It's pretty much the entire basis for that site, but you obviously didn't look very hard.
Okay, let's checkpoint this, as you goalpost-shift to lesser and lesser claims. You started off saying...
Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.
Implying universality--that all "creationists" say this. They don't. Then we went to...
Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly.
Implying you have heard them say this personally, repeatedly--implying it is the dominant stance. It isn't.
Then you went to linking a site that doesn't say that, at least not on the page linked nor in your followup. It is clear that they have a related -stance-, but there is no issue with stating a position, and backing it with scientific analysis, for anyone--regardless of how a priori dismissive you may be of their arguments, or how cogent they ultimately may be, this does not approximate "The bible says not, nothing more need be said" of your original claim. Finally, you switch sites to something so fringe they clearly can barely do basic HTML. We've come a long way from your original claim.
False dichotomy. That would be a way to falsify evolution by means of natural selection, but it would in now way prove the reality of intelligent design.
No, -actual- dichotomy. We have two things by which we can explain complex biological structures in existence--natural selection, and design. The latter certainly exists, if nothing else, in instances of our own human genetic-engineering biological design. Would you care to stipulate another reasonable possibility?
You're on shaky ground using the word "prove" in science in the first place, but no, I do not think this would be a -falsifying- test for natural selection, as it could be claimed no matter how low the probability was, though, say, anthropic principle dodges, that is is not -impossible-. But, not all "tests" need to be falsifying tests, and it is not always the case in science that such an absolute test can be specified--as such, if the test I described resulted in an extremely low probability, it would demonstrate the ID is highly probable, but not certain. That, like tests for "dark matter", which establish probability but not certainty, does fall in the realm of a valid "test".
You're the one who cited Behe as an authority. I merely pointed out his obviously fallacious reasoning. You chose to use argument from authority.
There is no problem with citing someone as an authority. It is only fallacious if one forms an argument such as "A is certainly true because authority B says so". I made no such linkage to a particular premise, merely said Behe is a good reference for particular arguments, which would have to resolve at the level of those specific arguments. And, regardless of how many bad arguments he may have made along the way, the quality of his other arguments and analyses would be precise as much so (or not) as they end up being--dismissing -all- of them merely because "it came from Behe" or "it came from ID people" or "it came from Descartes" or "it came from France", is, again, textbook Genetic Fallacy.
I've also found it interesting how many smart people who studied the Bible came to the conclusion that the Trinity was a pagan teaching unsupported by scripture, Issac Newton being one of my favorite examples.
You can, in large part, thank Irenaeus for that.
Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."
Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here.
The statement isn't there, unless you meant "somewhere on this site is something like that". I was expecting an actual valid backing of your claim, actually. Typically, the effort would be to harmonize the understanding of scripture with science, rather than simply state "it cannot be", especially since the next step would be to consider various interpretations among theists themselves. I again submit you have never in your life heard this presented, and presented as sufficient consideration of the matter.
Intelligent design is not science, since it offers no testable hypotheses.
I understand you've heard this repeated a thousand times before, and will repeat it yourself a thousand times more, but throughout that time it will persistently remain false. A test for ID would be, "enumerate the mutations required for all biological structures, eliminate those which require transitions which would not be survivable, calculate the probability given the population over that time". We are not yet able to do this fully as a matter of technology, but we'll inevitably get there.
Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that ID is religion, not science.
Don't care in the least what lawyers, even if wearing black robes, declare about science. Neither does science.
Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis about the origin of life, but has nothing to do with evolution.
In one interpretation, but you are understating the scope. The notion of a designed or undesigned set of DNA being introduced at any point in history is in-scope of that notion.
Quoting from the court decision in the Dover School case, where Behe testified for the plaintiffs,"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
And... so what? This is textbook Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea has nothing to do with its origination.
Thank you for playing.
Thanks. Looking forward to winning again next time.
There are many other such examples. I suspect you'll have some sort of reply such as "yeah but that was recently". That would again give is a debates as to "when", not "if".
Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.
Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?
Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist???
There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists. Apart from those in the ID camp, there are notions of, say, "panspermia" as a causal factor, and great, systemic disagreement as to the particular paths evolution has taken.
Do you have any scientific argument to present here or you feel happy just by trolling?
Lots of them are available for a little googling. That tends to be a more intricate argument at the level of biology than I'm looking to start at this point, though. Behe, as usual, is a good place to start on the biological level. My point here is simply, and accurately, the exclusion of other causal factors when using the term "evolution" is untestable and hence unscientific, and the word cannot be used that way -scientifically-, only philosophically.
"Scientists" per se, tend to avoid that form of statement, yes. Dawkins et al, however, have made a very comfortable living stating exactly that. Any presentation of "religion versus science" in only possible insofar as one is using "evolution" in an untestable, hence unscientific sense.
In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed. We are arguing about the possible scope of "when" design is a factor, not "if". That it -is- a factor when talking about "existence in general", is now established fact.
There is disagreement among scientists across a broad range of questions. Since one of these groups is by definition not accepting "correct science", should they be required to deny all scientific principles, too?
