Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Why do people laugh at creationists? < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1580
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 06:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I know I know, it's a cheap shot. And it's not very nice to poke fun at the mentally retarded. But it's just soooo funny...!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2781
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 09:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

God created evolution.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1581
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 11:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

See, now that at least is an internally consistent argument. Unfortunately completely unprovable, so it doesn't fall within the realm of science.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2782
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 12:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Atheism:

The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense to me.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1582
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 07:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Are you sure you want to do this, Bob? I'll be happy to spar with you, but you're going to have to try harder than this.

As everybody with any interest in science knows, you can't have "something" from "nothing". Physics has demonstrated this time and time again. It's one of the fundamentals of our universe. Now, I'm no physicist, and I certainly have no more than a rough idea about big bang theory (which, like everything in science is a theory, not 2000 years old dogma), but saying that "nothing" exploded into "something" is at best grossly ignorant. However, it does sound a lot like religion...

Now, if "it makes no sense to me" is the strongest arument you've got, we might as well not bother talking about this. What "makes sense" to a layperson and what is demonstrably so in physics, are often at odds. Would it make sense to someone from the 15th century that humans could fly sitting inside large metal cylinders? Argue from the facts, Bob. Or at least, argue from ideas. Not from what "makes sense" to you. Religion doesn't "make sense" to me. So where does such a tack leave this discussion? Dead in the water is where.


I can't stop watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=related

It's the 23rd episode! This guy is the most delusional person I've seen, and yet they treat him on FOX like a sane person. This is a person who tries to debunk so-called "Darwinism" by stating (quite correctly) that it doesn't explain gravity or thermodynamics!!!


(Message edited by joques on September 29, 2009)
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2017
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 01:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Keep in mind, Joakim, as easy as it is for you to say that the concept of a supreme being can't be proved, it's just as easy to say that you can't disprove the existance of a supreme being which created the universe. Quite the paradox, eh?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6799
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 01:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, but it is perfectly reasonable for a being powerful enough to just think the Universe into being, to pop itself into existence from nothing for no reason?

My answer to such things is that I don't know and may never know, but I will be damned if I am going to make up a silly myth to explain it just to have an "answer." Such thinking is childish, to say the least.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1583
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 02:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No paradox at all, just a statement of fact: It is impossible to either disprove or prove the existance of a supreme magical being. That much is obvious to me too. Which is why that is the realm of faith, not the realm of science. It is when people try to insert their faith into the science curriculum that they are on a very dangerous path.

...also, I'd hope that there are creationists out there who are able to argue their stance without resorting to blatantly lying about scientific facts. If not, where's the fun in debating them? It's like shooting tame "game" in a park. ("No water outside the Earth", indeed. And wait till you get to the guy who claims that "science has proven that hydrogen cannot turn into other elements" (Poof goes the hydrogen bomb), or the one who claims that it is possible to alter the rate at which radioactive materials decay. It is a refular freak show!)
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2018
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 02:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmm, reading back over my original post I don't see where I said anything about a "magical" supreme being. That makes you seem to be a person who still thinks like people did in the middle ages, that religion is mystical and science is fact, in other words that science and religion are mutually exclusive. What is wrong with inserting faith into science? Einstein certainly had no problem doing it, does that make him the village idiot? One of my favorite quotes from him goes something along the lines of: Science without religion is incomplete, religion without science is blind.

.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6800
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 02:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Einstein was an atheist.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1584
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 02:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Are you seriously going to argue the semantics of the word "magical"? My own reading of the Bible seemed more magical than Harry Potter.

The middle ages, eh? Now I'm curious as to where you get your information, since as far as anyone knows, there _was_ no science in the middle ages, let alone any dichotomy between religion as mysticism and science as fact. Science didn't even emerge as a field of study until the 16th century in Italy and the 17th century in England.

