WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

Every time I come to this thread I have a million posts to reply to. Sucks to be the only person on one side of the debate!

 

So the people that are a part of a religion are guilty by association of the crimes committed by people that came hundreds or thousands of years before them? Really? Now that is an ignorant statement.

 

Want a hand? Can easily swap over; not that I've been hugely active in the discussion for the last twenty or so pages...

 

That's not what I said at all. I did not say that people of religion are guilty by association. I said that religion does not take kindly to people who do not agree with it. If you disagree with me that is fine, but do try and actually disagree with what I have said. What you've done is imagined I said something different and that has upset you, in effect you've blamed me for a fabrication that you yourself made up.

Plus I'm sorry but hundreds or thousands of years? These are things that are happening today and have happened for thousands of years.

 

Depending on how you're looking at it, yes and no.

You believe it can't, I believe it can. I have heard stories of women who have become lesbians as a result of being sexually molested. I do know there are cases where someone is born homosexual but I would have to go on the explain that using spiritual stuff, venturing into the realm that science and psychology does not acknowledge so that arguement wouldn't benifit either of us.

Once again you believe it is natural, I view it as a way of thinking, there isn't anything that is so called "neurologically wired" that can't be changed. This book explains it much better than I ever could.

And I agree Paedophilia is a psychopathology. My point is homosexuality is a sexual orientation (attraction the the same sex) and so is paedophilia as sick and perverted as it may be, simply put it is an attraction to children. Therefore why is it accepted one can be changed but the other cannot. But homosexuality isn't seen as a problem hence it's not acceptable to try and change it so no one does.

Anyways Nexxo what I'm more interested in is your thoughts on macro evolution.

How exactly does it work? Actually Just start from the beginning where inorganic material becomes organic to start the process of evolution. Reply in a separate post preferably.

 

Nexxo has dealt with everything regarding homosexuality and paedophilia, so I will have a bite at this little snippet.

What you're describing is not evolution - you're describing abiogenesis, and that's a whole other field of study. Linked to evolution - certainly - but evolution only takes over after life has started. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment as a nice starting point.

 

What an odious and disgusting thing to say. You're equating a consensual, loving relationship between two people with paedophilia. I really have no words.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. That has nothing to do with the origin of life which is what your question pertains to. What you are referring to is Abiogenesis.

*Ninja's by Journeyer*

 

Careful with that statement. Similar things have been said before and quickly reminded that there has been plenty of anti-religious torture, murder, rape and mutilation in the past, much of it quite recently as well such as seen in some communist countries.

Your idea that you're part of some group that only gets frustrated is your own definition. Apply your own idea of classifying others to yourself: suddenly you're in the same group as those who sent religious people to work camps where they'd meet certain death. Now apply your idea of classifying yourself to others: suddenly your typical religious person is part of a group that is peaceful and gets only frustrated with those who don't believe and consider themselves detatched from those who committed violent acts in the past.

 

I'm not looking to get into a discussion about what groups do what. I would say though that people (both religious and non-religious) do horrible things to one another. I will also leave this comic here from the oatmeal http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism

Also my original post wasn't really meant in a particularly serious way, hence the sideways looking face. I don't think that it's a particularly good debate to have and I should've resisted posting it, I have been reading Hitchens though recently which probably explains it

 

Sorry to dump this in the middle of what seems to be a different debate, but I wanted to answer to a handful of challenges (and set the record straight regarding what I think and what I'm arguing for).

We're getting caught up with semantics again. Most scientists won't make a distinction between micro and macro evolution, but there is still a difference empirically speaking. For further clarification (and to get away from the nitpicking about scientific terms), I'm stating simply that the evolution of humans is not an established scientific fact.

To say that "God may have" is not the same as saying "God must have," so your inference is wrong. I am well aware that arguing from ignorance is fallacious, which is why I'm not doing it (and never will); I have only said that science simply cannot comment on whether or not God was involved or required in evolution, which of course entails that he "may" have been. This statement was not deliberate pedantry but was in direct response to the empty claim by Threefiguremini that "science shows that there is no need for God." The correct position is that science can't say either way because whether God is needed or not is not a scientific matter. As you said yourself, "Science, on the other hand, simply doesn't go there at all." I'm increasingly surprised why you say things like this in response to me when I'm maintaining this all along and defending that position from the atheist onslaught which maintains that science has "done away" with the need for God!

Like I said before, you'll have to read the book I quoted from earlier. A philosophical argument for God isn't something that you can just write down in a paragraph; but anyway, I was arguing that belief in God is both logical and reasonable, and even though I think I have demonstrated it, everybody else in the thread (all staunch atheists) tells me I "haven't demonstrated it" which must mean that they are right. Go figure.

You are of the opinion that theist beliefs are illogical, which again is fine - you (and many esteemed scientists with you) choose to dismiss all abstruse philosophy, metaphysics, which (to me) appears to be an argument from ignorance. "I cannot verify it, therefore it is illogical" is a nonsequitur. You are free to dispense with the speculative side of philosophy if you so choose, but that does not deem it a priori illogical.

I quoted above what you said, and duly debunked it (with Nexxo's words, no less). And while we're at it, when you misquote me saying "I agree with evolution" you're not necessarily mincing my words; I haven't once said that I disagree with it... all I've said is that human evolution is not scientific fact, but that's not to say I reject the theory altogether.

 

I hate to say it; but we've already covered most of these current asides already.

Homosexuality came up around post 300

Origins of life at about post 400

And religious violence came up in the region of post 375

Check out what was said and if you've got anything new then feel free to carry on; but it feels like we're about to go into a topic rehash all over again.


