Comments on: Skeptical Battlegrounds: Part II – Creationism

By: Somite

Somite — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:55:54 +0000

The record of evolution is present in concrete objects like fossils and in the genomes of all living things. The things you mention like duplication and base pair “creation” has been documented and is clear for anyone with eyes to see.

Evolution is a proven fact. There is no evidence consistent with creationism.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:23:36 +0000

I submit that you should go to Yale and study logic and mathematics. Logic-you fail at it. You can’t substitute a hypothesis for a phenomena simply because you don’t understand it. So you lose once.

Let’s check the maths. If say, abiogenesis is unlikely (The root of your insane claim), then that probability multiplied by the number of opportunities gives the expected outcome (That’s basic probability, I don’t have a degree, and even I know that). So say abiogenesis has a 1/(1 trillion) chance of occuring every second. Then over the period of a trillion seconds, the even is likely to happen. Extend that to millions of years, and it becomes almost inevitable that it will occur at least one, and the improbable event is the non-event.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:19:34 +0000

Actually, we don’t. Some things are still called laws, but they’re equal to theories (Maths geek here). The fundamental theorem of calculus is just as important as say, L’Hopital’s Rule, or anything else. The term law was used in naturalistic sciences, but was generally phased out, and came into disuse, because it conveyed an excess of certainty, and when rules and laws were proved wrong (such as earlier versions of the Law of Gravity) Science as a whole suffered.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:16:08 +0000

Exactly. I’d like to wonder how you can say that mysticism is necessary to be accepted. Anyone believing in it, is by definition, commiting the God of the Gaps argument, and is reduced to believing on faith. It’s irrational, and pointless.

Those pleading for a lack fo effort, a nicety of the effort made, etc, usually haven’t even seen the work of those they criticise. Are the prominent atheists ferverent? Hell-yes. No more than the religious sermons I grew up with, and a damn sight more rational and even handed.

This nonsense has gone on long enough. Fuck the double standard, and fuck the special pleading. Religion is not rational, and has no place in a scientific mindset. Supernatural beliefs can be useful (I hope like hell there’s a God), but they’re inherently wrong, illogical, and cause demonstrable harm. Fuck Religion.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:08:58 +0000

The problem is, that it doesn’t work that way. If your religious, but you gradually reject all the religious teachings which are unpalatable, you become an atheist. The mysticism has been dying too, most don’t believe in psychics, ghosts, or the like, to the same extent as they did historically. In fact, atheism, and trust in science, is on the rise. The problem is, that believing as you will, effects your decisions. I’m not advocating personal attacks on those who believe (I saw PZ Meyers and a bunch of sycophantic atheists gang up on a writer I admire, simply for being religious). That’s intolerant, and in my view, evil. But passive atheism, promoting the concept frequently, without attacking individuals. Its not stupid to believe. But it isn’t right either. Those who do, just need a little more informing, and to be removed from the bloodsucking octopus of organised religion.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:03:56 +0000

Make it effective. If we play nice, we tend to sidestep the issue. Now, as a present Atheist, I’m probably on the more antagonistic side. But the thing is, what’s titled antagonism does work. Once the evidence piles up, a theist if forced to deal with a tremendous cognitive dissonance. I was. I couldn’t believe that there was a God, considering the events I’d seen and been a party too. Yet the thing that cemented my opinion was the likes of Penn Jillete, Matt Dillahunty, the Atheist Experience, and Dawkins. Most of these are rather antagonistic at times, but also for the most part, fair. The trick is to engage in discourse. The religious person is unlikely entirely confident in their faith. All they need is convincing that God isn’t necessary, and that their pursuit of him only brings them misery.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:59:07 +0000

I’m not sure you’ve watched Dawkins, since the way you speak reminds me distinctly of his way of speaking. For instance, the referances to the philosophy and religion of the individual being caused by what they were raised with, the necessity of science etc.

I’d like to point this out once and for all: Dawkins is not the giant ass the media, and christians, portray him to be. If you’ll watch any of his speeches, you’ll see that he’s a softly spoken person, passionate about rationalism, the necessity of critical thinking, logic, and ethics. There’s a common misconception about him, that he’s a jerk, an asshole, or something, but it seems to be entirely fictional.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:55:04 +0000

Let’s not make matyrs of science: Giving up the confrontation is not an option. We can’t let them teach their rubbish. Imagine how bad the situation is now. Now imagine how much worse it would be if the next generation of scientists, skeptics, and the general public, were taught in science class that creation is fact, and evolution is slanderous lies. It’s a fight that may not endear us to the religious, but that’s their problem. We’ve got the duty to keep science scientific, and stuff the rest. Confrontational tactics may be less than effective some times, but they are definitely necessary much of the time.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:51:55 +0000

I honestly don’t see how you can see that. The rationalist and skeptical response to creationism in schools is: It isn’t science. That’s it.

And the percieved “Aggressive Atheism” isn’t real either, when I was religious, I didn’t think much of Dawkins. I also wouldn’t have recognised him. I never listened to him, saw his lectures, or even knew that he had a degree.

Few religious folk try to view things which contradict their beliefs. I can’t think of any of the more controversial atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Atheist Experience, specifically Matt Dillahunty, or Sam Harris) who aren’t rational, and polite (Mostly), and I’d take exception to the whole “Extremist” and “Aggressive” angle people put on it.

Religion had its turn, and is happy to brainwash impressionable people. Anything else, is small fries.

More importantly, as I heard it put of the far right “Anything to the left of you must seem like communism” I’d extend this to religious people: Anything that denies god, to them, must seem like an aggressive and satanic principle.

By: douglas carson

douglas carson — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:15:13 +0000

Evolution Is still happening in my neighborhood. The family down the street has three children, one an athlete with a reasonable IQ, one really smart nerdy kid, and the third with autism. All from the same parents. Which will leave the most offspring? This is how evolution occurs, mistakes or near perfect copies, or in between, added up over many generations.