Now, when it comes to inserting faith in religion: (First off, quote mining is a pretty odious practice; it solves or proves nothing, and only serves to muddle the issue. Let's argue this using our own intellects, like grownups, shall we?) There's nothing wrong with a scientist or any person or groups of persons subscribing to a faith. But there's a vast gulf between that, and using religious dogma as a filter with which you censor your findings or even pre-censor your hypothesis.

Scientific method is based on producing testable hypothesis, which are then subjected to rigorous analysis and testing by the scientific community. Claiming that an untestable magical/mystical being is somehow responsible for the universe, while possibly true, has nothing to do with science and does not belong in a science classroom.

But now I have to excuse myself for the remainder of the day (hehe) as I _am_ double-brewing today, am slightly tipsy and have already missed two mash cues while writing on the board. If you want to continue tomorrow, I'll be here :-)


(Message edited by joques on September 29, 2009)
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2019
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There in lies your problem. You read the bible with a current persective. You have to keep in mind that it was written a few thousand years ago by people that had a very different, and limited compared to ours, perspective of the world around them. Most of the bible makes complete sense if you keep in mind when it was written, who was writing it, what their daily life was like, etc. Interesting, that archaeology is finding evidence for many things that are described in the bible such as floods, wars, etc., isn't it? Should it be completely dismissed as a fairy tale?

No science in the middle ages? Your view is very narrow, but not surprising as that is an innate human trait. Europe, much less England, was not the "center of the world" during that period of time. Unless, I suppose if you were European! Tell the Muslims or Chinese that there was no science during that period of time. Many cultures that have initially been considered "primative", such as the Druids, Mayans, etc, had a much better understanding of the world around them and the heavens above than we do even today. We just have a different focus or purpose behind the understanding we wish to gain. And again, a different perspective of our place in that world. Currently we seem to think we humans control this earth, have some level of influence over it, I think ultimately we will find ourselves to be wrong.

I certainly was not trying to prove anything by quoting Einstein, I just always found that a very interesting statement. And also very applicable to this debate. For someone who was an atheist, he certainly mentioned God a considerable number of times in his writings.

Indeed, scientific method is based on producing testable hypothesis. And when a particular question has multiple hypotheisis, the one that is accepted by the majority of the researchers is generally considered to have the greatest probability of being correct until it is proven or disproven. At this point in time the majority of the people in the world do believe in a supreme being, so what can we derive from that? Should we continue to maintain the boundary between science and religion and ignore this fact?

Interesting, too, that from a social perspective when a group is the minority, (which makes people uncomfortable), they are more likely to strongly argue against something that is often too vast for them to wrap their minds around. It's part of the human condition. Basically, and unfortunately, we'd rather fight than sit down and try and resolve things by talking.

Enjoy the brewing, I have to excuse myself as well due to this thing called "work". Which is another peculiar human condition that we have convinced ourselves is necessary.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6801
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 04:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I suppose the perspective of bronze age goat herders could be seen as interesting by some.

"Work, the curse of the drinking class."
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1585
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 10:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Haha! You got me on the middle ages. Yes, I was obviously referring to the European middle ages. Which, come on, it makes sense form the context; as the topic of discussion is Christian creationism. Come to think of it, I'm unsure if that epoch in other areas of the world is even referred to as "the middle ages"...? I always thought that it was called the middle ages because it sits inbetween the dark ages and the renaissance, both of which are Europe-specific epochs. Hmm, that might be a topic for another discussion.

Now, I'm unsure how to parse your further comments. You say that one has to read the Bible in the context of when it was written. Which I absolutely agree with. The problem arises when people read the Bible as literal fact. And it gets even worse when they read its moral imperatives as law. Rules that were written who know when, by who knows whom, in a brutal, violent society that rivals the Taliban in cruelty and barbary.

So ... what exactly is the point that you want to get across? I've been arguing against the most extreme elements of Christianity, the ones who think the earth is 6000 years old, who believe Genesis is a word-for-word account of what went down at the creation, who willfully twist and distort and lie about scientific findings in order to support their cause. If you read the Bible as a sensible modern human, what exactly are you arguing against?

