Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

[xman]

Gentlemen and ladies all. I might need some help with this one.

http://www.straightrazorplace.com/forums/conversation/39790-debunking-dangerously-deceitful-dogma.html#post435838

Can anyone provide a STFU link for the less rational participants in the posted link or offer any advice about how to deal with their nonsense better than I have been?

TIA

X

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Can't read and neither am I interested to join in, so if you don't mind to post a transcription.

 

[xman]

My bad. Here it is, edited slightly to weed out those posts which present no argument.

#1

This thread is started as a growth from a previous thread where we got off topic and began a back and forth debate between radically different world views. Any directive which demands slavish devotion and refuses to allow one to think for oneself is dangerous. It's what lets people be convinced by pulpit pounding preachers to strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowded markets or load their favourite guns and use them on doctors who performs abortions. Such dogma is, by its very definition, damaging to the advancement of human consciousness and forces, as a result of its intellectually destructive nature, a return to the dark ages. Although it's not an apology, I am sorry. I'm sorry for anyone who is caught up in such deceptions. I pity them their life of ignorance. They are the intellectually blinded and mutilated victims of the cruelest kind of deceit, that using you brain, that properly observing the wonders of the natural universe and reporting honestly about it, that thinking alone is wrong, is evil. Shame on their abusers.

The links posted repeatedly By ENUF2 in the "Who Do You Pray To Thread" are filled only with errors, lies and what is commonly referred to as junk science. They are notions put forward by charlatans, con artists and criminals who claim that all notions demand equal consideration when they clearly don't. Any idea which is merely fanciful imagination and wishful thinking, even when it's incorrectly called a theory (equivocating between the proper scientific meaning of the word and the more common colloquial meaning) is not the same suit as a proper scientifically peer reviewed and substantiated scientific theory. It's not even in the same deck. Not you ENUF. You're not a liar, but the links sited are filled with deceptions either willful or ignorant. They lead people so far down the rabbit hole that there is such a long journey back out of the fantasy world fraught, no doubt, with the perils of public scorn from pastors and the condemnation of one's peers that even if one is not too hobbled in the mind to follow the path upward they are likely to be unwilling to make the journey.

Nonetheless, I know that not everyone reading is so hampered. Some are following with genuine interest and honest wonder and it is for their benefit that I supply the pathway in the three video series at the end of this post. There is lots of viewing time there but every question posed whether actually inquisitive or deceitfully rhetorical, all inquiries made to the critical thinkers in that thread about the nature of reality and how we know what we do are encompassed there. Every rebuttal to the magical thinking and false logic is supplied as well. Take your time, but watch them all and all will be answered. All is included and it's easy for everyone. There is no reading necessary, just sit back and soak it in. Any further false challenges can be lead back to the answers supplied therein. If there are any honest questions regarding the content of a specific video those can be answered here, but don't bother asking how we know it to be true any more because it has now been answered. Don't post any links to junk science because it has been completely refuted in the videos posted here. Don't claim that Intelligent Design is a valid concept because it has been effectively refuted in the videos posted here. Don't trouble people with the backward notions put forward by televangelical creationists because it has been completely and effectively refuted in the video series provided and also, you would only be doing the dirty work of the dangerously foolish and the hate monger.

So, it is with a grateful respect for the dazzling intellects of pothole54, AronRa and Thunderf00t that I offer these drams ...

Drink Me​

YouTube - 1 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1)

YouTube - 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)

X

[Edit] I had hoped the 'Play All' would work here, but the video series stop after the first 10 minute video so you may find it more helpful to access them through these links instead.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - foundational falsehoods aronra

YouTube - laugh at creationists

[Edit2] Edited for greater respectfulness.

#8

I just want to point out that if everybody had watched the videos they would have seen that none of them speaks against Christians. Rather, the videos speak out against creationists. If you find yourself in the creationist camp, then , even though X's posts have been slightly more animated than I would have been, I have to agree completely with everything he's said.

If you find yourself in the "Christian" camp, or let's say, in agreement with recent popes' allowing for science of evolution to "parallel" what Catholics believe, then there should be no rift between any members.

This goes along with what I've said in some previous posts about what we know versus what could be left to a "God".

The third video, while humorous, singles out one specific creationist. I don't know enough about what the "Creationists" as a whole believe, but it's wrong. The world isn't flat, carbon dating is reliable, there was no adam and there was no eve, no garden of eden, no flood. We know this because we can prove it.

I don't have anything against any SRP member, so let me get that out there. I may disagree with you on something, but you believing what you want has no effect on me and I could care less.

V/R,

OGIE

#11

I just want to make it clear that each link is intended to point to several videos, so the first in the third set takes aim at a single individual and subsequent videos debunk other such individuals. There's about six hours of viewing all told.

#19

If any one is under this type of rule I feel tremendous sorrow for them. Christianity is not. Let me repeat that is not a fatalist religion but a Lifestyle, a relationship, a surrendered walk where the benefit of others are more important than your own. Have you ever read the Bible? The one I read (not watch) says ......

If anyone thinks he is religious, without controlling his tongue but deceiving his heart, his religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.​

James 1:26-27 (HCSB)

You wish to think of yourself first it's really difficult to take care of others when your arms wrapped around yourself. So what about the drug addict on the street is that where he is suppose to be? What about the father who is an alcoholic? He's warped up in his own little world besides there is nothing in who I am that needs to help I just need to turn the other way. Survival of the fittest you know.

Like I said I follow Christ you don't have to. I believe I have purpose far beyond the 1 in 6 billion that I am and to fulfill that my wants must be second nature. To see that addict off the drugs and being useful in society brings a joy that self centered self righteous people can never know. To see a 60 year old man break down and cry just because someone cared enough to bring him a bed free of charge NO STRINGS ATTACHED because he has been sleeping on the floor (in America for 6 months) not only gives one a sense of a greater purpose but also gives confidence that you can make a difference in a sick and twisted "all about me world".



If your path is upward leave me in this pit. I have NOT been duped I have been saved by grace through faith and this not of myself it is a gift from God not by works so in it I have no reason to boast. I said it before I lived on "your" side in which I was the alcoholic, I was the drug addict I was the man in and out of jail. Believe me I know exactly where I stand and why and it's not because anyone of those so called enlightened friends cared to reach out a hand of help. I'm sorry to say at 44 years old I have already seen too many acquaintances die because they refused to see the damage they did to themselves. As for those who leave the Church there is NO public scorn or ridicule (at least in a Church that believes it's purpose is to love, and to heal). You talk about lies You have NO clue about the body of believers I work with or probably the TRUE Christian religion in General. And as for the Links I have put out here they are filled only with errors, lies and what is commonly referred to as junk science. They are notions put forward by charlatans, con artists and criminals who claim that all notions demand equal consideration when they clearly don't. Are you "The Expert" in all matters of science or do you get all your propaganda from utube and PBS. Is your name on any of the rebuttal documents or are you just spouting "DOGMA" like the majority of monkeys (monkey see monkey do). Sorry that was uncalled for. Oh wait, an apology. Again, I know my place and as far as I am concerned I am nothing but an instrument to be used by my Creator for His Purpose. As you can see I will refuse to place a single link on this thread by choice because self centered, self righteous people can not truly look at anything other than what they Believe (have faith in and yes that is correct word usage) and ask could there be something more could there really be a purpose to all of this?



This in its self is another problem with modern society. People are too busy just soaking it whatever it is. People use to read, they use to test, they use to be able to form an opinion because they had experienced personally whatever it was and was able to tell right from wrong. As a Matter of fact, in a proper Church setting questions are welcomed not scorned we are encouraged to read not only our Bibles but we our encouraged to engage this world and the people in it because we as Christ followers are to be in this world not of it.

Stay inside your own little world where your purpose is you. Think the big bad Christians are out to destroy everything (which is ridiculous). Think you are not trying to "convert" anyone but just telling them YOUR version of the truth (yes, it's your version because it's about you not others). As for me this is just about where I end because it's not about me it''s about the the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32 (NIV)


Lets put the stake in it.... ENUF2 =

E- Everyone is a sinner
No one has to teach us to be self absorbed. Lying and stealing come naturally for us. The Bible tells us (For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.) Romans 3:23 We need no help to do what's wrong according to God's standard, we must just see it from His point of view not our own.

N-No one deserves to go to heaven
In fact we each are holding a ticket to hell. Knowing the truth that we are sinners the Bible says (that the wages of sin is DEATH) Romans 6:23 a. It also tells us that ( it is appointed for people to die once,and after this, judgment, )Heb 9:27 Without help we have no hope. There's nothing we are capable of on our own that will justify our actions in the eyes of God.

U- Unless we turn from sin and self to the One who is enough-
That one is Jesus. In the Book of John we are told (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.) John 3:16 The rest of Romans 6:23 says (the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ) Also in Romans we are told it was God not us who made the way (But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us! ) Romans 5:8 .

There is only one way to have what we need and it is through -----

F-Faith-
In Ephesians the 2nd. chapter it says ( For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift, 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. ) Also in Romans we learn that ( If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation.)

The question is yours. Have you accepted the fact that on your own your destination is destruction?
Has there ever been a time that you sincerely asked the Lord Jesus to truly forgive your sin and ask Him to be the Lord and Savior of your life.
If not, the bible also tells us that today is the day of salvation because we do not know what tomorrow may hold. If this interests you PM me and I can either help you or give you a link that can explain Salvation in more detail.

Oh and
2- This is ENUF
to save, to heal, to change lives forever.
<!--EndFragment-->

***Sorry about having to post all of that for your torture, but it's part of the problem***

#20

Thanks for your clear and informative post ENUF. I think there is a misunderstanding going on here though. Sure I'm an Atheist and have no love for religion in general, but I'm not against you because you're a Christian. Please watch the video series I have posted and that should be cleared up. The first series, Made Easy clears up misconceptions held by many about the nature of our universe and our place within it from a scientific perspective. That's valuable. The second series, Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism opens up a line of questioning, the kind that dogmatists are not permitted to consider, but show weaknesses which are easily exploited by con men. The third exposes the con men individually and their deceptions. None of it is intended as an attack on Christians. I know a lot of nice Christians and for all I know you are one of them. They are intended to inform people of the very misconceptions which have made you feel offended without actually understanding where I'm coming from. Really, watching the series will clear a lot of that up.

#36

With all due respect: does it really matter what someone else believes when it comes to the history of the universe and mankind?

Why can't we just respect what someone else thinks/believes etc.? Many wars started just because one group wanted to force their opinion on another group.

#37

I think the answer is that anybody can privately believe anything they like in the comfort of their own home, but whoever seeks to impose their false brand of reality on anybody else whether it be in science class of through legislation becomes a danger to society. Likewise, an argument can be made for those who home school creationism to their children being culpable for the stupefaction of society at least. When, "I'll teach my kids what I want them to learn" becomes accepted in blatant contradiction with reality as observed by everyone, then again we're in dangerous territory IMO.

Evolution, for example is not a matter of opinion. It is a widely (can you say understatement?) supported scientific theory that is used daily to enrich all our lives. If that comes down to 'he said, she said' then we all suffer immeasurably.

#39

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? In all of high school, and six years of college (Kettering University which is 80% engineering majors and graduates more mechanical engineers than any other school in the country, at least as of 2003 or so) never heard anyone (student, teacher, professor) who whole-heartedly believed evolution. This includes physicists, chemists, engineers, mathemeticians, etc... The general concensus was something along the lines of "it's the currently accepted theory, but it still has a lot of holes with no real explination". And I just graduated in December 2008, so this is relatively recent, not from the 50's or anything.

