Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 423

Thread: Without God

  1. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusj View Post
    'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is well worth a read for anyone who found the above interesting
    Talk about light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance !

  2. #82
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    But in the context of whether there is an ongoing effort between two parties to reach a decided resolution as to whether creationism or evolution is the correct explanation for organised complexity, there is no 'debate'. There isn't even an exchange of views. There is just creationists saying "No, no. You are lying, you are making up the evidence, evolution is just as much a religion as christianity, you ignore the problems in your theory, the bible is the explanation, you will find the Answers in Genesis.' And the scientists are saying "Whatever. Now **** off so we can do the real science bit."
    That's not a debate. I return to my analogy of basketballs and chess games.
    Black hole.worm holes and white holes ? Debate ? Theory or no debate

    Im interested in what you 'allow'as debate and what you dont

    Is the big bang now finished ie any who suggests anything other then a big bang is stupid ie no debate allowed

    Barry your not far off burning witches

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Black hole.worm holes and white holes ? Debate ? Theory or no debate

    Im interested in what you 'allow'as debate and what you dont

    Is the big bang now finished ie any who suggests anything other then a big bang is stupid ie no debate allowed

    Barry your not far off burning witches
    The point I am trying to make about 'debate' is that there can be no debate without an agreement on the underlying assumptions of the debate. In the sense that geoff332 referred to a 'debate' between creationism and evolutionism, there is no debate. The creationists don't agree with scientists as to what constitutes good evidence, for one thing; but most importantly they argue in the opposite direction from scientists. Scientists argue along the following lines:
    • this is the theory that best fits the evidence;
    • evidence which challenges our theory must be investigated to determine its proper impact on our theory;
    • our theory is subject to modification and alteration as further and better evidence comes to light.

    Creationists argue along very different lines:
    • this is the evidence that best fits our explanation
    • evidence which challenges our explanation must be theologically examined to see if it can be incorporated into teachings of ancient authority; or twisted, treated with tendentious and stretched mini-theories to try to incorporate it, or if neither of those possible it must be lies, a conspiracy by scientists who want to promote the agenda of Satan within our world, and part of a campaign against god and to confuse the righteous;
    • our explanation is fixed in the first few books of the bible (as interpreted by 2000 years of theologians) and that's the end of the matter.

    It would be a bit like trying to have a debate about Shakespear's pre-eminent position as one of if not the world's greatest writer(s) with someone who adopts the position that "All 'Shakespear's' plays were written by Bacon (or the Earl of Oxford, or whatever) so there's nothing to suggest Shakespear was even a writer at all".

    As for burning witches - what exactly is a witch?

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Stewart:

    There are debates about the big bang, about worm-holes, and about black holes. These debates are amongst astrophysicists and applied mathematicians.

    There is no debate between scientists and other people about whether black holes are in fact the gateways to fairy-land held open by hob-goblins and moved from place to place by giant tortoises; or whether the big-bang was in fact the dying gasp of a celestial giant goat.

    And there never could be such a debate, because again, one side would be looking at the evidence, and showing how it pointed to a particular interpretation or theory, and the other side would have precisely zero evidence (other than, to keep the analogy crisp, a divine book) but would be trying to argue that its explanation was nevertheless correct.

  5. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It would be a bit like trying to have a debate about Shakespear's pre-eminent position as one of if not the world's greatest writer(s) with someone who adopts the position that "All 'Shakespear's' plays were written by Bacon (or the Earl of Oxford, or whatever) so there's nothing to suggest Shakespear was even a writer at all".


    Please Barry, it is Shakespeare! You spelt it wrong not once, not twice but thrice....!

    We do have standards here you know when writing about The Bard.

    Spelling his name incorrectly is almost as bad as burning a witch.

  6. #86
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Without God

    Barry, when are you publishing your dictionary with your own definition of "debate", and excluding words such as "witch" and "god"?
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  7. #87
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Stewart:


    And there never could be such a debate, because again, one side would be looking at the evidence, and showing how it pointed to a particular interpretation or theory, and the other side would have precisely zero evidence (other than, to keep the analogy crisp, a divine book) but would be trying to argue that its explanation was nevertheless correct.
    There is no evidence of worm holes or white holes its just theoretical stuff bit like most of super string theory or multi dimensions. the attached will help your understanding of a white hole

    White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Nothing has ever been observed or measured to prove their existance bit like God really.

    However you dismiss God but not them ? Very Bi polar

    Bit like Ive learnt A.B.C so D and E cant exist . Ok Ive learned A,B,C,D so E and F cant exist . Ok Ive learned A,B,C,D, E so F and G cant exist

    Lets assume we are at E at our understanding of the universe and your already dismissing the rest of the Alphabet

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    It isn't within your power to limit what I do in this forum: that power lies with the operator and the moderators. They may agree with you; but it seems to me that the essence of a forum like this is that there can be an exchange of views. Sometimes a frank exchange of views.

    You can put me on your ignore list, as Rocky is on mine; but I can't stop Rocky responding to my posts and that's how the system works.
    I wasn't relying on the system. I was relying on you allowing a small shred of decency to guide your behaviour and respect another person's requests. I suspected it wouldn't work, but I was prepared to give it a shot.

  9. #89
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    I can see that having ‘debate’ whether the Earth is flat some would see there is no debate it isn’t flat

    However given the uncertainty re evolution v creationism the subject is very open for debate for reasons already given

    Many suggest evloution couldn't happen in the time frame given, i probably dont agree but its still a subject for 'debate'

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    Barry, when are you publishing your dictionary with your own definition of "debate", and excluding words such as "witch" and "god"?
    + all other views that are contrary to BS view of the world

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    Barry - so, why are you so concerned to demonstrate that someone elses criticisms are "innaccurate, bluster and cant"?
    Barry - just to add to your "to do" list - please could you answer the question above. Thanks!

  11. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Without God

    I think we should collect shoes in abundance

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post


    Please Barry, it is Shakespeare! You spelt it wrong not once, not twice but thrice....!

    We do have standards here you know when writing about The Bard.

    Spelling his name incorrectly is almost as bad as burning a witch.
    In fact, leaving the final 'e' off is not incorrect.

  13. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by ducasi View Post
    Barry, when are you publishing your dictionary with your own definition of "debate", and excluding words such as "witch" and "god"?
    Sadly, the world is not ready for such a dictionary...

  14. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    However given the uncertainty re evolution v creationism the subject is very open for debate for reasons already given
    You see, this is the very problem I am trying to shut down.

    There is no uncertainty in evolution v creationism. A handful of religiously motivated hacks trying to find ways of inserting doubt, like an ichneumon wasp inserting its ovipositor into the flesh of an unsuspecting caterpillar, does not lead to real uncertainty.

    Behe has tried to find things inside the cellular factory which cast doubt on evolution; Dembski has tried to use information theory to show that there is more information in DNA than evolution can account for. There are a couple of others.

    However, in practice their argument comes down to this. "I cannot understand how..." the clotting cascade could have evolved/the bacterial flagellor motor could have evolved/evolution could have increased the amount of existing information/pick your favourite THEREFORE evolution cannot be the answer. (Guess who labelled this thinking 'the argument from personal incredulity') This is not scientific thinking (because it puts the cart before the horse) nor is it scientific argument, which is why in 20 odd years there's only been one article in a peer reviewed journal supporting this nonsense and that led to the editor pro-tem (who is a creationist) being disciplined and the editorial committee having to publish an apology.

    Stewart, some dense arithmetic, including unjustified assumptions, on the web page of an MD introduces no more uncertainty into the theory of evolution by natural selection than the acreage of web pages - devoted to questioning the idea that astronauts went to the moon - introduces uncertainty into the historical record of human space exploration.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    Barry - just to add to your "to do" list - please could you answer the question above. Thanks!
    You asked the (almost exactly the) same question twice; I only answered it once. But I answered it.

  16. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    For exactly, I presume, the same reasons geoff332 made his original post in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You asked the (almost exactly the) same question twice; I only answered it once. But I answered it.
    So....what are the reasons you presume geoff332 made his original post? Are you able to express this in words?

  17. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by JiveLad View Post
    So....what are the reasons you presume geoff332 made his original post? Are you able to express this in words?
    I made the original post, because I found the article interesting and enlightening and I thoughts other people might find similar enjoyment. I was interesting in hearing reactions to the article. I've neither desire nor expectation for my actions to change anyone's views, regardless of whether or not they happen to agree with mine. Hence my refusal to engage in the evolution/creation debate that is going on in this thread and my disappointment with the manner in which some of the participants have conducted themselves in that debate. Of course, ducasi and I both knew that it would go that way, so I'm not at all surprised.

  18. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    2,388
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    In fact, leaving the final 'e' off is not incorrect.
    You're so right Barry. Of course it goes back to the old habit of putting an 'e' at the end of all kinds of words, like "Ye olde rivere cafe" back in the 14th century. Following a long discussion between King Barrye and Will himself, they decided that it was a waste of ink - so the final 'e' should be discarded for any proper nouns.

    Thus for example we have a modern theatre for his plays called "The Glob".

  19. #99
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    Stewart, some dense arithmetic, including unjustified assumptions, on the web page of an MD introduces no more uncertainty into the theory of evolution by natural selection than the acreage of web pages - devoted to questioning the idea that astronauts went to the moon - introduces uncertainty into the historical record of human space exploration.

    The end


    Creation-evolution controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the National Academy of Sciences states:

    “ Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts. ”
    —Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences

  20. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Without God

    Stewart:
    Here's an example of the sort of pseudo-scientific twaddle that you can find on the internet.

    It matters not that I fundamentally disagree with this chap, the fact is that I could not have a debate with him. At all. Any type of debate. Because we do not agree on sufficient underlying principles for us to be able to begin. The same would be true of any Nobel scientist.

    Just because someone claims that a well-understood and generally accepted scientific principle is wrong does not get him to the debating table. He has to get across over the preliminary hurdle of showing that his ideas are worth further exploration.

    You can call the creationism/science situation 'a difference of opinion', but you CAN'T CALL IT A DEBATE. At least, not without defining debate in a way which deprives the word of its power.

    Maybe I'm not putting this well.

    A statement is made to the effect that there is an ongoing debate between creationism and science. (Evolution or evolutionists or similar words are used, as if there was some distinction between evolution and all that good, sensible science out there.)

    Without considering the matter in detail, or doing any further reading, this might lead readers to conclude that there were attempts being made by various parties to determine which is the better answer to the problem of organised complexity.

    Let's look at a real scientific debate: between the 40s and the 60s there was debate amongst astrophysicists as to whether the universe began in an instant of time, or whether it had always been here. The proponents of the latter called the former theory 'the big bang theory', in a pejorative fashion, but it stuck. Their own theory was called 'steady state'.

    It was accepted by then that Hubble's work had conclusively shown that the universe was expanding; the different theories said: "if we work backwards using the present situation and rate of expansion, like running a film in reverse, we'll be able to identify the point at which the universe shrinks back to nothing. That was the 'big bang'", and second "In some way and in some place, matter is created out of nothing so that the universe, although expanding, remains at a constant density. This is the 'steady state'."

    It's important to note that both sides accepted that they did not have enough of an argument to show that the other side was wrong. As time went on, evidence was found which was consistent with both sides of the debate but might favour one more than the other, and this continued on until a group of technicians working for Bell Telephone discovered noises in their radio telescope which - it was eventually shown - was the remains of the cosmic background radiation which was predicted by big bang theory but which totally contradicted steady state theory.

    There is no longer a debate between steady state advocates and big bang theorists; the former lost the debate.

    The difference of opinion between creationism and science is of a totally different quality. If the creationists accept the basic tenets of science, so that they can debate with scientists, they lose the argument before taking another step because they have no scientifically valid evidence. For the scientists to accept the basic tenets of creation so that they can debate with the creationists, they also lose their argument before going any further because creationism simply says 'goddunnit' and there's an end to it.

    Scientists know that there is a simply overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution theory - from taxonomy, from genetic markers, from palaeontology, from geology, from microbiology, from fossils, from epidemiology, from mitchondrial DNA...the list goes on. Anything that calls all that evidence into question would have to be research or insights of great moment and impact. What do the creationists offer? A bunch of people who say "Meh - it just doesn't seem very likely to me. And my mom and dad taught me to honour jesus and read the bible - and guess what? they have a good explanation in there."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Proof of God?
    By Ghost in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 332
    Last Post: 23rd-November-2007, 12:48 AM
  2. Oh God...
    By David Bailey in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 5th-January-2007, 07:31 PM
  3. about the absence of god
    By Caro in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 20th-November-2006, 09:48 AM
  4. Why did God invent Ceroc (for men)?
    By Gus in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11th-May-2006, 05:32 PM
  5. Proud God Mummy
    By Minnie M in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11th-November-2005, 01:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •