Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2016, 05:09 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:58 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Some micro-evolution, mutations and some change over time, is clearly part of the implementation of the design of living systems, I agree with that.

Please enlighten us as to the mechanism that prevents many small changes from accumulating into large change. Consider

And then claim your Nobel Prize. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-06-2016, 05:12 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 04:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 03:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No. No, no, no. Natural Selection does not have anything to do with "the first life", except after it was formed and began to reproduce. Natural Selection only works on things that reproduce. It is literally only possible when you have a "gene pool"... as the things (DNA in most modern cases) reproduce, there are variations among them, and some of those variants will survive and reproduce more efficiently/frequently than others, based on factors in their environment (and a few other basic factors). That is what Natural Selection means, and nothing else. So, yet again, you have mis-stated what a major principle of biology means.

You keep using the phrase, "cannot explain". How can you possibly know that, if A) we humans haven't stopped learning everything about the natural world, and B) you have made it clear that you don't even have a strong grasp of basic biology?

Just repeating it over and over again, like some sort of mantra, does not make it more true. Seriously, what is wrong with you?!

Exactly, natural selection and evolution cannot explain origins. That was my point. Nothing more, nothing less. I know what evolution and natural selection are.

Cells forming and beginning to reproduce is a giant leap with no explanation in your argument above.

Again, explain how the genetic code came about and the systems and processes operating in living cells, in a natural sense. Explain how the "information" came about naturally.

Actually, natural selection is precisely the explanation for the origin of life.

Natural selection is an algorithmic process that only requires imperfect replication and differential persistence or survival. Life is not necessary to the process.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-06-2016, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2016 07:18 PM by Chas.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 04:15 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  There was once a consensus in science that the world was flat (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

No, that was a pre-scientific belief.

Quote:There was once a consensus in science that the sun revolved around the earth (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

No, that was a religious belief.

Quote:Are you capable of even considering the possibility that there are extremely specified and complex systems, which are also irreducibly complex, that are built and programmed to operate by an incredibly sophisticated 4-digit "code" which clearly bears the hallmarks of design?

There is no irreducible complexity in biological systems. They are not specified, they evolved.
You really, really need to read a book by an actual scientist, not some fool from AiG.
Try Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne Ph.D. or The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins Ph.D.

And if you want to understand the algorithm, read Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Daniel C. Dennett Ph.D.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-06-2016, 06:46 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
I would like to just take a moment to refer Mr. CFD to the title of the thread, "Belief VERSUS facts in the programmed religious mind", and thank him for demonstrating for us unequivocally the principle to which the OP was referring.

Your inability to process the information you're being given (ironically, since you keep asking about "information" in the DNA) would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Instead of understanding what the top experts, Christian and atheists alike, tell you about the subjects, you instead quote/paraphrase from people who completely lack qualifications to give their opinion on the subject but are quite good at giving you "science-sounding" gibberish that you pass on to us... then ignore us when we explain to you that it's not even close to accurate.

Again, you restating false information does not turn your beliefs into facts, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

If I thought for a minute that this time, you'd listen to the explanations given about chemistry and how it works, I'd explain AGAIN to you why it's not "information" in the sense that you're using it, but simply high-level, standard chemistry. But you don't want to hear that because you don't really want facts to interfere with your beliefs. QED.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-06-2016, 11:51 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2016 08:40 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 04:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Exactly, natural selection and evolution cannot explain origins. I know what evolution and natural selection are.
Lol no, you really really don't. The fact that you think that because evolution can't explain origins is some big flaw of evolution betrays your ignorance. Tell me when your wristwatch fails to cook you a fine porterhouse steak in the morning does that make it a shit wristwatch? Is gravity at fault for not explaining origins? What about seismology is it a shit science cause it does not explain origins?

You know so fuckin' little about evolution you don't even know why your criticism is stupid.

(20-06-2016 04:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Cells forming and beginning to reproduce is a giant leap with no explanation in your argument above.
Cause " the magic man did it" is an explanation. oh wait... it's not. It's just an assertion. You have provided no methodology to prove your assertion, no evidence to support it, no mechanisms, no procedures, nothing falsifiable or demonstrable;e or even testable.

Here is what you and your fucktarded creationists don't understand: Creationism and "Naturalism" are not two competing ideologies that are on equal footing. Naturalism has evidence, methodology, procedures, it can make predictions, provide evidence, make demonstrations, and provide falsifiable data. It is subjected to peer-review and extensive testing and retesting and retesting over and over.
Creationism offers....nothing. It brings literally nothing other than assertions without evidence. Arguments from ignorance, personal incredulity and a whole litany of logical and methodological fallacies. It's a fucking joke that you think you are in anyway on a level playing field, cause you just are not.

"God did it!"
Does this "explanation" offer any testable, repeatable, and demonstrable data? Nope.
Is it falsifiable? Nope, you people have defined your cause as not measurable and not testable.
Do you offer any methodology to support this assertion? Nope, "I read it in a really old book", is not a methodology.
What predictions does this assertion allow us to make? Not a fucking one.
Does it pass peer-review? Is it even subject to peer-review? Hahahahaha, not even in the slightest.

An explanation by definition must contain explanatory power, and your "explanation" answers nothing. Not one thing.

There is a reason the rest of the civilized and educated world laughs at you people, you creationists. You are fighting demonstrable science with fucking bed time stories. lol you people.

(20-06-2016 04:04 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Again, explain how the genetic code came about and the systems and processes operating in living cells, in a natural sense. Explain how the "information" came about naturally.
Le me be clear, if I said fucking time traveling bears did it it would be more likely than your answer because I can demonstrate that bears exist and that time travel is at least theoretically possible. You can't show ANYTHING in your explanation as fact.
I'll also point out that at one point in time you would be asking the same question on where lightning comes from and giving the same assertion as you are now "god does it". Enjoy your ever shrinking god, those gaps be closing kiddo. Your kind was wrong then, and you are wrong now you just know so little about the subject that you don't even know how wrong you are.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
21-06-2016, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2016 10:03 AM by Chas.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
WD - your quote attributions are incorrect.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:35 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(17-06-2016 05:08 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  First:
Humans belong in the animal kingdom. This has been acknowledged since the 1700's. Greater minds than yours spent their entire careers trying to prove this wrong. Greater christian minds, I might add.

Second:
Your definition does not fit evolution. There is an element of chance, but the vast majority of the process is predictable according the known laws of genetics and chemistry.

Let me see a chimp solve a differential equation and then we can talk.

What the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

We aren't animals because we are smarter?

(20-06-2016 03:35 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Ultimately, natural selection and evolution would have to exist in a random built universe with random constructed living systems. This is obviously not the case.

The universe operates in a consistent and predictable manner. There is no "chance" per se. Elements react in certain ways in certain situations.

Natural selection and evolution to exist in this universe. This has been demonstrated and scientifically proven repeatedly.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 06:23 AM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:39 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(17-06-2016 05:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Saying "they never will" indicates your presupposition.

You clearly have no understanding about evolution in particular and science in general.

Considering all of the things that theists have sworn "would never happen", you also have a poor grasp on history.

At this point you are doing nothing more than showcasing your own ignorance.

You have way way too much faith that a random process ...

You post that humans are not animals, and you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

This was determined by Carl Linnaeus in 1735.

You are literally 281 years behind the times.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
21-06-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(21-06-2016 05:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 11:51 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Lol no, you really really don't. The fact that you think that because evolution can't explain origins is some big flaw of evolution betrays your ignorance. Tell me when your wristwatch fails to cook you a fine porterhouse steak in the morning does that make it a shit wristwatch? Is gravity at fault for not explaining origins? What about seismology is it a shit science cause it does not explain origins?

You know so fuckin' little about evolution you don't even know why your criticism is stupid.

Cause " the magic man did it" is an explanation. oh wait... it's not. It's just an assertion. You have provided no methodology to prove your assertion, no evidence to support it, no mechanisms, no procedures, nothing falsifiable or demonstrable;e or even testable.

Here is what you and your fucktarded creationists don't understand: Creationism and "Naturalism" are not two competing ideologies that are on equal footing. Naturalism has evidence, methodology, procedures, it can make predictions, provide evidence, make demonstrations, and provide falsifiable data. It is subjected to peer-review and extensive testing and retesting and retesting over and over.
Creationism offers....nothing. It brings literally nothing other than assertions without evidence. Arguments from ignorance, personal incredulity and a whole litany of logical and methodological fallacies. It's a fucking joke that you think you are in anyway on a level playing field, cause you just are not.

"God did it!"
Does this "explanation" offer any testable, repeatable, and demonstrable data? Nope.
Is it falsifiable? Nope, you people have defined your cause as not measurable and not testable.
Do you offer any methodology to support this assertion? Nope, "I read it in a really old book", is not a methodology.
What predictions does this assertion allow us to make? Not a fucking one.
Does it pass peer-review? Is it even subject to peer-review? Hahahahaha, not even in the slightest.

An explanation by definition must contain explanatory power, and your "explanation" answers nothing. Not one thing.

There is a reason the rest of the civilized and educated world laughs at you people, you creationists. You are fighting demonstrable science with fucking bed time stories. lol you people.

Le me be clear, if I said fucking time traveling bears did it it would be more likely than your answer because I can demonstrate that bears exist and that time travel is at least theoretically possible. You can't show ANYTHING in your explanation as fact.
I'll also point out that at one point in time you would be asking the same question on where lightning comes from and giving the same assertion as you are now "god does it". Enjoy your ever shrinking god, those gaps be closing kiddo. Your kind was wrong then, and you are wrong now you just know so little about the subject that you don't even know how wrong you are.

WD - your quote attributions are incorrect.
Well it finally happened Chas, their stupid has gotten so strong that I can't even tell the idiots apart any more, they just congeal into one rolling mass of failure.

(Fixed it, thanks for the catch mate. Don't start a post 2 hours after you shoulda gone to bed, you would think i would know that by now lol)

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 04:15 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  There was once a consensus in science that the world was flat (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

There was once a consensus in science that the sun revolved around the earth (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

Are you capable of even considering the possibility that there are extremely specified and complex systems, which are also irreducibly complex, that are built and programmed to operate by an incredibly sophisticated 4-digit "code" which clearly bears the hallmarks of design?

As has been pointed out to you, the above are examples of what happens when you guess based on how you think things should be, instead of operating on the modern Scientific Method, which was really not a thing until the 19th century or so. Earlier versions were there, as far back as the time of Newton, but all of your concepts are pre-scientific-method by any real measure, and so they do not constitute examples of what you are trying to say. I'm sorry, but fail. Again.

And of course I am capable of considering that possibility. I have looked at the ID/IC camp's arguments for the past 20 years, and found serious flaws in their methodology, their presuppositions, and a total dearth of evidence other than the concept of personal incredulity. If you are honest enough, you can read the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, where Michael Behe was examined under oath to get past the static of the ID/IC movement and see that it fails on every conceivable level.

One of the most conservative federal judges in the US was the one who presided on that case, and he passed down a ruling that is almost poetry, in its denunciation of ID. Have you read it? Do you know the objections that caused the judge to slam the entire case being made by your side? Did you see where Behe was forced to retract almost literally every one of his claims, when presented with researchers who had proven the things he claimed were "irreducibly complex"? Did you see him admit that, under his proposed re-definition of science, it would include astrology?

If you were an honest person, you would have looked into that the last six times I've mentioned it to you. But you won't, because honesty is less important to you than preserving your cherished beliefs (including, apparently, thinking that humans aren't animals, for some reason). I have come to expect no honesty from Intelligent Design proponents, as I have yet to meet one who has even taken that basic step of self-examination.

You also cannot answer the basic problem of "why are so many evolutionary biologists at the top of that field Christians?" without slipping into a global conspiracy theory about them being intimidated into silence, which is hilarious to anyone who knows the competitive and often backbiting culture of the scientific community, who would never stay silent in the face of real suppression.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: