Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[bellenuit]

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

I guess they must have a filter on the Answers In Genesis website that prevents them searching Google.

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

If this is the best evolutionists have then I'd be concerned if I was them!!!!!

Don't be concerned. There are more fossil records than Lucy and science doesn't only rely on fossil records. There is the DNA evidence, examples already given.

And your rebuttal is a pointer to a website that holds the earth is only 6,000 years old (that must piss off Australian Aborigines) and blocks any discussion from genuine scientists on the stuff it puts up there.

 

[spooly74]

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

Serious Creationist...?
You're having a laugh.

 

[rumpole]

My two cents worth is that evolution, like the rest of creation, is a set of laws and principles that is followed when physical and or biological systems develop.

There is a degree of uncertainty about how biological systems develop that depend on the initial conditions of the planet that holds the system. If no life on earth existed now, but started to develop from now on, evolution would most likely produce creatures that are different from what we know today due to initial conditions, but would that development follow the same laws and principles that it did over the last 4 billion years ?

If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to ask why we have these set of laws, and not another set that does not permit life to develop. Accident or design ? Most people would choose the answer they most want to believe. What is the evidence that the evolutionary principles occurred by either of these methods ?

 

[FxTrader]

My two cents worth is that evolution, like the rest of creation, is a set of laws and principles that is followed when physical and or biological systems develop.

There is a degree of uncertainty about how biological systems develop that depend on the initial conditions of the planet that holds the system. If no life on earth existed now, but started to develop from now on, evolution would most likely produce creatures that are different from what we know today due to initial conditions, but would that development follow the same laws and principles that it did over the last 4 billion years ?

This assumes that evolution is the only process that determines the survival of species. Other natural forces interfere (volcanic events, meteorites, atmospheric changes etc.) with evolutionary development. Something like 99% of everything that has lived on our planet is now extinct (so much for intelligent design). We humans are only one large asteroid strike away from extinction ourselves and have likely survived due to our adaptability.

The answer to your question then is no, the development and evolution of biological life within the primordial conditions that spawned it could very well never occur again in earth history.

 

[bellenuit]

A great article from today that addresses some of the evolution related questions raised here and on other forums, such as:

1. An understanding of speciation (and the origin of life):
2. How natural selection creates new features.
3. “Gain of function.”
4. The Cambrian Explosion, human intelligence, and other stuff.

A big stink at The Big Think: the supposed shortcomings of “Darwinism” touted by a quasi-creationist “thinker”

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...winism-touted-by-a-quasi-creationist-thinker/

 

[Chris45]

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.

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.

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.

You should have a look at what the CRE program actually involves before going off on one of your ignorant and intolerant atheist BS rants.

http://www.accessministries.org.au/schools/christian-religious-education-cre

As for pejorative attacks, look to your own writings for examples.

 

[Julia]

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.

You miss the point. Alan Jones et al are presenters on a privately owned network. He has no charter of responsibility to which he is supposed to adhere, providing balance.

The ABC is specifically expected to present a balanced coverage of any topic. In this instance, Mr Cleary could have offset his own rigid views with a guest who was an advocate for Voluntary Euthanasia, rather than one predetermined to agree with everything he said.

 

[rumpole]

The ABC is specifically expected to present a balanced coverage of any topic. In this instance, Mr Cleary could have offset his own rigid views with a guest who was an advocate for Voluntary Euthanasia, rather than one predetermined to agree with everything he said.

As I didn't hear the program I can't really comment further. Was it a talkback ? Did you ring in to express your views ? I'm sure you would have got a fairer hearing than if you rang Alan Jones to disagree with him.

Certainly, yes a guest who expressed a different view would have been beneficial to the discussion. Maybe you should call the program producer and suggest that.

 

[FxTrader]

You should have a look at what the CRE program actually involves before going off on one of your ignorant and intolerant atheist BS rants.

http://www.accessministries.org.au/schools/christian-religious-education-cre.

What don't you understand about their title and objectives, CRE - Christian Religious Education. Brought to us by ACCESS ministries - Leaders in Christian Education, Chaplaincy & Wellbeing. This is simply a religious organization seeking to proselytize to children under the guise of discussing values and spirituality with them.

This quote from them sums it up...

"Our vision is to reach every student in Victoria with the Gospel. Join the vision and help us transform this nation for God."

It's the religious indoctrination of children, pure and simple. Your link highlights this quite well I think. Still having trouble making a non-emotive argument I see. Juvenile assertions of ignorance and intolerance do not blunt my arguments here, the core of which you rarely address with anything other than invective.

For the record, religious indoctrination should not be "tolerated" in public schools period and many parents would agree.

 

[Tink]

I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. Science has its own dogma/religious indoctrination.

They should never have changed it from what it was, and I know this isn't a political thread, but the Greens have completely trashed our public education system, and while its like that, people will be going to the private schools for an education.

The schools need to be brought back into the centre.

 

[pavilion103]

I guess they must have a filter on the Answers In Genesis website that prevents them searching Google. http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html Don't be concerned. There are more fossil records than Lucy and science doesn't only rely on fossil records. There is the DNA evidence, examples already given. And your rebuttal is a pointer to a website that holds the earth is only 6,000 years old (that must piss off Australian Aborigines) and blocks any discussion from genuine scientists on the stuff it puts up there.

No no no. This is why I didn't bother last time.

I'm not talking about duplication of already existing genetic information or mutation, which is a corruption of already existing genetic information. I am talking about a NEW genetic information not already present.

It's so frustrating when people post these stupid predictable links that I've refuted countless times. This is embarrassing.


Haha fossil records. You don't rely on fossil records? Fair enough. But you'd expect widespread fossil evidence to be present.
What other examples do you have? Let's see if I can easily refute those too like with Lucy. Look up quotes of scientists who are also evolutionists who admit their concern over the lack of transitory fossil evidence (zero).

I don't think I'll persist in here much longer. The crap that is served up to me is lazy research. Just plain lazy and sloppy.
There are more holes than in a slice of Swiss cheese.

 

[McLovin]

For the record, religious indoctrination should not be "tolerated" in public schools period and many parents would agree.

+1

Keep religion out of public schools. If there is one good thing about the US it's that religion is constitutionally banned in public schools.

 

[burglar]

... There are more holes than in a slice of Swiss cheese.

No matter how many holes, Swiss cheese is still cheese!

Just my interjection!!

 

[pavilion103]

No matter how many holes, Swiss cheese is still cheese! Just my interjection!!

And you can still force it down people's throats

 

[Julia]

As I didn't hear the program I can't really comment further. Was it a talkback ? Did you ring in to express your views ? I'm sure you would have got a fairer hearing than if you rang Alan Jones to disagree with him.

Yes, it was a one hour talkback. I have already explained that the first half hour was spent with the presenter and guest agreeing with each other.

No, I did not attempt on this occasion to ring in, having made such attempts in the past. When asked by the producer what I wanted to say, the response is always, always "thanks for calling: we'll take that as a comment" whereupon they just hang up on you. So just try getting an alternative view across.

Certainly, yes a guest who expressed a different view would have been beneficial to the discussion. Maybe you should call the program producer and suggest that.

An email was sent to them the next morning. I do not, of course, have any expectation of a response.

 

[DocK]

What don't you understand about their title and objectives, CRE - Christian Religious Education. Brought to us by ACCESS ministries - Leaders in Christian Education, Chaplaincy & Wellbeing. This is simply a religious organization seeking to proselytize to children under the guise of discussing values and spirituality with them.

This quote from them sums it up...


It's the religious indoctrination of children, pure and simple. Your link highlights this quite well I think. Still having trouble making a non-emotive argument I see. Juvenile assertions of ignorance and intolerance do not blunt my arguments here, the core of which you rarely address with anything other than invective.

For the record, religious indoctrination should not be "tolerated" in public schools period and many parents would agree.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. Science has its own dogma/religious indoctrination.

They should never have changed it from what it was, and I know this isn't a political thread, but the Greens have completely trashed our public education system, and while its like that, people will be going to the private schools for an education.

The schools need to be brought back into the centre.

Tink, I think you and I are in accord in that we both want what is best for children. We probably also agree on matters such as family values, discipline etc. Where we are poles apart though, is that religion is necessary for children to flourish, or for the family unit to survive. Why on earth would non-believers want their kids to be educated in something they regard as fiction? The same cannot be said for science - it is proven, evidence-based and not alligned with one faith or the other. My child might be taught about natural selection and evolution, but is not taught that there was or was not a God who provided the first spark of life - that's a matter for personal belief, until such time as science can prove or disprove one way or the other.

You bet your life people will go to the private schools for an education to avoid religious doctrine being forced down their kids throats - the current trends show this to be the case. It was certainly a factor in my choice of school, and for many other parents I know. A faith in one of the various religions is simply not necessary in order to educate children on ethics, morals, values and virtues. It is entirely possible to raise fine young adults without requiring them to have blind faith in a vengeful God, or to do the right thing purely through a fear of hellfire and brimstone.

+1

Keep religion out of public schools. If there is one good thing about the US it's that religion is constitutionally banned in public schools.

Agree absolutely. Those of faith are free to educate their children about religion at home, through their churches, Sunday-school, community gatherings and the like - if they wish. Nobody is preventing them from sharing their beliefs with their children. Why then, should I be forced to have my children fed what I consider to be mostly fanciful nonsense? And how would public schools possibly cater for the differences between the various religious faiths - particularly without promoting division between the kids along religious lines - there's enough of that in the world already! My children's school manages just fine by running a virtues programme and philosophy lessons which allows all the kids to discuss ethics and values together, while allowing them to remain true to their own personal religious beliefs, or lack of them. When they're not forced to "choose sides" between one religious affiliation or another it's unsurprising to me how harmonious and mutually tolerant of each other these lessons can be. If only adults could replicate their behaviour on a global scale huh

 

[rumpole]

When asked by the producer what I wanted to say, the response is always, always "thanks for calling: we'll take that as a comment" whereupon they just hang up on you. So just try getting an alternative view across.

I'd have to say those are pretty low tactics (by the producer), similar to commercial talkback. They should either take your call or not and not ask what you have to say. You could of course pretend to agree with them and then voice your real opinion when you get on.

 

[pavilion103]

As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view.
Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.

Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?

Even if they were taught it, the teachers teaching it may not even be believers and would have no idea to communicate it properly anyway.

The same goes with macro evolution (not natural selection). Why should kids be force fed unscientific theories? (Often stated as fact!).

By all means, provide philosophy; a sample of various world views. Present it objectively and expose the kids to what types of thinking is out there.

What would be far more interesting is to present arguments for and against each, maybe similar to some of the points we are debating over here.
Then leave it at that and let them decide!

 

[DocK]

As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view.
Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.

Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?

Even if they were taught it, the teachers teaching it may not even be believers and would have no idea to communicate it properly anyway.

The same goes with macro evolution (not natural selection). Why should kids be force fed unscientific theories? (Often stated as fact!).

By all means, provide philosophy; a sample of various world views. Present it objectively and expose the kids to what types of thinking is out there.

What would be far more interesting is to present arguments for and against each, maybe similar to some of the points we are debating over here.
Then leave it at that and let them decide!

Agreed. Isn't it nice to be in accord on something!

 

[cbc]

As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view.
Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.

Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?

Even if they were taught it, the teachers teaching it may not even be believers and would have no idea to communicate it properly anyway.

The same goes with macro evolution (not natural selection). Why should kids be force fed unscientific theories? (Often stated as fact!).

By all means, provide philosophy; a sample of various world views. Present it objectively and expose the kids to what types of thinking is out there.

What would be far more interesting is to present arguments for and against each, maybe similar to some of the points we are debating over here.
Then leave it at that and let them decide!

No pav, ur wrong.

They should teach it in schools.

Jeremiah 31:34,

They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me.