Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort are morons. Ray Comfort once used the “design” of a banana to prove that it was designed by God. The banana was designed all right, by humans who selectively bred banana plants until they got one they liked. Comfort eventually withdrew his banana argument, but the fact that he even came out with it shows his stupidity.
I’ve found that just about all arguments against evolution come from a lack of understanding about how evolution actually works.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BTW Chris - Regarding your argument that atheism someone lead to Hitler, Stalin, and all that. As a student of philosophy, I’m sure you know the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In statistics, this is known by the maxim that correlation does not equal causation. Even if Hitler, et al., were atheists, you cannot say that this is what caused their murderous nature. Hitler was a sociopath. He probably viewed himself as somewhat of a deified being and he created a whole religion around himself, with the SS as the priests, and the Jews and other people he considered undesirable as Satan. I would argue that he was not a true atheist because most atheists don’t care at all for organized religion. From my own experience, I can tell you that what started me on the road to disbelief was the realization that organized religion was just another bullshit bureaucracy created by humans. I may one day decide that God religion exists, but I’ll never go back to an organized religion. They always seem to need money.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve heard of it. However, you don’t see Christian leaders that actually follow Christian tenets doing stuff like mass killing thousands of people at a time. Yeah atheists don’t believe in organized religion…and atheist communism… which is pretty dang close to what Hitler had set up.
He was not a true atheist? Who knows, he said he was Christian, but I can tell you he would definitely have to be a sociopath to think that he was a Christian and doing what he was doing.[/quote]
Christians did a pretty good job wiping out the inhabitants of the America’s…
Listen, I am not going to get drawn into a religious argument, simply because it pains me to do so…like hearing nails on a chalkboard. Will you at least acknowledge that the bible is a compendium of different texts, written over a significant time frame, in an era when record keeping might not have been the best, and that translation between languages can obscure the meaning of something, even under the best circumstances? Is this reasonable to you?
[/quote]
You don’t want to get drawn into a religious argument - got it. You just want to be able to freely attack the basis for Christianity without having to deal with any resistance.
Don’t take offense but your argument has no basis in fact. It’s the typical atheist argument for claiming that there is no God. I’ve heard it many times and each time I have successfully refuted it with the facts.
Do a little research you’ll find as I did that the current Christian Bible is very accurate. In fact more accurate than other ancient documents such as the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Tactius and others. In fact, it has been found to be 99.5% accurate relative to the original text.
Read the following it has some interesting information on it and you should avail yourself to all the facts before you fully make up your mind.
[/quote]
Uh, in many places it contradicts itself… In many places the math doesn’t work… In many places it requires you suspend logic. In many places you have to give up math and physics… Oh, yeah and there are several versions…
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BTW Chris - Regarding your argument that atheism someone lead to Hitler, Stalin, and all that. As a student of philosophy, I’m sure you know the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In statistics, this is known by the maxim that correlation does not equal causation. Even if Hitler, et al., were atheists, you cannot say that this is what caused their murderous nature. Hitler was a sociopath. He probably viewed himself as somewhat of a deified being and he created a whole religion around himself, with the SS as the priests, and the Jews and other people he considered undesirable as Satan. I would argue that he was not a true atheist because most atheists don’t care at all for organized religion. From my own experience, I can tell you that what started me on the road to disbelief was the realization that organized religion was just another bullshit bureaucracy created by humans. I may one day decide that God religion exists, but I’ll never go back to an organized religion. They always seem to need money.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve heard of it. However, you don’t see Christian leaders that actually follow Christian tenets doing stuff like mass killing thousands of people at a time. Yeah atheists don’t believe in organized religion…and atheist communism… which is pretty dang close to what Hitler had set up.
He was not a true atheist? Who knows, he said he was Christian, but I can tell you he would definitely have to be a sociopath to think that he was a Christian and doing what he was doing.[/quote]
Christians did a pretty good job wiping out the inhabitants of the America’s…[/quote]
He said Christian leaders. Not Christians in general. The discussion is about leaders who were atheists.
