You're almost half right. Try it this way: "True, evolution is... the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God." The reason the theory of evolution is so successful is because it works. Revelations seldom do. And there are so many conflicting revelations. Science works by weeding out the revelations (and I use the word `weed` deliberately). That leaves observations that can be confirmed repeatedly.
And of course `humanism`is a good thing.
If there was a spiritual battle going on as I mentioned, then revelation would be most screwed with.
I believe in the goodness of humanity too, but I'm wary of humanism.
one is a conclusion based on evidence and logical validity,
the other is opinion with no justification, no rationale, no substance;
That I will take\accept the first over the second as being more valid\reasonable\persuasive every time. Thus between the multiple lines of conscilient evidence showing that the earth is old -- very very old, and your bald opinion\belief that the earth is 6000 years old, I find the old age credible and compelling and that your opinion\belief is rather silly.
And further I find that when you have no explanation how tree rings older than 6000 years can exist on a 6000 year old earth, that your opinion to be delusional:
That only what you think is valid?
No, that what I think based on evidence and sound logic, concepts that other people also hold in common, and that have been tested and replicated, are more likely to be valid expressions of reality than simple fantasy opinions.
I don't mind an opinionated man, because at least he has one.
Nor am I surprised by this comment, as it appears that this is all you have - opinion.
If there was a spiritual battle going on as I mentioned, then revelation would be most screwed with.
Indeed. How would you know you were on the right side?
Colbard writes:
I believe in the goodness of humanity too, but I'm wary of humanism.
I'm the first one to tell you to be wary of everything (but not to the point of paranoia). Be wary of water; it can kill you - but on the other hand, you can't live without it.
In the end, humanism is all we really have; it's the only thing we can count on.
Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do.
Of course, that depends on what is meant by "Creationism". Its most basic meaning would be belief in the universe, world, life, and/or humans having come into existence through a supernatural act. We could narrow that down more by limiting it to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions of Divine Creation. From there, creationism splinters off into narrower and more finely detailed accounts and traditions and beliefs regarding Divine Creation. Its perhaps most narrow meaning would be that given the term by various Christian sects that practice forms of biblical literalism and which are generally referred to by the public as "fundamentalists"; there appears to have been a parallel development among Islamic fundamentalists. Even as we descend through the levels of Christian creationism, there is a broad spectrum of forms of creationism which are mainly based on different approaches taken to try to harmonize their interpretations of the Bible with the age of the earth. And at one end of that spectrum is the firmly entrenched and intractable young-earth creationism (YEC). For more information, see The Creation/Evolution Continuum.
For most believers in Divine Creation, there is no conflict between science and their beliefs because they do not base their faith on claims about the natural world that are contrary-to-fact. The ones who have problems with science are the YECs, a small but extremely vocal minority of biblical literalists who base their faith on young-earth creationism and its false theology of "creation science." They stake the very existence of their religion and of their faith on contrary-to-fact claims, which means that any honest study of the natural world would expose their contrary-to-facts to be false, leading to the destruction of their religion and of their faith. It is for this reason that YECs misperceive science as the enemy which is attacking and trying to destroy their religion. Instead, it is reality that threatens their faith and science is merely the messenger. And the only reason why they find reality to be threatening their faith is because they have chosen to have created that situation.
No, science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor is any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Rather, that is what YEC does. It is YEC that disproves Creation and even God. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the earth is old, then Scripture has no meaning, and that if evolution is true, then God does not exist and everybody should just become atheists (I'm not making this up; over the decades several fundamentalists have insisted emphatically that those are the consequences of an old earth and evolution being true and nothing I could say would budge them from that position). Well, of course the earth is old and evolution is true, so according to their false logic Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist. Even many non-YECs accept YEC's false premises at face value and, seeing that the claims of YEC are false, follow the YEC conclusions that God does not exist.
Having created that booby trap for themselves, the only defense available to YECs is ignorance. That is why YECs work so hard to maintain their own ignorance as well as to try to spread that ignorance as far and wide as possible. They hate science so much because it destroys their blessed state of ignorance. That is also why they work so zealously to undermine science education in every way they can imagine, in order to preserve their ignorance, which is the only thing that can preserve their faith.
Helluva petard they've hoisted themselves upon!
It depends on how one interprets the evidence.
No, it does not. Rather, that is just more YEC bullshit. You see, we're not talking about creationism, belief in Divine Creation, here, but rather the YEC form of creationism which employs and depends on that deliberate deception which is called "creation science." The same form of creationism that you are trying to promote, Colbard, much to your discredit.
"Creation science" is predicated on claims of having scientific evidence that supports creation and disproves evolution. The format of "creation science" claims has very little to do with alternative interpretations, but rather it has a lot to do with citing scientific sources as supporting their position.
The actual process of "creation science" is to misrepresent and distort scientific sources and scientific ideas. Science's response to "creation science" claims is to demonstrate they are wrong by presenting the actual scientific ideas accurately and truthfully and to show what the scientific sources being cited actually said. For example, in one classic debate against ICR VP Dr Duane Gish, his opponent presented a series of slides: on one side was Gish quoting a scientific source and on the other side was that source and hence what that source actually said. In each and every case, Gish had misquoted and misrepresented the source and there the audience could see that fact for themselves. In fact, I have found that many YEC claims are refuted simply by reading the source.
Please note that at no point in that process is any attempt ever made to "disprove Creationism", but rather to expose the "creation science" claims as being false. And from the gross pattern of creationist misrepresentations evident in all those false claims, to expose those YECs as liars. God has nothing to do with it, nor does any aspect of Divine Creation. It is entirely about the lies of "creation science". The same lies that YECs want to have taught in the public schools. The same lies that you want to have taught in the schools, Colbard.
Here is a synopsis for Colbard, who hates to read:
"Creationism" can mean any of several things. There is a huge difference between belief in Divine Creation and the young-earth creationism (YEC) that is being pushed by fundamentalists and other stripes of biblical-literalist evangelicals as the only possible meaning of "creationism". Of course, that depends on what is meant by "Creationism".
Belief in Divine Creation does not conflict with science nor with the findings of science. But as soon as believers in Divine Creation start making predictions and assertions about the real world that are contrary-to-fact, then those believers do themselves bring themselves into conflict with reality and hence also with any discipline that studies reality, such as science.
YEC makes several fairly detailed proclamations about the real world which are contrary-to-fact. They even go so far as to stake their faith on those contrary-to-fact claims being true and insisting that if those claims are not true, then there is no other alternative than for them to throw their Bibles into the trash and become atheists. It cannot be emphasized too much that it is the YECs themselves who have created and promulgate that self-destructive teaching.
Of course, YEC's contrary-to-fact claims are indeed not true, as is inevitably discovered when YECs encounter the real world. They can avoid those encounters in everyday life through self-deception and mental blindness; a formerly-fundamentalist friend once described how he had to do that constantly until the mental strain finally became too much and he had to stop and examine his religion critically. In their efforts to avoid reality, the YECs' greatest tool is ignorance. YECs will cling desperately to their ignorance, since it is their only refuge.
Studying science dispells ignorance, so YECs see science as the enemy. Learning what the real world actually is and how it actually works is a spiritual death sentence for YECs, in accordance with the booby trap that they themselves had constructed for themselves. YECs try to place the blame for their spiritual suicide on science, claiming that science is trying to destroy their faith. Instead, it is reality that threatens their faith and science is merely the messenger. And the only reason why they find reality to be threatening their faith is because they have chosen to have created that situation.
No, science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor are any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Divine Creation is a supernatural event. Science cannot study nor in any way work with the supernatural.
Rather, it is YEC that disproves Divine Creation and even the existence of God as well. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the world truly is as it actually is, then Scripture has no meaning, God does not exist, and they all are required to become atheists. That is exactly what several fundamentalists have insisted to me emphatically over the decades. And many non-YECs accept YEC's false premises at face value and, seeing that the claims of YEC are false, follow the YEC conclusions that God does not exist. Truly, YEC and its "creation science" is one of the major contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.
YECs have created that self-destructive spiritual-suicide situation for themselves. The only defense available to YECs is ignorance. That is why YECs work so hard to maintain their own ignorance as well as to try to spread that ignorance as far and wide as possible. They hate science so much because it destroys their blessed state of ignorance. That is also why they work so zealously to undermine science education in every way they can imagine, in order to preserve their ignorance, which is the only thing that can preserve their faith.
This discussion really has nothing to do with how one interprets the evidence, even though that is part of YEC rhetorics. YECs' primary tool is "creation science", which does operate by offering alternative interpretations, but rather by misquoting and misrepresenting science and scientific sources. The primary claim of "creation science" is that it has scientific evidence to support its claims of a young earth, world-wide flood, non-relatedness of humans with other animals, etc. And that many reputable scientists also support their position. Of course, all that is lies and deception.
Since the actual process of "creation science" is to misrepresent and distort scientific sources and scientific ideas, science's response to "creation science" claims is to demonstrate they are wrong by presenting the actual scientific ideas accurately and truthfully and to show what the scientific sources being cited actually said. For example, in one classic debate against ICR VP Dr Duane Gish, his opponent presented a series of slides: on one side was Gish quoting a scientific source and on the other side was that source and hence what that source actually said. In each and every case, Gish had misquoted and misrepresented the source and there the audience could see that fact for themselves. In fact, I have found that many YEC claims are refuted simply by reading the source.
At no point in that process is any attempt ever made to "disprove Creationism", but rather to expose the "creation science" claims as being false. God has nothing to do with it, nor does any aspect of Divine Creation. It is entirely about exposing the lies of "creation science".
If the YECs have lied to you about science, then why believe what they told you about the consequences of learning the truth?
Science has gone on a tour after rejecting initial training in faith, so it cannot know the facts that have been established, ...
The facts that have been established. Like these?:
The earth is flat.
The earth is at the center of the universe with everything revolving around us.
Lightening is created and thrown by Zeus, or by Thor, or by God (hence its being called "The Finger of God"). It is sacrilegious to thwart God's Will by mounting lightening rods on a building. Funny, though, that the ones most often punished thus by God would be the churches' bell ringers. Oh well, who can know the Will of God?
Flies, maggots, and rodents spontaneously generate out of trash or old rags left lying about.
Bullets and cannon shot are directed by their targets by little demons riding on them. Hence, wearing a religious amulet and muttering the right prayers that would repel those demons would provide you with total protection from firearms.
Diseases are caused by demons, or by witches, or by bad smells. Dirt and filth have nothing whatsoever to do with disease.
Those were all "established facts" that were accepted on faith. And you are arguing that we must not reject them. Please do me a favor and think about that last one very long and very hard the next time that you or somebody you love is suffering from a bad infection that requires antibiotics. I don't think that you realize that until the middle of the 20th Century what would have started as a minor infection could very well end up killing you; that changed with the invention of antibiotics. Or the next time you get vaccinated against a disease. Or the next time your doctor washes his hands before treating you. Or the next time the dental assistant opens that tray of sterilized instruments and the dentist comes in and washes his hands and maintains the sterile field while working inside your mouth. Neither antibiotics nor vaccinations nor public sanitation nor personal hygene nor the establishment of sterile fields in medical and dental treatment would have been possible if we had restricted ourselves to "facts that have been established" and accepted them purely on faith to the point of never questioning them.
Of course, if you want to go back to living (in a much worse manner) and dying (much, much sooner) by those "facts that have been established", then by all means do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Just don't expect us to let you drag the rest of us down with you.
... , but it is left to progress from where it started, from nothing.
But actually, that is not at all true. Science did indeed have the old teachings to start from. But rather then accepting them unquestionably, science dared to decide to put them to the test and, finding that they failed those tests, knew that we could safely set aside those old false ideas. Keep the old ideas that prove to actually work (eg, when to plant crops) and lose or refine the ones that do not work.
So to prove something from science which will take infinity to figure out, it can not be done.
To prove absolutely, no, that would be virtually impossible. But then that is not what science tries to do. You are grossly misrepresenting science here.
Now, disproving something is what science does quite well. Science can consider a number of different explanations for a phenomenon and then test them. As a result, some of those explanations will be found to be wrong and hence can safely be eliminated. What that process results in is the best explanation(s) that we have.
To illustrate, I first saw Phillip Johnson, one of the founders and leaders of the "intelligent design" movement. Johnson was a lawyer and his book, "Darwin on Trial", "disproved" Darwinism by pointing out that it doesn't follow courtroom rules of evidence. The moment I saw Johnson (it was an episode of "Nova") say that, I knew that he didn't know what he was talking about. The analogy was completely wrong! Science is not a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. Clues and evidence is gathered, from which hypotheses are formed and tested, resulting in some hypotheses being discarded and others kept provisionally for further testing and refinement by considering new evidence. It is an ongoing process whose goal is to find the best solution to the mystery. And in both science and a police investigation, the most valuable provisional answers are the ones that rise more questions, questions that can then be used to guide the investigation, informing the investigators what other clues and evidence to search for.
Your position is that none of the traditional "knowledge" may be allowed to be questioned or tested. Your position is for ignorance. Ignorance does not work! We know that ignorance does not work, because we have tried it far too many times.
You ask for evidence for things that are obvious, ...
Obvious? Like the earth being flat? Like the earth being stationary and everything else revolving around it? Like a heavier object falling faster than a light one? Like a marble rolling down a spiral track continuing to fall in a spiral when it falls off the end of that track?
That last one is obvious, because that is the answer given by most of the people to whom that problem was presented. It's by far the most obvious answer, but it is dead wrong!
You should already know about all objects falling at the same rate, unless you were yet again just sitting in science class brain-dead when the story of Galileo's experiment from the Tower of Pisa was told and explained. The "obvious" idea that heavier objects fall faster is because of the factor of air resistance, which slows down a lighter object more. But air resistance is not as much of a factor with cannon balls, which Galileo used in his demonstration. In a more modern experiment, a penny and a feather were placed in a long clear plastic cylinder. With air still in the cylinder, the penny fell faster than the feather. With all the air pumped out of the cylinder, they both fell at the same rate, hitting the bottom at the same time. Another thing that was "obvious", and yet completely wrong.
Education needs to work by presenting the best information that we have. Traditional "facts that have been established" that are just plain wrong would not be appropriate to use in education. Except as examples of things that we used to believe and here's how they were found to be wrong. Like the "caloric fluid" theory of heat. Or the luminiferous aether.
You need to understand what balance is, before your blindness becomes totally incurable.
As your own shins and toes and nose are being torn to shreds by constantly bumping into things all around you that you cannot see, things that we are able to see perfectly.
quote:"It's been a long time since we've worn feathers." Jos Lpez Portillo, Mexican President 1976 - 1982, in interview on "60 Minutes" circa 1980
Edited by dwise1, : small addition to blindness; added "dirt and filth"; dentist visit
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one. (Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates. ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias. Robert Colbert on NPR
That if there is a choice between two views: one is a conclusion based on evidence and logical validity, the other is opinion with no justification, no rationale, no substance; That I will take\accept the first over the second as being more valid\reasonable\persuasive every time. Thus between the multiple lines of conscilient evidence showing that the earth is old -- very very old, and your bald opinion\belief that the earth is 6000 years old, I find the old age credible and compelling and that your opinion\belief is rather silly. And further I find that when you have no explanation how tree rings older than 6000 years can exist on a 6000 year old earth, that your opinion to be delusional:
You keep saying I am delusional, do you want it to stick or haven't you yet figured out that an insane person won't listen? How sharp is your logic then?
Do you have any evidence, logical evidence of course, for love?
I have heard of weird relationships...
No, we should teach faith (that works by love) and reasoning in school.
In the end, humanism is all we really have; it's the only thing we can count on.
This world, how is it going?
If I lived in a world of death and dysfunction, and I was offered eternal life, I would take it even if I had no proof of it, I have nothing to lose do I?
If you fell down a well and survived without a scratch and someone passed down a rope, would you make a loop and be hauled up or would you make a noose and hang yourself?
If I lived in a world of death and dysfunction, and I was offered eternal life, I would take it even if I had no proof of it, I have nothing to lose do I?
That's what makes the promise of eternal life the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humanity--by humanity.
The shamans who thought up this scam, probably millions of years ago, have been living off the ill-gotten gains ever since.
It's the ideal scam! Pay me now for what I promise that you'll get when you die.
Makes all the snake-oil salesmen throughout history look like pikers by comparison. But at least with the snake-oil salesmen you got something in return, no matter how worthless.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Most of science is correct, but it has wrong theories, wrong conclusions drawn from findings.
In religion, there is confusion of truth and error mixed in, - a whole lot of superstitions and false doctrines.
You jump from one band wagon to the other picking and choosing whatever contradicts to suit your argument. If you don't like love or God and you'd rather literally hang onto whatever gives you a thrill, then don't transfer your mental and emotional incompetence onto others, by insisting they are delusional.
