Not logged inOpenClonk Forum - Archive
Forum Home Help Search Watchlist Register Login
Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-04 22:18 Edited 2013-09-04 22:47

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


I don't see how that has to do with anything.

>Because of all the support for racism, slavery, homophobia, misogony, cruelty, evil, and intolerance and so on and so forth.


The world use to be perfect, but because of man's sin (see Genesis in the Bible) the world is now full of racism, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, cruelty, evil, and intolerance for truth.

>Have eight.


None of those are a change of kind including the peppered moth (which was admitted as a fake by evolutionist a long time ago),and Darwin's finches (which are still the same kind of bird by the way).
So

>Have eight.


No. Have none.

>In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".


The Bible is "a true story" and "of course it's true".

>Oh, no we aren't.


Your right were not. The Bible is obviously truth. Just observe the infinite universe and we will see (if we have an open mined to truth)that the Bible is truth.

>Give me an observable example of someone turning water into wine via divine intervention.


I have not personally observed this so I can't, but then again I have not personally observed your brain, but I have faith that you do have one.
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-05 23:40

>I don't see how that has to do with anything.


Because if you want to say that that we have a purpose, it's up to you to prove it. By default, there's no reason for me to believe it until you do.

>the world is now full of racism, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, cruelty, evil, and intolerance for truth.


Which the bible encourages.

>peppered moth (which was admitted as a fake by evolutionist a long time ago)


No it wasn't.

>None of those are a change of kind


.

>The Bible is "a true story" and "of course it's true".


Oh no it isn't.

>The Bible is obviously truth. Just observe the infinite universe and we will see (if we have an open mined to truth)that the Bible is truth.


That's a non-sequitur.

>I have not personally observed this so I can't, but then again I have not personally observed your brain, but I have faith that you do have one.


So you believe in evolution, by the same logic.
Parent - - By Matthias [de] Date 2013-09-06 00:12
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2013-09-06 07:15
+1
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-06 18:00
Heh.

I got tired of bothering with putting any effort in my writing, just to have him ignore it. So I started putting making my words equally convincing to his. It's fun. Perhaps that's why he does it.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-07 07:50
I am sorry for being facetious. I did not realize how rude I was in not answering your questions directly. I am also sorry for ignoring you. As I said I am not perfect and I make mistakes.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-07 07:58
Good point. Sorry.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-06 04:05 Edited 2013-09-06 05:08

>Because if you want to say that that we have a purpose, it's up to you to prove it. By default, there's no reason for me to believe it until you do.


The bible has the proof, if you want it.

>Which the bible encourages.


I don't know what bible your reading, but my bible dose not encourage that.

>No it wasn't.


Look it up.

>Oh no it isn't.


My bible is.

>That's a non-sequitur.


What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.

>So you believe in evolution, by the same logic.


The idea that you have a brain is logical. Evolution is not at all logical; So no, I do not believe evolution.
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-06 16:03

> What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.


What he is trying to say is that you in your argumentation use fallacies all the time. You are not making a logical argument.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-07 08:02
Thanks for the advice. I was to hasty in my answer and did not make a logical argument.
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-06 17:59

>The bible has the proof, if you want it.


Well in that case, I could just write my own holy book and it would be just as valid as the Bible.

>I don't know what bible your reading, but my bible dose not encourage that.


Deuteronomy chapter 7, God says tells the Israelites“to smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.” in regards to non-Israelites. Rascim

Leviticus 25:44
Romans 13:1-5
Titus 3:1,
Titus 2:9
Peter 2:18
Col 3:22
Cor 7:21-22
Eph 6:5
All support slavery.

And don't you dare try and tell the Bible isn't misogynistic or homophobic. Don't you dare.

Cruelty. See the above. And the countless examples of God and his followers doing awful things to non-Christians/Jews with the full support of the Bible.

Evil. All of the above and more.

Intolerance. "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

>Look it up.


I did.

>What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.


What Newton said.

>The idea that you have a brain is logical. Evolution is not at all logical; So no, I do not believe evolution.


Meanwhile, the Bible is one gigantic piece of circular logic. "We know the Bible is true because God says so, and we know what God says because the Bible tells us." There is no logic in the Bible whatsover.

On the other hand, evolution is just genetics extended over time. Off-spring are not identical to their parents. They are even more different from their grand-parents. Logically, they will be very very different from their very very distant ancestors.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 07:36
Well, I can see and understand better some of the things you are seeing in the Bible.  Yes, there are many verses in which the Bible tells what God commanded the Israelites to do "destroy a nation", because of their sin.  But, the same Old Testament tells of how God raised up the nations to destroy almost all of the Jewish people for the same reason, their sin.  He does say He chose them for His purpose, but at no time does God say that the Israelites were better or superior than any other people group (nation).   The Bible teaches there is only one race, the human race, from which all the nations come from.

