What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

My question in all of this is this - "Is the problem with having faith, or is the problem found in bigotry, misunderstanding, pride, and taking a different view to one's own as a personal offence to oneself?"

---

In my experience, most non-believers are happy to let anyone be as religious as they like as long as it doesn't impose upon others' right to live and believe as they wish. This is where a lot of the conflict comes from, because many of the Christians who frequent these discussions obviously believe that everyone in the world should believe as they do.

quote:

---

The argument that one group is less intellectual because one doesn't agree with the views that that group holds is very childish!

---

Well, I hope that we take each person on their individual merits, but it does become painfully obvious that many, many, many Fundamentalist religious people come here and loudly denounce evolution without haveing a CLUE about Biology or science.This does tend to influence one's opinion of the intellectual honesty of Fundamentalists in general.

quote:

---

The truth is that a lot of people in these debates are looking at things through their own "belief-structure glasses," and perish the thought of laying these "glasses" aside and looking at the question of "Does God exist?" without these glasses or with someone else's glasses!

---

A big part of the problem is that the religious folks often refuse to put on the "science", or "logic" glasses when looking at scientific or logical issues.

quote:

---

Could it be that one group is not less intellectual than another group for thinking the way that they do, but it is just that both groups have their own way of looking at life, themselves, other people, and the world around them based on what they have seen and experienced?

---

I don't mind if someone has a different way of looking at life. I do mind when people want to teach religious non-science in public school science classrooms.I don't mind if someone wants to believe in the supernatural. I do mind when they distort and abuse science to make their argument seem more intellectual to the scientifically-illiterate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jcgirl92:
Hey there schrafinator!

---

Hey!

quote:

---

Have you been to http://www.exchristian.net or places like that? Now that is full-on discussion, and hanging out in message forums like that is what I guess I am talking about! Quite honestly, I have sat back and watched this debate get quite heated!

---

This one message board is enough for me, thanks. I like that there are so many scientists here, and that the moderation is fair and effective. It's true that the debate gets intense, but the rules are enforced pretty well, and that is rare in web-land.

quote:

---

By the way, is it that Christians are abusing science just because they believe that the world around us didn't come into being by accident?

---

No. Any particular belief of an individual has no effect at all, actually. I could believe in invisible pink unicorns and this would not be an abuse of science.

quote:

---

Or is it just that everyone in the world has the same evidence that we're looking at, but we are interpreting it differently based on the persuasion we take - and don't think that just because a scientist is of an evolutionistic persuasion that he is unbiased!

---

First of all, it is true that scientists are biased.Scientists are biased in favor of the evidence, as anyone playing by the rules of real scince aught to be. This is the kind of bias you have when you are biased in favor of the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow.Now let me explain to you the fundamental difference between real science and Creation "science".Real science always works from the evidence found and observed in nature, then formulates hypothese and theories in order to explain that evidence. If reliable new evidence comes to light, it may strengthen the existing theory, or it may contradict it, in which case the theory is modified or replaced. It is this tentativity, or falsifiability, of science, that makes it so dynamic and powerful. What we think is true about nature can change if the evidence is there.Creation "science", by contrast, begins not with the evidence found in nature, but with a given interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible. All of nature must be made to fit into this interpretation of this religious book, which is also held to be without error. So, there is nothing at all which can count against this Bible. This is unbeatable dogma, not falsifiable science.

quote:

---

There have been many major and well-respected scientists who believed that the world was created by an intelligent being - it's not just something for those who are uneducated.

---

Really? Like who?OTOH, so what if there were? Just because they believe something is supernaturally-caused doesn't mean that it was just because they say so. They have just as much evidence as my cat does that the world was created by an intelligent being.

quote:

---

Maybe you have talked to a lot of uneducated or uninformed Christians,

---

Oh my, yes.

quote:

---

but there are quite a lot of very intelligent, well-educated people out there who also believe that there is a God Who created the world -

---

Again, this is irrelevant to if it is true or not.

quote:

---

just as there are a lot of uneducated or uninformed non-Christians who believe in evolution!

---

No argument there.However, I am curious; what do you think of Theistic Evolution?

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that either belief is less intellectual than the other, it just means that there's one or two in every bunch!

---

Oh, but Creation "science" is very much an intellectually-dishonest, manipulative, and calculated effort to dress up religion in scientific-seeming veneer in order to sound impressively plausible to the scientifically-uninformed.They do not play by the rules of science and co-opt the respectability and educated "feel" of science to promote their religious dogma.Creation "science" doesn't care a bit about science. They only care about convincing people to believe them. They distort real science and lie to make that happen.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Sorry, this little fish ain't takin' the bait.I don't bother debating with crazy, angry, so-called "Christians".You certainly have some anger-management issues, don't you? You certainly do fear women, too.Wow, if being a Christian means I have to be like you, no thank you.I was wondering...are you in a mental hospital for the crimially-insane somewhere and read a lot of law books?

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Unfortunately, the whole debate itself is unproductive. Atheists want theists to prove the existence of God. Occasionally, the tables are turned and the atheist is asked to prove the non-existence of God. Both are equally reasonable requests, and both are probably impossible as far as science is concerned.

