Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 11701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
What can we do?
« on: January 16, 2012, 12:25:24 PM »
I find creationists to be extremely irritating. They don't understand evolution in the slightest degree, and when you tell them that, they just say that they do and then continue on saying things that prove that they have no clue about what you're talking about. Then when you tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, they get defensive, even if I'm being as respectful as possible.

So, really, what can we do? I'm really tired of religious misunderstanding. Statistics on evolution acceptance are why I feel like being a bit more of a proponent of atheism:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

Only 16% of people accept naturalistic evolution. Even if you're a theist who accepts evolution, you have no reason not to accept naturalistic evolution. It just proves that there's a general lack of understanding. I think it's an abysmal condition.

I wish I could start a new colony somewhere else, off of this planet, where the minimum requirement to enter is being able to show that you have a good enough education and intelligence (not IQ alone, just that you can contribute something and not be an idiot and cause problems).

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2012, 12:31:13 PM »
The only ethical thing we can do is promote education.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2012, 12:35:27 PM »
I wouldn't say only. That's the nature of creativity: you can't really see what can be done until you've invented a way of dealing with it.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2012, 12:36:35 PM »
I wouldn't say only. That's the nature of creativity: you can't really see what can be done until you've invented a way of dealing with it.

Come up with something else that's ethical, and I'll concede this point.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2012, 12:39:55 PM »
But my point is slightly different. It's that we shouldn't limit the way we think about the problem.

I was actually hoping that people would toss ideas around here. For instance, how can we promote more education? How can we spread that education to other people? Could we "encode" a viral aspect into the understanding of evolution, just as there are many viral aspects to religious ideology?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2012, 12:43:19 PM »
But my point is slightly different. It's that we shouldn't limit the way we think about the problem.

So should we resort to unethical methods? Because that's the only limitation I set forth, and therefore the only limitation you could be talking about.

For instance, how can we promote more education? How can we spread that education to other people?

Get people to go to school, remove religious "theories" from classes, et cetera.

Could we "encode" a viral aspect into the understanding of evolution, just as there are many viral aspects to religious ideology?

We could. We could also brainwash all of them. As far as I care, both are unethical.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist:
What can you do?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 12:51:55 PM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2012, 12:52:01 PM »
I am not talking about resorting to unethical methods. Are you trying to be contrarian?

Would it be unethical to find a way to convince people to take the time to understand evolution, rather than forcing it upon them? I mean, it wouldn't be forcing or convincing them to believe it. Understanding it in and of itself would probably convince a large number of people with time.

Would it be brainwashing if critical thinking methodology was taught in schools? And I don't even mean that it would be taught to be the only method of thinking. It would just be taught so that people would know how to do it.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2012, 12:54:28 PM »
I am not talking about resorting to unethical methods. Are you trying to be contrarian?

*sigh* Why don't people read my posts in full?

So should we resort to unethical methods? Because that's the only limitation I set forth, and therefore the only limitation you could be talking about.

Bold mine. You're the one who said we "shouldn't limit the way we think about the problem". The only limitation I set forth was ethical means.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2012, 01:02:00 PM »
I'm pretty sure that the limitation Alkan was referring to is your declaration that education is the ONLY ethical means. Just because it's the only one you can think of at the moment doesn't mean it is the only one possible, and assuming that it is only serves to unjustifiably shut off any thinking about alternatives.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2012, 01:03:32 PM »
I'm pretty sure that the limitation Alkan was referring to is your declaration that education is the ONLY ethical means. Just because it's the only one you can think of at the moment doesn't mean it is the only one possible, and assuming that it is only serves to unjustifiably shut off any thinking about alternatives.

I said that if he was able to present an ethical alternative, I'd concede that point.

I wouldn't say only. That's the nature of creativity: you can't really see what can be done until you've invented a way of dealing with it.

Come up with something else that's ethical, and I'll concede this point.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2012, 01:07:37 PM »
Yes...

And I don't disagree with that limitation. Of course it should be ethical. I don't really want to argue here. I just wanted to be creative about coming up with ways of dealing with a lack of acceptance of something that is actually quite obvious once you understand it. And when I say be creative, I mean be creative within those ethical means. I think that's where true creativity comes out: what you can figure out how to do with limitations.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2012, 01:24:07 PM »
Alkan, did you notice that the percentage of Americans who accept a purely naturalistic view of evolution when it comes to humans has gone up from 9% to 16% since 1982?  And that the number of Americans who believe in the purely creationist view has dropped from 47% to 40% just since 1999?  Whatever else you might say, the process of educating people is working.  Given that, I am inclined to let this process continue to work at its own pace.

Sure, it's slow.  But slow is not bad.  It isn't as if the number of Americans who accept naturalistic evolution is decreasing over time.  I'm not saying you shouldn't think about other means, but there's no point in getting worried because those statistics look bad when they're actually better than they've  been ever since Gallup started asking that particular question.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2012, 01:38:12 PM »
Well, we shouldn't get complacent... We don't want things to start going in the other direction. That said, we shouldn't be assholes about it either. But we should maybe try to make the process stronger.

I did notice the gradual trend. I'm hoping that as more and more peoples start accepting evolution, the rate of change will increase from where it already is now.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2012, 01:39:26 PM »
I did notice the gradual trend. I'm hoping that as more and more peoples start accepting evolution, the rate of change will increase from where it already is now.

That's usually how it works - scientific development[1] increases exponentially.
 1. And therefore its acceptance.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2012, 01:51:40 PM »
I agree.

Nonetheless, I'd like us to stay on topic now and try to think of more things that we can do.

EDIT: I had an idea. What if someone made a nice software program that simulates natural selection? But it would be simple enough for someone to use without a background in math. It would include various mechanisms and would show how increasing complexity accumulates over time.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 02:09:59 PM by Alkan »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2012, 04:24:38 PM »
IMHO, this forum is probably the best thing that we can do. Open discussions covering the questions and statements that creationists come up with are probably the best weapon that we have in our arsenal..

Simplifying answers to their questions are the best way to combat their ignorance. I don't see any creationists spending the necessary time to understand the complexities of evolution. Hell, I don't even want to do it.

Concentrating on shooting down the fallacious arguments that they have may get some of them to think for themselves. Usually not the case, in my experience, but as has already been said, change comes slowly.

There are really only a few statements or questions that the typical creationist brings to the forum. If we concentrate on challenging those, and their handlers don't have better responses, they may dig deeper and actually learn something on their own.

Maybe compiling a list of creation lies into a sw program or interactive presentation would be good.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2012, 05:16:42 PM »
I was actually hoping that people would toss ideas around here. For instance, how can we promote more education? How can we spread that education to other people? Could we "encode" a viral aspect into the understanding of evolution, just as there are many viral aspects to religious ideology?

A fundamental component of the curriculum in most Canadian provinces is to teach critical thinking, starting at the lowest grade levels. It's pervasive and cross-curricular, and I am curious to see if 20 years down the road, all pedagogy done right, individuals are still as naive (or, at least, huxters have adapted to accomodate a higher-level thinking populace).

I am still afraid that compartmentalization is strong enough to sustain any education. Critical thinking is traditionally switched off in the pew.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Eaten by Bears

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2012, 04:01:15 PM »
One thing we can try to do is to include some aspect of critical thinking in our areas of skill.

Writers can try to add critical thinking to their stories.
Directors can add it to their movies.
Comedians can add it to their routines.
And so on...

While our contributions might be less widespread than the above, if you have an avenue to slip in an aspect of critical thinking, try to use it.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2012, 05:15:03 PM »
I agree.

Nonetheless, I'd like us to stay on topic now and try to think of more things that we can do.

EDIT: I had an idea. What if someone made a nice software program that simulates natural selection? But it would be simple enough for someone to use without a background in math. It would include various mechanisms and would show how increasing complexity accumulates over time.

Like these?

Darwin's Evolution Game - http://science.discovery.com/interactives/literacy/darwin/darwin.html

Natural Selection Game - http://www.nysci.org/charlieandkiwi_finches/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2012, 04:20:00 PM »
I find creationists to be extremely irritating. They don't understand evolution in the slightest degree, and when you tell them that, they just say that they do and then continue on saying things that prove that they have no clue about what you're talking about. Then when you tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, they get defensive, even if I'm being as respectful as possible.

So, really, what can we do? I'm really tired of religious misunderstanding. Statistics on evolution acceptance are why I feel like being a bit more of a proponent of atheism:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

Only 16% of people accept naturalistic evolution. Even if you're a theist who accepts evolution, you have no reason not to accept naturalistic evolution. It just proves that there's a general lack of understanding. I think it's an abysmal condition.

I wish I could start a new colony somewhere else, off of this planet, where the minimum requirement to enter is being able to show that you have a good enough education and intelligence (not IQ alone, just that you can contribute something and not be an idiot and cause problems).

You speak as though the ToE is this very straightforward, factually complete and  indisputable theory that only the ignorant do not subscribe to. That’s rather arrogant and presumptuous. If you were as learned as you portray yourself to be, you’d realize it is a complex theory with thousands of parts….many of which are still being studied and tested. I have studied, researched, and analyzed gobs of information and am still far from convinced the ToE provides an indisputable means of explaining how life evolved to its current state…..and I am far from alone. There are MANY people, including well educated people in the sciences who share my view.

You are trying to sell a bill of goods based on your “faith” that abiogenesis (or panspermia) occurred, that we all share a common ancestor, and that lizard-to-snake type speciation events occurred….and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other problems with the ToE. When some of these deep trenches are filled with something of substance, then you may have reason to start leasing billboard space.

Why are you so concerned about this perceived ignorance anyway? If we’re all going to perish into nothingness, what difference does it make if we die ignorant of something like the ToE? 

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2012, 04:34:58 PM »
BS, why are you asking questions you've already had answered here?

Honestly, the "why are you so concerned....?" question, I consider trolling. No way you don't get that yet. Delusion must be contagious, because I will not accept a reality where you sincerely don't understand that.

Keep trolling and your warning level will increase accordingly.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2012, 04:52:38 PM »
You speak as though the ToE is this very straightforward, factually complete and  indisputable theory that only the ignorant do not subscribe to. That’s rather arrogant and presumptuous. If you were as learned as you portray yourself to be, you’d realize it is a complex theory with thousands of parts….many of which are still being studied and tested. I have studied, researched, and analyzed gobs of information and am still far from convinced the ToE provides an indisputable means of explaining how life evolved to its current state…..and I am far from alone. There are MANY people, including well educated people in the sciences who share my view.

Care to name some of those well educated persons who share your view?

The TOE is the best explanation we have to date. Do you have anything other than godidit?

If you understood the scientific method you would know why TOE is continual being studied. If science had ALL the answers it would have stopped (Dara O'Brien).

There is no dispute that evolution occurred. There may be arguments on various theories of the mechanism by which evolution occurred.

Quote
You are trying to sell a bill of goods based on your “faith” that abiogenesis (or panspermia) occurred, that we all share a common ancestor, and that lizard-to-snake type speciation events occurred….and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other problems with the ToE. When some of these deep trenches are filled with something of substance, then you may have reason to start leasing billboard space.

How things started is not completely understood. But that has nothing to do with the accepted fact that evolution did occur.

What deep trenches are you speaking of? The ones you mentioned sure aren't. How would you like to explain vestigial limbs on snakes? God screwed up?

Quote
Why are you so concerned about this perceived ignorance anyway? If we’re all going to perish into nothingness, what difference does it make if we die ignorant of something like the ToE?

Personally, I am concerned about the dishonest manner in which creationists are trying to dis science and get godidit on equal footing in science class.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design  (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).

Although ID proponents insist that it is a viable alternative to evolution, they are vague as to when and where an intelligent entity intervened and they contend that evolution is mostly wrong while offering no alternative to common descent.

A  critical component of intelligent design is Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity. Is does not hold up in a court of law or in the court of scientific opinion.

Although, Behe doesn’t claim that a particular deity intervened in the course of earth history, it is clear his agenda is a Christian one. Behe is affiliated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). He is a senior fellow of the CRSC. The director of CRSC has stated that the goals of the institute are to “promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.”

Since the Supreme Court had ruled that creationism is religion, and therefore not to be taught in school, creationist repackaged creationism as intelligent design. To see their agenda, read The Wedge Document as reprinted by the National Center for Science Education:

Quote
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Since the failure to get ID or creationism in school, creationists have tried different tactics, using their wedge approach. This is from The National Science Center for Education website (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/116):

Although in the 1990s IDC advocates had encouraged the teaching of ID in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution, in the early 2000s they shifted their strategy. IDCs currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier.

Not only are the leaders of the Intelligent Design Creationists dishonest, they are not very intelligent. All these attempts are doomed to failure and will fade away in the clear light of science and reason. As science continues to strip away the myths and superstitions of past ages, and paint over man’s ignorance with the bright colors of knowledge and understanding, the image of an intelligent designer fades and disappears into the background.

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”

Creationists could take their cue from Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, former leader of the National Human Genome Research Institute and current director of the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.  Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian that rejects Intelligent Design.

Collins  works within the scientific community apparently with no religious agenda or conflicting  interests: In October 2009, shortly after his nomination as NIH director, Collins stated in an interview in the New York Times, “I have made it clear that I have no religious agenda for the N.I.H., and I think the vast majority of scientists have been reassured by that and have moved on.” [Harris, Gardiner (October 6, 2009). "For N.I.H. Chief, Issues of Identity and Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.]

From Wikipedia - Francis Collins: In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 04:59:32 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2012, 04:56:19 PM »
^^^Because, whether you accept it or not, BS, the TOE works in application. It is true that when we die, we just die, no afterlife or anything. But until we do, we would like to have a good, long and healthy life, since this is all we are ever going to get! So it does matter if people try to undermine the TOE: it forms the very basis of modern life science and medicine.

It has led to the development of entirely new fields of investigation, like genetics, virology, cloning, immunology. The TOE enables medical researchers to refine organ transplants so that they are rejected less often. You yourself have benefited from the TOE, because you never had to worry about dying from smallpox or being paralyzed by polio. You still don't have to accept it, because it works regardless.

The main problem with denying the theory of evolution is that you have to account for these two facts:
 
1) the theory of evolution is the best explanation for what is evident (the similarities and differences between species of primates, for example) and
2) the theory of evolution has predicted many important scientific discoveries that the people of Darwin's era could not even imagine (genetics, for example).

The theory of evolution works in practice. You don't have to "believe" in it. It works, whether you believe in it or not. That is why it is science. Scientists don't have to make anything up. It either works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't work, it gets discarded. After 150 years, the TOE is stronger than ever and is not about to be discarded by anyone in the relevant fields.

Religion, on the other is not the best explanation for anything. You have to "believe" in it, and it still does not work as advertised. That is why people had to invent science to discover cures for diseases, how to build really tall building that don't fall down, how to make machines that let us talk to each other across time and space, etc. Because we could not do any of that with religion. If religion worked, we would not need science!

Religion cannot give accurate explanations or predictions, because religion does not have to follow any rules. What do we expect to see in a universe created by a magical supernatural being? We have no idea. Could be anything. Talking snakes. Flying horses. People turning into pillars of salt. Supernatural means no rules. Without rules, there can be no explanations or predictions that work for everyone everywhere, regardless of culture or belief.

ps No theory is ever complete or indisputable. That's how people get Nobel Prizes for science-- anyone who can blow a hole in the TOE at this late date is a sure-fire winner.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2012, 05:02:39 PM »
BS, why are you asking questions you've already had answered here?

Honestly, the "why are you so concerned....?" question, I consider trolling. No way you don't get that yet. Delusion must be contagious, because I will not accept a reality where you sincerely don't understand that.

Keep trolling and your warning level will increase accordingly.

I could point you to literally dozens and dozens of blatant ‘trolling’ type posts by non-theist members where you nor any other mod intervened. And that is a FACT and it is indisputable....and I wasn’t even trolling.  But you’ll intervene on mine? Virtually every theist member who participates in this forum is placed on some sort of monitored or restricted status.

You want to ban me or shut me up by muting me under the assumption that I was trolling, then have at it. I made a simple commentary and then challenged the OP’s motivation by asking a simple question.

Unbelievable.

I have over 1000 posts. Trolls don't participate at that level. That should count for something in your assessment.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 05:08:16 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2012, 05:15:52 PM »
Some branches of science that deal with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoology
Zoology, also spelled zoölogy, is the branch of biology that focuses on the structure, function, behavior, and evolution of animals. The correct pronunciation of "zoology" is /zo???l???/.[1]

Biology examines the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution and classification of all living things. Five unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, gene theory, energy, and homeostasis.[2]

Geology (from Greek: ??, gê, "earth"; and ?????, logos, "speech" lit. to talk about the earth) is the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth. The field of geology encompasses the study of the composition, structure, physical properties, dynamics, and history of Earth materials, and the processes by which they are formed, moved, and changed.
The history of the Earth describes the most important events and fundamental stages in the development and evolution of the planet Earth from its formation to the present day. Nearly all branches of natural science have contributed to the understanding of the main events of the Earth's past.

Paleontology (British: palaeontology)[derivation 1] is the study of prehistoric life, including organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments (their paleoecology). As a "historical science" it tries to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects. Paleontological observations have been documented as far back as the 5th century BC. The science became established in the 18th century as a result of Georges Cuvier's work on comparative anatomy, and developed rapidly in the 19th century. Fossils found in China since the 1990s have provided new information about the earliest evolution of animals, early fish, dinosaurs and the evolution of birds and mammals. Paleontology lies on the border between biology and geology, and shares with archeology a border that is difficult to define. It now uses techniques drawn from a wide range of sciences, including biochemistry, mathematics and engineering. As knowledge has increased, paleontology has developed specialized subdivisions, some of which focus on different types of fossil organisms while others study ecological and environmental history, such as ancient climates.

Archaeology, archeology, or archæology (from Greek ???????????, archaiologia – ???????, archa?os, "primal, ancient, old"; and -?????, -logia) is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes. Because archaeology's aim is to understand humankind, it is a humanistic endeavor.[1] Due to its analysis of human cultures, it is a subset of anthropology, which contains: physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology.[2] There is debate as to what archaeology's goals are. Some goals include the documentation and explanation of the origins and development of human cultures, understanding culture history, chronicling cultural evolution, and studying human behavior and ecology, for both prehistoric and historic societies

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 05:23:40 PM »
BibleStudent, I thought I was quite clear that it is probably a delusion. I will not accept that a human being can ask the question you asked, in earnest, after those 1000 posts.

You obviously know the answer to the question you posed Alkan. Therefore, it's intent must be to troll Alkan and other participants.

You will cease trolling this board, and participate in earnest.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2012, 05:28:07 PM »

What deep trenches are you speaking of?


How about if I just point you here:

www.crev.info

There are countless examples.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2012, 06:00:19 PM »
While  the formation of our universe via the big bang and biogenesis are two different subjects, it should be pointed out that the findings of each via physics and biology are compatible. As are the findings of the other sciences monkeymind mentioned, like geology and paleontology. At no point do any of these sciences conflict seriously with one another. This either means they are in cahoots with each other as they lie daily to each and every one of us, or they are studying a universe and a planet that have characteristics consistent with each other.

The still existent unknowns do cause differing and perhaps conflicting theories at times, but that is true within disciplines as well. So far, as more has become known and science has advanced, previously noticed inconsistencies have gone away. And the multiple disciplines studying the various branches of science help each other out as any given discovery in one area often provides further explanation for mystifying phenomena in other branches of science. The discovery of continental drift quite suddenly gave a consistent explanation for the distribution of species, for instance.

If the sciences conflicted with each other on a regular basis, that might give us reason to question the veracity of various findings. That such inconsistencies do not exist is yet another reason to accept that all branches of science are on the right track.

I have to ask BibleStudent and others who disagree to provide me with alternative explanations that both a) reasonably explain such things as naked mole rats and parasitic fungi in ants and eyelash mites as well as kitty cats and daisies and elephants, and b) provides a testable systemic method (other than the scientific one, I presume) to back up and verify the various claims being made.

Simply sputtering that it can't be true and offering nothing as an alternative but an old book of questionable content and a few meek efforts as trying to disprove some protein combo is impossible without god doesn't cut it in a world where we prefer information that is useful. People that think that evolution is impossible need to explain how there is a new breed of superbug killing people in India now. The doctors can't treat these new infections and folks are scared. Sort of sounds like something has evolved immunity to current antibiotics to me. Or is is just god getting his filthy hands into our affairs again?

Back to the OP. What can we do? Hassle the heck out of believers. The next time I encounter someone who thinks evolution is a bunch of bunk and backs up their case with the usual "where are the missing links" question or otherwise demonstrates ignorance, I will say something like "Well, I don't like Jesus because he didn't drive American cars. He drove those foreign pieces of crap!" When they look at me with big and questioning eyes, I will explain that if they are going to use misinformation as proof they are right, I can make up crap too and use it to stave off the religious.

Fair is fair. If they aren't going to take the time to understand what they are against, I have no reason to diss bible based arguments with anything less than equal levels of ignorance.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2012, 06:12:59 PM »

What deep trenches are you speaking of?


How about if I just point you here:

www.crev.info

There are countless examples.

Okay, lets stake one article from that blog:

Quote
Strange as it seems, large sauropods of the Titanosaur variety have been found in Antarctica.  This is the highest latitude sauropod ever found.  It means that the large reptiles inhabited every continent; they walked the globe.

A short article on New Scientist describes how Ignacio Cerda from the National University of Comahue in Argentina uncovered the fossil on James Ross Island, about 700 miles from Cape Horn, Argentina.  He surmises that the beasts got there on an ancient isthmus that connected the island to South America.  A previous post by PhysOrg about this discovery calls it an “advanced titanosaur.”

The PhysOrg article states, “Although they were one of the most widespread and successful species of sauropod dinosaurs, their origin and dispersion are not completely understood.”

What did they eat, ice?  Think of the tons of plant material these giant animals require.  No such large plant-eaters inhabit Antarctica today.  Finds like this speak of a very different world.  It doesn’t require millions of years to change the world; just sufficient hydraulic energy.  The Bible speaks of a very different world, with different climatic and geographic conditions, that would have allowed the migration of large animals like these to polar latitudes.  It also speaks of a global hydraulic catastrophe that had the energy to bury titanosaurs suddenly, else their bones would have decayed on the surface when they died.

They took one line from the legitimate scientific article and then commented (green text). In one paragraph they displayed ignorance of continental drift, the fossilization process and hydraulics. Not to mention astonishment that science doesn't claim to know everything. And if they are going to make claims about the contents of the bible, it would be nice to quote a few of those nicely numbers chapters so that we would know what world climatic conditions they were referring to. I haven't read the whole thing, but I don't remember anyone ever providing a chapter and verse that commented on the climate of Antarctica 4,000 years ago. Or at any other time. Other than that one rainy time, I don't remember the bible saying dick about the weather.

Each article in that blog is short and phony. Find me something akin to proof that anything they said is real and I'll eat my words. Or lick my computer screen. Or whatever.

If we have to meet your god's standards to be christian (be it born again or some other standard, whatever your particular set of beliefs suggest), we ask that you meet scientific standards as you assess what we believe. If your most serious effort to learn about science is typified by this blog, you are shortchanging yourself bigtime.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.