Few "creationists", though, deny the scientific statement "evolution occurs" as a causal statement affecting biology. They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs". If you're among those who deny correct science through accepting that hopeful non-sequitur equivocation of the term, maybe you should book that time machine trip yourself...
Yes, but that was only to modify the religion to accommodate the recent findings of science. I mean, it's not like allegorical reading was being advocated by Christians in like, the -third century- or anything...
"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."
I considered your characterizations for about.01 seconds (that'd be a value up to and including.0149999999..., to introduce you to basic math). I'm specifying it that way, incidentally, not because I can't specify it any more accurately, but because there is no necessary informational purpose to more accuracy considering the context.
I scanned this for a single intellectually-honest response. Couldn't find one.
So, clearly we are unable to meaningfully communicate. So, I'll just wait and let the 150-year 0% survival rate of your still-unsupported (beyond the mere name itself) Secular Humanism take care of it for me.
Look at this sentence. It makes no fucking sense in the least. As notable as what? Making a prophesy?
Unbelievable. Same exact mental pattern. No, OBVIOUSLY, making an -equivalent- prophecy. I'd like something with a few billion data points, predicted 3000 years ahead, specified and accurate to the significant digits specified, but just do something remotely similar. No problem, right? How about the exact same thing, only predicting for your neighborhood, ten years in advance, with the entire knowledge of mankind at your internet-enabled fingertips, as opposed to the nomad with nothing. Really, evade less, man up more. It's not that hard.
Oops, your god has failed again: The oldest verified person ever is Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122 years 164 days
Obviously, I would know about "Saint" Calment. I'm not doing this exact same thread again I already did a month ago. Suffice it to say--two significant digits were specified, all the billions fit within that specification, per how math always works for measurements. This is one of a half-dozen ways she fails to be a contradiction, but since it's absolutely clear you have the same personality type as that other guy did for a hundred posts, and will randomly switch topics and evade the entire way along each individual line of argument, claiming that since you're still talking irrelevantly about at least one of them, you've met what's necessary for you to do with -all- the rationales, to establish a contradiction. Not going to do that again. "120", two significant digits, all of the billions fitting with in that, -one- statistical outlier across all time, not showing it inaccurate, but actually illustrating its accuracy as an endpoint as specified.
Bullshit. Which prophesies do you want to acknowledge as true? The Mormon ones? Jehovah's Witnesses? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Seventh Day Adventists? The various and sundry "Evangelical" Christian prophecies?
I weight them all, as is appropriate, according to the context. If Joseph Smith had martyred himself for a particular belief, rather than living a life of a self-interested scam artist, that would have weight quite heavily as a significant factor. I use basic, logical criteria to evaluate things, same as everyone does when not evading as you are now. Again, totally irrelevant topic-switch, to all prophecies across all religions. "So, you think a two-minute-mile is notable? Well, -obviously-, people have been running in all cultures, and there are lots of running events, of different distances and times, that have happened..."
Well, you are correct here. Once one is sufficiently brainwashed by religion, it's rare that one ever manages to overcome their dogmatic biases.
Well, that evasion on your part came as a total surprise... but, in fact, I was once very close to considering myself Objectivist, and would easily outclass you if I were arguing your side of atheism. I also draw and synthesize quite a bit from Zen Buddhism, where appropriate, as well, and have for many years. As usual, no cognitive limitation at all across theists in actual reality, though I realize it's a favorite made-up claim for you, as you parrot and massage Dawkins' coattails.
Yes, a realistic worldview, based on an empiric evaluation and understanding of the universe, is not likely to appear to offer anything to foolish idiots caught up in the false majesty of fairy tales and bloody tales of divine vengeance. It's far too civilized a worldview to appeal to those enthralled with bronze age blood gods and their milquetoast progeny.
Nice breezy abstractions. Still waiting for a single empirical example to reference (including, I might add, during the millenia of inter-tribal bloodbath existing before any "religion" at all, that would have been necessary for you even to exist), so I can know this isn't just your parasitical fantasy.
To filter it a down a bit more, you have a lot of these "religious folks" who consider themselves followers of the actual religion. Once again... "self-identified".
Though I'd disagree with him on a broad range of issues, Bill Maher is dead-on when making his criticisms of quasi-religious political movements that directly contradict the founder's directly-stated principles. How we get to the current "conservative" pro-rich, pro-war, anti-compassion stances from anything Jesus said, is beyond me.
Who is "he?" Are you suggesting that Dawkins is a prophet? Really, is this supposed to be a cogent train of thought?
Pretend to address the point at hand. Obviously I am not saying that, as fully as you already know in your own mind as you suggest otherwise. Is there someone who doesn't find your topic-shifts and blatant, so-blatant-nobody-could-miss-it, false restatements as annoying as I do? I'd like to meet them. I am saying, as clearly as it is in your own mind, since you've denigrated prophecy, I suggest backing that up by doing something even very marginally as notable, or acknowledge the much more difficult example is, in fact, notable.
You'll have to be more specific on what particular cult you are a part of if you expect me to be able to pin down what nonsense you are speaking about.
