"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
GilbertGrape said:
It's ok man, you can just peacefully pass by my posts. I don't mind. I don't mind if people disapprove of my spelling errors, or their objection of me not backing up arguments.
As for the Cambrian explosion, that speaks for itself. All one has to do is research it. It's out there for those who look. I wont do it justice. Just putting it out there for those who may not be aware of how the Cambrian explosion leaves the theory of evolution wanting for evidence of it's own beliefs.
What is the point in posting here with arguments if you are unwilling to back them up? It's a discussion forum, ok it's online but really, if you were engaged in a live discussion, would you act the same? One line statements denying what someone has taken time to explain followed by silence?As for the Cambrian explosion, that speaks for itself. All one has to do is research it. It's out there for those who look. I wont do it justice. Just putting it out there for those who may not be aware of how the Cambrian explosion leaves the theory of evolution wanting for evidence of it's own beliefs.
Seems utterly pointless to me, given that I and I would hope others here would genuinely be interested to hear anything of true substance which you might like to put forward. It's why I'm spending my time reading this thread, to hear arguments being put forward and the reasoning behind them. Why are you reading and posting if not for the same reasons?
GilbertGrape said:
or their objection of me not backing up arguments.
It's not you presenting an argument if you don't back it up it's an assertion. Arguments require points and evidence.You are either too stupid to get this or are just trolling for you own amusement and not to actually have a decent discussion.
I'm going with the "special needs stupid" option.
I wasn't really sue what GG was on about with is oblique references, so I flick read the wiki page.
The closest I can get is;
The closest I can get is;
wiki said:
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century, and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection. The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centres on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.
Nevertheless there is still much debate about whether the Cambrian explosion was really explosive and, if so, how and why it happened and why it appears unique in the history of animals.
So it seems there is an ongoing debate as to what might have occurred. Nevertheless there is still much debate about whether the Cambrian explosion was really explosive and, if so, how and why it happened and why it appears unique in the history of animals.
Halb said:
So it seems there is an ongoing debate as to what might have occurred.
Science has moved on considerably in the last 150 years. GG makes the mistake that the Cambrian explosion somehow is a blight against evolution. Again, he makes a mistake. It is often used by creationists as though it is some sudden period where BANG all these things appear. You see it on creationist documentaries as the old clock description, where life erupts and appears in the blink of an eye. That blink is over 20 million years long. However, life still existed beforehand. Maybe evolving complex, larger organs, and constructs is harder than simple life, and requires a much more specific atmosphere? Any number of reasons can be ascribed, however, none of them are supernatural. Someone was once asked, what would convince you that evolution was wrong, and they answered, "A bunny in the pre-Cambrian".
S13_Alan said:
Both of us likely agree that 'something' needs to have happened for 'everything' to be here.
Nothing may be a difficult concept and finding a true answer could be a never ending search. Whether there's a God at the end of that search, well the evidence so far would suggest there's no reason to think so. None of the questions answered by science recently have pointed to it, if anything we move away with each discovery, with the theists scrambling to find some new hidey hole for their deity.
Krauss states that with scientific advances each time we get a point 'nothing' is being redefined, it's found that indeed 'nothing' is not so, and that definition of 'nothing' doesn't hold. So you need another. Now in science that's easy, we just accept it's furthered knowledge.
For people who propose a supernatural explanation it gets a little harder as far as I see, as that gap, that space in which you are trying to use the lack of answers in science to house your supernatural explanation gets smaller.
Only one of us is filling that gap with a supernatural being and demanding that we prove it's non existence, while offering nothing to prove existence.
Not only that, you are filling it with what seems to be the God of Christianity. You don't argue for deism in the traditional sense, you attach all of this other stuff that needs to be true as well. You can't have one part of what you argue for and just ignore the lack of actual miracles for example... seeing you word danced your way around that one too.
Sorry Alan, this is a common atheist view, that you put well, but it is a complete misunderstanding of the theist position.Nothing may be a difficult concept and finding a true answer could be a never ending search. Whether there's a God at the end of that search, well the evidence so far would suggest there's no reason to think so. None of the questions answered by science recently have pointed to it, if anything we move away with each discovery, with the theists scrambling to find some new hidey hole for their deity.
Krauss states that with scientific advances each time we get a point 'nothing' is being redefined, it's found that indeed 'nothing' is not so, and that definition of 'nothing' doesn't hold. So you need another. Now in science that's easy, we just accept it's furthered knowledge.
For people who propose a supernatural explanation it gets a little harder as far as I see, as that gap, that space in which you are trying to use the lack of answers in science to house your supernatural explanation gets smaller.
Only one of us is filling that gap with a supernatural being and demanding that we prove it's non existence, while offering nothing to prove existence.
Not only that, you are filling it with what seems to be the God of Christianity. You don't argue for deism in the traditional sense, you attach all of this other stuff that needs to be true as well. You can't have one part of what you argue for and just ignore the lack of actual miracles for example... seeing you word danced your way around that one too.
"Nothing" is not the refuge of the god-of-the-gaps believer, it is a question that is based on the fact the universe is never going to explain itself. It is just a point of logic that you will always be able to ask "How come that process or state of affairs rather than nothing?" You can like Bertrand Russell just say that you can't ask that question, but it would not be out of reasoning, just out of peevishness.
You can know this is the case on a smaller scale by asking yourself how you know what you find by using the scientific method is true - and the answer is a philosophical one - that for some reason the world more or less really does correspond to our perception of it. This is to say that it is completely daft to say the scientific method is the only way to know, because you need philosophy to justify the scientific method's use in the first place.
If you don't accept that, just ask a mathematician - from the other end of the argument, they will tell you scientific method is most definitely not the only way to know, because they won't really accept that it is one at all (I am talking about inductive / deductive reasoning).
There will not be "scientific evidence" for God - I hope from the above you can see why this is not a problem. There will be arguments and reasons.
Accounting for the universe rather than nothing is not explaining a gap using god, it is saying that the reason is beyond us - not still to be discovered, not awaiting better maths, but beyond us, because it is not of this world / universe, literally and metaphorically, so in no way available to discourse that examines the world / universe, i.e. science.
I understand that this is a world view you are trained not to be able to envisage as an atheist, but it is a moment of clarity, so to speak, when this means something. It is in no way anti-science, because it is not talking about the universe, it is, in the traditional jargon, metaphysics.
IainT said:
GilbertGrape said:
or their objection of me not backing up arguments.
It's not you presenting an argument if you don't back it up it's an assertion. Arguments require points and evidence.You are either too stupid to get this or are just trolling for you own amusement and not to actually have a decent discussion.
I'm going with the "special needs stupid" option.
One of the things I do believe about evolution is, it's followers have a lot faith.
GilbertGrape said:
IainT said:
GilbertGrape said:
or their objection of me not backing up arguments.
It's not you presenting an argument if you don't back it up it's an assertion. Arguments require points and evidence.You are either too stupid to get this or are just trolling for you own amusement and not to actually have a decent discussion.
I'm going with the "special needs stupid" option.
One of the things I do believe about evolution is, it's followers have a lot faith.
Of course you'll dispute the fact of evolution claiming that there is no proof, no basis, just conjecture. These statements from you are not your wilful ignorance as you could have taken the short time to read the information that leads us to the fact. These statements you trot out are lies. Simple as that. No different from claiming black is white.
I find it interesting that evolution is such a threat to your belief system, it's truly odd.
Back when I was suffering from the delusions that led me to believe in a literal Jesus as Son of God I had no issues with evolution. I was happy with the facts that science had but gave god his due as the originator of life, the universe and the processes science is beginning to get to grips with.
IainT said:
GilbertGrape said:
IainT said:
GilbertGrape said:
or their objection of me not backing up arguments.
It's not you presenting an argument if you don't back it up it's an assertion. Arguments require points and evidence.You are either too stupid to get this or are just trolling for you own amusement and not to actually have a decent discussion.
I'm going with the "special needs stupid" option.
One of the things I do believe about evolution is, it's followers have a lot faith.
Of course you'll dispute the fact of evolution claiming that there is no proof, no basis, just conjecture. These statements from you are not your wilful ignorance as you could have taken the short time to read the information that leads us to the fact. These statements you trot out are lies. Simple as that. No different from claiming black is white.
I find it interesting that evolution is such a threat to your belief system, it's truly odd.
Back when I was suffering from the delusions that led me to believe in a literal Jesus as Son of God I had no issues with evolution. I was happy with the facts that science had but gave god his due as the originator of life, the universe and the processes science is beginning to get to grips with.
There is even a page on wiki about it, ace. I suppose evidence and fact don't count for much with some?
"The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, explain the evidence within creationism based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept modern evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology, as supported by naturalism. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, and cosmology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_co...
Bit of an edit going on at the fact and theory page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_fac...
"The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, explain the evidence within creationism based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept modern evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology, as supported by naturalism. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, and cosmology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_co...
Bit of an edit going on at the fact and theory page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_fac...
Edited by Halb on Wednesday 29th February 23:54
fluffnik said:
GilbertGrape said:
One of the things I do believe about evolution is, it's followers have a lot faith.
Nah, all that's required is a little organic chemistry.Darwin predicted genes and hence DNA, understand DNA and it all makes sense...
GilbertGrape said:
Evolution is no threat to my beliefs. The reason I don't believe the Theory of evolution is not through lack of reading or comprehension, it's through lack of belief in what I have read.
It's a straight question, Gilbert, so I do not expect any kind of answer, but what is it that you have read that you do not find convincing?This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
ChrisGB said:
Sorry Alan, this is a common atheist view, that you put well, but it is a complete misunderstanding of the theist position.
"Nothing" is not the refuge of the god-of-the-gaps believer, it is a question that is based on the fact the universe is never going to explain itself. It is just a point of logic that you will always be able to ask "How come that process or state of affairs rather than nothing?" You can like Bertrand Russell just say that you can't ask that question, but it would not be out of reasoning, just out of peevishness.
You can know this is the case on a smaller scale by asking yourself how you know what you find by using the scientific method is true - and the answer is a philosophical one - that for some reason the world more or less really does correspond to our perception of it. This is to say that it is completely daft to say the scientific method is the only way to know, because you need philosophy to justify the scientific method's use in the first place.
If you don't accept that, just ask a mathematician - from the other end of the argument, they will tell you scientific method is most definitely not the only way to know, because they won't really accept that it is one at all (I am talking about inductive / deductive reasoning).
There will not be "scientific evidence" for God - I hope from the above you can see why this is not a problem. There will be arguments and reasons.
Accounting for the universe rather than nothing is not explaining a gap using god, it is saying that the reason is beyond us - not still to be discovered, not awaiting better maths, but beyond us, because it is not of this world / universe, literally and metaphorically, so in no way available to discourse that examines the world / universe, i.e. science.
I understand that this is a world view you are trained not to be able to envisage as an atheist, but it is a moment of clarity, so to speak, when this means something. It is in no way anti-science, because it is not talking about the universe, it is, in the traditional jargon, metaphysics.
Ah - Kant's noumena cf. phenomena. But I feel that this is an optimistic view of the immaterial - separating it from the material and ignoring interaction between the two. Coming up with a theory or judgement without taking into account observations and rational evidence must be too simplistic. Of course, with anything, if you keep asking "why?" you will get to the point that the reply is "we don't know" (that is, in your wording, the god of the gaps). But starting from the other way, you cannot cut the link between the non-verifiable and the verifiable; if you do, you end up with nonsense, with no applicability to our lives."Nothing" is not the refuge of the god-of-the-gaps believer, it is a question that is based on the fact the universe is never going to explain itself. It is just a point of logic that you will always be able to ask "How come that process or state of affairs rather than nothing?" You can like Bertrand Russell just say that you can't ask that question, but it would not be out of reasoning, just out of peevishness.
You can know this is the case on a smaller scale by asking yourself how you know what you find by using the scientific method is true - and the answer is a philosophical one - that for some reason the world more or less really does correspond to our perception of it. This is to say that it is completely daft to say the scientific method is the only way to know, because you need philosophy to justify the scientific method's use in the first place.
If you don't accept that, just ask a mathematician - from the other end of the argument, they will tell you scientific method is most definitely not the only way to know, because they won't really accept that it is one at all (I am talking about inductive / deductive reasoning).
There will not be "scientific evidence" for God - I hope from the above you can see why this is not a problem. There will be arguments and reasons.
Accounting for the universe rather than nothing is not explaining a gap using god, it is saying that the reason is beyond us - not still to be discovered, not awaiting better maths, but beyond us, because it is not of this world / universe, literally and metaphorically, so in no way available to discourse that examines the world / universe, i.e. science.
I understand that this is a world view you are trained not to be able to envisage as an atheist, but it is a moment of clarity, so to speak, when this means something. It is in no way anti-science, because it is not talking about the universe, it is, in the traditional jargon, metaphysics.
bikemonster said:
It's a straight question, Gilbert, so I do not expect any kind of answer, but what is it that you have read that you do not find convincing?
This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
Abiogenesis is not fact though. Something which creationists seem to cling to when defending their beliefs.This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
plasticpig said:
bikemonster said:
It's a straight question, Gilbert, so I do not expect any kind of answer, but what is it that you have read that you do not find convincing?
This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
Abiogenesis is not fact though. Something which creationists seem to cling to when defending their beliefs.This is a matter of rationality, not, as you keep insisting, a matter of faith.
Those of us who are convinced that life on our planet began spontaneously and evolved from there do not subscribe to articles of faith: we have found no better explanation and so that is the one we retain.
The instant that any of the claims made by evolutionists are refuted, they need to be replaced. And refuted does not mean gainsaid by a bible scholar, I mean refuted in a proper peer-reviewed, credible academic journal.
Which requires another point: academia is not some cosy club for bright guys with appalling dress sense and scruffy beards. While that may indeed be true at a given university, where the leading lights in each field are often revered, their opposite numbers at other universities are doing their damnedest to knock over their findings.
The posited arguments for the origins of life are pretty solid though with lab experiments supporting many pre-requisites and processes.
GilbertGrape said:
One of the things I do believe about evolution is, it's followers have a lot faith.
Faith is belief in stuff without evidence. So belief in evolution isn't faith. Even if evolution were to be disproved by some future discovery (a bunny in the pre cambrian), then believing evolution still would not have been faith, but belief based on evidence that turned out to be false.Belief in god is faith. If god appears to us all tomorrow, then I'll believe because I'll then have evidence. And I'll still be able to say that people who believed in god before March 2012 did so as a matter of faith.
Do you not grasp it???
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff