Posts by inrainbows

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

Burn

How so? How can you scientifically prove evolution is absolutely unguided? I would like to see this.

I said Benedict's statement was wrong; as hamilcarr points out, for a START no evolutionist CAN claim evolution is unguided as the theory states various selection pressures control the 'direction' of the process. That is 'guding'. If Pope Benedict meant non-biological paranormal guidance, then again, Benedict is wrong as evolutionary theory does not require a paranormal plate-spinner to keep the process going.

It could be laughable to a future malapert.

You say malapert like it's a bad thing ;-)

Dear burn, overcoming ground-in dogma that isn't based on fact requires more than the scholarly presentation of facts. You HAVE to rattle windows. You might not be able to lead a horse to water, but you CAN (sometimes) make it think, LOL. And although those that malaperts engage in direct discussion with might be incorrible (hooberus being a case in point) I KNOW a number of 'those who lurk' whose opinions over time have been overturned by lively discussion such as this who I now see arguing from the opposite side of the fence (or at least astradle it). And from personal correspondence I know more who never say a word also have their opinions overturned; not neccesarily by me or others arguing for a modernistic viewpoint but ny the consistant failure of those arguing against it to do justice to their own opinions.

No. I stand by what I said. It is unlikely that future scientific discoveries would render my little creation myth as laughable as that of the Bible/Quran/Bhaghadvita/Norse Mythos/Greco-Roman mythos/Pre-Colombians/Aborigonals.

To make my silly little creation myth as silly as those would require that the basic scientific understandings of cosmology and natural selection were totally wrong. This is rather unlikely; details, yeah, fine? Total re-writes of modern understanding comparable to geocentric -> solarcentric or flat earth -> round world are simply VERY unlikely. Unlike a dogmatic believer using a holy book as my definiton of facts I would embrace such re-writes if they came though.

Oh, please give me an indication of why you think modern science is 100% wrong. Otherwise you are rejecting a valid point on fanciful grounds. You're free to do that, but I am free to point it out.

Ancient creation myths were made up by ill-informed primative people and mine is a deliberate attempt to illustrate how claims to 'inspiration' and ancient people 'doing their best with their understanding' are pointless apologisms for uninspired rubbish. IF god HAD inspired a creation myth then it would be easy to do one consistant with a/ modern science and b/ elastic enough to cope with future refinement. QED Creation myths are uninspired.

Why is it so important that you defend the view that there is no possibility for inspiration in Genesis?

So, you avoid the question (and by doing so answer it - LOL). But I am not afraid of answering yours; because Genesis (and the rest of the Bible et. al.) isn't just used as a nice fluffy thing. It is used by intolerent bigots to validate their intolerent bigoted world-view ON THE GROUNDS IT IS INSPIRED. By all means take the good from it (and the Quran/Bhaghadvita/Norse Mythos/Greco-Roman mythos/Pre-Colombians/Aborigonals). But strain out the bad. Why do you want to swallow the camel Burn?

Science is what you do with it. Of itself, it is meaningless.

No it isn't. Science defines and predicts things even if you do nothing with it. It did so before it (as in the rules) were discovered and will do so when the last person knowing the rules dies.

Oh good Lord, you don't understand capitalizing for emphasis?

Yes, and I was pointing out the thinking behind you emphasising it, and also that you were making strawman argument. Any comment about that?

As I've said, today's modern science will be tommorrow's Ptolemy. I don't subscribe to your hubris.

Rubbish, justify your statements. All I hear from your argument is the sound of someone scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to defend the right of some people to be totalitairian and dogmatic and to cling to a belief in inspiration. At the same time you ignore the fact people like me will happily embrace revison of scientific understanding as it comes whereas those you defend will STILL cling to their dogma no matter what current understanding of science may be.

You totally miss the point and defend the indefensable.

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

burn

Really? What does the Catholic belief in God have to do with the Modern Synthesis at all?

That's my entire point and Dawkin's too.

Re. Benedict

69
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

This is simply wrong.

Quod erat demonstrandum for an informed dweller of the early 21st century. This account would speak to his/her understanding of cosmology, a cosmology that has an inherent finality implied in your "updated" creation story.

My little creation myth is generalistic enough that it is unlikely future scientific discoveries would render it as laughable as Genesis. Why is it so important that you defend the possibilty that Genesis may have been inspired?

You want Scripture to be 100% consistent with modern science when modern science is not 100% consistent with TRUTH.

Oh good lord. You just capitilised truth. And made a strawman argument against all science. Modern science is interpretation of the facts as we know them. No claim to absolute truth. And I want anything claimed as inspired not to CONTRADICT modern science, okay? :-)

And science is fire; it provides heat AND light. And can burn you if you are not careful.

snowbird

laws and instructions given to God's people in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are without parallel.

Yeah, women ARE dirty after they mensturate and give birth and SHOULD be made to sleep in a tent for a week. LOL. Good thing I have a fringe round my skirt! Let's go stone a gay guy!! Woo! Oh no, I'm wearing polycotton, I am sinful ARGH!!

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

burn

mockingly calling their acceptance of evolution as a theory coupled with their belief in God as inconsistent.

Well, it is. The CATHOLIC (emphasising not shouting) belief of God is not consistent with Modern Synthesis. And with Pope Benidict at the helm they are actually backpeddling on previous partial acceptances of evolution. Pointing out facts is not mocking unless the people the facts that are being pointed out are the ones making fools of themselves.

Dawkins is more than proving evolution, he is about destroying faith.

He is showing that certain totalitarian fact-denying faith is wrong.

That is the FAITH'S problem. Don't blame Dawkins for a faith's inconsistancy of dogma vs facts.

You can still have faith without denying facts. Please concede this; it is true.

And if 'all' you are saying is that the existence of a fact-based paradigm that removes a requirement for paranormal hypotheses to explain biological diversity means that people will be less inclined to believe dogma that is not based upon facts, yeah. And? Is that meant to be a bad thing?

But that doesn't mean evolution makes people atheists. The lack of a decent theory of god makes people atheists.

We're here for a reason.

I disagree. And I think you are incapable of proving your assertion to a level that would be considered evidential in a court of law. And I count myself as being a theist for a given value of theos. But the fact I disagree does not mean that I count my life as meaningless.

Giving meaning to one's life, aye, there's the adventure, there's the thrill.

And PLEASE, people, let's stop trying to turn sow's ears (Holy book creation myths) into silk purses (credible accounts of why we are the way we are). If god was inspring the goatherds he could have inspired them with something that made far better sense from modern science's perspective;

And god stood alone, in nothing. Out of nothing god made a seed and from the speed sprang fire that filled the void. And god sang, and god's song shaped the fire into the stars above us and the planets that swing round the stars. And god looked down upon our world, and continued singing, and the molten face of our world cooled, and seas formed, and from the sea came the first life. And as god contiuned to sing all that we see around us in our came about, the simple becoming complex, life expanding and spreading in infinate variety to fill the whole earth. And god looked upon the apes in the land of Sheba, a million generations before our time, and sang to them. And they stood upon their hind limbs and became thinking and marvelled at all that was around them.
Thus came to be the sons and daughters of god on this Earth.

If god inspired the Bible the creation myth could be 100% consistant with modern science. It isn't, so the Bible is ot inspired, QED.

Oh, and please don't say that the creation myth had to be given in terms that were understandable to those it was given to. Large portions of most holy books are gibberish (locusts wearing sulphur coloured breastplates, beasts with sven heads, chariots with eagle-faced creatures and wheels within wheels); if the creation myth was gibberish until the 20th Century and then was shown to fit the theories of cosmolgy and biology to a T, wouldn't THAT be one in the eye for atheists? LOL.

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

Burn

Dawkins, for example, uses evolution as an anti-theist weapon.

Nope. He uses evolution as an anti-literalist theist weapon. He might be able to argue convicingly that such an entity is not 'likely', but his main use of evolution is against those who insist we need god (as frequently invisaged) to engage in wholesale acts of special creation as the evidence is that natural selection is the only thing needed to explain biological life's development and claims of acts of special creation (i.e. species level) are totally without evidence.

Many Atheists use evolution to bludgeon believers. There is a great deal of psychological and cultural overlap here. Please forgive me if I take them at their word.*

Nope. Atheists use it to 'bludgeon' believers who believe things that are contrary to the facts we see round us, just like those naughty naughty 'the world is round' possee used the FACT the world is round to bludgeon those poor ickle 'the Earth if flat' possee.

Please stop making creationists et. al. inability to prove their beliefs to a level whereby they could even be called theory the problem of other people. It is the problem of creationists et. al.. An atheist can no more use evolution to bludgeon a theist who believes god just set the ball rolling than fly to the moon on arse gas.

Your quotes of Dawkins in no way disproves this; read 'The God Dellusion' for more clarity. SJG uses the term 'postulate', which is to say the facts of evolution lead one to the conclusion x.

1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine

1) Define god to enable an answer to be made to the accuracy of this assertion.
2) There is no proof of life after death but this does not mean there is no god (see my answer to 1) above).
3) Ethics are actually quite well rooted in the physical world actually; animals with certain behaviour patterns will have differing survival prospects, so Provine is just wrong here.
4) Depends on the accuracy of 1) and therefore 2)
5) Is utter bollocks except on either abstracted philosophical or mechanistic biological terms; in every-day terms we have free will.

But stop with the arguement from authority anyway.

The fact that various people, due in part to evolutionary theory, do not believe in god, does not mean evolution is directly linked to being an atheist or capable of disproving god. This is an incontravertable fact.

NO QUOTE CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a person with a gun finds it easier to kill people than a person with a knife.

Evolution doesn't make atheists, people become athiests. But a person who knows evolution is more likely to become an atheist than a person who doesn't know evolution.

Many people who believe in evolution also believe in god. The main thing evolution has done is show that the claims of biblical (or other Holy Book) inerrancy and literal truth regading creation are unfounded and that it follows the totalitarian and intolerent belief systems such claims resulted in are false and man made.

And quite frankly, Junction Guy can repeat himself as much as he likes, but there is no more point in discussing the subject with him and his insistance of Biblical inerrancy than with a stone-age tribesman in a loin-cloth who holds the tribes cave paintings are inerrant as regards the Earth being created. Ignorance is not a virtue even when someone seems to be proud of it. All you do JC is limit god's power and create a false idol in your mind, an idol not of god as it may be but an idol composed of wood-pulp smeared with ink and the fairy stories within.

Your claim such rubbish is linked to god is offensive and blasphemous.

And Warlock, from past discussions I know you to be really ill-informed and dogmatic regading your beliefs in evolution. You not believing in evolution is like the above tribesman not believing in nuclear fission. Your arrogance and paranois (I know more than all biologists and they're involved in a godless conspiracy!!) is jaw-dropping. Wipe the spittle of your chin and calm down, you are embaressing yourself. Tell us, oh wise one, what FACTS prove evolution is not true??

But, hey, I don't think there's enough time before the Universe enters heat-death for you to do that, eh?

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

burn

There have been (and still are) evolutionist/atheists in the world who want to deny or limit the right to practice religion, for instance in China or North Korea. Stalin famously persecuted religious believers of all kinds.

I am sorry, but your attempt to link intolerant totalitarian ideologies with a scientific theory is a complete failure.

Political attempts to link with evolution have been similarly unsuccessful, so don't take this personally.

Your fallacious presupposition is shown in your usage of "evolutionist/atheists". On some subconscious level you equate the two - although you might deny this your own words show otherwise.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with atheism. You will learn NOTHING in a science class that disproves the existence of god.

What you learn in a science class will disprove the claims made by some people that the creation myths invented by bronze-age Levantine pastoralists/iron-age Arabian merchants/bronze-age agriculturalists from the Indian sub-continent/etc., etc., etc., are literally true.

Some ignorant ancient making up a creation myth that is obviously not true when examined against the available evidence does not disprove god.

Some modern-day apologist insisting those myths are true, or that variants on those myths that STILL conflict with the actual evidence are true doesn't disprove god.

The hubris of those seeking to ignore the evidence supporting modern evolutionary theory is that they limit the power of god. Their faith is too limited to accept that god might actually be clever enough to make the Universe the way it wants just by setting the ball rolling. Their minds can only comprehend a 'carpenter god' who has to get its hands dirty in an episodic creative process.

Either that or they realise that accepting that various Holy Books are not the literal word of god but imperfect documents authored by mostly well-meaning men means they also have to abandon condemnation of people leading lives that do not harm others on the basis of their beliefs, habits or sexuality based upon those some Holy Books.

And they are too scared and desperate to abandon the facile assurance that believing they are leading life exactly how god wants because some book says so gives them.

And this again is a failure of faith in god, because they end up worshipping a squashed dead tree with ink smeared on it instead of god as god might be. They make an idol in their minds; god as they want it to be.

And using this imaginary idol, this composite false-god of wood-pulp, ink, fear and insecurity, they condemn others or try to force the propagation of their own fantastical beliefs in the public school system.

Naturally they have a complete right to believe in whatever ignorant rubbish they wish. But not to have it taught in schools, and not to climb onto a pulpit and condemn others without the reaction such an action deserves.

They need to have the moral high-ground they conceitedly believe they hold taken from them by wholesale rejection and repudiation of such hate-mongering, not the lukewarm acceptance by less radical and more reasonable co-religionists.

A modern liberal Christian who does not condemn Christofascism acts in the same irresponsible fashion as a modern liberal Muslim who does not condemn similar Islamofascism.

You might disagree with me, but I would dearly love you to demonstrate through logical reasoned debate the fault in my argument.

Love and Kisses

inrainbows

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

inrainbows

http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200809.pdf

The above link clearly shows how the extreme Christian Creationist is a far greater threat to society than scientists who feel evolution is the correct explination for the development of life on this planet.

It also shows just how damaging ignorance can be to the intellect.

I don't think there's need to provide any more evidence regarding why evolution should be taught.

And I have no doubt that those who complain about evolution will be deafening in their failure to condemm Christofacist pond scum as exemplified by the above link.

53

9/11 Truth: Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175?

by What-A-Coincidence in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huk0mab0xa4.

inrainbows

The problem with the conspiracist arguements that dispute the official version of physical events is the huge voids in their arguments.

They claim that the towers were domolished using explosives but in addition to no firm evidence do not provide any mechanism for how the charges were put in place; any research will rveal that tonnes of explosives and weeks of very noticable work would have been required.

They also ignore that the impacts of panes and or collapsing tower debris and the subsequent fires produce the collapses in computer models.

They claim that the planes had explosive pods on them. They credulity of this is quite outstanding; they don't ever wonder why the explosives were placed inside the plane (there is loads of room after all), instead they claim a pod was bolted onto the outside with poor evidence and no explanation of how this was done or how the planes were able to fly with this massive arodynamic modification. And they ignore expert evidence that shows the so-called-pod is infact a photographic artifact (check Popular Mechanics).

They insist a plane didn't hit the Pentagon when there are dozens of eyewitnessess on the Freeway who saw the plane fly over their heads seconds before the impact.

They don't address the faults in their arguments that are splashed all over the internet, the cunning and deceptive nature of conspiracist websites, the partial and selective argumenttation.

The pathological nature of their beliefs structures is such that even WITH a perfectly adequate factual and scientific explanation for what hit what and when and why what happened next happened next, they insist SOMETHING ELSE happended, which they cannot prove and which often requires a massive leap of faith and presupposition to believe in.

And of course, there is the egotistical eltists posturing that they are of an elite 'in the know', and everyone else is an ignorent dupe.

As their belief patterns are so deeply pathological reasoned debate is largely pointless; the only people it can help are those with no firmly fixed opinion who have been deceived by the conspiracist propoganda and the attractive eltism of the argument. By reading discussions between the conspiracists and those with a more reasoned and evidential argument they can see that the conspiracists have NOTHING to disprove the physical events of the day.

Please note I do seperate the competence of the US government, the possibility of deliberate negligence, the definate use of terrorist attacks to justify existing poltical aims, whole-sale deception of the public through disinformation and stealing elections from the physical facts of 9/11. All of the last paragraph are possible parts of a massive government/industrial conspiracy.

But planes hit buildings and they fell down, another ploughed into the ground, another building fell down because a falling tower damaged it; no extra explosives required, no remote control airplanes or bombpods. To believe otherwise runs against the evidence.

41

Britain Olympics shock

by slimboyfat in

how did britain get to be third on the medals table?

that was a bit unexpected.

and beating the australians as well - they won't be pleased about that.

inrainbows

I for one am shocked at this flouting of tradtional British values.

The UK being an Olympic disappointment is part of my childhood.

I don't think I can cope with the success; I can now taunt Austalian's and Cloggies at the UK taking away traditonal Cloggies and Ozzie medals.

Ah, the joys of a English speaking office in the Netherlands.

81

How do you feel now? EVOLUTION OR CREATION??

by chuckyy in

jw
friends

as jws we were no doubt staunch creationists.

but how do you feel now??

do you still opt for creation or do you now feel evolution offers the right answer.

inrainbows

Some Creationists and ID'ers certainly share the same mind set.

Can you argue otherwise? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ is a good example of a Science Blog which gets persitant attacks by people who would CERTAINLY be witch burners in a different age.

If it floats, it is a witch, LOL.

And my classification of someone as an ignorant silly is not hasty. It's fact based so can be quite rapid at times (the duck paradigm is quite effective), but quick and hasty are two different things.

81

How do you feel now? EVOLUTION OR CREATION??

by chuckyy in

jw
friends

as jws we were no doubt staunch creationists.

but how do you feel now??

do you still opt for creation or do you now feel evolution offers the right answer.

inrainbows

Indeed. Dawkins holds a chair in science popularization and understanding. He acts in a manner (his religious zeal in discrediting faith) that is repellent to a large part of the general public. This kind of fundamentalist attitude only leads to fundamentalist pushback (on the other end of the spectrum).

And which quotes would you use to support this?

And the people who burnt witches pushed back against those who said they were mad and bad, the people who <insert mad belief here> pushed back against those who <insert humanistic fact based response>, etc.

Ignorant sillies not liking being classed as ignorant sillies is their problem.