The maximum lifespan of man, to the accuracy offered, as "120 years", has held true for the millenia from the time the limit was declared/predicted and written in Genesis to this very moment, over billions of people. As such, it is not subject to retroactive correction or anyone acting, intentionally or otherwise, such as to fulfill the prediction. It is beyond the scope of any individual or collective action to do that.
Do what? Fake a prophesy and get killed for it? No thanks, I'll leave that you lame ass religionists.
Pretend to address the point at hand. Once again, no more unclear to you than to me what I meant, unless you are incapable of the simplest of inferences. I was further noting how your "explanation" isn't viable for a broad range of prophecies. It simply defies common sense to assert that both a) a person is actively "faking" or "forcing self-fulfillment" to a prophecy, as that choice presumes that they know their religion is false, and b) they would cause or allow their own death to support it, knowing that. This situation is not analogous to the situations and forms of support of belief you are referencing.
You've managed to drag this out quite a bit, for a situation where objectively speaking, both according to your worldview, -and- my worldview, your side of the discussion could offer neither me nor anyone anything (given, if you're wrong, your position offers nothing, and if you're right, your position offers nothing--because there would be no valid content to the domain under discussion). Given that from both our perspectives your stance is worth a maximum possible of nothing--are we done now?
Look, fool, I don't have time to explain how causality or time work to you. If you think he can predict the age of your death alone, over a mere few decades, as opposed to that "nomad" getting the age right across billions of people, over future millenia, then try it. If you're unclear that the prediction is -still being validated-, in an ongoing empirical fashion, allowing neither the possibility of "retroactive correction of the prediction" nor "acting such that the prediction will be the case"--then, well, as you've demonstrated in a number of cases, you just need to be able to think better. In the alternative, if you think people are/were willing to say, "Okay, well, we have to fake this prediction, so, well, I'll assume the religion's false, but I'm going to go ahead and deliberately get killed for it anyway", do it, or drop it.
Geez, it's almost like you can invent any damned thing you like when you are unbound by empirical observation!
Who's talking about being "unbounded"? Here's a peer-reviewed medical study in the Lancet, quantifying eye-witness accounts of post-death phenomena directly corresponding to theistic metaphysics.
No, it matters not in the least that you'll dance and evade that this meets -absolutely- the criterion of "empirical" (that is, derived from sense data), and that you have no such alternative leprechaun study, cleanly differentiating the cases, even leaving completely aside issues of how this is explainable during EEG flatline at all. But why do I need to explain this? You know as clearly in your own brain that the two aren't equivalent -even to you-, which is why you attempt this whole line of rhetorical nonsense. If -you yourself- believed them equivalent, there is no reason simply not to use the standard terminology of "God", confident in an equal degree of automatic derision and incredulity in your "audience". You don't do that, because, as a measure of your lack of intellectual honesty, you need, and assert, that they are the same conceptually, knowing fully well in your own mind they are not as the only reason for even starting your attempted rhetorical "comparison".
Further, would you like to guess what the correct statistical upper-bound of human lifespan would be, over the last 3000 years? Would you consider those billions of empirical, factual datapoints corresponding to the prediction made those thousands of years ago, to be notable in terms of evidence, as -one- of hundreds of prophecies your leprechauns have really no track record of success at all at?
The empirical analysis of the universe is what I offered.
You offered nothing. You mean this, as your "empirical analysis"? " The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is." Seriously? That's your "analysis"? That's just pathetically content-free, as well as presuming your own experience as the definition of "empirical", both of which have a level of validity that would get you laughed out of any Philo 101 class. You can do better.
Why, if it were so, it would be on par with your groundless assertions. Project much, do you?
Nothing groundless here--you have a directly-pertinent peer-reviewed study, you have verifiable prophecy, as a small subset of the evidence that can be brought to bear. Yes, I know you'll deny it's evidence. After you're done attempting to do so, it'll remain exactly what it was--evidence.
Yup, you are apparently too blinkered to even acknowledge the existence, for many, many years, of secular humanists.
You're serious? I meant, a -political and ethical system- based on your worldview, where a -majority- in that society of people hold that view, and act as such within a society defined and directed by that worldview. That's a test-case, not a small percentage of people "hanging out" in a society entirely defined by another one. Care to provide an -actual- test case? We need not even get into me asking, "Okay, provide the steps of your demonstrable 'ethical deduction' to the principles of Secular Humanism, as supported by objective reality, rather than subjective arbitrary claims, and for each, say a mere five actual specific principles, show how that stance is more-supported, objectively, than the precise opposite stance". I know you couldn't even hope to be able to do that, so let's just stick with a basic, analyzable example of a basically-sound society definable by your "deduced ethics" as practiced by a majority of the citizens who declare themselves as such--so I know you can differentiate societies that exist from Dawkins-esque "no religion" fantasies w
Or maybe our souls will both be weighed by Anubis to determine our fates. Or maybe we'll end up in Vahalla. Isn't it fun to generate "knowledge" by making it up as you go? Congrats on that sound footing.
I don't make it up. I do, in fact, know. And you have absolutely no possible way to know otherwise, as a -formal certainty of epistemology-, other than as a claim to psychic abilities on your part. But since you cannot verify my claim, and your statement as a claim to knowledge otherwise is provably a falsehood, I'll just say... I'll take that bet.
Utter dipshittery. The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is.
"Simplistic" as opposed to what, you offering none at all? Pick something less "simplistic", then, I'll take you apart on any stance, secular or theological, you like. Throwing in empty characterization to substitute for an actual argument isn't any more convincing to me than it is to you.
Atheism does not presuppose any sort of behavioral norms, sans those which are intrinsically tied to religion.
Thanks for directly admitting a complete void of any usable stance, then. Saves time. You couldn't do otherwise anyway, may as well move things along.
They would be pointing out things like the ethic of reciprocity, the freedom of self determination, the freedom from slavery, etc. None of which require your silly theistic beliefs to justify.
Evidence-free conjecture, but I invite you to try it yourself, with an individual selected yourself. Then justify them from your own stance, in some way, already. You could at least make an argument that they might increase their adherents' DNA propagation rates, rather than airy nothing backing it that could address a simple "why?".
...you might actually learn that the world doesn't need your cosmological boogeyman to either deduce ethics or run a civilization. If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should.
Then point out your real-world test case, where your half-constructed worldview has worked successfully. Should be easy enough to do, if your argument had any merit. Asserting "deducing ethics" while just demonstrating yourself completely incapable of doing precise that, lacks a certain--veracity. And, no, it doesn't scare me in the least, nor is there the slightest sensible reason it could, as, if you haven't noticed, even apart from the expectations of my metaphysics, it's my subculture that is easily numerically and politically dominant--and if I were to limit myself to your position, it is clearly -your- worldview, from say, a Darwinian standpoint, that actually has reason to feel such a reaction. If you were correct, you'd merely lose on a cultural/evolutionary level rather than the much more thorough resolution we'll be having. There just isn't any way to change the fact of your own position being one absolutely guaranteeing your elimination and irrelevance to anything other, by means of a few pithy words. I'm guessing you've looked at the demographics and your own personal 150-year timeframe projection, and know that as fully as I do, though. Why restate the obvious?
Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...
Well, then, outside of -that-, you might start to consider it "useless". However...
As a wider consideration, in fact, your worldview presuppositions have enormous predictive power. Consider merely in the realm of politics--knowing that you personally, the subculture you are in, or the government in general, are/will-be Democrat or Republican, or any other of a myriad of stances, allows a great deal of prediction regarding a broad set of future actions and trends--it is a very fundamental basis for human interaction. Very much the same way, religious metaphysics and norms do much the same thing. In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not. You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to". Along the way, we could reasonably expect that basic requirements for a coherent philosophical worldview would be generated--for instance, a logical connection between the metaphysics of Naturalism and a justification for any ethical norms, of any type or content, at all. Really, the only people doing even an attempt to not formally sign-on to such a subjective mush of non-direction are the Objectivists--that is, the Rand followers, and that was a 20'th-century development with its own internal consistency issues. Take, as a test-case, Dawkins and Hitchens--who were proverbially "joined at the hip" in their metaphysics. If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism. From that stance, they are proposing we reduce ourselves as a society to a "predictive power", with regard to the entire domain of human interaction, of zero. This "thought experiment", naturally, would only be the merest beginning of maybe, someday, atheism getting to an unenforceable, subjectivity-laden non-consensus, that maybe could appear on first glance to not be that, and might stand more than 30 to 45 seconds of rigorous philosophical questioning. The "Is-Ought Dichotomy" is not a trivial thing to address--almost universally, people don't even try, a situation exacerbated by the fact most don't want to, because avoiding having ethical norms which are actually expected to be followed, and not simply ignorably subjective, was their whole point and emotional impetus to attacking theism in the first place.
I suggest, "lack of predictive power" is just a criticism requiring self-induced myopia to considering a very small subset of the hard sciences, as is also required by a broad range of standard atheist argument. I suggest you may want to reconsider the veracity of that argument.
And, well... you asked. Predictive power with regard to methods you are currently unable of know are even there to be brought to bear, I'll leave for another day.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one, I'd suggest consulting our respective worldviews, and see which one is likely to support having available the final response.
Though, thanks for clearing out any ethical issues for me ahead of time.
I'd ask it the other way around.
If baboons can learn to recognize words, is it not ethical to use humans in medical testing?
Then the bigger question: "Why?"
Somehow, I'm guessing that since this isn't a discussion of ID, we won't be hearing that "complexity" is meaningless and undefinable...
But, out of curiosity, what is the metric of complexity here? The article seems to only give synonyms, like "complicated".
It's pretty much the entire basis for that site, but you obviously didn't look very hard.
Okay, let's checkpoint this, as you goalpost-shift to lesser and lesser claims. You started off saying...
Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.
Implying universality--that all "creationists" say this. They don't. Then we went to...
Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly.
Implying you have heard them say this personally, repeatedly--implying it is the dominant stance. It isn't.
Then you went to linking a site that doesn't say that, at least not on the page linked nor in your followup. It is clear that they have a related -stance-, but there is no issue with stating a position, and backing it with scientific analysis, for anyone--regardless of how a priori dismissive you may be of their arguments, or how cogent they ultimately may be, this does not approximate "The bible says not, nothing more need be said" of your original claim. Finally, you switch sites to something so fringe they clearly can barely do basic HTML. We've come a long way from your original claim.
False dichotomy. That would be a way to falsify evolution by means of natural selection, but it would in now way prove the reality of intelligent design.
No, -actual- dichotomy. We have two things by which we can explain complex biological structures in existence--natural selection, and design. The latter certainly exists, if nothing else, in instances of our own human genetic-engineering biological design. Would you care to stipulate another reasonable possibility?
You're on shaky ground using the word "prove" in science in the first place, but no, I do not think this would be a -falsifying- test for natural selection, as it could be claimed no matter how low the probability was, though, say, anthropic principle dodges, that is is not -impossible-. But, not all "tests" need to be falsifying tests, and it is not always the case in science that such an absolute test can be specified--as such, if the test I described resulted in an extremely low probability, it would demonstrate the ID is highly probable, but not certain. That, like tests for "dark matter", which establish probability but not certainty, does fall in the realm of a valid "test".
You're the one who cited Behe as an authority. I merely pointed out his obviously fallacious reasoning. You chose to use argument from authority.
There is no problem with citing someone as an authority. It is only fallacious if one forms an argument such as "A is certainly true because authority B says so". I made no such linkage to a particular premise, merely said Behe is a good reference for particular arguments, which would have to resolve at the level of those specific arguments. And, regardless of how many bad arguments he may have made along the way, the quality of his other arguments and analyses would be precise as much so (or not) as they end up being--dismissing -all- of them merely because "it came from Behe" or "it came from ID people" or "it came from Descartes" or "it came from France", is, again, textbook Genetic Fallacy.
I've also found it interesting how many smart people who studied the Bible came to the conclusion that the Trinity was a pagan teaching unsupported by scripture, Issac Newton being one of my favorite examples.
You can, in large part, thank Irenaeus for that.
Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."
--Gospel of Thomas
If I only had a video camera every time I heard someone say, "Man didn't evolve from apes, God created man. It says so right here in the Bible!"
If you had had one, I suspect you'd have a fully available videotape.
However, I thought comments like this occurred so often, that no one would ever deny they are made.
Well, I've been a theist for 30-ish years now, and I've never heard it said. If you have, is this where others are entitled to ask -you- for evidence?
Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here.
The statement isn't there, unless you meant "somewhere on this site is something like that". I was expecting an actual valid backing of your claim, actually. Typically, the effort would be to harmonize the understanding of scripture with science, rather than simply state "it cannot be", especially since the next step would be to consider various interpretations among theists themselves. I again submit you have never in your life heard this presented, and presented as sufficient consideration of the matter.
Intelligent design is not science, since it offers no testable hypotheses.
I understand you've heard this repeated a thousand times before, and will repeat it yourself a thousand times more, but throughout that time it will persistently remain false. A test for ID would be, "enumerate the mutations required for all biological structures, eliminate those which require transitions which would not be survivable, calculate the probability given the population over that time". We are not yet able to do this fully as a matter of technology, but we'll inevitably get there.
Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that ID is religion, not science.
Don't care in the least what lawyers, even if wearing black robes, declare about science. Neither does science.
Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis about the origin of life, but has nothing to do with evolution.
In one interpretation, but you are understating the scope. The notion of a designed or undesigned set of DNA being introduced at any point in history is in-scope of that notion.
Quoting from the court decision in the Dover School case, where Behe testified for the plaintiffs,"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
And... so what? This is textbook Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea has nothing to do with its origination.
Thank you for playing.
Thanks. Looking forward to winning again next time.
Okay...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/11/genetically-modified-glowing-cats
Fluorescent cats. Designed, no?
There are many other such examples. I suspect you'll have some sort of reply such as "yeah but that was recently". That would again give is a debates as to "when", not "if".
Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.
Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?
Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist???
There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists. Apart from those in the ID camp, there are notions of, say, "panspermia" as a causal factor, and great, systemic disagreement as to the particular paths evolution has taken.
Do you have any scientific argument to present here or you feel happy just by trolling?
Lots of them are available for a little googling. That tends to be a more intricate argument at the level of biology than I'm looking to start at this point, though. Behe, as usual, is a good place to start on the biological level. My point here is simply, and accurately, the exclusion of other causal factors when using the term "evolution" is untestable and hence unscientific, and the word cannot be used that way -scientifically-, only philosophically.
"Scientists" per se, tend to avoid that form of statement, yes. Dawkins et al, however, have made a very comfortable living stating exactly that. Any presentation of "religion versus science" in only possible insofar as one is using "evolution" in an untestable, hence unscientific sense.