Speaking of which I came across this today. Never heard of this author before, but I hardly think Time magazine counts as Christian propoganda
Q&A: What Came Before the Big Bang? - TIME

#40

Because you haven't reviewed the videos at the start of this thread. We get this from observation. Mountains of biological and paleontological evidence bears out the facts of evolution. There can be no question of its veracity, only of one's comfort with the facts. Please review Potholer54's Made Easy videos on Evolution and Human Evolution, #'s 7 & 8. Please also simply type "evolution" into Wikipedia for direct explanations, plenty of sited sources and further links.

Unfortunately, you have exposed that your primary sources are sadly misinformed or at least uncomfortable with believing in reality, and I find it particularly sad that these people are educators (not biologists though thankfully). To debunk many myths associated with evolution please review the links on this page: An Index to Creationist Claims

As for the Time magazine article (which is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory BTW, but is often challenged in the same breath by creationists because both refute the biblical creation myth), it is not directly creationist propaganda, but when edited by people who think as your teachers have, it's easy to understand how a scientist's possibly valid work (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it) can be ridiculously misrepresented. The Time article is moronic. It may be that the title is there to attract readers, but it is misleading as I think is the title The Selfish Gene. It implies that there is a gene for selfishness and that naturally we are selfish creatures, which is not the point of that book as I understand it. The title of the book in the Time article is even more misleading though. What Came Before the Big Bang is an impossible question. It ask about something before space/time. There is no before time and there is no thing outside of space. Indeed as cosmologists look further and further back in time (which is equal to further away from us) there comes point where space/time breaks down and there is a wall of evenly distributed background radiation. It is theorised that at this point which were the earliest few seconds (perhaps microseconds) of the universe, the fundamental forces at work in our universe were operating together as one force. The nature of reality would be completely different than the one we now know. Space/time was a radically different place. This is almost a 'before' for time, but probably not quite. Before that? Not a valid option. Simply put, there is no chance for a 'before' without time. There is no chance for anything to exist without a place for it to exist either. If that idea addles you mind as much as it should (it does mine) then you are better able to appreciate the awesome genius of people who dabble in such cosmological mysteries.

#41

It is my opinion, that the complexity of nature and humanity indicates there is a designer. As to talking snakes and the garden of Eden, I wasn't there and can not give first hand knowledge of what did or didn't happen or exist, I can only speak to what I believe.

As to a talking snake, it sounds about as believable as something that has a chemical makeup of about 65% oxygen being able to talk.

Irregardless of what you believe in and how it may differ from what I believe in, I will value you as an individual and respect you as such.

#43

With respect, sir it does not matter what your opinion is of the likelihood of such things.
All that matters is what can be shown.

#45

Respectfully, what can you actually show and prove? Even the scientists have not reached a concensus and none of us were there to report back with first hand knowledge. Many of yesterdays scientific facts have been proven wrong.

I cannot prove creationism, but no one has disproven it either.

I've have enjoyed the interaction, but it is time for me to make the commute home where I will enjoy a shave with a 1/4 Le Grelot, relax and watch the thunderstorm that is brewing.

#46

These claims are both patently false. Please, everyone. Do not start trolling here and spouting opinion or useless creationist drivel. Do not post anything without viewing the videos posted in the first post in this thread and then only about specific points. The creationist dogmatic view has been repeatedly debunked here and to discover how, you only need to review what has been presented. If you are uncomfortable understanding any of the details we can discus that.

#44

Isn't questioning the veracity of scientific theories part and parcel of the scientific method itself?

#47

Yes, if one has a counter claim which can be backed up, which fanciful creation mythology cannot be.

Long I know, but I fear it is about to get away from me.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If it was me I would answer like this:
You can copy paste it and post it and say that it was me.

If any one is under this type of rule I feel tremendous sorrow for them. Christianity is not. Let me repeat that is not a fatalist religion but a Lifestyle, a relationship, a surrendered walk where the benefit of others are more important than your own. Have you ever read the Bible? The one I read (not watch) says ......