Edit: And to be sure, he said those that ACTUALLY follow Christian tenets.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Evolution and god are separate things. Just like the big bang and god.[/quote]
No. I don’t believe they are. Evolution and God and the big bang and god are not mutually exclusive of each other because you can’t have an explanation of one without the other. Both are involved in the discussion of creation, you can’t present one without the other.
This is why science classes should present both evolution/big bang theory and the “IDEA” of creationism together.
HOLY SHIT!! The entire argument is one big argument from ignorance and a God of the gaps argument. I don’t know how it got there, therefore, God did it.
My favorite is when O’Reilly said that he beat Dawkins in a debate because science can’t explain what came before the Big Band (which is now some “crazy theory”) but he could explain by invoking God, therefore, he wins because he has an explanation. That’s like if I could go back in time to Medieval Times and take an automobile with me (it’d be a DeLorean; if you’re going to travel through time it might as well be in style), I bet I could find one reasonable person who would look at the automobile and say that it is some type of complex machine but that he could not explain how it worked. The majority of people would probably say that this is the work of some divine being, and they would either worship me and my car or, more likely, conclude that I am the devil and try to burn me and the car at the stake. According to O’Reilly’s logic, the “devil car” group’s theory is the correct one because they have a complete explanation of how this car came into being while the reasonable guy loses the debate because he cannot fully explain the workings of the car.
This is why we get mad at these people. They commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
Plus some people believe God created everything and through that creation process the big bang and evolution occured. It would be silly to discuss one without the other because so many people believe so many different things.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Evolution and god are separate things. Just like the big bang and god.[/quote]
No. I don’t believe they are. Evolution and God and the big bang and god are not mutually exclusive of each other because you can’t have an explanation of one without the other. Both are involved in the discussion of creation, you can’t present one without the other.
This is why science classes should present both evolution/big bang theory and the “IDEA” of creationism together.[/quote]
Okay, I’ll up the ante. Present the idea of creationism BUT also include the caveat that it is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance/God of the gaps argument. I’ve conceded that the Big Bang doesn’t explain everything and that we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. All this means is this: we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. Period. That’s all it means. To say “God did it” is, as I’ve already explained, a logical fallacy. Teach THAT and I can go along with presenting the idea of creationism. However, how many evangelical Christians would go along with that? My guess is zero.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Evolution and god are separate things. Just like the big bang and god.[/quote]
No. I don’t believe they are. Evolution and God and the big bang and god are not mutually exclusive of each other because you can’t have an explanation of one without the other. Both are involved in the discussion of creation, you can’t present one without the other.
This is why science classes should present both evolution/big bang theory and the “IDEA” of creationism together.[/quote]
No. The Idea that god created the universe from nothing has no business in a science class because it isn’t in any way science.
Yes, they are entirely independent. Scientifically, Time and the universe started at the big bang. However, philosophically, god started the big bang and, god started the world in it’s present state yesterday are no different.
Once you accept that the rules of the universe were violated, it makes little difference when that actually happened.
But again, the notion that the rules were violated at some point is by definition non-science (note I’m not saying wrong here).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Evolution and god are separate things. Just like the big bang and god.[/quote]
No. I don’t believe they are. Evolution and God and the big bang and god are not mutually exclusive of each other because you can’t have an explanation of one without the other. Both are involved in the discussion of creation, you can’t present one without the other.
This is why science classes should present both evolution/big bang theory and the “IDEA” of creationism together.[/quote]
Okay, I’ll up the ante. Present the idea of creationism BUT also include the caveat that it is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance/God of the gaps argument. I’ve conceded that the Big Bang doesn’t explain everything and that we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. All this means is this: we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. Period. That’s all it means. To say “God did it” is, as I’ve already explained, a logical fallacy. Teach THAT and I can go along with presenting the idea of creationism. However, how many evangelical Christians would go along with that? My guess is zero.[/quote]
Scientifically, there is no “before” the big bang. Time isn’t linear.
AND the belief in a creator isn’t based on an argument from ignorance. Everything in the physical world has a cause. That is all that is needed for a basic belief in creation.
Religion isn’t rooted in logic. Thats science. Religion is rooted in faith. Some things in Faith/religion you can explain, but some you cannot. Its the “miracle of the unknown” explained by divine happenings. You can’t explain a divine existence with logic or science.
This is why the scientific community is frustrated with religous belief and practice. Because it cannot be logically explained.
You can’t take the scientific method or hypothesis towards a religous or divine assumption.
This is why the quote: “To those who believe, no explanation is necessary, to those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible” rings ever true.
Look, I don’t have a gun to your head, I never said you guys didn’t have the freedom to believe what you want. Choose to or not it’s your choice. I may not have found the best examples to prove my points but at least I spoke eloquently and tried to explain MY poit of view to the best of MY ability.
I’m pretty sure theres people out there who can do a much better job of it then me, even if I am 24 yrs old I don’t think age makes too much of a difference. (I had a high School and College education)
The bottom line to me is that Atheists from what I’ve seen, spit hatred towards ANY religous beliefs and try to reregulate government to put stricter regulations on religous practice. Just as you have the right to excuse yourself and your kids in school, from any religous obligation, you shouldn’t mess with the right for people to have religous freedom.
Things get a little more complicated than that but I must rest my case. Gatta do some work. Chiao
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
My favorite is when O’Reilly said that he beat Dawkins in a debate because science can’t explain what came before the Big Band (which is now some “crazy theory”) but he could explain by invoking God, therefore, he wins because he has an explanation. [/quote]
LOL, that was my favorite part too! The first I saw that video and saw that part, I was like “wait what??”.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
My favorite is when O’Reilly said that he beat Dawkins in a debate because science can’t explain what came before the Big Band (which is now some “crazy theory”) but he could explain by invoking God, therefore, he wins because he has an explanation. [/quote]
LOL, that was my favorite part too! The first I saw that video and saw that part, I was like “wait what??”.[/quote]
So which is the more reasonable explanation of existence: a creator, or a blank look?
Creation being the ONLY explanation for something does give it more weight.
Although science cannot explain religion or creationism, to teach evolution and big bang theory as a mutually exclusive answer, absent from the ideaology that there might be a different way of thinking isn’t fair to a students mind.
You don’t have to teach a class on creationism, but you should present the idea to students, because telling them everything about the science of creation and giving them nothing on Creationist ideaology is like saying there is only ONE right answer.
Classes dealing in science should teach it like this…Blah blah blah evolution and big bang thoroughly explained and then: Oh by the way, some people don’t believe this, they belive in creationism. You can research that on your own time. Next chapter, the planets.
Thats how it should be done. It’s not about saying what is right or wrong, its about presenting the heavy hitters on the subject in a fair manner. Its not a Theology class so don’t teach it, but you do have to present it. Even in theology classes the big bang theory and science is lightly discussed.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Although science cannot explain religion or creationism, to teach evolution and big bang theory as a mutually exclusive answer, absent from the ideaology that there might be a different way of thinking isn’t fair to a students mind.
You don’t have to teach a class on creationism, but you should present the idea to students, because telling them everything about the science of creation and giving them nothing on Creationist ideaology is like saying there is only ONE right answer.
Classes dealing in science should teach it like this…Blah blah blah evolution and big bang thoroughly explained and then: Oh by the way, some people don’t believe this, they belive in creationism. You can research that on your own time. Next chapter, the planets.
Thats how it should be done. It’s not about saying what is right or wrong, its about presenting the heavy hitters on the subject in a fair manner. Its not a Theology class so don’t teach it, but you do have to present it. Even in theology classes the big bang theory and science is lightly discussed.[/quote]
No, science is not an ideology. It is a system of investigation. BELIEF in creation doesn’t follow that system so it isn’t science. Creation is a philosophy of metaphysics. Neither has any bearing on the other. Creationism needs to stay in the philosophy class AND evolution/big bang need to stay in the science class.
I never said science was an ideology. Don’t put words in my mouth. Creationist ideology is the ideas and or concepts surrounding creationism and a creator. Not to be confused with the science of creation.