---

The Theists are the one making a positive claim, "God exists." It is up to them to provide evidence for this claim.

quote:

---

What is left are (in the Christianity debate, as most of this site refers to) the Bible's claims as a theist's evidence of the existence of God and a particular atheist's assertions that these same claims are false as his or her proof of God's nonexistence.

---

The Atheist doesn't have to prove god's non-existence.The non-existence of God is the default option because there isn't any evidence for God, only personal faith and belief.

quote:

---

The one has faith in the accuracy of the Bible and the other has faith in the fallacy of the Bible. So it is not really a scientific debate at all but a question of faith.

---

mmmm, I think it is actually a question of evidence and faith.Belief without evidence = faith.It is also not accurate to say that Atheists do not believe in God because they perceive the Bible to be false.

quote:

---

Which is why I can be a scientist and believe in God at the same time (just like Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and a number of other bright folks).

---

Einstein didn't believe in God like you probably think he did. He for sure did not believe in a personal god, and also called himself an Agnostic. He did not accept any of the traditional arguments for the existence of God.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ten-sai:
Hi Mr. Bill!

​

You said:
What qualifies you to be my peer, mister potty-mouth?

​

I say:
Do you mean someone with a potty mouth isn't YOUR peer? Maybe you could define "potty-mouth" for us????

​

Perhaps your flame was directed towards this end:

​

quote:

---

I was wondering...are you in a mental hospital for the crimially-insane somewhere and read a lot of law books?

---

​

Are you, like Shrafinator, a hypocrite Mr. Bill? Or is your modus operandi to also acquiesce to hypocrites so long as your position is supported? Good sound logic there!

​

More evidence of sound logic: I made an assertion of a substantive nature, illuminating certain LIES perpetuated, or acquiesced to at the very least, by some members on this forum. It is uncertain at this time if you fall into that category...

​

Nevertheless, instead of addressing substance, you impliedly conclude I am not your peer. What a bore you are!!! Anyway, before I tell you what qualifies ME as YOUR peer, you must LOGICALLY lay a proper foundation by telling me precisely what are the OBJECTIVE qualifications for a peer. Afterwards, establish YOU are a peer' under the "objective" guidelines (what qualifies YOU to be mine or anybody else's peer?). Good luck!!!!

​

We can talk about these irrelevant ad hominem things if you want, seeing how you clearly want to avoid getting into a discusion which addresses the logical FALLACY of certain closely held beliefs by the evolution crowd, to wit: "the God of the gaps fallacy" and "abiogenesis is logically irrelevant to evolution"....both untrue, and I bet both of these beliefs are embraced by yourself??? Who is surprised you would get ticked off? My guess is that I was the first to challenge these patently FALSE reliances of yours et al on pseudologic.

​

One last thing, "Dr." Bill, you wouldn't happen to be a doctor of logic would you? How did I know you weren't?

​

Peace,

​

Ten-sai

---

Wow, you do really need to look into some anger-management therapy or something.Wow, being a Christian makes some people really furious and abusive and abrasive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Quetzal

​

The point is that it is up to the reader to distinguish between the idiot YECs, the misinformed YECs and the well informed and honest YECs. We can't control what uneducated YECs will post on websites!

​

YECS have to put up with uneducated and completely biased evolutionists just as much as you guys have to put up with misinformed, uneducated and biased YECs.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]

---

No, not "just as much", TB.There are far, far more "If man evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?" folks around than the opposite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jcgirl92:
You said, "Now let me explain to you the fundamental difference between real science and Creation "science".

​

Real science always works from the evidence found and observed in nature, then formulates hypothese and theories in order to explain that evidence. If reliable new evidence comes to light, it may strengthen the existing theory, or it may contradict it, in which case the theory is modified or replaced. It is this tentativity, or falsifiability, of science, that makes it so dynamic and powerful. What we think is true about nature can change if the evidence is there."

---

quote:

---

*I want to ask are all Evolution-Scientists really as "scientific" as you think? How many times have we heard about a scientist who had doctored up stuff for the sake of the Theory of Evolution?

---

Almost none.It almost never happens in science that someone lies or fakes data, because the peer review system is so stringent and the culture demands honesty and integrity. Remember, just because a scientist says something doesn't mean that everyone automatically believes her. Other scientists immediately begin work to replicate the experiments to see if the results are the same....and if they do lie or cheat, they are found out by other Scientists, and their entire careers are ruined. The scientific community holds professional integrity to be extremely important.What happens to all of those hundreds of Creationists who lie about their credentials or who make up data or do shoddy work? Nothing, usually, because within the Creation "science" community, it doesn't so much matter if you do these things as long as what you are saying supports the dogma.Here are a couple of links; the first is about questionalble Creationist credentials, and the second is a discussion of how creationists handle their errors compared to real science.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Scientific Creationism and Error

quote:

---

Ernst Haekel is notorius! Someone wrote of him, "He became Darwin?s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls." Are all Evolution-scientists as unbiased as you would like to think...?