This is the old moral high ground fallacy, you start by saying that there is no inherent good and the only good is from God and then they back it up with an appeal to emotion "look to this aspect" appealing to our inherent good that you were actually trying to disprove and say that therefore there must be a God even though there was never established that we must be good or established any relation what so ever between the premise and the conclusion.
If you think that it isn't so then answer me, "if god said that rape was ok, would you do it?", Either you answers Yes or No you are a fuckhead, if you say Yes then you are an immoral prick and if he says No then you have destroyed your own argument and God is a middle man (although you have already done it and didn't noticed).

I'm sorry to say at 44 years old I have already seen too many acquaintances die because they refused to see the damage they did to themselves.

Then you move on of course to appeals to authority, like any of this would somehow make you right. I personally am discussed with people with absolutely no knowledge or education spouting about a subject that they don't have the slightest clue about convinced with an ironic twist that every experts of field that dedicated their lives to the subject and that know more then he could possibly ever imagined are all obviously stupid because they have 44 years old and have dead acquaintances.
And then you spout arbitrary bible verses like that supposed to mean anything or have anything to do with anything.
But sense you mentioned:

In fact we each are holding a ticket to hell. Knowing the truth that we are sinners the Bible says ("¦)For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son ("¦) The question is yours. Have you accepted the fact that on your own your destination is destruction?
Has there ever been a time that you sincerely asked the Lord Jesus to truly forgive your sin and ask Him to be the Lord and Savior of your life.
If not, the bible also tells us that today is the day of salvation because we do not know what tomorrow may hold. If this interests you PM me and I can either help you or give you a link that can explain Salvation in more detail.

Your imaginary God loves us so much that he is going to send us to eternal torture (much like it was made up by vengeful blood thirsty barbarians) because of something that we have no responsibility for. I never asked him to exist or to be part of any of this! How lucky for us that the all so loving super powerful hyper dimensional being that created the universe with apparently pre-middle age human characteristics also known as God to have send "his one and only Son" so we don't have to be part of something that we never asked to part of in the first place.
Do you seriously think that we should bite in to this? Or considering anything else then what it is? (i.e. NONSENSE)

With all due respect: does it really matter what someone else believes when it comes to the history of the universe and mankind?

Absolutely YES! Society of today is build over the effort of thousands of those who came before and laid down their lives in dedication to make a better world then what they have found so an anonymous person to who they will never know can enjoy of a luxurious life style we have today. And see you polluting and trashing everything that was made for you, it is not yours to destroy it. I personally would have never thrust my life to a doctor that would prove himself as inapt and overwhelmingly stupid just by considering the absurd option of a literal 6 days creationism fairy tale to be an exact representation of the world.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? In all of high school, and six years of college (Kettering University which is 80% engineering majors and graduates more mechanical engineers than any other school in the country, at least as of 2003 or so) never heard anyone (student, teacher, professor) who whole-heartedly believed evolution. This includes physicists, chemists, engineers, mathemeticians, etc... The general concensus was something along the lines of "it's the currently accepted theory, but it still has a lot of holes with no real explination". And I just graduated in December 2008, so this is relatively recent, not from the 50's or anything.

Speaking of which I came across this today. Never heard of this author before, but I hardly think Time magazine counts as Christian propoganda
Q&A: What Came Before the Big Bang? - TIME

Firstly do you have anything to back up your statistics?
Secondly even if we lived in bizarro world, no engineer, physicist, chemist, mathematician with major or 10 post graduate PhD could have ever establish anything related to evolution as THEY WORK IN A COMPLETELY DIFRENT FIELD! Even if they were all biologist specialized in the most intrinsic concepts of evolution, Science is not done by popular opinion, it is done by what you can prove, as we all know Einstein did better than Newton even though nobody wanted to believe it.

It is my opinion, that the complexity of nature and humanity indicates there is a designer.

How did you established that? In science you have to be neutral, as hard it may be to you even to emotion. You cannot use as an argument, "I could not conceive how did all this came to be, there for"¦" even because that is no proof that a smarter person couldn't come along and do it for you (and the matter of fact is, it did).

As to a talking snake, it sounds about as believable as something that has a chemical makeup of about 65% oxygen being able to talk.

Irregardless of what you believe in and how it may differ from what I believe in, I will value you as an individual and respect you as such.

It sounds believable to someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about the snake morphology and that has incredibly naive fairy tale, that he doesn't even realize that snakes don't have vocal cords or nowhere near a vox structure required to produce noise anywhere near resembling speech. If I had an 1 foot blade impaled in my forhead, then yeah it would be believable.

Respectfully, what can you actually show and prove? Even the scientists have not reached a concensus and none of us were there to report back with first hand knowledge. Many of yesterdays scientific facts have been proven wrong.

I cannot prove creationism, but no one has disproven it either.

First of all Facts are not proven wrong or right, only interpretations of what is commonly perceived as facts can be said to be valid or not. Facts is something that happened, either you have seen it right or interpreted right is a completely different matter, but what happened happened and could have not not-happened when they did. But obviously you don't know what the heck you are even talking about.
Secondly science is not done by consensus, there is no meeting where they gather up and vote on what is sound or not (that stuff is left for things like the compilation of the bible), it is done by whatever you can prove or not.
Thirdly we can prove allot, and if you have spent at least half of what I have spent in learning several fields of study such as math, physics, mechanics and so forth, you could do it as well, but you never took the time did you? And you are complaining that you don't have proof?
Fourthly it is not important that we can't disprove creationism (although we can and WE DID!), what is important is that you can't prove it, you claimed it, the onus of proof is on you.
Neither it is not important that we don't yet know all the picture of the origins of the universe, what is important is that you don't know how the universe came to be and that your Bronze Age book is not an answer either. So stop being a complete dick by forcing your deranged delusions onto others and completely fucking up with important matters such as Science over your brain fart.

Isn't questioning the veracity of scientific theories part and parcel of the scientific method itself?

Yes if you are actually doing it seriously, not by trying to force the idea that bananas are responsible for everything independently of how wrong and stupid it may be.
Frankly speaking it fells like I'm talking with retarded.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Come to think of it maybe I should do it personal just for the lulz.

 

[xman]

Well ty MGK. I like your reasoning, but I might soften the language a little if it's alright with you.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well ty MGK. I like your reasoning, but I might soften the language a little if it's alright with you.

I generaly say whatever comes out of my head, without any sort of temper (even because it is directed to adults and not litle kids). But I do realise that it might offend some people (even tough they deserve to be ofended) and that some what impeeds the conversation.

 

[Squawk]

Meh, I'll have a go too, bit of free time. I've updated the quotes to display as quotes (remember to enclose names in " ")

Hmm, ok that was longer than expected. I responded to all posts which I felt merited a response. I appreciate that you had already done so sufficiently in most cases, but thought I might well add something to the discussion. Feel free to nick all of it if useful.

To see that addict off the drugs and being useful in society brings a joy that self centered self righteous people can never know.

This was the first line I had a potential problem with. I say potential because I am not sure if the poster is implying that an atheist is self centered and self-righteous or if it is just directed at those people he feels to be that way. My response will depend on a clarification.

I have NOT been duped I have been saved by grace through faith and this not of myself it is a gift from God not by works so in it I have no reason to boast.

I can potentially agree that his faith has saved him. I will take his word that he takes strength and courage from his faith and that he uses it as motivation for his good deeds, thoughts and feelings. I also accept that this faith he has is in the existence of God. I dispute that he can have any notion that the object of his faith, God, exists. His faith, and not the object of it, is the guiding light in his life.

I said it before I lived on "your" side in which I was the alcoholic, I was the drug addict I was the man in and out of jail.

An implication that all the above are associated with atheism, when in fact all statistics indicate that religiosity in a society is inversely proportional to morality in society in developed nations (not sure about developing).

And as for the Links I have put out here they are filled only with errors, lies and what is commonly referred to as junk science. They are notions put forward by charlatans, con artists and criminals who claim that all notions demand equal consideration when they clearly don't.

This looks like a quote of something said earlier, but no indication it is a quote. I can't deciper context here.

Are you "The Expert" in all matters of science or do you get all your propaganda from utube and PBS.

Implication that there are only two possibilities. Either the person rebutting the claims is the world leader, or a fraud. Clearly neither possibility is likely to be the case.

Is your name on any of the rebuttal documents or are you just spouting "DOGMA" like the majority of monkeys (monkey see monkey do).

Projection. Nobody is claiming that anything scientific is truth, and there is certainly no dogma. Science and the scientific method are a methodology, a methodology that is designed to eliminate bias and establish what reality is telling us, and to continue to scrutinise any conclusions to see if they stand up to new evidence. Scientific understanding, in its present form, is like a medium resolution photograph. As scientific exploration gets better the resolution of the picture increases, more and more details are filled in.

Sorry that was uncalled for. Oh wait, an apology.

That is not an apology, it is a construct to allow Enuf to attempt to demonstrate a reasonable attitude, to belittle his opposition. It is an attempt at ridicule and is anything but a genuine apology.

Again, I know my place and as far as I am concerned I am nothing but an instrument to be used by my Creator for His Purpose.

Baseless assertion. To be an instrument for an entity the minimum required would be to assertain that said entity exists. Without such knowledge anything else is mere wishful thinking.

As you can see I will refuse to place a single link on this thread by choice because self centered, self righteous people can not truly look at anything other than what they Believe (have faith in and yes that is correct word usage) and ask could there be something more could there really be a purpose to all of this?

Projection. Science is not and never has been about truth, it is about the search for truth. It will follow the evidence wherever that evidence leads. A simple look at the miriad of discarded hypothesis that litter the history of science should be evidence enough, as should any of a number of quotes from various eminent scientists. My personal favourite, from Thomas Huxley
"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."

We can also look at how the most famous scientists became famous, generally by overturning the applecart of previous understanding. You get famous in science by showing previous understanding was wrong.

As to the question about purpose, of course there could be a purpose, but without evidence to suggest that the Universe does have objective purpose it is worthless speculation to suggest it does have. Wishful thinking at best.

Think you are not trying to "convert" anyone but just telling them YOUR version of the truth (yes, it's your version because it's about you not others). As for me this is just about where I end because it's not about me it''s about the the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32 (NIV)

There are no versions of the truth. The truth just is. Truth is reality. What we argue about are methodologies for discovering the truth. Science uses the scientific method. Its only doctrine is to follow the evidence, regardless of where that evidence leads. It has no purpose other than to try to discover what the truth is, and by its very nature accepts that it can never know with 100% certainty. It could be said that science is an approximation of the truth, and that the approximation is getting better and better with each passing day.

On the other hand we have religious doctrine which asserts that it knows what the truth is regardless of the lack of evidence in support of its assertions and, in the case of creationism, inspite of the evidence that contradicts it. As a means of establishing truth it is no more useful than an uninformed guess, a roll of the dice to see what turns up.

E- Everyone is a sinner

This depends on how you define sin. Sin seems to be a concept that relies on the supposition that god exists. Since this is a baseless assertion I contend that sin does not exist, only actions, actions that are deemed to be moral or not subjectively by society.

No one has to teach us to be self absorbed. Lying and stealing come naturally for us.

I contest that statement. Ask anyone who knows anything about body language for a simple demonstration of the inner conflict that a lie puts upon a person. Stealing even more so. We may be driven by society or by other goals to do these things and indeed are capable of them, but unless you can demonstrate to me that these actions are indeed natural then I shal dismiss it first as a baseless assertion, and secondly I shall dismiss it by using the evidence that we instinctively know we have done something wrong when we lie, evidenced by our unconscious actions.

The Bible tells us (For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.) Romans 3:23 We need no help to do what's wrong according to God's standard, we must just see it from His point of view not our own.

