Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:26 am
RenewedMind wrote:
Gravity is not ruled by the scientific method. Evolution is.
Present the science which shows biological life doesn't evolve.
Quote:
Evolution’s very foundation however, is built on the scientific method, but a fatally flawed scientific method.
No, the fact that life forms evolve was discovered by the scientific method, it is not built upon the method. If you wish to claim the scientific method is flawed, perhaps you can describe the method and show us where the flaws lie.
Quote:
There is not enough room in a single post to describe all about radioactive dating, you may read all about it all over the internet, and by some apparently very smart PhDs that will try to convince you that the earth is billions of years old. It’s just that there is a really huge flaw. One that I’m sorry, MG and BAA, I can’t get by.
How old do you think the earth is and what data can you present to prove the claim?
Quote:
In order for radioactive dating to even remotely accurate, you have to know how much of the parent element was in origin when the rock was formed in the first place and you also have to additionally know that there was no daughter element in the rock when it was formed in the first place. Without knowing this information, the radioactive dating method is irrelative.
I've very little doubt that the dating methods used are "irrelevant", but this has nothing to do with natural evolution. At best, you might show these dating methods to be inaccurate, but claiming they are just doesn't cut it. You must show how they are inaccurate and by what percentage. I've a feeling you wish these dating methods were proven invalid so we could all go back to the "god-did-it" foundation of your religion. Unfortunately for you, the "god-did-it" hypothesis has no foundation in reality and can not have any accuracy other then dogmatic claims.
Quote:
Evolution is presupposed by cosomology.
What gave you this idea? Evolution expresses itself in all life, we needn't look to cosmology to see its affects. Can you even describe what evolution is?
Quote:
They don’t exist, period. So evolution is built on quicksand…as is the theory of the big bang. Do I want to be 100% right?
No, both theories are built upon real observations. Neither rely on the myths found in religious text.
Quote:
And that is exactly why I have turned to something better, more rock solid than science.
It's amazing people believe religious myth to be anything other then it is.
Quote:
Atheism is a relativistic belief structure at it’s core.
No, atheism is a rejection of a belief, that being theism.
Quote:
Atheism can not properly even define what evil is.
Atheism doesn't define things... again, it's simply a rejection of theism.
Quote:
The atheist can not explain what evil is, they can not explain where it came from, and they can not explain it's purpose.
Evil is a word that humans use to conceptualize an idea, it is not an "entity" unto itself. Here, we'll use the best source to define a word, the dictionary...
dictionary.com wrote:
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
So we can see that "evil" is tied to human morality. Simple. Of course defining what act is moral or immoral takes more careful consideration. I think a simple definition of what is commonly thought of as evil/immoral is that which brings unnecessary harm. Acting in a non-reciprocal manner is also often found to be immoral. The following moral edict clearly shows this reciprocal foundation.
Quote:
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you
Simplistic reciprocal morality
The trend in all these conversations is for the theist to claim unless something is absolutely known, we should instantly jump to Jesus. I'm comfortable without absolute knowledge and also comfortable with the approximate natural reality the scientific method has exposed. Notice it's the religious that always claim "absolute truths" and yet all they ever have for proofs are vague feelings and references to ancient texts obviously founded on human superstition and myth.
bagnasty Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 08, 2003
Posts: 923
Location: NC
Posted:
Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:17 pm
renewedmind wrote:
In order for radioactive dating to even remotely accurate, you have to know how much of the parent element was in origin when the rock was formed in the first place and you also have to additionally know that there was no daughter element in the rock when it was formed in the first place. Without knowing this information, the radioactive dating method is irrelative.
Radioactive dating is not an exact method (there are known margins of error). But lets say that you were able to show that it is completely inaccurate. What implications would this have for the theory of evolution? Answer: none.
Geologists know how rock layers are formed to begin with and so they know which layers are, at the least, older. One obvious predicition entailed by the theory of evolution is that the farther back in time you go, the simpler the organisms found will be. 150 years of digging for fossils bears this prediction out perfectly. This fact, along with several other compelling lines of evidence prove that evolution is true (true with a small 't'). Granted, it's nice to know exactly how old these layers are, but if we remove that abilitly from the discussion evolution does not go out with it.
One obvious prediction of creationism, it should be noted, is that all the worlds animal species should appear at the same time in the geological record. This is not what is the case and so this prediction fails.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:04 pm
[quote="RenewedMind"]MockingGods (MG) and BornAgainAtheist (BAA), thank you for your replies.
Different but related topic (more philosophical in nature): Since BAA brought it up. In BAA’s paragraph above where I need 100% certainty and truth, the issue of relative truth is raised. What right’s for me is what’s right for me and what’s right for BAA is right for BAA. BAA says above,
“In the arena of what is measurable, observable, and testable we are free to accept or reject what we like.”
I mean good grief, do you know what you just said? “I don’t care if evolution is false, if I want to think that the science, (which by your own admission can not prove the Big Bang), is true, then by my definition it’s true!”
You are NOT free to accept or reject what you like. Do you not want the “truth”? Pull your head out of the sand man! (I sound like I’m being arrogant, humbly I’m not. If I didn’t give a crap about you two, (MG and BAA) and all the others reading this, I wouldn’t waste my time here. But I do care about you, and I care about the other people reading this debate.)
Hello Renewedmind.
Thank you for your reply and your concern.
Please note that I have emboldened the key sentence of the above paragraph, because that is what I wish to debate here.
Members of this organization hold to the belief that the planet Earth is, in fact, flat and circular, not spherical. Are they free to hold this belief? Well, I'd say, Yes.
Are they correct in this belief. Here, I'd say, No. The reason that I feel they are wrong is that there is evidence that persuades
me
that the world is a sphere. Note that I've emboldened, "me".
I
am persuaded by this evidence but that doesn't automatically mean that others must be too.
They certainly aren't!
They are as free as I am to accept or reject any evidence presented for the world being a sphere.
If they couldn't choose they wouldn't be human. Being human means having free will.
If there were some great, absolute
Truth
that could force everyone who learned about it to submit to it and believe in it, then those who come under it's influence would cease to be free-willed, free-thinking human beings - they would be slaves who's will has been overriden and dominated by this
Truth.
Free will and choice are basic tenets of Christianity (though not so much in Calvinistic Christianity) because God wishes us to freely choose to believe in and love Him. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes it clear that God will honor our choice, not overriding our free will in any way. So if somebody chooses not to believe in Him they are free to do so. I think we'll agree on this, RenewedMind, right?
Now let us move away from the agreed principle of free will and look at the Gospel of Luke, chapter 16, verses 19 to 31. This passage is known as the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Please take special note of verse 31, "He said to him, If they (the Rich Man's five brothers) do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Now we both know that this
someone
is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.
I won't go into the full meaning of this passge here, RenewedMind, but I will say this.
The fact that scripture says these things indicates (as far as I can see) that some people will reject even the evidence of their own eyes, denying what seems obvious to others. Now combine this new information with what we've already agreed about free will and what we know about the Flat Earth Society. The conclusion I reach here, is that we humans are free to accept or reject whatever we choose to, even if ALL the evidence says that we are incorrect, unjustified and plain wrong to do so.
Would you agree with my conclusion?
So I would submit that I AM free to accept or reject what I like. This is directly contradicts your statement, "You are NOT free to accept or reject what you like.", quoted above.
The Bible clearly says that there are those who will reject what they like. If they could not reject what they pleased then they would not be free-willed beings. If this were so then God's offer to us to freely believe in Him (or not) would be null and void. Do you see what I'm saying here?
I am stressing the difference between the individual's right to accept or reject whatever they like and the
consequences
of that decision.
Now, if you had said, "You are free to accept or reject what you like, but you must face the consequences of your decision. Reward for acceptance (Heaven) and penalty (Hell) for rejection.", that would be more accurate.
I touched upon the issue of reward/penalty in my previous posting when I talked about the consequences of believing that fast-moving bullets cannot harm you. My point here is that while you and I are free to accept or reject whatever we like about reality, the real world has a nasty way of penalizing us for beliefs that are not "realistic". For example, there's probably no real harm in being a member of the Flat Earth Society. Their brand of denial is pretty much small potatoes.
But believing that we can fly like a bird has inherent and probably fatal problems. Agreed?
Perhaps now you can appreciate what I've been hinting at.
