WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

I do not see what here seems to me to there be your "mutual-exclusivity" -- either, or, or -- but I can certainly respect the efforts you have made to draw your considered conclusions!

There are more possibilities certainly, e.g. evolution can be true AND God can be a malicious prankster, or there is a God but the Bible is false. I presented what to me are the most likely alternatives, but do not claim they are the only ones. More "out there" is the possibility that there is a huge conspiracy involving many thousands of scientists over the past one hundred fifty years to falsify data to make it look like evolution happens. But then, basically all we know of science would be false, and I don't see how any of the practical applications of science could work. Maybe they are actually run by evil satanic magick. Who knows how many virgins must be sacrificed for airplanes to fly, for example?

And again, I could be a butterfly dreaming I'm a man, or a human body in a vat acting as a power supply for evil computers. While I don't completely dismiss these as possibilities, to accept them as answers isn't very practical. I make my decisions based on what I know at the time I make them, on the very basic assumption that life is real and I do exist. On the other hand, things are not always as they appear to be, at least not to the naked eye. That matter is dancing energy and mostly empty space, that mass bends space and time, etc. are not things that are readily apparent to our senses. But we have built instruments that can make measurements so we can perceive these qualities of nature, and whether or not they make sense to us, if there are consistent results obtained and those results can be used to make accurate predictions about reality, then there might, just might, be something to them.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 30 Apr 2011, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Bible is a Book of Tales told by bronze age dudes to take their mind off the fact they had not invented air conditioning.

ruveyn

I learned long ago that I could never get the answers I want by studying history or science. Both of these have built-in limitations. History is biased and is limited to using language to communicate ideas, and that has many flaws in itself. In 1989 I wrote a song about that called What Can I Say? that has some of my better lyrics.

Science, as I have pointed out more than once in this very thread, is limited to what we can observe and measure. I think it is presumptuous to assume that human beings have found every possible force acting in the universe. Even after the Wright Brothers flew, there were people still arguing that it was impossible for man to fly. These mistaken views represent not understanding what science is and how it works, and putting more faith into science than is warranted, in my opinion. I personally believe there is much more to reality than what we can currently observe and measure directly.

It has even been proposed by some that the "random" error in data spreads from some types of measurements are not "random" at all, but possibly due to the influence of factors we don't know anything about yet and which therefore cannot be factored into the equations.

I will never say that something I "believe" is 100% truth. There are factors outside of myself that I have absolutely no concept or perception of. And even if there isn't, I have no undeniable proof of that, so I have to be open to the possibility. This is when I add in words like "fairly".
When I discuss "logic" or "reason", I assume that this would be universally understood as being "my opinion" because logic and reason are unique and individual to the brain that conceptualizes or identifies with that line of thought. I would never assume that because I find something logical that everyone else will agree with me. That's not how our brains or opinions work.

I do not always point out why I am using specific words (as I did in the quoted statement) because to me, I know exactly why I add or pick the words I use, and forget that others might have a different definition or might not even notice that I included the word. I try to carefully consider my words and often consult the "official" definition before using it, as I want to make sure that I am definitely saying what I mean. I try to never say someone is wrong. Yes, sometimes I get irritated by a person's line of attack and become rudely blunt because I get the distinct impression that because I am using these ambiguous terms people are not getting a clear concept of what I am thinking.

I enjoy WP because I do not get to have these discussions IRL and though I may not agree with everyone on everything, I want to understand what others believe, because I do contemplate it... and my beliefs are fluid and adaptable. I might get lucky and find someone who challenges my theory in a way that causes me to reconsider my stance on an issue.

I hope this helps you to further understand me and where I come from.

Ah, if I could only just somehow maybe someday eventually at least almost help at least you or anyone else possibly begin to see past that silly "malicious prankster" stuff ...

Last edited by leejosepho on 30 Apr 2011, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Abso-flippin'-lutely!

Well IF the fundamentalist Biblical literalist interpretation IS the only correct one, and the God of the Bible has planted so much physical evidence of so many different types that clearly falsifies that style of interpretation, and no evidence that supports it, then what else could He be but a prankster? And if we are misled by all this evidence, using the senses and reason He gave us, to end up in eternal torment as a result of our honestly being mistaken when our only motive is an honest search for truth (not to disrespect or disobey God), that would make him not just a prankster but a malicious one.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 30 Apr 2011, 5:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.

WHAT Evidence?

Check some of my earlier posts in this thread. In more than one post, I gave numerous examples not only of the scientific evidence that supports evolution, but also specific examples of the lies and distortions used by creationists to argue against the fact of evolution.

I don't want to repeat myself, but will give just a few of the strongest examples of evidence to humor you:

Nested hierarchies of many different types of data all produce the same tree of life predicted and explained by evolution

Genetic evidence, such as human chromosome 2 showing many clear signs of being two ape chromosomes fused together end to end. Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same locations in different species' DNA also show the relationships predicted and explained by evolution.

The fossil record shows a clear progression and diversification of life over time, including many THOUSANDS of transitional forms found in the sequence predicted and explained by evolution.

A few of the more spectacular examples of transitional forms include Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Australopithecus afarensis.

Even if there were NO fossils at all, there is sufficient evidence of other types to show way beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution happens.

If the principles upon which radiometric dating are based were bogus as creationists claim, then nuclear power plants wouldn't work.

Observations of many different types of data from all branches of science all point to the same reality, that the earth is billions of years old and man shares common ancestry with other living creatures.

If you want more, it is easy to find information on the internet. Of course there's a lot of junk science and non-science (notice how closely that sounds like nonsense?) out there. I recommend the Talk Origins web site and if you have questions, the Talk Origins discussion group. Creationist sites such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research are full of lies and distortions, but you don't have to take my word for it. One doesn't have to look very hard to find evidence they are spreading lies.

Quote mining is one example. When a creationist web site quotes a scientist allegedly claiming problems with evolution, check it in the context of the original. Odds are nearly certain you will find that the scientist is either arguing about the details of the mechanisms of evolution (in other words, debating how it happens but not denying that it does happen), or sometimes it is clear that the scientist means the exact opposite of what the creationists claim he is saying.

The star of intelligent design, Michael Behe, has shamed the university he works at to the extent that they haven't fired him but they have published a statement saying he does not represent the views of the university. This guy, the author of Darwin's Black Box and other works that are propaganda for intelligent design advocates, admits in one of his more recent books (The Edge of Evolution) that it is undoubtedly true that man shares common ancestry with the chimpanzee. However, he claims even though that is a fact, it is "trivial."

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 01 May 2011, 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ah, please forgive me there. I had wrongly assumed -- ass-u-me -- your thought of "malicious prankster" was across-the-board rather than in relation to the typically-silly "fundamentalist Biblical literalist interpretation" of certain stuff found in Scripture.

Oh, sorry ... I was being sarcastic in reference to the idea that there is any physical evidence to prove the existance of God and the veracity of the Bible. I didn't mean to put you through all of that effort again.

Good point-by-point summation, though!

What if my grandmother had testicles? Would she be my grandfather?

ruveyn

Only if she had been on top.

For some reason, that reminds me of

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw[/youtube]

only if your grandfather had a uterus.