Faith and science
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Would you please tell me the name and edition of the magazine? |
|
|
|
 |
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Play-Bot Magazine. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | Dawkins and co certainly refused to debate the creationists when offered... |
This is an old, old tactic. The creation "science" crowd has a number of really talented public speakers who devote their entire lives to learning every possible debating trick and then touring around the world "challenging" real scientists - who are not trained showmen and often not great public speakers and who in any case have real work to do - to meet them in public debate. In general, where the scientist is unwise enough to respond to the troll and attend a debate, the creationist will seem, to the casually interested shallow thinker these types are trying to attract, vastly more convincing. I have seen these guys in action and they are real pros.
Of course, it's all showmanship and clever presentation backed by shonky "facts" (which are almost impossible to expose as the clever lies they often are from within the context of a live debate) but make no mistake: some of these creationist hucksters are quite brilliant. They could sell sunblock cream to a coal miner.
Obviously, these shows are not designed to advance knowledge or understanding in any way, they are put on with the simple aim of recruiting more and more suckers to swell the power of the particular religious sect and increase the importance of its leaders. Real scientific debate takes place in the vastly more rigourous and accountable context of scientific journals and conferences, but it's not as much fun to watch.
Take home message: it's not about making fancy speeches and hosting sham debates: it's about the huge mountain of hard evidence and the relentless scientific quest to improve our knowledge of the world around us.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, that thar is a quality post.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | Dawkins and co certainly refused to debate the creationists when offered... |
This is an old, old tactic. The creation "science" crowd has a number of really talented public speakers who devote their entire lives to learning every possible debating trick and then touring around the world "challenging" real scientists - who are not trained showmen and often not great public speakers and who in any case have real work to do - to meet them in public debate. In general, where the scientist is unwise enough to respond to the troll and attend a debate, the creationist will seem, to the casually interested shallow thinker these types are trying to attract, vastly more convincing. I have seen these guys in action and they are real pros.
Of course, it's all showmanship and clever presentation backed by shonky "facts" (which are almost impossible to expose as the clever lies they often are from within the context of a live debate) but make no mistake: some of these creationist hucksters are quite brilliant. They could sell sunblock cream to a coal miner.
Obviously, these shows are not designed to advance knowledge or understanding in any way, they are put on with the simple aim of recruiting more and more suckers to swell the power of the particular religious sect and increase the importance of its leaders. Real scientific debate takes place in the vastly more rigourous and accountable context of scientific journals and conferences, but it's not as much fun to watch.
Take home message: it's not about making fancy speeches and hosting sham debates: it's about the huge mountain of hard evidence and the relentless scientific quest to improve our knowledge of the world around us. |
Haha, now we attack them because they are educated in delivering this message effectively all over the world. Shame on them for caring enough to be great communicators.
This is what they do mate. They sit around discussing how best to trick people. They spend their entire lives on it. They train them up, not to deliver the most vital message effectively to millions of people, out of love - but to perfect their speaking skills.
Truth is so much easier to speak.
Basically why Hitchens etc sound so desperate and afraid. No faith. No realistic argument, nothing. Empty. Sad.
Oh, and we still on this mountain of scientific evidence crap. Guess what else has mountains of evidence?
Just be happy with your lot, mate. No real need to continually attack religion - other than fear and ego. To not believe is one thing - to rubbish something and basically be ugly, because you do not agree, is anger and hatred.
You need to relax 
Will you please join me in prayer, Tannin?
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| laird wrote: | | Guess what else has mountains of evidence? |
The Bible as historical record? 
Laird, I respect your faith and certainly believe that there is some historical truth to the events recorded in the Bible (certainly once you get to the records of the kings of Israel and Judah, the Babylonian period and some events of the New Testament), but as accurate historical record it must be considered to fall short.
I could almost grant six-day creation, long life expectancies and the great flood if we were to ignore the fossil record and the process of evolution. But God making the sun (well, Earth) stand still so that Joshua's army could kill the fleeing Canaanite soldiers? Surely you must agree that's a little far-fetched.
Obviously, most Christians interpret these things as allegorical, as I believe they were probably intended. But if we accept that the Bible consists of a little fact blended with a lot of myth and allegory, what grounds would we possibly have to put it up against secular scientific enquiry as an alternative account of the world's history? What grounds would we have to use it to cast doubt on evolution, a process that all but religious adherents have long ago accepted?
As my mother, a young-earth creationist, has said on numerous occasions: "God gave us a brain for a reason; use it." I think it's our responsibility as rational beings to weigh up the likelihood of things from the position of open-minded seekers of the truth. That's what Darwin did, and that's what our modern scientists in all fields do, for the most part. While that may or may not incorporate believing in the existence of the divine, I don't think unquestioningly accepting an ancient text as gospel is exercising our full rational faculties.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | laird wrote: | | Guess what else has mountains of evidence? |
The Bible as historical record?
Laird, I respect your faith and certainly believe that there is some historical truth to the events recorded in the Bible (certainly once you get to the records of the kings of Israel and Judah, the Babylonian period and some events of the New Testament), but as accurate historical record it must be considered to fall short.
I could almost grant six-day creation, long life expectancies and the great flood if we were to ignore the fossil record and the process of evolution. But God making the sun (well, Earth) stand still so that Joshua's army could kill the fleeing Canaanite soldiers? Surely you must agree that's a little far-fetched.
Obviously, most Christians interpret these things as allegorical, as I believe they were probably intended. But if we accept that the Bible consists of a little fact blended with a lot of myth and allegory, what grounds would we possibly have to put it up against secular scientific enquiry as an alternative account of the world's history? What grounds would we have to use it to cast doubt on evolution, a process that all but religious adherents have long ago accepted?
As my mother, a young-earth creationist, has said on numerous occasions: "God gave us a brain for a reason; use it." I think it's our responsibility as rational beings to weigh up the likelihood of things from the position of open-minded seekers of the truth. That's what Darwin did, and that's what our modern scientists in all fields do, for the most part. While that may or may not incorporate believing in the existence of the divine, I don't think unquestioningly accepting an ancient text as gospel is exercising our full rational faculties. |
Yep mate, I'm good, you?
I probably have spent about 2,000 hours studying, watching, listening to those speaking for evolution.
To me, it is nonsense. Plain and simple. To me, it is insanity.
I have lived both. I never set out to be a Christian. I never went to church and I never read a word of the bible.
10 years a drug addict, alcohol abuser, womaniser, brawler and by Devine intervention - this all stopped instantly.
I mean that same second. That was long ago.
My love and passion for God and Jesus Christ is from real life!
Not from words but action - unforgettable, unquestioning love!
His love. Him.
Not going to go into detail here, however I will tell you that it was not because of the bible alone, not because of pushy Christian leaders, nor the church, nor because of some articulate public speaking.
It certainly was not from some science textbook.
God is not simply in a book. Those of us that know him well - know this!
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| A lot can change in a decade. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Laird, I won't disparage your faith but don't shy away from taking at least some of the credit for that change yourself. That's worthy of a congratulations and I wish you continued good fortune in what you do.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That is a very original thought. I wish I could do continued good fortune in what you do for you. |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Laird, I won't disparage your faith but don't shy away from taking at least some of the credit for that change yourself. That's worthy of a congratulations and I wish you continued good fortune in what you do. |
Thanks for a respectful response mate. Coming from a non believer ( nothing wrong with that), I realise why you would think I should take some of the credit.
Anyway, appreciate the kind words mate!
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Laird, I won't disparage your faith but don't shy away from taking at least some of the credit for that change yourself. That's worthy of a congratulations and I wish you continued good fortune in what you do. |
Yep, seconded (although I get your point about 'credit', Laird one aspect where our philosophies cross over a little). Still, good to recognise that it's no easy thing to do.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well said Laird on many counts.
David, we may well disagree on many things, but it is refreshing that the discussions have been conducted with respect. Let us agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | Dawkins and co certainly refused to debate the creationists when offered... |
This is an old, old tactic. The creation "science" crowd has a number of really talented public speakers who devote their entire lives to learning every possible debating trick and then touring around the world "challenging" real scientists - who are not trained showmen and often not great public speakers and who in any case have real work to do - to meet them in public debate. In general, where the scientist is unwise enough to respond to the troll and attend a debate, the creationist will seem, to the casually interested shallow thinker these types are trying to attract, vastly more convincing. I have seen these guys in action and they are real pros.
Of course, it's all showmanship and clever presentation backed by shonky "facts" (which are almost impossible to expose as the clever lies they often are from within the context of a live debate) but make no mistake: some of these creationist hucksters are quite brilliant. They could sell sunblock cream to a coal miner.
Obviously, these shows are not designed to advance knowledge or understanding in any way, they are put on with the simple aim of recruiting more and more suckers to swell the power of the particular religious sect and increase the importance of its leaders. Real scientific debate takes place in the vastly more rigourous and accountable context of scientific journals and conferences, but it's not as much fun to watch.
Take home message: it's not about making fancy speeches and hosting sham debates: it's about the huge mountain of hard evidence and the relentless scientific quest to improve our knowledge of the world around us. |
Entirely agree. Well said & hit the nail on the head.
I have zero tolerance to those juxtaposing ID & evolution as though they have the same value or merit.
One may as well be talking to conspiracy theorists - in my view much the same thing.
That people find solace in relgion - good for them but religious fundamentalism like intelligent design has no role in a rational society.
ID etc does remind people why we should not be allowing religious institutions tax free status.
BTW you can donate money to the WPT foundation & be blessed with offerings from WPT because as you know a donation to WPT is a donation to god.
As Kinky Fredman says
" How can you look at the Texas legislature and still believe in intelligent design?
Mind you he also said:
The first thing I'll do if elected is demand a recount.
But one of my all time favourites is
I even went so far as to become a Southern Baptist for a while, until I realized that they didn't hold 'em under long enough.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | BTW you can donate money to the WPT foundation & be blessed with offerings from WPT because as you know a donation to WPT is a donation to god. |
No. You may be thinking of Stui Magpie. You are probably the other bloke.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
