Sorry fellas…

I didn’t mean to offend or get in a pissing match with anyone.  My comment was directed to those whose use the broad explanation of ‘science’ as a shield to refute anything beyond their own existence.  ‘Religion’ is used the same way by many as well.  Both promote ignorance, intolerance and discourage free thought and progression of truth.

I didn’t intend to equate cynicism with a close mind, and the only real claim I made was that some people are so cynical, they will not even make an effort to consider an opposing view. Some act as if as long as they have a counterpoint, no further thought or investigation of the topic is necessary.

I agree you should not blindly ‘accept any ridiculuos claim presented’ to you, but the processes of elimination must begin somewhere.  And if you honestly come to a conclusion based on research and what you perceive truth to be..then you are open minded, and not by definition a’cynic’.

I also know about being chastised, especially after posting here(just kidding).  Unfortunately it happens almost anywhere you express yourself in the presence of an opposing majority view. Its one of the shittier aspects of human nature.

Now, that’s what I consider to be a much more reasonable follow up reply. Thanks. And I really mean that too.

I don’t disagree that science can be just as easily used to avoid consideration of new ideas as religion can be. Hell, some folks don’t bother to use either and just refuse to consider new ideas outright.

I think your concept of what it means to be cynical might be a little off, though. As I understand the word it’s usually used in reference to an attitude that tends to assume motivations are usually selfish or any particularly situation is more negative than positive. Someone who rejects ideas without further thought or investigation is just closed minded, but not necessarily cynical. Certainly it’s possible to be both.

It would be cynically closed minded to say, for example, that all religions are nonsense simply because all clergymen are just trying exert a different kind of power over the masses and the threat of an imaginary God is a means to that end. That is both closed minded and cynical.

I agree you should not blindly �accept any ridiculuos claim presented� to you, but the processes of elimination must begin somewhere. And if you honestly come to a conclusion based on research and what you perceive truth to be..then you are open minded, and not by definition a�cynic�.

I don’t know, I’m considered fairly open minded by most folks who know me in real life. Or at least that’s what I’ve been told, they could have lying out of politeness, but I’ve also been told I can be quite cynical at times.

In fact, that previous paragraph more or less is a perfect illustration as my comment about how they could have been lying to me is a rather cynical one to make.

I also know about being chastised, especially after posting here(just kidding). Unfortunately it happens almost anywhere you express yourself in the presence of an opposing majority view. Its one of the shittier aspects of human nature.

I’m used to it and it’s not like I don’t do it myself so I don’t really have a lot to complain about.

Also remember, Les, it’s not really as if you haven’t considered the opposite viewpoint.  Hell, you read the freakin’ Bible, didn’t you?

I guess Les, that I may have misused ‘cynicism’ in the context of my previous statements.  I was using it in the excessively faultfinding captious sense, and not merely meaning skepticism or suspicion.  Maybe I should have refined my meaning, or replaced cynical with ‘overly critical to a fault’.  Still, I think I have a valid point...and thought it might be useful for SOME to consider. Its obvious that you, Les, are not in this category, and this website is proof that lazy and ill-equipped does not apply to you.

As for others...You can read the freakin’ Bible, Koran, Torah, Sagan, Hawking, Ram Dass, Copernicus, or whatever; but if you don’t try to understand and/or challenge them, they will probably be as useful and meaningful as the list of preservatives on your TV dinner.

Les,
Leaving the Bible or any other tome concerning intelligent design on the shelf, I am curious about your astutely scientific atheisism.  How do you react to reports of paranormal events or supernatural phenomenom?  Is it all dismissable, as it would seem to me it must be in order to be concurrent with a pannatural view?
Additionally, how do you rationalize
the fact that energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, is released in enormous abundance whenever a human being dies (scientifically proven through measurements.) I am making no assertions, but asking you; is this energy independent of the host body?

