Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Tink]

I cannot believe people are complaining that we shouldn't speak, every debate has a 'for and against', and its good to hear different views on all topics.
The ABC, taxpayer funded, is run by the Labor/Greens and is forever pushing their agenda, why aren't you complaining about them?

We may not all agree, but we are entitled to express our thoughts.
At the end of the day, yes, we live in a democracy and views are put through on how the majority thinks.

I don't like it when people label me religious, my opinions are MY opinions.
I like tradition, that's not just religious people.

 

[Chris45]

This of course is one of the more insidious acts carried out by the religious, programming the mind of a child to accept religious myth as fact with the goal of creating a lifelong convert to the cult of religious belief. Saving their lost little souls from imagined hellfire is one pretense for such behavior but the real goal is perpetuation of the faith since it's more difficult to recruit/convert adults to the cult of believers.

Christian mythology (including talking serpents, original sin, 7 day creation stories, virgin births, death defying resurrection etc.) is not fact and should never be represented as such to anyone, especially children.

Once again your hatred for religion, that you express in your posts, is palpable.

I'd like to know what happened to you to turn you into the hateful and intolerant person you are. Then again, maybe it's genetic. Whatever the cause, you really need to seek professional help!

Whether you like it or not, the Bible and the ancient scrolls upon which it is based are part of our history.
Whether you like it or not, Jesus Christ walked on this Earth and taught many intelligent and enlightening lessons to those who were prepared to listen to him.

CRE is not science and should not be taught as such, but scientifically tested evidence is now emerging that suggests that there could well be a basis for our religious beliefs, and it's a sad reflection of your intellectual ability that you can't face up to it!

There is NO scientific proof that God does not exist, but there is now evidence and scientific thinking that supports the argument that he does. How can people make informed decisions if they aren't presented with both sides of an argument? That's why God gave us intelligence and the free will to choose.

I cannot see the harm in children hearing the teachings of Jesus Christ and I think CRE definitely has a place in public schools, if only to combat the odious atheistic views such as yours that pervade our society and are drummed into them from birth ... and you complain about religious indoctrination!!!

I TOTALLY reject the atheists' attempts to programme the minds of children to accept that religion is all lies and without foundation, and that God is just an invention like Santa Claus.

 

[Chris45]

I cannot believe people are complaining that we shouldn't speak, every debate has a 'for and against', and its good to hear different views on all topics.
The ABC, taxpayer funded, is run by the Labor/Greens and is forever pushing their agenda, why aren't you complaining about them?

We may not all agree, but we are entitled to express our thoughts.
At the end of the day, yes, we live in a democracy and views are put through on how the majority thinks.

I don't like it when people label me religious, my opinions are MY opinions.
I like tradition, that's not just religious people.

I totally agree Tink.

It's the hard-nosed atheists who seem to be intent on closing down discussions and silencing people and imposing their narrow-minded views on everyone.

 

[pavilion103]

I presume you put "theory" in quotes because you wanted to ensure people didn't confuse its usage by scientists with common everyday usage of the word. Theory, when used in a scientific environment, means the best explanation available of a process and has not yet been falsified. It is a robust explanation and its robustness is strengthened when it also accurately predicts events that have yet to be discovered, as the Theory of Evolution has. I presume your quotes also is meant to highlight that "theory" only applies to the mechanics of evolution (random mutation combined with natural selection) not the fact of evolution. That evolution happens is a proven fact. How it happens is what the theory is about.

Yes.
Natural selection is a fact (the loss of genetic information).

As you stated, how it happens is what the theory is about.

The problem is that the theory of us evolving from pond scum uses macro evolution which is an increase in genetic information, which has never been observed once. Evolution (natural selection), being a loss of genetic information, is the exact opposite of this macro evolution "theory"

Of course evolution (natural selection - loss of genetic info) occurs. This is a fact. No serious creationist would deny this!!!!

 

[pavilion103]

Teach natural selection in science class. That makes sense.

But don't bundle is dishonestly with macro evolution theory of how humans came to be from less complex animals. This doesn't have one shred of scientific information.

We are genetically similar to monkeys.
We are 50% similar to bananas.
A bridge and a building both use steel, the same building blocks. This only points to a designer using he same building blocks, not that a building evolved from a bridge.

Let's teach natural selection as we should.
But let's leave all the hocus pocus and fiction out of the science class!!!

 

[Chris45]

Hey we agree on something!

It's a shame such courtesy isn't extended to humans.

Actually, ... we agree on that too. Now I'm starting to get worried!!!

 

[Chris45]

BTW, Tyson is hosting a new science series that I think has just started in the US. It is called COSMOS and is a follow on from the series of the same name that won many accolades when presented by Carl Sagan a few decades ago.

Please give us a "heads up" if it comes onto SBS.

I missed "Everything and Nothing" last night but Ep. 2 has now been programmed into my recorder.

 

[Chris45]

That evolution happens is a proven fact.

Bellenuit, I'm curious as to what you accept as proven facts of evolution. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Julia]

There was a laughable demonstration of the hypocrisy of the religious on John Cleary's Sunday Night ABC radio program last night. He - like most ABC presenters - chooses guests who reflect his own views and they spend the first half of the so called talkback hour agreeing with each other, whilst denigrating and rubbishing anyone who might hold a dissenting view.

Last night euthanasia was raised. John and Bill enthusiastically agreed that it was (insert pretty much every pejorative adjective known here, eg ethically and morally offensive, repugnant, etc.) A caller described his experience of a loved person struggling to breathe, in intolerable suffering for two years before she finally died.

He received the usual dogmatic, pious response.

Mr Cleary then raised the issue that it's widely known doctors can and do increase drug levels in order to hasten death. Bill acknowledged this to be true. However, he declared that was quite fine because he, Bill, didn't actually know it was happening. So, as long as no one told him about it, they could go right ahead.
What it must be to have such principles.

 

[rumpole]

There was a laughable demonstration of the hypocrisy of the religious on John Cleary's Sunday Night ABC radio program last night. He - like most ABC presenters - chooses guests who reflect his own views and they spend the first half of the so called talkback hour agreeing with each other, whilst denigrating and rubbishing anyone who might hold a dissenting view.

Dear me, that's not unknown in the broadcasting world is it ? Have you ever listened to Alan Jones ? All sections of the media have their pompous asses, Phillip Adams is one, Alan Jones is another. Don't listen to them if you don't like them.

 

[burglar]

Hey we agree on something!

It's a shame such courtesy isn't extended to humans.

+1 ditto that!

 

[burglar]

... But don't bundle is dishonestly with macro evolution theory of how humans came to be from less complex animals. This doesn't have one shred of scientific information. ...

First you say, show us one single intermediate.
We produce "Lucy".
Then you say, but there is only one "Lucy".
We are really stoopid because the contract is met,
but still we go off in search.

Not only do we find "Lucy"'s mates,
but continuously find more and more intermediates.

Go look in a museum!!

 

[pavilion103]

First you say, show us one single intermediate. We produce "Lucy". Then you say, but there is only one "Lucy". We are really stoopid because the contract is met, but still we go off in search. Not only do we find "Lucy"'s mates, but continuously find more and more intermediates. Go look in a museum!!

In what way does Lucy satisfy my question?

Please elaborate on the evidence for Lucy that supports macro evolution?

 

[bellenuit]

Yes.
Natural selection is a fact (the loss of genetic information).

As you stated, how it happens is what the theory is about.

The problem is that the theory of us evolving from pond scum uses macro evolution which is an increase in genetic information, which has never been observed once. Evolution (natural selection), being a loss of genetic information, is the exact opposite of this macro evolution "theory"

Of course evolution (natural selection - loss of genetic info) occurs. This is a fact. No serious creationist would deny this!!!!

The same false arguments that you used a few weeks ago for which I posted some rebuttals that you said you would read over that weekend. I guess you didn't.

 

[pavilion103]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/bringing-lucy-to-life

I don't see how this is in any way conclusive.

Then the example of increasing genetic information is a whole another question. There are zero scientific examples of genetic information increasing.

Then in terms of transitionary fossils you point out Lucy. If this is the best evolutionists have then I'd be concerned if I was them!!!!! See article above.

 

[pavilion103]

The same false arguments that you used a few weeks ago for which I posted some rebuttals that you said you would read over that weekend. I guess you didn't.

