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

You must have me confused with someone else, thehippoz.

As far as the research I was talking about goes that is not of me, that is not what I am all about. I do see the research as a problem yes, but that does not mean I would be absorbed by it spending hours on end thinking about it.

I don't.

 

Thehippoz, I think you have some ideas mixed up.

Now keep in mind this is coming from an atheist. Evolution does not disprove God. Cloning animals or people does not disprove God (or disprove the notion of a soul). Alien life, if found, would not disprove God.

The things and human experiences that you mention do not prove God either, but that's the thing about faith. It's faith, not science, and it's not supposed to be science. They're different things, fulfilling different human needs. They are complementary, but not the same ( (Intelligent Design is not just a fail in science, but also a fail in faith).

So don't worry yourself crazy about the scientific details. Ask what your heart tells you. If you believe in God, and that works for you; makes you a happier and better person who makes this world a slightly better place, then go for it.

 

It's OK. You had me worried there for a moment, but my bad for thinking ill of you.

 

Care to elaborate? All theists are (necessarily) proponents of ID theory... or are you talking about ID theory as opposed to human evolution? Are you saying that it is impossible for humans to have been created as the species that they are today? Those may sound like leading questions, but they are not; I genuinely want to hear your answers.

 

The proponents of intelligent design fail in the empirically verifiable, but there is another issue at hand-science isn't religion. Religion isn't science. While each may have elements of the other within them, they fulfill two different roles. ID is bad science, but it's faith attempting to answer a question of science. We aren't told the generative processes that created us because they are not the chief focus of the Bible. The Bible does not focus on how we got here but how we treat each other. When you pull science and faith so far out of context, you warp both.

When I see a sunset, or look out on my lake, I feel a sense of wonder and awe that God put the world together like this for us. When I think about how it got here, it doesn't lessen that sense of awe, it magnifies it. I think that's a cardinal issue here. People act as though evolution would somehow lessen God, would make Him not God. Why? If he chose evolution as the process to create us, it would be no less divine. But while we argue over this question, real people every day could use the help of the church in concrete matters-like feeding the hungry and housing the poor. When we fight over stuff like this, the real message of Christ is abrogated.

Christ's message has nothing to do with the origin of species. Any attempts to make it so are bad science and insulting to religion.

 

I think what you said is crucial - even if God did use evolution as the means by which humans were created, it would be no less divine. But again it comes back to interpretation of scripture; many of my friends will argue tooth and nail that human evolution is hogwash... fair enough, I say - it's really not important on one level, even if people want to be resolutely dogmatic about it.

I'm just curious why people claim that humans cannot have been created as they are today - such a claim cannot be made based on science; the claim is made based on faith... it would be reasonable to say that we evolved, however the claim that we cannot have been created as we are is an unprovable/unfalsifiable claim.

I know it's not really an important thing to discuss... I'm just curious what Nexxo's position is. No abrogation of Christ's message is intended.

 

There's nothing wrong with curiosity. Job wasn't wrong to demand a reason why from God-you just aren't always guaranteed an answer.

 

I think KayinBlack has already explained my view well. Apart from violating the principle of falsifiability in their research methodology, the fundamental flaw is that ID tries to find scientific proof for the existence of God. This implies that for them it is not a matter of faith, and it should be.

Whether or not humans could have been created as they are today is a moot question, because science has proved that they have evolved the way they are today (whereas ID has come up empty). On whether or not God created evolution science has no opinion because God is scientifically unverifiable.

In any case your creationist friends are unable to see the forest for the trees. How would they try to explain the Big Bang and evolution to a bunch of illiterate shepherds living in 1000 B.C. Mesopotamia? Seems to me that the story of Genesis is a good allegory.

 

No worries Nexxo it's all good, thanks

 

This is what I wanted, succinct and clear.

 

Sorry this took so long I've been working overtime /procrastinating and not been able to sleep properly these last two weeks.

Firstly going back a posts...

From FRC

Sample sizes and all that aside, FRC isn't pushing exclusivity, they're quoting statistics.

FRC again

Jenny et al. (1994), did not use the same standard as FRC, for that to be true, the study would have needed to use self reports. The fact that a homosexual can be married have children and live a seemingly heterosexual life was brought up by you, to show not all homosexuals have exclusively homosexual relationships.

This may have been the message you were trying to convey, it wasn't the one I was receiving.

Which is also done by scientists too.

But they did and maybe still are...

That's good, but are they doing it on the basis on empirical evidence and not opinions? If this is scientific both sides must have verifiable evidence to back up their claims.

It's not representative of them all(in the true meaning of the word) no statistic is.

Once again, they rarely offend once, someone who's been convicted has most likely offended multiple times. I think they're done rationalising by this point.

Sexual activity with humans =/= Sexual activity with animals, completely different act.

If it isn't about sex (sexual pleasure to be precise) or sexual attraction, why do they continually repeat a sexual act?

No survey can be 100% accurate since you won't get a 100% response rate and all answers would not be true. This hinges on the supposition that everyone included tells the truth.

FRC is really just quoting what's stated in the studies, i.e. the aproximate numbers.

Actually that is exactly what it says (Silverthorne). Yup most likely can't be concluded but FRC is is quoting this article and that's in the conclusion so obviously they quoted that too.

Considering the sample size yep, you could argue it was overgeneralised. But this overgeneralisation of data is widely used and accepted today (Fay et al) which doesn't make it any less inaccurate. It just reflects poorly on what is being churned out by scientists.

Abuse is not a consensual act therefore we can exclude those abused. An abuser excluded would obviously be re-included since they offended and these are the folks we're looking for. Picture it as a Venn diagram

FRC did not invent this method of comparison, by your standard, the majority of studies carried out to find the predisposition of one group of people compared to another or the general population are flawed.

+ I might add also implying your beliefs are "about the science".

I asked if it was related in anyway to our beliefs. You didn't answer the question here.

1. It is implied by the your critique of myself, that your beliefs were "about the science".
2. We are dicussing scientific articles.
3. Therefore we are discussion your beliefs.

The only way the above argument fails is if your beliefs are not based in science, please demonstate if this is the case.

Blame the source, since this is the quality of research scientists are producing.

This also happens when it comes to interpretations of of the Bible, hence you have denominations. The difference between you and I is, I value the words of the Bible above Science. I have studied both and Science has over and over vindicated and been trumped by the Bible.

This comes down once again to the point that we value and our differing views on morality.

But in a Biblical framework we can pick over scripture, challenge it's interpretation, dispute it's interpretation, rubbish it's interpretation, or support it -with other scripture and evidence.

Things at all times may not be black and white. But truth is simple. The factors surrounding it may not be, but the truth itself should be simple. E.g. The speed of light can be stated as a number and is easily understood. But when you start looking into electromagnetic waves, photons and quantum theory it gets a bit complex.

This is not exactly what she's saying btw. Bad thinking opens a door and allows for the posibility of lots of these diseases etc by releasing harmful chemicals into our bodies.

I'm sure you come across Placebos. Negative thoughts really are just the reverse of the positive effect.

Only took it a few thousand years, but science finally caught up.

I don't.

Of course it's not simple, but it's the same for a variety of other statistics that are accepted on their apporoximations.

Wikipedia makes it all very simple.

As explained in the book you are actively changing the trees in your brain everytime you think (dendrites IIHRC- read the book a few years ago can't find my copy it probably got lent to someone). This has to do with what you consider to be "drastic" too.

Jump off the barn and you will fall. Simple and easy yet true. . If you were to limit that statement it could be true.

None of that is possible without engineering good Sir, scientists may find out the principles surrounding light but it takes an engineer to design a LDR. Now how many of your scientific discoveries came from biased Christians who believed in God? Have you ever looked into the life if Isaac Newton?

If scientific practice today was as accurate as engineering, we wouldn't be able to critique these surveys. There is very very little room for error when it comes to designing aircraft, setting the voltage that comes through your socket or that needle the doctor is about to stick in your butt. A scientist may be able to tell you the correct metal sterilized is less likely to cause infection, the engineer makes sure it doesn't break and stay in there easily.

