Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[RandFan]

No one is claiming a "poof!" Just as no one in the abiogenesis group is claiming a "pop!"

Actually, abiogenesis falls more under the "Poof!" description than a creator planning his creation and then executing his plan does. So what you are describing is more your own concept than the ID one.

How else could you refer to creating hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars in a day or two? "Poof".

 

[joobz]

How else could you refer to creating hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars in a day or two? "Poof".

Well, it's not even the time it takes. Rather, it's the lack of mechanistic explanation which kills ID. I use "Poof" to describe their argument, because to an IDer the mechanism is unimportant. While to the scientist, the mechanism is the point.

 

[jj]

That's debatable and is not a universally held opinion.

You claimed otherwise a mintue ago. Would you like to explain why you changed your mind?

Plainly, I am quoting the Bible. Or is the mindless, time wasting, screen cluttering, mocking mode coming gradually into play now?

"The bible"? Please explain to me why I should accord that any more meaning than I accord the myth of the Dreamtime, Garuda Bird, Coyote, or anything else, now.

The bible is a book, a historically inaccurate book that has taken more than one or two myths from other mythologies and legends, and incorporated them into a highly contradictory mass of comments and sayings that have the same value as any other book of myth.

If you wish to argue one tiny bit more, you will need to show hard, concrete evidence for YOUR version. If you can not do that, then you have lost the discussion.

Human beings make myth, large and small, on a daily basis when they can not understand 'why' and even sometimes when they can. It's part of being human. Another, more advanced part, is knowing when not to believe a myth.

You need to get your tenses right. You mean what evolution is and what abiogenesis is. That's basic grammar taught in grade school.

I understand from your failure to respond substantively that you can not explain why the OP and the creationist claims that follow are so inconsistant, confuse terms, and repeatedly misstate what evolution is.

You have conceded the entire field to me, including showing by your actions that you can not defend your position, unless you explain this to me. Are you just giving up?-

Nothing we might chance to present or say will be considered evidence by you and yours.

Provide evidence, it's that simple. that's all it takes.

I didn't appeal to any book at all. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would be beneficial. The only purpose in citing scripture was to dispel the notion that the Bible teaches a "poof!" approach to creation. A concept which the poster I was addressing seemed suggested.

Creating the universe in 6 days is certainly "poof"! It requires substantial trans-light ability. That, by itself, is beyond mere "poof" and into "KABOOM".

It only shows reading incomprehension.

That's extremely rude, and shows again that you have no substantive reply.

The scripture had NOTHING to do with probability. Try reading the info again. Maybe on the second reading it will dawn on you that you are creating strawman arguments, yelling "Pull!" and then shooting them down.

That's evasive. The failure to understand the most trivial probabilistic arguments is evident in the various creationists "millions of fortunate accidents" mistake.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Joe, here's the thing about a lot of us who engage in the Crevo debate - we know we're going to butt up against intransigents who blinded by their religious beliefs that we're never going to make a dent in their anti-intellectual armor... but there are lurkers

Indeedy. 90% of what I know about the ToE I've learned from its supporters in online debates, and from the links they share. Sure, Radrook and their like are basically programmed not to listen to us lowly sinners, but there are lurkers, not to mention skeptics sitting on the fence about ToE, who benefit greatly from what is contributed in these threads.

 

[godless dave]

What did you learn in the sixth grade. You almost certainly didn't learn that all the millions of plant and animals species alive today are descendant from the "same" one cell organism (according to science).

I learned something similar to that, yes, that all life on earth came from the same ancestor. I don't think that ancestor was specified as a one-cell organism.

 

[godless dave]

I've never read or seen anything that proves its a fact. And I have read a portion of Darwin's Origin of Species. But even if it is a fact, that doesn't disprove God.

No one claims that it does.

 

[skeptical]

Well, it's not even the time it takes. Rather, it's the lack of mechanistic explanation which kills ID. I use "Poof" to describe their argument, because to an IDer the mechanism is unimportant. While to the scientist, the mechanism is the point.

Exactly. What Radrook and other IDers don't understand or purposely try to obfuscate is that science is only concerned with mechanics, the "how it works" questions, while ID is entirely concerned with Teleology, the "who created it" question. Actually, I'm being too kind. ID actually doesn't even try to answer the "who" question (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), only that there _is_ a "who" behind the "how".

If Newton were alive he would be baffled if someone tried to apply the ID argument to the motions of the planets. He would say "of _course_ God put the planets in motion, the question is how do they move?". I pointed the inanity of the entire ID logic out to him previously, which is probably one of the reasons he has me on ignore.

 

[joobz]

Exactly. What Radrook and other IDers don't understand or purposely try to obfuscate is that science is only concerned with mechanics, the "how it works" questions, while ID is entirely concerned with Teleology, the "who created it" question. Actually, I'm being too kind. ID actually doesn't even try to answer the "who" question (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), only that there _is_ a "who" behind the "how".

If Newton were alive he would be baffled if someone tried to apply the ID argument to the motions of the planets. He would say "of _course_ God put the planets in motion, the question is how do they move?". I pointed the inanity of the entire ID logic out to him previously, which is probably one of the reasons he has me on ignore.

the newton analogy is excellent. thank you.

As for Radrook, He originally had me on ignore as well, but has recently decided to start replying to my posts. I thank him for this as I've seen in other thread many good points made by him. I welcome our exchanges. I think Radrook is a rather intelligent individual and hope he too values the dialogue. We just seem to be talking past each other at times.

 

[arthwollipot]

the difference between the science and the creationist posts is so clear that it amazes me that they can't see it for themselves

Agreed, and thanks for pointing this out. A lot of creationists who post on boards such as this fail to realise how ridiculous they're sounding. If they did, they'd stop posting out of sheer embarrassment.

 

[RandFan]

I'm on Radrook's ignore also. He doesn't like to be painted into a corner. I have a tendency to do that when I think someone is arrogantly asserting their opinion.

The "god of the OT is a *mass murderer" meme is a turn off. Never mind that it is true.

My loss I guess.




*God doesn't murder people he just kills people. That's the thing about being perfect. You can kill innocent people and it's not murder. I wonder if you can also rape and pillage? We should ask Job.

 

[Tricky]

I'm on Radrook's ignore also. He doesn't like to be painted into a corner. I have a tendency to do that when I think someone is arrogantly asserting their opinion.

The "god of the OT is a *mass murderer" meme is a turn off. Never mind that it is true.

*God doesn't murder people he just kills people. That's the thing about being perfect. You can kill innocent people and it's not murder. I wonder if you can also rape and pillage? We should ask Job.

I'm on his "ignore" too, and as you know I'm usually walking on eggs around theists. Radrook is odd. Insult him, and it's fine. Insult his God and he puts you on ignore. Go figure.

 

[articulett]

I don't think they really absorb much... I think they post here to help themselves believe that they've looked at things skeptically and reached their conclusions reasonably... or maybe they are showing their invisible god that they tested their faith and it held fast.

To me, all woo sounds equally defensive, semantic, and vague. Tom Cruise's Scientology video, the truthers, the new agers, --they build up the delusion in their head by pointing out the gaps and problems in the science... or the things they don't understand. They use the same manipulations used on them to get them to believe whatever it is they believe-- and they learn to fear those who would "test their faith". Every growing cult must ensure that their members fear and hate dissent and dissenters. Every regime makes obedience to authority the highest goal. They vilify those who threaten their pet delusion, while never offering any evidence of any alternative point of view. They ask insincere questions and go off on tangents... anything to keep their faith in whatever it is they've been indoctrinated to believe is the key to their salvation.

I don't think we can change minds of people that are brainwashed. They want to believe more than they want to know the truth. But lots of people read our words. And we can build our own understanding of the arguments and how people fool themselves. I learn a lot from other people here... and laugh a lot too. I feel sort of bad for people who feel like they have stuff to teach but nothing to learn... they are afraid of facts and evidence, because they fear that understanding might destroy their "salvation". Now, if that's not an abusive meme, to put into a trusting kids head, then I don't know what is.

Sure, Radrook, is a pompous fool now-- but someone did this to him... and it "took". He's grown into someone who trusts liars for "higher truths" and fears those who would give him actual evidence for real knowledge.

I mean, I'm glad they come here and preach. It makes it easier to be patient with woo in my regular life. I am glad to have the opportunity to go on skeptic "full blast" here. The woo knew what they were in for when they posted here. I don't go to woo forums and tell them how foolish they are to believe in whatever "truths" they imagine they are "in on".

Sad.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, WE do not, and we know that there is no need for such an explaination.

You KNOW!!!

Please enlighten the world with your KNOWLEDGE concerning the initiation of life on Earth.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't think they really absorb much... I think they post here to help themselves believe that they've looked at things skeptically and reached their conclusions reasonably... or maybe they are showing their invisible god that they tested their faith and it held fast.

To me, all woo sounds equally defensive, semantic, and vague. Tom Cruise's Scientology video, the truthers, the new agers, --they build up the delusion in their head by pointing out the gaps and problems in the science... or the things they don't understand. They use the same manipulations used on them to get them to believe whatever it is they believe-- and they learn to fear those who would "test their faith". Every growing cult must ensure that their members fear and hate dissent and dissenters. Every regime makes obedience to authority the highest goal. They vilify those who threaten their pet delusion, while never offering any evidence of any alternative point of view. They ask insincere questions and go off on tangents... anything to keep their faith in whatever it is they've been indoctrinated to believe is the key to their salvation.

I don't think we can change minds of people that are brainwashed. They want to believe more than they want to know the truth. But lots of people read our words. And we can build our own understanding of the arguments and how people fool themselves. I learn a lot from other people here... and laugh a lot too. I feel sort of bad for people who feel like they have stuff to teach but nothing to learn... they are afraid of facts and evidence, because they fear that understanding might destroy their "salvation". Now, if that's not an abusive meme, to put into a trusting kids head, then I don't know what is.

Sure, Radrook, is a pompous fool now-- but someone did this to him... and it "took". He's grown into someone who trusts liars for "higher truths" and fears those who would give him actual evidence for real knowledge.

I mean, I'm glad they come here and preach. It makes it easier to be patient with woo in my regular life. I am glad to have the opportunity to go on skeptic "full blast" here. The woo knew what they were in for when they posted here. I don't go to woo forums and tell them how foolish they are to believe in whatever "truths" they imagine they are "in on".

Sad.

Did this rant have anything to do with the OP, or was it just a swipe against large groups of people?


Were you not just suspended for this sort of thing?

 

[joobz]

You KNOW!!!

Please enlighten the world with your KNOWLEDGE concerning the initiation of life on Earth.

Prove that a creator was needed. While you are at it, prove that the creator had or did not have a creator. Otherwise, you merely passed the buck in the defining how life began.

I agree that scientists who avoid/dissmiss the abiogenesis question in regards to evolution are merely passing the buck in responsibility. However, it seems ID is passing the buck merely one step further. The problem is, not only does ID absolve a person from considering how life began on earth, it absolves the person from thinking about how life started for the being that created this life. It's avoidance of thought and research.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Prove that a creator was needed.

Prove that a creator was not needed.


Can you really not see that this is the same demand?

 

[six7s]

I use "Poof" to describe their argument, because to an IDer the mechanism is unimportant. While to the scientist, the mechanism is the point.

I think that, as 'Poof' describes their idea belief regarding the mechanism, maybe 'Woof' might better describe their argument

And...

'Pwoof' describes their evidence

 

[joobz]

Prove that a creator was not needed.


Can you really not see that this is the same demand?

That was EXACTLY my point. Thank you for admitting the demand is identical.
Now the question is, which position is logical to adopt. It seems extremely needless to assume the presence of something that has no reason to assume it was needed in the first place.

I don't need to assume fairies when discussing gravity, because the assumption doesn't add to the understanding, obeservations and hypotheses.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That was EXACTLY my point. Thank you for admitting the demand is identical.
Now the question is, which position is logical to adopt. It seems extremely needless to assume the presence of something that has no reason to assume it was needed in the first place.

I don't need to assume fairies when discussing gravity, because the assumption doesn't add to the understanding, obeservations and hypotheses.

Here you are admitting that the argument is concerning a choose of assumptions.

 

[joobz]

Here you are admitting that the argument is concerning a choose of assumptions.

Did you actually read my post? Because your reply is only an attempt at cute retort to my first sentence. Otherwise, when held to my entire post, your statement is embarrassingly obvious.

YES, All attempts at undestanding the unknown require making assumptions. That's part of the scientific method. Part of hypothesis testing and further validation is the testing of the assumptions we make.
Again, I will ask, what is a simpler assumption. To assume there was someone needed to start it off (which we have never observed) or to assume that there is nothing there that was needed?


ETA: I shall post my earlier statement, which I now believe you didn't read.

I agree that scientists who avoid/dissmiss the abiogenesis question in regards to evolution are merely passing the buck in responsibility. However, it seems ID is passing the buck merely one step further. The problem is, not only does ID absolve a person from considering how life began on earth, it absolves the person from thinking about how life started for the being that created this life. It's avoidance of thought and research.