To the theists

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

You theists tend to mention us as being one or more of the following: Evolutionist DarwinistBut why not: Einsteinist Newtonist Edisonist Galvanist Ohmist Gynaecologist Bigbangist DawkinistIt's funny though because we usually call you theist or religious * etc. We don't call you anything like: Comfortist VenomFangXist Jesusist Masochist Godist Sadist Adamist EvistWhy? Because it is just plain stupid to name a group after single people or single theories. Evolution is a theory and Darwin was a person and none of them are religions as such.

You define evolutionist and darwinist to be people who believe in Evolution and/or Charles Darwin here. We do not "believe" in Charles Darwin as a god or something.

Theists act as if we worship and pray to scientific theories and people and do their best to see "what the religion Atheism is all about" but you won't find out that way because atheism is not a religion.

[atheist_angel]

:confused: uh, Croc. Edison was a bastard... :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ah yes I know about that one. the AC/DC wars. Didn't occur to me while I was writing that post and all I thought about was all those patents man.

[atheist_angel]

An Ohmist: 1) nought, nothing, absent, non; 3) A person that can resist the imaginary energy known as the holy spirit.; 3) An admirer of the great 'O' often interchangeable with zero (0) as seen interweb speak.;

[atheist_angel]

Ah yes I know about that one. the AC/DC wars. Didn't occur to me while I was writing that post and all I thought about was all those patents man.Well, I guess that explains the Galvani reference, but why gynecologist\gynaecologist reference?

Just in case you didn't know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrics_and_gynaecology

[Digitalos]

You theists tend to mention us as being one or more of the following: Evolutionist DarwinistBut why not: Einsteinist Newtonist Edisonist Galvanist Ohmist Gynaecologist Bigbangist DawkinistIt's funny though because we usually call you theist or religious * etc. We don't call you anything like: Comfortist VenomFangXist Jesusist Masochist Godist Sadist Adamist EvistWhy? Because it is just plain stupid to name a group after single people or single theories. Evolution is a theory and Darwin was a person and none of them are religions as such.

You define evolutionist and darwinist to be people who believe in Evolution and/or Charles Darwin here. We do not "believe" in Charles Darwin as a god or something.

Theists act as if we worship and pray to scientific theories and people and do their best to see "what the religion Atheism is all about" but you won't find out that way because atheism is not a religion.
Quite simply because Evolutionist/Darwinist account for origin doctrines which is directly in line with Biblical Christianity. Odd question. :x

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Quite simply because Evolutionist/Darwinist account for origin doctrines which is directly in line with Biblical Christianity. Odd question. :xWhat doctrines?

[Digitalos]

Please read:

origin doctrines

Doctrines, about our origin. Do you know what a doctrine is?

[atheist_angel]

Quite simply because Evolutionist/Darwinist account for origin doctrines which is directly in line with Biblical Christianity. Odd question. :xOrigin doctrines that are in line with the bible do not include evolution.
Get over your fairytale interpretations, you're embarrassing the fundies.

[Digitalos]

Origin doctrines that are in line with the bible do not include evolution.
Get over your fairytale interpretations, you're embarrassing the fundies. :rolleyes:
Can I get an English version of that? What are you on about?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Please read:



Doctrines, about our origin. Do you know what a doctrine is?Yes. And can you be specific as to how it is in line with Biblical christianity exactly? Saying evolution and Charles Darwin is wrong because he didn't mention anything about how we originated is like saying Newtonian mechanics is wrong because it doesn't explain the EMR spectrum.

So what do you mean by saying it is in line with Biblical christianity?

[Digitalos]

Yes. And can you be specific as to how it is in line with Biblical christianity exactly? Saying evolution and Charles Darwin is wrong because he didn't mention anything about how we originated is like saying Newtonian mechanics is wrong because it doesn't explain the EMR spectrum.

So what do you mean by saying it is in line with Biblical christianity?
I'm starting to feel like I'm in some sort of crazy land now... why are you and what's his name both talking gibberish?!

I didn't say evolution or Mr Darwin are wrong... :o I said that Evolutionism and Charles Darwin/Darwinism which is actually the same as Evolutionism - are competing with Biblical Christianity because they are origin doctrines - hence why theists often refer to you as the things you posted.

I find it helps if you read the posts, just throwing that out there as a suggestion. :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in some sort of crazy land now... why are you and what's his name both talking gibberish?!Well now you know how atheists feel.I didn't say evolution or Mr Darwin are wrong... :o I said that Evolutionism and Charles Darwin/Darwinism which is actually the same as Evolutionism - are competing with Biblical Christianity because they are origin doctrines - hence why theists often refer to you as the things you posted.But why not Newtonism/Gravitationism/etc because they are also competing with Biblical Christianity? Evolution is not even a doctrine by the way. It is a theory. Saying it is a doctrine is like saying that Newtonian mechanics is a doctrine or saying Abiogenesis (theory for the origin of life) is a doctrine.I find it helps if you read the posts, just throwing that out there as a suggestion. :)I guess it sort of helps. Doesn't explain why theists only pick on evolution though.

[atheist_angel]

Quite simply because Evolutionist/Darwinist account for origin doctrines which is directly in line with Biblical Christianity.
What in the bible would make you think that evolution is inline with the bible?

[Digitalos]

What in the bible would make you think that evolution is inline with the bible?
Look, I'm just not responding to you unless you can follow the line of thought. It's that simple. I can't waste time posting the same stuff over and over.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Digitalos you know how you mentioned that evolution is competent with Biblical christianity? What about the other sciences too? Surely at least some of them would be competent with it too right?

[Digitalos]

But why not Newtonism/Gravitationism/etc because they are also competing with Biblical Christianity?
*sigh* No they are not. I don't even think Newtonism/Gravitationism are words btw... Biblical Christianity doesn't accept a random chance first cause for molecules to man evolution. That is why Darwinism competes with Biblical Christianity, they cannot be reconciled. Theistic evolution is accepted by some theists, so it's important to define the specific type, for our purposes I just assumed you were talking about uncontrolled molecules to man evolution.

Evolution is not even a doctrine by the way. It is a theory.
It is an origin doctrine in this sense, because it contains a set of beliefs which are accepted and taught by educational bodies. That is what a doctrine is, it is also a theory in the sense that it is a well-substantiated set of beliefs. Not all theories are doctrines, but evolution is one of them.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

*sigh* No they are not. I don't even think Newtonism/Gravitationism are words btw... Biblical Christianity doesn't accept a random chance first cause for molecules to man evolution. That is why Darwinism competes with Biblical Christianity, they cannot be reconciled. Theistic evolution is accepted by some theists, so it's important to define the specific type, for our purposes I just assumed you were talking about uncontrolled molecules to man evolution.Strictly speaking there is no such thing as Darwinism either. It may compete with Biblical Christianity but it is just a theory.It is an origin doctrine in this sense, because it contains a set of beliefs which are accepted and taught by educational bodies. That is what a doctrine is, it is also a theory in the sense that it is a well-substantiated set of beliefs. Not all theories are doctrines, but evolution is one of them.Strictly speaking evolution is not a "belief" as such it is a theory. And by that definition of a "doctrine" even Newtonian mechanics (at least Newton's 3 laws of motion) and reproduction and even some aspects of chemical reactions can be considered "doctrines" because they are "beliefs" that are taught at schools. So is the Big Bang theory. That can be considered a "doctrine" too because it is a "belief" that is taught at school.

[Digitalos]

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as Darwinism either.
Well, Darwinism is actually a word compared to the other two. :p

It may compete with Biblical Christianity but it is just a theory.
I think in some respects the word theory has gotten some sub-definitions which not everyone is aware of. In this sense, evolution is a scientifically accepted theory - whilst there are still holes in it, it's generally assumed to be true as the body of evidence support it is both substantial, accurate and simple - which are generally the three things required for any hypothesis to become an accepted theory - if I have my terms right.

Strictly speaking evolution is not a "belief" as such it is a theory.
Well it's a theory that one chooses to believe or not.

And by that definition of a "doctrine" even Newtonian mechanics (at least Newton's 3 laws of motion) and reproduction and even some aspects of chemical reactions can be considered "doctrines" because they are "beliefs" that are taught at schools. So is the Big Bang theory. That can be considered a "doctrine" too because it is a "belief" that is taught at school.
Yes, but they are not competing. That is the core difference here and why Darwinism and evolution are singled out, because atheistic versions of these, rule out a creator God, and as such are the lowest common denominator.

[Digitalos]

Digitalos you know how you mentioned that evolution is competent with Biblical christianity? What about the other sciences too? Surely at least some of them would be competent with it too right?
Not that I am aware of, are you thinking about something in particular?

[davo]

I think in some respects the word theory has gotten some sub-definitions which not everyone is aware of. In this sense, evolution is a scientifically accepted theory - whilst there are still holes in it, it's generally assumed to be true as the body of evidence support it is both substantial, accurate and simple - which are generally the three things required for any hypothesis to become an accepted theory - if I have my terms right.


Actually evolution is a fact, The Theory of Evolution is how that fact works.

Could you point out a 'hole' in the theory? You would be the first.

[davo]

Biblical Christianity doesn't accept a random chance first cause for molecules to man evolution. That is why Darwinism competes with Biblical Christianity, they cannot be reconciled. Theistic evolution is accepted by some theists, so it's important to define the specific type, for our purposes I just assumed you were talking about uncontrolled molecules to man evolution.

What are you talking about? Your premise of what evolution entails is wrong. Evolution doesn't accept random chance as a cause for 'molecules to man evolution' (whatever you mean by that), your talking about abiogenesis here if you are meaning how self replicating matter came to be that holds more information that inanimate matter, not evolution.

[davo]

Evolution is only able to be reconciled with the bible if facets of it are fully interpreted as allegory. The problem with this, and stating that parts of the bible are allegory, is that this opens the whole thing up to being mere allegory, as there is no clear evidence otherwise, not even in the bible (not that the bible is evidence for its divinity at all!).

[Digitalos]

Actually evolution is a fact, The Theory of Evolution is how that fact works.

Could you point out a 'hole' in the theory? You would be the first.
I prefer not to deal with facts, because they change - evolution is no more a fact than any number of things which yesterday were facts and today are no longer. It is a theory, well reasoned and accepted and I am not interested in making it a hill to die on.

[Digitalos]

What are you talking about? Your premise of what evolution entails is wrong. Evolution doesn't accept random chance as a cause for 'molecules to man evolution' (whatever you mean by that), your talking about abiogenesis here if you are meaning how self replicating matter came to be that holds more information that inanimate matter, not evolution.
From TalkOrigins:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Evolution is the change in organisms, molecules to man evolution is the collection of changes that took place "from the earliest protoorganism" as stated above, to where we are now.

Darwinism, doesn't inherently rule out a creator God, but atheism, which readily accepts evolution, does. Thus, repeating myself again that is why theists often lump your views with Darwinism, as the only difference is that you specifically say there is no creator god, whereas Darwinism doesn't care.

[davo]

I prefer not to deal with facts, because they change - evolution is no more a fact than any number of things which yesterday were facts and today are no longer. It is a theory, well reasoned and accepted and I am not interested in making it a hill to die on.

No, the theory of evolution is why evolution occurs, not the fact that it is. The theory of evolution is a scientific term, you cannot redefine it just because it suits you.

Look up what a scientific theory actually is. It is an explanation of observable, testable, falsifiable fact.

You are only claiming that fact changes, when it doesn't. Only the reasoning behind it does, hence that is why we have a Theory of Gravity. To state Gravity doesn't exist as it's liable to change, avoids the whole scientific meaning of what you are talking about.

[davo]

Evolution is the change in organisms, molecules to man evolution is the collection of changes that took place "from the earliest protoorganism" as stated above, to where we are now.

You were referring to the Theory of Evolution, and talking directly about 'darwinism'. I was merely stating when you talk about something 'evolving' in the wider sense from 'molecules to man', or inanimate objects to animate, that process is called abiogenesis.

A molecule is the simplest structural unit of an element or compound, it is not life. It is totally devoid of life. To talk of this process moving to one of life, is abiogenesis.


Darwinism, doesn't inherently rule out a creator God, No as it is a theory over how evolution works, it has nothing to do with philosophy. Implications of it do however, for instance in young earth and creationist world views.


but atheism, which readily accepts evolution, does. Thus, repeating myself again that is why theists often lump your views with Darwinism, as the only difference is that you specifically say there is no creator god, whereas Darwinism doesn't care.I also believe in a lot of things that are logical and fact, evolution is just one of them. What has that got to do with atheism? nothing. I know heaps of christians that understand evolution is a fact.

Theists jump on views on evolution as it violates their personal world view, atheists end up having to explain basic concepts to them, as theists focus on it as it directly confronts such things as 'the great flood' and the age of the earth.

One of the major areas that religion attacks is scientific thought and process, indeed atheists are going to confront this stupidity head on, but there is much other stupidity in theism that is also confronted.

[Digitalos]

No, the theory of evolution is why evolution occurs, not the fact that it is. The theory of evolution is a scientific term, you cannot redefine it just because it suits you.
I think you are bickering over semantics, I know what evolution is, I know what a theory is and I know what a hypothesis is. I prefer to stay away from facts, because they are not as static and quantifiable as theories, hypothesis and the like are.

You are only claiming that fact changes, when it doesn't.
Fact does change. Once it was a scientific theory turn fact, that the sun revolved around the world. It was only later that our means of interpreting reality grew, that we knew this fact was false.

Only the reasoning behind it does, hence that is why we have a Theory of Gravity.
You cannot cite one example of something which is a well accepted theory, to prove that all such theories fall into this bracket. They do not.

To state Gravity doesn't exist as it's liable to change, avoids the whole scientific meaning of what you are talking about.
Er... I'm not saying it doesn't exist because it could change, I'm saying that I don't deal in absolute truths/facts because they are in a constant state of flux. That doesn't mean I don't accept that there is a theory of gravity or what it entails, it means that I don't - when debating - often use the term 'fact' because it's subjective to mankind's tiny temporal window on the universe.

[Digitalos]

I also believe in a lot of things that are logical and fact, evolution is just one of them. What has that got to do with atheism? nothing. I know heaps of christians that understand evolution is a fact.

Theists jump on views on evolution as it violates their personal world view, atheists end up having to explain basic concepts to them, as theists focus on it as it directly confronts such things as 'the great flood' and the age of the earth.

One of the major areas that religion attacks is scientific thought and process, indeed atheists are going to confront this stupidity head on, but there is much other stupidity in theism that is also confronted.
Stupidity is not unique to religion I'm afraid - and you seem to hold a very high view of yourself and atheism in general explaining all this oh-so complicated things to us lowly ignorant theists. You seem to talk a lot, but say very little. Offer up something worth discussing and I will respond, but I think I'm done wasting time with this pointless conversation, I've answered Croc's question 3 times now.

[davo]

I think you are bickering over semantics, I know what evolution is, I know what a theory is and I know what a hypothesis is. I prefer to stay away from facts, because they are not as static and quantifiable as theories, hypothesis and the like are.

What?

Can you give an example of a fact with a Theory or hypothesis that is more static than the fact it describes the workings of?


Fact does change. Once it was a scientific theory turn fact, that the sun revolved around the world. It was only later that our means of interpreting reality grew, that we knew this fact was false.

No, the appearance of the fact can change. The observable evidence doesn't.

The sun rising and setting had many theories. Now we have a really good theory, the sun still rises and still sets.

How has this fact changed?


You cannot cite one example of something which is a well accepted theory, to prove that all such theories fall into this bracket. They do not.

Umm, that's what scientific Theory is? Can you name a scientific Theory that isn't??? I can't think of one.

Hypothesis is that what your meaning?


Er... I'm not saying it doesn't exist because it could change, I'm saying that I don't deal in absolute truths/facts because they are in a constant state of flux.

For example?


That doesn't mean I don't accept that there is a theory of gravity or what it entails, it means that I don't - when debating - often use the term 'fact' because it's subjective to mankind's tiny temporal window on the universe.

that's what a fact is in scientific theory.

[davo]

Stupidity is not unique to religion I'm afraid - and you seem to hold a very high view of yourself and atheism in general explaining all this oh-so complicated things to us lowly ignorant theists.

Sorry but you seemed to be struggling, no need to get all wound up!


You seem to talk a lot, but say very little.


You seem to talk a lot, but try redefining everything incorrectly. If my pointing out those inconsistencies offends you I am sorry.


Offer up something worth discussing and I will respond, but I think I'm done wasting time with this pointless conversation, I've answered Croc's question 3 times now.

No worries, I am sorry to be so confronting with my statements that you cannot deal with them anymore :(

[Digitalos]

Sorry but you seemed to be struggling, no need to get all wound up!



You seem to talk a lot, but try redefining everything incorrectly. If my pointing out those inconsistencies offends you I am sorry.



No worries, I am sorry to be so confronting with my statements that you cannot deal with them anymore :(
I think you mistook my comments for a tacit admission of defeat. All I did was say that I think we are discussing semantics and I don't really see much point to this considering I've answered the OP's question 3x already. Before you pat yourself on the back and offer up condolences you might want to look at the OP's question and my reply. Everything in between is bickering over semantics. I just don't see the point in continuing a pointless conversation when the main issue was addressed.

*shrugs*

[davo]

Fact does change. Once it was a scientific theory turn fact, that the sun revolved around the world. It was only later that our means of interpreting reality grew, that we knew this fact was false.

Actually from this statement, it appears you do not know what a scientific theory is.

A theory does no become a fact. It is always a theory. A theory can be 'accepted fact' in the way it is dealt with, eg: Darwins theory of evolution regarding natural selection, natural selection although a theory, is taken for granted it is true, due to overwhelming evidence. It is still a theory however.

Evolution, which the Theory describes, actually occurs. We see it happen, we have evidence that it happens from the cellular level up.

[davo]

I think you mistook my comments for a tacit admission of defeat. All I did was say that I think we are discussing semantics and I don't really see much point to this considering I've answered the OP's question 3x already. Before you pat yourself on the back and offer up condolences you might want to look at the OP's question and my reply. Everything in between is bickering over semantics. I just don't see the point in continuing a pointless conversation when the main issue was addressed.

*shrugs*

can you be less condescending please? You may not like my discussion, but there is no need to continually put me down in such a manner.

[Digitalos]

can you be less condescending please? You may not like my discussion, but there is no need to continually put me down in such a manner.
Right back at you.

[davo]

and you seem to hold a very high view of yourself and atheism in general explaining all this oh-so complicated things to us lowly ignorant theists.

Before you pat yourself on the back and offer up condolences you might want to look at the OP's question and my reply. Everything in between is bickering over semantics. I just don't see the point in continuing a pointless conversation when the main issue was addressed.

I am not one stating you have a very high view of yourself, however I have come to that decision now.

If you do not want to reply don't feel obligated. I am just pointing out you are incorrect, and you are getting upset at that. There's nothing personal in my statements, and I am not putting my statements forward in the derogatory manner you are.

If I am, I apologise.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hello Digitalos
I accept the theory of evolution through natural selection as it is the best supported, non self contradictory explanation for the diversity of life. To accept that life evolved from simple to complex through the mechanisms Darwin and Wallace described doesn't rely on faith because sufficient evidence has been made available to me to give the theory better credibility than any other explanation I have heard.

I agree with Davo that your statements about facts are flawed. The example you give about colour blindness in your debate with The Doer is a good one. Your perception of a red object has no bearing on the fact of the frequency of light it reflects. The fact is immutable. The hypotheses surrounding the colour could be manifold. You see one thing, your wife sees another, a third party might measure the light with a spectroscope, a fourth might call the third's findings into question, citing a flaw in their spectroscope. Whoever works out how to find a reliable, repeatable means of measuring the colour of the object will likely come closest to the fact, but as scientific hypotheses cannot be proven outright, their ideas about the colour, no matter how well supported, will forever remain theoretical.
You might argue that people with standard human colour vision already have that sewn up, but keep in mind an ant might see the same object using polarised light and a python would see it's infra red signature. Their perspectives on the colour of the object would not be incorrect, just outside the frame of reference we set when we say to another human "what colour is that object?"

I have the deuteranopia form of colour vision defect, so at some point in my lineage, someone's X chromosome mutated. The resulting change in the DNA base pairs mean that when my eyes try to manufacture the proteins that make up one of the three types of cone shaped cells that react to coloured light at the back of my eyes, it comes out slightly different to the equivalent cells in the eyes of my sisters, who, being female, had a back up X chromosome with a dominant gene for colour vision. The resulting altered perspective in my world view has kept me out of a career in aviation but doesn't prevent me from breeding successfully, so the flawed gene can carry on, an example of genetic drift. If being able to differentiate between red and green became a life or death variable (don't panic, Canberran motorists, the traffic authorities recognise that deuteranopia affects about one in eight males and have made bluey-green and orangey-red traffic signals in response) my condition would soon see the mutated genes removed from the population through natural selection. That is, the people with my colour vision would, on average, die earlier than everyone else and have less opportunities to pass on their genes.
My colour vision has one advantage in that colour based camouflage is less effective at hiding objects from me. If a predator that used colour based camouflage started picking off the human population, my colour blind genes could give me sufficient advantage that, over a few generations, their frequency in the population would increase through natural selection.

The mechanism makes sense, there's a lot of evidence from the living and fossil realms to support it and everything else anyone has put forward to explain the diversity of life on earth sounds like a bunch of ad hoc wishful thinking.
Having said all that, if someone came up with an even more elegant and better supported hypothesis I would discard my acceptance of evolution through natural selection and accept the new model. That's what being open minded is all about.
Have you got a better idea?
WLB

[Stueee86]

Fact: We evolved from dinosaurs

Theory: We evolved due to random mutation, non-random natural selection, genetic drift and maybe other things I can't remember. It's not that important for this point. :P

Another theory: We changed because the flying spaghetti monster tweaked us over time at various different intervals.

Both are theories. We still evolved from dinosaurs.

But getting back to the start, I think I get what you were trying to say Digitalos. You just dropped the word 'doctrine' and freaked everyone out.

People use those terms to describe the opposing view. I'd argue often it's so everyone knows who you're talking about. Evolutionist shouldn't be used as a term for atheist. But it is useful to group a bunch of people together who oppose creationism.

Creationists vs Evolutionists

It's easy that way.

The problem with the example above is it is often used in a way to undermine evolution. It is often used to trick the ill-informed into thinking creationism and evolution are actually competing theories. As if creationism carries the same weight, or is based on the same huge amount of scientific evidence.

[Digitalos]

Fact: We evolved from dinosaurs

Theory: We evolved due to random mutation, non-random natural selection, genetic drift and maybe other things I can't remember. It's not that important for this point. :P

Another theory: We changed because the flying spaghetti monster tweaked us over time at various different intervals.

Both are theories. We still evolved from dinosaurs.

But getting back to the start, I think I get what you were trying to say Digitalos. You just dropped the word 'doctrine' and freaked everyone out.

People use those terms to describe the opposing view. I'd argue often it's so everyone knows who you're talking about. Evolutionist shouldn't be used as a term for atheist. But it is useful to group a bunch of people together who oppose creationism.

Creationists vs Evolutionists

It's easy that way.

The problem with the example above is it is often used in a way to undermine evolution. It is often used to trick the ill-informed into thinking creationism and evolution are actually competing theories. As if creationism carries the same weight, or is based on the same huge amount of scientific evidence.
You don't have to call it a doctrine if you don't want to, the word has synonyms but the definition does fit the description of the theory of evolution. It is a doctrine. Doctrine doesn't mean it has any connections to religion, it's just a word used to describe something that is accepted as authoritative and taught as such. That's it. *shrugs*

Maybe the fact semantic isn't so important, I just dislike it as it carries a certain weight of truth with it, when in fact it may not be the actual case.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

XEj5imOSJ40&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

[atheist_angel]

It seems that somebody has missed the point of this thread. Was it something I said?Anything can happen on Fantasy Island (The place where the concept of Reality is not always understood). ;)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The sea surrounding the island is a good habitat for a saltwater crocodile.

[robertkd]

So a doctrine


doctrine |ˈdäktrin|
noun
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group : the doctrine of predestination.
• a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs : the Monroe Doctrine.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, from Latin doctrina ‘teaching, learning,’ from doctor ‘teacher,’ from docere ‘teach.’


Alternative


doctrine
noun
the doctrine of the Trinity: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; tenet, maxim, canon, principle, precept.


So the questions remain, how is "creation" compatable with evolution?

If genesis is correct why is there no mention of prehistoric animals let alone cretaceous and earlier periods?

I would dispute that we came from dinosaurs, all indications are a common ancestor being a fish like creature :D

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Epic swerve
I take your avoidance of direct questions as tacit admission of defeat.
I enjoyed writing my little essay on colour blindness as it relates to evolution through natural selection and will keep it on file, but to have put in that effort to explain a point only to have it completely ignored was a bit of a let down. Ignoring a question, apart from being rude, is a poor way to garner credibility for your assertions.
What is wrong with the current thinking on evolution through natural selection and why is your Genesis model a better way of understanding the biological world?
What evidence can you cite to support the Genesis model?
I apologise to Crocodile for hi-jacking this thread but Digitalos has ignored everything else I've written and I was hoping hopping into a thread where Digitalos was active would garner a response.
WLB

[Digitalos]

I'm not sure you are understanding my response, I hope Crocodile does.

He asked why you are occasionally grouped under a name for an origins doctrine - the reason is because ultimately it's the lowest common denominator in the differing beliefs and is often seen as opposition.

The definition of doctrine is not important. Replace it with theory or set of beliefs or whatever term for collection of knowledge you desire.

The evidence supporting either is not important.

The answer still remains, because they are often seen to be in opposition, and are very important to both worldviews.

[Digitalos]

is wrong with the current thinking on evolution through natural selection and why is your Genesis model a better way of understanding the biological world?
Nothing and the second part is a non-sequitur.

What evidence can you cite to support the Genesis model?
What Genesis model?

I apologise to Crocodile for hi-jacking this thread but Digitalos has ignored everything else I've written and I was hoping hopping into a thread where Digitalos was active would garner a response.
I don't even remember seeing you until this post - where have you posted prior?! :o

If I've missed something it's likely because I'm one persona and am responding to most certainly 'not one person'. :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm not sure you are understanding my response, I hope Crocodile does.

He asked why you are occasionally grouped under a name for an origins doctrine - the reason is because ultimately it's the lowest common denominator in the differing beliefs and is often seen as opposition.

The definition of doctrine is not important. Replace it with theory or set of beliefs or whatever term for collection of knowledge you desire.

The evidence supporting either is not important.

The answer still remains, because they are often seen to be in opposition, and are very important to both worldviews.At least it helps me understand what you modern believers think. I must say it is not too impressive.

Apparently evolution is not the only thing that is against the Bible here. Newtonian mechanics also goes against the Bible too - Jebus walking on water and all that. So why not a Newtonist label?

According to you evolution is a doctrine. Well so is Newtonian mechanics.

[Digitalos]

Apparently evolution is not the only thing that is against the Bible here. Newtonian mechanics also goes against the Bible too - Jebus walking on water and all that. So why not a Newtonist label?

According to you evolution is a doctrine. Well so is Newtonian mechanics.
How many people do you see citing Newton's laws as specific reasons for their disbelief in God? - answer that, and you will know why no one groups you under a theoretical 'Newtonist' heading.

At least it helps me understand what you modern believers think. I must say it is not too impressive.
Whilst I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who has the bigger brain here - you are asking some pretty elementary questions and reacting like the answers are some kind of revelation into the mystical workings of someone else's mind.

Also, I think you are lumping me together with people who refer to you collectively as Darwinists or Evolutionists when I do not and have not, which is a little unfair.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Nothing and the second part is a non-sequitur.


What Genesis model?


I don't even remember seeing you until this post - where have you posted prior?! :o

If I've missed something it's likely because I'm one persona and am responding to most certainly 'not one person'. :)


Hello Digitalos
I responded to your comments about the number of deaths you claim atheists are responsible for, asking if you were comfortable with the number that you concede can be directly blamed on religion, to which you replied with glib "Nope." I also responded to your call for a definition of the evidence it would require to change my mind about choosing not to believe in gods, which received no comment. I also copied that response into a new thread to make sure you had an opportunity to provide any evidence you thought you should bring to my attention.
I will start a new thread with a couple of direct questions I would like you to answer.
Re the Genesis model comment: I asked you this as a prompt and got the answer I expected. Genesis cannot inform our understanding of the natural world. Scientific method is not just a good means to investigate biological systems and develop useful predictions about future events in ecological systems, it is the only means.
I don't feel any sympathy for you failing to respond on account of being busy. You put a lot of irons in the fire, it's your responsibility to tend them.
WLB

[davo]

Whilst I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who has the bigger brain here - you are asking some pretty elementary questions and reacting like the answers are some kind of revelation into the mystical workings of someone else's mind.

And you read a bronze age book, and reckon you have some kind of revelation into the mystical workings of the 'mind' of a supernatural entity outside of space and time :rolleyes:

LOL

'... and he loves you!'

LOL

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

...and even though he loves every single bit of his creation he still has a place called Hell

LOL

...and he actually tests us on Earth even though he actually knows the outcome.

LOL

[Digitalos]

I don't feel any sympathy for you failing to respond on account of being busy. You put a lot of irons in the fire, it's your responsibility to tend them.
WLB
I know, compassion for an atheist who loses his father is one thing, compassion for a theist who is in the process of losing his is entirely another - gottit. The tolerance and understanding the atheistic worldview truly is not something I aspire to attain, unless this is reflective of your own personality? Rhetorical question really.

[Unsacred Cow]

Is that another attempt at diving?

You so often get 1 and 1 and make 3 Digitalos. (Is that your belief in the trinity getting in the way of logical deduction?)

WLB was not referring to your personal situation in RL.

I will speak for myself, but I'm sure others here would feel the same, I'm sorry to hear about the situation with your dad. It's the first I've heard of it. Now that you've made me aware by a physical means rather than some sort of telepathic means I can sympathise with your personal situation. It tends to be a more reliable method of communication.

[Unsacred Cow]

The Not-So-Amazing Text Twisting Projectionist. :cool:

[wearestardust]

I prefer not to deal with facts, because they change - evolution is no more a fact than any number of things which yesterday were facts and today are no longer. It is a theory, well reasoned and accepted and I am not interested in making it a hill to die on.

But in your "Atheism: the intellectually dishonest version" you made opposition to evolution the cornerstone of you point, and indeed it is pretty important to your anti-atheist views. So why won't you tell us why you think what you think?

Somewhere you made the point that you have an obligation to be honest and truthful. Do you really, really, believe that? If so, how do you think this sort of evasion (and indeed all your evasions and redefinitions) fits with that requirement?

[wearestardust]

What Genesis model?


You are joking, right?

[wearestardust]

I know what evolution is

Indeed. It is whatever you say it is to escape points made against you from moment to moment.

, I know what a theory is and I know what a hypothesis is. I prefer to stay away from facts, because they are not as static and quantifiable as theories, hypothesis and the like are.

No you don't. To quote from your opening in the debate forum thread:

it draws conclusions from repeatable observations and tests them in logical and identical ways in the hope of achieving identical results, which in turn are constructed into hypothesis

The hypothesis is the provisional explanation being tested. When it has been rigourously tested enough to be a candidate for acceptance then it is a theory.

But I have to say that I am most intrigued by this comment of yours:

Well it's a theory that one chooses to believe or not.

That is, you say, because evolution is a theory, it is just a matter of free choice whether you want to buy into or not. Now, you mention you are a game designer. Do you choose whether or not to work within the theories that underpin the explanations of how the equipment you use work, or do you design games that are based on some other, non-scientific explanation of how electronic devices work? Do you ever fly in planes? If you do you must put some weight on theories about aerodynamics and, in particular, the bernoulli principle: flying is a pretty risky thing if one is going to take the view that it is just a matter of personal choice to accept or not the theories that underpin the design of the aircraft and the pilots' training? Do you really think that theories are up for grabs in this way? Or just evolution, because you would rather the world be different than it is just to suit your preferences? Or do you actually have reasons (beyond 'my pastor told me' or 'it doesn't fit with the bible') to think that evolution is wrong? If so, why do you squirm so much about being asked to explain those reasons?

[Digitalos]

Now that you've made me aware by a physical means rather than some sort of telepathic means I can sympathise with your personal situation. It tends to be a more reliable method of communication.
You should probably relay that to Fearless who had apoplexy when I asked him to answer a question I posed some time ago about his mother.

[Digitalos]

But in your "Atheism: the intellectually dishonest version" you made opposition to evolution the cornerstone of you point, and indeed it is pretty important to your anti-atheist views. So why won't you tell us why you think what you think?
Umm... if you are talking about Atheism - the tl;dr version. It has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. It's to do with the logic of an undirected cosmological model.

[Digitalos]

You are joking, right?
Can you hear me laughing? I tend to say what I mean.

What Genesis model - explain it to me please.

[Digitalos]

But I have to say that I am most intrigued by this comment of yours:

That is, you say, because evolution is a theory, it is just a matter of free choice whether you want to buy into or not.
This is correct. It is a personal decision as to what you accept to be true or not.

Now, you mention you are a game designer. Do you choose whether or not to work within the theories that underpin the explanations of how the equipment you use work, or do you design games that are based on some other, non-scientific explanation of how electronic devices work? Do you ever fly in planes? If you do you must put some weight on theories about aerodynamics and, in particular, the bernoulli principle: flying is a pretty risky thing if one is going to take the view that it is just a matter of personal choice to accept or not the theories that underpin the design of the aircraft and the pilots' training?
This is another non sequitur. As I said in another thread, I don't need any underlying knowledge of how a computer works, or why a computer language does what it does, in order to harness it's power.

Do you really think that theories are up for grabs in this way?
Yes, they are. It is a personal decision as to what you believe is true. Someone who knows nothing of evolution, or any theory that explains how something works is under no duress to accept it as true until they have investigated it further.

Or just evolution, because you would rather the world be different than it is just to suit your preferences?
I have no issue with evolution, I'm not sure why you think I do.

Or do you actually have reasons (beyond 'my pastor told me' or 'it doesn't fit with the bible') to think that evolution is wrong?
A) How do you know what my pastor told me and B) The Bible has no issue with evolution in my opinion.

If so, why do you squirm so much about being asked to explain those reasons?
I don't recall being asked anything about this in fact - you all just jumped straight to the 'why hate on evolution so much, he's not so bad' argument.

[Unsacred Cow]

I tend to say what I mean.


But don't mean what you say....it has all the bases covered right? :rolleyes:

[wearestardust]

Well. This has been quite instructive. The underlying question I had for you, Digitalos, is "to what extent are you dishonest, and to what extent are you ignorant?". The answer, I now find, is both very much indeed.

You say you have no issue with evolution, and wonder why I think you do. Well, it's because you keep bringing it up. But when pressed you prevaricate and now say you have no problem with it. Well, I no longer suggest you may be dishonest. I now say you are absolutely a liar. A stupid one, clearly, to think you can get away with such a bald-faced assertion about what you said previously, but a liar nonetheless.

Similarly, you insist that your "atheism: the dishonest version" was about cosmology not evolution". Yes the beginning of the ditty is about cosmology, but the end is about evolutionb. Your assertion is not just disingenious, it's a lie. A very stupid lie, because it only takes a moment to check the thread a catch you out, but a lie nonetheless.

Turning from your attempts at deception to your ignorance:

This is correct. It is a personal decision as to what you accept to be true or not

.....

Yes, they are. It is a personal decision as to what you believe is true. Someone who knows nothing of evolution, or any theory that explains how something works is under no duress to accept it as true until they have investigated it further.


My my. You reject strength of evidence; for you belief is a matter of preference. Moreover, the less you know about a topic, the more it is a matter of personal preference. What breathtaking ignorance. Not just the ordinary kind of ignorance that stems from not having been educated, but a perverse and cultivated ignorance that comes a deliberate choice not merely to remain but to grow and revel in ignorance. Which, incidentally, is a kind of dishonesty itself in the context of seeking to pursuade others what is or is not the case.

You show yourself to be a sorry specimen of humanity, Digitalos; lacking integrity; willing to lie rather than be shown not to be correct; saying anything, true or false to seek to make a point; persisting in attempts at deception in you lack of awareness of how transparent your lies are; and deliberatetely choosing. To live in fantasy.

I'll give you this: at least you show consistency in your efforts to maintain your underlying view regardless of facts or truth!

[Unsacred Cow]

The answer lies here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie)

[wearestardust]

The answer lies here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie)

Thanks Scully

[wearestardust]

While I'm waiting for your responses: about this:


This is another non sequitur. As I said in another thread, I don't need any underlying knowledge of how a computer works, or why a computer language does what it does, in order to harness it's power.


Leaving aside that the concept of a 'non sequitur' assumes basics of language and argument that you don't follow, like somewhat fixed meanings of words, actually you do need theories of how a computer works to operate one. A very simple theory which is very important: which side of the keyboard to type on. Now, the theory of which side of a keyboard to type on is pretty solid. The evidence for it is tremendously good. The circumstances that would be required for it to be untrue are pretty outlandish. Us all being in a virtual world like "the matrix" might be a start but not a finish of such a world. So we can accept as "true", for everyday conversational purposes, our standard theories about which side of the keyboard to type on (this is an analogy for one of the standard argument against god btw: he/she/it/they might exist, but we have no reason to think so).

All of us, however, except you, Digitalos. You insist that acceptance or not of theories is a matter of choice and preference, not evidence.

So, in fact, from my (not your) perspective, which takes it that to type on a keyboard one must have the key side up, you must by coincidence happen to have put the keyboard right side up. For you, it doesn't matter as a matter of theory. I am not sure what you would have thought or done if you'd placed the keyboard key side down and started to type. It's not open to you to say "I tried that and it didn't work so I turned the keyboard over and it worked". That would be evidence. Which you reject.