FaithlessThinker
New Member
A while ago I had watched Richard Dawkins having sort of a casual conversation with a hard-bent creationist theist lady. He displays such amazing patience, that I can't even imagine myself having. If I was in Dawkin's place, I would have strangled her to death for being so stupid!
Anyway recently I posted this on my Facebook profile, and this person on my friends list started conversing, then debating me on something very related to ID. Here's what I posted:
Anyway recently I posted this on my Facebook profile, and this person on my friends list started conversing, then debating me on something very related to ID. Here's what I posted:
Here's our conversation and debate (The Stupid... it BURNS!):You can't prove "There is no god" (but that doesn't mean there is one... or a billion of them).
James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative
James Randi lecture excerpt from a 2 hour lecture at Caltech in 1992. James Randi explains why you can not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the pe...
PS to Admin: Showmore tags don't work. Is it related to Firefox 5? I'm not sure.Her: There are some studies that some scientist are using to prove the existence of god..one of them is on the way a sperm flagellum rotates like a roder on a boat engine and how there was no reason that would have ever evolved the way it did. I think its pretty interesting.
Me: The flagellum argument has already been disproven by biological science a long time ago. The rotary nature of flagellum and its efficient motor system is in fact the result of evolutionary process and natural selection. And it's not a sperm flagellum but a bacterial flagellum.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
Anyway, even if this was shown to be a designed product, it doesn't tell anything about who or what the designer is. It only points out that there is a designer. It could very well be aliens from another planet, or advanced sentient computer systems from the future, and not necessarily a god.
Her:
Well everything can be interpreted differently depending on who is looking at the evidence, I dont Necessarily believe in a creator though either...just saying it was interesting, I dont know about it being proven or disproven, just saying its an interesting fact...what is your issue with god and the concept of god anyway? You seem more angry about the idea of god then anything else...for some people god is a helpful force in understanding life, and it accually makes some people become better people.
Me:
I didn't expect you to take the Ad Hominem route. Let me be clear, nowhere did I mention that I have an issue with god, or that I am angry about the idea of god. Besides, my feelings have no bearing on the god hypothesis anyway, as I will show you in a minute.
Scientific evidence speaks for itself and does not depend on how people interpret it. If we depended on people's interpretation of science to understand it, we'd be doomed because people can interpret it to confirm their own preconceived notions and personal biases. Science does not work that way.
In the case of the flagellum, you seem to be rejecting the clear evidence that bacterial flagellum has in fact evolved with your "well everyone can interpret the evidence differently" argument because you already have the preconceived notion that the flagellum was purposely designed to be a motor. With this notion, you become biased, being unreceptive to data that runs counter to your views.
This is very much in same way that creationists reject the huge evidence of fossil records and DNA that show how living things have evolved over time. These fossil records and DNA evidence are rejected by them because they have a personal agenda to believe that the earth is merely 6 thousand years old, and that humans and animals were created, and therefore cannot accept as valid any evidence that falsifies this notion.
One of the first things scientists remove from their studies and experiments is personal bias. They do not let their own personal beliefs cloud their judgement and interpretation of evidence and data that is collected. In fact, this is the cornerstone, of doing science. Representing the true nature of universe, not the whims and wishes of a human.
If you ask me what my issue is with god, I would tell you this: The concept of god in its various forms (religions) has caused much more suffering to humanity than it has done any good. But I do not have an issue with you finding comfort in believing in a god. All I say is there is no evidence for the existence of god, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs or your right to believe.
Her:
LOL, you know I was just pointing out why others believe what they do and I am sorry to tell you this but all data is bias because there is no way to be truly 100% unbias.., everyone sees things differantly, and there is no way to know one way or the other about god, there is no scientific evidence in either case, you really shouldnt take anything I say as a personal attack either though because its not. I dont have a storng belief one way or the other about god either, and trust me i believe in evolution to a certain point. honestly we know little to nothing about our earth let alone the universe, and all Ideas and consepts interest me....not that I believe all of them. as far as the sperm flagelum thing...I just cant say I really know what your talking about, I havent ever seen anything on the issue becides this one video...so I dont have a really deep understanding of the issue and I wont pretend to...I know probably a serface amount of stuff about it.
Her: It doesnt make me personally bias towards it creationism either...because to be frank I dont agree with it..I think it rejects alot of findings that we have found over the centuries...agian, its not a debate because I dont have any strong beliefs..just wanted to point out some interesting facts that I had seen...
Me:
Yes, and I'm pointing out that the "no-reason-it-would-have-ever-evolved-that-way fact" about bacterial flagellum that you find interesting is not a fact, since it has been disproven by biologists clearly showing simpler versions of it serving a different purpose. I have seen more than that video on the subject, And by pointing you to that video, I was hoping to ignite your curiosity to find more videos and articles to read up more about it and inform yourself.
"there is no way to know one way or the other about god, there is no scientific evidence in either case" > If you have watched the James Randi video I posted on the wall (on which we're making these comments), hopefully it will become clear to you than we can't prove a negative. "There is no god" is a negative. So there's absolutely no way that you can ever, ever find evidence in support of a "no-god". Simply because you can't prove a negative.
On the other hand, you can prove a positive ("There is a god") if you can find evidence for it. Problem is, no-one has ever found any evidence for god. And this complete lack of evidence leads atheists to reject the god hypothesis. Atheists don't reject god because they're angry at god, or they hate religion, or any such thing. They reject the concept of god because time and again, it has been shown that there's not only a complete lack of evidence in support of this hypothesis, but also the hypothesis itself has flaws in its various forms making it largely non-falsifiable.
Please note that while people are free to believe and find comfort in the concept of god, it doesn't lend any merit to the existence of god at all. If it did, it would be a lot like saying "Children around the world believe Santa Claus will bring them gifts on Christmas Eve. Therefore Santa Claus must exist." Do you see the fallacy here?
If you're willing to spare just a few hours, I would really suggest you to watch Discovering Religion series available at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=70E757541E8576D7 Skip to episode 05 if you wish.
I hope you understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. In short, a hypothesis is an idea or an explanation that a person (usually a scientist) creates in order to explain something that is not yet explain. Scientists then put this idea to test and (this is the most important part of science) attempt to falsify (disprove) it.
In science hypotheses have to be falsifiable to gain merit. When a falsifiable hypothesis holds true through many repeated experiments done by many independent scientists (this is how science eliminates bias) it gathers merit on the way to becoming a theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has gathered enough merit by being supported by experimental and scientific evidence as being true.
Her: You know...if I wanted to be treated like an idiot I would have talked to someone else, look, Im just saying there are lots of differant idea's and theories out there...and that some of them are wrong....you have your view, which is fine and I have mine.....so just leave it at that.
Her: I have taken plenty of science classes of my own I know how it work fyi, So dont talk to me like Im a child about it.
Me:
What makes you feel like I'm treating you like an idiot and talking to you like a child? All I'm doing is providing you information and knowledge which may or *may not* be new to you. If you were really keen on learning, you wouldn't say I'm treating you like an idiot and talking to you like you don't know anything.
You would instead be listening. If you already knew what I'm talking, you'll thank me for the revision. If you didn't know, you'll thank me for the new knowledge. That's how humble people who are willing to listen to others will react. Your I-know-it-all arrogance shows and I feel sorry for that.
And the fact that bacterial flagellum motor has evolved is not "my view" or "my idea". It's a scientifically established FACT. Not an opinion that we can argue about. Facts and opinions are different. This is what I want you to understand.
Me:
You're welcome to share your knowledge with me as well, giving me the chance to learn something new. But I consider it my duty as a fellow human to point out mistakes in your knowledge and provide a factually accurate correction to it. Sometimes the correction may not appeal to what you wish to be true, and as a learner you must be prepared for the shock.
Pluto was decommissioned from being a planet in 2006. Yet if you had asked me two years ago if Pluto is a planet, I would have said yes. Learning that it's no longer classified as a planet was a humbling experience for me. It made me realize that the science knowledge that I got from my junior college classroom is not all there is to learn. Learning is a life-long process, and anybody can be your teacher - even YouTube. As long as you can recognise what makes sense and what doesn't.
In response to the reclassification of Pluto, I didn't start campaigning against it along with those nutcracks who seem to have some kind of personal relationship with Pluto that they can't bear it being given a "lower" status. (How does it matter to Pluto, an ice rock in the outskirts of the solar system anyway?) Instead, I took the time to learn more and understand why it was reclassified. I found it to make sense, and majority of astronomers agree with this reclassification which is in accordance with the new guidelines defining planets as established in 2006.
The point I wish to note by talking about my Pluto experience is that you ought to be eager to learn from whoever the teacher maybe, and not be closed to new knowledge that maybe in opposition to the current knowledge and ideas you have.
Her:
Im not closed down to any information that you have to offer, Your not a biologist that works in braking down how sperm functions, so Im sorry to say but your view is possibly as skewed as mine is...I dont pretend to know anything, and I do find that information you have provided me fascinating...no where in any of my post had I said otherwise, Im not saying your wrong I am just saying that I think for myself and based on the information I have found on the situation I disagree which is my full right to. Regardless of what you feel is right or wrong is up to you..and proved your own insight on stuff... because god knows I do....but I think you could....and probably should state your opinion in a more productive way...if you were a professor of micro biology, then yea...I would accept your opinion on the sperm flagellum more as fact...but since your not...My opinion (which I never really gave in all of this remains the same) honestly...the whole thing is a matter of semantics...how you see something, is different from how I do...there should be no argument in that and I dont pretend to know more then I do. .....to be quite honest too...a couple of Junior collage classes...doesnt exactly make anyone an expert...and I include myself in that discription.
Me: //I would accept your opinion on the sperm flagellum more as fact...//
Really? "your opinion"? Go do your own research, you'll know it's a fact that the flagellum evolved. I don't say it as my opinion, I say it as fact because it is a fact. Just because I'm not a biologist, it doesn't mean the fact that I tell you suddenly becomes my opinion...
Her:
Well, if you were a Biologist, then it would be much easier for me to accept, because if the things you have read, and the information you have gotten on it has lead you to believe it as true...which makes it your opinion...what I have heard, watched, read, has lead me to a different conclusion....Its merely a differing opinions until there is a large group of biologist get together and make that decision by studding it with the scientific process.....which you couldnt do even if you wanted to because evolution itself is not able to be proven through the scientific method....so Evolution is merely a theory ...one I believe I might add. So...any "facts" you fond about eveolution...is pure theory...Look it up.
Her: I would like to just say we should agree to disagree...because I dont think this discussion is leading anywhere, all we are doing is irratating eachother.
Me:
//Evolution is merely a theory ...one I believe I might add. So...any "facts" you fond about eveolution...is pure theory//
This clearly shows you don't understand what a scientific theory means. I have taken time to explain what theory means in science, but you just shrugged it off saying I'm treating you like you don't know science. I think it's rightfully placed, you really don't know science! Evolution is a theory because it IS supported by enough scientific evidence AND proven with scientific method (to put it in your own words, even though saying "proven" is a misnomer). Theories in science are supported by evidence AND accepted by majority of scientists, if not all of them. It's not some idea that is not yet proven. HYPOTHESIS is an idea that's not yet proven. Please understand the difference.
Her:
You dont need to act so high and mighty, and if you look up evoultion they still call it a theory, because thats all it is...it cant be proven in a lab, with test...it is UNTESTABLE......because eveolution happens over many hundrads of thousands of years.....thats how it works...so you cant test it....therfore making it a theory, one that is backed by scienetifc findings, from the past...but still a theory none the less...you need to get off your high horse and stop acting like IM attacking you...which Im not.
Her: IF evolution was a fact...they wouldnt refer to it as a theory....
Me: Go read for yourself: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Quote: "Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true."
Her: But its not accepted by all as fact because its not a fact....a fact would be that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun...stuff that is proven by obersvation.
Me: Please go read that link I just pointed you to.
Her: You know...You complained to me that you lose friends over this discussion...maybe its because you come across as a self rightious know-it-all...and nobody likes someone who treats their friends like they are dumb....I disagree with you....why cant be the end of this discussion?
Her: Im sorry, but its still a called a theory...for a reason, by people who have studied this for the most of their lives. No matter how many scientist believe it as a fact...its still their belief...granted it is very founded belief...but its still a theory, not a fact
Me:
You're entitled to your opinions but *get your facts right*.
You want someone with paper qualifications to talk to you, right? Here's Ken Miller's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYjXq8jDsOw Kenneth Raymond Miller (born 1948) is a biology professor at Brown University.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. You don't even know what theory means yet you can claim "oh I have done enough science classes, you don't need to teach me science".
And I don't care if I lose "friends" over this discussion. They're not real friends if they don't care to listen.
Her: LOL, geee....someone is a little ticked off? I just dont want to be talked down to. and its not about not caring to listen. its about beeing badaged by someone and I do know what a theory is which I dont need to prove to you......
Her:
Not to mention, I never once said I know everything I need to know...Im just not willing to have someone treat me like IM a moron about an issue I do know a little bit about...and yea I would much rather hear information form a credible sorce...Wikapedia is not one of them, neither is about.com........I know how far my education lies...I think your the one who beliefs he is above his station in life..your not a biologist, your not a scientist...so get over yourself...I have tried very hard to be agreeable, but you want to push and treat me like I dont know anything? You really need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Her: Oh...youtube...is also not a cerdible sorce for information.
Her: fyi, Im not revistiting this conversation...Not even to read your reply.
Me: Ken Miller's lecture short video of 6 min 16 seconds. In this short time he explains why the irreducible complexity argument clearly fails in the case of the flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU These are lectures, and just because they're on youtube doesn't mean they're not credible. Go watch the videos first, then talk about credibility.
Me: At the very least, watch the last youtube link I posted.. It's a *credible* lecture by a biology professor of a university. You asked for someone with qualifications, right? I'm giving him to you. If you're going to push it away with "anything on youtube is not credible" argument, that's your call but it shows your true nature.