On the topic of slavery, the Bible teaches that before the nation of Israel was established, people had already begun to make slaves of other people.  Then we find that when God established the nation of Israel, He gave laws addressing all aspects of life, including the issue of slavery.  He makes is clear that there are responsibilities of slave owners and slaves alike, plus ways a person who is enslaved might gain their freedom.  The New Testament teaches that if we have a chance to get free from slavery, we should take it.

On the topic of misogynistic or homophobic, I don't see that.  God clearly teaches that men and women are unique in their creation.  It is true, that He made gender and that they had special roles, but that these roles were complimentary to one another.  The Bible teaches that God also established marriage, and His perimeters for our sexuality.  In the New Testament it is clearly declared that God doesn't respect one gender above another when it comes to honor, to eternal life and life after death.  There is no room for hate or disrespect for anyone of the opposite gender that I can see in the Bible.

The Israelites were given clear laws about sexual relationships by God, according to the Bible.  All sexual contact out side of the man and woman marriage relationship established in Genesis is sin.  And, just as Jesus forgave the women caught in adultery in the New Testament, I believe that any of us who are living outside of God's design can find the same love and forgiveness through Christ.  The Bible does not condone mistreatment of other people, even if they are living life styles that we believe are immoral.  We are to love those that hate us and misuse us, etc...

As for the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc... who use their Holy Writings to justify abuse against other people, it is sad and wrong.  The Bible clearly teaches that God made everything perfect and that people messed it all up by their disobedience to God.  It also teaches that all of creation has suffered because of man kind's sin.

As for God's disgust and intolerance of false gods... Well can you blame the God of all things wanting to protect people from the lie that there are other gods?

Well those are some of the things I see.  I even have relatives who are homosexuals, and I love and care for them.  Yet, I don't have to say that what they are doing is right.

Thanks again for taking the time to challenge my thinking and beliefs. :)
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-10 08:18

> As for God's disgust and intolerance of false gods... Well can you blame the God of all things wanting to protect people from the lie that there are other gods?


uhm… please elaborate.
are you talking about ppl lying and saying there are specific gods (that they themselves don't believe in) just to damage other people?
or are you talking about good moral people who happen to believe in another god than you (or in another name for the same one? or in a multitude of gods that together fulfill what your one god does?)
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 16:45
Believing in one god does not make one intolerant of people who believe in multiple gods or no god at all any more than someone who believes in multiple gods or in no god is intolerant of someone who believes in one god.  My point is that according to the Bible there is only one God.
Parent - By ker Date 2013-09-11 11:00

>My point is that according to the Bible there is only one God.


1. Do you believe there is only one god?
2. Do you think that anyone believing in another god is lying or believing a lie?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-11 12:20
What about people that believe in god, but choose to not take the bible literally on a number of issues? As far as I'm concerned, there are worse things to imagine for what we can't explain than a Christian god being involved. It's just that "things that we can't explain" goes back to before the big bang and down below string theory for me.

Call me egoistical, but I would very much like to believe that there is more interesting stuff to discover, and not the big "nah, sorry, everything you do will probably die with this rock you're on" that it looks like so far. I mean, what kind of jerk would god be if he didn't leave some loophole in there for FTL spaceships? :(
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-11 23:13
Alcubierre Drive?
we just need negative energy
and tadaa
oh wait. Alcubierre Drives are uncontrollable from the inside.
so we just bend spacetime enough to create superluminal space highways.

but most likely we will still die on this big wet rock
Parent - - By Caesar [de] Date 2013-09-12 10:06
Didn't the Alcubierre drive require more normal energy to create the negative energy, than the entire galaxy has?
Parent - By ker Date 2013-09-12 10:08
used to require 1/4th of the mass of our sun in energy
but they found a way to only require a few nukes worth of energy

anyway: energy requirements are only delays, if it's physically possible, humans will do it (in case they don't exterminate themselves first)
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-11 17:24

>On the topic of misogynistic or homophobic, I don't see that.


I'm going to respond to this as politely as I can:
I am done talking to you.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-12 01:03
I am very sorry to hear that. :.( 
I have loved talking to you. :)
I hope you do reconsider.
I will always be your friend.
Parent - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-12 11:14 Edited 2013-09-12 11:23
Really? I am surprised that you are taken aback that Christians construe their holy book in a way that confirms with modern moral.
Since they are stuck with an 2000+ year old work and no new prophet is in sight who could update it, it is completely natural to reinterpret sections as being meant metaphorically slash in an ancient context etc. What else did you expect?
I venture to say that most of what we think of practised Christian belief in history and nowadays were and are based on interpretations on the bible. The convenient thing about the bible is that it's not a law book, rather a story book: It is mendable in the hands of religious scholars and the laws deducted from it vary in different eras.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-07 08:06
I believe that we do have a purpose and that purpose is to glorify and worship the Lord (God) and to spread His Word (the Bible).
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-03 18:58
And another thing

>Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.


Give me an observable example of someone turning water into wine via divine intervention.
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-02 02:43

>Buddhism.


Thai Buddhism? ;-)
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-02 18:32
Tai Buddhism?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-03 16:07

> Everyone has a belief and everyone has a bias and everyone has a point of view and none are neutral.


A bias in this context means you selectively ignore or colour what you see so it better fits into your view. Science is all about not having such bias: Permitting all questions, and accepting only the answer that makes the least assumptions.

That's what evolution is about. We know that it exists, as a mechanism. Take a colony of bacteria, subject them to antibiotics for some time, and after a few hundreds or thousands of generations only bacteria are left that are resistant. You can run that experiment in a petri dish in a month. There's also strong evidence that our own genetic code is evolving - for example we probably managed to get mostly immune to leprosy over just the last few hundred years. Nobody can really contest that kind of evidence at this point.

Is it the same mechanism that caused us to evolve in the first place? We can't prove it, because we can't just visit the past. Even if we somehow managed to re-run the experiment and re-evolved humans from monkeys over millions of years, we couldn't actually *prove* that this is the same mechanism that made us. You can always go and say "yeah, but circumstances were different".

That's why everything science proposes are theories: Things that have been demonstrated to be true for a large number of examples, and at some point we extend this and say that it is probably going to be true for other examples we see in the past or the present. The fewer assumptions we have to make on the way, the easier it is, the more likely we regard a theory to be.

So why does science discard the theory that humans might have been designed by a higher entity? Simply because it would make evolution more complicated. Instead of saying "If we have an organism that reproduces, it will over time optimize to its environment" we have to add "except if it happens to be a human or anything that the Bible mentions, in which case it can only evolve minimally as it would otherwise stray too far from God's plan".

From a theoretical point of view, that is a completely arbitrary restriction - wouldn't you also get suspicious if somebody announced that "1+1 = 2, expect if it's my salary, then 1+1 = 1000000"? This is the same principle, but on a much larger scale: The more cases a theory covers (= the fewer assumptions it makes) without having a counter-example, the more likely it is to be true. That's a completely neutral way to gauge true-ness, which we call the scientific method. Science is not knowledge, but it is qualitatively more than a belief.
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2013-09-03 17:36
What are the assumptions for the absolute trueness of this description of the "scientific method"? ;)

And what is exactly an assumption? Or rather how do I minimize the number of assumptions?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-03 17:40 Edited 2013-09-03 17:43
Anything that reduces the number of phenomena that the theory makes predictions about is an assumption (as I am using the term here). If you can remove it without a counter-example popping up, the scientific method says that you should.

And yes, it's obviously just an explanation of the scientific method as I understand it. Actually this whole discussion should be "go read Popper" :)
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2013-09-03 17:44
So computation time is an assumption?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-03 17:46
What exactly are you thinking of?
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2013-09-03 19:24
Theory of all (String theory, has just a few assumptions: string coupling, some symmetry choice and some compactification scheme) but we humans cannot possibly calculate for example DNA from that, which is in principle possible if one has enough computing time.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-04 10:54 Edited 2013-09-04 10:56
Still not sure what your point is, sorry. The main trouble with string theory as I understand it is that we haven't yet figured out what it would actually predict, so it's basically just a piece of math. That *might* just be a matter of computers or humans putting in enough calculations to figure it out - but that doesn't change much. A theory is after all a human thinking tool: If we are not smart enough to derive predictions from it, it is useless.
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2013-09-04 11:06
I'd say that we are useless in that case :)
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-04 13:54
A rather odd statement, after all, what is more useful then? Anything has a limit on how much reasoning it can do - you need theories to simplify things no matter how smart we are.

It might be a bit subtle, but note that using terms such as "remove an assumption" implies some sort of measure of complexity. After all, otherwise we wouldn't know what direction a "removal" is. For example, this does not mean that Newton's theory of gravity is unscientific just because we have to assume that relative speeds never approach light speed. After all, we would have to first add a whole bunch of math before we could remove that assumption.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-04 22:46 Edited 2013-09-05 18:53
I see what your saying, but I think you missed what I was trying to say, which was that everyone has a point of view (ie. their perception of truth or reality) and that they will view everything from that point and that they can not view the world without a point of view. So no-one can say that they are neutral or that they have no point of view or belief.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-05 14:45 Edited 2013-09-05 14:49
You can only see what you (personally) see, yes. But does that matter? Today we have enough information technology that you can look up any piece of information that you're interested in online. Everybody can read the bible, everyone can read science books - in the end what we arrive at doesn't depend on our view-point, but on the system you use to evaluate the facts and choose our beliefs on their basis.

And at this point, the scientific method is superior - simply because it is all about going out and challenging your beliefs. Keep in mind that you can't actually disprove "science" - because once you disprove it properly, that's just more science. If we find something in the world that actually strongly points towards a biblical origin story, scientists would be on board in seconds. Contrast that with most religions actually forbidding even touching other view-points ("You shall have no gods beside me"?).

In short: Strong "no". Science is all about that we all arrive at the same conclusions no matter where we start, as long as we are rigorous in never believing anything that we can't challenge.
Parent - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-05 15:19
Interesting. So from this view-point, any kind of belief (not just religious) is actually self-chosen ignorance. Makes sense though: If I believe in, say, the man-made global warming, I do believe the specialists who say it is true. Which is a self-chosen ignorance because I could get the scientific researches on it myself.

And nowadays, people believe in science because any science must have been, by definition, produced through the scientific method.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-05 19:20 Edited 2013-09-05 19:32

>If we find something in the world that actually strongly points towards a biblical origin story, scientists would be on board in seconds.


This is not true. Everything in the world is obviously intelligently designed, but some people say that it is not. What I am trying to say is people will deny truth even when there is no logical alternative; This is because some people do not want the accountability and consequences that comes with truth. For example if we want "something" and truth says that you can't have that "something" then we may choose to deny truth, because it gets in the way of what we want even if what we want will cause us harm.
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-05 23:42

>This is not true.


Yes it is.

>Everything in the world is obviously intelligently designed


Have you ever tried using the London Underground?

>What I am trying to say is people will deny truth even when there is no logical alternative;


Like you keep doing.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-06 03:39

>Yes it is.


All I am trying to do is help you see truth, but because you don't want to accept the truth and its consequences (which you still will have by the way) you are going to do what ever you want and that is your choice not mine. I love you, because God commands us to love even our enemys, and I don't want you to go to hell. That dose not mean that I am perfect or do not make mistakes, but I believe the bible, and that is absolutely not a mistake.      

>Have you ever tried using the London Underground?


No, but because of man's sin there is chaos.

>Like you keep doing.


All I "keep doing" is believing the truth.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2013-09-06 07:14

> I love you, because God commands us to love even our enemys


Funny, my bible says "stone everyone who worships other gods" (Deuteronomy 17) :)
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-06 15:53
Only the convenient parts of the bible are true.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2013-09-06 19:34
Oh. How... convenient
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-06 14:00 Edited 2013-09-06 16:11
Don't call a point of disagreement "obvious". If somebody sees things differently, it is by definition not obvious. If you resort to that kind of claim we have to assume you had nothing better to say in your favor.

The whole "knowledge means responsibility" thing feels like quite a tangent, but I would say that science puts a much larger burden on us than the bible in many ways. After all, we can (and probably will) destroy the earth if we keep on like this, something that God would probably not let happen.
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2013-09-06 14:05
Where did you find that mankind can destroy the earth?

I think only god is able to do so ;)
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-06 14:57
Hm, sloppy wording. I meant our living environment :)
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-07 08:14

>Don't call a point of disagreement "obvious". If somebody sees things differently, it is by definition not obvious. If you resort to that kind of claim we have to assume you had nothing better to say in your favor.


Hm, your right I guess It seems obvious to me, but maybe not to some people.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-07 15:55
Then try to explain why exactly it seems obvious to you. Honestly - I pretty much just wrote a paper about an issue that seemed painfully obvious to me, but could get nobody to understand. Took me half a year to find the right way to put the argument, but now I'm probably getting a PhD out of it (feels kind of silly, to be honest, but eh, I guess it always does).
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 01:12
Wow! That's a good question. I guess it's almost impossible for me to explain why something is obvious to me. Do you have an explanation for why something would be obvious to you?
Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill