Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Careful observation, the "critical eye", which fm speaks so fondly of to wande's approval, has shown that protestations of grief increase in direct proportion to the amount of money the protesting person gains from the occasion. ( That's not applicable to children).

Imagine one's father having 20,000 acres, town houses, a pile in the country, a stud farm and an ocean going yacht with the necessary kaboodle which goes with such things and one's three older brothers get killed in a sport's car crash at high speed on the ring-road.

One might have to take acting lessons to prevent one dancing a jig at the funerals. A widowed mother's new husband getting offed would create a decent party I should think even after the acting lessons.

American anthropologists taught me that.

I was dumbfounded. My excuse is that I was only about 22 and my innocence was being assailed in every direction.

0 Replies

is there a relevant point in your novella?

0 Replies

Yes. I was trying to discover how critical your "critical eye" is on a scale of 1 to 10 say.

You raised the matter of the "critical eye" and not me.

Your response there suggests that you need an eye test.

I was saying that outward appearences do not represent reality in bourgeois social contexts (Sex for short). And that your side expect us to take it's outward appearences as representing reality whilst at the same time denying anyone's else right to do the same. You want us to watch your movies and read your books and to forget about that seething mass of psuedo-scientists, an odd scientist thrown in as Big Mon, and their lackeys and lickspittles and agents and publishers, who produce them, and the gigs, which is the human reality underneath the veneer of gobbledygook, which flatters people into thinking they are scientific, and thus superior, obviously, and provides them with arguments with which to attack those who say they are sinning.

That's relevant to the discussion I think.

It does not deny the useful functions of Science but it also does not deny the useful functions of Religion. It is foolish to do either.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

55% say there was no god but evolution alone.
at least 4 in 10 say there was evolution but god may have guided it.

That would mean that at least 95% think that evolution exists and is the reason for humans existence. Let me repeat that for you in big letters.

95% of the respondents think humans evolved.

That's right.

And that is exactly what I said when I first referred to the survey, (but you only selectively quoted):

real life wrote:
Surveys of scientists find that a fairly large percentage state that natural processes alone are NOT sufficient to account for the universe as we see it and for the complex life forms that we see all around us.

Many of them are theistic evolutionists[/u], or in some cases they are deists, as Deist TKO seems to be. But they are not hyper-naturalists or atheists.
(emphasis added for clarity, knowing that it will nonetheless be ignored)

Your first statement is NOT supported. Just because they are "evolutionists" does NOT mean that a large % of them think what you claimed about the universe or complex life forms. The question was ONLY about how humans came into existence. It had NOTHING to do with the universe of complex beings other than humans. You can weasel and try to wiggle all you want real life. Your statement is not supported and is an attempt to make it mean something it isn't.

You then repeat the same tactic when you attempted to claim that Potts is clearly talking about the 55%. Potts is talking about the 95% when he states "Most anthropologists would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side." In the case of the 55% there is no line to be drawn towards since it is there. It is the 40% that would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side even though they believe god may have directed evolution.

Now, could you please provide us with your evidence to support this statement.

Quote:

Surveys of scientists find that a fairly large percentage state that natural processes alone are NOT sufficient to account for the universe as we see it and for the complex life forms that we see all around us.

Or are you arguing that humans are the "universe?"

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

Or are you arguing that humans are the "universe?"

There's no arguing to be done. It's obvious. Ask fresco.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It is the 40% that would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side even though they believe god may have directed evolution.

If 40% of scientists believe God guided evolution, then they are NOT saying there is a naturalistic explanation.

Inserting God into the equation means it was 'supernatural', correct?

0 Replies

What's all the hoopla about?
Evolution is OVER!
It's now extinct!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
It is the 40% that would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side even though they believe god may have directed evolution.

If 40% of scientists believe God guided evolution, then they are NOT saying there is a naturalistic explanation.

Inserting God into the equation means it was 'supernatural', correct?

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

But you still haven't explained how humans are the "universe" which was your original claim.

0 Replies

FreeIndeed, a username signifying complete idiocy, wrote-

Quote:

Evolution is OVER!
It's now extinct!

Do you mean that the pub won't be open tomorrow night. Evolution takes place in there at a similar speed that it took place in the X years it has always been doing.

I sincerely hope you are talking out of your anal sphincter.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It is the 40% that would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side even though they believe god may have directed evolution.

If 40% of scientists believe God guided evolution, then they are NOT saying there is a naturalistic explanation.

Inserting God into the equation means it was 'supernatural', correct?

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

But you still haven't explained how humans are the "universe" which was your original claim.

If God intervenes in the 'universe' , such as guiding the process of evolution, it is 'supernatural', by definition.

0 Replies

But since there is no evidence that a Deity did guide evolution we have to accept that it was an all natural process without any outside aid.

Give us evidence that a God did guide evolution. If you can't then we can't assume it so based on the Bible. The Bible has already shown itself to be totally ignorant of even the most basic of science. Obviously it was not written by anyone with any knowledge of science.

So I guess that leaves your omniscient God out of the picture.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

But since there is no evidence that a Deity did guide evolution we have to accept that it was an all natural process without any outside aid.

Give us evidence that a God did guide evolution.

The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

They have access to the same evidence you do, and conclude that the evidence does NOT support the hyper-naturalism that you insist upon.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If God intervenes in the 'universe' , such as guiding the process of evolution, it is 'supernatural', by definition.

Thanks for refuting all your arguments about "natural laws." Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

If God intervenes in the 'universe' , such as guiding the process of evolution, it is 'supernatural', by definition.

Thanks for refuting all your arguments about "natural laws."

You do realize that I am not saying that God guided a process of evolution, don't you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

If God intervenes in the 'universe' , such as guiding the process of evolution, it is 'supernatural', by definition.

Thanks for refuting all your arguments about "natural laws."

You do realize that I am not saying that God guided a process of evolution, don't you?

Of course I do..

You just agree with the 40% that said he did.

0 Replies

real life said... Quote.
The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

Un quote.

Can you tell us if the scientific one's not accepting the ussumption are religiose.. if so, they would be biased I would think.

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:

real life said... Quote.
The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

Un quote.

Can you tell us if the scientific one's not accepting the ussumption are religiose.. if so, they would be biased I would think.

Can you name somebody who doesn't have a bias?

I think we all tend to interpret the world thru the lens of our own beliefs.

I am quite upfront about it, as are most Christians that I know.

The thing I notice about many atheists is that they think they have no bias.

That is why I made a point of saying that it is an ASSUMPTION that 'everything MUST have a natural cause'. It's not something that has been or can be proven.

But, many hyper-naturalists assume it and expect others to do the same. That's a bias, and unless those can recognize their own bias, they will continue to treat assumption as fact.

0 Replies

I have a strong bias for facts. I'm just crazy like that. I know it seems unfair.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I have a strong bias for facts...

Hi Deist:

I think the point that RL is making indicates that you (and everyone else) actually has a strong bias for biased facts.

0 Replies

I can't believe that "real life" is trotting out the 40% horseshit once again, and you folks are letting him get away with it. The survey to which he refers which turned up the 40% result (TCR will love this) was a self-selected sample of the subscribers to the magazine Nature. The definition of scientist included dieticians and sanitary engineers.

He hauls this sh*t out every once in a while, dusts it off, and away you guys go arguing this crapola with him. This isn't beating a dead horse, this is "real life" whipping up his Frankenstein horse, and you guys chasing after him.

Surveys which ask "scientists" if they believe in a god who created the cosmos do not reveal their attitudes toward evolution, because evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins. It is entirely reasonable to both believe in a theistic creation of the cosmos and in the process of evolution. Surveys which ask "scientists" what they believe about anything, without providing benchmarks for credentials don't tell us anything other than the desire of those conducting the survey to attract attention to themselves. Surveys which ask anyone willing to respond to the survey what they believe about a scientific topic do nothing to enlighten us as to the point of view of the community whose specialized education, training and professional life experience is grounded in the relevant science.

Have fun, boys.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know