Thread: Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

Originally Posted by xman

Evolution, for example is not a matter of opinion. It is a widely (can you say understatement?) supported scientific theory that is used daily to enrich all our lives. If that comes down to 'he said, she said' then we all suffer immeasurably.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? In all of high school, and six years of college (Kettering University which is 80% engineering majors and graduates more mechanical engineers than any other school in the country, at least as of 2003 or so) never heard anyone (student, teacher, professor) who whole-heartedly believed evolution. This includes physicists, chemists, engineers, mathemeticians, etc... The general concensus was something along the lines of "it's the currently accepted theory, but it still has a lot of holes with no real explination". And I just graduated in December 2008, so this is relatively recent, not from the 50's or anything.

Speaking of which I came across this today. Never heard of this author before, but I hardly think Time magazine counts as Christian propoganda
Q&A: What Came Before the Big Bang? - TIME

Originally Posted by bbshriver

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? ...

Because you haven't reviewed the videos at the start of this thread. We get this from observation. Mountains of biological and paleontological evidence bears out the facts of evolution. There can be no question of its veracity, only of one's comfort with the facts. Please review Potholer54's Made Easy videos on Evolution and Human Evolution, #'s 7 & 8. Please also simply type "evolution" into Wikipedia for direct explanations, plenty of sited sources and further links.

Unfortunately, you have exposed that your primary sources are sadly misinformed or at least uncomfortable with believing in reality, and I find it particularly sad that these people are educators (not biologists though thankfully). To debunk many myths associated with evolution please review the links on this page: An Index to Creationist Claims

As for the Time magazine article (which is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory BTW, but is often challenged in the same breath by creationists because both refute the biblical creation myth), it is not directly creationist propaganda, but when edited by people who think as your teachers have, it's easy to understand how a scientist's possibly valid work (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it) can be ridiculously misrepresented. The Time article is moronic. It may be that the title is there to attract readers, but it is misleading as I think is the title The Selfish Gene. It implies that there is a gene for selfishness and that naturally we are selfish creatures, which is not the point of that book as I understand it. The title of the book in the Time article is even more misleading though. What Came Before the Big Bang is an impossible question. It ask about something before space/time. There is no before time and there is no thing outside of space. Indeed as cosmologists look further and further back in time (which is equal to further away from us) there comes point where space/time breaks down and there is a wall of evenly distributed background radiation. It is theorised that at this point which were the earliest few seconds (perhaps microseconds) of the universe, the fundamental forces at work in our universe were operating together as one force. The nature of reality would be completely different than the one we now know. Space/time was a radically different place. This is almost a 'before' for time, but probably not quite. Before that? Not a valid option. Simply put, there is no chance for a 'before' without time. There is no chance for anything to exist without a place for it to exist either. If that idea addles you mind as much as it should (it does mine) then you are better able to appreciate the awesome genius of people who dabble in such cosmological mysteries.

Sir,

With all respect, I'll take the word of highly educated scientists, professors and teachers over YouTube and Wikipedia anyday. Why would I spend over 6 hours watching "scientific" information information on a free-for all website? If I used Wikipedia or YouTube as a reference for an engineering report I'd probably be laughed out of the office or fired. Even if they interview respected people, or are published by respectable firms, honestly I have no proof that they are since they are on YouTube. And in the other thread we brought up "Expelled" the movie which interviews several high profile evolutionary scientists (Dawkins et al) and made them look like complete idiots.. The veracity of those interviews was questioned, so why should I assume that something on YouTube is any less biased?

Originally Posted by xman

Because you haven't reviewed the videos at the start of this thread. We get this from observation. Mountains of biological and paleontological evidence bears out the facts of evolution. There can be no question of its veracity, only of one's comfort with the facts. Please review Potholer54's Made Easy videos on Evolution and Human Evolution, #'s 7 & 8. Please also simply type "evolution" into Wikipedia for direct explanations, plenty of sited sources and further links.

Unfortunately, you have exposed that your primary sources are sadly misinformed or at least uncomfortable with believing in reality, and I find it particularly sad that these people are educators (not biologists though thankfully). To debunk many myths associated with evolution please review the links on this page: An Index to Creationist Claims

As for the Time magazine article (which is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory BTW, but is often challenged in the same breath by creationists because both refute the biblical creation myth), it is not directly creationist propaganda, but when edited by people who think as your teachers have, it's easy to understand how a scientist's possibly valid work (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it) can be ridiculously misrepresented. The Time article is moronic. It may be that the title is there to attract readers, but it is misleading as I think is the title The Selfish Gene. It implies that there is a gene for selfishness and that naturally we are selfish creatures, which is not the point of that book as I understand it. The title of the book in the Time article is even more misleading though. What Came Before the Big Bang is an impossible question. It ask about something before space/time. There is no before time and there is no thing outside of space. Indeed as cosmologists look further and further back in time (which is equal to further away from us) there comes point where space/time breaks down and there is a wall of evenly distributed background radiation. It is theorised that at this point which were the earliest few seconds (perhaps microseconds) of the universe, the fundamental forces at work in our universe were operating together as one force. The nature of reality would be completely different than the one we now know. Space/time was a radically different place. This is almost a 'before' for time, but probably not quite. Before that? Not a valid option. Simply put, there is no chance for a 'before' without time. There is no chance for anything to exist without a place for it to exist either. If that idea addles you mind as much as it should (it does mine) then you are better able to appreciate the awesome genius of people who dabble in such cosmological mysteries.

I see not much has changed here in my week away from this thread.

It is an endless argument, and one that can never be won. A believer will never concvince an atheist about creationism, or anything. But, to call us believers ignorant Xman, is as uncalled for now as it was a week ago. For one afternoon at least it looked like all sides were at least trying to be friendly and keep the subject separate from our opions on each other as people but here we are back at square one.

I am as strongly convinced of my viewpoint as you are of yours BUT I will never accuse you of ingnorance or of being misguided. Either of us, or both of us could be wrong on this subject.

Argue your points all you wish, but argue science, not a persons intelligence.

Tony

I agree, Tony, that this thread has spiraled out of control, and it's precisely because one side cannot convince the other of things contrary to what they firmly believe in.

@LX - In defense of X, the slang definition of "trolling" (i.e. in web-speak) is to browse through controversial threads and respond without reading the material which as already been posted (often re-posting the same arguments that have already been made). I don't think X was calling anybody a scary monster that guards a bridge collecting tolls for passage.

@VeeDub's comment (directed at "not just one person") - I've been on the science (evolution, etc.) side of the argument and like to think that while my posts are heavily opinionated and I believe I am both educated and knowledgeable on both sides of the fence, I have not been disrespectful of anyone.



Let's all do each other a favor and squash this thread as I don't think anyone from either side could possibly contribute anything more, especially in light of the fact that we've gotten to the point (or perhaps beyond) where people are going to have problems with one another on a personal level. IMO, once this happens, it's time to end the debate.

Regards,

G

Correct on all five points VeeDubd. I was trying to make it easy for those who haven't spent years in school.

Except:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The question is this: IF a person has accepted that there is a God, and that this god is truly omnipotent, why is it not entirely possible for that god to create the world exactly as described in the bible, but do it in such a way that thousands of years later it would appear that the world was created in the big bang, and that we evolved from lesser primates? (before answering, you should double check the definition of 'omnipotent')

That's an argument from design and it begs the question, "where did the god come from"? What's to stop such a creature from blinking the universe into existence last Tuesday and you with all your memories intact? Also, is there any evidence of that having happened? I should not need to remind you that any written account, Hindu. Sikh or whatever isn't evidence. that begs another question. Which god? Krishna? Chronos? What makes yours the right one?

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

And before you ask why, the answer to 'why' is simple. As you and countless others before you have pointed out, the theory of evolution, and the various theories about the big bang have advanced science, and our understanding of the nature and behavior of the natural universe. It is entirely possible that they are constructs created by God to help later man understand the workings of the universe.

That is a possibility. Is there any evidence of that? Can it be tested?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

However I am somewhat disturbed at things like calling people "trolls" and calling their opinions "Useless drivel".

No matter how into a subject you are....there's just no call for that.

If I were to come around telling people that women don't deserve the vote or that blacks should be slaves, we would all consider that useless drivel at the least and dangerous at best. This is no different. Some strong defenses are called for.

Originally Posted by Tony Miller

... to call us believers ignorant Xman, is as uncalled for now as it was a week ago. ...

I have not accused any believer of ignorance or stupidity, only the creationist who seeks to degrade our clear understanding of reality for the sake of their own praise, the illogical support of some holy text. They want to put that stuff in your schools, in the science class. They want to rewrite history.
Should Religion Be Taught in Schools? - ABC News

ENUF
Saying "100,000 years ago" is not the same as saying, "once upon a time". It is a very specific time period. It wasn't 10,000 years ago and it wasn't 1,000,000 years ago. "Once upon a time" and "In the beginning" wasn't ever. That's the way fables and fairy tales start. And saying, "it is believed that is actually less accurate I think than saying "it happened", but I suppose more accurately we should say, "incontrovertible mountains of evidence reveal". I have read parts of your Bible BTW. Have you read "on the Origin of Species" or any other seminal scientific text? But you're right, none of the Bible is admissible because it's not evidence and this is a kangaroo court of sorts. You reference to "Dr. Dino" is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Oggie, I don't think this thread should be closed, but I do wish everyone would stick to the topic, not jump to conclusions and reason logically rather than try to force an impossible idea onto reality. The difference may be summed up as such:

Critical Approach - I observe the world around me to uncover the wonders of nature.
Creationist Approach - I have my preferred holy text and I will find the evidence I need to to support it.

The creationist approach puts the cart before the horse.I repeat that it is possible to be a faithful and religious person and a critical thinker as well. Much of the advancements in science have been provided by just such individuals.

Originally Posted by xman

Oggie, I don't think this thread should be closed, but I do wish everyone would stick to the topic, not jump to conclusions and reason logically rather than try to force an impossible idea onto reality. The difference may be summed up as such:

Critical Approach - I observe the world around me to uncover the wonders of nature.
Creationist Approach - I have my preferred holy text and I will find the evidence I need to to support it.

The creationist approach puts the cart before the horse.I repeat that it is possible to be a faithful and religious person and a critical thinker as well. Much of the advancements in science have been provided by just such individuals.

X, I'm with you and we see eye to eye on the topic, however what you're asking is probably not possible since the "impossible idea" you're referring to is exactly that which some of the posters believe down to the core of their being to be true. Right or wrong, there's no way to get around it.

However, I'm all for continuing the discussion (and I obviously hold no authority over any of you for either doing or not doing so) provided it doesn't destroy any personal relationships on SRP. That was the point I was trying to make. For example, I might not agree with ENUF on belief systems, but outside of this topic we may think each of each other as a couple of great guys who like to straight shave. That's the common denominator here.

So, with all due respect to everybody, have a killer weekend and I'll likely be chiming in here and there should I feel the need. For now, I have to go get drunk with my brother because he gets married tomorrow.

Seacrest, OUT!

Saying "100,000 years ago" is not the same as saying, "once upon a time". It is a very specific time period.

It is still a statement that is unable to be proven (where is the science behind that?) You are correct that this is the way fairy tales start just like that statement. Where is you documentation (evidence) on the thoughts of early man?

And yes I have read on the Origin of Species and parts of it are brilliant but those parts to me do not conflict with design. Besides, I'm not trying the "shotgun" technique on every piece on information coming this way and I will look at any new information I haven't seen as it becomes available no matter which side of the fence it happens to be on.

Critical Approach - I observe the world around me to uncover the wonders of nature.
Creationist Approach - I have my preferred holy text and I will do or say whatever I need to to support it.

Don't you mean Critical approach- I observe the world around me minus anything I deem "unacceptable" to uncover the wonders of nature.

Creationist approach- This is here it must of had a beginning and to remove any evidence no matter how trivial would be a travesty. God or no god we search for whats behind the design.

The creationist approach puts the cart before the horse.

I disagree its seeing that there is an outside to this box (we call everything) and trying to understand the intelligence behind it no matter where it leads. ( I guess this is just still that ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning point of view.)


And thanks Oglethorpe I do enjoy all parts of straight razors and even though I do not drink anymore I still love a good party!!!!!! Tell Your brother Congrats from us at SRP.

Originally Posted by xman

If I were to come around telling people that women don't deserve the vote or that blacks should be slaves, we would all consider that useless drivel at the least and dangerous at best. This is no different. Some strong defenses are called for.

Wrong, any man has a right to his opinion. And without delving into why he has that opinion and researching his arguments you can't call judgment on that either.

Besides, this is the internet. You actually think you can defend anyone here?

You defend yourself and the way you express with the argument: But it's the truth? I can say anything as long as it's true.

This is not a very good argument in civilised discussion. You claim that you don't call anyone ignorant. Just that those who believe in something other than what you think is true are acting like that big walking bird from australia.

That's calling people ignorant. All those who believe in God believe that in some way, He's responsible for the creation of earth. I believe that. Admittedly I don't know HOW He did that, maybe it was through some process that took a million years. After this life I'll ask Him if I deem the question important enough.

But just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them any less informed. Most of the people in this discussion HAVE read one thing or the other concerning science and it's theories.

A gentleman does not go around namecalling, a gentleman does not insult those he discusses with if he can help it. A gentleman (and more important to you perhaps) an a scientist listens closely to ALL arguments before disposing of any theories.

@Oglethorpe: As for calling people trolls, I know what internet slang is for trolls. And let me assure you that calling people a monster under a bridge is a kindness compared to calling them a troll on the internet.

A troll as regarding to internet lore is a person who tries to get a debate going as a form of sadism, riling people up, getting them agitated with stupid arguments. It's not even CLOSE to a person that "hasn't read the thread" it's someone who purposely goes out to pick a fight on the internet. It is one of the worst accusations that can be made to a well meaning person in discussion on the internet.

It's calling someone dumb and sadistic...yeah, that's much better than a monster under a bridge.

Originally Posted by xman

I have not accused any believer of ignorance or stupidity, only the creationist who seeks to degrade our clear understanding of reality for the sake of their own praise, the illogical support of some holy text.

You said earlier.."Dogma depends on an ignorant, unthinking, unquestioning herd."

Most believers faithfully accept the dogma of their denomination. In many groups not believing dogma, means not believing at all. It does not have to be logical, that is why it is called Faith.

I would like to think I am a fairly educated, thinking, questioning person. I was always spiritual, not always a convinced believer, I entertained evolution as well as creationism in my past. Once I was called I had no need to question any longer. The words of Genesis are the foundation my faith is based on. I have no need to seek further, call that ignorance if you wish, I call it faith.


Tony