Unless you can present evidence that god exists I can ignore this as a baseless assertion.

N-No one deserves to go to heaven

Once again, evidence it exists or it is a baseless assertion. I have snipped the next couple of paragraphs as they can be dismissed on the same basis.

The question is yours. Have you accepted the fact that on your own your destination is destruction?

Baseless assertion. This is no more a fact than the fact that on the other side of the sun is a ginat picture of an elephant. Without evidence in support of the postulate it is meaningless supposition.

Why can't we just respect what someone else thinks/believes etc.? Many wars started just because one group wanted to force their opinion on another group.

If it were possible to live my life in such a way that the baseless beliefs of the religious did not impact my life I would wish them well and let them get on with believing whatever it is they want. Unfortunately religious belief, and in particular creationist belief, impacts on my life in that the actions of those who believe it are influenced by their beliefs. They influence the teaching in schools, they influence the research in science that can lead to cures for horrible diseases, they influence the decisions that politicians take every day.

I am perfectly content for someone to disagree with my position on any issue, but I am not content for someone to base a belief on nothing but a baseless assertion and to have that belief influence their actions, actions which subsequently impact upon my life. I wish for everyone to base their beliefs on evidence.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? In all of high school, and six years of college (Kettering University which is 80% engineering majors and graduates more mechanical engineers than any other school in the country, at least as of 2003 or so) never heard anyone (student, teacher, professor) who whole-heartedly believed evolution. This includes physicists, chemists, engineers, mathemeticians, etc... The general concensus was something along the lines of "it's the currently accepted theory, but it still has a lot of holes with no real explination". And I just graduated in December 2008, so this is relatively recent, not from the 50's or anything.

I'm sorry, a number of people with expertise in fields that have nothing to do with biology think a theory has holes in it? And this has merit how? Maybe go ask the biology undergrads of any University, see what you come up with. Talk about a stupid sample to take.


#41

It is my opinion, that the complexity of nature and humanity indicates there is a designer.

Couple of points. Firstly, the designer (if an entity) would have to be more complex than the thing being designed. Unless you propose that this designer also had a designer (and end up with infinite regression) you have a problem.

Secondly, decent with modification and natural selection is a process that is capable of giving rise to immensely complex things. We have a well understood process that can account for the diversity and complexity of life. Why posit anything more?

As to talking snakes and the garden of Eden, I wasn't there and can not give first hand knowledge of what did or didn't happen or exist, I can only speak to what I believe.

No, you can look to where the evidence lies. In light of the fact that all evidence suggests that snakes cannot talk the only rational course is to suggest that no talking snakes ever lived unless presented with evidence to the contrary, evidence that stands up to robust scrutiny. Since none is forthcoming we can dismiss it.

As to a talking snake, it sounds about as believable as something that has a chemical makeup of about 65% oxygen being able to talk.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!.

We have 6 billion people walking around on the planet talking. We have an explanation as to why they can talk, and we can trace the evolution of language through millenia.

We also have snakes that can't talk, though they can make a noise (hiss). It is certainly feasible that a snake can learn a language (not a human language), but to posit that a snake actually spoke to a human within the last 6000 years is an absurdity. Reality check required.


#45

Respectfully, what can you actually show and prove? Even the scientists have not reached a concensus and none of us were there to report back with first hand knowledge. Many of yesterdays scientific facts have been proven wrong.

A blatant misunderstanding of the scientific method and scientific enquiry. Science is about showing that things are in error, not that they are correct. You can never prove anything to be correct, but you can follow the evidence to form conclusions.

Scientists have not reached a consensus? On what, precisely?

I cannot prove creationism, but no one has disproven it either.

As discussed, proof is not in the realm of science. There are mountains of evidence, from multiple scientific disciplines including, but not limited to geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology and cosmology that all say a creation event 6000 years ago did not happen and indeed point to the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago and the formation of the observable Universe 14 billion years ago. To deny this is to show that you prefer supposition to evidence.