|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 8, 2009 10:19:39 GMT -5
Babe, I am many things, but one thing I most certainly am NOT is "dantes virgin My point is that personal beliefs have real consequences. As I said in my previous post, he is not writing the legislation, no. But he is very, very likely supporting it through his vote. He is as responsible as the legislature--that's how democracy works. Whether he has the power to make his viewpoint more impactful is beside the point; there are very real ways that he can impact everyone else with his nonsensical point of view. I don't want to be beholden to the whims of someone who does not operate from a logical point of view. Because you never know what they might do next; and they won't care whether the reason "makes sense" or not. That's a terrible position to be in or at the mercy of.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Apr 8, 2009 10:23:55 GMT -5
Well since erictheblue asked for this to be posted... Here is one I made with the figures according to 2001 census data... And just for grins, this is how we see the fundies claims of persecution... any questions?
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 8, 2009 10:32:13 GMT -5
Wait a minute Red. In Science, it isn't so much that Evolution is a proven fact, it is that all evidence collected has shown that Evolution seems to be the case, and quite strongly to be the case. Technically, it isn't so much that it has been proven right, it is that after 150 years of exhaustive research, it hasn't been proven wrong. It has adapted and grown in scope as more research revealed more extraordinary aspects of biological systems, but the models themselves are never 100% accurate and can only operate within a margin of error. In that regard, Evolution isn't proven right, it is simply shown to be a very accurate representation of what is going on in Nature. Now, for everyday terms, it might as well be said that it is fact, because now, the only things in contention within Science about Evolution is the details and subtleties behind Evolution, but regardless, it isn't a 100% proven thing. It is probably a 99.99% sort of thing, which still puts the Theory beyond reasonable doubt, but still not quite at being 'proven right'. Never being shown to be wrong isn't the same as being shown to be right, if that makes sense. But anyways, enough nitpicking on my part. I'm gonna nitpick a little on this =P. You make it sound as though the only reason evolution is accepted is because it hasn't been proven wrong. While it's necessary that something hasn't been proven wrong for it to be accepted, it's not sufficient. Remember, last thursdayism had never been proven wrong. What I mean is that the reason evolution is accepted is that all the evidence points clearly towards it being true. Retroviral DNA we share with chimpanzees, fossils, and the mammalian diving reflex all indicate that we aren't what we once were. Yes, evolution hasn't been proven wrong. Nor can anything ever be truly proven without prior assumptions. But all the evidence we have has indicated that evolution is correct. And no one else has put forth a theory that explains why everything we've found is the way it is, and exactly how it got to be this way.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 8, 2009 12:31:02 GMT -5
Thanks Lazy One. I agree his facts are a bit off. I need to go home. It's the end of the working day here in S.Africa and I really should stop being on the internet, and go home :-) This was fun, I'll come back tomorrow and post some bible verses to get people really rilled up (okay that was a joke - please don't ban me, powers that be!) As long as said bible verses are kept in the Preaching and Worship section, then you'll be just fine. Seriously though, don't worry about it and welcome aboard.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 8, 2009 12:39:15 GMT -5
I'm gonna nitpick a little on this =P. You make it sound as though the only reason evolution is accepted is because it hasn't been proven wrong. While it's necessary that something hasn't been proven wrong for it to be accepted, it's not sufficient. Remember, last thursdayism had never been proven wrong. What I mean is that the reason evolution is accepted is that all the evidence points clearly towards it being true. Retroviral DNA we share with chimpanzees, fossils, and the mammalian diving reflex all indicate that we aren't what we once were. Yes, evolution hasn't been proven wrong. Nor can anything ever be truly proven without prior assumptions. But all the evidence we have has indicated that evolution is correct. And no one else has put forth a theory that explains why everything we've found is the way it is, and exactly how it got to be this way. But my point was to illustrate that it isn't 100% proven fact, but really more of a case of evidence showing that the models presented by Evolutionary Theory as being very accurate and well-supported. A difference, but one that should be highlighted for sake of clarity. We come up with hypothesises to describe and model phenomena in nature, which in turn become theories once research has been done to refine and support such hypothetical models. This means all that is done is a mere descriptive process, in that whatever we come up with to describe a process, it won't be 100% accurate. We create models which work well enough to be used, and refine them to reduce the margin of error, so whilst the Evolutionary model has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to work, there will always be a margin of error that needs to be corrected for and refined. This is why research is always an ongoing process. I hope that explains things clearer as to what I was getting at.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 8, 2009 13:55:47 GMT -5
I would just like to say thank you to brendanjd, szaleniec, Armand, blue finger, Redhunter and erictheblue for the reasonable responses to a question, which in my opinion, was not judgemental nor criticising, just a question. You're welcome, and welcome to FSTDT. As others have said, this isn't an atheists-only site - we welcome religious people of all kinds, including actual fundies provided they're not just here to troll. Enjoy your stay.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 8, 2009 14:33:23 GMT -5
Trillian, I hope you're not saying all beliefs are inherently worthy of respect.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 8, 2009 14:58:17 GMT -5
First off, let me introduce myself. Hi, I'm Trillian, and I believe in God. Hi and welcome. I'm Current, and I don't. I don't know how it's lately, since I've stayed away from the mainpage and Public Admin, but last time I checked out this was indeed a problem, although it was getting better. It always annoyed me. His facts are more than "a bit" off, they wildly misrepresent science and the evidence for evolution. He also used the thoroughly flawed argument of "complexity equals design". His claim that he will change his mind if enough evidence is presented is nearly meaningless, considering the amount of evidence readily available for anyone looking. Ignoring scientific evidence in favour of religious myth is a fundie attitude.I'll have to ask for clarification here. What do you mean it's "the atheist's trump card"? And what does free speech have to do with being a fundie or not? Free speech gives him the right to voice his opinions. It also gives me the right to mock him for holding them. We are not trying to remove his rights to express an opinion, no matter how little grounding in reality it has.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 8, 2009 21:31:43 GMT -5
First off, let me introduce myself. Hi, I'm Trillian, and I believe in God. Hi, I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to say a couple of things, some of which have been said. So, let's dissect this. Said person: Does not know what a scietific theory is. Claims no facts back up evolution. Thinks that the comparison to a car is valid, though we know cars are made in plants because we can see the plants. My car has Ford stamped on it...Please show me where God signed the Earth. Conflates the complexity of the items with the process behind them. Saying "Give me irrefutable proof" is bollocks. It's dishonest at the least, as his car analogy also is. Fundamentalism isn't just about hunting atheists. It can also involve attacking scientific process for the sake of doctrine. His rebuttal comes from a position of fundamentalism; he doesn't need to name God in order to make a fundie argument because he is making an argument that relies on a creator (ie the car analogy). I find that rather insulting. First off, that question is inane, as freedom of speech does not mean "I get to say what you want, you cannot refute or mock me." More on that in a second. I really dislike the "atheist's top trump card." That's just insulting, especially when you consider how frequently the people against evolution and the Big Bang complain about persecution and the lack of free speech. But back to what free speech means. Free speech means you can say what you want and I can say what I want. Neither of us can do certain things, like incite a riot, scream "fire!" in a crowded theater, and so on. But here's the lovely thing about free speech: You just used it. You criticised the criticism this site offered. Ironically, you offered criticism condemning criticism, but we'll ignore that. Free speech does not protect one from criticism. Hell, I don't even have to use logic to respond to fundie criticism, and nobody on this board has to. After all, we're as entitled to our opinions as much as he is. We could call him a braindead fucktard. Of course, the difference is, we're not. What he said was ridiculous. Even asking for proof at this stage is inane, because it's everywhere. Challenging people with the tired "the watch proves the watchmaker" logic is illogical and irrational, and there is no excuse for arguing science without knowing what a theory is. There's also no excuse for arguing freedom of speech without knowing what it entails.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 8, 2009 21:39:43 GMT -5
I can't remember who dug this up for me, but thanks again! From Stephen Hawkings In other words, although it can't ever be proven, there's a hell of a lot of evidence showing it happened. But if you want to disprove evolution, all it will take is one experiment that disproves the theory.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 8, 2009 21:45:36 GMT -5
In other words, although it can't ever be proven, there's a hell of a lot of evidence showing it happened. But if you want to disprove evolution, all it will take is one experiment that disproves the theory. Which is the one thing they're lacking.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 8, 2009 22:16:06 GMT -5
There's a good reason for regarding creationism with more concern than other areas of pseudoscience, even independent of its religious roots. If luminiferous aether theorists* were given to declaring that their hypothesis was ideologically pure and the foundation of a better society (see section CA000 here), and had a number of influential believers, then we'd be rightly suspicious of them as well. The view that it's less important to have an accurate model of how things work than for the philosophical ramifications to match a certain ideology looks unsettlingly familiar.* Yes, they exist. The sci.physics archives contain any number of inelegant attempts to reconcile the existence of the aether with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 9, 2009 2:06:14 GMT -5
And yes, it matters completely that his point doesn't make sense, because he holds that stance BECAUSE of religion telling him that evolution doesn't happen. Evolution is a proven fact. To NOT believe in reality because of what your religion tells you, IS fundie. Disbelieving reality because of what your religion tells you, as a matter of fact, is the VERY definition of fundie! [/color][/quote] Wait a minute Red. In Science, it isn't so much that Evolution is a proven fact, it is that all evidence collected has shown that Evolution seems to be the case, and quite strongly to be the case. Technically, it isn't so much that it has been proven right, it is that after 150 years of exhaustive research, it hasn't been proven wrong. It has adapted and grown in scope as more research revealed more extraordinary aspects of biological systems, but the models themselves are never 100% accurate and can only operate within a margin of error. In that regard, Evolution isn't proven right, it is simply shown to be a very accurate representation of what is going on in Nature. Now, for everyday terms, it might as well be said that it is fact, because now, the only things in contention within Science about Evolution is the details and subtleties behind Evolution, but regardless, it isn't a 100% proven thing. It is probably a 99.99% sort of thing, which still puts the Theory beyond reasonable doubt, but still not quite at being 'proven right'. Never being shown to be wrong isn't the same as being shown to be right, if that makes sense. But anyways, enough nitpicking on my part.[/quote] I agree, enough nitpicking. Okay then, a fundie will say the earth is 5-10,000 years old because of what it states in the bible despite the FACT that we know it is much older. There are a thousand different points that fit and support the gist of what I was saying despite the .01% chance that I (and the bulk of scientific research) may be wrong. And if you argue that your percentage numbers are just blurted out estimates and not factual representations of the real numbers which at this time cannot be known as if that was the point of my post I will remove your coccyx with a spork and use it to mix my tea.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 9, 2009 12:30:22 GMT -5
Well since erictheblue asked for this to be posted... Here is one I made with the figures according to 2001 census data... any questions? Yeah, can we get this one with all the Non-Christian Christians split up? I'm sure they'd be shocked to find out how much of the "Christian majority" is Catholic or Mormon.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Apr 9, 2009 13:14:30 GMT -5
Well since erictheblue asked for this to be posted... Here is one I made with the figures according to 2001 census data... any questions? Yeah, can we get this one with all the Non-Christian Christians split up? I'm sure they'd be shocked to find out how much of the "Christian majority" is Catholic or Mormon. If you are going to take out Catholics and Mormons, why not everyone else who isn't a True Christian? tm Moderate-to-liberal Christians, gay Christians, Christians who support sex education and abortion, Christians who don't support beating their kids...
|
|