Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

When atheists go too far

1246728

Comments

  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    1. Evolution is a fact. How so?

    A fact is, basically, in a scientific context, an observed phenomenon. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, therefore it is a fact. Try not to confuse the theory of evolution with evolution itself.

    I wish people would understand the meaning of the words fact and theory in a scientific context. A theory is actually higher up the pecking order than a fact: a theory attempts to explain a fact.
    2. The essence of the BBT is that everything did, indeed, come from nothing.

    From NASA:

    "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across".

    Where do NASA say it came from nothing? A few millimetres across is not nothing.

    The theory starts with the early stages of the universe, not what came before, i.e. where it came from. It doesn't say that the universe came from nothing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Haelium wrote: »
    I have to correct you on that, it's a strong theory, but in biology there are no facts(Well... very few facts that we take for granted, otherwise we would be stuck in philosophy). The only science that has facts is maths.

    Biology has no facts? Well that's a new one....


  • Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭Haelium


    Evolution is a 100% proven fact.

    Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Depends on your point of view.;):D

    Really no. Unless your point of view is "so far away I can see nothing"


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Haelium wrote: »
    Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.

    You should look up the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" when used in a scientific context.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Again, how so? 100%? Irrefutable?

    Yes, 100% irrefutable, we can see it, we can test it. I recommend you read a book on the subject as it's clear you haven't.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Haelium wrote: »
    Again, that's not correct, even Dawkins(The supposed zealot of evolution) says this. It's a strong theory, but not a fact. Not even germ theory is fact.

    50 seconds in...



  • Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭Haelium


    gvn wrote: »
    You should look up the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" when used in a scientific context.


    To clarify: If we are talking about the existence of Evolution then it's fact, but if we are talking about the current understanding of it that we have(As I assumed we were), it is a theory.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Haelium wrote: »
    To clarify: If we are talking about the existence of Evolution then it's fact, but if we are talking about the current understanding of it that we have(As I assumed we were), it is a theory.

    Well, yeah, in essence we're talking about the theory.

    But, when somebody states (as Nabber and Freddie did) that "evolution is just a theory!", they're not usually arguing against the finer points of the theory of evolution (i.e. against modern evolutionary synthesis or even natural selection), they're usually arguing against the "claim" that humans have descended from an ape-like mammal, or something of the sort, or even against the fact of evolution. Not only is their argument typically backed up with a misunderstanding of the words theory and fact (hence my calling evolution a fact), but it's usually built on a foundation of ignorance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    1. Evolution is a fact. How so?

    2. The essence of the BBT is that everything did, indeed, come from nothing.

    From NASA:

    "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across".

    That is, without doubt, a most ludicrous assumption which at best appears to be tenuous, and at worst, impossible to prove.

    It's up there with 'salt/butter/pencil in as required is good/bad for you'.

    There are two sides, both claiming to be experts. Which is right?

    Evolution is a theory, just like gravity. Do you wish to argue against gravity too? Do you wish to complain about gravity being taught in schools?

    Also, the big bang theory doesn't necessarily explain the beginning of everything. It would explain the beginning of our universe. Our universe is not necessarily 'everything'. The universe itself could have come from something.

    And please don't attempt to say that something can't be true just because you're not able to comprehend it.

    There are many things that are impossible to prove in an absolute sense. That doesn't make them unverifiable. Another example would be Pluto's orbit. Pluto takes over 200 years to orbit the Sun, but we have known about Pluto for far less than 200 years. We've never seen it orbit the Sun, but yet we know without a doubt that it in fact does orbit the Sun and we know exactly how long it will take.

    And on the idea of something coming from nothing .... inventing a god with no beginning does not get around this problem. And once you say that there can be exceptions to the rule that "something can't come from nothing", then you negate the necessity for a god in the first place.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Not always. Global 'warming'?

    Oh. You put a word in inverted commas. The whole theory has therefore fallen apart. Good work.

    You seem to be arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 890 ✭✭✭l3LoWnA


    I sometimes think peoples beliefs in "GOD" are kind of cute, in a way a childs belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny / Tooth Fairy is cute. I do my best not to comment or not to sound condenscending about my own beliefs when talking to friends or family who do have a belief that God exists or follow a religion :)

    I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him. He can put beautifully into words much of what I have been thinking and saying since I was a small child.

    He is not, however, plastered on every tv channel during prime time hours, so if you don't like what he is saying, don't seek him out, don't bother listening to him.

    I do find it incredibly sad however, that a lot of Irish people feel they "owe" something to someone who I personally don't believe ever existed. I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

    This sort of attitude really does make me feel passionate about the fact that, in my mind, there never has been and never will be a "God".... God has never ever been proven to exist, yet good people suffer throughout their lives in different ways because of what they have been taught to believe!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭mickgotsick


    l3LoWnA wrote: »
    I sometimes think peoples beliefs in "GOD" are kind of cute, in a way a childs belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny / Tooth Fairy is cute. I do my best not to comment or not to sound condenscending about my own beliefs when talking to friends or family who do have a belief that God exists or follow a religion :)

    I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him. He can put beautifully into words much of what I have been thinking and saying since I was a small child.

    He is not, however, plastered on every tv channel during prime time hours, so if you don't like what he is saying, don't seek him out, don't bother listening to him.

    I do find it incredibly sad however, that a lot of Irish people feel they "owe" something to someone who I personally don't believe ever existed. I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

    This sort of attitude really does make me feel passionate about the fact that, in my mind, there never has been and never will be a "God".... God has never ever been proven to exist, yet good people suffer throughout their lives in different ways because of what they have been taught to believe!

    That's the thing, beliefs, atheism is just another. At the end of the day no one knows. I classify myself as agnostic or a new term I recently heard, a naturalist, who believes in exactly what science can prove. Here's an interview from a legendary punk rocker, Greg Graffin (from punk band Bad Religion), turned professor in UCLA. You can jump to about 2.06 in the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwqJ7X6yOaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    l3LoWnA wrote: »
    . I have a close friend who has gone through a very nasty separation. This person is now wracked with guilt and thinking about going back to an incredibly nasty, volatile, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive spouse "because of the vows she took at marriage" and because of the guilt she feels towards "God" (after havin long discussions with a friend who is a "Christian")

    Good example of a 'Chirstian' ****ing over a friend because of their 'belief' (or perhaps she secretly enjoys her friends misery because it makes her own dull life seem good and is using Christianity as a weapon).

    I hope you are talking sense to her seeing as you're her close friend.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    l3LoWnA wrote: »

    I think Richard Dawkins is a highly intelligent man, and I thoroughly enjoy listening to him.

    The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

    How many big monkeys do you know that can appreciate beauty, art or have an interest in logic, science, ethics? Where did our morality come from? Might all be good fun reading books from this snake oil salesman but ultimately he's deriding you. If someone telling you you're just a big monkey it's because they're trying to make a monkey out of you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    That's the thing, beliefs, atheism is just another

    Nope. This ^^ is used by believers in superstition to drag atheists down to thier level.

    Bleh.

    If he's saying we can't rule out the existence of Gods because we might detect them in the future then he's not making much sense.

    If we were able to detect Gods then they wouldn't be gods anymore - they'd have to conform to scientific parameters and would then be 'those things that we just detected' not gods.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    squod wrote: »
    The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

    How many big monkeys do you know that can appreciate beauty, art or have an interest in logic, science, ethics? Where did our morality come from? Might all be good fun reading books from this snake oil salesman but ultimately he's deriding you. If someone telling you you're just a big monkey it's because they're trying to make a monkey out of you.

    So the idea that you're an ape (not a monkey; ape =/= monkey) is completely ridiculous, yet the idea of a god creating you, purposely and lovingly, with an aim and intention, out of some clay or mud, is more credible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭Matthew23


    this is anoying me :p god is real , if u dont beleive in him then dont talk about him. why is it such a big problem for people? i dont like some music , but i dont tell every one else to not like it!! :eek:

    i think maybe these people are unhappy in life


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.
    Are you saying for humans to have evolved is highly improbable, or that any evolution is highly improbable?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 890 ✭✭✭l3LoWnA


    Good example of a 'Chirstian' ****ing over a friend because of their 'belief' (or perhaps she secretly enjoys her friends misery because it makes her own dull life seem good and is using Christianity as a weapon).

    I hope you are talking sense to her seeing as you're her close friend.

    She has seen sense again herself ... "thank god" ;) She's actually a close relative and it took her a long time and alot of strength and courage to leave him in the end...only for this "Christian" to strike at her very most vulnerable time and try and poison her mind with TRIPE and destroy the rest of her and her childrens lives. I have absolutely no time whatsoever for that "Christian" girl any more and "god forgive me", if she ever walks through my door again I'll have a thing or two to say!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    gvn wrote: »
    So the idea that you're an ape (not a monkey; ape =/= monkey) is completely ridiculous, yet the idea of a god creating you, purposely and lovingly, with an aim and intention, out of some clay or mud, is more credible?

    And more probable. Lookat mathematicians are only starting to get to grips with multiple universes, scientists have spent decades underground investigating dark matter and still have turned up with zilch. What you're asking people to do is to take a leap of faith. To place the absolute value of their lives on a fairly shonkey premise. As I said earlier, I'm cool with sceptics and credible arguments but what we have here are Darwinian fanboys. There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    this is anoying me :p god is real , if u dont beleive in him then dont talk about him. why is it such a big problem for people? i dont like some music , but i dont tell every one else to not like it!! :eek:

    Is the music you don't like a compulsory subject in school and do the people who do like that music sometimes insist that you must spend an eternity in hell for rejecting their music?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭mickgotsick


    Nope.

    He's the lead singer in BAD RELIGION. He's not making a case for anything, he's simply saying that we can only say what we can prove. We can prove that evolution is a fact but what then?

    Science changes very quickly, with each new discovery we learn something more. Before the human genome was sequenced, it was thought we would have 100,000 genes based on the fact that a fruit fly had 20,000. It turns out we have about 30,000. Then science discovers others things that leads to our complexity.

    By the way, I never mentioned anything about GODs in my post, you completely took that wrong and Greg Graffin's interview wrong. That's why I have his band in caps.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.
    In what respect? Do you accept any evolution?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    It's amazing how people who hold a particular belief, always seem to think they are totally and always in the right.

    "Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't.."
    — Leo Buscaglia

    "The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride and arrogance."
    - Samuel Butler


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    dvpower wrote: »
    In what respect? Do you accept any evolution?

    Evolution in an environment absent of God? Think you know the answer.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    squod wrote: »
    And more probable. Lookat mathematicians are only starting to get to grips with multiple universes, scientists have spent decades underground investigating dark matter and still have turned up with zilch. What you're asking people to do is to take a leap of faith. To place the absolute value of their lives on a fairly shonkey premise. As I said earlier, I'm cool with sceptics and credible arguments but what we have here are Darwinian fanboys. There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.

    Multiple universes and dark matter are hypotheses (well, the former is only an idea, really). What have they to do with evolution? They bear no relevance to the conversation.

    Let me ask you: do you believe that evolution is an observable fact? I'm not talking about the theory of evolution; I'm asking if you believe that, even at a small scale, evolution happens?

    P.S. Scientists aren't out to "prove" Darwinian evolution. Proof lies solely in mathematics, not in science.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    Evolution in an environment absent of God? Think you know the answer.
    I'm not quite sure I understand. Many believers fully accept evolution.
    I'm just simply asking if you accept evolution (in any respect)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    It's amazing how people who hold a particular belief, always seem to think they are totally and always in the right.

    "Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't.."
    — Leo Buscaglia

    "The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride and arrogance."
    - Samuel Butler
    This is a generalisation. Whilst holders of religious beliefs naturally believe that their beliefs are correct (As if otherwise, they would not hold said beliefs) that does not mean that all religious people are obstinate and think they "know it all". Thinking and questioning is not exclusive to the atheist side of the fence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭Matthew23


    dvpower wrote: »
    Is the music you don't like a compulsory subject in school and do the people who do like that music sometimes insist that you must spend an eternity in hell for rejecting their music?

    i have to listen to music i dont like all the time like in school when a teacher plays a bad song and people who like that music get angrey if i say it sucks so yes :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    dvpower wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure I understand. Many believers fully accept evolution.
    I'm just simply asking if you accept evolution (in any respect)?

    It's the best answer I can give. Can I ask you then, how sure are you of your beliefs?

    Edit ; Watched a docu on RTE recently (last year?). Twelve people were randomly chosen from a list of volunteers to attend religious retreats. Different denominations of priests took different volunteers off to explore their faith (or lack of). After two weeks of lonely reflection some of them discovered a bond with or an awakening to God. Nothing scientific involved. But does open the possibility that people who have a definite atheist leaning can change their minds about the subject.

    I'll be considering this from the comforts of my bed from now on. G'night.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    i have to listen to music i dont like all the time like in school when a teacher plays a bad song and people who like that music get angrey if i say it sucks so yes :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    You tell them their music sucks? That's very intolerant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭Matthew23


    dvpower wrote: »
    You tell them their music sucks? That's very intolerant.

    haha its not i let them play it :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    you need dawkins to help u out in ur debate with me :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    squod wrote: »
    For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

    This is a very bold statement. What informs this opinion if you don't mind me asking?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    It's the best answer I can give.
    No it's not. Here's what you said earlier -
    squod wrote: »
    Won't be long until pigs evolve wings and we can train them into becoming little pork bombers. Until then I'll be a monkey's uncle if anyone can convince me I'm a monkey's eh.... relative.
    - you've obviously read about evolution if you say your not convinced, so I would expect a better answer.
    squod wrote: »
    Can I ask you then, how sure are you of your beliefs?
    Reasonably sure, but I'm open to reasonable evidence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    haha its not i let them play it :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    I'm sure no one would want to stop theists playing their theism.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 250 ✭✭Matthew23


    dvpower wrote: »
    I'm sure no one would want to stop theists playing their theism.

    you do and people like dawkings do. you are just full of religious anger and are angry at god


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Caitlinn


    It seems to me that atheists live to go too far. They are not happy in their lack of faith unless they are throwing it in your face and acting superior to you because they are so clever they've worked out that all religion is rubbish.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro




  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    you do and people like dawkings do. you are just full of religious anger and are angry at god

    How can you be angry at something you either lack belief in or believe does not exist? :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    you do and people like dawkings do. you are just full of religious anger and are angry at god
    Not at all - he brought me a train set when I was younger.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Caitlinn wrote: »
    It seems to me that atheists live to go too far. They are not happy in their lack of faith unless they are throwing it in your face and acting superior to you because they are so clever they've worked out that all religion is rubbish.
    Demeaning atheists for being demeaning.;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    Caitlinn wrote: »
    It seems to me that atheists live to go too far. They are not happy in their lack of faith unless they are throwing it in your face and acting superior to you because they are so clever they've worked out that all religion is rubbish.
    I'm an atheist, and usually quite happy to keep it to myself. I do, on the other hand, get annoyed at children having the catholic faith shoved down their necks as soon as they can read. Or any other faith. I can see why this happens though. If it didn't, and they were allowed to make up their own minds once they were old enough to comprehend, most religions would simply die out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Matthew23 wrote: »
    you do and people like dawkings do. you are just full of religious anger and are angry at god

    You can't be angry at things that don't exist - I'm no more angry with Gods than I am with Unicorns or Moomins or the tooth fairly.

    It's the behaviour of the people who do believe in Gods and use it as an excuse to control, hurt, abuse and kill others which angers people.

    Learn the difference.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Caitlinn


    dvpower wrote: »
    Demeaning atheists for being demeaning.;)

    They started it ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Caitlinn


    Johro wrote: »
    I'm an atheist, and usually quite happy to keep it to myself. I do, on the other hand, get annoyed at children having the catholic faith shoved down their necks as soon as they can read. Or any other faith. I can see why this happens though. If it didn't, and they were allowed to make up their own minds once they were old enough to comprehend, most religions would simply die out.

    So what you are saying is that anyone old enough to comprehend religion would choose to be an atheist?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    1. Evolution is a fact. How so?

    2. The essence of the BBT is that everything did, indeed, come from nothing.

    From NASA:

    "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across".

    Eh, a few millimetres is certainly not nothing. Every few millimetres of your skin is crawling with billiosn of bateria and other organisms. Every thousandth of a millimetre of space is jammed full of atoms, themselvs containing protons and netrons. I've nothing against religion, or religious people, but I do have something against people speaking authoritatively on subjects about which they clearly have little understanding.
    That is, without doubt, a most ludicrous assumption which at best appears to be tenuous, and at worst, impossible to prove.

    The vast majority of physicists subscribe to the notion of the Big Bang Theory, or a derivative. They spend years researching and publushing, and exposing their work and arguments to peer review and critique, yet you dismiss it all simply because you can't get your head around it?
    There are two sides, both claiming to be experts. Which is right?

    Eh no. We have one side, who are experts- scientists, physicists etc- and another side who aren't- religious fundamentalists, people generally ignorant of the concepts.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Not always. Global 'warming'?

    Global warming has been refuted?:confused:
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Seriously, stop and think. Someone is trying to convince you that something less than an inch across formed the Universe. Without any binding, logical, proof.

    I'm no expert. I studied science in school, and I have layman's interest in the subject, but I'm far from a physicist. However, when I look at the theories for the formation of the universe, they have an eloquent and elegant cohesion to them, that renders them entirely plausible to anyone who has even a basic understanding of science. The BBT may or may not explain the origins of the universe, but there is no denying it's logic.
    squod wrote: »
    The stories the likes of Dawkins peddle don't take into account the scale of improbability his theory has. For man to have evolved in this universe a whole load of events would have to occur. We're talking near ∞ to 1 in terms of odds.

    For me, as opposed to some other sperm to be typing this, a whole load of events would have had to occur. We're talking near...

    The odds on something happening isn't sufficent to dismiss it.
    How many big monkeys do you know that can appreciate beauty, art or have an interest in logic, science, ethics? Where did our morality come from? Might all be good fun reading books from this snake oil salesman but ultimately he's deriding you. If someone telling you you're just a big monkey it's because they're trying to make a monkey out of you.

    You might have a point if there was just one "snake oil salesman", but there are millions, and billions of rational people who read their workd, and make their minds up on the inherent logic, and in what they can see around them every day. Human morality has long been explained as an evolutionary process, but the fact that you ask the question doesn;t surprise me- you aren't interested in finding out the truth, or asking questions, but rather in safeguarding your own, unthinking version of the truth.

    This is what bothers people about religion. It's not that people believe in this and that; it's that some people use that faith to deny rationality, and attack logic.

    squod wrote: »
    And more probable. Lookat mathematicians are only starting to get to grips with multiple universes, scientists have spent decades underground investigating dark matter and still have turned up with zilch. What you're asking people to do is to take a leap of faith. To place the absolute value of their lives on a fairly shonkey premise. As I said earlier, I'm cool with sceptics and credible arguments but what we have here are Darwinian fanboys. There's simply more required to prove Dawkins right.

    There's nothing left to prove that Darwin is right. The evidence is all around us. You're just not interested in seeing it.

    When Darwin first posited his theories, he acknowledged a major gap- a mechanism that would allow random mutations to move inter-generationally. The fact that nothing could explain this was a major flaw in his theories, and something that your Victorian equivalents took great delight in pointing out. Darwin wasn't to know that an obscure Austrian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel was, contemporaneously, experimenting on his pea plants, and discovering the role of genetics in inter-generational gene transfer. Thus, not only was the roblem solved, but Darwin anticipated the discovery of genetics by several years. This in itself leads credence to his propositions in OTOOTS.

    Contrary to popular fundamentalist belief, Darwin's work was based primarily on practical experimentation, rather than on theory. He studied evolution in action. He bred pigeons amongst other things in Down House, and kept meticulous records of his findings, as well as his correspondence with fellow breeders all over the world. All pointed to the one self-evident conclusion, something that man has long known to be true- that evolution is a fact, and a easily verifiable phenomonen.

    One of things that distinguishes a scientific theory from a Sherlock Holme's type of theory, is the ability to predict certain future outcomes from the premise of the theory. Thus, not only should a theory provide a convincing answer for a current problem, but it should also predict future outcomes. Something like this happened re Darwin's anticipation of Mendel's discoveries. In the time since Darwin's death, more and more propositions, based on his work, have been brought to light as empirical facts. In terms of humanoid development, every passing decade sees a million year leap backwards through our evolutionary ancestry. When Lucy was found in 1974, she was the oldest human ancestor yet found, at 3.2 million years. By 1994, she had been eclipsed by Ardi, a 4.4 million year old ardipithicus skeleton. The fact thet people are searching for such fossils stems from the fact that Darwin, and evolutionary biologists since, have been arguing that they should be found. Darwin's work anticipated their discovery, even though the man himself could have had no inkling of their age, or their evolutionary character. In other words, Darwin's theory anticipates discoveries and results and outcomes that the man himself could not have even imagined.

    Since Darwin published OTOOTS, the theory of evolution has always lagged some time behind the discovery of supporting evidence. This itself is proof of the veracity of his proposals- the evidence is constantly being dug up. When i was younger, people scoffed at the idea that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. They couldn;t get their heads around the notion. People like Freddie mocked evolutionists for the very notion, and used it as a stick to beat the entire field. Yet a few years back, a small dinosaur was found in China with the unmistakeable fossilised evidence of feathers, and others have been found since. Once more, a theory based on nothing but Darwin's work was proved correct and valid by discoveries in the field.
    That's not even to go (too deeply) into the evidence for evolution that surrounds us every day, and which one would have to be seriously delusional to miss, or refuse to acknowledge. Just this week, there was reports that the e coli out break on the continent has been caused by a new strain. I suppose God just created it in a spare moment, and popped it on some German bean sprouts? Over the past decade, there have been threats from several other mutated forms of common viruses, swine flue to name just one. A few weeks ago, the Queen visited the Irish National Stud, an institution that could not exist were it not for evolution. Barack Obama chose his dog Bo because it had been specially bred to be hypoallegenic. One can be pretty sure that there was no such thing as fluffy, hypoallegnic Portugese Water Dogs roaming the primordial forests of ancient Europe!

    So, the evidence for evolution, and for the evolution of man are many and varied, and not disputed by serious scientists. Instead what we have are "experts" on youtube who basing their denunciation of the fact on the Bible, and the fact that a banana fits so well in a human hand (:confused:). Even the RCC believes in evolution, and imams have recently launched a petition of support for Darwin's work. And yet we have people who still refuse to accept it.

    What really bugs me though, is that evolution and the Big Bang Theory and a universe designed by God aren't mutually exclusive. Couldn't they both be tools of a higher deity? Indeed, considering religious people claim that the mind of God is unknowable, it's really the height of arrogance to suggest that evolution and the like flies in His face.

    That's what leads me to believe that opposition to evolution in particular, is not based so much on religious scruples, but on base human narcissism. People place humanity, and by extension themselves, on an exalted platform, as being more divine than animal, and the idea that we are not shocks them. It's interesting to note that most of the pictorial (and much of the general) opposition to Darwin, and evolution, from the Scope's trial to the present day, is preoccupied with the notion of man being more than a lowly monkey. There is precious little sense that it goes against religious precepts or respect due to God, and much that it goes against man's vanity, and opinion of himself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 TheBlueHaze


    I like Dawkins. All you haters can just go to heaven.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    Religion is lol.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Fremen wrote: »
    No-one likes a bully. Most athiests are happy to let individual religious people get on with their day.

    The problem isn't with Christians and Muslims, it's with Christianity and Islam.

    How is there a problem with Christianity? Based on a before and after analysis of my Christian faith I've seen a whole lot more positives than negatives on a personal level in terms of how I live.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement