ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
This is contingent on number of genes/individuals genes and generation times. Selection, the end result of competeion for limited resources where some individual are favoured (breed viable offspring) and proliferate their genic frequencies. This si of course more complicated as you have competition from other species, chance events in climate and disease. Look up major-histo compatibly complex often liken to the 'red queen hypothesis'between disease causing agents and host. You wouldn't care tho
I'm not NCSE but the definition as a researcher is the change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. A species having many populations that is. Allele frequencies are the combination at a loci/gene. Mutation introduces new variation from gene copying error 1 in every million gene copies.
@vgrasomni the definition above is the technical definition of evolution. I recommend taking courses in genetics, ecology, geology and any aspect of biology for any who would like to learn how genes work in large and small populations.
Oh yeah, that's something else I always thought was odd about US tests. Multiple choice? When I was in school we'd never get that; you're expected to write everything out, explain your answer to prove you know what you're talking about rather than taking a stab at a box.
@Direkin you're spot on, this is a big problem, and not just in science education. think of how it changes the way teachers ask questions. if you're doing M/C, you have to ask a question that can be answered very briefly; that also means you ask questions on small details rather than the bigger picture. it's the triumph of trivia over substance. but it's completely understandable, given the time management necessary to deal with growing sizes of classes
@NatCen4ScienceEd Thank you and good work NCSE we must preserve the right of neutral inquiry and teaching critical thinking to question sources. It would have be great for classes to teach to any willing student how to research sources to find if they are peer-reviewed or point of views,say taking popular media of a research finding.Also basic statistics so they can understand how researchers draw conclusions. It's great seeing this dialogue to raise scientific literacy.
What about schools using the International Baccalaureate programme? Are the same problems going on there, considering the curriculum isn't set by US standards?
@Direkin we have indeed encountered creationist issues in IB courses, just as we have experienced creationist problems in almost every state of the union.
I must agree that evolution is taught correctly in catholic schools. The teaching of biology was so good at my school that it set me on a life long career. BTW I was an atheist by age 12 or 13 due to being taught about the all the differing religions AND THEN evolution. Reasoned they could not all be true, then learned none of them needed to be.
If you want to reach teens and young adults with real science, then have it incorporated in video games and TV shows. I got interested in learning real science as a young adult watching Star Trek and other such shows. Years later, I now know far more real science from real science books than I ever learned in high school. Carl Sagan's series Cosmos was awesome and played a huge role in bringing me into reality.
That was a great discussion. Biology is amazing, it's fun to learn about, for some... it has lots of practical applications, and geology does also. It's weird for me to type 'science is excellent' because the alternative proposal is so awful & depraved, but c'est la vie, science is excellent!
I actually used to think that ben stein was a smart guy when I used to watch win ben steins money. Ever since that shit movie he made his reputation is dead and I think that he's an idiot.
In the creationist mind it is simple. All scientific evidence that contradicts the bible is false. Those scientists hate God and don't want to be held accountable for their sins.
All scientific evidence in geology, biology, and cosmology in the last 150 years are just conspiratorial notions to deny God and his "just" laws.
Isn't it obvious that creationists have properly thought this through. LOL, What a joke.
I don't understand.... we can prove that evolution takes place... we can see small changes in our own lifetimes, and we have studies that have taken place over time that have shown these changes, so why do people still deny it? I have seen many Christians that do believe in evolution and god, so why don't mainstream Christians believe it as they do? Is it mainly the Young Earth Creationists that tend to deny? I can't imagine that ~40% of Americans are YEC's, however...
I wish God would change his will from blind mindless faith to pursuing actual evidence. Maybe that is his will and the Christians are the ones going to hell?
IMO that's about the worst thing thing a teacher could do. How is evolution going to have any credibility to students who didn't learn about it in school? It'll just get lost in the mess of "those things you hear about".
I heard a lot of "it's just a theory" in school, but all that means to a kid is "we're not sure". It doesn't mean "it's completely unreliable" like it does to biased adults who jump to conclusions at the first sign of doubt.
@Aanthanur Well, that may sound clever, but I absolutely disagree with it. Even if they ever did teach evolution in churches, creationism should NEVER be taught in schools. There's no negotiating on this.
in reallity the only thing that would lead me to say creationism has to be thought in schools is when they actually find and provide evidence for their alleged intelligent designer and evidence that he is indeed our creator, thus most propably never :D
Evidence of an intelligent designer might suggest a god (although an intelligent designer does not need to be a god; humans are intelligent designers in a sense), but couldn't a god use evolution as a tool for intelligent design? Just because we find a god doesn't mean it's the christian god, nor does it mean we should discount all the evidence for evolution. Evidence for creationism would have to be evidence of a creation event. Or the god could tell us, that'd probably suffice.
"but couldn't a god use evolution as a tool for intelligent design?"
- evolution is a very bloody process, so the god in question would have to be highly inefficient
- also he would have to be very deceptive because evolution isnt observed to be a goal directed process (and it would need to be inorder for their to be any kind of desired end product)
ofcourse you could just say that the 'god works in mysterious ways', it's not like it's an evidence-based position or anything
I'm talking about a creator of the universe. That's the only characteristic I am prescribing. To call its actions inefficient would be to claim to understand its intentions. I'm not going to defend "intelligent design" here, because I don't even know what that means. All I meant to say is that the creation myth being disproved is not proof, in it of itself, that there is no god.
"To call its actions inefficient would be to claim to understand its intentions"
- incorrect, you already defined it's intentions ie. 'use evolution as a tool for intelligent design'. i'm simply pointing out that if it's intent was to get things to the way they presently are (humans existing .etc) then it chose an incredibly inefficient route.
- also questioning the intent is no more fallacious than asserting there is intent to begin with (your position)
I'm an atheist, so that's actually not my position. I'm not asserting anything. The fact that creationism in the Christian sense never occurred is not proof there is no god. A god could use evolution for a certain purpose. That's not an assertion, that is an acknowledgement that we cannot disprove that claim.
Let's clear up what I am trying to assert here. A god could have designed a universe in which the processes of natural selection combined with genetic mutations would result in genetic and thus biological evolution. If one's view is that this universe is centered around human beings, then things no longer make sense. There's a difference between an intelligent creator (to create one must design) and "intelligent design," which is a Christian ploy.
"Me: the fact creationism is incorrect does not prove there is no god"
That isn't what you said, and it is a moot point anyway because I agree with what you said now that I take a second look at it. I was wrong, in spite of you not saying that.
@MrFalangist you mean Wayne Newton? ;p in truth, i am sadly not related, as Sir Isaac had no children (indeed, many biographers think he perhaps died a virgin).
How could intelligent design be science? To be a hypothesis or a theory it would have to be testable. intelligent design isn't testable. It's just basic science. It's absurd. Intelligent design won't say who the creator is, so it knows it's sunk. Yes it is expelled! It's just silly. A god is a of a supernatural world. Science can only test for the natural world.
I liked most of the video, but it was just boring as hell. I wish they could have edited the most important parts because half of it was just muttering that we could hardly hear. If you are going to post a video like this, please make it intelligible so we can at least hear it.
I am very happy to see the NCSE defending physics (climatology) against the well-funded petroleum industry's propaganda, but I am very unhappy that it is necessary.
Academic freedom for the public schools? My Ass! It's funny how the only time religious fundamentalists are interested in critical thinking is when it comes to ideas, (like evolution) that they don't like. Do you supose they discuss evolution or other religions in their Sunday schools in the interest of being fair and open minded?
The difference was that science made sense. its linear and beautiful but incomplete. Unlike scripture which is 'absolute', then requires faith to take seriously as more than an amazing fable with a moral tie. One has to appreciate the imagination of man though...it is more 'God' than anything here physically here we can measure with even numbers. Once it becomes self aware of its own awareness the potential of the human mind working as a network through time and death empowers us to become'more'
When you give it a name like "god'' you personify it. You give it your pride and give it a face because without it people lose their sense of false control on their lives.
I went on a field trip with my 8 year old to a state park. While walking on the nature trail the park ranger stated that the ferns have been around for millions of years. This other kids father was on his cell phone and stopped the conversation to correct the park ranger in that the earth was only 6000 years old and not to give the kids misinformation. I was stunned at the stupidity and the rudeness of this man. The human mind is a strange thing.
@baxtar2012 I love how the creationist was talking on his cell phone and stopped long enough to correct the park ranger. He uses the the products of science and technology but does not believe in science.
They fear knowledge thats why they are trying to do away with public education if they can remember what department they want to close ie Rick Perry. Most college grads do not believe in God because they have been shown the facts. The dumbing down of america will get them votes and enable their backwards agenda.
@MouthOfTheUnknown according to Gallup, roughly equal numbers (~40%) of Americans think human did/did not evolve. These numbers have been pretty consistent since the 1980s.
If I was still teaching science, I would be more than happy to teach the controversy. By the time I was done, I'd probably have a class full of atheists.
@Astrobrant2 I became an atheist just reading books. science text mostly illustrated text books with tiny texts. Anatomy, solar system, water cycle, biodiversity, botany, ect.
@restlesspride666 Theists ofter complain that science leads students away from God. Science enthusiasts sheepishly deny it, but I believe it's true. Yes, science will lead many students away from God and I think they'll all be better for it.
@Astrobrant2 God and science are the same thing if you remove religion and tradition.. its just that the word "God' is totally an injustice to the pattern of infinity.
@gklr It wouldn't be considered related to atheism any more than auto-mechanics is related to atheism if it wasn't for the fact that creationists insist that life on earth was the product of divine creation. Since that claim is the crux of this controversy, then evolution can be classified as the atheistic explanation. It doesn't mean that someone has to be an atheist to accept the scientific explanation, but all science is fundamentally atheistic.
An atheist can believe that a god created the universe and now god does not exist. Many deists believe exactly that and are atheists.
Atheism is not a science. All of science does nothing for atheism. Atheism is a conclusion based on inductive logic, better inductive logic than first cause is but it uses the same belief type.
Atheists can be creationists. There is no conflict there.
@gklr How could an atheist be a creationist? Creationists believe some higher power created the Universe and all that is in it, and by definition, that thing would be a 'god'. Agnostics could possibly believe in creationism, but not Atheists.
@gklr oh sorry, I didn't read your comment fully. I now see the part where you say "and now god does not exist". I've never heard of that belief before, interesting. What is the term for it?
The term for it is clarification, not obfuscation.
More religious people believe in evolution than do atheists by the way. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution on behalf of the entire catholic church.
Evolution simply offers atheism nothing at all. That you wish to involve yourself in discussions on evolution as a matter of espousing atheism only shows you bit when offered fallacious arguments by theists that dis evolution.
@gklr "An atheist can believe that a god created the universe and now god does not exist." This is a pretty moot point, isn't it? Talk about muddying the water!
Deists are not atheists. And show me an atheist who is a creationist.
True, atheism is not a science. Nor did I say it was. Science did a great deal for MY atheism, so I guess that refutes your claim.
Deists that believe god did exist and now does not exist, are atheists. To say science did a great deal for your atheism is to misunderstand either science or atheism.
@gklr No, I have a very clear understanding of both. You're the one who says an atheist can be a creationist and that deists are atheists, so I hardly think you are the one to be telling other people what's what.
From your very first reply, you have been spouting off irrelevant nonsense almost as if you just got up and said, "Let's go on YouTube and engage in spurious bickering with someone."
Science CAN and DOES lead many people to atheism. Good for science!
"From your very first reply, you have been spouting off irrelevant nonsense almost as if you just got up and said, "Let's go on YouTube and engage in spurious bickering with someone."
I corrected you, that is all.
"Science CAN and DOES lead many people to atheism."
Not possible, one has zero to do with the other. That is pure rhetoric without any hope of any substance. It shows you grasp one or the other poorly.
most people would not consider such people atheists. That's a rather preposterous belief anyway. science creates atheists by showing them religions are man-made, and leaving them with no basis for religion or god.
People who believe that god's existed in the past believe in a world in which god's can and do exist. There needs to be a new word for such people, because they're not atheists.
Well of course you need logic, but learning about evolution, for example, can lead one to not believe in the creation story, and decide religion and god are bullshit. Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of a god to lead someone to a position of disbelief.
Science can only be used to counter specfic claims made by theologens. It acts as a method to counter religious claims.
Doing so does nothing for atheism whatsoever.
Atheism is a position. It is the position there is no god, a belief. That belief is not supported by showing other beliefs are unlikely... and showing them as impossible is LOGIC and not atheism.
We can prove the Abrahamic gods do not exist, no atheism required. Atheism is overrated and I am an atheist
@gklr "That belief is not supported by showing other beliefs are unlikely... and showing them as impossible is LOGIC and not atheism."
Actually, it's not. Logic, by itself, itself can't demonstrate much about external reality. What does this job is a much broader set of tools, and for atheists it includes at least methodological naturalism and certain types of epistemological models.
All truth and false comes by way of logic. Science doesn't prove anything is true or false. True and false are not scientific entities, they are logical ones.
@gklr The main issue is that theists think it is unproblematic to presuppose that gods exist, and they will keep backtracking on its abilities until you reach a point where logical inference, even starting with a vast array of naturalistic evidence and biblical claims as premises, can say nothing about it.
I don't think it's strange that superstitious parents are afraid of science education. The mental hygiene taught in that arena encourages the kind of thinking leading people to atheism
"The main issue is that theists think it is unproblematic to presuppose that gods exist"
Agreed on all of what you said in that comment. The thing is theists need to realize they have a belief, and all beliefs are possibly true and possibly false at the same time.
@gklr If you're familiar with people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga you'll realize that there's not really a lot that's wrong with their logic. It's mostly a lack of intellectual honesty and willingness to protect a childhood superstition that's in place. Typically combined with an idea that we somehow need their religion to prevent society from falling into chaos.
- i disagree, the reason people believed in supernatural entities like gods in the past was (and still is) out of ignorance. Science is the most effective mechanism in human history for identifying what is true and dispels ignorance.
How can you say that removing the justifications people have to believe in a god does nothing for atheism?
"i disagree, the reason people believed in supernatural entities like gods in the past was (and still is) out of ignorance. Science is the most effective mechanism in human history for identifying what is true and dispels ignorance."
Science never proves anything is true or false. Logic does.
Logic itself is not science and science is not logic. They are two seperate fields.
Science depends on logic in that what is stated in science must be logical, but science doesn't deal at all with nonphysical things and all statements, all of language or logic, are not physical things.
How is it you think science can detect a claim at all, let alone decide if it is logical.
"It is raining out or it is not raining out" is a logical truth, true independent of the fact of whether it is raining out or not. Looking out the window will not help you determine that this is true.
Truth is not a physical thing and science is restricted to physical things. Logic is not a physical thing and nor is atheism. Science can't help.
"How can you say that removing the justifications people have to believe in a god does nothing for atheism?"
People believe there is a god for reasons far removed from science. Science can only oppose certain specific claims by a religion. Opposing what a religion says does zero for atheism... it only acts to dispose of that one religious belief.
The logic we apply to science show us TRUTH. Atheism doesn't. Atheism is a position of belief.
"Science can only oppose certain specific claims by a religion"
- yes and by demonstrating those claims to be incorrect it turns people away from god ie. all the people who once believed that nonsense nolonger do, the fact it doesnt destroy the GENERAL concept of a god is beside the point as it destroys THEIR concept of a god.
"Not believing in the Yeti, or not believing in god... are not anything. That is not what atheism is...Where X is something, not X is not something"
- incorrect, whilst atheism and theism form a true dichotomy, being atheistdoes not necessitate making the affirmative claim that a god does not exist
ie.
if you were in a race you can either win or lose (true dichotomy), however NOT COMING FIRST [atheism] does not necesitate that you MUST HAVE CAME LAST.
"incorrect, whilst atheism and theism form a true dichotomy, being atheistdoes not necessitate making the affirmative claim that a god does not exist"
Yes it most certainly does.
"if you were in a race you can either win or lose (true dichotomy), however NOT COMING FIRST [atheism] does not necesitate that you MUST HAVE CAME LAST."
Not coming first does not describe or define anything.
- incorrect, i've demonstrated that this is the case with reference to a position where do not believe in a god but make no affirmative claims (people who have never heard of the concept)
given that atheism/theism is a true dichotomy this PROVES that atheists dont need to make affirmative claims.
"Not theism, is not anything, not something. There is no such thing as NOT X, no matter what X is."
- you are not trying to assert that atheism/theism is not a true dichotomy by claiming that there is the additional option of nothing, this is not the case.
theism = belief in god
atheism = a-theism = WITHOUT belief in a god.
The reason you are forced to do this is because you've conflated atheism with anti-theism and your definition does not hold.
- incorrect, you continue to assert that rejecting a claim requires the assertion of the negative of that claim even after i have repeatedly demonstrated that it hasnt.
you've only demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. From definitions and descriptions, to atheism, to logic, to NOT, to TRUTH.... it's nearly endless.
"Ok, it's official. You can't fucking read.Blocked for being way too stupid. Have fun!"