---

Oh, for heaven's sake, this is from over a hundred years ago!

quote:

---

You also said, "Creation "science", by contrast, begins not with the evidence found in nature, but with a given interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible. All of nature must be made to fit into this interpretation of this religious book, which is also held to be without error. So, there is nothing at all which can count against this Bible."

​

*Both Evolution-scientists and Creation-scientists have their theories with which they interpret the same evidence! You would have to agree that there are not too many scientists who do not have something by which they interpret the evidence they see.

---

You still don't get it.Science begins with the evidence. It observes what is in nature. It then creates explanations,called theories, which explain the evidence. Everything in science is subject to change in the light of new evidence.Creation "science" does not begin with the evidence. It begins with inviolate religious dogma. This dogma can never change, so the evidence must be ignored or forced into the unchangeable dogma.It is not a simple matter of a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of Creation science claiming the authority of science when they don't even come close to actually doing science.When the evidence leads them down a certain path, the scientist says, "OK, this is where the evidence leads."When the evidence lead a Creationist down the same path, they say something like, "The evidence LOOKS like it leads us here, but it really doesn't because the Bible says that it can't. I'll just come up with ANY explanation for this phenomena that fits the Bible no matter how it contradicts the evidence."

quote:

---

You asked, "However, I am curious; what do you think of Theistic Evolution?"

​

*Well, I don't think of it at all actually! Don't want to!

---

Fear of thought.A sad but common quality of many Creationists.Why do you fear thinking about Theistic Evolution?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

At the same time, we know from the Bible that God is (or wishes to be) our personal saviour and that he intervenes in the world actively as well, in the sense that he desires an interactive relationship with us and makes himself known to us in many ways.

---

What ways?

quote:

---

He claims that he is "the way the truth and the life." If he is right, then to reject him out of hand is the most dreadful mistake a person can make. In other words, we are wise to evaluate his claims seriously.

---

You are assuming that the Bible is true, and that Jesus existed, and if he existed, was actuallythe son of god, of course.

quote:

---

If the Bible is right everything we learn about the natural world will all fit in the end.

---

But what if the Bible is wrong and it doesn't fit?

quote:

---

The response I received from Shrafinator vindicated any potential error in profiling a typical liberal American woman who indeed may have become the men they?ve always wanted to be?

---

Yep, you sure do fear women.

quote:

---

I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.

​

--Percy

---

Hey Percy!How is this for some evidence?The "Yes But" problemIt pretty clearly correlates level of education with the liklihood of disbelief of evolution; the less education one has, the more likely it is that you disbelieve evolution, AND the more likely it is that you do believe that God created the Earth and everything in it 10,000 years ago.[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]

None of the people on your list who are dead, which are most of them, count, because they can't have evaluated the 100 or so years of evidence-gathering that has gone on since theiy departed the scene.Chandra Wickramasinghe is not a Creationist.There was a court case in which he was called to sestify about evolution...From the court proceedings transcript:McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education"The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.

​

--Percy

---

​

Hey Percy!

​

How is this for some evidence?

​

The "Yes But" problem

​

It pretty clearly correlates level of education with the liklihood of disbelief of evolution; the less education one has, the more likely it is that you disbelieve evolution, AND the more likely it is that you do believe that God created the Earth and everything in it 10,000 years ago.

---

​

Cool link schrafinator...I had seen some of the individual polls but not the various polls combined.

---

Thanks! It's been very useful. [Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]

Thanks for posting these tables, Percy!Yes those are exactly the stats I was talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Direct ridiculing is pretty rare in universities I agree but I've seen it and definitely in research seminars.

---

I have to say, though, that in Biology or Geology circles, why wouldn't Creation "science" be ridiculed just like claims of free energy machines would be ridiculed in physics, or claims of being able to turn lead into gold in chemistry, or claims of proof of alien abduction or Psychic ability in Psychology?

I took a pretty Biology-intensive major at my small liberal arts college, although it was specialized to concentrate on mammals and later, Equines. I had Intro to Biology in my freshman year and it was a difficult course, but I loved it and, if I can say, got one of only two A's given in the class. Then I had a whole year of Mammilian Anatomy and Physiology, followed by Equine Health, Equine Nutrition, Equine Exercise Physiology, Feeds and Feeding, Equine Lameness, etc.I didn't know anything about the creationist movement until I took an eye-opening course entitled "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry", one of the 8 or so core liberal arts classes that everyone had to take.We talked about all kinds of pseudoscience and anti-science, including some basic logic and debate tactics and fallacies. Creationism was in there, but only as part of a much larger group of non-scientific beliefs.I didn't really "get into" the whole issue until I met who was to be my husband. Yuo all know him here as Zhimbo. He was a Cognitive Neuroscience undergrad at a different liberal arts university (Oberlin) and happened to be interested in the issue. HE actually borrowed my textbooks from the above-mentioned class to teach an Experimental College class called "The Fringes of Science".Through him, I heard about more detail about philosophical skepticism, and the seed of interest in science, skepticism, and this debate which had been planted a few years before in that class, germinated.For the record, Creationism wasn't singled out or really even ridiculed, even in "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry" class. It was just explained to us how it was not scientific, but religious in nature.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-06-2002]