View Poll Results: Who do you "pray" to?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll

  • Flying Spaghetti Monster

    14 13.21%

  • Invisable Pink Unicorn

    10 9.43%

  • God

    62 58.49%

  • Allah

    6 5.66%

  • Myself

    17 16.04%

  • Earth Spirits

    9 8.49%

  • Indigenous Deities

    8 7.55%

  • "The Old Ones"

    9 8.49%

  • Some one living in the 9 planes of hell

    4 3.77%

  • Other

    17 16.04%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 10 of 190

Hybrid View

  1. 08-06-2009, 09:49 PM #1
    Seraphim
    Seraphim is offline
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcd View Post
    This is an equivocation on the word "theory", born out of scientific illiteracy. Coincidentally, this is seen as a valid argument by creationists.

    A microsite for a very quick explanation:

    Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home


    Okay, heres some raw data they have found in regards to evolution:




    The scientists involved are overjoyed! Look! It's as clear as day what the evidence is saying! We draw a line through these datapoints, and viola!


    Easy as pie! There's you indisputible proof of our claims! A clear progression from one form to another.












    However, the original graph that I took those datapoints from was a polynomial:


    Wait just a moment! We had assumed linear, when it actualy was polynomial! So long, grant money!




    Just an overly simplistic example of what can happen, even to scientists, when assumptions are made first.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 08-06-2009, 09:59 PM #2
    richmondesi
    richmondesi is offline
    Little Bear richmondesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanked: 760

    Default

    Seraphim, you may be my favorite person on all of the internet
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 08-06-2009, 10:14 PM #3
    jcd
    jcd is offline
    Senior Member jcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    140
    Thanked: 35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Wait just a moment! We had assumed linear, when it actualy was polynomial! So long, grant money!
    I can see what you are trying to say, but Evolution is a conclusion based on evidence, not an assumption. On the point of scientists finding what their preconceptions would have them find, consider that Evolution didn't pop up in a book out of thin air, and become an ingrained belief. Scientists had assumed that Creation by a deity was the truth. This was their assumption. The reason this assumption was dismissed was the evidence; completely contrary to the assumption.

    On the point of grant money. If you think you have a scientific method for disproving Evolution you WILL get funded. There are some very rich Christian foundations out there.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. 08-06-2009, 10:45 PM #4
    xman
    xman is offline
    Super Shaver xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lotus Land, eh
    Posts
    8,194
    Thanked: 622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    The fact is, that many in the scientific field are indeed approaching their research trying to disprove God, and not simply let the evidence and facts guide them.
    Untrue. Just because their findings might challenge or destroy the notion of your god doesn't mean that they set up research to that end, but that you misunderstand the motives of scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    EDIT:
    Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope.
    Noone is infallible, but comparing scientists to popes is like comparing apples to gearboxes.

    YouTube - Open-mindedness
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  • 08-06-2009, 11:03 PM #5
    richmondesi
    richmondesi is offline
    Little Bear richmondesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanked: 760

    Default

    Am I the only person that finds it weird that atheists claim to be areligious, yet they are as evangelical as any fundamentalist of any "religion"?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  • 08-06-2009, 11:28 PM #6
    xman
    xman is offline
    Super Shaver xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lotus Land, eh
    Posts
    8,194
    Thanked: 622

    Default

    When someone misrepresents me, I should try to clear up the misconception, should I not. The frustrating part, and believe you me it is frustrating me, is that some people refuse to listen and continue to spread disinformation including suggesting that I am evangelizing. This thread has become a bit of a beat up the Atheists thread. It's frustrating to try and explain reasonably one's point only to be accused of dogma. The difference was clearly shown in the last video I posted, yet you fell into the trap of bad thinking right away, richmondesi.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  • 08-07-2009, 01:54 AM #7
    ENUF2
    ENUF2 is offline
    Senior Member ENUF2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Knoxville TN
    Posts
    946
    Thanked: 133

    Default

    FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?






    The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.


    Want to read more....

    FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?


    I have no problem at all with micro-evolution but show me proof positive of transition between species. Show me where mutations are useful and not harmful knowing what we know about irreducible complexity. Show me proven not just speculated transitional fossil forms. Show me how macro-evolution can coexsist with a natural law such as entropy. Inteligent Design uses scientific method just as evolution does. Unless you can answer these questions 100% proof positive there is a degree of faith in your logic. I fully admit I cannot begin to answer all questions to special creation but then again I'm not ashamed to tell anyone I have Faith.


    If you think you can answer just a few more questions for my enlightenment try these...

    QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

    I'm so gald I can admit where I place my faith.

    richmondesi I would not call athiests evangelistic but they sure can preach. lol
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  • 08-07-2009, 02:20 AM #8
    richmondesi
    richmondesi is offline
    Little Bear richmondesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanked: 760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    When someone misrepresents me, I should try to clear up the misconception, should I not. The frustrating part, and believe you me it is frustrating me, is that some people refuse to listen and continue to spread disinformation including suggesting that I am evangelizing. This thread has become a bit of a beat up the Atheists thread. It's frustrating to try and explain reasonably one's point only to be accused of dogma. The difference was clearly shown in the last video I posted, yet you fell into the trap of bad thinking right away, richmondesi.
    First, my comment was a general comment, X-Man. It had absolutely nothing to do with your video's contents. It had every bit to do with the fact that you posted it and other information in an attempt to proselytize others to your way of thinking. I've not fallen into any trap, and I'm not the one suffering from "bad thinking". You and I have a fundamental disagreement from which we will never reconcile (and believe me, I'm OK with that). You're no more open minded than I am, and that's ok. However, you have zero objectivity if you can't look at your behavior throughout this thread as anything less than down right evangelical (and that's OK too, I just ask for you to recognize it). Atheist have substituted science and man for any god (and that's OK I just ask for you to recognize it).

    What's frustrating is whenever you try to convince me that science clearly and accurately answers questions from "millions of years" of history so definitively as to render the idea that there is an intelligent design as specious. The scientific community has proven and disproven so much crap over the years to render it far from authoritative. However, they never seem to recognize this.

    Guess what, I think your big bang theory every bit as ridiculous as you think my intelligent design theory. I'm sure we are both highly educated people that have studied all sides of the issue (I know am and I have, and I'm sure you are and you have too). In my mind it's equivalent to you looking at a watch recognizing that every part serves a purpose, working in perfect harmony, and assuming that it just happened over the course of a billion years through some incredible coincidence. And you think I believe in an archaic fairytale. THAT'S OK. We both know that we disagree, but at least I'm honest about who and what I am. I'm not attempting to proselytize you or anyone else. Also, I've not gotten personal with you or anyone else until you did.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  • 08-07-2009, 03:34 AM #9
    xman
    xman is offline
    Super Shaver xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lotus Land, eh
    Posts
    8,194
    Thanked: 622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ENUF2 View Post
    .... show me proof positive of transition between species.
    For all the good it will do.
    YouTube - RDF TV - Vestigial Organs: The Wings of the Flightless Cormorant - Richard Dawkins


    Quote Originally Posted by ENUF2 View Post
    Inteligent Design uses scientific method just as evolution does.
    Not in the least.
    YouTube - Intelligent Design movement founder admits its not science.


    Quote Originally Posted by ENUF2 View Post
    Unless you can answer these questions 100% proof positive there is a degree of faith in your logic.
    You equivocate again between the two meanings of faith I pointed out earlier.

    -------

    Quote Originally Posted by richmondesi View Post
    First, my comment was a general comment, X-Man. It had absolutely nothing to do with your video's contents. It had every bit to do with the fact that you posted it and other information in an attempt to proselytize others to your way of thinking.
    Quibble, quibble. I'm sure if I had come out and said all Christians are crackpots you would consider some of that personally so please don't set a trap for me and say, "He started it". I repeat again that I am trying to clear up your misconceptions, NOT make you into an Atheist. People refuse to admit that the earth was formed 14 billion years ago even though all the evidence says so and no evidence, only dogma contradicts it. They refuse to admit that the scientific process is above your opinion or my opinion or anyone else's. It is designed to overcome, as much as we can, the tendency for human failure in perception and thinking. But whenever I point out the overwhelming evidence science provides, you still seem to think that I'm preaching or touting an opinion which is only as valid as yours is. It's simple. You're wrong about that. I try to point you in the right direction, one supported by evidence rather than scripture, but you won't have it. And here's the thing. The life of dogma is retrograde and dangerous. It stupefies and discourages critical thought. It should not go uncontested.

    Quote Originally Posted by richmondesi View Post
    I've not fallen into any trap, and I'm not the one suffering from "bad thinking". You and I have a fundamental disagreement from which we will never reconcile (and believe me, I'm OK with that). You're no more open minded than I am, and that's ok.
    Please watch this again to discover how you are incorrect.
    YouTube - Open-mindedness


    Quote Originally Posted by richmondesi View Post
    However, you have zero objectivity if you can't look at your behavior throughout this thread as anything less than down right evangelical (and that's OK too, I just ask for you to recognize it). Atheist have substituted science and man for any god (and that's OK I just ask for you to recognize it).
    *sigh* No, although I can see how it would be easy to draw that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by richmondesi View Post
    What's frustrating is whenever you try to convince me that science clearly and accurately answers questions from "millions of years" of history so definitively as to render the idea that there is an intelligent design as specious. The scientific community has proven and disproven so much crap over the years to render it far from authoritative. However, they never seem to recognize this.
    I don't even know where to start with this one. ID is unscientific as stated earlier. You equivocate again. A disproven theory doesn't mean it's dead. When Einstein disproved Newton we didn't throw Newton in the garbage. That's what you're trying to imply. That's not right.

    YouTube - Skewed views of science


    I have long upheld and said so in previous threads that the only tenable position for theists is that their religion is completely inconsistent with observable reality, but that they believe anyway. Tony said so earlier and I applaud him for his simplicity and honesty.

    X
    • Last edited by xman; 08-07-2009 at 05:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    « Previous Thread | Next Thread »

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  

    Forum Rules