The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5730)

skysidhe 06-21-2007 11:16 AM

I am going to start wearing Oliver buttons.

http://www.rense.com/general67/ollie2.jpg

rkzenrage 06-21-2007 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 178252)
Sorry, I thought that's what 16-year-olds already did.

Nope, most people don't tell their kids "this is what your mom and/or I believe, that is what some people believe, some other's believe that other thing, some don't believe in any religion and one day you will decide what to believe or not to for yourself" like they should. Most try to brainwash their kids like tyrants. Cowards don't trust their kids to make the right decisions for themselves, no faith in what they state is the one "true path", imagine that?

DanaC 06-21-2007 06:11 PM

Quote:

Cowards don't trust their kids to make the right decisions for themselves,
Okay, I have to take exception to that. I'd say my views on religion are probably quite well known by some of the regulars, but for the record I am an atheist; I believe that religion is a negative force within the world and I hate the idea of children being indoctrinated into what I consider to be an enormous and damaging con-trick. That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring. Obviously within any one cohort of children raised within a faith, there will be some whose parents are so overbearing that they are damaged psychologically, but that's the case in any cohort of any, or no, faith. The vast majority of parents attempt to raise their children in such a way that they have the requisite tools and resources to be successful and/or happy adults. To suggest that someone who believes that toolkit should include a spiritual dimension is a coward for including it in their child's upbringing, is unfair.

If you fear God (and I use that term in its original sense, rather than the more modern usage) then surely you would be a poor parent if you did not prepare your child for adulthood in a world in which that God is manifest. If you believe in a less traditional and more personal spirituality then you would likely wish your child to discover their spirituality for themself. If, however, you believe in a God whose existence is defined and interpreted through the theological structures of an organised church, surely the sensible thing to do as a parent would be to introduce your child to that church and its structures from an early age. If you believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that the way to the former is through acceptance of God's will or Christ's sacrifice, then surely the most loving thing to do as a parent is to ensure your child has access to the means of salvation.

On a much simpler level, and to be fair to parents of whatever faith, raising children is a difficult thing. You do not become a parent and suddenly slough off your own hang-ups, desires, cultural norms and perspectives. You do not suddenly become an objective outsider to that child's upbringing. You will therefore bring something of yourself to that child's raising. If religion is a large part of who you are, then you are likely to bring religion into that child's life.

We teach our children the concept of right and wrong, how to cross a road safely and whether to value education. For someone who considers religion to be an essential part of life, it would surely seem an abrogation of parental duty not to teach that too.

Clodfobble 06-22-2007 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage
like they should

Once again, you are telling other people (or at least telling us) how other people should raise their kids.

Quote:

Cowards don't trust other parents to make the right decisions for their families, no faith in what they state is the one "true path", imagine that?
Edited for establishment of irony. If what you believe (i.e., parents should "tell their kids 'this is what your mom and/or I believe,'" etc.) is truly the best way to raise children, then surely over time it will establish itself as the most successful cultural value, right? Or do you not trust most adults to make the right decisions for themselves?

Happy Monkey 09-04-2007 04:00 PM

First the Darwinists, now the Galileoists are stifling academic debate!

queequeger 09-04-2007 08:44 PM

My parents, both being atheist, sent me to church and catholic school until I was a junior and begged to go to public school. Whether they did this out of some sense of "a balanced world view" or to appease my mother's maniacally Catholic parents, I don't know. All I know is that I can't say it was the end of the world.

Quote:

That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring.
I have pretty much identical views on religion as you, Dana, and this quote sums up why I can't get too pissed at people for sending their children to church. If you believe that people who don't go to church burn for all eternity in a giant oven, it would be pretty shitty to force your child into that state.

And it is for THAT reason that I will tell my child exactly what I think, and that what Mrs. Praise-Jesus down the street says is absurd for reasons A-D. And hopefully my child won't be duped by the guys standing on the corner with signs that say "God Hates ______".

Happy Monkey 09-05-2007 01:32 PM

Betcha didn't know what really happened to the dinosaurs.

rkzenrage 09-06-2007 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 357604)
Okay, I have to take exception to that. I'd say my views on religion are probably quite well known by some of the regulars, but for the record I am an atheist; I believe that religion is a negative force within the world and I hate the idea of children being indoctrinated into what I consider to be an enormous and damaging con-trick. That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring. Obviously within any one cohort of children raised within a faith, there will be some whose parents are so overbearing that they are damaged psychologically, but that's the case in any cohort of any, or no, faith. The vast majority of parents attempt to raise their children in such a way that they have the requisite tools and resources to be successful and/or happy adults. To suggest that someone who believes that toolkit should include a spiritual dimension is a coward for including it in their child's upbringing, is unfair.

If you fear God (and I use that term in its original sense, rather than the more modern usage) then surely you would be a poor parent if you did not prepare your child for adulthood in a world in which that God is manifest. If you believe in a less traditional and more personal spirituality then you would likely wish your child to discover their spirituality for themself. If, however, you believe in a God whose existence is defined and interpreted through the theological structures of an organised church, surely the sensible thing to do as a parent would be to introduce your child to that church and its structures from an early age. If you believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that the way to the former is through acceptance of God's will or Christ's sacrifice, then surely the most loving thing to do as a parent is to ensure your child has access to the means of salvation.

On a much simpler level, and to be fair to parents of whatever faith, raising children is a difficult thing. You do not become a parent and suddenly slough off your own hang-ups, desires, cultural norms and perspectives. You do not suddenly become an objective outsider to that child's upbringing. You will therefore bring something of yourself to that child's raising. If religion is a large part of who you are, then you are likely to bring religion into that child's life.

We teach our children the concept of right and wrong, how to cross a road safely and whether to value education. For someone who considers religion to be an essential part of life, it would surely seem an abrogation of parental duty not to teach that too.

Telling a child how to behave morally, the golden rule, and teaching them religion have nothing to do with each other.
My wife is a theist and is not indoctrinating my son and feels no need to.
There is NO reason to.
In fact teaching a child that if they sin they will go to hell and be tortured for eternity is child abuse.
Tell me, if someone raised their kids with a bunch of false beliefs like cars could actually fly but they just didn't when she was looking at them for no real reason or that she would one day grow wings and be able to fly... no reason to criticize them right?
Just because a lot of people tell their kids something that no one can verify does not make it ok or any any less a lie especially when the book they use and want the kid to learn is full of mass murder, genocide, incest with those they are supposed to be looking UP TO, Jesus telling them to hate their families and much, MUCH more.
Sure, tell the kids about religion, I say all of it. Tell them about it, the good and bad and let them decide on their own when they are old enough to understand.
Why bother them with it when they are young? There is just no point.

Happy Monkey 09-06-2007 05:12 PM

H. R. Giger, eat your heart out! With both sets of jaws.

BigV 09-06-2007 06:12 PM

heard it on npr this am... maxdoublepluscool/scary.

is it just me or does the profile of that creature's head resemble the nose/cockpit profile of the new hondajet?

xoxoxoBruce 09-06-2007 06:33 PM

Pharyngeal jaws is just what I'd expect from those sneaky Japs.



I can't believe spell-check didn't even blink at pharyngeal.

rkzenrage 10-02-2007 01:06 AM

Why do people laugh at creationists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

rkzenrage 10-03-2007 03:10 PM

Another... drier, but good stuff.
Quote:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea--Dan Dennet Talks Evolution
Professor Dennett is a prominent and highly respected American philosopher from Tufts University, where his research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. Professor Dennett is a prolific writer, producing countless academic papers and articles, and both academic and "popular" books. His popular books include Consciousness Explained (1992); Freedom Evolves (2003); and, Darwin Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of life (1996)—which he draws on heavily for this talk.

His most recent OUTSTADING book was, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006)—a "must read."

Professor Dennett is an outspoken non-believer. He is a high profile atheist, active skeptic, prominent secular-humanist, and an indefatigable advocate of the "Brights."

He is a true champion for the cause!

It is my hope that Professor Dennett's lecture will be both interesting, AND also help equip my fellow rational atheists and secular humanists, with addition conversational ammunition for use in debate with our deluded Judeo-Christian-Islamic creationist foes.

I will upload this talk in its entirety; however, due to YouTube© time restrictions, this talk will consist of eleven parts. For ease of viewing, I will upload each subsequent part as a video response to the previous.

Enjoy the lecture and the enlightenment!

This video lecture is available in full at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3945995297&hl=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrLiVn4RGKc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTtM1A2PPsA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgz9J0I0Rmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yS_w9487E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYdXmHgNx-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybXxuuivRc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIDZoVJjQFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Vh8ucPmfc

Happy Monkey 10-08-2007 01:00 PM

:fsm:

rkzenrage 10-08-2007 05:39 PM


Mystic Rythm 10-17-2007 06:28 AM

Who remembers the Rain devil huh?? once upon atime when i sagged ur guts into red colred tributaries of vampire drains?? in those days died the blabber xoxoxbruce? remember bro?? so this is the standard you ppl have dawned over this "o once a great community". maybe you ppl can lend some of the teachings. that sounds cool? everybody for tutions please raise thier f*** hands!!