Your running away because i've demonstrated that your use of non-theist and the actual definition of atheist are the same thing and you lack the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 days ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 5 days ago
This is contingent on number of genes/individuals genes and generation times. Selection, the end result of competeion for limited resources where some individual are favoured (breed viable offspring) and proliferate their genic frequencies. This si of course more complicated as you have competition from other species, chance events in climate and disease. Look up major-histo compatibly complex often liken to the 'red queen hypothesis'between disease causing agents and host. You wouldn't care tho
vgrasomni 1 month ago
I'm not NCSE but the definition as a researcher is the change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. A species having many populations that is. Allele frequencies are the combination at a loci/gene. Mutation introduces new variation from gene copying error 1 in every million gene copies.
vgrasomni 1 month ago
@vgrasomni the definition above is the technical definition of evolution. I recommend taking courses in genetics, ecology, geology and any aspect of biology for any who would like to learn how genes work in large and small populations.
vgrasomni 1 month ago
"But science is always wrong you cant be sure of anything if you use science"
Kind of hard to debate these kinds of people since they wont even listen to what you have to say, no worries, they wouldnt understand it anyways ...
debateyourfaith 1 month ago
Bow ties are cool!
henchmen999 1 month ago
Intelligence = Scientific inquiry
Religion = BULLSHIT
There, that should settle it...:)
gardner90125 1 month ago
Oh yeah, that's something else I always thought was odd about US tests. Multiple choice? When I was in school we'd never get that; you're expected to write everything out, explain your answer to prove you know what you're talking about rather than taking a stab at a box.
Direkin 2 months ago 2
@Direkin you're spot on, this is a big problem, and not just in science education. think of how it changes the way teachers ask questions. if you're doing M/C, you have to ask a question that can be answered very briefly; that also means you ask questions on small details rather than the bigger picture. it's the triumph of trivia over substance. but it's completely understandable, given the time management necessary to deal with growing sizes of classes
NatCen4ScienceEd 2 months ago 2
@NatCen4ScienceEd Thank you and good work NCSE we must preserve the right of neutral inquiry and teaching critical thinking to question sources. It would have be great for classes to teach to any willing student how to research sources to find if they are peer-reviewed or point of views,say taking popular media of a research finding.Also basic statistics so they can understand how researchers draw conclusions. It's great seeing this dialogue to raise scientific literacy.
vgrasomni 1 month ago
What about schools using the International Baccalaureate programme? Are the same problems going on there, considering the curriculum isn't set by US standards?
Direkin 2 months ago
@Direkin we have indeed encountered creationist issues in IB courses, just as we have experienced creationist problems in almost every state of the union.
NatCen4ScienceEd 2 months ago
"according your argument atheism would be a subset of non-theist"
Clearly that troll doesn't get the argument then.
Atheism is not a set under any circumstance, nor a sub set (which is a type of set).
Sets are groups of things. Atheism isn't a group of things.
Yet... I am being told what my own argument says by someone who hasn't spent 10 minutes on set theory..... and I am the troll?
lol
Total joke.
gklr 2 months ago
STOP HITTING THE FUCKING TABLE
LegendaryLvl1 2 months ago
I must agree that evolution is taught correctly in catholic schools. The teaching of biology was so good at my school that it set me on a life long career. BTW I was an atheist by age 12 or 13 due to being taught about the all the differing religions AND THEN evolution. Reasoned they could not all be true, then learned none of them needed to be.
SissingPyd 2 months ago 2
@halflifeproductionz The man is pulling it off! :D
GoRodix87 3 months ago
If you want to reach teens and young adults with real science, then have it incorporated in video games and TV shows. I got interested in learning real science as a young adult watching Star Trek and other such shows. Years later, I now know far more real science from real science books than I ever learned in high school. Carl Sagan's series Cosmos was awesome and played a huge role in bringing me into reality.
RhondaH 3 months ago
@halflifeproductionz Well that comment lends nothing to the discussion.
LonesomeTroubadour 3 months ago
That was a great discussion. Biology is amazing, it's fun to learn about, for some... it has lots of practical applications, and geology does also. It's weird for me to type 'science is excellent' because the alternative proposal is so awful & depraved, but c'est la vie, science is excellent!
tobynsaunders 3 months ago
"Hi my name is Kent Hovind". I was taught in motherfucking grade 4 that you don't put 'hi' or 'my' or your name in a fucking ESSAY.
MJFAN666 3 months ago
@MJFAN666 and keep in mind, this was the opening line of his "doctoral dissertation"!
NatCen4ScienceEd 2 months ago
@NatCen4ScienceEd I can't believe that thats true!!! :O Can you link me to it? lol.
MJFAN666 2 months ago
I actually used to think that ben stein was a smart guy when I used to watch win ben steins money. Ever since that shit movie he made his reputation is dead and I think that he's an idiot.
RichBond75 3 months ago
In the creationist mind it is simple. All scientific evidence that contradicts the bible is false. Those scientists hate God and don't want to be held accountable for their sins.
All scientific evidence in geology, biology, and cosmology in the last 150 years are just conspiratorial notions to deny God and his "just" laws.
Isn't it obvious that creationists have properly thought this through. LOL, What a joke.
metalsusa1 3 months ago
I don't understand.... we can prove that evolution takes place... we can see small changes in our own lifetimes, and we have studies that have taken place over time that have shown these changes, so why do people still deny it? I have seen many Christians that do believe in evolution and god, so why don't mainstream Christians believe it as they do? Is it mainly the Young Earth Creationists that tend to deny? I can't imagine that ~40% of Americans are YEC's, however...
shadesters 3 months ago
He must be a scientist, he's wearing a bow-tie :)
mrfishgun 3 months ago
OMG its Toby Zeigler!
felixlighta 3 months ago
I wish God would change his will from blind mindless faith to pursuing actual evidence. Maybe that is his will and the Christians are the ones going to hell?
Hey, I can dream can't I?
metalsusa1 3 months ago 9
"I'm gonna skip evolution, that's controversial"
IMO that's about the worst thing thing a teacher could do. How is evolution going to have any credibility to students who didn't learn about it in school? It'll just get lost in the mess of "those things you hear about".
I heard a lot of "it's just a theory" in school, but all that means to a kid is "we're not sure". It doesn't mean "it's completely unreliable" like it does to biased adults who jump to conclusions at the first sign of doubt.
GuacamoleKun 3 months ago
@GuacamoleKun
"I heard a lot of 'it's just a theory' in school, but all that means to a kid is 'we're not sure'. "
haha, i love that.
atomic theory - We're just not sure!
lol.
types10000 3 months ago
People still don't think biological evolution exists??? WTF!?!?!
ScientificExploits 3 months ago
Bowties are cool.
fullmetalflame14 3 months ago
I like that one of them is dressed as the Doctor.
RustyKoi 3 months ago
creationism should be thought in schools once evolution is thought in Churches :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Well, that may sound clever, but I absolutely disagree with it. Even if they ever did teach evolution in churches, creationism should NEVER be taught in schools. There's no negotiating on this.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 it was a joke :D
in reallity the only thing that would lead me to say creationism has to be thought in schools is when they actually find and provide evidence for their alleged intelligent designer and evidence that he is indeed our creator, thus most propably never :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago 3
@Aanthanur
that still wouldn't be evidence for a creationism.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean huh?? how so?
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur
Evidence of an intelligent designer might suggest a god (although an intelligent designer does not need to be a god; humans are intelligent designers in a sense), but couldn't a god use evolution as a tool for intelligent design? Just because we find a god doesn't mean it's the christian god, nor does it mean we should discount all the evidence for evolution. Evidence for creationism would have to be evidence of a creation event. Or the god could tell us, that'd probably suffice.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
"but couldn't a god use evolution as a tool for intelligent design?"
- evolution is a very bloody process, so the god in question would have to be highly inefficient
- also he would have to be very deceptive because evolution isnt observed to be a goal directed process (and it would need to be inorder for their to be any kind of desired end product)
ofcourse you could just say that the 'god works in mysterious ways', it's not like it's an evidence-based position or anything
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
I'm talking about a creator of the universe. That's the only characteristic I am prescribing. To call its actions inefficient would be to claim to understand its intentions. I'm not going to defend "intelligent design" here, because I don't even know what that means. All I meant to say is that the creation myth being disproved is not proof, in it of itself, that there is no god.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
"To call its actions inefficient would be to claim to understand its intentions"
- incorrect, you already defined it's intentions ie. 'use evolution as a tool for intelligent design'. i'm simply pointing out that if it's intent was to get things to the way they presently are (humans existing .etc) then it chose an incredibly inefficient route.
- also questioning the intent is no more fallacious than asserting there is intent to begin with (your position)
types10000 3 months ago
@mellamosean
"I'm not going to defend 'intelligent design' here, because I don't even know what that means"
- well then perhaps you should stop using it in conversation.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
I'm an atheist, so that's actually not my position. I'm not asserting anything. The fact that creationism in the Christian sense never occurred is not proof there is no god. A god could use evolution for a certain purpose. That's not an assertion, that is an acknowledgement that we cannot disprove that claim.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
"I'm not asserting anything"
- your statement contained those assertions, the fact you dont actually hold the position doesnt change this.
"The fact that creationism in the Christian sense never occurred is not proof there is no god"
- i dont disagree with this...
"A god could use evolution for a certain purpose"
- if he used it for the purpose of intelligent design (the purpose you defined) then he's inefficient (and kind of stupid)
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Let's clear up what I am trying to assert here. A god could have designed a universe in which the processes of natural selection combined with genetic mutations would result in genetic and thus biological evolution. If one's view is that this universe is centered around human beings, then things no longer make sense. There's a difference between an intelligent creator (to create one must design) and "intelligent design," which is a Christian ploy.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
and let's clear up what i am trying to assert here:
- if a god used evolution to achieve a specific biological entity then he is being inefficient and stupid.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Ok, I'd say we're pretty much in agreement.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@types10000,
""The fact that creationism in the Christian sense never occurred is not proof there is no god"
- i dont disagree with this...
Then show how it proves Cupid does not exist.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
Me: the fact creationism is incorrect does not prove there is no god
You: Then show how it proves Cupid does not exist.
Your statement is a non-sequitar (fallacy)
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000,
"Me: the fact creationism is incorrect does not prove there is no god"
That isn't what you said, and it is a moot point anyway because I agree with what you said now that I take a second look at it. I was wrong, in spite of you not saying that.
gklr 3 months ago
@Aanthanur LOL...okay, somebody had to say it!
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
Shouldn't the ACLU be stopping retarded bills like these?
kekene719 3 months ago 4
@kekene719 actually, our friends at the ACLU and AU do a lot of work in helping in this fight, as do local pro-science activists :)
NatCen4ScienceEd 3 months ago 9
@NatCen4ScienceEd
i dont want to sound like a retard but did he said newton is he related to THE newton ?
MrFalangist 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@MrFalangist you mean Wayne Newton? ;p in truth, i am sadly not related, as Sir Isaac had no children (indeed, many biographers think he perhaps died a virgin).
NatCen4ScienceEd 2 months ago
How could intelligent design be science? To be a hypothesis or a theory it would have to be testable. intelligent design isn't testable. It's just basic science. It's absurd. Intelligent design won't say who the creator is, so it knows it's sunk. Yes it is expelled! It's just silly. A god is a of a supernatural world. Science can only test for the natural world.
Diesel9av8r 3 months ago in playlist Recent interviews
I liked most of the video, but it was just boring as hell. I wish they could have edited the most important parts because half of it was just muttering that we could hardly hear. If you are going to post a video like this, please make it intelligible so we can at least hear it.
fenix9885 3 months ago
I am very happy to see the NCSE defending physics (climatology) against the well-funded petroleum industry's propaganda, but I am very unhappy that it is necessary.
Desertphile 3 months ago
Academic freedom for the public schools? My Ass! It's funny how the only time religious fundamentalists are interested in critical thinking is when it comes to ideas, (like evolution) that they don't like. Do you supose they discuss evolution or other religions in their Sunday schools in the interest of being fair and open minded?
pittbullking87 3 months ago 3
The difference was that science made sense. its linear and beautiful but incomplete. Unlike scripture which is 'absolute', then requires faith to take seriously as more than an amazing fable with a moral tie. One has to appreciate the imagination of man though...it is more 'God' than anything here physically here we can measure with even numbers. Once it becomes self aware of its own awareness the potential of the human mind working as a network through time and death empowers us to become'more'
restlesspride666 3 months ago
I became 'atheist' when I was 6 years old or at least the chain of realizations of reality lead me to be so fully at age 9..
restlesspride666 3 months ago
When you give it a name like "god'' you personify it. You give it your pride and give it a face because without it people lose their sense of false control on their lives.
restlesspride666 3 months ago
I went on a field trip with my 8 year old to a state park. While walking on the nature trail the park ranger stated that the ferns have been around for millions of years. This other kids father was on his cell phone and stopped the conversation to correct the park ranger in that the earth was only 6000 years old and not to give the kids misinformation. I was stunned at the stupidity and the rudeness of this man. The human mind is a strange thing.
baxtar2012 3 months ago 6
@baxtar2012 I love how the creationist was talking on his cell phone and stopped long enough to correct the park ranger. He uses the the products of science and technology but does not believe in science.
pittbullking87 3 months ago
They fear knowledge thats why they are trying to do away with public education if they can remember what department they want to close ie Rick Perry. Most college grads do not believe in God because they have been shown the facts. The dumbing down of america will get them votes and enable their backwards agenda.
baxtar2012 3 months ago 3
CHUBBY BEN AFFLECK <3
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
@SanguineBullet667 thanks... i think? I hope you mean The Town Affleck, not the Gigli Affleck. :)
NatCen4ScienceEd 2 months ago
Mainline churches are dying out though.
dlbattle100 3 months ago
Episcopalian's are also fairly reasonable.
dlbattle100 3 months ago
The 'controversy' is the iniquitous behaviour of anti-democratic and anti-social fundamentalists.
USERNAMEfieldempty 3 months ago
3:30, "Anti-evolution legislation"? Are they out of their mind?
It is a vicious circle - conservative legislators pass bills harming education, because of that the students later elect conservative politicians.
19:13, "Teachers at least mention evolution"? My goodness!
Thank you for the informative video! Fav'ed
dewinthemorning 3 months ago
11:00 who is farting?
mamushi72sai5575 3 months ago
I honestly didn't know that so many people are still in opposition to evolution...
MouthOfTheUnknown 3 months ago 2
@MouthOfTheUnknown according to Gallup, roughly equal numbers (~40%) of Americans think human did/did not evolve. These numbers have been pretty consistent since the 1980s.
NatCen4ScienceEd 3 months ago 4
If I was still teaching science, I would be more than happy to teach the controversy. By the time I was done, I'd probably have a class full of atheists.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago 45
@Astrobrant2 Don't underestimate the depths to which religion implants resistance to contrary ideas.
mrsanity 3 months ago 30
@mrsanity
Why stop at religion?
TheFifthGreatApe 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I became an atheist just reading books. science text mostly illustrated text books with tiny texts. Anatomy, solar system, water cycle, biodiversity, botany, ect.
restlesspride666 3 months ago
@restlesspride666 Theists ofter complain that science leads students away from God. Science enthusiasts sheepishly deny it, but I believe it's true. Yes, science will lead many students away from God and I think they'll all be better for it.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 God and science are the same thing if you remove religion and tradition.. its just that the word "God' is totally an injustice to the pattern of infinity.
restlesspride666 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 Atheism has zero to do with evolution.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr It wouldn't be considered related to atheism any more than auto-mechanics is related to atheism if it wasn't for the fact that creationists insist that life on earth was the product of divine creation. Since that claim is the crux of this controversy, then evolution can be classified as the atheistic explanation. It doesn't mean that someone has to be an atheist to accept the scientific explanation, but all science is fundamentally atheistic.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
An atheist can believe that a god created the universe and now god does not exist. Many deists believe exactly that and are atheists.
Atheism is not a science. All of science does nothing for atheism. Atheism is a conclusion based on inductive logic, better inductive logic than first cause is but it uses the same belief type.
Atheists can be creationists. There is no conflict there.
gklr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr erm i think you want to look up the definition of atheist again.
how can somebody that does not believe in gods, believe the universe was created by a god?
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@gklr How could an atheist be a creationist? Creationists believe some higher power created the Universe and all that is in it, and by definition, that thing would be a 'god'. Agnostics could possibly believe in creationism, but not Atheists.
MouthOfTheUnknown 3 months ago
@gklr oh sorry, I didn't read your comment fully. I now see the part where you say "and now god does not exist". I've never heard of that belief before, interesting. What is the term for it?
MouthOfTheUnknown 3 months ago
@MouthOfTheUnknown,
Some deists do believe that. A god created the universe and now doesn't exist. They are atheists. I know only of them, desists, who believe that.
gklr 3 months ago
@MouthOfTheUnknown The term for it is "obfuscation."
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
The term for it is clarification, not obfuscation.
More religious people believe in evolution than do atheists by the way. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution on behalf of the entire catholic church.
Evolution simply offers atheism nothing at all. That you wish to involve yourself in discussions on evolution as a matter of espousing atheism only shows you bit when offered fallacious arguments by theists that dis evolution.
Don't.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr "An atheist can believe that a god created the universe and now god does not exist." This is a pretty moot point, isn't it? Talk about muddying the water!
Deists are not atheists. And show me an atheist who is a creationist.
True, atheism is not a science. Nor did I say it was. Science did a great deal for MY atheism, so I guess that refutes your claim.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
Deists that believe god did exist and now does not exist, are atheists. To say science did a great deal for your atheism is to misunderstand either science or atheism.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr No, I have a very clear understanding of both. You're the one who says an atheist can be a creationist and that deists are atheists, so I hardly think you are the one to be telling other people what's what.
From your very first reply, you have been spouting off irrelevant nonsense almost as if you just got up and said, "Let's go on YouTube and engage in spurious bickering with someone."
Science CAN and DOES lead many people to atheism. Good for science!
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
"No, I have a very clear understanding of both."
I see no evidence of that based on what you write.
"You're the one who says an atheist can be a creationist and that deists are atheists"
Deists that believe there is no god are atheists. Most deists think a god exists. I was explicit about which deists are atheists.
"so I hardly think you are the one to be telling other people what's what."
I just did.
gklr 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
"From your very first reply, you have been spouting off irrelevant nonsense almost as if you just got up and said, "Let's go on YouTube and engage in spurious bickering with someone."
I corrected you, that is all.
"Science CAN and DOES lead many people to atheism."
Not possible, one has zero to do with the other. That is pure rhetoric without any hope of any substance. It shows you grasp one or the other poorly.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
most people would not consider such people atheists. That's a rather preposterous belief anyway. science creates atheists by showing them religions are man-made, and leaving them with no basis for religion or god.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean,
"most people would not consider such people atheists"
A mistake on there part then. If someone maintains there is no god, they are an atheist. It doesn't matter that they think a god DID exist.
"That's a rather preposterous belief anyway."
That is the nature of this business, dealing with preposterous beliefs.
"science creates atheists by showing them religions are man-made"
Ack. Atheism is resolved logically, not scientifically.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
People who believe that god's existed in the past believe in a world in which god's can and do exist. There needs to be a new word for such people, because they're not atheists.
Well of course you need logic, but learning about evolution, for example, can lead one to not believe in the creation story, and decide religion and god are bullshit. Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of a god to lead someone to a position of disbelief.
mellamosean 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Deists that believe god did exist and now does not exist, are atheists"
What? Atheists believe there is no higher power or being that created everything.
TheJonnyEnglish 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2,
Science can only be used to counter specfic claims made by theologens. It acts as a method to counter religious claims.
Doing so does nothing for atheism whatsoever.
Atheism is a position. It is the position there is no god, a belief. That belief is not supported by showing other beliefs are unlikely... and showing them as impossible is LOGIC and not atheism.
We can prove the Abrahamic gods do not exist, no atheism required. Atheism is overrated and I am an atheist
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr "That belief is not supported by showing other beliefs are unlikely... and showing them as impossible is LOGIC and not atheism."
Actually, it's not. Logic, by itself, itself can't demonstrate much about external reality. What does this job is a much broader set of tools, and for atheists it includes at least methodological naturalism and certain types of epistemological models.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Gnomefro,
All truth and false comes by way of logic. Science doesn't prove anything is true or false. True and false are not scientific entities, they are logical ones.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr The main issue is that theists think it is unproblematic to presuppose that gods exist, and they will keep backtracking on its abilities until you reach a point where logical inference, even starting with a vast array of naturalistic evidence and biblical claims as premises, can say nothing about it.
I don't think it's strange that superstitious parents are afraid of science education. The mental hygiene taught in that arena encourages the kind of thinking leading people to atheism
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Gnomefro,
"The main issue is that theists think it is unproblematic to presuppose that gods exist"
Agreed on all of what you said in that comment. The thing is theists need to realize they have a belief, and all beliefs are possibly true and possibly false at the same time.
Actually a few atheists could learn that as well.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr If you're familiar with people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga you'll realize that there's not really a lot that's wrong with their logic. It's mostly a lack of intellectual honesty and willingness to protect a childhood superstition that's in place. Typically combined with an idea that we somehow need their religion to prevent society from falling into chaos.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Gnomefro,
"It's mostly a lack of intellectual honesty and willingness to protect a childhood superstition that's in place"
I'd call that a very poor system of reasoning. ie: poor logic
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Doing so does nothing for atheism whatsoever."
- i disagree, the reason people believed in supernatural entities like gods in the past was (and still is) out of ignorance. Science is the most effective mechanism in human history for identifying what is true and dispels ignorance.
How can you say that removing the justifications people have to believe in a god does nothing for atheism?
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000,
"i disagree, the reason people believed in supernatural entities like gods in the past was (and still is) out of ignorance. Science is the most effective mechanism in human history for identifying what is true and dispels ignorance."
Science never proves anything is true or false. Logic does.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Science never proves anything is true or false. Logic does."
- science utilizes logic to attain truth.
ie. whether something is logical is what science is used to determine.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000,
"ie. whether something is logical is what science is used to determine"
Logic is not scientific. Logic is not material, has no location or shape, doesn't burn or melt etc...
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Logic is not scientific"
- no, logic is 'reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity'
- science is one such set of principles.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000,
Logic itself is not science and science is not logic. They are two seperate fields.
Science depends on logic in that what is stated in science must be logical, but science doesn't deal at all with nonphysical things and all statements, all of language or logic, are not physical things.
And that doesn't say what they are.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Logic itself is not science and science is not logic"
- i never claimed they were synonymous, simply that science is a methodology for attaining WHETHER A CLAIM IS LOGICAL.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
How is it you think science can detect a claim at all, let alone decide if it is logical.
"It is raining out or it is not raining out" is a logical truth, true independent of the fact of whether it is raining out or not. Looking out the window will not help you determine that this is true.
Truth is not a physical thing and science is restricted to physical things. Logic is not a physical thing and nor is atheism. Science can't help.
gklr 2 months ago
@types10000,
"How can you say that removing the justifications people have to believe in a god does nothing for atheism?"
People believe there is a god for reasons far removed from science. Science can only oppose certain specific claims by a religion. Opposing what a religion says does zero for atheism... it only acts to dispose of that one religious belief.
The logic we apply to science show us TRUTH. Atheism doesn't. Atheism is a position of belief.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Science can only oppose certain specific claims by a religion"
- yes and by demonstrating those claims to be incorrect it turns people away from god ie. all the people who once believed that nonsense nolonger do, the fact it doesnt destroy the GENERAL concept of a god is beside the point as it destroys THEIR concept of a god.
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000,
"yes and by demonstrating those claims to be incorrect it turns people away from god "
It turns people away from that specific proposed god only. It does nothing for atheism.
gklr 3 months ago
@types10000,
"the fact it doesnt destroy the GENERAL concept of a god is beside the point as it destroys THEIR concept of a god."
And does zero in promoting atheism, which was my point.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"The logic we apply to science show us TRUTH. Atheism doesn't. Atheism is a position of belief."
as i stated before:
"You could call atheism a belief, but that would make basically every position a belief eg. not believing in the yeti."
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000,
Not believing in the Yeti, or not believing in god... are not anything. That is not what atheism is.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Truths need to be proven.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Not believing in the Yeti, or not believing in god... are not anything. That is not what atheism is...Where X is something, not X is not something"
- incorrect, whilst atheism and theism form a true dichotomy, being atheistdoes not necessitate making the affirmative claim that a god does not exist
ie.
if you were in a race you can either win or lose (true dichotomy), however NOT COMING FIRST [atheism] does not necesitate that you MUST HAVE CAME LAST.
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000,
"incorrect, whilst atheism and theism form a true dichotomy, being atheistdoes not necessitate making the affirmative claim that a god does not exist"
Yes it most certainly does.
"if you were in a race you can either win or lose (true dichotomy), however NOT COMING FIRST [atheism] does not necesitate that you MUST HAVE CAME LAST."
Not coming first does not describe or define anything.
Not X, no matter what X is, is not anything.
gklr 3 months ago
@types10000,
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Not theism, is not a thing, no such thing exists. There is a better chance that a god exists than that.
gklr 3 months ago
@gklr
"Not theism, is not a thing, no such thing exists"
- incorrect, that is quite literally what atheism is, it's in the word itself ie. a-theism = without theism - any position that isnt theism.
this can be contrast with ANTI-THEISM (the affirmative claim a god does not exist)
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
gklr: "Not theism, is not a thing, no such thing exists"
- incorrect, that is quite literally what atheism is
Not can only be used in conjunction with propositions and propositional functions and "theism" is neither. Logic error.
Where X is something, NOT X is not something.
Where X is anything, NOT X is not anything.
Not theism, is not anything, not something. There is no such thing as NOT X, no matter what X is.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
"that is quite literally what atheism is"
- incorrect, i've demonstrated that this is the case with reference to a position where do not believe in a god but make no affirmative claims (people who have never heard of the concept)
given that atheism/theism is a true dichotomy this PROVES that atheists dont need to make affirmative claims.
types10000 2 months ago
@gklr
"Not theism, is not anything, not something. There is no such thing as NOT X, no matter what X is."
- you are not trying to assert that atheism/theism is not a true dichotomy by claiming that there is the additional option of nothing, this is not the case.
theism = belief in god
atheism = a-theism = WITHOUT belief in a god.
The reason you are forced to do this is because you've conflated atheism with anti-theism and your definition does not hold.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
Without belief in god is not anything, it is a secondary predicate and says what is not the case. Again you simply repeat your ignorance.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"Without belief in god is not anything"
- incorrect, not theist = atheist.
you fail to understand this because you conflate it with anti-theism
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
I haven't conflated anything. Quite remarkable that you think you have anything to say on this. You don't.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"I haven't conflated anything."
- incorrect, you continue to assert that rejecting a claim requires the assertion of the negative of that claim even after i have repeatedly demonstrated that it hasnt.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
You haven't demonstrated anything except that you are logical buffoon.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
"You haven't demonstrated anything except that you are logical buffoon"
- again projecting your own stupidity onto others does not help your argument.
you've failed to demonstrated atheist/theist can have 'nothing' as a third option any more than pregnant and not-pregnant
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
I am told, by a logical twit, that I am conflating things he doesn't grasp.
Cute.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"I am told, by a logical twit, that I am conflating things he doesn't grasp.
Cute."
- the only logical twit here is you. By your logic a person can either be pregnant, not pregnant or a magical third option of 'nothing'
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
"the only logical twit here is you"
LOL. Good one. Too bad it's clearly false. You don't know how to use NOT. You misuse TRUTH and you make stuff up that I never said at all.
Being a clown is not an argument.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"LOL. Good one. Too bad it's clearly false. You don't know how to use NOT. You misuse TRUTH and you make stuff up that I never said at all."
- incorrect, i've DEMONSTRATED that this is what atheism means with reference to the words themselves.
atheism literally means WITHOUT THEISM.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
you've only demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. From definitions and descriptions, to atheism, to logic, to NOT, to TRUTH.... it's nearly endless.
And the cure is simple, read some logic.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
"you've only demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you are talking about."
- again, projecting your own stupidity onto others does not help your argument.
"From definitions and descriptions, to atheism, to logic, to NOT, to TRUTH.... it's nearly endless."
- you've failed to address any of my claims (and i've debunked most of yours)
types10000 2 months ago
@gklr
- do you contest that atheism/theism is a dichotomy?
- do you contest that people who have never heard of the concept of a god are atheist by definition?
if you dont contest either of these then i've just demonstrated that you need not make an affirmative claim to be an atheist.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
"- do you contest that atheism/theism is a dichotomy?"
Obviously. The complement set to theists is nontheists.
The complement set to atheists is nonatheists.
Theists believe there is a god, nontheists don't. (which only tells us that the nontheist exists)
Atheists believe there is no god, and nonatheists don't.
If you do not believe there is no god then you are a nonatheist.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"Obviously. The complement set to theists is nontheists."
- incorrect, the complement set is ATHEISTS, the word ATHEIST is infact SYNONYMOUS with what you call 'nontheist'.
You are using the word atheist in place of anti-theist
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
"incorrect, the complement set is ATHEISTS, the word ATHEIST is infact SYNONYMOUS with what you call 'nontheist'."
And that underlines your misunderstanding of atheism right there.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"And that underlines your misunderstanding of atheism right there."
- incorrect, my understanding isnt at fault, YOURS IS.
you use the word non-theist in place of atheist
and atheist in place of antitheist.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000,
"you use the word non-theist in place of atheist"
Ok, it's official. You can't fucking read.
Blocked for being way too stupid. Have fun!
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
"Ok, it's official. You can't fucking read.Blocked for being way too stupid. Have fun!"
Your running away because i've demonstrated that your use of non-theist and the actual definition of atheist are the same thing and you lack the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong.
i pity you.
types10000 2 months ago
@gklr
i really cant tell whether your just ignorant or a genuine moron, to fail to understand the significance of a 'a' prefix in atheist.
Your level of