To say that all of science is always correct is a violation of its own reasoning anyway.
Religions have their own dogmas, like a boat without a rudder.
Science has nature as its reference book - I hope. Religion should have the Bible as its reference book - I hope.
Both have gone way off the rails in some of their interpretations.
Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ... or delusion ...
You keep saying I am delusional, ...
Mild delusion is curable through education, through learning the real science and the real knowledge we have of "life the universe and oh everything" (Douglas Adams), in learning to discard the false beliefs you have been told.
I also happen to like the pun.
... do you want it to stick or haven't you yet figured out that an insane person won't listen? How sharp is your logic then?
There are 2 audiences for comments made here -- first the person being replied to (ie you), and second all the other readers, especially the lurkers.
There have also been a couple of people here who posted much like you, but who now accept an old earth with an absence of a noachin flood (they have told me so), so there is always hope that people will turn away from ignorance to accept the reality that is around us.
Do you have any evidence, logical evidence of course, ...?
Yes. You have already presented it.
You claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, but simple evidence from tree rings show this concept is invalid, that the earth must be at least as old as the oldest tree ring.
You continue to believe in a 6000 year old earth and you have consistently refused to deal with this simple fact of an older age presented by the tree rings, nor even begin to address the further evidence of older age presented on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and failure to do this is a failure to confront reality.
Evidence does not go away when you ignore it.
No, we should teach faith (that works by love) and reasoning in school.
I have no problems teaching about all the different faiths in a comparative religion class, where students can use logic and critical thinking to compare and contrast all the different beliefs.
I have no problem teaching the history of religious involvement in historical movements or about the involvement of religions in causing wars and persecutions of people, and how those still haunt our society. Especially if fundamentalist versions are contrasted with allegorical versions of the same religions as espoused by different sects.
AND I have absolutely no problem with teaching logic and critical thinking to students as early as they can understand the concepts. Teaching students how to be an open-minded skeptic, how to be skeptical of your own beliefs, and how to question everything ... and how to find answers that fit with the reality that is our universe.
But I do have problems with injecting a particular religion into science classes ... unless it is a 15 minute demonstration of how completely inadequate religious faith is to provide a scientific basis for understanding how things work in the universe.
Be aware: to show that the whole thread is wrong you need to show how those results could happen in such a way that they all agree on ages, why they all fit into an overall package that agrees with itself from a number of different fields and sets of evidence.
Your continued avoidance of this issue is all the proof I need that you maintain your belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the main mechanism you use to maintain your belief is to try to ignore the contrary evidence to delude yourself into thinking it isn't real. It's part of cognitive dissonance behavior.
Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ... or delusion ...
There are 2 audiences for comments made here -- first the person being replied to (ie you), and second all the other readers, especially the lurkers.
All true. But I think Colbard has a point. Despite saying that he was going to try using an evidenced based approach, he really has not shown any signs of doing that. And with respect to his own proposition, he has no intention of defending them.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I have no problems teaching about all the different faiths in a comparative religion class, where students can use logic and critical thinking to compare and contrast all the different beliefs.
I can't remember saying different 'faiths' just faith on its own, it doesn't need gowns and candles.
Anyway, I asked for evidence of love, which you did not quote to comment on, why is that? What scientific evidence proves love, or doesn't it?
But I think Colbard has a point. Despite saying that he was going to try using an evidenced based approach, he really has not shown any signs of doing that. And with respect to his own proposition, he has no intention of defending them.
Here is why - There is a state of mind which denies reality by its own system of beliefs, and claims to have evidence for its own system, while calling anything outside of it delusional. It is impossible for such a mind to be able to escape from that state of denial, even though the evidences are all around. So no evidence will be of any use to such a person, as they will only accept what they already think they know. Ephesians 4:17 -19 KJV.
The evidence that this is true comes from the fact that they cannot overcome their self destructive habits, something which even evolution should not be in favor of.
...we should teach faith (that works by love) and reasoning in school.
While I agree that reasoning should most definitely be part of n educational curriculum, I would rather see faith taught(or expounded upon) in church and at home.
Websters writes:
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs on faith : without question
It would not make sense to teach about something for which there was no evidence nor proof.
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
™ Version 4.2
(1)