Ah yes, the boundary between science and religion. I don't understand your parallel between scientific method and the fact that the majority of people on earth are religious. There's a disconnect there. You've already agreed that scientific method is based on producing testable hypothesis. How then would you insert religion into science? What kinds of testable hypothesis could you possibly find in religion? You need to be a lot more specific if we are to debate this. Merely saying that "since the majority of people are religious, we should inject religion into science" is just, and I do apologize, silly.

Hehe, I am part of a minority, but it is a growing minority and I'm not afraid in the short term. What I _am_ afraid of, is that dogmatic religion will take over long term, with the inevitable result that science and progress will suffer, and the West will be in a few hundred years' time like the Arabic world is today: Brutal dicatorships with vast, and vastly poor, undereducated populations. You yourself are aware that at a certain point, the islamic world was the shining light of reason in the world. At this point in time, whaddaya know? Europe was a cesspool of religious dogma and oppression. I for one don't want to go back to that state. And to me, dogmatic religion is a sure-fire way to get there in a hurry.

Undermining the scientific method and answering every question with "because God wills it" instead of examining reality through the proven robustness of scientific method, is a really, really dumb move.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1586
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 11:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

I'm sorry, I know this too is quote mining, but it' just so incredibly interesting to watch! So I include it for those who might be interested. It's from a lecture.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1587
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 11:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm sorry, here's the whole lecture. Just shy of two hours. A brilliantly engaging lecturer and fascinating stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&NR=1
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2020
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 02:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I guess I'm not really trying to make a point here, Joakim, this is just a subject that has interested me for years and I enjoy discussing it with people in order to get different views. It probably has it's roots from me growing up in a religious family, then going to college and observing people who start to really get into science, they then get indoctrinated into thinking that is where all the answers lie, and they "lose" their religion for lack of a better phrase. And I suppose due to me getting into anthropology and all it's tangent studies, while simultaneously studying the hard sciences, (I was a practicing archaeologist for many years so geology, chemistry, and biology was necessary), I've been exposed to quite a melting pot of both human nature topics and hard science. Having been influenced by Steven Jay Gould early on, and enjoyed several beers with him while discussing such things, really impressed upon me to think out of the box. And I suppose it always bothered me that science and religion were always kept apart. Gould actually stated in one lecture that we humans love to pigeon hole things, and we do. I understand the history of separation of religion and science, but there is quite a bit of overlap to be investigated in my opinion. Unfortunately, I find myself stuck at work again today and that prevents me from engaging in the debate. I'll have to plan on lining up some beers this weekend, sit down at home and reply. This is fun stuff!
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1588
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 03:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I take your points, David, and look forward to having a fruitful discussion with you on these matters :-)

Yep, exercising the rhetorical muscle is both fun and rewarding!
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6804
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 03:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here is a thought. From at least a data collection and analysis point of view, religion is about the opposite of science.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1589
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 03:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, every single point of scientific theory is in my view anathema to what religion is about; at least in my own personal view. But I am very curious to hear David's views on the matter.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1590
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 08:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thos finding it difficult to reconcile their belief in God with evolution, should take a look at this. Equating evolution with atheism is perhaps the most underhanded and insidious trick the creationists have played.

(I say this as a confirmed atheist myself, of course. But the video is very compelling.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&i ndex=0
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1591
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 09:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This one is one of the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&NR=1

Please understand that I don't submit these as "evidence" or "argument", just that I find them faacinating and want to share them.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1594
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 07:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did nobody want to discuss matters of scientific theory and method? :-(
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2021
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 01:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am still hoping to have a day off from working. Going on 21 straight . . .
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1595
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 - 08:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Gotcha. In the meantime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhcScBdnEhY

I really don't care whether Haggard is gay or not, exposing hypocrisy with evangelicals is getting really old.