I'll try my best to respond much quicker in the future. I apologise in advance for any typos.

Links again
Silverthorne
Fay et al., 1989
FRC
Table from Exodus
Australian survey[/QUOTE]

 

But 'c~3x10^8 m/s' is a pretty useless fact on its own; applying it to get useful answers is more difficult. In the same way 'in study X, Y% of people admited to being openly homosexual' may be easy to understand but it is farily useless unless we apply it, along with other data, in an effort to improve our own personal understanding of the world.

(You also neglected to mention relativity which makes the speed of light a very, very complicated subject with the actual value of c more and more arbitrary, but lets just accept that as a poor choice of example.)

I would hope there would be at least a handful of religious scholars or it would be a very strange thing.

But, regardless of Newton's personal views on life, Newton's laws are not based on religious principles but scientific ones; observation, followed by hypothesis, followed by rigorourous empirical testing.

Scientific practice cannot be accurate only rigorous, I don't even know what you mean by accurate, are you saying only rough approximations are made?

Furthermore, engineering is, as I quote: "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

It's just the application of well established scientific principles. It's true that engineers do not have to believe in the science they apply but it's also true that a baker does not have to like bread.

 

from FRC:

That does not exonerate the FRC from doing so.

And they keep being challenged on it.

The FRC is making the claim, so the burden of proof is theirs. They bring scientific research in support of it, which must therefore be able to withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

That is an assumption. I posit the possibility that it is their rationalisation that enables them to continue offending.

Many child molesters have been molested themselves. This act was coercive. As small children they would not have had a framework of sexuality to interpret the act in, but they would have a framework of power and powerlessness. So for them, sexual molestation was primary experienced as an act of power and subjugation, that became tangled up with and distorted their later sexual development. Power, control, dominance, sex, (dis)trust, attachment; it's all mixed up into a mess. Rinse, repeat.

That is correct.

Come on, son. You know that they quoted it to support their argument (including the "age 15" bit which is also dubious). They wrote that article for a reason.

Again, it is the science on which the FRC bases their argument.

Actually, the correct scientific design for this research question is a 2x2 group comparison. You cannot change the criteria for inclusion in the row (homosexual / heterosexual) cells based on what column (child molester / not child molester) they are in. That would confound the results with an artificial distinction introduced by the research design.

By scientific standards yes, they are. There are more robust experimental designs that should be used instead (like the one I proposed). Competent scientists know this, like a competent carpenter who invented neither the hammer nor the chisel still knows which is a more appropriate tool for hammering in a nail.

We are not discussing your beliefs, or mine. You are free to believe what you want. So is the FRC. I disagree with them, obviously, but those are my beliefs which I am free to hold also.

However when you or the FRC brings scientific proof to the table, you/they enter the land of science. Here, different rules apply; there has to be proof, and that proof has to be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. It does not really matter what my beliefs about the proof are, or my beliefs about science as a discipline. Them's the rules; that's how science works.

If I use information incorrectly, and draw unwarranted inferences and conclusions from that, then that is my fault, not that of the information or its source. If my incompetence with a hammer smashes my thumb, I can't blame the hammer or its manufacturer/inventor. A craftsman who blames his tools is not just a bad craftsman, but also an insincere one.

I'm sure that the surveys came with many caveats and reservations attached; they usually do. In fact we have discussed before how scientists have accused the FRC of misinterpreting and misrepresenting their work.

You can do the equivalent of crossing your arms and pouting: "Well I believe I'm right anyway..." but that is not a scientific argument. You can also make a sweeping generalisation from a few examples of the least robust form of scientific research possible, used inappropriately, that "Well, science is all crap anyway", but it then follows that everything that the FRC bases their argument on is crap also, and that Dr. Leaf's work is crap --which then makes me wonder why you brought them all up in support of your argument in the first place. So clearly you do not think all science is crap; just the science that disagrees with your beliefs.

It then basically comes back down to what we choose to believe, rather than what is objectively verifiable. And all beliefs are true for their own subjective value of "true".

The very statement that "the Bible trumps science" (or for that matter, the reverse) makes me wonder how much you understand religion and science. One does not 'trump' the other; they both offer different, arguably complementary ways of making sense of our existence and our universe. Both have their own domains, their own strengths and their own limitations.

Sure, but it all comes down to subjective interpretation. There is no objective standard by which one interpretation can be proved to be the correct one. Again, all beliefs are true...

That is your belief, to which you are welcome.

That's what she says though. And what have we learned about being precise in our statements?

I'm familiar with placebo effects and their counterpart, nocebo effects. But as Bennedetti points out in your quote, it is but one contributing factor. And since science is only a few hundred years old, perhaps we should not count the first 1800 against it. Especially as during its brief time it has doubled our life expectancy.

Very good. Now how do you measure it? Science is done in the space where conceptual ideals run into the brick wall of complex messy reality. Operationalisation is a bitch.

As a a former neuropsychologist I can tell you a little about that process (it's dendrites and axons, by the way). In very few parts of the brain are new brain cells created (Hippocampus --memory storage and retrieval) which means that massive memory feats (like learning the entire map of London by heart, say) can result in Hippocampal structures nearly doubled in size. Psychological trauma appears to shrink it. Other parts of the brain are not do lucky, unfortunately. Generally we lose a few brain cells a second while the rest constantly wires to be more efficient in functioning (Don't let it worry you BTW --we've generally got billions to spare). There are good reasons for this arrangement which I won't bore you with here. But bottom line is that we know that brain structures which concern sexual orientation and gender identity (which is where we got on to this topic) are not at all plastic.

Are you saying that Newton discovered the principles of gravity by studying the Bible? Or did he do it by scientific observation, theorising and testing? This neatly illustrates the point I was making: religion does not trump science; science does not trump religion. The two can exist side-by-side. You just don't mix the two up because they are different frameworks for different aspects of our existence.

Newton (and many good Christian scientists after him) can believe in God and do science. They just know that one is not a suitable framework for finding explanations in the other's domain.

Already addressed above so I'll leave it there.

 

Wow didn't expect this thread to ever die. I'll be finished replying later tonight Nexxo.

 

All good things must come to an end.

 

Never!

Proof if it were needed that God does indeed, not exist:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pastor-killed-in-rattlesnake-attack-during-church-service.html

or atleast, that some christians really are as foolish & naive as I assert....

 

Or that He does, but not necessarily feels that he should save people who deliberately court danger to force Him into action (He did give them brains, after all).

 

Whilst I feel sorry for those close to him as it is a tragic death (44 is a wasted life...), the first word that springs to mind is idiot. It's like putting a loaded gun to your head, pulling the trigger, and saying "it's ok - God will protect me."

God doesn't protect people from intolerable stupidity, unfortunately. What's more, he doesn't like being put to the test. This guy was presumably familiar with the account of the temptation of Jesus, however he seems to have chosen to overlook it in lieu of inane theatrics.

 

I don't really see how this is concrete proof that god doesn't exist. You're beginning to remind me of those creationists who demands to see a crockaduck despite being told on numerous occasions that a crockaduck neither fits in or would be expected (and moreover the existance of which would be more unaccountable than the non-existance) within the predictions of evolutionary biology.

Perhaps this argument might go against the logic of astutely dogmatic, out of touch christians - the kinds who would be instantly scared off by actual discussion such as this - but as LennyRhys has pointed out, it falls well within the ideas of modern christianity.

However, it does seem to me sometimes like modern christianity has reduced all its current assertions to those that are intrinsicly unprovable which in my view seems to have removed much of the purpose of the religion in the first place.

What does religion have to offer nowadays?

 

God didn't mind Gideon's repeated tests. We're told to "test the spirits." What He doesn't care for is those people who like our sadly departed example here simply pull stupid stunts. When Satan told Jesus to pitch Himself off the Temple, it wasn't that God could not or even would not help Him-it's that why should God fix stupid. Kind of like what happened here. The verse in question was not a command to go out and do it-it's a Greek way of saying God will take care of His own. Leave it to people around here to misinterpret it in spectacular ways.