All truth and all proof is relative to the person in question,
except
where reality intervenes.
I am permitted to believe that the truth is that I can fly like a bird.
I am permitted to believe in whatever I choose constitutes the proof of that belief.
The catch is that reality will correct me for believing in a false truth and false proofs by killing me when I jump off a twenty storey building.
Do you remember what I said about scientific theories being better and better definitions of what can be measured, observed, tested and analyzed? My point here is that as these theories improve, they describe and define the way reality works in better and better ways. The better you understand reality the less likely it will kill you! Agreed?
Also, because I contend that there is no such thing as "absolute" truth I am quite happy with atheistic scientific explanations (theories) about reality that describe and define it very well.
For me science is all about the journey, not the destination.
Yes, science can never absolutely, 100% prove anything about anything. All it can do is provide better and better descriptions of reality. Any authority, truth, proof or credence it has are there because we accord it these things. Being free to accept or reject anything, we can give whatever evidence we like any degree of authority or truth or proof that works for us.
Just take a moment to look at the postings in this thread from Parture (a.k.a Troy Brooks).
He places a great deal of authority in his idea of, "The Exponential Progression of Conscience".
Is he free to do so? Yes!
Are his ideas a good description of reality? Well, that is another thing altogether.
The acid test of any belief, theory or idea is if it works in reality or not.
As I said before, I reckon that science does a very good job of describing reality. The evidence for the high quality of it's description being how much it has and continues to influence human life on every level.
Finally, let me state the following...
I believe that the ultimate test of anything anyone declares to be, "the truth" or "a proof" or "evidence" or "authority" is how well it works in the real world.
You are free to answer "Yes" to this question because you are also free to choose to see that it does work. Likewise, I am equally free to make the opposite choices. All human viewpoints are relative
things
that we impose on reality. Reality got along quite nicely for billions of years without us.
The best we can do is to get along as best we can with it by understanding it better and better.
This is how science has helped and continues to help us.
I hope this helps to clear up the misunderstandings about relative truth. All
human
truth is relative. The real truth is reality itself, that is, the universe in which we live. The better we understand that, the closer we will be to understanding what is really true.
Thanks,
BornAgainAthiest.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:41 pm
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Being human means having free will.
...or at least the illusion of it.
Quote:
If they couldn't choose they wouldn't be human.
We do certainly make choices, but I don't believe those choices are free from casual affects beyond our control. Be they randomly, environmentally or biologically caused we have very little true freedom in the choices we make. Most of Christianity (not all) wish us to have this "free choice" so any action we take can be "our" fault, making the imaginary, punitive actions from their god justifiable.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:45 pm
bagnasty wrote:
renewedmind wrote:
In order for radioactive dating to even remotely accurate, you have to know how much of the parent element was in origin when the rock was formed in the first place and you also have to additionally know that there was no daughter element in the rock when it was formed in the first place. Without knowing this information, the radioactive dating method is irrelative.
Radioactive dating is not an exact method (there are known margins of error). But lets say that you were able to show that it is completely inaccurate. What implications would this have for the theory of evolution? Answer: none.
Geologists know how rock layers are formed to begin with and so they know which layers are, at the least, older. One obvious predicition entailed by the theory of evolution is that the farther back in time you go, the simpler the organisms found will be. 150 years of digging for fossils bears this prediction out perfectly. This fact, along with several other compelling lines of evidence prove that evolution is true (true with a small 't'). Granted, it's nice to know exactly how old these layers are, but if we remove that abilitly from the discussion evolution does not go out with it.
One obvious prediction of creationism, it should be noted, is that all the worlds animal species should appear at the same time in the geological record. This is not what is the case and so this prediction fails.
Great points Bag. There's more to dating the age of this planet then just radiometric dating. What's most telling is these other methods closely conform to the radiometric data further confirming its viability as a dating tool.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Hello MockingGods.
MockingGods wrote:
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Being human means having free will.
...or at least the illusion of it.
I agree.
It
appears
that we have free will, but this might just be an illusion. Certain particle physicists have recently speculated (there's that word again! ) that our perception of time may be a very limited one. Perhaps the way events unfold is predetermined in ways beyond our current understanding. Anyway, my take on this one is that we might as well behave as if we did have free will, until we know better.