No, what gets me is this: Ted makes a ludicrous claim about the theory of evolution, which the theory in no way, shape or form supports and which no sane biologist has ever stated. Then, when the reporter calls him on the fatcs, just says that he must have talked to some "other" people than him and oh, by the way, he (the reporter) shouldn't be so arrogant.

That is the level of intellectual honesty you get with these anti-evolutionists, people. They repeatedly make claims that have long since been disproven, all in the hopes of obfuscating real information.

(Message edited by joques on October 07, 2009)
 

Keith M Williams
Intermediate Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 255
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 03:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Then there is the whole “uncaused fist cause” dilemma.

But what do I know, I’m not a noted scientist; or, anyone of consequence.


(Conservative and agnostic, so I peeve just about everyone.)

(Message edited by grok on October 10, 2009)
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1601
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 10:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Keith, please describe the dilemma; I am not familiar with it.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6812
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It is not a dilemma as much as it is a rationalization.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1603
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 02:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Now, now, Dan. I'm open to entertaining any position, as long as it is argued intelligently and consistently, and the conclusions make sense to me within my framework of logic. I'm open to the possibility of being persuaded. But it has to be argued well; I won't entertain just any crackpot notion just for the sake of being openminded ;)
 

Nephalist
Member
Username: Nephi

Post Number: 197
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 07:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joakim,
My favorite analogy for evolution goes like this: Religious believers have a hard time seeing life as a product of random collisions of molecules. Start from methane and CO2, add a few lightning bolts and end up with a primordial cell. I understand their skepticism; but then I consider how many planets there are in our galaxy, let alone the whole universe (planets turn up more and more these days) and to top it off the unbelievable amount of time that the universe has existed, and having one planet on which this has happened doesn't seem that remote. It reminds me of another curious human behavior: buying lotto tickets. We understand the odds are "astronomically" low for a certain event to happen, but we buy in anyways.

Similarly, I wonder how crappy the odds were that my sperm made it to the egg and got in first and that I'm lucky enough to be alive typing right now.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1607
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 07:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yep. There's a similar rationalization where they say: Look at our earth, that's so perfectly suited for (our kind of) living things! Surely it can't be a coincidence that we are here of all places? (Let's ignore for the moment that our Earth is nothing like as unique as these people claim.)

Well, of course not. Life emerged on the one place, or the few places, that are actually able to support life. Should be obvious.

Now, when it comes to life emerging spontaneously, it was shown already back in 1952 that amino acids (the building blocks of life) will form spontaneously and without any life forms producing them (Miller-Urey experiment). Nucleotides (which form the base pairs of DNA) will also quite happily form spontaneously in primordeal conditions. This has been shown experimentally. Why then do creationists still harp on the notion that we believe that "life" sprang suddenly from "inanimate matter"?
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1608
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 08:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmm, it seems nucleotide formation is a more hotly debated topic than I at first thought. I have to read more about this fascinating topic :-)
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1609
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Abiogenesis is truly fascinating.

Here's a quick rundown of one of the current models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Once again, science never claims to know the full truth. But it is tireless in its pursuit of knowledge, and follows the evidence where it may lead. In contrast to the static dogmatic certainty of religion.
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 2022
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 02:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm back! And just in time, this thread is starting to take a peculiar turn. Abiogenesis, indeed! I've been reading the various papers being released on Ardipithecus, myself.

It's interesting how institutionalized our thinking can be. We are taught throughout grammar school, high school, and to some extent the lower levels of college curriculum to believe that it was a miraculous thing that life started on this planet. From a statistical stand point it was highly improbable. But it happened. However, the opposite of this line of thinking seems more probable to me. Life is not the exception, life is the rule. Look at our own planet and throughout all the diverse biospheres: from underneath the ice at the poles to the vents at the bottom of the oceans, you find life in all places, even those that seem inhospitable. Consider the amazon that has taken millions of years to evolve and still has thousands of species which have yet to be discovered. And, unfortunately, may never be. Again, life is the rule, it takes advantage of every nitch. It seems to be an innate property of our planet which one could easily extrapolate to the universe. Which in part may explain why our western culture describe it in both science and religion as 'creation'. It is, in fact, where we come from. No matter how you wish to perceive or explain it, by using science or having faith.

To paraphrase, (sorry, Joakim), one of my favorite writers Carl Sagan from I believe "Cosmos" he suggests, after running the numbers of the probablility of life starting on earth and extrapolating that to the number of planets (known/having been discovered at that point in time), that if we *are* the only life in this universe it's a terrible waste of space! I always get a chuckle thinking about that.

Back to work . . .
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1610
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 08:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ardipithecus, interesting! The fossil records are filling out, making a mockery of the creationist argument that the fossil record is "lacking in intermediary species". I did attend a very basic course on primates 15 years ago, and it seems the field has really expanded since then.

Yes, I know that abiogenesis is a separate theory from that of evolution, no matter how creationists want to muddle them together. But it is also fascinating in its own right! I also believe you may be right in that life tends to emerge wherever the conditions are right. I.e. take a planet with large amounts of organic compounds (which are not necessarily manufactured by living things - these compounds exist throughout our solar system and presumably the universe), give it a billion years and life will emerge spontaneously from the building blocks that are already there, and then evolve from the most primitive early cells to the highly specialized life forms we have today.

I guess the limiting factor might be the prevalence of Earth-type planets in the universe, and as far as I can tell, that is still up for debate. Even that is discounting all the alien forms of life that we aren't able to conceive of, that might have very little in common with us,which might evolve under very different conditions, and which for all we know might exist even in our solar system. Have you read any novels of Stephen Baxter? He's fascinated by these topics, and even though he couldn't write believable dialogue to save his life, he writes very compelling fiction about it.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1611
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 08:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A fascinating data point: In the mere 70 years that have passed since nylon was invented, an organism has come up with a brand new enzyme, nylonase, that digests nylon. How's that for "irreducible complexity"?
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 769
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 01:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joakim, isn't it possible that the enzyme was around before nylon, and the organism used it to digest something else, and it also happens to digest nylon?

Also, to answer your original question, people laugh at creationists because they evolved a sense of humor.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1612
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 01:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Could be. In that case, it'd be a picture perfect example of how evolution usually works: You take something you already have, perhaps modify it slightly, and find an entirely new application for it. Evolution does not work by suddenly magicking whole body parts into existence, like some creationists enjoy claiming.

Also, there are more than a few who'd claim that I don't have a sense of humour. But they'd be wrong ;-)
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10790
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 02:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joakim, I usually stay out of these arguments, but here's an essay from The New York Times that I couldn't resist posting a link to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?em
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1614
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 02:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Haha! That's .... Awesome!!
 

Nephalist
Member
Username: Nephi

Post Number: 199
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 03:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Regarding 'magiking' body parts out of nowhere, don't people see the evolution in the fossil record? when we look at the DNA level, some of the most important parts of cells from most species have undergone relatively little evolution. Histones some to mind. They are proteins that DNA is wrapped around to keep it compact in the nucleus. Why would a supreme being make all living things dependent on DNA and histones (to wrap the DNA around) in order to facilitate biological reproduction? Is the supreme being a one trick pony? The major biochemical pathways are very similar from bacteria to humans. We largely consume carbon from glucose and other sugars and convert it to ATP (it's in everything) for energy. Of course there are exceptions, such as bacteria living in thermal vents in the bottom of the ocean, but taken as a whole, what we have in common biologically seems to point to a common ancestor.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1615
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 03:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes. As far as I can tell (as a layman), every being we know of can trace its ancestry, with traits common to all the forms in the lineage, back to the simplest forms. The fossil records are filled to the brim with intermediary forms, to the point where biologists can't agree on whether (for instance) certain animals are "reptile-like mammals" or "mammal-like reptiles".
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6815
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Creationists cann't be satisfied until you have a fossil from every generation that ever existed or the yell "Missing Link!"
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 770
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That article Bill linked to ended with the sentence, "As a Red Sox fan my entire adult life, I feel I know something about jinxes."

Try being a Cubs fan.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2802
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
- Albert Einstein
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1617
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So where's the bigotry, Bob?
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2803
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"not very nice to poke fun at the mentally retarded"
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1618
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 04:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did you even watch those videos, and check out what these morons were claiming? The only alternative to them being ... what we in my country call "less gifted", is that they are evil, calculating, willful liars. Isn't that worse?
 

Patrick C.
Advanced Member
Username: Patrickc

Post Number: 923
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 01:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

From the NYT article-

"For the record, as of the middle of September, CERN engineers hope to begin to collide protons at the so-called injection energy of 450 billion electron volts in December and then ramp up the energy until the protons have 3.5 trillion electron volts of energy apiece and then, after a short Christmas break, real physics can begin."

There's your irony for the day.

btw I think evolution just happened, but I believe God created physics. :-)

(Message edited by patrickc on October 14, 2009)
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2812
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 08:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think all atheists should stick to their principles and work through the holidays. Joakim and Dan...do you guys take off for Christmas?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6817
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 08:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Only because I seem to have to . . . . To me, holidays are more of a bother than anything else. Xmas is a chance to see the extended family (this has been addressed here before) and I enjoy that. You haven't lived until you have heard the Listermann Family Saxophone band. I would be pleased as punch if it could be limited to just that.
 

Nephalist
Member
Username: Nephi

Post Number: 200
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 10:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Atheists arent't against holidays Bob. And Christmas is as much a secular holiday as a religious one nowadays. Celebrate it as you wish...
Wasn't Christmas morphed from a pagan holiday anyways?
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1619
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 02:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Just like Bob. He isn't able to argue the points, so he takes the discussion in a new, ludicrous direction.

What does religion have to do with holidays? Over here we have a mandated five weeks off during each year. Whether or not those days off correspond to any particular religious festivities is basically moot to me. Though it _is_ an advantage that my days off corresponds to my loved ones' days off, so it might as well be those days.

Of course, those five weeks don't truly apply to me, as I'm a freelance. Christmas is a nice period to spend with my family, but I've never cared about easter or pentecost. As Dan says, they're a bother.

Now Bob, how about you try to argue the points, instead of just making random, ridiculous statements?
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2813
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 03:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joakim...I was following up on Patrick C.'s comment about the CERN Scientists celebrating Christmas.

You don't find it contradictory that Scientists celebrate Christmas?

Not bring random at all. You need to lighten up Francis.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1620
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 03:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No, I don't find that contradictory. And I really didn't get what Pat meant before you pointed it out just now - I was still trying to figure out what he meant by irony :-)

So .... About this creation/evolution thing? Which has nothing inherently to do with atheism...?
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 2814
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 03:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

uuuh...how are they NOT related? use small words so my Conservative mind can grasp them.

(Message edited by BrewDudeBob on October 15, 2009)
 

Nephalist
Member
Username: Nephi

Post Number: 203
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 04:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob,
Christmas is a national holiday. It doesn't matter if you're pagan, muslim, christian, buddhist, hindu, or nosferatu; if you work for the government, you get it off. No one is mandating that you worship Jesus on that day. I know Bill O'reilly made a big stink over it recently, but just because the roots of the holiday are religious doesn't make it a religious holiday. Celebrate it as you please; there's no federal mandate that you dress as one of the three wise men and present a gift to some infant. Though I'll take any surplus myrrh you have...
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1621
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 10:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What do you mean, Bob? Evolution and atheism, or atheism and Christmas?

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: