Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

I mean, you can't possibly talk about science and not understand what "scientific theory" means.

BINGO!

Sorry, but this is priceless.......

Unless you start with the preconceived, completely manipulated meaning of a well known word, (theory) you cannot possibly swallow what comes after that definition.

Science has created a fake foundation and built a mansion on it; they have invited all their friends, but excluded anyone from the guest list who notices the huge cracks in those foundations, deriding them as ignorant fools. They tell them to shift their focus and admire the architecture of the building, calling attention to how nature selected the color scheme and decorations....not to mention the complex interactive systems that just designed themselves.

The foundation is someone else's problem.....

Oh please.....

 

[Darkstorn]

BINGO!

Sorry, but this is priceless.......

Unless you start with the preconceived, completely manipulated meaning of a well known word, (theory) you cannot possibly swallow what comes after that definition.

All words are designed(manipulated,) therefore they are thought out first(preconceived,) and then their definitions accepted. Like all terms, "scientific theory" is a constructed, compound word. I mean, no one's arguing that language is just accidental...

I guess next time you'll tell us that "biology" is a preconceived, completely manipulated meaning of a well known word (bios.)

But yeah you got the gist of it. Unless you understand the terminology you're arguing with, you cannot possibly use said language to make a very effective point... " "

Science has created a fake foundation and built a mansion on it; they have invited all their friends, but excluded anyone from the guest list who notices the huge cracks in those foundations, deriding them as ignorant fools. They tell them to shift their focus and admire the architecture of the building, calling attention to how nature selected the color scheme and decorations....not to mention the complex interactive systems that just designed themselves.

The foundation is someone else's problem.....

Oh please.....

This sounds just like empty rhetoric, and its point can be essentially gained by reading just the first sentence(in case you feel like accusing me of only reading that part, no, i did read the rest too.) You make the claim that "Science has created a fake foundation and built a mansion on it." That is your claim.

You haven't shown that claim to be true. You haven't proven it.

That's all.

/E: I think Deeje might have ignored me, yet she's quoting my posts and presenting an argument... I guess that's one way to do it: Ignore first, then argue the points.

/E2: Might as well add this for posterity's sake: I am not exactly fond of you quoting me without using my name there. I'll also use this opportunity to simplify my post: You are effectively trying to make the claim that some parts of language might be constructed, on purpose. I agree.

 

[Deeje]

/E: I think Deeje might have ignored me, yet she's quoting my posts and presenting an argument... I guess that's one way to do it: Ignore first, then argue the points.

Awww, don't get excited

....you just said something I couldn't pass up....
...and thank you so much for that brilliant admission BTW. It was classic.

I didn't say I was going to ignore you.....I just said I wasn't going to respond to your negativity because I already have enough of those sort of posts to deal with. So, unless you have any more of those delightful 'gems' to share with us.....I don't see the need to respond to any more negative comments than what I already have. OK? Don't take it personally. As far as I am concerned, you are just another face in an angry mob on this forum.

Why are evolutionists such a cranky mob?

Personally, I think y'all need to lighten up.

 

[Darkstorn]

Awww, don't get excited

....you just said something I couldn't pass up....

But you could pass up on answering to the points i made except the one where i say i think you might have ignored me.

...and thank you so much for that brilliant admission BTW. It was classic.

Admission of what exactly?

I didn't say I was going to ignore you.....I just said I wasn't going to respond to your negativity because I already have enough of those sort of posts to deal with.

So, in English: You are only going to respond to the points you think you are capable of responding. I already understood that from your ignorance of my post previous to that: You only focused on the part where i predicted you were going to ignore the rest; And so you did.

So, unless you have any more of those delightful 'gems' to share with us.....I don't see the need to respond to any more negative comments than what I already have. OK? Don't take it personally. As far as I am concerned, you are just another face in an angry mob on this forum.

You keep accusing me of negativity, yet all this post seems to be is trying to ridicule me, without actually answering to any of the points i made.

Why are evolutionists such a cranky mob?

Personally, I think y'all need to lighten up.

Why are you? You didn't answer to any of the points except the one where i say you might have ignored me already... You just posted this drivel.

Also, what is it with you spamming smileys ALL the time?

/E: I'm sorry for making a hasty guess about you ignoring me, but you did say "bye" and quoted me without attributing it to me. Nevertheless:

I don't think i've been as negative as you accuse me of. Furthermore, i'm no longer actually expecting to get proper answers from you to my posts, just like i told you on the post you previously ignored like this. Right now it's just enough for me to have this: You posting something, and me getting a reply out. I'm not posting them so i could get your judgement on how i debate with you. Instead, i post so that there is a retort to your claims. Others can then judge our respective performances.

But i'll give you a hint: You actually answering to the points i make in your "retorts" would be more effective than this attempted distraction at convincing people of your superior debating skills.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do you have that is not a suggestion based on another equally unfounded suggestion? What do you have apart from diagrams and charts insinuating what "might have" or "could have" happened all those eons ago?

We have a scientific theory that unifies a mountain of evidence from multiple areas of science, that provides an explanatory mechanism to account for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, that makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct that have never been violated by any finding, and has applications in technology that have improved the human condition.

This doesn't prove the theory correct. Nothing can do that ever. But it exactly what we would expect from a correct idea.

What do you have to offer to replace that? You have claims of a supernatural entity that is nowhere to be found, a hypothesis about creation that explains nothing and has no mechanism, that makes no predictions, that cannot account for the appearance of new species over the last several hundred million years or their stratification in layers, and has zero usefulness.

This is exactly what we would expect from any wrong idea.

Why would we throw out our scientific theory and adopt creationism?

That's a rhetorical question, incidentaly. It needs no answer. It is actually a declarative statement dressed as a question. It's telling you that whereas evolutionary theory has borne fruit, creationism has been a sterile idea for millennia. Telling us what you don't like about the theory is pretty pointless if you have nothing to offer that works better.

Those who leave our ranks have already been discussed. It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other ....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go.

It would clearly be socially devastating for you to leave your flock or probably even to just to reject its creationist dogma. From your words, it appears that you would be considered a defector spreading poison and be ostracized.

It would also be psychologically traumatic. A radical rebuilding of your worldview would pull the floor out from under you even if your people didn't reject you.

You have no incentive to do either. You are comfortable where you are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What makes you think that "95% of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences" has to be correct if they have all swallowed the same empty rhetoric based on the assumptions of their peers, rather than anything provable?

What makes us think that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are correct and not their critics with a religious agenda to attack evolutionary theory any way they can? How about that their idea works and the idea that their critics offer as an alternative is useless.

That matters to reason and evidence based thinkers. That's what such people use to determine what is true about the world.

Such things don't matter to the faith based thinker, who didn't get to his present position using reason and evidence, and cannot be budged from it by them. Such a person is apparently more than happy to go on believing by faith that the useless idea is preferable.

Dawkins' is a classic example...his first port of call is derision and ridicule when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him

That is incorrect. Dawkins' criticism is reserved for bad ideas and bad ways of thinking, especially when they damage people.

Most antitheists target abstractions like systems of ideas and the methods instituted to promulgate them, not the adherents affected by them, who are seen as damaged by these.

As for ridiculing destructive ideas, ridicule is an effective and appropriate method to include in one's arsenal:

• "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss
  
  
• "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - PatCondell

• "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon

 

[Polymath257]

You think God will give you more "evidence" than what is right under your nose? You think he needs to provide 'special' evidence to convince you personally? He will not do more than he already has. Millions believe based solely on existing evidence......you don't believe it, so what more is there to say? You can never say you weren't told.

If this is the best evidence available, then lack of belief is the most reasonable position.

Actual evidence would be clear, specific, and unambiguous.

So, for example, actual evidence for a creator of the universe could consist of a message coded in the cosmic background radiation that gives the Bible in the original languages.

Now *that* would be evidence that the Bible is the word of a creator god.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I just said I wasn't going to respond to your negativity because I already have enough of those sort of posts to deal with. So, unless you have any more of those delightful 'gems' to share with us.....I don't see the need to respond to any more negative comments than what I already have. OK? Don't take it personally. As far as I am concerned, you are just another face in an angry mob on this forum.

Why are evolutionists such a cranky mob? Personally, I think y'all need to lighten up.

What anger? Criticism of your beliefs and your way of thinking? How are your own comments any different in tone or content?

If you want to come to the marketplace of ideas and promote your beliefs, you should expect some contradiction

 

[Jose Fly]

Unless you start with the preconceived, completely manipulated meaning of a well known word, (theory) you cannot possibly swallow what comes after that definition.

Now Deeje thinks the English language is conspiring against her. The people who oversee Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, Random House, and all the other dictionaries are in on the whole thing (and have been for over a century).

Just how big is this conspiracy?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Apparently the Creator thought we were a bit special because only after the creation of man 'in the image of his God' did our Maker declare that "everything was very good".

Was that before or after He drowned almost all life?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I cannot produce any hard evidence for my Creator

Then your claim can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Deeje]

We have a scientific theory that unifies a mountain of evidence from multiple areas of science, that provides an explanatory mechanism to account for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, that makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct that have never been violated by any finding, and has applications in technology that have improved the human condition.

This doesn't prove the theory correct. Nothing can do that ever. But it exactly what we would expect from a correct idea.

Ah, so its OK for science to make "predictions" based on what it "believes" but not for supporters of the Bible's account of how life came to be so diverse on this planet to put forward their beliefs? I see......prognostication is a scientific approach then?

What do you have to offer to replace that? You have claims of a supernatural entity that is nowhere to be found, a hypothesis about creation that explains nothing and has no mechanism, that makes no predictions, that cannot account for the appearance of new species over the last several hundred million years or their stratification in layers, and has zero usefulness.

This is exactly what we would expect from any wrong idea.

This is probably because you might have the wrong idea about the whole idea in the first place.

When you begin with a wrong premise, nothing you build on it will hold water.

Did amoebas become dinosaurs? Did dinosaurs become chickens? Are we all related to bananas? Who has the sillier scenario?

Why would we throw out our scientific theory and adopt creationism?

Well, you see, this is the whole point of the argument......no one is made to "believe" what they don't "want" to believe.
Its what divides people and places them in a "box" or category, so to speak. The Bible speaks of only two "boxes".

It indicates that God leaves us to make our own decisions based on what we "want" to believe. If you are sure in your own heart that there is no Creator, with no purpose for our existence, then you are absolutely free to believe that. The Creator forces himself on no one. Belief is what comes from the heart, so if your heart is leading you in one direction, whilst my heart is leading me in another, then so be it. If you expect nothing more than this life, you will not be disappointed. My heart tells me there is so much more to life than what we have experienced in any age on this planet. There is a reason why we humans collectively feel that this life is NOT what we expect it to be. Why is there this collective expectation that life in paradise is an ideal? Did we evolve it? I don't think so....I believe it is programmed into our DNA.

That's a rhetorical question, incidentaly. It needs no answer. It is actually a declarative statement dressed as a question.

Actually its only rhetorical if you don't want a response. You have declared your position and it is duly noted....you are exercising your free will.....and so am I. This is granted to all.

It would clearly be socially devastating for you to leave your flock or probably even to just to reject its creationist dogma. From your words, it appears that you would be considered a defector spreading poison and be ostracized.

I just love it when you guys resort to these tactics.....it just shows how empty your arsenal really is.

Emotional blackmail from you now?

......attempts to imply that I am some poor pathetic, ignorant soul held prisoner by my beliefs?.....I chose my path of my own free will, just as you all have. No one and nothing would keep me mentally and spiritually, somewhere I didn't want to be.....just as would be the case with you I suspect?

If you had the actual proof that science demands for so many other branches in its fields of research, you would never have to pull this card, but since there are a few of you doing this....I can see that it must be a last resort....a poor substitute for proof that your theory even gets off ground level. Personal slights have no place in this discussion, regardless of what you have been led to believe about my brotherhood.

 

[Polymath257]

Did amoebas become dinosaurs? Did dinosaurs become chickens? Are we all related to bananas? Who has the sillier scenario?

And what would be sillier than that the amoeba and the chickens have very similar biochemistry? And that much of that biochemistry is shared with the banana?

 

[Deeje]

That is incorrect. Dawkins' criticism is reserved for bad ideas and bad ways of thinking, especially when they damage people.

Dawkins uses ridicule and derision as weapons to tear down opposers. Its a pathetic excuse for cold hard evidence.
And as for 'damaging people'....I couldn't agree more. If your beliefs 'damage' you then they are the wrong beliefs.
If your beliefs allow you to harm another human being out of hate, then you have the wrong beliefs (religious or otherwise.)

From our perspective, the 'damage' done by eliminating the Creator from the consciousness of others, places them in mortal danger. How much damage are we talking about here? If you disseminate false information resulting in the death of others, are you not accountable?

Most antitheists target abstractions like systems of ideas and the methods instituted to promulgate them, not the adherents affected by them, who are seen as damaged by these.

As for ridiculing destructive ideas, ridicule is an effective and appropriate method to include in one's arsenal:

• "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss
  
  
• "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - PatCondell

• "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." - anon

Speaking of ridicule......

Proverbs 1:22-23
“How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience?
How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule?
And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?
23 Respond to my reproof.
Then I will pour out my spirit for you;
I will make my words known to you." - Solomon.

2 Peter 3:3-7
"First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”
5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people."- The Apostle Peter

Was that before or after He drowned almost all life?

You seem to forget that the Creator has absolute authority over life and death. He can give life and he can restore life if he chooses to. We can't. If you have no understanding about why the flood was necessary, then do some research. It was a brilliant tactical response to an ugly situation that was sending the human race prematurely into complete lawlessness. The flood brought everything back on track, just as it was intended to do, leaving us a pattern of things to come. (2 Peter 2:5-6; Matthew 24:37-39)

 

[Deeje]

Just how big is this conspiracy?

A lot bigger than you think. (1 John 5:19)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science knows that "all life comes from pre-existing life"

You must be confusing science with faith. Scientists are looking for the pathway that led to life self-assembling from non-living ingredients.

Ah, so its OK for science to make "predictions" based on what it "believes" but not for supporters of the Bible's account of how life came to be so diverse on this planet to put forward their beliefs?

Predict away. Let's see if you get anything right.

When you begin with a wrong premise, nothing you build on it will hold water.

Exactly. Every comment the believer makes that assumes the existence of a god is meaningless to an unbeliever.

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑

Why would we throw out our scientific theory and adopt creationism?

Well, you see, this is the whole point of the argument......no one is made to "believe" what they don't "want" to believe. Its what divides people and places them in a "box" or category, so to speak. The Bible speaks of only two "boxes". It indicates that God leaves us to make our own decisions based on what we "want" to believe. If you are sure in your own heart that there is no Creator, with no purpose for our existence, then you are absolutely free to believe that. The Creator forces himself on no one. Belief is what comes from the heart, so if your heart is leading you in one direction, whilst my heart is leading me in another, then so be it. If you expect nothing more than this life, you will not be disappointed. My heart tells me there is so much more to life than what we have experienced in any age on this planet. There is a reason why we humans collectively feel that this life is NOT what we expect it to be. Why is there this collective expectation that life in paradise is an ideal? Did we evolve it? I don't think so....I believe it is programmed into our DNA.

So no answer then?

I agree. There is no reason to turn from evolutionary theory to creationism. As your evasion of the question asked implies, you have no good reason to offer for doing that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From our perspective, the 'damage' done by eliminating the Creator from the consciousness of others, places them in mortal danger. How much damage are we talking about here? If you disseminate false information resulting in the death of others, are you not accountable?

Here you are assuming the existence of your god again in a discussion with an unbeliever. It's a nonstarter.

 

[Sapiens]

BINGO!

Sorry, but this is priceless.......

Unless you start with the preconceived, completely manipulated meaning of a well known word, (theory) you cannot possibly swallow what comes after that definition.

Science has created a fake foundation and built a mansion on it; they have invited all their friends, but excluded anyone from the guest list who notices the huge cracks in those foundations, deriding them as ignorant fools. They tell them to shift their focus and admire the architecture of the building, calling attention to how nature selected the color scheme and decorations....not to mention the complex interactive systems that just designed themselves.

The foundation is someone else's problem.....

Oh please.....

There is a bit of problem with your conjecture, you see ... the scientific meaning of use of the word "theory" goes back to the 17th Century while the misapplied definition that you insist on did not arrive until the 18th century.

If you trace the word back through Middle French théorie, to the Late Latin theōria, back to the Ancient Greek θεωρία ‎(theōría, “contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at”), and earlier θεωρέω ‎(theōréō, “I look at, view, consider, examine”), originally θεωρός ‎(theōrós, “spectator”), from θέα ‎(théa, “a view”) + ὁράω ‎(horáō, “I see,look”). But one may hardly expect a barbarian (βάρβαρος, bárbaros, '"non-Greek speaking, also foreign or strange”) like yourself to know this.

Let us not forget @icehorse 's sig line: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." - Confucius

 

[Deeje]

And what would be sillier than that the amoeba and the chickens have very similar biochemistry? And that much of that biochemistry is shared with the banana?

Do you hear yourself?

If there is an all powerful Creator who can manipulate energy to create matter and then to form all life from the same basic raw materials, what would we expect to see? To me that is like the potter making a variety of vessels for different uses out of the same clay. The only thing that connects one vessel to another is the Potter himself.

I am sure that the bananas would be quite delighted to learn that you scientists put them on a par with humans.

Does that make us cannibals?

 

[Deeje]

You keep accusing me of negativity, yet all this post seems to be is trying to ridicule me, without actually answering to any of the points i made.

If you go back to your first responses to me.....all I detected was hostility. Nothing new, just more of the same stuff that has already been rehashed to death. I have no desire to respond to more bad attitudes on this thread than I am already dealing with.
It wasn't personal, just overkill....ya know.

Why are you? You didn't answer to any of the points except the one where i say you might have ignored me already... You just posted this drivel.

No negativity huh? If all I post is drivel, then why bother commenting as if these points haven't already been covered ad nauseum?

Also, what is it with you spamming smileys ALL the time?

My smileys are my body language. They add emotions that words can't. They lighten things up. I love them.
I know they annoy the heck out of some people.....they'll just have to get over it.

/E: I'm sorry for making a hasty guess about you ignoring me, but you did say "bye" and quoted me without attributing it to me.

Sorry that you take things way too personally. No one with delicate sensitivities should be posting on these forums.
I address things as they take my fancy or as I see a need to respond. Again...it isn't personal.

I don't think i've been as negative as you accuse me of. Furthermore, i'm no longer actually expecting to get proper answers from you to my posts, just like i told you on the post you previously ignored like this. Right now it's just enough for me to have this: You posting something, and me getting a reply out. I'm not posting them so i could get your judgement on how i debate with you. Instead, i post so that there is a retort to your claims. Others can then judge our respective performances.

Do you view the conversations and debates this forum as a contest then? I see it as a place to voice an opinion. If it gets personal, then it all just melts down to egos and bad attitudes, neither of which accomplishes much at all IMO.

But i'll give you a hint: You actually answering to the points i make in your "retorts" would be more effective than this attempted distraction at convincing people of your superior debating skills.

Is that what you think I am doing? I thought I was simply giving my side of this issue in as plain a language as possible.

I just call 'em as I see 'em. The readers here can make up their own minds.