Even a quick Google search will provide answers to your rebuttal but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story hey

 

[pavilion103]

In 1-2 short sentences provide one example of increasing genetic information please

 

[FxTrader]

Once again your hatred for religion, that you express in your posts, is palpable.

Nonsensical supposition, I regard "religion" for what it is - myth. Indoctrinating the impressionable minds of young children with tales they are sinful creatures in need of redemption and other nonsense about hell and judgement is just despicable.

I'd like to know what happened to you to turn you into the hateful and intolerant person you are. Then again, maybe it's genetic. Whatever the cause, you really need to seek professional help!

Yet more patronizing BS from you Chris. I am neither a hater nor am I inclined to be intolerant. The consequences of humans arguing about, and taking seriously, competing claims in religious magic books are evident throughout the world. Religious superstition has become institutionalized deception over the ages, something tolerated in a democratic society but it must be exposed for what it is, poisonous superstition.

Whether you like it or not, the Bible and the ancient scrolls upon which it is based are part of our history.
Whether you like it or not, Jesus Christ walked on this Earth and taught many intelligent and enlightening lessons to those who were prepared to listen to him.

There have been many wise teachers and philosophers over the centuries, Jesus is just one of many claiming divine authority and origin. Claims of such divinity remain unsubstantiated and fanciful nonsense.

CRE is not science and should not be taught as such, but scientifically tested evidence is now emerging that suggests that there could well be a basis for our religious beliefs, and it's a sad reflection of your intellectual ability that you can't face up to it!

LOL, there is no scientific basis for the fantastic claims made in your magic books, if there are produce the EVIDENCE. Your continual pejorative, personal attacks on me are more indicative of your hated and intolerance of atheism and betrays your strong bias for superstitious belief. Why not try and form reasoned, intelligent arguments for religious faith instead of resorting to personal attacks and emotive laden statements.

There is NO scientific proof that God does not exist, but there is now evidence and scientific thinking that supports the argument that he does. How can people make informed decisions if they aren't presented with both sides of an argument? That's why God gave us intelligence and the free will to choose.

There is no scientific proof that a teapot is not orbiting Venus either. Try not to equate faith based religious argument with scientific, evidenced based belief. They are not one and the same.

I cannot see the harm in children hearing the teachings of Jesus Christ and I think CRE definitely has a place in public schools, if only to combat the odious atheistic views such as yours that pervade our society and are drummed into them from birth ... and you complain about religious indoctrination!!!

Children should be taught a disciplined reasoning process and to be free thinkers. If schools want to offer courses in philosophy, mysticism or religion in literature that's fine. The only thing that's odious here is the teaching that we are sinners at birth, unworthy denizens of planet earth destined for hellfire unless we have some measure of belief in fantastic tales told in the Bible whereby we gain entry to a paradise of eternal servitude to a temperamental celestial dictator.

I TOTALLY reject the atheists' attempts to programme the minds of children to accept that religion is all lies and without foundation, and that God is just an invention like Santa Claus.

On the contrary, atheists promote free thinking, reasoned and rational beliefs and seek to expose religion as nothing more than human invented myth, exactly what it is.

 

[burglar]

In what way does Lucy satisfy my question?

Please elaborate on the evidence for Lucy that supports macro evolution?

Four dogs defence?
Why should I bother a reply?
I am absolutely certain you have three more dogs in your arsenal.

Don't know why I post at all.
Perhaps ... one day ...
someone will read it and agree!?

 

[bellenuit]

Bellenuit, I'm curious as to what you accept as proven facts of evolution. Could you please elaborate?

Chris, please go and type in "facts proving evolution" and find out for yourself. I have already posted some articles that show how evolutionary theory predicted that a certain DNA structure must exist in humans and would only come about if we evolved according to the processes that the theory supports and they have found such structures.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Here is some generalised support for the fact of evolution.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

There is the huge body of DNA evidence that modern genetics is revealing, every bit supporting the theory of evolution and none rebutting it.

One piece of evidence I particularly like is the inefficient design of the laryngeal nerve in mammals (including humans) and particularly pronounced in giraffes because of their large necks. An intelligent designer would simply not do it that way, but evolution explains how when we were previously fish it was an efficient design but as we evolved and the structure of our bodies changed this nerve ended up wrapping around organs that had slowly moved into what was the original fairly straight path. If you don't mind some gore, this video explains it far better than I can.