...but no less educated than you are. I've probably heard many of the theories that you hold near and dear to your beliefs, and disregard them for the same reasons that you disregard mine. But I would never consider you ignorant for staying true to these beliefs.


The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.

Simply stated, my opinion of logic differs from yours. In many respects, they're probably identical...but in terms of logical relevancy concerning religion, faith, or the lack thereof...I simply disagree with you on many levels.


Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?

Again, I do often share my views with others. Even with those that are only going to rip them apart and try to impart their views on me. The only discrepancy that I have now is that I've done it so many times, I don't feel that I'm going to get anything useful out of it. I mean no offense to you, because I enjoy the intellectual conversations I'm able to have with you...but still, I highly doubt you'd be able to point out terribly many things that I haven't already heard, and considered to great lengths in my own mind. Regardless, ask me for specific opinions, and I'll be glad to give them to you. I simply can't generalize them all because, like you, I have tons of opinions.

[Hardcore Newbie]

But evolutionists commonly do.
Evolutionist isn't a real "belief" system.


Evolutionists are quick to tell a creationist to look up to the sky, and observe that microwave radiation is and has been permeating the open space of the universe since the beginning of time. But, my main objection to this theory is this: how can they predetermine when "time" actually began? They simply can't.
I've never heard of anyone claim to know when time begins. Maybe time "as we know it", or the universe "as we know it". To lump anyone who recognizes evolution with people making claims about the universe, which evolution doesn't even deal with, it just doens't make sense to me.


But, even after all of their theories have been propagated, and they seem pretty conclusive in the fact that humans share commonalities with chimpanzees in terms of DNA structure, they rarely are open to admit that human DNA also shares a lot of commonalities with mushrooms! (There's a fungus among us.)
We share lots of DNA with lots of different things. Keep going back and you'll keep seeing similarities.


Unfortunately for creationists, we generally limit ourselves to these two sets of existential circumstances. Being unwilling to deviate from this belief is what is keeping most creationists in the dark. I'm willing to believe that evolution is possible (if not probable) because I see that certain organisms do, in fact, evolve. Other creationists may disregard this concept completely so as to adhere to their own personal beliefs, or just to be stubborn.
The reason that (some) creationists have to do this is because they believe so much in their Bible, that if any one part of it is wrong, or if any part of it is a story, then there can be no defining line between what is real in the Bible, and what isn't. The Bible never tells you "this is just a moral story (or fable)". That's why they draw the line at "100% Real"


But, even with all the so-called "evidence" pointing towards the sky claiming that the universe created itself, or simply always existed, I still find it hard to believe that these extraordinary circumstances just fell into place on their own, and without at least some assistance from the God that I believe to be true. I simply cannot wipe God from my mind simply because I am having difficulty proving that He's real, and especially when no one can logically prove that he isn't real.
No one can logically prove that he isn't real, correct, but that just puts god on par with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Magic Creation Dust. Just because someone can't prove that these things aren't real, that doesn't substantiate them, at all.

If someone couldn't conceive of a world without Creation Dust playing some part in making it, that doens't make their belief logical.



Actually, in these particular texts, Jesus makes few claims that He is the Son of God. The only way to validate these claims would be to ask the Man, Himself. And because that's not really an option for sane individuals, we'll just have to rely on our faith.
Actually, asking the Man wouldn't prove anything, either. And some people do claim to speak with God, quite a few people.


It's a little crude, but interesting to read nonetheless: CHAPTER 7 - DATING METHODS Part 1 (http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm)

There are others, but some are obviously written by creationists. I try to only keep relevant and seemingly non-biased reports bookmarked, so let me know if you're interested in seeing more. Though most of them only point out the same arguments you've probably already heard dozens of times.
I've been pretty busy the past little while, hence the giant gap of time between our last posts, but I'll try to get around to reading it.


Well, it does actually...because of the inherent possibility of truth. You're right that one would not be backing their beliefs with fact, but that doesn't always mean that it's impossible for it to be factual. It just means that scientific studies haven't been able to prove it yet. Keyword: "yet".
Again, lots of things are possible. Creation Dust just hasn't proven to be true.... yet.


I could just go on to say that I wasn't referring to mathematical equations in the same sense that I was referring to principles of language in general. You made that correlation, but I was just trying to correlate the interpretation of coded language to the discoveries that mankind has made.

I don't necessarily attribute mathematics to being a form of language as I do to it being "the science or branch of knowledge dealing with measurements, numbers and quantities." Does that make either of us wrong? No. It just means we have varying opinions on the definition/origin of mathematic principles.
In this case we'd just be arguing semantics, which does nothing for the claim that "all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages". Math is at the very least an "intelligent" code, but regardless, it's still semantics at this point.

It'd be like me saying that all birds can fly, and someone inevitably says "what about an ostrich?", to which I reply "An ostrich isn't a bird, it can't fly". This is obviously a very simplified version of semantics, but it illustrates the problem with "what is a language".


Ignorance can be a dangerous thing, you're right. But I only consider blind faith in religion (believing only because you were told to do so) ignorant, not believing because you honestly have faith in what is being taught.My faith revolves around many things...my belief in intelligent design, my own findings in scriptures (even the heretical ones denied by the granddaddy of all orthodox Christian churches), the faith that I witness in others, and so on. I'm not ignorant for adhering to my faith...maybe a bit stubborn...but no less educated than you are. I've probably heard many of the theories that you hold near and dear to your beliefs, and disregard them for the same reasons that you disregard mine. But I would never consider you ignorant for staying true to these beliefs.
My beliefs all lay with facts. My suppositions, however, are just that. I love to think of how the world came to be, or the effects of time travel, or the power of a mind that is 100% in tune with its surroundings, or even what God might be like.... but they are all "what ifs" Things that are fun to think about, but when it comes down to it, there are no proofs for these suppositions, so at most they are day dreams with no basis in the real world, and I recognize them as that.

As well, finding meaning in scriptures is totally different than saying "These words are 100% true". If you're not saying this, then I apologize, but at the same time, you'd be saying that the words you believe in are not 100% true.



Simply stated, my opinion of logic differs from yours. In many respects, they're probably identical...but in terms of logical relevancy concerning religion, faith, or the lack thereof...I simply disagree with you on many levels. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence... are you saying
"my opinion which is based on logic differs..." or are you saying
"my opinion on what logic means differs...". It's a very important distinction and I don't want to assume which one you mean.


Again, I do often share my views with others. Even with those that are only going to rip them apart and try to impart their views on me. The only discrepancy that I have now is that I've done it so many times, I don't feel that I'm going to get anything useful out of it. I mean no offense to you, because I enjoy the intellectual conversations I'm able to have with you...but still, I highly doubt you'd be able to point out terribly many things that I haven't already heard, and considered to great lengths in my own mind. Regardless, ask me for specific opinions, and I'll be glad to give them to you. I simply can't generalize them all because, like you, I have tons of opinions.
I don't think i have to ask for any specific ones, we're talking about a lot of them here (as well as my own) so we needn't tack on any more for now. But no offence taken :D

[Mr. Clandestine]

To lump anyone who recognizes evolution with people making claims about the universe, which evolution doesn't even deal with, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Getting lumped together with all evangelical Christians, many of whom assault others with their dogma and sharp criticism...which most other Christian denominations seldom have to deal with...actually makes plenty of sense to me. Christians all over the world are being persecuted, and for one thing: being Christian. Even in the U.S., where it's becoming more and more common to see people getting all up in arms over a picture of the Ten Commandments in public places. It is just a picture of stone, after all.


We share lots of DNA with lots of different things. Keep going back and you'll keep seeing similarities.

We also share DNA with lots of our ancestors. "Logically", I find it difficult to believe that I could have possibly evolved from a truffle, or even a chimpanzee, just because of similarities - some less subtle than others - in our DNA. I do believe that I am a product of my ancestors, though...and I have tangible proof of my lineage, accounting for hundreds of years. I can only speculate what came before that, but I can rest assured that it's probably been of human origin for quite some time. Nobody has ever been able to prove me otherwise, and I doubt if they ever will. After all, we only have "X" amount of years on this earth, right? ;)


The reason that (some) creationists have to do this is because they believe so much in their Bible, that if any one part of it is wrong, or if any part of it is a story, then there can be no defining line between what is real in the Bible, and what isn't. The Bible never tells you "this is just a moral story (or fable)". That's why they draw the line at "100% Real"

That's just as ignorant as believing every word of every textbook you've ever read, and "drawing the line" at 100% Fact. Much of the Bible, Christ's own words, even the Old Testament deals exclusively with parables. And most people who read it understand this. There are also some "100% Real" facts in these words that even history can't deny. I won't bother you with historian accounts, uncovered documents, fulfilled prophecies, and the like because I'm sure you've heard it before. You simply chose to ignore them, and adopted your own opinion on the rest, which were meant to be construed as fictional accounts in the first place.


Just because someone can't prove that these things aren't real, that doesn't substantiate them, at all.

Who determines what substantiates a religious belief? The spaghetti monster? You? Me? Maybe the person who believes it? Bingo. Last I checked, Judeo-Christians still account for the majority of the human population on this little planet. While not trying to argue that my beliefs are superior than others, it's tough to ignore why such a large number of believers believe what they do. It isn't because of indoctrination, it's because to some people it just makes sense.


And some people do claim to speak with God, quite a few people.

I call several of these people "prophets", while the rest I call "crazies". Rest assured, there is a difference.


I've been pretty busy the past little while, hence the giant gap of time between our last posts, but I'll try to get around to reading it.

No worries here.


Math is at the very least an "intelligent" code, but regardless, it's still semantics at this point.

You're right, there are many things that we'll never see eye-to-eye on. In the case of religion we can both be right, and we can both be wrong, but civility should be a common courtesy at all times. Earlier you admitted that you don't attack people, you attack their ideology. If this is the case, there are many other (far more corrupt) religions that might be better worth your time. Christians, in general, don't attack others who don't believe what they do. If they harbor animosity towards another faith, that's their own business...but most of them will still keep it to themselves.


My beliefs all lay with facts. My suppositions, however, are just that.

But you also believe in theories, and I'd assume that it's because many of them make sense to you. You've chosen to ignore some of the facts found in various Christian scriptures, and chose rather to focus on scripture that better suited your own premise. I've done the exact same thing, and there's no reason why you should consider me as someone who doesn't live in the "real world".


Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence... are you saying
"my opinion which is based on logic differs..."

That'd be the one.

Look, I hope that one day you'll change your stance on my religion...and maybe even become a believer. But before you reply to this with a big resounding "Yeah, right...", just remember this: regardless of what you choose, I will never judge you for the decision you eventually make or already have made. Religion is something to fight for, but it's not something to start fights over. For mortals, there's no such thing as being "holier than thou." And I'm sorry if anyone of my faith has tried to present themselves as such.

[BeforeYourTime]

Religion is something to fight for

Thats what they thought before the crusades. Or were they just bored and wanted to slaughter innocent people for fun?

Most Wars are fought for religious beliefs.

God does not Exist

[The Marsh Wiggle]

God does not Exist

Says an athiest, with no proof.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Thats what they thought before the crusades.

Lord, how cliché it is for someone to bring up the crusades...


Or were they just bored and wanted to slaughter innocent people for fun?

Are you serious? Wow, you are...aren't you? Just when I thought your comments couldn't get any more childish...

In most instances, genius, the crusades were merely Christians defending themselves from marauding and homicidal Muslim factions. Of course, there were some horrible atrocities committed by some Christians...acts which most Christians condone and despise...but that's only to be expected when Christian women and children were being butchered by some real savages.

Islam is still butchering Christians all across the world, and yet, to vengeful people like you, Christians are still the bad-guys. Your disdain for Christianity is dually noted, and your one-sided attempt to attack your religion of choice is pathetic and cowardly.


Most Wars are fought for religious beliefs.

Wrong again, smart guy. Most wars have been fought for land ownership, natural resources, and capital/economic gain...amongst other things. Only a handful were actually separate religions fighting and dying for their religion alone. But feel free to keep piling on the same old clichés. It's becoming of you.


God does not Exist

You just keep telling yourself that. Though it must not seem to be working very well, seeing as how you insist on reassuring yourself by writing it over and over again in your posts to me!

...but, if it makes you feel better for saying it, then I wish you all the best! :thumbsup:

[GraziLovesMary]

*walks in expecting to see the same, repugnant bullshit arguments that nobody can seem to agree on*


*looks around for a second*



*is not let down... walks back the fuck out in anticipated disgust*

[meatw4d]

evolution doesn't prove that we all came from the same organism

it only proves that animals can adapt and change throughout history

evolution also cannot prove how life began

it's got just as many, if not more, holes as creationsim

[BeforeYourTime]

Lord, how cliché it is for someone to bring up the crusades...



Are you serious? Wow, you are...aren't you? Just when I thought your comments couldn't get any more childish...

In most instances, genius, the crusades were merely Christians defending themselves from marauding and homicidal Muslim factions. Of course, there were some horrible atrocities committed by some Christians...acts which most Christians condone and despise...but that's only to be expected when Christian women and children were being butchered by some real savages.

Islam is still butchering Christians all across the world, and yet, to vengeful people like you, Christians are still the bad-guys. Your disdain for Christianity is dually noted, and your one-sided attempt to attack your religion of choice is pathetic and cowardly.



Wrong again, smart guy. Most wars have been fought for land ownership, natural resources, and capital/economic gain...amongst other things. Only a handful were actually separate religions fighting and dying for their religion alone. But feel free to keep piling on the same old clichés. It's becoming of you.



You just keep telling yourself that. Though it must not seem to be working very well, seeing as how you insist on reassuring yourself by writing it over and over again in your posts to me!

...but, if it makes you feel better for saying it, then I wish you all the best! :thumbsup:

I'm glad what little i said upset you.
"and your one-sided attempt to attack your religion of choice is pathetic and cowardly."
Whats wrong with stating my belief.

"vengeful people like you" lol cry me a river.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

evolution doesn't prove that we all came from the same organism

it only proves that animals can adapt and change throughout history

evolution also cannot prove how life began

it's got just as many, if not more, holes as creationsim


/\ /\ This is exactly what the video was talking about. It's the main point, and the point that this threads opponents have been consistantly missing. More "Evolution is wrong here, here, and here, so creationism is valid"

Invalidating one theory does not validate the other, that is creating a false dilemma. Your personal, or humanity's collective knowledge, does not dictate the absolute truth. There may be explanaitons we haven't yet formed. Just because we couldn't at one time explain thunder, does not prove Thor is making it!
A large deal of the "discrediting" of evolution is based on a non-understanding of the theory.
This particular post cites "holes" by evolution not explaining abiogenesis. It's like saying the field of Neuro-Chemistry has holes because it doesn't explain the cause of lung cancer. They are different fields entirely.

But my main point here is that the premise of the video is being attacked by trying to poke holes in evolution, the very problem the video was citing.


When conducting scientific research to develope a theory, or maybe even a law, you do it as such:

Observation
Hypothesis
Data
Conclusion

Then develope a theory.


With Evolution:

Observation: Life is vast, complex, and varried.

Hypothesis: Species adapt to their environments by way of natural selection, changing over time, eventually splitting off into different species.

Data Collection: Observed natural selection, DNA similarities, fossil records, observable speciation (I can't name all because I'm not an expert in the field).

Conclusion: Based on collected data and their support for the hypothesis, natural selection does occure and create variations within species, and eventually new species.

Multiple conclusions, some of which become law, around the same field of study form the Theory of Evolution.


With Creationism:

Observation: Life is vast, complex, and varried.

Hypthesis: The complex nature of life must have been made by an intelligent designer.

Data Collection: ???

Conclusion: God did it!


The hypothesis fits, thereby we have the "theory" of intelligent design. A hypothesis is not sufficient to form a conclusion or corherent theory, there must be data collection to support it. This is why ID is not taught along side evolution, because *gasp* evolution is a real, valid scientific theory! ID is not.

Furthermore, evolution not having a complete explanation of this incredibly vast field does not invalidate the areas we do understand. Medicine has an inredibly long way to go yet, with so much we still can't explain, but that doesn't mean the polio vaccine doesn't work, seratonin isn't real, or the circulatory system is non existent.

[yokinazu]

creatinism data: the bible says so

[dragonrider]

creatinism data: the bible says so
According to the scientific method, data is an observation that can be independently verified. So the fact that the bible says something is true is not scientific data according to the method, because it is not an observation and cannot be independently verified.

[yokinazu]

uh right i was bein sarcastic. i buy into the ID thing about as much as the world is flat.

[dragonrider]

Right! After I posted I thought maybe you were being sarcastic. But sometimes some crazy stuff appears on these boards.

As for the world being flat, don't get me started! Of course the world is flat!

[snowblind]

i think the biggest flaw in ID is that the bible makes NO MENTION OF IT and due to the last 100 years since darwin managed to escape the indoctrination of religon and form his own theories on evidence not on an anecdotale book, that gets a rewrite every 500 years. Religon had to come up with something to counteract the truth.

The church and religous people as always only attact thing that make them look wrong, out dated and hypocritical. such as gay people, evolution, abortion, stem cell research. however domestic abuse, global warming, helping the meek, weak and lost. Nah fuck them they would destroy the very foundations we operate from

[meatw4d]

/\ /\ This is exactly what the video was talking about. It's the main point, and the point that this threads opponents have been consistantly missing. More "Evolution is wrong here, here, and here, so creationism is valid"
Well we pretty much know that everything that exists involved energy, correct? Thunder, life, whatever you want to come up with... it all had to start somewhere and something had to fuel it, and whatever that spark was, I'm pretty sure we're attributing that to God. Whatever God is, he/she/it has the power to create. Making something from nothing has to have an explanation behind it, and intelligent design seems legitimate to me.

Also, is it better to believe in something in this life or to believe that you'll never know what that something is? I'd rather live with faith, personally.

Let's say, hypothetically, that there wasn't a God. Don't you think that the norms and morals associated with faith are beneficial to society anyway? Not the extremists, but those that try to have reasonably good intentions?

Without any faith, I think like a lot more people would feel like they've got nothing to lose.

[Mr. Clandestine]

I'm glad what little i said upset you.
"and your one-sided attempt to attack your religion of choice is pathetic and cowardly."
Whats wrong with stating my belief.

"vengeful people like you" lol cry me a river.

...upset??? Yeah, you're right. That immature and mundane statement you made has reeeealy shaken my faith! You horrible, horrible atheists...:mad:

By the way, if atheism is working out so well for you, why are you so angry all the time? Shouldn't you generally be carefree and positive? You seem to be spending an awful lot of your time attempting to offend a Christian, and failing miserably. Does that have something to do with it? That's probably not healthy.

...and you can state your beliefs all you want around here. That's what people do. You just seem to do it less articulately than others.

No offense! :thumbsup:

[BathingApes]

The Bible is a load of shit. Seriously, Christians are diabolical. They openly accept SOME sections that their moral subconscious agrees with as "holy", but then fail to fuckin mention the obviously racist and draconian stories and prophecies that other parts are littered with.

What the fuck. Leviticus anyone? Read THAT shit, and then tell me if you think the Bible is all good and proper. Its a fucking bazillion page book with so much shit in it that you could justify ANYTHING. Christians will never ever mention Mark 7: 24-30. Seriously look it up.

To the guy above. Atheists are pissed off cause for many of us, we have had religion pushed upon us for our whole lives, from Birth, through preschool and school, and into adult society. The whole science-religion thing is stupid. Religious people should just keep their beliefs and the same goes for scientists. There's no need to try and combat eachothers' ideas because neither side will ever prove to be correct. You can have all the answers already if you like, but dont call me a sinner if I dont believe, k?

[Mr. Clandestine]

Seriously, Christians are diabolical.

Seriously, I think you need a sedative! That post was a little hyper.


Christians will never ever mention Mark 7: 24-30. Seriously look it up.

Done. Forgot all about that one.

...what's your point?


-P.S.-

I never called you a sinner, and I'm sorry if some overzealous Christians have tried imposing their religion on you by force. I'm not that kind of Christian, and I don't know of very many who are.

[meatw4d]

You can have all the answers already if you like, but dont call me a sinner if I dont believe, k?
Welcome to life? You have things pushed on you. That's how it works. It's funny that you're all whiny about it.

Maybe nothing should have been pushed on you. Maybe nobody should have ever taken the time to socialize you.


Who cares if you're a sinner with respect to the Bible or religion? You sound like a sack of shit either way.


lmao, who lets these people on the internet?

[BathingApes]

Welcome to life? You have things pushed on you. That's how it works. It's funny that you're all whiny about it.

Maybe nothing should have been pushed on you. Maybe nobody should have ever taken the time to socialize you.


Who cares if you're a sinner with respect to the Bible or religion? You sound like a sack of shit either way.


lmao, who lets these people on the internet?

I knew someone would hit me with the "that's life" bullshit. What points have you actually made there? I was arguing, albeit rather aggressively, that the Bible is so vast that any act good or bad can be justified with its text. My point is that we have a dilemma - is it fair to teach a child of 3, 4, 5 whatever age that there is 100% a God? Is it right to teach them that there isn't? In my opinion, no. I dont have a problem with religious people unless they try and make other people religious.

Yet you say that having opinions unfairly pushed on you is a part of life we should accept? I disagree. Sure it happens, but why should anyone stand for it? For years of my life I was under the impression that I would literally burn for eternity if I didn't do good. I believed that because that is what I was told to believe. Is that morally acceptable though? Do you teach morals via fear or education?

And I sound like a sack of shit? As long as you dont throw me in a sack and fill it with excrement I'm fine with you saying that.

P.S.

And you know Clandestine you do make a good point. My issue is rather with the people that say the entire Bible is the word of God you get the picture? If you use it as a sort of guide to life and make decisions by its good teachings then there is nothing negative in that. When I said Christians, I actually meant "Fundamentalist" Christians. My issue isn't with you.

[Mr. Clandestine]

When I said Christians, I actually meant "Fundamentalist" Christians. My issue isn't with you.

Understood. I didn't take it personally.

As for young children, though...just as you are entitled to impart your own beliefs and systems of values, morals, etc., onto your own children, Christian parents should also be given the same luxury. Parents should never be forceful when teaching their beliefs, and again, I apologize if you had an upbringing with a strict Christian influence. Conversely, I was brought up with practically no religious influence, remained an agnostic for twenty years or so, and still ended up choosing this as my faith.

I remember the few who did try to force Christianity on me when I refused to believe, and to this day I still despise them. It's not because of the religion they chose, but because of the kind of people they were - i.e., arrogant, self-righteous, and pompous assholes.

[meatw4d]

Ok, good point Apes. You did come off rather strongly at first, so that's why I took you for some douche, lol.

True, the Bible is vast. Maybe I was lucky enough to have parents that taught me to think logically and to interpret the good book reasonably. In my opinion, life is about being a good person, and not taking things to extremes.

I don't like to admit it, but I do think that the idea of burning in a fiery eternity has kept me from doing things that I would probably be regretting now.

On another note,

We learned in sociology that until age 7 or 10 (i don't remember exactly), children aren't able to put themselves in other people's shoes yet or think entirely in a moral sense. Until then, fear of punishment is what keeps them from breaking the rules. That's probably why religion is forced upon them at a young age. Until you're a teenager, you don't really have the capacity to think about the true right/wrong, the meaning of life, or any of that.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well we pretty much know that everything that exists involved energy, correct? Thunder, life, whatever you want to come up with... it all had to start somewhere and something had to fuel it, and whatever that spark was, I'm pretty sure we're attributing that to God.

I once heard this put another way by a Muslim. "Because every movement requires a prior action, there must have been an original, eternal, unmoveable mover". I think that's a fine hypothesis. But that's where I find it illogical, assuming it's correct, to attribute this "unmovable mover" to God. God is this being of whom we attribute human characteristics; consciousness, compassion, jealousy, angry, love. These are all products of biological beings that exist as a result of DNA and a complex asortment of minerals and chemical reactions. Why should they suddenly occure independently of these so-far-necessary factors?

If god doesn't have these attributes, why call it God? Or, why not call it God, but maybe then "God" isn't a being to be worshipped, only a unique singularity that caused a chain reaction of events.


Whatever God is, he/she/it has the power to create. Making something from nothing has to have an explanation behind it, and intelligent design seems legitimate to me.

It is legitimate; a legitimate hypothesis. "How'd this happen? Here's an idea...." To me it takes the mystery out of life when you stop at the first idea we can think of, when there could be incredibly ideas out there so amazing our brains cannot yet formulate them! To me it hinders this process of discovery to stop at the simple answer, even though we're far from any conclusive evidence.
Try deep introspective meditation some time, maybe even with Salvia as I do once in a while. Sometimes answer can come to you that you wouldn't have even considered. Even if they don't, it is rewarding merely to strive for them.


Also, is it better to believe in something in this life or to believe that you'll never know what that something is? I'd rather live with faith, personally.

I'd rather not jump to assumptions just to satsify my need to know. The Universe is an incredible and complex place full of mystery, I wouldn't dare be so arrogant as to claim to understand it all.


Let's say, hypothetically, that there wasn't a God. Don't you think that the norms and morals associated with faith are beneficial to society anyway? Not the extremists, but those that try to have reasonably good intentions?

Look at the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill", "Don't steal", "honor your parents". These are good morals, but they are not inventions of religion, only morals that religion adopted. The bible and such are a start, but there's a long way to go. The moral code held therein isn't perfect, I want to see a humanity that strives to seek knowledge and discover how we can transform this species of ours into something beautiful and free of suffering.
And just because there's no belief in God, doesn't mean there's nothing to be had. The Buddhist philosophy is entirely independant of dieties of any sort. It is a philosophy of purifying ones mind, liberating ones self from ignorance and suffering, and bringing peace and compassion to all life you come in contact with. This is why I follow the philosophy personally.


Without any faith, I think like a lot more people would feel like they've got nothing to lose.

I think you're right. Unfortunately a lot of people live trapped in ignorant mindsets, controlled by their impulses, perpetuating their own suffering and the suffering they impose upon others. For some, religion can help hugely with this, for others like myself we seek out philosophies that help us understand the world and our own nature, and for others still (myself included) we must find our own path. Religion, belief in God, undoubtedly helps millions of people and I'm glad for it. But when it comes right down to it, I'm most concerned with reality, not desire. It's a deeply held belief of mine that we need to understand reality to the deepest degree to master it and liberate ourselves from suffering, end harm to others.



BathingApes, please keep it more respectful. I understand that it can be frustrating debating these issues, it can be for both sides. Whether or not you, me, or the Christians are right is beside the point. We need a world of compassion for our fellow lifeforms, we need to end the cycle that causes humans to harm each other.

[snowblind]

The Bible is a load of shit. Seriously, Christians are diabolical. They openly accept SOME sections that their moral subconscious agrees with as "holy", but then fail to fuckin mention the obviously racist and draconian stories and prophecies that other parts are littered with.

What the fuck. Leviticus anyone? Read THAT shit, and then tell me if you think the Bible is all good and proper. Its a fucking bazillion page book with so much shit in it that you could justify ANYTHING. Christians will never ever mention Mark 7: 24-30. Seriously look it up.

To the guy above. Atheists are pissed off cause for many of us, we have had religion pushed upon us for our whole lives, from Birth, through preschool and school, and into adult society. The whole science-religion thing is stupid. Religious people should just keep their beliefs and the same goes for scientists. There's no need to try and combat eachothers' ideas because neither side will ever prove to be correct. You can have all the answers already if you like, but dont call me a sinner if I dont believe, k?

24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[a] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil[b] spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

28"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

29Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

WHAT THE HELL

anyway i have a quote for all the christians out there that like to bash anythign that makes them question their faith

ahem

â??If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.â?�

sums it all up and is the perfect counter

[BathingApes]

Exactly!

Look at that quote "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Jesus REFUSED at first to heal a girl because she was not Jewish. He compared the children of foreign non Jewish regions to be "dogs."

Some bringer of peace.

[palerider7777]

*walks in expecting to see the same, repugnant bullshit arguments that nobody can seem to agree on*


*looks around for a second*



*is not let down... walks back the fuck out in anticipated disgust*

good

[meatw4d]

Exactly!

Look at that quote "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Jesus REFUSED at first to heal a girl because she was not Jewish. He compared the children of foreign non Jewish regions to be "dogs."

Some bringer of peace.
when you first posted the reference, i looked it up and wonder "wtf, what does that mean?"

so i'm wondering, how did you interpret it as you did? and how do you know your interpretation is correct?

[BathingApes]

I wouldn't have known about it if my old religion teacher hadn't mentioned it. It is in the context of the story. If you look at the bigger picture and read the entire thing, see how he has travelled to a non Jewish land, what else could it mean? A Gentile woman asks Jesus to heal her Gentile daughter, and he says along the lines of "why throw the childrens' food to the dogs" (the children of course being Jews and the dogs being non jews.)

The problem with the Bible is that it's worded in such a preachy way and riddled with metaphors that Christians can defend anything by saying "how do you know your interpretation is correct." Well I don't. But what I DO know is that that quote is obviously racist, I mean cmon, what else could it mean?

[meatw4d]

The problem with the Bible is that it's worded in such a preachy way and riddled with metaphors that Christians can defend anything by saying "how do you know your interpretation is correct." Well I don't. But what I DO know is that that quote is obviously racist, I mean cmon, what else could it mean?
I don't have another interpretation, but I doubt that it can only be read one way.


I don't think the Bible should ever be taken literally and you should be very skeptical of other people's interpretations because:

1. They could be wrong, and
2. The Bible has been translated, uh, how many times?

[BathingApes]

That is the entire point. I have no problem with the people that use its good teachings to make decisions or whatever, it's just you see over and over again these people justifying laws, actions, a whole load of stuff because they have been told the Bible is 100% true and 100% the word of God. There are also the people who get offended when you even entertain the idea that Jesus was racist, not just Jesus infact but any Biblical character.

I just have a problem with how much influence the Bible has. It's a book right? You said yourself it isn't meant to be taken literally. Even then, how am I supposed to take the sentence "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives"

It gets to me when people are talking about the "Holy Bible" yet fail to see how incompatible it is with our modern society. Its a pick and choose thing. The Book that we swear over in court has sections that openly support the killing of homosexuals. Yet you would have me believe that's okay cause I'm not supposed to take it literally?

[snowblind]

i took it on a literal meaning when i thought about it. that children (aka little people) need to be nourished and feed by us to be healthy. that it is not right to feed adn lavish your dog when your child goes un nourished. but it is ok to feed the dogs the crumbs as the children have had the majority of the food and so are fed. plus this saves on tiding up after the little fuckers.

the trouble with the bible is that it has been translated and reiterated so many times in the past milenia, it is hard to work it out. also time, context and social knowledge plays a great part in any literature. but becomes less relevent as time passes.

take for example the 80's

so if you then factor those 20 years difference and times that by 100 (2000 years ago) things are very distorted.

[meatw4d]

The Bible is used in court to give the people a reiterated sense that they should be telling the truth. Making an oath to God is very important to many people. This country was founded on Christian principles.

[BathingApes]

i took it on a literal meaning when i thought about it. that children (aka little people) need to be nourished and feed by us to be healthy. that it is not right to feed adn lavish your dog when your child goes un nourished. but it is ok to feed the dogs the crumbs as the children have had the majority of the food and so are fed. plus this saves on tiding up after the little fuckers.

the trouble with the bible is that it has been translated and reiterated so many times in the past milenia, it is hard to work it out. also time, context and social knowledge plays a great part in any literature. but becomes less relevent as time passes.

take for example the 80's

so if you then factor those 20 years difference and times that by 100 (2000 years ago) things are very distorted.


That doesnt make sense in context with the actual statement. Who are the children and who are the dogs?


Do not give the Childrens' food to the dogs.


I think Jesus meant Children = Jews

Dogs = Gentiles

Whereas what youre saying has nothing to do with the situation in the Bible. If Jesus had meant it like that the transcript would go like this.

Woman: "Jesus please heal my daughter"

Jesus: "Never feed the childrens' food to the dogs because the children need nourishment more than animals."

That just wouldnt make any sense. Im not sure you fully understand the quotation. Either that or you think that Jesus meant the Jews needed it more not because of their religion but because of other circumstances. But then again, it isn't ACTUALLY food, its power, its never ending. It wastes a bit of time, but what's 5 seconds to the Son of God?

[meatw4d]

and why couldn't the children be children and dogs be dogs?

[BathingApes]

Because that would make absolutely no sense at all in that context.

Jesus can you heal my daughter!

Never feed food to your pets that was otherwise meant for the kids!

Sure that's a good idea but in this context, means fuck all.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Mark 7:24-30

"And from there He arose and went away to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice. But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, immediately came and fell at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And He was saying to her, 'Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered and said to Him, 'Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.' And He said to her, 'Because of this answer go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.' And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having departed." (Mark 7:24-30)


Jesus saw faith in this woman, and made the decision to come to her aide based on her faith in God. Jesus saw the persecution she had suffered because of being a) a Gentile Jew (abhorred by mainstream and very religious Jews), and b) because she was a woman and regarded as inferior to the men. Jesus understood that she was still humble and not angry at the Jewish religion that was persecuting her, and that's how He came to know of this woman.

She was a Gentile - what mainstream and overly religious Jews at the time considered unclean, and were sometimes even referred to as dogs. Though Jesus wasn't calling her a dog, he was only making a reference to the gesture by saying that he had come for the children (Israelites - God's children), and that they would need to be fed before all else. It was a metaphor, not an insult. Jesus was referencing that it would be unwise to give all the good food to the pets before feeding the children. He was also stating that all others would be fed after the children. The Gentile woman showed great humility and diligence in saying that "even the dogs feed at the children's crumbs". Because of this, Jesus told the woman to return home to her daughter, who was now healed. She needed not wait, although she was willing to, and Jesus was pleased with her humble determination.

You're right that this could possibly have been interpreted in a manner that was condescending to the woman. Again, it was making a reference to the term "dogs", which was thrown around lightly by many hardcore Jews of the time. But again, this isn't how Jesus was referring to her. He was often considered the same, and many times far worse, to those same Jews.

[BathingApes]

Jesus is so convoluted and vague in his messages that he HAD to be the Son of God :)

[meatw4d]

It may be foolish to discount Jesus because the people who wrote the books of the Bible may have been vague...

[Mr. Clandestine]

Jesus is so convoluted and vague in his messages that he HAD to be the Son of God :)

Very few religions are direct and to the point when it comes to spiritual teachings. They're all full of alternate interpretations, hyperboles that may not be easy to recognize, and probably some mistranslations here and there. One of the great things about many religious scriptures is that they're left up for the reader to interpret...but this is also where arguments can pop up over differing interpretations.

[BathingApes]

One of the great things about many religious scriptures is that they're left up for the reader to interpret...but this is also where arguments can pop up over differing interpretations.


And it's also where you get the fundamentalists justifying killing people.

[snowblind]

i think that religon as a whole detracts from the meaning of spirituality. individuality and the spiritualness of the universe.

by putting faith in one being with knowledge you absolve yourelf of power and an ability to react and act

[Mr. Clandestine]

And it's also where you get the fundamentalists justifying killing people.

Luckily, you don't see very many Christians finding justification for murder in our Bible any more. While I guess there are probably a few that still do, there are bad seeds in any religion. Or, I guess I should say, there are bad seeds in humanity...not just the Christian faith.

I still don't understand why people can get so irate with Christians over this, when there is a far more dangerous and hostile ideology out there that is currently using scripture to justify murder, rape, and hate. Why has it become socially taboo to denounce Islam? You want to read some literature that's violent, cruel, and one-sided? Read the Koran. Here's a book that advocates its followers "lying in wait to slaughter the unbelievers." While the interpretation of this could be construed differently, in most cases it is not. Followers take this, and many other similar passages, literally...and are more than willing to murder for their god. Hell, their "prophet" tells them to. He was a murderer, pedophile, rapist, and plunderer himself.

I study many religions, and am a practitioner of Mahayana (Greater Vehicle) Buddhism...as well as Christianity. I was actually a Buddhist before I really turned myself over to God. Regardless, I'm very fond of several Eastern religions, i.e. - Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, Shintoism, etc. Several of these ideologies were formed during times of civil strife and war, yet they preach compassion, understanding, and goodwill towards your fellow man. On top of this, I am a devout, but not fundamentalist, Christian. I won't stretch the words in the Bible to fit my own needs, I take them at face value and draw my own conclusions from my interpretation. There are many people of the same faith, who express the same goodwill towards others, and yet, at least in America, we are still the targets of unscrupulous and angry non-believers. If you're going to hate someone for what they believe, and not the person they are, then you should at least be considerate enough to take out your frustrations on others who'd be willing to chop your head off at the neck in retaliation.

...after all, that seems like it could become a much more exciting conversation. I'll only try to use peace and understanding in my rebuttals. Where's the excitement in that? :)

[greenhorngrower]

c'mon guys! you shouldnt be talking about these matters and asking such questions.. God will send you to hell... forever

[The Marsh Wiggle]

God will send you to hell... forever

Um.... Says who ?

[yokinazu]

this may not be pretaining here but...
there is a movie about to be released called "the golden compass". this has raised a lot of controversy by the church mainly bcause the author, phillip pullman (from my understanding) is an aetheist. it has a lot of negativity about the church. the gist of it is that a group of people set out to destroy heaven. it illistrates how the church demeans and villifys truth when it contadicts the churches teachings.
i just finished the 3rd book of the trillogy and found it to be a very good story. it is infact all fiction but still makes a very good point about religion in general. go pick up a copy and read it, you can now get all 3 books in one called "his dark series". its a fantasy novel written (again from my understanding) for kids, but i have a hard time beleiving a child could understand the main storie

[Mr. Clandestine]

...God will send you to hell... forever
__________________

(The above post is completely fictional and/or hypothetical in nature. No posts made by me are to be taken seriously)

----

...gotta love the irony of that! :D

[snowblind]

Um.... Says who ?

KENT HOVIND DUH DUH DUH

fuckers gonna burn like a vindaloo

[meatw4d]

Follow-Up:

Daily Manifestation!!! (http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/view.php?id=397)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has appeared to us in a pumpkin pie. Bless his noodley appendages!

:hippy:

[Delta9 UK]

Non-believers should read my thread about Common Descent (http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/143070-evidence-common-descent.html)

So many of the arguments on this board are simply because people don't understand evolution.

[Skidmark]

Worth a watch....

BBC - Horizon - A War On Science (God vs Science) [2006] (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6485580088897217945&q=bbc+horizon&total=154&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2)

[Gundari]

I believe the largest flaw with Intelligent design is that it contradicts itself.

I could be wrong but I believe that intelligent design works on the idea that as beings we are too complex to have simply evolved and come into existance as we are today. This being said, if you believe this to be the case, I pose a question for you. Where did our creator (who has to be infinitely more powerful and complex than we are to design something as intricate as us) come from? He simply can't have come into existance because your arguement states that we couldn't have simply come into existance...so where'd he come from?