Quote:
If they couldn't choose they wouldn't be human.
We do certainly make choices, but I don't believe those choices are free from casual affects beyond our control. Be they randomly, environmentally or biologically caused we have very little true freedom in the choices we make. Most of Christianity (not all) wish us to have this "free choice" so any action we take can be "our" fault, making the imaginary, punitive actions from their god justifiable.
Your point about the many factors that influence us is well made.
Combine this with what's already been said about our
apparent
free will and the whole issue seems very open indeed. However, even though we can't really be sure that we do make "free" decisions, I still contend that the best way to live is as if we do. Ok, that's purely my personal take, as mentioned above.
I used the concept of free will in my message to RenewedMind for two reasons.
Firstly, as you correctly point out, it is a cornerstone of Christian belief. Secondly, because I was attempting (I hope, successfully) to show that his statement,
"You are NOT free to accept or reject what you like!"
was in error, violating the very concept of free will that is central to the Christian belief system. What he probably meant to say was that our decisions to accept or reject God are NOT without
consequences
.
As you will know, I'm an atheist, so I do not regard the Christian concepts of reward (Heaven) or penalty (Hell) as at all valid. What I've tried to do (again, I hope clearly) is to show that our understanding of the real world will reward or penalize us, according to how accurately we understand how it works. We seem to be free to impose whatever beliefs we like on reality, but we also need to be careful! Imposing unworkable beliefs on the real world runs the risk of these beliefs harming us.
Therefore, it's in our mutual interest to find the best way of understanding the world we live in, so that we may live in it safely and avoid it's dangers. I contend that this way is thru Science.
Others are free to disagree. I await RenewedMind's return, to continue this debate.
Thanks again,
BornAgainAthiest.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:44 pm
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Perhaps the way events unfold is predetermined in ways beyond our current understanding.
It seems to me, either all events are caused, random or a combination of both. Under either scenario, the human decision making process isn't free, but is subject to these same causal factors just like everything else in nature.
Quote:
Anyway, my take on this one is that we might as well behave as if we did have free will, until we know better.
I think we do "behave" as if we have free will. The ideology of punitive justice stems from this. One might imagine a world in which we didn't behave as if we have free will. A world in which we understand our actions/choices and those of others directly affects the causal chain. In a sense, that's what we are doing here. We might for instance come to an understanding that acting with caring an empathy for those that bring harm to others actually brings less harm into the world then harming them for their actions. I'm not saying we should freely allow them to harm others, but our methods of preventing them from doing so should be done humanely, without anger, and with the intent to cause the least amount of harm.
Quote:
I used the concept of free will in my message to RenewedMind for two reasons.
Firstly, as you correctly point out, it is a cornerstone of Christian belief. Secondly, because I was attempting (I hope, successfully) to show that his statement, "You are NOT free to accept or reject what you like!" was in error, violating the very concept of free will that is central to the Christian belief system. What he probably meant to say was that our decisions to accept or reject God are NOT without consequences .
Indeed, your point is well taken.
Quote:
As you will know, I'm an atheist, so I do not regard the Christian concepts of reward (Heaven) or penalty (Hell) as at all valid.
Yup, on the same page here.
Quote:
What I've tried to do (again, I hope clearly) is to show that our understanding of the real world will reward or penalize us, according to how accurately we understand how it works.
Yes, our understanding of natural reality does result in consequences that will most certainly lead our civilization to greater happiness or more suffering, perhaps even extinction. My Mom's version of Christianity believes their god will fix everything. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous position to take for our long term survival and perhaps most of the other life forms on this planet.
Quote:
Imposing unworkable beliefs on the real world runs the risk of these beliefs harming us.
It's hard to quantify if and by how much these beliefs have already harmed us.
Quote:
Therefore, it's in our mutual interest to find the best way of understanding the world we live in, so that we may live in it safely and avoid it's dangers. I contend that this way is thru Science.
Science is the best method we've devised so far for understanding nature, it may be the current method undergoes refinement or we might possibly come by a better method altogether.
I think economic pressures on the current system is something that needs to be alleviated. It can lead some scientists to produce false results for the sake of capital gains or fame. Fortunately, the review process catches most of these errors.
Quote:
I await RenewedMind's return, to continue this debate.