***Ninja post by Lenny... well... just a very slow post by me

 

No you didn't quote me. I can't believe that I'm doing this but I will attempt a third time to make my point.

Ok, here we go... are you ready? The. Theory. Of. Evolution. Does. Not. Require. A. God. That is what I have now said three times.

Somehow you saw that and read "There is no need for a God ."

Do you see how those two statements do not mean the same thing? Further the 'quote' that upset you bears no relation to what I said.

I did not make any claim that science has proven that God does not exist. I personally see no reason to believe in a God but that is a personal decision.

 

What is the difference between micro and macro evolution? Aside from an element of scale?

I disagree. If we're talking in terms of scientific fact then I think the theory of evolution, which includes the evolution of humans, is established as fact. It is a fact in the sense that we have and can observe evolution taking place. It is also a fact in the sense that the amount of evidence, i.e. testing and observations, it has in favour of it means there is no longer a good reason to keep testing and observing. The level of evidence is sufficiently high that the scientific community no longer questions the validity of the theory of evolution and simply acts as if it were true.

If science is able to provide explanations for the world we see around us that do not require the invocation of God or any other supernatural entity then how is that not science showing us that God is not required? In the case of evolution we have a theory that has been thoroughly tested and explains how we've gone from the earliest forms of life to the many various species we see around us today without the need for the intervention of any supernatural entity. Now this isn't to say that a supernatural entity didn't become involved at some point but it does show that any such intervention isn't required for evolution to occur. The claim that the correct position is that science can't say either way on the question of whether God is required doesn't hold up imo. If we can find scientific explanations that do not require God then science can say there is no requirement for God. That however isn't a position of whether or not God may have been involved, merely one on the requirement for God to be involved.

 

The entrenched Ideology and refusal of the secular humanist in this thread, to even at minimum entertain other ideas, is disheartening at best in my viewpoint. No point in continuing on. closed minds.

What he said, up there.


Good Luck Lenny, I have been inspired by your willingness and ability to attempt a debate, single handedly against so many. Rock on dude.

 

You should read this

Historically, in every area God's influence was inferred, science has proven the religious hypotheses incorrect, hence "There is no need for God". The one place science hasn't banished God from is before the Big Bang (if there even was one), and that's simply because we can't currently make observations. However, there is absolutely no reason to think that the historical trend will be broken, if and when, we can make observations.

Give me the Synopsis. Main points only.

It is illogical to devise a hypothesis without a means, or concurrently devising a means by which to test the hypothesis. Unless you can make it useful, it's just time-wasting. It's mental masturbation.

 

I think he may have been referring to the Kalām cosmological argument or rather a book that William Lane Craig wrote about it.

 

Is the evolution of dogs an established scientific fact?

 

Science doesn't show us "all that is required;" all science can show us is what it can test and empirically verify: the physical world. Granted, people in this thread wish to undermine the value of philosophy and metaphysics in particular, but to insist that "only what science can verify is required" is pitifully shortsighted.

That, in a nutshell, is why I think why IDS-IPS hit the nail on the head: science is a wonderful thing but it simply cannot account for or test everything that is, thus to hold the position that "non-scientific = non-sense" is an impasse in itself.

 

I agree that philosophy isn't valued enough any more, I don't know enough about it to debate hence why I dropped out of the debate pretty early on. I believe in Science. I can see the evidence for basic scientific principles everyday and that gives my belief validation. Could I give you a full and in depth explanation? No I have a basic understanding and I have faith in science as a peer reviewed and tested field.

Science doesn't make the world fun, it makes it cool and interesting. Philosophy makes debate fun

Just to be clear, I may look like Jesus but I don't believe in God.

 

No, science says it can't. Of course there are instances where homosexuality is the consequence of sexual abuse trauma, but the vast majority of homosexual people come from well-adjusted homes. Moreover the prevalence of homosexuality is the same in all cultures, whether tolerant of it or hostile towards it.

I'm sure that you can explain homosexuality in other frameworks, but that does not make the explanation true.

No, science says it is natural (you really have to stop thinking that I make things up as I go along). Homosexuality has been observed in 4500 vertebrate species and studied in about 2500, and it has in many cases been found to convey survival advantages for the species.

The authors of the book you link are a speech therapist and an illustrator. I am a clinical psychologist with a background in mental health and in neuropsychology. Link me some books by hard-core neuro-scientists specialising in sexual and gender behaviour and we'll talk.

Because science proves that homosexuality is wired and cannot be changed, while paedophilia is a psychopathology that can be changed.

And homosexuality, like heterosexuality, concerns the personal intimate behaviour between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, so frankly is none of our business. Paedophilia concerns the personal intimate behaviour between two parties of which one is more vulnerable, less powerful and cannot give valid or informed consent, so that is a problem.

Sorry, no. Every time I get asked this I write a three-page essay on non-linear, logarithmic and exponential dynamics, Critical Dependence on Initial Conditions, chaos theory, probability and chance, reiteration, emergence, molecular biology, how genes and proteins interact to carry hereditary traits, how the environment impacts on that, how natural selective forces work, etc. only to get the same challenges over and over because the other party doesn't understand these concepts and really doesn't want to (a bit like above). If you really wanted to know, you'd already be familiar with at least some of these concepts from reading books on the subject. Do your own homework.

Just consider this: thousands of scientists much, much brighter and more knowledgeable about these topics than you or I ever can hope to be consider evolution a proven scientific fact. Feel free to disagree with them, though, because it doesn't stroke with your personal gut feeling about things.