@raulsnchez Actually no, many scientist perform numerous experiments to test their theories. There is no way to actually set up an experiment and test the idea of "god".
Like the Heliocentric Theory that religion so despised? That was a "guess", right?
And the mathematician merely corrected Dawkin's calculations, he wasn't assuming authority on the age of the earth; although he probably knows more about it than you.
@raulsnchez The estimates on the age of earth are not a guess. They are based on evidence from multiple diff sources. Just because we don't know exactly does not in any way mean it's a guess out of the blue. If you see an old person you may not know their exact age but you can look at diff things and estimate how old they are. They got married 50 yrs ago, they have a 20 yr old grandchild etc. You don't know their exact age but with what you do know you can make a reasonably close estimate.
If the bones were only 3,000 wouldn't we be finding more bones due to extinction not being as long ago as evolutionists have found? I mean, if they were relatively that young, it would make more since that there'd be more around anyways. Or at least it seems like it.
You should watch a few A. E. Wilder-Smith videos or read his books. Also, watch a few Ron Wyatt videos. I know that your typical evolutard believes Satan's lies about Ron Wyatt and that is to be expected. But try to get over that government brainwashing induced bias and be scholarly for a change. Evolutionists are such cowards in this war for our souls. Be a man for a change and stand up!
You know, I had a recent debate with a creationist. He had a whole binder prepared for the debate, and I had nothing. But you know what, I still won. All of his 'facts' were actually bullshit that I've seen many times before in the more dogmatic theists. For example, he brought up Carbon-14. I told him, before he began speaking about it, that it was not meant to be used as a dating method for millions or billions of years, but thousands; a sort of accuracy measurement. He moved on. :)
if humans walked with dinosaurs we would be able to prove it ONLY if there was evidence for it. have you asked yourself why none of the ancient drawings on the walls have drawings of dinosaurs?
The days of answering evry metaphysical question with the same 3 letter word,"god" ,are over. Tanach,Gospels and Quran are perfect examples of the subhuman,degrading 'objective moral relativism' of uneducated,tribal men who still pick their nose in the Bronze Age.
Goofy comments--silly. It is as if American atheists worship men with English speaking accents who can say things well, that they can't. Just because you say it with a condescending tone and a British accent, doesn't make it credible. Dawkins displays his usual superficial, self aggrandizing, pompous, self-indulgent tone and impresses Americans who love--not science and truth, but, a persona. I assume he sounds very similar to the men who rejected Copernicus and Galileo.
@onlyonechoice You engage on what is called ad homonym argument - You attack the person and not the specific arguments. His accent is irrelevant.
As stated here, fossils take longer than that to change from bone. There is no scientific support for biblical nonsense and reasonable people don't suspend their understanding of the world... Ergo, you are an unreasonable person and you actively choose to remain ignorant, a condition that makes further 'debate' with you a waste of time.
hate to nit-oick but this offers a chance for a good laugh for us all....
the fallacy engaged in was not 'ad homonym' but 'ad hominem' - against the person' ... shooting the messenger, if you will; and i now that's what you meant... but...
'ad homonym' ... that would be an argument 'against something that sounds the same as ... (whatever was being argued against)' ... which is - for some reason - a notion that tickles me to tears almost :D
@onlyonechoice I think @jbarrettwolf put it best. now please avoid further embarrassing yourself. because that was what your comment was, utterly shameful
no one has used carbon dating in years. we have much better methods of dating fossils and rocks using argon radio-dating, uranium dating, and other isotope decay methods. these are much more accurate than carbon dating and ALL of these methods identify certain fossils to be older than 75 million years
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Saying that the dinosaurs are only 3000 years old is so stupendously stupid it almost does not require reply. Why doesn't the bible mention them, or why doesn't Egyptian or Chinese records mention them? That is because they went extinct SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO!
This is not bashing Christians, but Does it Scare anyone that this guy is going to college and he could ask this question. I hope he is not going to be a surgeon.
Scientists have been able to get DNA from Neanderthal bones that are as old as 25,000 years. So could you imagine the scientific revolution that would be possible if dinosaurs "fossils" were only 3000 years old? It would be like Jurassic Park all up in here. Of course, Intelligent Design "scientists" aren't real scientists, so that idea would be beyond them.
@Phi1618033 Egyptian hieroglyphics predate the supposed age of the earth according to people who take the bible literally , and none of them show a single dinosaur. Just saying,
@TheTexanCanadian Thats exactly what ive been asking myself lately. I came to the conclusion that in the end it is no more than just fear of the truth, therefore denying literally everything a scientist brings in against religion or repeat what they believe, rather than go into discussion with him.
If the Liberty University "dinosaur" bones were really only 3000 or so years old, they wouldn't be fossils; they'd be real bones because fossils require much longer times to form. You could easily analyze the bones chemically. Chemical processes are regularly used by physical anthropologists and archaeologists to date bones of that age at human occupation sites. Not only that. You could easily use Carbon-14 dating to verify their recent age.
I'm honestly curious to why theists think that almost all scientists disagree with them. Is it a massive conspiracy based on pride and arrogance? There's no other explanation to explain such a huge lie. Unlike religion, science relies on carefully and relentlessly tested data to decide what is real and what isn't. That's all there is to it... it's called objective reality, and it doesn't change just because you choose to believe in unicorns.
@soryn305 sigh*"I don't know" Is not the same as saying: "I am wrong", or "I give up". I do not what to keep you up at night but as a scientist, I can assure you that when we say "I don't know" we regularly mean "I don't know, yet."
@ianmac2010: Well, I have never heard of a single case of an authentic anachronistic fossil (even so I saw some pictures of supossedly anachronstic fossils in creationist books, but they were, even to my untrained eye, obviously faked or ridiculous (I particularly liked a human skull inserted in a kind of hole in a kind of igneous rock..). Care to provide one example with references?
@ianmac2010 "I wager that you've never seen an authentic hominid fossil of any kind, ever." I actually did. Ever heard of homo heidelbergensis..(its a form of European homo erectus, and the specimen I refer to lived ca. 600.000 years ago). Thats the only one I saw directly, not in a documentary or book or as a cast.
@ianmac2010: As for fossils stradling "layers" representing "millions of years"..no, they do not..Well, I suggest you read a bit more about sedimentation, diagenesis, and fossilization :). A good starting point would be talkorigins, where they dedicate a faq-section to supposedly polystrate fossils...The fallacy involved here is that every mm/cm of sedimentary rock represents the same amount of time...
@Nalae1978: Do not misunderstand me..the involved processes are very complex, sometimes remains are buried over a longer period of time or in several events. Examples and further references can be found on the webpages I directed you to. You wrote you are not a young earther...Could you tell me where you got your info that "impossible" fossils are common?
Talkorigins explanation begins by protesting the use of the term "polystrate" because 1) It's used by Creationists, and 2) They cannot find the derivation of the term.
This was the first clue they don't know the answer.
They then go on to cite a mid-ninteenth century source and suggest that it was completely settled then.
That was the second clue.
What is missing is an actual explanation. This strata would be interpreted as being millions of years old, if not for the trees.
@ianmac2010: You seem to have missed the main points of the article and the many references to scientific papers...you could check these out yourself. Defining the terms you use as clearly and unambiguously as possible is not only common but essential in all good scientific work and it is always done at the beginning of papers/ texts.
@ianmac2010 Check out the Matson article..Can I ask you a question: Do you know anything about how the age and the "sedimentation rates" of geological strata are extrapolated? I quote: "The strata associated with polystrate fossils invariably show evidence of relatively rapid deposition". This may include alluvial mud sedimentation, burial by volcanic ash deposits, marine silt sedimentation, submarine sediment flows...
The problem is, geologists would happily describe a particular coal bed, for example, as having been laid down over millions of years, until a polystrate fossil appears. Then their expert opinion changes completely.
In other words, they actually had NO CLUE about the actual sedimentation rate before. It was all supposition. How could the methodology be anything but a joke?
@ianmac2010: Thats just wrong - its a lie, and whereevr you read it, do not trust the source. If you educate yourself about the methods used it might help..You accuse a huge community of geologists of constantly lying and using fucked up methods just to disprove a "holy book"? Do you really think we scientists have nothing better to do?? Like . understanding the universe around us a bit better?
@ianmac2010 Submit a fossil?? You find fossils in a certain stratum. You know the relative age of these by what has been established and continues to be established and corrected and developed during now more than two centuries of gathering knowledge about the geological column. Still, it has to be dated by testing igneous rock layers above or below the stratum it has been found in, which gives us a timeframe for the sedimentation.
@ianmac2010 You seem to be very very angry...I do not know why, but please believe me, science does not work the way you seem to envision it does...If you really submit a fossil without any information about where you found it exactly it is like handing in archeological remains without any such information - which would rob the archeologists of the opportunity to establish much of its meaning.
What exactly have I said that makes you call me "very very angry"?
Re the testing...
If they didn't cheat, the test results would be all over the place. They would have to admit they cannot really date anything without using this absurd circular reasoning methodology.
It is impossible to falsify this system because it's not scientific. It's pseudo-science, and many thousands of researchers are in it up to their chins.
@ianmac2010: "If they didn't cheat, the test results would be all over the place". Well, they are.. Ever read a geology journal??? I did already explain to you why the reasoning is not circular, I will not do so again..read my posts please!
@ianmac2010: The system could easily have been falsified: Every single absolute radiometric dating of a rock could have destructed the previously established relative datings of the geological strata!
You seem to think that anomalous new data could have any effect on this system. Anomalous data is quit common, and it always has been, but it cannot affect the system.
Anomalous data are ignored. Anachronistic fossils are ignored or hidden. These are facts. Read the book "Bones of Contention" It's extremely well written and points out the shameful behavior of the scientists who pioneered these areas of pseudo-science.
@ianmac2010: First of all I would caution you to make a distinction between paleontologists and geologists :) You seem to have read one book, a "slightly" biased one at that - since creationists obviously have a clear bias against the findings of modern geology and paleontology - and drawn your conclusions.
@ianmac2010: Further reading, maybe even "from the other side" would maybe be helpful to get the full picture. I did actually read some creationist books (know the enemy :) - and keep an open mind) and was less than impressed..as even our first year undergrads could refute most of the claims made.
I am also less than impressed by many creationist books.
However, there are a few exceptions, and I think this author is one of those. I also hold David Berlinski in high esteem. Have you ever listened to his video that's posted by ColdWaterMedia?
On the other side, there are those who deny there is even room for debate. We are talking about the PHILOSOPHY of Science here not the Religion is Scientific Truth. Most people don't understand that.
@ianmac2010 But I see I cannot convince somebody who has bought into a "conspiracy theory"...What would be interesting for me is the "why". Why, in your opinion, would all scientists (and paleontology, geology, geochemistry and geophysics as well as molecular biology and anthropology and geography back each others findings) conspire to hide "the truth"? How would you get all of them to tell lies that support each other??
They don't conspire so much as they aspire. They aspire to get good grades so they can get higher degrees so they they can advance their careers, etc.
When someone questions Darwinism, that person is automatically labeled a fool. So, this "theory" which is supposedly still falsifiable is protected by massive pressure to conform.
Listen to Berlinski and you might be shocked to learn that philosophers recently felt free to bash Darwinism. NO MORE.
@ianmac2010 And you think the wish to succeed in academia drives them to misinterpret evidence and hide anomalies? Thats not how science works...if there was evidence against evolution it would lead to a "paradigm shift" after some time (even against pressures for conformity), young scientists would question the current opinion and develop new explanations..such paradigm shifts are quite frequent in the natural sciences.
No. I think the wish to succeed, and not to look like a fool, drives every human to not go against the flow, and as flows go, this is a big one.
It's not about data. It's about philosophies and assumptions. It's about free thinking and the PHILOSOPHY of Science.
And you're right about the paradigm shift. The one which is required to dislodge this monster is going to be of the first order. When ToE dies, people will say "It was never even Science".
@ianmac2010: Well, in science, it is NOT moving with the flow that makes you more than an assistant professor or lecturer at a second class university, that makes you into a really great scientist: developing new ideas, challenging preconceived notions...Calling a theory "a monster" means you do not judge it by its explanatory merits (you could say you disagree with specific claims) but, obviously, by the challenge it poses to your world view.
Listen to David Berlinski's recollections about how philosophers once hooted publicly about Evolution theory, without fear, and how that intellectual expression has dried up because of the thought police.
It's a long series, but each segment it short, and it's very interesting. If you really are open to "knowing the enemy" then watch this
@ianmac2010: As for philosophers, what they critizise is less the biological theory of evolution but its use to interpret its application to the history of thought, of morality etc. There is a really big controversy about this topic (e.g. between the biologist Wuketits and a whole group of philosophers and theologians), and those who argue against Wuketits are not silenced at all, but well accepted academics.
@ianmac2010 I did :) He is well spoken, but presents no evidence for his claims...What he says about mutations (that they are nearly never good for the organism) is just wrong - bacteria adapting to antibiotics are maybe the best known example to refute that claim...and what about Lenskis work - another proof of favorable mutations "before our very eyes"!
Berlinski is a philosopher discussing a theory. He need not do research or even cite research in order to criticize or refute a scientific theory. Theories stand or fall on their own merits.
"mutations"
I Googled this for a quick reference and found TalkOrigins and Ken Miller's web pages (among others) still cite the infamous moth mutation research as excellent examples of mutations and evolution in action.
That research was exposed as another hoax years ago.
As to whether most mutations are "good" or "bad," I think you have to be specific. Was Berlinski referring to mutations in the parts of the DNA that code for proteins or in the vast "junk"?
This is a case where Darwinian writers can craft carefully worded answers in order to deceive.
Then there are those who zealously spread the faith with stupid statements like "Most Mutations are harmless, so they're good.." --Wikianswers
@ianmac2010 Berlinksi was saying that most mutations are deleterious (so far, so wrong) and nearly none to none are beneficial (also wrong). Thus, he said, how could evolution work? He was not refering to mutations concerning "pseudogenes" - these would have neither good nor bad consequences. I was refering you to articles describing beneficial mutations.
Since we cannot ask Berlinski to clarify his statement, I guess we will never know.
I know you didn't reference the moth hoax. I did because it is on display in the discussions about mutations. If the evidence is so overwhelming, why resort to deception, offering fraudulent research?
Has your opinion of TalkOrigins or Ken Miller changed since you discovered they continue to use the moth hoax as an example of a good mutation and evolution in action?
Some of the world's top proponents of darwinism obviously don't share your opinion of Berlinski. Before they proclaimed themselves above criticism and debate, they debated him many times.
In any case, Berlinski has an impressive resume, and his background in philosophy and the hard sciences would explain why he finds darwinism so repugnant. That and the vicious tactics employed by the mercenary and paranoid proponents of the theory.
@ianmac2010 As concerning Berlinski: he is a philosopher-mathematician and not a biologist, but makes scientific claims concerning that field ALL the time (I have now read some more). Thats intellectually dishonest. Its misleading, its like as if I used my degree in the geosciences to lend credence to claims I made about particle physics.
@ianmac2010 And your posts marvellously underline that it is the right decision that most biologists now decline to debate ID-proponents/ creationists, because that would lend those a credence they do not deserve (it "looks good on their CVs":)).
Regarding the fact that Darwinists now hide from debate..
The claim rises up that not a single person is qualified to criticize the theory?!
OMG! YOU DON'T SEE THE DANGER?!
The Philosophy of Science is defined by philosophers. When they cannot discuss their theories openly, when they hide from criticism, when they fear personal reprisal for their views, Science is in deep trouble.
@ianmac2010 Most philosophers of science are also scientists...but thats beside the matter..Evolutionary biologists do not debate about the scientific claims of biology with philosophers, no, physicists do not debate their theories iwth sociologists either...And many evolutionary scientists take much time to debung ID ideas..read, e.g., Coyne.
No scientific theory is immune from criticism. Every scientific theory is open to debate by philosophers.
If you cared as much for Science as you did defending this politically correct theory, my statement...
"When they cannot discuss their theories openly, when they hide from criticism, when they fear personal reprisal for their views, Science is in deep trouble."'
....would have moved you to silence or shame.
There is no justification or defense against this.
@ianmac2010 No, everything is open to criticism, but you do not prove a biological theory wrong with philosophical arguments, but with an alternative explanation of the evidence or by falsifying it. Thats what Berlinski tries to do, but not being an expert, he not only fails but is also intellectually dishonest since he claims to have knowledge he does not possess.
How many people are expert in cladistics, micro-biology, paleoanthropology, geology, etc? NOBODY. Yet, many Darwinists have no qualms about discussing all of these topics.
Search YouTube for Berlinski, and you will find clips of him holding his own in debates against experts.
So, your claims are specious.
Your problem with Berlinski is this. He holds evolution theory up to the same standards of the hard sciences, and it fails, miserably.
@ianmac2010: Nobody ever said the debate is over...the debate is ever ongoing, but you cannot really debate with people who 1. Ask for evidence, but simply deny it when it is shown to them (or claim it is faked when they don´t like it) 2. Make claims themselves which they cannot prove by providing evidence at all, but which they want to be taken seriously 3. Misrepresent the theories that they are attacking in order to attack strawman.
@ianmac2010 The whole talkorigins website is dedicated to debunking creationism and ID, as are books like Coynes and virtually hundreds of videos here. You cannot say nobody looks at the merits of creationist ideas or is silencing creationists (they have their museums, own universities, books..)...they just are very easy to debunk..
@ianmac2010 And what you are doing and the creationists are doing is debate? Asking for evidence - and if its presented, denying it? Or saying its faked, and that all scientists are frauds? Or, mostly, just ignoring it? Quotemining scientists? Misleading their audiences by misrepresenting would scientists actually say?
Much evidence deserves criticism, and the research I cited was faked.
You hypocrite. You accuse all skeptics of mischaracterizing the research during the debate by mischaracterizing what their criticism.