I hope it's more productive then the debate with, "he who shall not be named".
Good stuff BAA... thanks for the responce
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:14 pm
Thanks MockingGods!
Now it's my turn to take a break from posting here. I'm traveling upstate on Friday to visit friends, so I won't be back here 'till the middle of next week. C u then.
Bye,
BornAA.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:58 pm
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Thanks MockingGods!
Now it's my turn to take a break from posting here. I'm traveling upstate on Friday to visit friends, so I won't be back here 'till the middle of next week. C u then.
Bye,
BornAA.
Have a safe and good trip man...
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:52 pm
Back again!
I've taken the time to re-read some of this thread and it looks to me as thought there's a point that need clarifying in the discussion between RenewedMind, MockingGods and myself.
[quote="RenewedMind"]
Evolution is presupposed by cosomology. Cosmology is presupposed by epistemology. Atheism’s epistemology fails miserably, precisely because it based on science. Scientific truth and scientific authority are indeed mistaken concepts as BAA asserts. They don’t exist, period. So evolution is built on quicksand…as is the theory of the big bang. Do I want to be 100% right? You bet I do! And that is exactly why I have turned to something better, more rock solid than science.
Q.
Why is it that I (BAA) have said that "scientific truth" and "scientific authority" are mistaken concepts?
A.
Because science does not deal with truth or authority - only with the testable, repeatable measurements and observations that yield validated facts. These facts can be formulated into theories that define and explain the nature of the reality we inhabit. As such, these theories carry no truth or authority of their own. They simply remain facts and theories.
Now here's the important bit - so pay attention!
We humans give these facts and theories their truth and authority. Being free to accept or reject whatever we like (unless it conflicts violently with natural reality and kills us) , we are also free to give any fact or theory as much or as little "truth" or "authority" as we believe it merits.
So RenewedMind is correct to say that the concepts of scientific truth and scientific authority are mistaken.
He is also correct to say that they don't exist, period.
However, he then follows an incorrect line of argument by saying that because these things are mistaken and non-existent, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are therefore built on quicksand.
Sorry! But that's not correct.
Please read the following closely and look at the terminology used.
Evolution and the Big Bang, like everything else in bona fide, mainstream science, are theories formulated from facts, which are themselves derived from observations and experiments.
They acquire truth and/or authority from us humans, who give them this status according to various personal factors.
I repeat,
we
give them whatever truth and authority is meaningful to us - they carry no truth and/or authority of their own, simply being verified facts that are organized into theories.
So, this absence of intrinsic authority/truth does not mean that scientifically-derived facts are automatically wrong. Nor does it mean that scientific theories are automatically wrong. All that it means is that arguments using the terms, "scientific truth" and "scientific authority" are mistaken and wrong. This is where RenewedMind and myself agree.
Where we part company and where he makes his error is where he says that because these terms are mistaken/wrong
all
of science is therefore wrong.
Not so.
The observed, measured and tested facts are still valid. Therefore, theories based upon these facts are also valid
provided
they can make verifiable predictions. These predictions are the proof of their validity. Fail the predictions and the theory fails. Verify the predictions and the theory is proven valid.
Here are two worked examples of theories whose predictions were later verified by observations and data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
The presence of transitional fossils in ancient rock strata was a key prediction of Darwinian Evolutionary theory. More and more transitional fossils are being discovered, showing the links between more primitive and more advanced life forms as they continued to evolve, adapting to changes in their environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_radiation
Please look at the sections, "History" and "Timeline" to see that the existence of the C.M.B. (Cosmic Microwave Background) was predicted decades before it was actually discovered and verified by observations. Also please look at the graph under the word, "Features". This line shows the shape of the Blackbody Radiation cosmologists expected the CMB to emit.
It is worth considering that the error bars on the measurements of this line are
SMALLER
than the thickness of the line itself. In this case, theory and observed reality match up very, very precisely indeed!
Now I would expect RenewedMind to challenge the validity of this data and these theories because they do not agree with his belief system. This is his, "personal factor", as mentioned above. I would expect him to give the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Cosmology no authority and no truth at all. This is because they do not fit with what he currently holds to be "true" and "authoritative".
So here we have a third worked example. This time it's an example of how the concepts of truth and authority are personal
things
we give to the facts and theories that agree with our beliefs.
Those that do not agree with our beliefs of what is true and authoritative are rejected.
Finally, a quick re-cap of what's been covered here.
Evolution and the Big Bang are validated by the verified predictions these theories made. According to the beliefs of the person concerned, they will give these theories their own measure of authority and truth. Authority and truth are relative, human concepts that we impose on natural reality and not absolute, eternal values. However, the theories themselves remain supported by the verified facts, which can be checked and tested by anyone, anywhere.
Atheism's epistemology works because it is based on the sound, logical and rigorously-checked methodology of Science. Science works because it's theories make verifiable predictions. Those predictions that fail are rejected and those theories are discarded in favor of better ones. Two examples of verified and validated theories are Evolution and Big Bang Cosmology.
The concepts of "scientific truth" and "scientific authority" are mistaken. This is not because Science itself is mistaken or illogical or wrong. It is because these terms should never have been used to describe scientific facts and theories.
Once we understand that these two things (truth and authority) are relative and personal we also understand that it is wrong to use them when talking about Science. By it's very nature, Science is impersonal and equally valid for everyone, not just the individual, who will give it's theories whatever status ( acceptance/rejection) they see fit.
I hope that this clears up the confusion about the terms "scientific truth" and "scientific authority" , why I stated that they didn't exist (except as personal values) and why I never use those terms myself.
Thanks,
BornAgainAthiest.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:18 pm
Great post BAA... lots to think about.
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Atheism's epistemology works because it is based on the sound, logical and rigorously-checked methodology of Science.
My personal atheism stems more from the history of anthropogenic religion/mythology then it does from science, it might even stand without scientific support. I am however a huge fan of what science has exposed about our natural reality and its many wonders. While I don't need science to support my atheism, I will often use it to expose superstitious, religious beliefs. One myth that it has certainly uncovered is the creation myth of the bible.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:28 pm
MockingGods wrote:
Great post BAA... lots to think about.
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
Atheism's epistemology works because it is based on the sound, logical and rigorously-checked methodology of Science.
My personal atheism stems more from the history of anthropogenic religion/mythology then it does from science, it might even stand without scientific support. I am however a huge fan of what science has exposed about our natural reality and its many wonders. While I don't need science to support my atheism, I will often use it to expose superstitious, religious beliefs. One myth that it has certainly uncovered is the creation myth of the bible.
Thanks MockingGods.
I like the dual approach you have to these matters. Yes, Science is a useful tool to cut away the dross and reveal what is real, factual and testable. However, the Historical/Psychological approach bears useful fruit too. Is it possible that further investigation into the human genome will reveal ancient genetic structures that predispose some individuals to express an inner need for things religious? If so, there may be the possibility of isolating and studying the properties of this "religion" gene. Wouldn't that be fascinating?
Moving on...
You and BagNasty might be interested in this Wikipedia page...
Three points of immediate relevance can be found under these headings;
* Court Determinations (The findings of
Epperson v Arkansas
and
McClean v Arkansas
are particularly revealing.)
* Scientific Criticism (Clear definitions of what constitutes Science and what doesn't.)
* Radiometric Dating
* Radio-haloes (Relevant to past discussions with RenewedMind.)
Come to think of it, maybe he should take at look at these things too.
Thanks,
BornAgainAthiest.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:16 pm
RenewedMind wrote:
(end note: I will not write here again this week. I am swamped and have way way to much to do. So please bear with me. I’ll be back next week.)
Hello again RenewedMind.
Would you please be so kind as to let us know if you will be responding further in this thread?
I ask because...
A.
It's almost a month since your lasting posting.
B.
I said that I was confining myself to this thread because I had planned to debate with you here. Please note that I have unfinished business with other members of this Forum and they have been waiting for me to get back to them in other threads, where other topics are pending.
C.
It's good Forum etiquette and plain good manners.
Thank you,
BornAgainAthiest.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm
Whoops!
I've just re-checked the Wikipedia link to Creation Science and found it's wrong.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) that our perception of time may be a very limited one. Perhaps the way events unfold is predetermined in ways beyond our current understanding. Anyway, my take on this one is that we might as well behave as if we did have free will, until we know better.