In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed. We are arguing about the possible scope of "when" design is a factor, not "if". That it -is- a factor when talking about "existence in general", is now established fact.
There is disagreement among scientists across a broad range of questions. Since one of these groups is by definition not accepting "correct science", should they be required to deny all scientific principles, too?
Few "creationists", though, deny the scientific statement "evolution occurs" as a causal statement affecting biology. They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs". If you're among those who deny correct science through accepting that hopeful non-sequitur equivocation of the term, maybe you should book that time machine trip yourself...
Yes, but that was only to modify the religion to accommodate the recent findings of science. I mean, it's not like allegorical reading was being advocated by Christians in like, the -third century- or anything...
"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."
--Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, 248 A.D.
(/sarcasm)
And, as it stands, for every one instance of bad science that is revealed, two new ones have already taken its place.
Here we have the inevitable result of the trend of advocating "memes" as the overarching model of human cognition.
If you don't like theism, Pirsig's "Quality", for one, is a much better guiding metaphysics.
I considered your characterizations for about .01 seconds (that'd be a value up to and including .0149999999..., to introduce you to basic math). I'm specifying it that way, incidentally, not because I can't specify it any more accurately, but because there is no necessary informational purpose to more accuracy considering the context.
Then I referred again to reality.
I scanned this for a single intellectually-honest response. Couldn't find one.
So, clearly we are unable to meaningfully communicate. So, I'll just wait and let the 150-year 0% survival rate of your still-unsupported (beyond the mere name itself) Secular Humanism take care of it for me.
Look at this sentence. It makes no fucking sense in the least. As notable as what? Making a prophesy?
Unbelievable. Same exact mental pattern. No, OBVIOUSLY, making an -equivalent- prophecy. I'd like something with a few billion data points, predicted 3000 years ahead, specified and accurate to the significant digits specified, but just do something remotely similar. No problem, right? How about the exact same thing, only predicting for your neighborhood, ten years in advance, with the entire knowledge of mankind at your internet-enabled fingertips, as opposed to the nomad with nothing. Really, evade less, man up more. It's not that hard.
Oops, your god has failed again: The oldest verified person ever is Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122 years 164 days
Obviously, I would know about "Saint" Calment. I'm not doing this exact same thread again I already did a month ago. Suffice it to say--two significant digits were specified, all the billions fit within that specification, per how math always works for measurements. This is one of a half-dozen ways she fails to be a contradiction, but since it's absolutely clear you have the same personality type as that other guy did for a hundred posts, and will randomly switch topics and evade the entire way along each individual line of argument, claiming that since you're still talking irrelevantly about at least one of them, you've met what's necessary for you to do with -all- the rationales, to establish a contradiction. Not going to do that again. "120", two significant digits, all of the billions fitting with in that, -one- statistical outlier across all time, not showing it inaccurate, but actually illustrating its accuracy as an endpoint as specified.
Bullshit. Which prophesies do you want to acknowledge as true? The Mormon ones? Jehovah's Witnesses? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Seventh Day Adventists? The various and sundry "Evangelical" Christian prophecies?
I weight them all, as is appropriate, according to the context. If Joseph Smith had martyred himself for a particular belief, rather than living a life of a self-interested scam artist, that would have weight quite heavily as a significant factor. I use basic, logical criteria to evaluate things, same as everyone does when not evading as you are now. Again, totally irrelevant topic-switch, to all prophecies across all religions. "So, you think a two-minute-mile is notable? Well, -obviously-, people have been running in all cultures, and there are lots of running events, of different distances and times, that have happened..."
Well, you are correct here. Once one is sufficiently brainwashed by religion, it's rare that one ever manages to overcome their dogmatic biases.
Well, that evasion on your part came as a total surprise... but, in fact, I was once very close to considering myself Objectivist, and would easily outclass you if I were arguing your side of atheism. I also draw and synthesize quite a bit from Zen Buddhism, where appropriate, as well, and have for many years. As usual, no cognitive limitation at all across theists in actual reality, though I realize it's a favorite made-up claim for you, as you parrot and massage Dawkins' coattails.
Yes, a realistic worldview, based on an empiric evaluation and understanding of the universe, is not likely to appear to offer anything to foolish idiots caught up in the false majesty of fairy tales and bloody tales of divine vengeance. It's far too civilized a worldview to appeal to those enthralled with bronze age blood gods and their milquetoast progeny.
Nice breezy abstractions. Still waiting for a single empirical example to reference (including, I might add, during the millenia of inter-tribal bloodbath existing before any "religion" at all, that would have been necessary for you even to exist), so I can know this isn't just your parasitical fantasy.
To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.
Hey, Blake, why not "in a minute", you... epistemological nihilist!
Er, what?
To filter it a down a bit more, you have a lot of these "religious folks" who consider themselves followers of the actual religion. Once again... "self-identified".
Though I'd disagree with him on a broad range of issues, Bill Maher is dead-on when making his criticisms of quasi-religious political movements that directly contradict the founder's directly-stated principles. How we get to the current "conservative" pro-rich, pro-war, anti-compassion stances from anything Jesus said, is beyond me.
Who is "he?" Are you suggesting that Dawkins is a prophet? Really, is this supposed to be a cogent train of thought?
Pretend to address the point at hand. Obviously I am not saying that, as fully as you already know in your own mind as you suggest otherwise. Is there someone who doesn't find your topic-shifts and blatant, so-blatant-nobody-could-miss-it, false restatements as annoying as I do? I'd like to meet them. I am saying, as clearly as it is in your own mind, since you've denigrated prophecy, I suggest backing that up by doing something even very marginally as notable, or acknowledge the much more difficult example is, in fact, notable.
You'll have to be more specific on what particular cult you are a part of if you expect me to be able to pin down what nonsense you are speaking about.
The maximum lifespan of man, to the accuracy offered, as "120 years", has held true for the millenia from the time the limit was declared/predicted and written in Genesis to this very moment, over billions of people. As such, it is not subject to retroactive correction or anyone acting, intentionally or otherwise, such as to fulfill the prediction. It is beyond the scope of any individual or collective action to do that.
Do what? Fake a prophesy and get killed for it? No thanks, I'll leave that you lame ass religionists.
Pretend to address the point at hand. Once again, no more unclear to you than to me what I meant, unless you are incapable of the simplest of inferences. I was further noting how your "explanation" isn't viable for a broad range of prophecies. It simply defies common sense to assert that both a) a person is actively "faking" or "forcing self-fulfillment" to a prophecy, as that choice presumes that they know their religion is false, and b) they would cause or allow their own death to support it, knowing that. This situation is not analogous to the situations and forms of support of belief you are referencing.
You've managed to drag this out quite a bit, for a situation where objectively speaking, both according to your worldview, -and- my worldview, your side of the discussion could offer neither me nor anyone anything (given, if you're wrong, your position offers nothing, and if you're right, your position offers nothing--because there would be no valid content to the domain under discussion). Given that from both our perspectives your stance is worth a maximum possible of nothing--are we done now?
Look, fool, I don't have time to explain how causality or time work to you. If you think he can predict the age of your death alone, over a mere few decades, as opposed to that "nomad" getting the age right across billions of people, over future millenia, then try it. If you're unclear that the prediction is -still being validated-, in an ongoing empirical fashion, allowing neither the possibility of "retroactive correction of the prediction" nor "acting such that the prediction will be the case"--then, well, as you've demonstrated in a number of cases, you just need to be able to think better. In the alternative, if you think people are/were willing to say, "Okay, well, we have to fake this prediction, so, well, I'll assume the religion's false, but I'm going to go ahead and deliberately get killed for it anyway", do it, or drop it.
Just letting you have what you insist on. Maybe you should have Dawkins predict when that'll be, and tailor the event for it.
Yawn. Okay, just die.
Geez, it's almost like you can invent any damned thing you like when you are unbound by empirical observation!
Who's talking about being "unbounded"? Here's a peer-reviewed medical study in the Lancet, quantifying eye-witness accounts of post-death phenomena directly corresponding to theistic metaphysics.
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
No, it matters not in the least that you'll dance and evade that this meets -absolutely- the criterion of "empirical" (that is, derived from sense data), and that you have no such alternative leprechaun study, cleanly differentiating the cases, even leaving completely aside issues of how this is explainable during EEG flatline at all. But why do I need to explain this? You know as clearly in your own brain that the two aren't equivalent -even to you-, which is why you attempt this whole line of rhetorical nonsense. If -you yourself- believed them equivalent, there is no reason simply not to use the standard terminology of "God", confident in an equal degree of automatic derision and incredulity in your "audience". You don't do that, because, as a measure of your lack of intellectual honesty, you need, and assert, that they are the same conceptually, knowing fully well in your own mind they are not as the only reason for even starting your attempted rhetorical "comparison".
Further, would you like to guess what the correct statistical upper-bound of human lifespan would be, over the last 3000 years? Would you consider those billions of empirical, factual datapoints corresponding to the prediction made those thousands of years ago, to be notable in terms of evidence, as -one- of hundreds of prophecies your leprechauns have really no track record of success at all at?
The empirical analysis of the universe is what I offered.
You offered nothing. You mean this, as your "empirical analysis"? " The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is." Seriously? That's your "analysis"? That's just pathetically content-free, as well as presuming your own experience as the definition of "empirical", both of which have a level of validity that would get you laughed out of any Philo 101 class. You can do better.
Why, if it were so, it would be on par with your groundless assertions. Project much, do you?
Nothing groundless here--you have a directly-pertinent peer-reviewed study, you have verifiable prophecy, as a small subset of the evidence that can be brought to bear. Yes, I know you'll deny it's evidence. After you're done attempting to do so, it'll remain exactly what it was--evidence.
Yup, you are apparently too blinkered to even acknowledge the existence, for many, many years, of secular humanists.
You're serious? I meant, a -political and ethical system- based on your worldview, where a -majority- in that society of people hold that view, and act as such within a society defined and directed by that worldview. That's a test-case, not a small percentage of people "hanging out" in a society entirely defined by another one. Care to provide an -actual- test case? We need not even get into me asking, "Okay, provide the steps of your demonstrable 'ethical deduction' to the principles of Secular Humanism, as supported by objective reality, rather than subjective arbitrary claims, and for each, say a mere five actual specific principles, show how that stance is more-supported, objectively, than the precise opposite stance". I know you couldn't even hope to be able to do that, so let's just stick with a basic, analyzable example of a basically-sound society definable by your "deduced ethics" as practiced by a majority of the citizens who declare themselves as such--so I know you can differentiate societies that exist from Dawkins-esque "no religion" fantasies w
Or maybe our souls will both be weighed by Anubis to determine our fates. Or maybe we'll end up in Vahalla. Isn't it fun to generate "knowledge" by making it up as you go? Congrats on that sound footing.
...you might actually learn that the world doesn't need your cosmological boogeyman to either deduce ethics or run a civilization. If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should.
I don't make it up. I do, in fact, know. And you have absolutely no possible way to know otherwise, as a -formal certainty of epistemology-, other than as a claim to psychic abilities on your part. But since you cannot verify my claim, and your statement as a claim to knowledge otherwise is provably a falsehood, I'll just say... I'll take that bet.
Utter dipshittery. The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is.
"Simplistic" as opposed to what, you offering none at all? Pick something less "simplistic", then, I'll take you apart on any stance, secular or theological, you like. Throwing in empty characterization to substitute for an actual argument isn't any more convincing to me than it is to you.
Atheism does not presuppose any sort of behavioral norms, sans those which are intrinsically tied to religion.
Thanks for directly admitting a complete void of any usable stance, then. Saves time. You couldn't do otherwise anyway, may as well move things along.
They would be pointing out things like the ethic of reciprocity, the freedom of self determination, the freedom from slavery, etc. None of which require your silly theistic beliefs to justify.
Evidence-free conjecture, but I invite you to try it yourself, with an individual selected yourself. Then justify them from your own stance, in some way, already. You could at least make an argument that they might increase their adherents' DNA propagation rates, rather than airy nothing backing it that could address a simple "why?".
Then point out your real-world test case, where your half-constructed worldview has worked successfully. Should be easy enough to do, if your argument had any merit. Asserting "deducing ethics" while just demonstrating yourself completely incapable of doing precise that, lacks a certain--veracity. And, no, it doesn't scare me in the least, nor is there the slightest sensible reason it could, as, if you haven't noticed, even apart from the expectations of my metaphysics, it's my subculture that is easily numerically and politically dominant--and if I were to limit myself to your position, it is clearly -your- worldview, from say, a Darwinian standpoint, that actually has reason to feel such a reaction. If you were correct, you'd merely lose on a cultural/evolutionary level rather than the much more thorough resolution we'll be having. There just isn't any way to change the fact of your own position being one absolutely guaranteeing your elimination and irrelevance to anything other, by means of a few pithy words. I'm guessing you've looked at the demographics and your own personal 150-year timeframe projection, and know that as fully as I do, though. Why restate the obvious?
Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...
Well, then, outside of -that-, you might start to consider it "useless". However...
As a wider consideration, in fact, your worldview presuppositions have enormous predictive power. Consider merely in the realm of politics--knowing that you personally, the subculture you are in, or the government in general, are/will-be Democrat or Republican, or any other of a myriad of stances, allows a great deal of prediction regarding a broad set of future actions and trends--it is a very fundamental basis for human interaction. Very much the same way, religious metaphysics and norms do much the same thing. In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not. You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to". Along the way, we could reasonably expect that basic requirements for a coherent philosophical worldview would be generated--for instance, a logical connection between the metaphysics of Naturalism and a justification for any ethical norms, of any type or content, at all. Really, the only people doing even an attempt to not formally sign-on to such a subjective mush of non-direction are the Objectivists--that is, the Rand followers, and that was a 20'th-century development with its own internal consistency issues. Take, as a test-case, Dawkins and Hitchens--who were proverbially "joined at the hip" in their metaphysics. If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism. From that stance, they are proposing we reduce ourselves as a society to a "predictive power", with regard to the entire domain of human interaction, of zero. This "thought experiment", naturally, would only be the merest beginning of maybe, someday, atheism getting to an unenforceable, subjectivity-laden non-consensus, that maybe could appear on first glance to not be that, and might stand more than 30 to 45 seconds of rigorous philosophical questioning. The "Is-Ought Dichotomy" is not a trivial thing to address--almost universally, people don't even try, a situation exacerbated by the fact most don't want to, because avoiding having ethical norms which are actually expected to be followed, and not simply ignorably subjective, was their whole point and emotional impetus to attacking theism in the first place.
I suggest, "lack of predictive power" is just a criticism requiring self-induced myopia to considering a very small subset of the hard sciences, as is also required by a broad range of standard atheist argument. I suggest you may want to reconsider the veracity of that argument.
And, well... you asked. Predictive power with regard to methods you are currently unable of know are even there to be brought to bear, I'll leave for another day.