I appreciate your thoughtful logic and your devotion to the maintainence of this site, which oddly I found through a search engine steer after seeking information about and typing in the words
“primordal dwarfism,” about which I was doing a study.

Why don’t you start reading here?

Additionally, how do you rationalize
the fact that energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, is released in enormous abundance whenever a human being dies (scientifically proven through measurements.)

Huh? The kind of energy that requires ESP to detect?

Les,

You say in regards to creationism: “It is not a perfectly legitimate theory, since it defies most of the laws of nature, and is in direct contradiction to things we know to be true with a good level of scientific certainty.”

But, if something, a source if you will, made up the laws of nature, wouldn’t it be possible that our understanding of the laws is limited?  I mean what if there’s a side door, where what is actually happening does not smash against the wall of reason ("what we know to be true"), but side steps it to another open room?  BTW: I think creation is worthless as theory.

Dude, running head-first into the wall of knowledge is very fitting summary of creationism. Thank you.

Nicely said, Les. Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had �religious� or �spiritual� experiences? I know just what they were talking about; I can trigger that �feeling of awe and oneness with the universe� at will. I think we�re all biologically capable of feeling it; you don�t need a particular belief system for it.

A few days ago I found this review of Why God Won’t Go Away. This book may be the source of the article mentioned in GM’s much earlier post.

all of you are wrong and dumb ,i think that
god is out there doinng good. im’ a christen and i’m poud of it, God is not bad at all. its the humen is the beam for war because humen can not be peaceful

p.s
God exist.Only mormen are the tread becuse they think they can goto heaven if they sleep with a 13 old girl

Les, don’t limit yourself

VernR said, “Nicely said, Les. Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had �religious� or �spiritual� experiences? I know just what they were talking about; I can trigger that �feeling of awe and oneness with the universe� at will. I think we�re all biologically capable of feeling it; you don�t need a particular belief system for it.”

I say sure and alcohol does it best for me.

I find it very interesting that no one has mentioned (as far as I saw) The ICR - The Institue for Creation Research. - If no one thinks there is SCIENTIFIC evidence for creation check out icr’s site.  Here’s a link to some information…

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

I’m saying there is any scientific PROOF but that there is no scientific proof for evolution OR creationism - THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE BOTH THEORIES!  If there were proof for either then it would no longer be a theory because there would be proof.  A theory is something that has yet to be proven.  Both are theories…

From the icr.org link above…

“One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve.”

Ah yes!  When you don’t know how something happened, it’s proof of god!

Lack of evidence proves nothing.

Uh-oh, left brain thought…
Does OJ getting away with murder prove that God exists?

Arrival, I must say your interpretation of what constitutes a theory is… interesting. Wrong, but interesting. And we’re more than familiar with the folks at the ICR. I often read it when I need a good laugh or two.

Evolution is indeed a theory, but not because it doesn’t have any scientific evidence in support of it. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, shouldn’t even be called a theory as it doesn’t qualify as one. At best, it’s a hypothesis and at worst it’s conjecture. Let’s take a moment to look at just what a scientific theory is. We’ll use the Wikipedia.org entry for this as it’s more than adequate:

Sciences

In sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be “electromagnetic theory”, which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell’s equations.

The term theoretical to describe certain phenomena often indicates that a particular result has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to produce a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

The word �theory� derives from the Greek �theorein�, which means �to look at�. According to some sources, it was used frequently in terms of �looking at� a theatre stage, which may explain why sometimes the word �theory� is used as something provisional or not quite real. The term �teoria� was already used by the ancient Greeks.

Models

Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas.

A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens. Many scientists, but not all, argue that religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because they are matters of faith.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, “a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

Types

There are two types of theories; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.

A theory is different from a theorem. The former is a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms. The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed.

Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenonomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.

Further explanation of a scientific theory

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as �sometimes water turns into ice.� At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some theories that have been disproved are those such as Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has risen to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.

Characteristics

Often the statement “Well, it’s just a theory,” is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the words theory and hypothesis. In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam’s Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
   

This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

Other studies

Theories exist not only in the so-called ‘hard sciences’ but in all fields of academic study, from philosophy to music to literature.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and “theories of everything,” each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, “wisdom of the ancients,” commercial motivation, or mysticism.

A good example of a non-scientific “theory” is Intelligent Design. Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.

Hmmm. Perhaps I need to make this into a full-blown entry. Or, better yet, it may be time to establish some form of a repositry of suggested reading for folks who wish to comment on SEB that would include refernces such as this.

Anyway, if you’d really like to continue to present the idea that Creationism qualifies as a scientific theory of equal validity then I would ask you to present me with a single prediction it makes about anything or a single field of science that has been founded upon it. Evolution has done both of these things and is, in fact, a cornerstone of modern biology. Creationism? Well, I’ve yet to hear of a single field of science that relies on this so-called “theory” for much of anything.

Arrival.
2 problems with that

1. ALL the so called evidence on ANY Creationism website is pure BULLSHIT made up to give ignorant little Christians something to point to and say “See here’s PROOF” its hogwash, of ZERO scientific value, ZERO Falsifiable/verifiable evidence. Most if not ALL these so called “Creationist Scientist” Duane Gish being one of the biggest culprits have all been discredited so many times in so many ways by so many REAL scientist that they have become laughing stocks of the Scientific community.
Duane Gish will not even enter real debates anymore.
He & his creationist brethren have been proven countless times to be nothing but either liars or bullshit artist.

2. Evolution in and of itself IS FACT it happens, its real, its Falsifiable, its verifiable, there are mountains of empirical evidence to support it from ALL the various fields or research and they ALL collaborate one another.
In over 150 years not ONE SINGLE scientist has EVER proven Evolution wrong in anyway, thus each and every one of those 1000s of scientist & no doubt millions of experiments over those 150 years have done nothing but added more solid evidence toward the FACT of evolution.
Evolution is both FACT & Theory.

The FACT of Evolution is that it IS the method of how & why we are here, PERIOD. It all fits, all the predictions are being found exactly where they are supposed to be etc.
The theory of evolution is simply because evolution is not 100% complete and probably never will be since that is the very nature of evolution it evolves, it has something to do with every thing on this planet in one way or another. They have yet to prove every single aspect, same goes for Gravity, last time I checked Gravity IS FACT, yet still theory.
The probability of evolution NOT being fact is so infinitesimally small that its not worthy of discussion 0.00001%.

Creationism is not Falsifiable its based entirely on religious MYTHOLOGY.
To believe in creationism you may as well also believe in Zeus & flying Unicorns as they all have the same root of origin & same “evidence” to support them. The possibility of Creationism being fact is exactly the same as Evolution NOT being, virtually nil.

Here is your origin of the Jesus MYTH, read this site start to finish, realize as you read that this information can be verified and cross referenced, its archeological fact, the text and the artifacts can be researched cross referenced and verified to be real. In some cases the “absence” of data or fact is just as telling.

THIS is your origin of Creationism a bogus plagiarized religion that can without any doubt be proven to be utter BULLSHIT with tangible empirical evidence.

http://www.jesusmyth.homestead.com/index.html

The ONLY reason Evolution is even up for any debate at all and not 100% accepted by everyone on the planet is simply because of the Millions of complete idiots worldwide brainwashed into believing in fairytales told by ancient people around campsites 1000s of years ago. Even in this day & age of human evolution we are very technically advanced which comes mainly from the scientist which have socially evolved past the stone age.
Meanwhile the vast majority of humans on this planet socially & culturally haven’t even reached the dark ages yet.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

I used to be convinced that Gish was a conscious liar, because so many of the things he says are demonstrably false, and he is neither stupid nor uneducated. In the last few years, I have changed my mind. I now think that Gish is so severely deluded that he can no longer distinguish what he wants to believe from reality, at least on a conscious level.”
William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey (1991) state:

“We...were convinced at first that he must be a deliberate liar, but now we have concluded that he is not. ...Gish says only what supports his belief. In his mind, that cannot possibly be a lie. ... We also think that sometimes he says what he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn’t said something, then he didn’t say it.” [italics in original]

David Milne (1991) states:

“[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect that he no longer even realizes it, or cares. ... He may have known, at one time, that there was something shaky or even devious about his claims, but he’s made them so long now, that they have taken on a truth of their own for him.”

A lack of integrity, whether deliberate or not, usually damages one’s reputation, but instead, Gish’s tactics have helped enhance the credibility of the Institute for Creation Research, and probably that of the entire creationist movement. Teachers and scientists struggling with the threat of creationism need to be fully aware of the exact methods used by one of the most popular advocates of creationism. A campaign based on errors and distortions does not require respect, or the time and effort spent in fighting it. If tactics such as Gish’s become common knowledge, we can perhaps begin to close the creationist chapter and get back to the work of real science.

Yet Christians will continually believe lying sacks of shit like Duane Gish spewing Creationist lies over hard tangible empirical evidence for Evolution.

The small mind of the religious “believer” is nothing short of a embarrassment to humanity.

Damn it beat to the punch again.

Regarding the 4/16 statement of Nunyabiz -
“The ONLY reason Evolution is even up for any debate at all and not 100% accepted by everyone on the planet is simply because of the Millions of complete idiots worldwide brainwashed into believing in fairytales told by ancient people around campsites 1000s of years ago.”

Considering >80% of the adults in this country believe there is a supernatural Creator, you must hold 8 out of every 10 of your countrymen in very low regard ("complete idiots.") It seems amazing that a nation could survive, let alone grow with an idiocy rate of 80%!  Within my own observations, I have found the condescending rhetoric and lack of consideration of the intelligence (whether formally groomed or stimulated through lifetime experiences) demonstrated toward those in opposition to the notion that we are all just an act of random atomic activity, as a hallmark of the atheist; who, denying justification for existance beyond chance, constructs his own purposeful righteousness to which no one else can possibly aspire unless they believe closely as he does.  Hmmm, almost sounds like a religion doesn’t it?
(I thought it interesting that Nunyabiz chose to capitalize evolution in his/her thoughtful statement.)

Yep… a religion with absolutely no payoff.  We’re born, we live, we die.  For the atheist, how can anyone have any more value than that… any more purpose than that?  (With the possible exception of the purpose of debunking spiritual acknowledgement by others.) A son, A daughter were not “given” to the atheist.  The atheist, through his/her own finely tuned creative ability (science hasn’t been able to quite crack THAT nut yet), “gave” life to their own progeny for no more purpose than to sustain the whole irrational program for yet another generation.  Gosh!  Why can’t “100% ..(of)everyone on the planet” buy into that?  Perhaps it lacks something science can never approach.  Perhaps it is just too grim a concept.  Perhaps there is some spark within homo sapien that sets one apart from the blade of grass that is birthed, lives, then dies.

Love of a Creator (as opposed to love of any theory) is essential for peace within the human heart.  Without an author, no theme.  Without theme, no purpose.  Without purpose, no use.  Without usefulness, no rhythm.  Without rhythm..... there is only decay within chaos.

Are you familiar with the Theory of Random Chaos?  That left unguided, all things gravitate toward chaos.  I know an atheist who says, “Well, look around you… we MUST be unguided because chaos is abounding.” But people have offered this same sad notion since before Socrates noted it.  If in fact we were ruled by chaos, civilization would have exhausted thousands of years ago as the strong dominate, plunder and annihilate the weak.  If evolution is our binding force, there should be no reason to not follow that recipe, we are here only as another form of animal. Taking what territory or possessions we can with no regard to such abstact ideas as “feelings” or “rights.” Charity would not only be an abnormality, but would be counter-productive to self-actualization.  In practice, this was the mindset of >80% of the world’s population until a man named Jesus said, “I have a theory of evolution. Would you like to hear it?”

Yep� a religion with absolutely no payoff. We�re born, we live, we die. For the atheist, how can anyone have any more value than that� any more purpose than that?

Wow, Ron, you sure are putting on a fine display of your stunning lack of imagination.  Without your Big Daddy upstairs, you can’t imagine ANY purpose to life, ANY good qualities to humankind, ANY value in what we do on our own?

People can be noble, kind, moral, civilized, self-sacrificing and all those other good things ON THEIR OWN.  We don’t NEED to invent an imaginary parent to make us be more than animals.  The problem with you is, you assume we all need the same crutch you’ve got.  No, thanks.

Love of a Creator (as opposed to love of any theory) is essential for peace within the human heart.

Says who?

“Love of a Creator” certainly doesn’t make the WORLD more peaceful now, does it?  Last I looked we’ve got thousands of dead people who got that way because of some religious nuts’ love of their Creator.  The world would be a whole lot better off if people would keep their love of their Creator to themselves and quit trying to strong-arm everyone else into their fucking delusions.

Oh my. Ron’s comment qualifies as ”condescending rhetoric and lack of consideration of the intelligence demonstrated toward those in opposition to the notion that” the Christian dogma offers a valid explanation of the origin of species.

Geekmom,
How ironic you chose the words “lack of imagination” to desribe my comments.  Imagination is that process within the mind that guides the creation process from nonexistence into being.  I am not sure that that has been proven to be an evolved trait.  But, it is a fact that no other species has developed a life-expanding imagination to the level of the latest species to have evolved on earth.  In fact, Geekmom, I am very much aware of mankind’s desire to be good and noble.  My point was, that fact goes against the forces of the natural world, and points to an unknown imprint.  A variable that sticks like a chicken bone in the throat of evolution’s apologies.

To elwedriddsche and OB,
As far as “strong-arming” or a “condescending” attitude.... if you knew me personally, you would find that I live this philosophy: I am more when you are more to me.  I have the requirement to listen and learn from any source and respect the character traits that helped another to develop their opinions.  If you reread my post to which you refer, I offered nothing derogatory nor demeaning.  It is not my nature.  This goes to show that truth can be shrouded and truth can be subjective.  (I will admit to a sarcastic streak, but it is never aimed at another human being, unless they are my best friends. lol)

I found this site by a fluke and stayed to read and ponder due in large part to the intelligent, wit and ..yes.. sarcasm demonstrated by many of the posts.  The tone is set by Les and I enjoy it.  Attacking others merely points to the accuracy of my statements 4 posts ago that we have, by some means beyond evolution, the capacity to supercede lives given over to merely allowing might to make right.  Our horror that someone can, in the name of God, subjugate other human beings is in itself the mark of an enlightened conciousness, not an instinctual, “nature-as-my-guide” vestige of our climb down from the trees into a clearing where we joined hands.  I don’t question the evidences of construction over a very long period of time.  I just question the ability of one to bend down before one’s child and say eye-to-eye, “All we are is dust in the wind.”

and .... God is not a “crutch.” God is a root.

Yeah, and too many of his followers are root-bound!

I just question the ability of one to bend down before one’s child and say eye-to-eye, “All we are is dust in the wind.”

While I’ve sung that line on a Las Vegas stage, I’ve never used it to explain anything to my 12-year-old.  In fact, on Good Friday it went like this:

Mom: (holding out a basket full of chocolate treats) I’ve got something to tell you, honey.  The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and God… none of them are real.

Princess:   Uh, Mom, I already knew that.  Do you think I’m retarded?

So, question no more, Ron.  Parents (and apparently children) are quite able to “bend down” and speak the truth.