BigV 10-17-2007 02:13 PM

:eek: :headshake

A zombie! Kill it with fire, it's the only way to be sure!

lookout123 10-17-2007 07:45 PM

are you freaking kidding me? this idiot is back? i meant the poster above yours BigV, relax;)

Mystic Rythm 10-18-2007 05:13 AM

oh no. i cant still spell m-o-o-n moon but watever, fools dont die. like a pain in ur ass. muhaha

Mystic Rythm 10-18-2007 05:15 AM

guess wat! i think fool gals r supposed to b a part of every society. mayhap god was a fool to start the fucking creation in the first place! sing halellujah!!

glatt 10-18-2007 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic Rythm (Post 396534)
spell m-o-o-n moon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic Rythm (Post 396535)
mayhap

Somebody has been watching "The Stand."

Cicero 10-18-2007 10:05 AM

M-o-o-n....that spells moron.

I am a "The Stand" fan. I think I like "The Shining" the best of all of King's movies (made for tv and otherwise). I sat through "The Langoliers" in pain recently.....

queequeger 10-18-2007 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 396555)
Somebody has been watching "The Stand."

Watching!?

God that was a crappy miniseries (big surprise a Steven King adaptation being crappy).

rkzenrage 10-19-2007 01:38 AM

Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0
Part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

rkzenrage 10-21-2007 04:55 PM

Pt 11

xoxoxoBruce 10-21-2007 10:22 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Hmmm

monster 10-22-2007 02:35 PM

Blimey -I expected a difference between the UK and US, but not that big!

Sundae 10-22-2007 03:39 PM

I am shamed by the UK's standing!
Blame the people available for surveying I say. Like me they are free during the day...

DanaC 10-22-2007 03:43 PM

Umm why shamed sg?

rkzenrage 10-22-2007 04:02 PM

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=398191#post398191

Sundae 10-22-2007 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 398185)
Umm why shamed sg?

Because we wasn't top o' course ;)

DanaC 10-22-2007 04:51 PM

ahhhh I beg your pardon hon, of course that is shaming.

Happy Monkey 12-01-2008 04:53 PM

It was hard to decide whether to resurrect this thread, or put this in the humor thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Comfort
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved in their pre-human state alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)."


ZenGum 12-01-2008 07:48 PM

:lol2:

I'm too lazy to search, was that posted here?

Happy Monkey 12-01-2008 08:41 PM

No, Roy Comfort is a creationist nutter. That's from his blog ( See the "put this" link).

Happy Monkey 01-14-2009 11:59 AM

Another tossup. This is just the first bit:
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kocsis' letter to the editor
One of the many problems with Darwin's theory of evolution pertaining to mankind is that neither Charles Darwin nor his worshippers take into account extra-terrestrial life.


xoxoxoBruce 01-15-2009 12:34 AM

I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:

Phage0070 01-15-2009 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 522466)
...when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:

And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.

Pie 01-15-2009 03:24 PM

Hey, we're all Martians anyways.:alien2:

Mystic Rythm 01-15-2009 05:15 PM

The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.

Pie 01-15-2009 05:49 PM

Your beliefs are your beliefs; they cannot be tested or validated.
That is both consolation and condemnation.

Phage0070 01-16-2009 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic Rythm (Post 522758)
The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.

We are changing the subject here, since evolutionary science does not mean Darwin is creating animals from scratch in the back room. Your statement does raise some interesting questions though:

You talk about living things having a soul. Can you detect or otherwise prove the existence of a soul? I will go ahead and assume you cannot, feel free to correct me if I am assuming too much.

Given that you cannot prove the existence of a soul, it stands to reason that you could not detect the presence or absence of a soul. So, assuming that science did create a seemingly living animal it would be indistinguishable from that of a truly living animal by your reckoning. In fact, without the ability to observe or detect souls you have no reason to assume that all naturally occurring life has souls. One begins to wonder what could possibly justify such a belief in the first place.

Let's all have a though experiment at this point. The question is "Do I have a soul?" Why or why not?

xoxoxoBruce 01-16-2009 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phage0070 (Post 522474)
And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.

Reread what I said.

Phage0070 01-16-2009 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 523000)
Reread what I said.

Nothing about what you said precludes the possibility of extraterrestrial apes.

xoxoxoBruce 01-17-2009 03:18 AM

I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man, or a fucking ape, from another planet. Happy? :rolleyes:

Sundae 01-17-2009 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 523226)
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man, or a fucking ape, from another planet. Happy? :rolleyes:

What if they were reproducing asexually by splitting themselves in half? The devil's in the details, Bruce.

xoxoxoBruce 01-17-2009 05:45 AM

Who (what) reproduced asexually by splitting themselves in half?
Kocsis says man couldn't have evolved from apes, because that would leave no explanation for spacemen. I can't consider his argument because I've seen no spacemen... don't believe anyone else has either.

But even if someone produces a spaceman, that doesn't prove we didn't evolve from apes, only that spacemen developed somehow, somewhere, and bears investigation.

Happy Monkey 01-17-2009 01:20 PM

Sundae was referencing the post before the spaceman post.

xoxoxoBruce 01-17-2009 02:06 PM

Roy Comfort? I'd already discarded him... completely.

Phage0070 01-18-2009 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 523276)
...But even if someone produces a spaceman, that doesn't prove we didn't evolve from apes, only that spacemen developed somehow, somewhere, and bears investigation.

Exactly, and if that someone can also produce a space-ape then it lends credence to evolution since it apparently happened twice!

xoxoxoBruce 01-18-2009 02:43 AM

Not necessarily. If somebody produces a spaceman, I'd have to reconsider the position of the very few, (read nutters) that have been saying that humans came from other worlds.

If someone produces a spaceman and spacemonkey, that introduces the possibility that;
1- we came from other worlds where we (and the spaceman) evolved from spacemonkeys.
2- we came from other worlds where we [and the spaceman] came about some other way.
3- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman have evolved from spacemonkeys.
4- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman came about some other way.

The spaceman and spacemonkey certainly present a myriad of possible scenarios.

BUT, until the spaceman, with or without spacemonkey, shows up, I'll stick with the preponderance of evidence that man evolved from apes... earth apes.

Which is what I said originally;
Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 522466)
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:


Sundae 01-18-2009 04:46 AM

Funnily enough, there was an advert on this morning for a series of BBC programmes to celebrate the 150th anniversary of The Origin of the Species. It's called The Origin of Genuis. It's just accepted in this country - Darwin was right, end of. And the vast majority of Christians accept it too.

Then again, I suppose we have such a small population compared to America. The tiny percentage of those that reject the concept of evolution means less in terms of numbers.

Anyway, the first programme is called What Darwin Didn't Know. I'll be watching it.

xoxoxoBruce 01-22-2009 03:03 AM

Quote:

Even in Darwin's native Britain, a majority of citizens no longer adheres to the theory of evolution, as a 2006 survey showed. Only 48 percent of Britons claimed to believe in it. More than 40 percent would like to see the Biblical story of creation taught in government-run schools -- and not just in religious studies, but also in biology class. One in four teachers on the government's payroll agree.
LINK

DanaC 01-22-2009 04:13 AM

Not all the 40% who would like to see the biblical story taught in schools actually adhere to that belief. There are a large number of people who accept evolution as the most likely answer, but who think we should teach both theories in school.

I have only met a handful of people over here who dismiss evolution entirely and subscribe to a non-evolutionary creation story. Most people over here either believe in evolution without God or believe in it with God. I would query their overall results. It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.

regular.joe 01-22-2009 05:03 AM

The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.

That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.

God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

xoxoxoBruce 01-22-2009 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 525205)
It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.

I'm having trouble believing that also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regular.joe (Post 525207)
It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

And vice versa.

tw 01-22-2009 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regular.joe (Post 525207)
God either is, or God is not.

Or god is but not as defined in fairy tales (parables) written in a bible. The bible may be how those without basic knowledge (similar to children) grasp a concept too far beyond them. Rather than ask whether god does or does not exist according to their definition, instead, ask what really is god.

When god is personified by human characteristics, then god is simply a false idol. If god has characteristics such as anger and other emotions, then god is only a man – not a god. Clearly, the god defined in a bible is only what naïve children (adults of that time) could comprehend. Time to move on from myths and speculation into, instead, asking what really would be a god. What is defined in the bible is best described as similar to the gods worshipped by the Romans and Greeks – humanized and therefore false idols. Time to ask what a god would really be - which is not what parables in a bible define. But then men were grasping the best they could at that time.

Pie 01-22-2009 08:21 PM

Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.

So, why do we care about god?

Phage0070 01-24-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 525450)
Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.

So, why do we care about god?

People don't care about God, they care about themselves. Think about it; would any religious person you know consider their god to be important if it didn't care about what they did? There is always either a reward or a penalty associated with behavior or mindset, and without any sort of interaction or consequence from belief the god is pointless. The common concept of an acceptable god even rules out non-earthly concerns. God never needs help with something beyond what humans can do, god never gets angry at things beyond human actions.

It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies. It is religion, it never makes any sense.

regular.joe 01-24-2009 12:16 PM

Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."

My point is this, there are many things in religion that do make sense, and yes there are logical inconsistencies. These also exist in the scientific world as we are able to observe it. Using one or the other to discount one or the other is useless.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.