How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith an

---

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

I have a bunch of evidence to the contrary

I'm still waiting to see it!

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI understand that extremists are in very low numbers, but America still managed to elect one to the presidency. And we have seen over the past few years what a single extremist in a position of power can do. I 100% agree with you. I'll probably be torn apart by the Christian folk but I have said for a long time now I wish we'd get a president that was agnostic. I honestly feel religion CAN, but not always, distort the views of people in power. I'm strongly in favor that religion should never be a factor when running a country. You believe in God and you dismiss claims that humans evolved (if I remember correctly, you believe that other animals evolved but humans didn't). You wilfully dismiss all evidence that supports the theory that humans also evolved and I don't mind this because you are not in a position in which your beliefs can cause any harm (intellectual harm, I believe that anyone who teaches a child to ignore evidence should be shot). Actually, I won't say I don't believe evolution happens within the human race, I just don't buy we come from apes. I do think we were created to evolve as time changes and evolves. There has been evidence that the human brain is expanding through the generations, it's fact that you really cannot dispute. But again I don't believe we developed from apes. You are someone who, if I have your character judged correctly, if you ever adopt a child you will not drill your own beliefs into their skull. Therefore you do not pass on your personal belief as fact. This is absolutely true. I would never force my beliefs on my child. I certainly would introduce them to my religion and if the time comes they feel this path is not for them than they have the freedom to follow what feels right to them. Religion should never be something that's forced on another person. I thank my parents for never forcing it upon me and letting me have control over my faith. When I have children, I will be teaching them about God/gods and religion. But I will never tell them that God does or does not exist. And thats the best respectful thing a parent can dof or their child when it comes to the topic of religion. Sorry I answered the post through the Quote, just easier this way LoL

Quote:What makes your personal view of God, which differs from person to person, the truth? If both of you think that you know the truth, but what you know is different, then how can either of you be trusted? If this other persons truth can be so different from yours but he can be so certain of it, then how can you have any faith in what is all just in your head? The same way you can believe in the "proof" of "evolution" when you don't fully understand mutations, evolution, or how it actually occured. Seeing as you don't have a degree in biology, microbiology, or evolutionary theory. You choose to believe in something that you can't fully comprehend the same way that a christain chooses to believe in a god he or she can't fully understand. The main difference being who agrees with you and who disagrees with you.

Quote:the most delicious thing about the faith argument is that the faithfull totally don't get the joke!I beleive this to be trueI have a bunch of evidence to the contraryHA... that's just a theory!I'm sure there are some wonderfully brillient theologins in the world but the average fundamentalist uses the same logical arguments as a 3 year old. And just like the 3 year old, he is totally oblivious to the blatant error in his "logic"Thor, please feel free to reply with a resounding "nuh-uhh!" habeas corpus

Originally Posted By: thorI'm still waiting to see it! thanks for responding as requested

Originally Posted By: thor

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

What makes your personal view of God, which differs from person to person, the truth? If both of you think that you know the truth, but what you know is different, then how can either of you be trusted? If this other persons truth can be so different from yours but he can be so certain of it, then how can you have any faith in what is all just in your head?

Each of us looks on things from a different perspective. One side of a mountain looks different from another side...but both will agree that it is a mountain. Both will agree that there is a God...which is the point in question.

But what about all the people who are staring at the same spot but don't see a mountain, they measure and calculate and find there to only be a hill. You look and believe it to be a mountain without question or investigation. You want it to be a mountain so, to you, it is. (Sorry for the mountain waffle, I was watching The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain.)

Originally Posted By: thorExplains exactly what's going on in our education system today. Doesn't explain, however, my belief in God. Haha, thats the exact response that the article talks about! You're actually brilliant in your predictability.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedI beleive this to be trueI have a bunch of evidence to the contraryHA... that's just a theory!I'm sure there are some wonderfully brillient theologins in the world but the average fundamentalist uses the same logical arguments as a 3 year old. And just like the 3 year old, he is totally oblivious to the blatant error in his "logic"Who's using retarded logic here?If you say you have a bunch of evidence, my saying it's just a theory doesn't bow me out as the foul player. You are the foul player if you can't produce said evidence. Which you haven't. And won't. And you or someone else is gonna reply yes we have but you ignore/deny it. Which isn't true. All I've seen is speculations and coulda/shoulda/woulda's.So, if you're gonna stop an argument without having to actually argue, you need to find another way to do it other than portraying the person you refuse to have the argument with as an illogical 3 year old.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI understand that extremists are in very low numbers, but America still managed to elect one to the presidency. And we have seen over the past few years what a single extremist in a position of power can do.You think HE'S an extremist?!?Dude, you are a delusional man who needs to get out more.  Quote:You believe in God and you dismiss claims that humans evolved (if I remember correctly, you believe that other animals evolved but humans didn't). You wilfully dismiss all evidence that supports the theory that humans also evolved You are doing cartwheels to avoid Thor's statement that he is not denying evolution. He is denying natural selection. So it's your foul, not his.  Quote: Haha, thats the exact response that the article talks about! You're actually brilliant in your predictability. Yes, by all means, the fact that he responded as you predicted completely nullifies his argument.Strike three...wait, those were fouls...I can't believe I did such a good job at avoiding that asinine "let's bash Christians again" thread disguising as an intellectual discussion, but was so quick to get sucked into this asinine "let's portray anyone who doesn't buy natural selection as anti-science Neanderthals disguesed as an intellectual discussion" thread.FEED ME SEYMOUR!!!

are you suggesting that I need to cite every paper, research project text book etc etc etc published on evolution while the faith argument need prove nothing?
Isn't the irony apperent? I'm not even critisizing religious beleifs, just the method of argument as it apears here.
You have faith in that which cannot be proven yet you will so easily dismiss a mountain of evidence compiled by thousands of your fellow humans.
The fact that we are having this conversation at this moment is a direct result of years of science a resaerch. You have no objection to this I assume.
How do you decide? By what criteria to you pick and choose your way through the world of science?
Is it as simple as the bible? Can you accept any research, as long as it explores something that wasn't already layed out in the good book?

I hate to blow one of the basis for your argument by saying this, but I happen to believe that there is tons...I mean TONS of knowledge outside of the Bible. I don't need chapter and verse to verify gravity and other scientific concepts.And I think there is tons of valid research on the questions of random mutation and natural selection. I'm not discounting that at all. What I'm saying is that entire body of research has yet to prove random mutation and natural selection, much less make them a foregone conclusion.The real problem with your post is that you can't compare science and religion. They are apples and oranges. It is my beliefs that attempt to do so stem from the faulty thinking that science is the only original source of knowledge. It just isn't. There is science, and there is history, and there is revelation, and there is experience, and so on. I can no more use science to explain or prove my spirituality than you can use spirituality to prove or deny science. That's where the trouble starts on both sides.

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI understand that extremists are in very low numbers, but America still managed to elect one to the presidency. And we have seen over the past few years what a single extremist in a position of power can do.You think HE'S an extremist?!?Dude, you are a delusional man who needs to get out more.The man declared to the entire fucking world that he was told by God to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. A man who bases his actions, ones that kill thousands of people, on the little voices in his head is an extremist.  Originally Posted By: damien Quote:You believe in God and you dismiss claims that humans evolved (if I remember correctly, you believe that other animals evolved but humans didn't). You wilfully dismiss all evidence that supports the theory that humans also evolved You are doing cartwheels to avoid Thor's statement that he is not denying evolution. He is denying natural selection. So it's your foul, not his.I did not avoid Thor at all, my quote above was a response to NtroducingMyself and was specific to him.My response to Thor was a link to an article about Natural Selection and squashed his little "No Proof" waffle. But of course, conveniantly, the link didn't seem to work for Thor even tho it works perfectly for me.http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.eceAn excerpt:"For more than a century it has been cited as the quintessential example of Darwinism in action. It was the story of the peppered moth and how its two forms had struggled for supremacy in the polluted woodlands of industrial Britain.Every biology textbook on evolution included the example of the black and peppered forms of the moth, Biston betularia. The relative numbers of these two forms were supposed to be affected by predatory birds being able to pick off selectively either the black or peppered variety, depending on whether they rested on polluted or unpolluted trees.It became the most widely cited example of Darwinian natural selection and how it affected the balance between two competing genes controlling the coloration of an organism. Then the doubts began to emerge.Critics suggested that the key experiments on the peppered moth in the 1950s were flawed. Some went as far as to suggest the research was fraudulent, with the implication that the school textbooks were feeding children a lie.Creationists smelt blood. The story of the peppered moth became a story of how Darwinism itself was flawed - with its best known example being based on fiddled data.Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting." Originally Posted By: damien Quote: Haha, thats the exact response that the article talks about! You're actually brilliant in your predictability. Yes, by all means, the fact that he responded as you predicted completely nullifies his argument.His argument being what? "Nuh uh!"? He didn't present an argument at all, he just denied it out flat without anything to support his claim! Originally Posted By: damien"let's portray anyone who doesn't buy natural selection as anti-science Neanderthals disguesed as an intellectual discussion"Don't be silly, Neanderthals are extinct...FUCK ME AUDREY!!!

That's an interesting article, but while the fact that he observed birds preferring the taste of one moth over the other might show the impact one species of animal can have over the other, it hardly proves evolution of the species by random mutation and natural selection.NO SHIT SHERLOCK!I'm rehearsing in a production of Little Shop of Horrors. The other night I was so tired and frustrated by the time I got to rehearsal, that I wanted to ask if I could feel in for the Plant so I could say that line really loud.

Originally Posted By: damienThat's an interesting article, but while the fact that he observed birds preferring the taste of one moth over the other might show the impact one species of animal can have over the other, it hardly proves evolution of the species by random mutation and natural selection.If you thought that the article had anything to do with how they tasted, then you did not understand what you were reading. The difference between the two types of moth, both being of the same species, was a mutant gene that altered their colour. In certain areas this mutation helped the moths camouflage themselves in the trees, increasing their chances of survival and thus passing on the mutated gene.Natural Selection in all its glory and splendour!---------I love the Little Shop of Horrors. My sister was in a school production of it about 10 years ago. Audrey in the movie was fantastic, the way she went from her tiny little voice to belting out the notes was just phenomenal! I have the soundtrack on my computer and Suddenly Seamour is my favourite track.What character are you playing?

I came on board about a month after rehearsals started to help with some bit parts. The only significant role is Mr. Martin at the end, who is not in the movie (since he instigates the taking over of the world by the plant.)I'm looking forward to doing more things after this. Like Oliver after the first of the year.So...how can we work Audrey Two into this discussion of natural selection?

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousIn certain areas this mutation helped the moths camouflage themselves in the trees, increasing their chances of survival and thus passing on the mutated gene.Natural Selection in all its glory and splendour!LOL! No such thing. How do we know that the change in color doesn't make it more likely to get eaten by something else? Is a mutated gene going to make a fish grow feathers and fly? How many "random mutations" would have to occur to make that happen? Then figure in it happening at least twice, otherwise there'd be little to no chance of those mutations being passed on.If you do the statistical math, you'll find the odds of natural selection being the motivational factor behind evolution for thousands of species to be, for all intents and purposes, zero.Pigs will literally sprout wings and fly before natural selection could be even close to being responsible for evolution. The more you know about natural selection and evolution, the more glaringly apparent that is.

Quote:How do we know that the change in color doesn't make it more likely to get eaten by something else?Didn't you read the article? Or bob's quote from it? The researcher observed predation of the moths. It was birds. Quote:Is a mutated gene going to make a fish grow feathers and fly?Not one gene, but in stages, yes. We are beginning to see how genes for one purpose derived from genes for another. The only difference between a fish and a bird is in the genes, and the great majority of them are identical. Quote:Then figure in it happening at least twice, otherwise there'd be little to no chance of those mutations being passed on.No, this is incorrect. Most significant evolutionary steps will have taken place in very small isolated pressured populations with heavy inbreeding. When brothers and sisters are mating, a single mutation will end up in both chromosomes of some individuals of the next generation but one. Quote:The more you know about natural selection and evolution, the more glaringly apparent that is.But you know very little about it, while people who study it know a lot.

Thank you Ineligible. I find that its impossible to argue this with Thor because he has no clue what the theory of evolution is, nevermind Natural Selection. He only knows the religious bastardised version that is spouted out, he would never actually try to find out what it really is because he is one of the scary blind-faith Christians that scare the hell out of me.Not to mention that Thor seems to find it impossible to take anything that I say seriously as he believes that he is older and therefore wiser than me.

Well, Audrey 2 obviously evolved on another planet, simple!

Quote:Thor seems to find it impossible to take anything that I say seriously as he believes that he is older and therefore wiser than me.I can't comment whether that is true of Thor, but there are certainly some people who cannot imagine that anyone younger can know more than they do on anything. Of course as they get older, the proportion of the population that they hold in contempt increases towards 100%. They tend to die unmourned.