I already pointed out, once you swallowed the idea that all skeptics are kooks, and all criticisms are therefore wrong, then you will swallow anything.
The thing about being deceived, is that you don't know it because you're deceived.
@ianmac2010 Well, once you swallowed the idea evolution is wrong, you are immune to any evidence and reasoned logic...I already stated that I read creationist books, I looked at Berlinski, and while I can refute some claims myself, others can refute the rest...Its not that I just dismiss their claims, but I think them through...and find them lacking.
Neo-darwinian theory isn't even wrong (to steal a phrase). It's so incorrect and harmful that it doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong".
The history of this hypothesis is shot through with grandiose claims supported by falsified data or outright hoaxes. We have seen two more "missing links" announced in the past year!
And the crowning shame is the fact that adherents to this cult will stop at nothing to silence criticism.
Makes you think...I mean those of us who are allowed.
@ianmac2010 Oh really? Oh, I see the gathering masses of evolutionists, burning bibles and attacking churches and creationist museums and institutes..and of course, nowhere in the media creationists can have a say...And, btw way, which missing links are you alluding to? Because there are so many by now...(by Coynes definition of m.l. - maybe you have another one)?
MIssing Link centerfold 2009 was Darwinius Masillae (Ida). This hoax was greeted by National Geographic and with news headlines like "Missing Link at Last!"
But this fossil, along with it's promoter (a descendant of Barnum, no doubt) were quickly denounced by peer scientists as a fraud. Even the experts who are totally sold on Darwinism don't think this creature was a human descendant.
You can get info about the Missing Link Centerfold 2010 by simply Googling "missing link" and clicking the News button.
But my point is mainly this, the whole idea of a "missing link" begs the question of Why are we searching for a missing link in the first place?
The answer is obviously because the hominid fossil record does not support Darwinism, even though Paleoanthropologists have been searching for that proof for 150 years.
For that reason, I consider the missing link a pejorative joke.
@ianmac2010 "We" are not searching for the missing link at all..How did Dawkins so aptly put it: "Missing Link? What do you mean, missing?" And why your anthropocentrism - there are many "transitional species" as one could call them, and we have now many, many examples of species who show how fish developed into amphibians, how land-living mammals developed into whales etc., etc...
Dawkins can make jokes, but it's a nervous laughter.
When you say "many many species which show how fish developed from amphibians" what does "many many" mean? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
As Berlinski points out, Evolution theory rigorously requires a massive number of fossils for every major transition, and such is missing.
The response is the supposition that fossils are rarely formed. Not true. The hominid record is huge; it just doesn't support the theory.
@ianmac2010 Ianmac, the Darwinius hype actually proves my point - science is self-correcting - it were scientists, all of them accepting the theory of evolution, who pointed out that "Ida" had to be interpreted in another way...As for the fish-amphibian transitional forms I refer you to Coyne (he has a whole chapter on them) and Shubin (a whole book on the matter) or, if you like, to the video "what all creationists must deny" here on youtube...(for easier consumption of the knowledge :)).
When Darwinists are caught doing fraudulent research, it's a sparkling example of how Science works?
Well, I'm sorry, but this quackery made it into the major media outlets, including the National Geographic Society, and the words of this fraud will be quoted forever as more "proof" of evolution.
I see it as a sparkling example of how many modern scientists are corrupt and the media complicit.
And there are many examples of frauds that went unchecked for decades.
@ianmac2010 "When Darwinists are caught doing fraudulent research, it's a sparkling example of how Science works?". They did not do fraudulent research but went to the media prematurely with a misinterpretation of a certain fossil - which was pointed out by other experts, also scientists, also accepting evolution, who offered an alternative interpretation better supported by the evidence.
@ianmac2010 You are blinded to your own one-sidedness - there actually tons of proven frauds, misinterpretations and misrepresentations in ID/ creationist books, but while scientists accept reasoned counter-arguments (as in the "Ida" case) they don´t ,and even when their falsities are pointed out to them they still remain in their books and on their websites.
The peer review thing just shows how closed minds work (or don't).
And one only has to look a few months back at the Climategate scandal to see a blatant example of how the peer review process can be corrupted by those who it's supposedly policing.
They never let anything critical of the Global Warming Theory get published either. It creates a perfect "scientific consensus" on a subject which looks great in headlines.
We all know nobody (but kooks) disagree, right? :D
@ianmac2010 Once again, I would like to know wherefrom you get your absolute certainty. Either you are a biologist or scientist yourself, than you may have "inside knowledge", or you refer, all the time, to what people told you and have written on creationist websites/ ID-journals. In that case you should at least concede that these people are deeply biased because of their faith.
The source of my information includes years in academia and study on many topics.
My certainty comes from an understanding the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Religion. I understand there is a separation between the two. This is something that even the prima donnas of Darwinism seem to have forgotten.
And I understand the Science is not harmed by skeptics or critics but by people who attack them. The truth defends itself. Self appointed gatekeepers are the real danger.
@ianmac2010 I fear we are beginning to go in circles. I actually agree that skeptics and critics do not harm science, but this is only true for people who are skeptical of certain scientific findings or theories, not for people actually questioning the scientific method itself.
" I agree skeptics and critics do not harm science, but this is only true for people who are skeptical of certain scientific findings or theories, not for people actually questioning the scientific method itself."
That is where you have a fundamental misunderstand of the Philosophy of Science.
The philosophy itself was defined by philosophers while criticizing one another.
When Science itself is beyond criticism, then it becomes a cult.
@ianmac2010 I am aware that there are controversial debates in the philosophy of science, and I am also quite aware of what sociologists of science have to say concerning this. I was not talking about certain methodologies and methods (they are very different in different disciplines anyway), but about the very basis of science: that you do not start out with results which you deem undisproveable out of principle, but keep an open mind. If you do, its not science.
@ianmac2010 And while I am aware of the differences between ID and creationism, ID still starts from the results - life is designed (by whom they do not openly say) - and goes on to try to prove that. Well, actually its proponents have not developed an alternative explanation but just attack evolution (if I missed a book in which an alternative theory is proposed, please give me the reference).
Every theory is open to attack from anyone at any time, and they need not offer an alternative theory in the process.
It just so happens that most skeptics and critics are creationists and IDers. And why would any skeptic (who happens to be an atheist) open his mouth and open herself up to personal attacks?
@ianmac2010 You are right, you can just attack and not develop your own theory. But this is unsufficient. If you think the currently predominant theory is wrong and needs to be superseded by a better understanding, you try to find another theoretical framework in which the evidence is better explained to make a paradigm change possible.
@ianmac2010 Oh, do not turn words in my mouth, if you have scientific reasons to think the theory is wrong, and, in your opinion, it is faulty, you try to falsify it - and to develop an alternative explanation, because thats the best way to supersede a prevailing one.
I never tried to put words in your mouth. I was trying to show you how you sneak the idea that there needs to be an alternative theory presented when falsifying Evolution.
And you just did it again saying "..you try to falsify it - and to develop an alternative explanation.."
I know now that no matter how many times you're told this you will never get it.
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT FALSIFIED BY PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE THEORIES. THEY STAND AND FALL ON THEIR OWN MERITS.
@ianmac2010 Of course they stand by their own merits, and if they have no explanatory power they will also fall, but all the same, if you present a viable alternative (it need not be a fully fledged theory, bit just an alternative explanation of a certain topic at hand, you make a paradigm shift more probable.
@ianmac2010 So, once again, you do think the theory of evolution is wrong, and you do think mainstream geology is wrong. How do you, personally, think, the life we see today (and the life on the past) came to be, how do you explain the biogeographical facts surrounding us, and how do you think the geological column has to be interpreted? Do you also think plate tectonics is an invention of power-crazy scientists?
I believe that life is too complex to have arisen by purely random chance (abiogenesis).
I believe that the creatures we see today are far far too complex to have arisen by a process of random copying mistakes plus 'survival of the fittest'.
I believe the information in DNA is obviously the result of an intelligent agent.
And as I adhere to the Phil of Religion, I believe there is a Supreme Being who started and sustains all life.
@ianmac2010 Thanks for making that clear. In my opinion abiogenesis can not be ruled out based on the complexity of life as we see it now (or even the first examples we have as fossil remains), as its beginnings will have been much less complex. And given the vastness of the universe even a very, very low probability of abiogenesis would have been sufficient to start the process - somewhere.
In the beginning (Big Bang) God created the heavens and the earth. And the Earth was without form and dead (solar nebula). And God separated the land from the water (Hadean Age). And God said "let the earth" bring forth life in stages (as we see in the fossil records, life appearing without precursors). And man was created last (as we see in the fossil record).
Not bad for a bunch of Iron Age goat herders, and nothing like all the other creation myths.
@ianmac2010 Well, the beginning (the big bang, if that really was the beginning - many physicists have other ideas, but I cannot really follow their mathematics :)) was billions of years before our sun and the earth was formed. And if we really were the only planet with life and as humans, the "goal" of a creator, wouldn´t the universe be a collosal waste of space (and time)?
I believe the books of the Bible are the revealed truth, inspired by the Supreme Being, and the way I see it, the God of the Bible is satisfied to wait for things to happen.
The God of the Bible doesn't seem to do most things by fiat. If He wanted a cake, He usually tells someone to go down to the store and get the ingredients, etc etc.
I guess eternal Beings have patience
So, if there is only life on this planet (not certain, but cosmology says so now), then so be it.
@ianmac2010 OK, you believe in the Christian God and that the bible is revealed truth, but you do not interpret it literally, am I correct? Do you think other holy books were inspired by this being too? Because only revealing him to a certain small tribe of people sounds a bit partisan to me..This is not meant as a trick question, many Christians I know really think all holy books contain some truth.
I interpret the Bible with an open mind, and it is obvious to me the authors were inspired to write using metaphors and other constructs.
God "chose" the Jews as a starting place to bless all mankind. He wanted a priesthood to instruct others, to receive instructions and to sacrifice. What's wrong with that?
@ianmac2010: In short: Your basis for judging science is the bible. Its your right to hold that opinion, you are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as you "live and let live". But do not say your reasons are scientific in the sense that you deem your opinions as falsifiable, because to you, they are not.
You say that I have a right to my opinion in a way that suggests what you really mean is that I have the right to the wrong opinion.
We are having a philosophical discussion about Science and Religion, and while I have exposed fraud and hypocrisy in Darwinism, all you have done is turn the subject towards me. When you cannot defend, attack!
@ianmac2010 I did not attack YOU, ad hominem would mean that I attacked you as a person, not your opinions, and and I never did that. Yes, I think you have the right to be wrong, you are a free person - and as you certainly assume in turn that I am wrong, I hope you grant the same right to me... IMO You did not expose anything, you did ignore most of what I said and attacked either strawmen or misinterpreted scientific controversies or media coups.
When I said ad hominem, I did not point out a specific statement you made.
What I am talking about is the fact that you changed the subject away from Darwinism and on to me for the purpose of attacking my credibility.
You are not now arguing against the volumes I wrote about Darwinism, which is the topic of this video but the method you assume by which I arrived at my opinions.
@ianmac2010 I did argue against your anti-darwinism for weeks now, and then asked you what you thought explained lifes diversity..and then is scrutinized your ideas and methods the same way you did to mine :) We both have the right to do it, Iain, and all opinions are open to debate..Interestingly YOU do not argue against my arguments concerning this (I did, for weeks), but make counter-attacks against my morality...
I am always wary when someone turns an argument away from the topic and on to me. And when you concluded that, since I believe the Bible, my judgements must be wrong, my suspicions were verified.
You conclude that, because a person is religious, their decisions are necessarily invalid with respect to research. Which by extension means that any person with an a-priori belief falls into the same category. Which would include everyone. Atheism isn't "neutral" anymore than liberalism is
@ianmac2010 If cosmology had come to the conclusion that the universe will not continue to expand but crunch and bang again, would you have said - Ok, I might be wrong, maybe the Hindus are right, they have this idea of great circles of time?? I doubt it. BTW Hindu timescales are much nearer to geological deep time than Christian ones...
If God wanted to bless all mankind, why all this slaughter, forced labor and rapine in the Old Testament?? Hardly a blessing, was it, at least to those enslaved and killed? If he wanted peace among humankind, couldn´t he have done a lot better? Couldn´t the instructions have been a bit clearer and less in-group specific?
Regarding slavery and violence, I ask you with what authority you judge these things to be "bad"?
If this is just your natural morality, received by random chance and natural selection, I would like to point out that it's a fake morality. I mean, it's not objective morality. It's a temporary illusion that will disappear in our evolution or extinction.
Nothing is "bad". Everything that has ever happened is natural. Please don't try to lay your fake morality on me.
@ianmac2010 I do not need an "authority" to base my ethics on, neither do I need an "objective morality". I just need something called empathy and something called intelligence to see that anything that causes human suffering should be avoided, if possible. To say what "is" also "ought" to be is a fallacy, human morality and ethics indeed is based in its roots on evolution, but is mainly the product of critical societal discourse.
@ianmac2010 My ethics is not unique to me, but is based on a constant societal discourse, thousands of years of philosophical thinking and the empathy I am able to feel for others, which is something I share with most human beings except a few sociopaths. And thats no "party line", read something about psychology, especially developmental psychology.
@ianmac2010 I really hope you do not really think genocide and slavery are good..so on what do you base that judgement? On the New Testament..kind of "God had a personality change" ? So much for absolutes..I base my ethics on my empathy for my fellow beings, on being able to "feel" their suffering, or their joy...and a God in favour of genocide and slavery, as well as hating homosexuals and endorsing old-fashioned misogynistic nonsense about women does not compare well...
If empathy is the basis for morality, then morality is selfishness, but youre just parroting the party line.
My point is not that murder and rape etc are good; my point is without objective morality, they are not bad. And atheists have a hell of a time justifying the position that they are bad, as you demonstrated.
Why do atheists think empathy is some heroic act? You have a long list of things you like and dislike, and empathy is merely realizing that others do too.
By the way, I discovered why atheists invented their morality statement "It's not bad if if doesn't harm anyone else."
This statement is specifically crafted to support another statement, "I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." Everyone should recognize this second statement.
When these two statements are set side by side, it becomes clear the "atheist morality" statement is a fraud.
@ianmac2010 You did not answer my question whether you endorse the violence your god obviously endorses in the OT, and that speaks volumens, because if you thought about it you would have to say that you do (hopefully) not endorse it because you are also embedded in the societal discourse of a democratic, open society based on ideas of human dignity.
Atheism is a belief, I hate to
MrJcenter7 3 weeks ago
10 people went to Liberty University
zombiemurloc 1 month ago
@raulsnchez * Face palm* this is not meant to be an insult. This is from the heart. You are stupid.
paramattic70 1 month ago
that mathematician knows exactly when the earth began???? oh right its just a guess.... much like what all atheists rely on... guesses.
raulsnchez 1 month ago
@raulsnchez Actually no, many scientist perform numerous experiments to test their theories. There is no way to actually set up an experiment and test the idea of "god".
MultiDrainBamage 1 month ago
@raulsnchez And non-atheists rely on a belief... your point?
JazzyKat2009 1 month ago
@raulsnchez
Like the Heliocentric Theory that religion so despised? That was a "guess", right?
And the mathematician merely corrected Dawkin's calculations, he wasn't assuming authority on the age of the earth; although he probably knows more about it than you.
Kinin4 1 month ago
@raulsnchez The estimates on the age of earth are not a guess. They are based on evidence from multiple diff sources. Just because we don't know exactly does not in any way mean it's a guess out of the blue. If you see an old person you may not know their exact age but you can look at diff things and estimate how old they are. They got married 50 yrs ago, they have a 20 yr old grandchild etc. You don't know their exact age but with what you do know you can make a reasonably close estimate.
shananagans5 4 days ago
If the bones were only 3,000 wouldn't we be finding more bones due to extinction not being as long ago as evolutionists have found? I mean, if they were relatively that young, it would make more since that there'd be more around anyways. Or at least it seems like it.
jdub94ful 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should watch a few A. E. Wilder-Smith videos or read his books. Also, watch a few Ron Wyatt videos. I know that your typical evolutard believes Satan's lies about Ron Wyatt and that is to be expected. But try to get over that government brainwashing induced bias and be scholarly for a change. Evolutionists are such cowards in this war for our souls. Be a man for a change and stand up!
thechessstick 2 months ago
You know, I had a recent debate with a creationist. He had a whole binder prepared for the debate, and I had nothing. But you know what, I still won. All of his 'facts' were actually bullshit that I've seen many times before in the more dogmatic theists. For example, he brought up Carbon-14. I told him, before he began speaking about it, that it was not meant to be used as a dating method for millions or billions of years, but thousands; a sort of accuracy measurement. He moved on. :)
notessimodude 2 months ago
william lane craig
LLThenu 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if humans walked with dinosaurs we would be able to prove it ONLY if there was evidence for it. have you asked yourself why none of the ancient drawings on the walls have drawings of dinosaurs?
alqazaha1 3 months ago
Comment removed
alqazaha1 3 months ago
The days of answering evry metaphysical question with the same 3 letter word,"god" ,are over. Tanach,Gospels and Quran are perfect examples of the subhuman,degrading 'objective moral relativism' of uneducated,tribal men who still pick their nose in the Bronze Age.
PAULOcbi 3 months ago 4
Goofy comments--silly. It is as if American atheists worship men with English speaking accents who can say things well, that they can't. Just because you say it with a condescending tone and a British accent, doesn't make it credible. Dawkins displays his usual superficial, self aggrandizing, pompous, self-indulgent tone and impresses Americans who love--not science and truth, but, a persona. I assume he sounds very similar to the men who rejected Copernicus and Galileo.
onlyonechoice 4 months ago
@onlyonechoice That doesn`t make him wrong, so what`s your point?
waycooltoo 4 months ago 4
@onlyonechoice Ad hominem gets you nowhere, please leave youtube.
Narraeson 3 months ago 4
@onlyonechoice You engage on what is called ad homonym argument - You attack the person and not the specific arguments. His accent is irrelevant.
As stated here, fossils take longer than that to change from bone. There is no scientific support for biblical nonsense and reasonable people don't suspend their understanding of the world... Ergo, you are an unreasonable person and you actively choose to remain ignorant, a condition that makes further 'debate' with you a waste of time.
jbarrettwolf 3 months ago
@jbarrettwolf
hate to nit-oick but this offers a chance for a good laugh for us all....
the fallacy engaged in was not 'ad homonym' but 'ad hominem' - against the person' ... shooting the messenger, if you will; and i now that's what you meant... but...
'ad homonym' ... that would be an argument 'against something that sounds the same as ... (whatever was being argued against)' ... which is - for some reason - a notion that tickles me to tears almost :D
thanks for that ;)
psychobollox 1 month ago
@psychobollox
nit-pick* (before anyone nit-picks my typo) :P
psychobollox 1 month ago
@onlyonechoice I think @jbarrettwolf put it best. now please avoid further embarrassing yourself. because that was what your comment was, utterly shameful
anomyouscoward 2 months ago
Comment removed
onlyonechoice 4 months ago
Comment removed
onlyonechoice 4 months ago
Comment removed
onlyonechoice 4 months ago
no one has used carbon dating in years. we have much better methods of dating fossils and rocks using argon radio-dating, uranium dating, and other isotope decay methods. these are much more accurate than carbon dating and ALL of these methods identify certain fossils to be older than 75 million years
1982kanga 4 months ago
horrible title, what does this have to do with intelligent design?!
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj Liberty University promotes intelligent design. They're a joke.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
Saying that the dinosaurs are only 3000 years old is so stupendously stupid it almost does not require reply. Why doesn't the bible mention them, or why doesn't Egyptian or Chinese records mention them? That is because they went extinct SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO!
cdhanks 5 months ago 5
This is not bashing Christians, but Does it Scare anyone that this guy is going to college and he could ask this question. I hope he is not going to be a surgeon.
robtay1963 5 months ago 4
Liberty "university" doesn't deserve to be a daycare, much less a university.
TheBoredProle 6 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBoredProle it deserves to be a church =)
mzy10511 4 months ago
Scientists have been able to get DNA from Neanderthal bones that are as old as 25,000 years. So could you imagine the scientific revolution that would be possible if dinosaurs "fossils" were only 3000 years old? It would be like Jurassic Park all up in here. Of course, Intelligent Design "scientists" aren't real scientists, so that idea would be beyond them.
Phi1618033 6 months ago
@Phi1618033 Egyptian hieroglyphics predate the supposed age of the earth according to people who take the bible literally , and none of them show a single dinosaur. Just saying,
robtay1963 5 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Thats exactly what ive been asking myself lately. I came to the conclusion that in the end it is no more than just fear of the truth, therefore denying literally everything a scientist brings in against religion or repeat what they believe, rather than go into discussion with him.
danielvandam 6 months ago
If the Liberty University "dinosaur" bones were really only 3000 or so years old, they wouldn't be fossils; they'd be real bones because fossils require much longer times to form. You could easily analyze the bones chemically. Chemical processes are regularly used by physical anthropologists and archaeologists to date bones of that age at human occupation sites. Not only that. You could easily use Carbon-14 dating to verify their recent age.
jimtrueblue99 9 months ago 37
@jimtrueblue99
BINGO!
SiriusMined 1 month ago
I'm honestly curious to why theists think that almost all scientists disagree with them. Is it a massive conspiracy based on pride and arrogance? There's no other explanation to explain such a huge lie. Unlike religion, science relies on carefully and relentlessly tested data to decide what is real and what isn't. That's all there is to it... it's called objective reality, and it doesn't change just because you choose to believe in unicorns.
TheTexanCanadian 9 months ago 6
Please stop saying I should subscribe. Seriously, I would have if you didn't keep saying that!
Surtak 10 months ago 15
Creationists have sex with BBQ CHICKENS.
ExNihiloJimmy 11 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExNihiloJimmy I agree, I read it on my Snapple.
ilovesarakim 8 months ago
@ExNihiloJimmy i'm glad the creationism vs. evolution debate has FINALLY been resolved thanks to this brilliant proposition.
EpicPhalure 7 months ago
@ExNihiloJimmy Yeah, but that is merely to tenderize them : )
sidDkid87 6 months ago
they should also test the rock that has taken place of the bone and not the shellac (sp?) that is preserving it
Iamthedinger 11 months ago
Major burn...so much burn..give...water.
fadfskfsk 1 year ago
Feel the burn!
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
The text chat boxes are bugged now, and I have to do things in real life. Back after while.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Till later, hope the comment sections work better again while..
Nalae1978 1 year ago
sigh* lol watch ben stein own this guy. he gets him to say " i dont know"
soryn305 1 year ago
@soryn305 sigh*"I don't know" Is not the same as saying: "I am wrong", or "I give up". I do not what to keep you up at night but as a scientist, I can assure you that when we say "I don't know" we regularly mean "I don't know, yet."
Shino686 1 year ago
@soryn305 and im sure stein does not know either im also sure you dont know
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Why is a fossil assumed to be the same age as the rock it was found in?
By the way, I am not a young earther.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Is that a serious question?
nyBrit 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Because it cannot have been beamed in after the sediment was laid down??
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Anachronistic fossils are common as are fossils which stradle millions of years of rock layers.
These impossible fossils are common.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Well, I have never heard of a single case of an authentic anachronistic fossil (even so I saw some pictures of supossedly anachronstic fossils in creationist books, but they were, even to my untrained eye, obviously faked or ridiculous (I particularly liked a human skull inserted in a kind of hole in a kind of igneous rock..). Care to provide one example with references?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I wager that you've never seen an authentic hominid fossil of any kind, ever.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ianmac2010 "I wager that you've never seen an authentic hominid fossil of any kind, ever." I actually did. Ever heard of homo heidelbergensis..(its a form of European homo erectus, and the specimen I refer to lived ca. 600.000 years ago). Thats the only one I saw directly, not in a documentary or book or as a cast.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: As for fossils stradling "layers" representing "millions of years"..no, they do not..Well, I suggest you read a bit more about sedimentation, diagenesis, and fossilization :). A good starting point would be talkorigins, where they dedicate a faq-section to supposedly polystrate fossils...The fallacy involved here is that every mm/cm of sedimentary rock represents the same amount of time...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978: Do not misunderstand me..the involved processes are very complex, sometimes remains are buried over a longer period of time or in several events. Examples and further references can be found on the webpages I directed you to. You wrote you are not a young earther...Could you tell me where you got your info that "impossible" fossils are common?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Talkorigins explanation begins by protesting the use of the term "polystrate" because 1) It's used by Creationists, and 2) They cannot find the derivation of the term.
This was the first clue they don't know the answer.
They then go on to cite a mid-ninteenth century source and suggest that it was completely settled then.
That was the second clue.
What is missing is an actual explanation. This strata would be interpreted as being millions of years old, if not for the trees.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: You seem to have missed the main points of the article and the many references to scientific papers...you could check these out yourself. Defining the terms you use as clearly and unambiguously as possible is not only common but essential in all good scientific work and it is always done at the beginning of papers/ texts.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Check out the Matson article..Can I ask you a question: Do you know anything about how the age and the "sedimentation rates" of geological strata are extrapolated? I quote: "The strata associated with polystrate fossils invariably show evidence of relatively rapid deposition". This may include alluvial mud sedimentation, burial by volcanic ash deposits, marine silt sedimentation, submarine sediment flows...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
They are evidence of quick deposition.
The problem is, geologists would happily describe a particular coal bed, for example, as having been laid down over millions of years, until a polystrate fossil appears. Then their expert opinion changes completely.
In other words, they actually had NO CLUE about the actual sedimentation rate before. It was all supposition. How could the methodology be anything but a joke?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Thats just wrong - its a lie, and whereevr you read it, do not trust the source. If you educate yourself about the methods used it might help..You accuse a huge community of geologists of constantly lying and using fucked up methods just to disprove a "holy book"? Do you really think we scientists have nothing better to do?? Like . understanding the universe around us a bit better?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Scientists are selfish, ambitious, political, hate criticism, hate to admit when they're wrong, and are slow to change. In other words, they're human!
Here is their system in a nutshell.
How do you date rocks? You look at reference books
How were the dates in the books arrived at? They were based on fossil dating methods.
How do you now date fossils, look at the same reference books.
And since anachronistic data are discarded, it cannot be refuted.
IT'S A BIG CIRCLE.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
One quick note about fossil dating methods.
When you submit a fossil, they expect you to include all sorts of additional information, like how old you expect it to be, the strata date, etc.
If crime labs operated like this, the police would have no problem convicting anyone of any crime.
"Who do you want to convict of this murder, Officer Bob?"
"I would like to convict Nalae1978, please"
"That's easy. I will just set these dials, turn this knob, and presto! You're guilty!"
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Submit a fossil?? You find fossils in a certain stratum. You know the relative age of these by what has been established and continues to be established and corrected and developed during now more than two centuries of gathering knowledge about the geological column. Still, it has to be dated by testing igneous rock layers above or below the stratum it has been found in, which gives us a timeframe for the sedimentation.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 You seem to be very very angry...I do not know why, but please believe me, science does not work the way you seem to envision it does...If you really submit a fossil without any information about where you found it exactly it is like handing in archeological remains without any such information - which would rob the archeologists of the opportunity to establish much of its meaning.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"You seem to be very very angry..."
What exactly have I said that makes you call me "very very angry"?
Re the testing...
If they didn't cheat, the test results would be all over the place. They would have to admit they cannot really date anything without using this absurd circular reasoning methodology.
It is impossible to falsify this system because it's not scientific. It's pseudo-science, and many thousands of researchers are in it up to their chins.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ianmac2010: "If they didn't cheat, the test results would be all over the place". Well, they are.. Ever read a geology journal??? I did already explain to you why the reasoning is not circular, I will not do so again..read my posts please!
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: The system could easily have been falsified: Every single absolute radiometric dating of a rock could have destructed the previously established relative datings of the geological strata!
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
You seem to think that anomalous new data could have any effect on this system. Anomalous data is quit common, and it always has been, but it cannot affect the system.
Anomalous data are ignored. Anachronistic fossils are ignored or hidden. These are facts. Read the book "Bones of Contention" It's extremely well written and points out the shameful behavior of the scientists who pioneered these areas of pseudo-science.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: First of all I would caution you to make a distinction between paleontologists and geologists :) You seem to have read one book, a "slightly" biased one at that - since creationists obviously have a clear bias against the findings of modern geology and paleontology - and drawn your conclusions.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Further reading, maybe even "from the other side" would maybe be helpful to get the full picture. I did actually read some creationist books (know the enemy :) - and keep an open mind) and was less than impressed..as even our first year undergrads could refute most of the claims made.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I am also less than impressed by many creationist books.
However, there are a few exceptions, and I think this author is one of those. I also hold David Berlinski in high esteem. Have you ever listened to his video that's posted by ColdWaterMedia?
On the other side, there are those who deny there is even room for debate. We are talking about the PHILOSOPHY of Science here not the Religion is Scientific Truth. Most people don't understand that.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 But I see I cannot convince somebody who has bought into a "conspiracy theory"...What would be interesting for me is the "why". Why, in your opinion, would all scientists (and paleontology, geology, geochemistry and geophysics as well as molecular biology and anthropology and geography back each others findings) conspire to hide "the truth"? How would you get all of them to tell lies that support each other??
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Why would they conspire?
They don't conspire so much as they aspire. They aspire to get good grades so they can get higher degrees so they they can advance their careers, etc.
When someone questions Darwinism, that person is automatically labeled a fool. So, this "theory" which is supposedly still falsifiable is protected by massive pressure to conform.
Listen to Berlinski and you might be shocked to learn that philosophers recently felt free to bash Darwinism. NO MORE.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 And you think the wish to succeed in academia drives them to misinterpret evidence and hide anomalies? Thats not how science works...if there was evidence against evolution it would lead to a "paradigm shift" after some time (even against pressures for conformity), young scientists would question the current opinion and develop new explanations..such paradigm shifts are quite frequent in the natural sciences.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
No. I think the wish to succeed, and not to look like a fool, drives every human to not go against the flow, and as flows go, this is a big one.
It's not about data. It's about philosophies and assumptions. It's about free thinking and the PHILOSOPHY of Science.
And you're right about the paradigm shift. The one which is required to dislodge this monster is going to be of the first order. When ToE dies, people will say "It was never even Science".
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Well, in science, it is NOT moving with the flow that makes you more than an assistant professor or lecturer at a second class university, that makes you into a really great scientist: developing new ideas, challenging preconceived notions...Calling a theory "a monster" means you do not judge it by its explanatory merits (you could say you disagree with specific claims) but, obviously, by the challenge it poses to your world view.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
It's perfectly safe to to speak metaphorically in this venue.
I am not writing an article for peer reviewed publication or defending any dissertation here.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Listen to David Berlinski's recollections about how philosophers once hooted publicly about Evolution theory, without fear, and how that intellectual expression has dried up because of the thought police.
It's a long series, but each segment it short, and it's very interesting. If you really are open to "knowing the enemy" then watch this
v=Ec8lpcA5hls
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: As for philosophers, what they critizise is less the biological theory of evolution but its use to interpret its application to the history of thought, of morality etc. There is a really big controversy about this topic (e.g. between the biologist Wuketits and a whole group of philosophers and theologians), and those who argue against Wuketits are not silenced at all, but well accepted academics.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I did :) He is well spoken, but presents no evidence for his claims...What he says about mutations (that they are nearly never good for the organism) is just wrong - bacteria adapting to antibiotics are maybe the best known example to refute that claim...and what about Lenskis work - another proof of favorable mutations "before our very eyes"!
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"..no evidence"
Berlinski is a philosopher discussing a theory. He need not do research or even cite research in order to criticize or refute a scientific theory. Theories stand or fall on their own merits.
"mutations"
I Googled this for a quick reference and found TalkOrigins and Ken Miller's web pages (among others) still cite the infamous moth mutation research as excellent examples of mutations and evolution in action.
That research was exposed as another hoax years ago.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
As to whether most mutations are "good" or "bad," I think you have to be specific. Was Berlinski referring to mutations in the parts of the DNA that code for proteins or in the vast "junk"?
This is a case where Darwinian writers can craft carefully worded answers in order to deceive.
Then there are those who zealously spread the faith with stupid statements like "Most Mutations are harmless, so they're good.." --Wikianswers
But it's all the same pile of propaganda.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Berlinksi was saying that most mutations are deleterious (so far, so wrong) and nearly none to none are beneficial (also wrong). Thus, he said, how could evolution work? He was not refering to mutations concerning "pseudogenes" - these would have neither good nor bad consequences. I was refering you to articles describing beneficial mutations.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Since we cannot ask Berlinski to clarify his statement, I guess we will never know.
I know you didn't reference the moth hoax. I did because it is on display in the discussions about mutations. If the evidence is so overwhelming, why resort to deception, offering fraudulent research?
Has your opinion of TalkOrigins or Ken Miller changed since you discovered they continue to use the moth hoax as an example of a good mutation and evolution in action?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Some of the world's top proponents of darwinism obviously don't share your opinion of Berlinski. Before they proclaimed themselves above criticism and debate, they debated him many times.
In any case, Berlinski has an impressive resume, and his background in philosophy and the hard sciences would explain why he finds darwinism so repugnant. That and the vicious tactics employed by the mercenary and paranoid proponents of the theory.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 As concerning Berlinski: he is a philosopher-mathematician and not a biologist, but makes scientific claims concerning that field ALL the time (I have now read some more). Thats intellectually dishonest. Its misleading, its like as if I used my degree in the geosciences to lend credence to claims I made about particle physics.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 And your posts marvellously underline that it is the right decision that most biologists now decline to debate ID-proponents/ creationists, because that would lend those a credence they do not deserve (it "looks good on their CVs":)).
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Regarding the fact that Darwinists now hide from debate..
The claim rises up that not a single person is qualified to criticize the theory?!
OMG! YOU DON'T SEE THE DANGER?!
The Philosophy of Science is defined by philosophers. When they cannot discuss their theories openly, when they hide from criticism, when they fear personal reprisal for their views, Science is in deep trouble.
YOU BLIND FOOLS!
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Most philosophers of science are also scientists...but thats beside the matter..Evolutionary biologists do not debate about the scientific claims of biology with philosophers, no, physicists do not debate their theories iwth sociologists either...And many evolutionary scientists take much time to debung ID ideas..read, e.g., Coyne.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
No scientific theory is immune from criticism. Every scientific theory is open to debate by philosophers.
If you cared as much for Science as you did defending this politically correct theory, my statement...
"When they cannot discuss their theories openly, when they hide from criticism, when they fear personal reprisal for their views, Science is in deep trouble."'
....would have moved you to silence or shame.
There is no justification or defense against this.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 No, everything is open to criticism, but you do not prove a biological theory wrong with philosophical arguments, but with an alternative explanation of the evidence or by falsifying it. Thats what Berlinski tries to do, but not being an expert, he not only fails but is also intellectually dishonest since he claims to have knowledge he does not possess.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
How many people are expert in cladistics, micro-biology, paleoanthropology, geology, etc? NOBODY. Yet, many Darwinists have no qualms about discussing all of these topics.
Search YouTube for Berlinski, and you will find clips of him holding his own in debates against experts.
So, your claims are specious.
Your problem with Berlinski is this. He holds evolution theory up to the same standards of the hard sciences, and it fails, miserably.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
When you hear the phrase "The debate is over." you can be sure the person making that proclamation has something to hide.
The ignorant mantra has appeared most recently in the Global Warming debate and any political debate Mr. Obama turns his mind to.
Doesn't that phrase bother you at all? It should.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: Nobody ever said the debate is over...the debate is ever ongoing, but you cannot really debate with people who 1. Ask for evidence, but simply deny it when it is shown to them (or claim it is faked when they don´t like it) 2. Make claims themselves which they cannot prove by providing evidence at all, but which they want to be taken seriously 3. Misrepresent the theories that they are attacking in order to attack strawman.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"Nobody ever said the debate is over..."
LOL
No, the debates not over. There just isn't anyone worthy to debate.
LOL
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 The whole talkorigins website is dedicated to debunking creationism and ID, as are books like Coynes and virtually hundreds of videos here. You cannot say nobody looks at the merits of creationist ideas or is silencing creationists (they have their museums, own universities, books..)...they just are very easy to debunk..
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
That's not debate, and you know it.
Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 And what you are doing and the creationists are doing is debate? Asking for evidence - and if its presented, denying it? Or saying its faked, and that all scientists are frauds? Or, mostly, just ignoring it? Quotemining scientists? Misleading their audiences by misrepresenting would scientists actually say?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Much evidence deserves criticism, and the research I cited was faked.
You hypocrite. You accuse all skeptics of mischaracterizing the research during the debate by mischaracterizing what their criticism.
I already pointed out, once you swallowed the idea that all skeptics are kooks, and all criticisms are therefore wrong, then you will swallow anything.
The thing about being deceived, is that you don't know it because you're deceived.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Well, once you swallowed the idea evolution is wrong, you are immune to any evidence and reasoned logic...I already stated that I read creationist books, I looked at Berlinski, and while I can refute some claims myself, others can refute the rest...Its not that I just dismiss their claims, but I think them through...and find them lacking.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Neo-darwinian theory isn't even wrong (to steal a phrase). It's so incorrect and harmful that it doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong".
The history of this hypothesis is shot through with grandiose claims supported by falsified data or outright hoaxes. We have seen two more "missing links" announced in the past year!
And the crowning shame is the fact that adherents to this cult will stop at nothing to silence criticism.
Makes you think...I mean those of us who are allowed.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Oh really? Oh, I see the gathering masses of evolutionists, burning bibles and attacking churches and creationist museums and institutes..and of course, nowhere in the media creationists can have a say...And, btw way, which missing links are you alluding to? Because there are so many by now...(by Coynes definition of m.l. - maybe you have another one)?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
MIssing Link centerfold 2009 was Darwinius Masillae (Ida). This hoax was greeted by National Geographic and with news headlines like "Missing Link at Last!"
But this fossil, along with it's promoter (a descendant of Barnum, no doubt) were quickly denounced by peer scientists as a fraud. Even the experts who are totally sold on Darwinism don't think this creature was a human descendant.
THIS SCANDAL WAS ONLY LAST YEAR, PEOPLE.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
You can get info about the Missing Link Centerfold 2010 by simply Googling "missing link" and clicking the News button.
But my point is mainly this, the whole idea of a "missing link" begs the question of Why are we searching for a missing link in the first place?
The answer is obviously because the hominid fossil record does not support Darwinism, even though Paleoanthropologists have been searching for that proof for 150 years.
For that reason, I consider the missing link a pejorative joke.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 "We" are not searching for the missing link at all..How did Dawkins so aptly put it: "Missing Link? What do you mean, missing?" And why your anthropocentrism - there are many "transitional species" as one could call them, and we have now many, many examples of species who show how fish developed into amphibians, how land-living mammals developed into whales etc., etc...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Dawkins can make jokes, but it's a nervous laughter.
When you say "many many species which show how fish developed from amphibians" what does "many many" mean? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
As Berlinski points out, Evolution theory rigorously requires a massive number of fossils for every major transition, and such is missing.
The response is the supposition that fossils are rarely formed. Not true. The hominid record is huge; it just doesn't support the theory.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Ianmac, the Darwinius hype actually proves my point - science is self-correcting - it were scientists, all of them accepting the theory of evolution, who pointed out that "Ida" had to be interpreted in another way...As for the fish-amphibian transitional forms I refer you to Coyne (he has a whole chapter on them) and Shubin (a whole book on the matter) or, if you like, to the video "what all creationists must deny" here on youtube...(for easier consumption of the knowledge :)).
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
When Darwinists are caught doing fraudulent research, it's a sparkling example of how Science works?
Well, I'm sorry, but this quackery made it into the major media outlets, including the National Geographic Society, and the words of this fraud will be quoted forever as more "proof" of evolution.
I see it as a sparkling example of how many modern scientists are corrupt and the media complicit.
And there are many examples of frauds that went unchecked for decades.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 "When Darwinists are caught doing fraudulent research, it's a sparkling example of how Science works?". They did not do fraudulent research but went to the media prematurely with a misinterpretation of a certain fossil - which was pointed out by other experts, also scientists, also accepting evolution, who offered an alternative interpretation better supported by the evidence.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"They did not do fraudulent research but went to the media prematurely with a misinterpretation of a certain fossil..."
I mentioned "fraudulent research" in a sentence referring to the moth hoax and not the Ida hoax.
The moth hoax was fraudulent research. The Ida hoax was apparently valid research presented in a fraudulent manner.
And BOTH incidents got big press and will be referenced for decades as evidence supporting Darwinism. As these hoaxes always are.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 You are blinded to your own one-sidedness - there actually tons of proven frauds, misinterpretations and misrepresentations in ID/ creationist books, but while scientists accept reasoned counter-arguments (as in the "Ida" case) they don´t ,and even when their falsities are pointed out to them they still remain in their books and on their websites.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
What hypocrisy!
All writing critical of Darwinism is excluded from the professional peer review literature.
So you can hardly complain that these same texts aren't corrected by the peer review process.
Of course they aren't corrected by the peer review process, they are banned from the peer review process completely!
WAKE UP
ianmac2010 1 year ago
The peer review thing just shows how closed minds work (or don't).
And one only has to look a few months back at the Climategate scandal to see a blatant example of how the peer review process can be corrupted by those who it's supposedly policing.
They never let anything critical of the Global Warming Theory get published either. It creates a perfect "scientific consensus" on a subject which looks great in headlines.
We all know nobody (but kooks) disagree, right? :D
CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE
ianmac2010 1 year ago
Aren't there any skeptics of Evolution theory?
"Only kooks are skeptical of our theory!"
How do you know?
"Because we label them such the moment they get out of line."
How can a theory, so protected from criticism ever be falsified?"
"The theory is a 'fact' and so has outgrown the bounds of Science."
So, it's not a scientific theory anymore?
"No! Of course not. It's a 'scientific fact'!"
There is no such thing!
"Shhhhh. They don't know that."
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Once again, I would like to know wherefrom you get your absolute certainty. Either you are a biologist or scientist yourself, than you may have "inside knowledge", or you refer, all the time, to what people told you and have written on creationist websites/ ID-journals. In that case you should at least concede that these people are deeply biased because of their faith.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
The source of my information includes years in academia and study on many topics.
My certainty comes from an understanding the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Religion. I understand there is a separation between the two. This is something that even the prima donnas of Darwinism seem to have forgotten.
And I understand the Science is not harmed by skeptics or critics but by people who attack them. The truth defends itself. Self appointed gatekeepers are the real danger.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I fear we are beginning to go in circles. I actually agree that skeptics and critics do not harm science, but this is only true for people who are skeptical of certain scientific findings or theories, not for people actually questioning the scientific method itself.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nalae1978
" I agree skeptics and critics do not harm science, but this is only true for people who are skeptical of certain scientific findings or theories, not for people actually questioning the scientific method itself."
That is where you have a fundamental misunderstand of the Philosophy of Science.
The philosophy itself was defined by philosophers while criticizing one another.
When Science itself is beyond criticism, then it becomes a cult.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I am aware that there are controversial debates in the philosophy of science, and I am also quite aware of what sociologists of science have to say concerning this. I was not talking about certain methodologies and methods (they are very different in different disciplines anyway), but about the very basis of science: that you do not start out with results which you deem undisproveable out of principle, but keep an open mind. If you do, its not science.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"..: that you do not start out with results which you deem undisproveable out of principle, but keep an open mind. If you do, its not science."
No arguments there.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 And while I am aware of the differences between ID and creationism, ID still starts from the results - life is designed (by whom they do not openly say) - and goes on to try to prove that. Well, actually its proponents have not developed an alternative explanation but just attack evolution (if I missed a book in which an alternative theory is proposed, please give me the reference).
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Every theory is open to attack from anyone at any time, and they need not offer an alternative theory in the process.
It just so happens that most skeptics and critics are creationists and IDers. And why would any skeptic (who happens to be an atheist) open his mouth and open herself up to personal attacks?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 You are right, you can just attack and not develop your own theory. But this is unsufficient. If you think the currently predominant theory is wrong and needs to be superseded by a better understanding, you try to find another theoretical framework in which the evidence is better explained to make a paradigm change possible.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
"this is unsufficient. If you think the currently predominant theory is wrong and needs to be superseded by a better understanding"
Look at how you worded that sentence. "IF you think the current theory is wrong AND needs to be superseded by..."
How about simply, IF you think a theory is wrong, then you may falsify it.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Oh, do not turn words in my mouth, if you have scientific reasons to think the theory is wrong, and, in your opinion, it is faulty, you try to falsify it - and to develop an alternative explanation, because thats the best way to supersede a prevailing one.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I never tried to put words in your mouth. I was trying to show you how you sneak the idea that there needs to be an alternative theory presented when falsifying Evolution.
And you just did it again saying "..you try to falsify it - and to develop an alternative explanation.."
I know now that no matter how many times you're told this you will never get it.
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT FALSIFIED BY PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE THEORIES. THEY STAND AND FALL ON THEIR OWN MERITS.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Of course they stand by their own merits, and if they have no explanatory power they will also fall, but all the same, if you present a viable alternative (it need not be a fully fledged theory, bit just an alternative explanation of a certain topic at hand, you make a paradigm shift more probable.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 So, once again, you do think the theory of evolution is wrong, and you do think mainstream geology is wrong. How do you, personally, think, the life we see today (and the life on the past) came to be, how do you explain the biogeographical facts surrounding us, and how do you think the geological column has to be interpreted? Do you also think plate tectonics is an invention of power-crazy scientists?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I believe that life is too complex to have arisen by purely random chance (abiogenesis).
I believe that the creatures we see today are far far too complex to have arisen by a process of random copying mistakes plus 'survival of the fittest'.
I believe the information in DNA is obviously the result of an intelligent agent.
And as I adhere to the Phil of Religion, I believe there is a Supreme Being who started and sustains all life.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Thanks for making that clear. In my opinion abiogenesis can not be ruled out based on the complexity of life as we see it now (or even the first examples we have as fossil remains), as its beginnings will have been much less complex. And given the vastness of the universe even a very, very low probability of abiogenesis would have been sufficient to start the process - somewhere.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
If abiogenesis occurred naturally, then it should have been a simple process, as Darwin suggested, and simple to replicate.
However, there even any good models for how lifeless matter could have sprang to life randomly.
And since Darwin's day, statistical mathematics tells us that such an even is impossible, given the age and type of universe we live in.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
Regarding a Supreme Being, I believe the fact that the universe had a beginning begs the question, what was the cause.
And the necessary cause must itself be eternal, and since the universe began at a specific moment, the cause must have a mind and will.
And since this is certainly the only planet with life, I believe it was not an accident but had to be purposed by the creator.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
In the beginning (Big Bang) God created the heavens and the earth. And the Earth was without form and dead (solar nebula). And God separated the land from the water (Hadean Age). And God said "let the earth" bring forth life in stages (as we see in the fossil records, life appearing without precursors). And man was created last (as we see in the fossil record).
Not bad for a bunch of Iron Age goat herders, and nothing like all the other creation myths.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 Well, the beginning (the big bang, if that really was the beginning - many physicists have other ideas, but I cannot really follow their mathematics :)) was billions of years before our sun and the earth was formed. And if we really were the only planet with life and as humans, the "goal" of a creator, wouldn´t the universe be a collosal waste of space (and time)?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I believe the books of the Bible are the revealed truth, inspired by the Supreme Being, and the way I see it, the God of the Bible is satisfied to wait for things to happen.
The God of the Bible doesn't seem to do most things by fiat. If He wanted a cake, He usually tells someone to go down to the store and get the ingredients, etc etc.
I guess eternal Beings have patience
So, if there is only life on this planet (not certain, but cosmology says so now), then so be it.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 OK, you believe in the Christian God and that the bible is revealed truth, but you do not interpret it literally, am I correct? Do you think other holy books were inspired by this being too? Because only revealing him to a certain small tribe of people sounds a bit partisan to me..This is not meant as a trick question, many Christians I know really think all holy books contain some truth.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I interpret the Bible with an open mind, and it is obvious to me the authors were inspired to write using metaphors and other constructs.
God "chose" the Jews as a starting place to bless all mankind. He wanted a priesthood to instruct others, to receive instructions and to sacrifice. What's wrong with that?
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010: In short: Your basis for judging science is the bible. Its your right to hold that opinion, you are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as you "live and let live". But do not say your reasons are scientific in the sense that you deem your opinions as falsifiable, because to you, they are not.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
You say that I have a right to my opinion in a way that suggests what you really mean is that I have the right to the wrong opinion.
We are having a philosophical discussion about Science and Religion, and while I have exposed fraud and hypocrisy in Darwinism, all you have done is turn the subject towards me. When you cannot defend, attack!
But the truth is, your ad hominem is pointless.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I did not attack YOU, ad hominem would mean that I attacked you as a person, not your opinions, and and I never did that. Yes, I think you have the right to be wrong, you are a free person - and as you certainly assume in turn that I am wrong, I hope you grant the same right to me... IMO You did not expose anything, you did ignore most of what I said and attacked either strawmen or misinterpreted scientific controversies or media coups.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Yes, I believe that you have the right to be wrong. It's called free will, and it's a gift from your creator.
If there is no creator, then I would disagree.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
When I said ad hominem, I did not point out a specific statement you made.
What I am talking about is the fact that you changed the subject away from Darwinism and on to me for the purpose of attacking my credibility.
You are not now arguing against the volumes I wrote about Darwinism, which is the topic of this video but the method you assume by which I arrived at my opinions.
That's ad hominem.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I did argue against your anti-darwinism for weeks now, and then asked you what you thought explained lifes diversity..and then is scrutinized your ideas and methods the same way you did to mine :) We both have the right to do it, Iain, and all opinions are open to debate..Interestingly YOU do not argue against my arguments concerning this (I did, for weeks), but make counter-attacks against my morality...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
I am always wary when someone turns an argument away from the topic and on to me. And when you concluded that, since I believe the Bible, my judgements must be wrong, my suspicions were verified.
You conclude that, because a person is religious, their decisions are necessarily invalid with respect to research. Which by extension means that any person with an a-priori belief falls into the same category. Which would include everyone. Atheism isn't "neutral" anymore than liberalism is
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 If cosmology had come to the conclusion that the universe will not continue to expand but crunch and bang again, would you have said - Ok, I might be wrong, maybe the Hindus are right, they have this idea of great circles of time?? I doubt it. BTW Hindu timescales are much nearer to geological deep time than Christian ones...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 "What's wrong with that?"
If God wanted to bless all mankind, why all this slaughter, forced labor and rapine in the Old Testament?? Hardly a blessing, was it, at least to those enslaved and killed? If he wanted peace among humankind, couldn´t he have done a lot better? Couldn´t the instructions have been a bit clearer and less in-group specific?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Regarding slavery and violence, I ask you with what authority you judge these things to be "bad"?
If this is just your natural morality, received by random chance and natural selection, I would like to point out that it's a fake morality. I mean, it's not objective morality. It's a temporary illusion that will disappear in our evolution or extinction.
Nothing is "bad". Everything that has ever happened is natural. Please don't try to lay your fake morality on me.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I do not need an "authority" to base my ethics on, neither do I need an "objective morality". I just need something called empathy and something called intelligence to see that anything that causes human suffering should be avoided, if possible. To say what "is" also "ought" to be is a fallacy, human morality and ethics indeed is based in its roots on evolution, but is mainly the product of critical societal discourse.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
Without an authority to base morality on, your morality is unique to you. You are your own god.
And unless morality is objective morality, it's not morality at all. What you are saying is that you have your own unique reality.
WRONG!
There is a single, actual reality. Personal reality is another name for schizophrenia.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 My ethics is not unique to me, but is based on a constant societal discourse, thousands of years of philosophical thinking and the empathy I am able to feel for others, which is something I share with most human beings except a few sociopaths. And thats no "party line", read something about psychology, especially developmental psychology.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 I really hope you do not really think genocide and slavery are good..so on what do you base that judgement? On the New Testament..kind of "God had a personality change" ? So much for absolutes..I base my ethics on my empathy for my fellow beings, on being able to "feel" their suffering, or their joy...and a God in favour of genocide and slavery, as well as hating homosexuals and endorsing old-fashioned misogynistic nonsense about women does not compare well...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978
If empathy is the basis for morality, then morality is selfishness, but youre just parroting the party line.
My point is not that murder and rape etc are good; my point is without objective morality, they are not bad. And atheists have a hell of a time justifying the position that they are bad, as you demonstrated.
Why do atheists think empathy is some heroic act? You have a long list of things you like and dislike, and empathy is merely realizing that others do too.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
By the way, I discovered why atheists invented their morality statement "It's not bad if if doesn't harm anyone else."
This statement is specifically crafted to support another statement, "I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." Everyone should recognize this second statement.
When these two statements are set side by side, it becomes clear the "atheist morality" statement is a fraud.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
@ianmac2010 You did not answer my question whether you endorse the violence your god obviously endorses in the OT, and that speaks volumens, because if you thought about it you would have to say that you do (hopefully) not endorse it because you are also embedded in the societal discourse of a democratic, open society based on ideas of human dignity.
Nalae1978 1 year ago