A Case for Theism

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Erm, the point was that I'm not continuing the debate, but I guess I might as well tell you what I know about it, in closing.

Obviously, the idea of evolution is that a life form will experience a variety of genetic mutations as time passes. Given enough time, the process will continue and result in the formations of entirely new varieties of life forms. For instance, fish began to develop mutations in gills etc. until they were able to breathe above land and eventually became lizards.

Thus we are humans that have evolved from primates.

Oversimplification, but the gist of the thing.

[Manco]

However, I'm not conceding the issue by any means, I'm simply "yielding my time" to someone with greater knowledge and experience than myself. I know that I don't have sufficient knowledge to continue; I think that my beliefs are perfectly defensible, but I am not in the line of expertise to do so.

So you keep believing despite being shown wrong? Then what's the point of learning and debating if you'll just shrug it off, convinced someone out there might actually be able to defend your beliefs.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

If my beliefs were disproven, then of course there would be no reason to cling to them like a rat on a sinking ship...

My own points have been shown wrong; my whole point is that I'm not debating any more because I haven't the knowledge to continue.

Can we at least agree that different beliefs are the result of different environments, upbringing, and personal experiences?

So for someone to disagree is not the end of the world...

[black-dragon]

Can we at least agree that different beliefs are the result of different environments, upbringing, and personal experiences?

I love that one. Yes, it's true to a certain extent. But some things are true and some things are false. Personal experience has no bearing on that, unless you think that it was you that created the universe..

You don't, do you?

[AdamWeishaupt]

Personal experience has no bearing on that, unless you think that it was you that created the universe..

You don't, do you?

You can find metaphors for experiences which come said close, so in poetry where a line can contain a whole world.

[black-dragon]

You can find metaphors for experiences which comes said close, so in poetry where a line can contain a whole world.

We're talking about creation vs evolution, not poetry.

[Tom Paine]

Can we at least agree that different beliefs are the result of different environments, upbringing, and personal experiences?

So for someone to disagree is not the end of the world...

Some beliefs are the results of assessment of the facts of a situation.

Some are not.

Some cannot be.

Those beliefs falling into the first cannot, logically, be disagreed with... and in some cases, disagreeing with them can hasten the end of the world.

[jankren]

A Case For Delusion.

[AdamWeishaupt]

A Case For Delusion.

It's more a case for a lettered education.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I meant to respond to this also:

It's more a case for a lettered education.

Although it is a well-turned phrase, (props to you ) I think that it is quite the generalization.

You can think me ignorant in science, if you must (and of course you do because we disagree; this is reasonable), but that hardly makes me ignorant by and large, and I think it is rather inappropriate in ANY debate to suggest that someone's ignorance on a given subject pervades into all other areas. Of course, there are logical limits, such as someone who is convinced that 1+1=4, but you see what I mean.

Actually, I'm not seeing that "proper" education in evolution has much of a relation at all to a good education overall. I.e, "understanding" evolution hardly makes a person inherently knowledeable.

For instance, I'm in 10th Grade and my standardized tests for the last couple years have placed me out of high school.

I'm not saying this to suggest that I am unusually intelligent; rather, I am suggesting that the standards of education are somewhat lax. A few decades ago I would have been average.

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

I'm not saying that this is due to teaching evolution, but it's certainly obvious that accepting evolution hardly makes one intelligent.

In fact, the kids in schools these days would accept whatever the teacher rams down their throats; they couldn't care less what the teacher gabs about all day, as they are more interested in, shall we say, extracurricular activities.

However, I would point out that when you teach kids that they are descendant of apes, this strips away the concept of moral responsibility. After all, they are just glorified apes. Thus, they tend to act accordingly; this results in a very counterproductive attitude and lifestyle.

So is evolution responsible? No; I can't state that. However, I will state that it is unreasonable to suggest that disagreeing with evolution necessarily implies overall incompetence, or that agreeing with evolution implies overall competence. And I will also state that, while evolution is hardly the root cause, it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to help, and probably does contribute to delinquency in students.

Well, I didn't intend for this to be so long, but there it is.

[GuineaPig]

I meant to respond to this also:



Although it is a well-turned phrase, (props to you ) I think that it is quite the generalization.

You can think me ignorant in science, if you must (and of course you do because we disagree; this is reasonable), but that hardly makes me ignorant by and large, and I think it is rather inappropriate in ANY debate to suggest that someone's ignorance on a given subject pervades into all other areas. Of course, there are logical limits, such as someone who is convinced that 1+1=4, but you see what I mean.

Actually, I'm not seeing that "proper" education in evolution has much of a relation at all to a good education overall. I.e, "understanding" evolution hardly makes a person inherently knowledeable.

For instance, I'm in 10th Grade and my standardized tests for the last couple years have placed me out of high school.

I'm not saying this to suggest that I am unusually intelligent; rather, I am suggesting that the standards of education are somewhat lax. A few decades ago I would have been average.

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

I'm not saying that this is due to teaching evolution, but it's certainly obvious that accepting evolution hardly makes one intelligent.

In fact, the kids in schools these days would accept whatever the teacher rams down their throats; they couldn't care less what the teacher gabs about all day, as they are more interested in, shall we say, extracurricular activities.

However, I would point out that when you teach kids that they are descendant of apes, this strips away the concept of moral responsibility. After all, they are just glorified apes. Thus, they tend to act accordingly; this results in a very counterproductive attitude and lifestyle.

So is evolution responsible? No; I can't state that. However, I will state that it is unreasonable to suggest that disagreeing with evolution necessarily implies overall incompetence, or that agreeing with evolution implies overall competence. And I will also state that, while evolution is hardly the root cause, it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to help, and probably does contribute to delinquency in students.

Well, I didn't intend for this to be so long, but there it is.

I would guess that's why atheists tend to have less STIs, divorces, teen pregnancies, and higher IQs. Because they think they're descendant of apes.

I think that your statement on how people who believe they're descendent from apes have no sense of moral sensibility fails as soon as one looks at prison statistics concerning atheists. Besides, I'm of the opinion that knowing I only have one life and need to make the best of it for my friends, family, and the future gives me a greater responsibility than somehow who goes through life knowing that this life is just a pit stop on the way to eternal bliss.


Seriously though, that post would make any statistician jump out the nearest 30 floor building yelling "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!" You might as well be claiming that moral degradation has occurred because the number of mullets has decreased; actually that's a better argument because the data on atheists contradicts what you're saying.

If you think that somehow you're being intellectually independent by rejecting science, I don't know what to say. People think you're ignorant of science, it is because you are; you have consistently failed to show that you grasp even the simplest elements of basic biology. Not to mention that your broad-reaching generalizations of atheism and science in general are often not only incredibly offensive, but incredibly wrong.

[black-dragon]

I meant to respond to this also:



Although it is a well-turned phrase, (props to you ) I think that it is quite the generalization.

You can think me ignorant in science, if you must (and of course you do because we disagree; this is reasonable), but that hardly makes me ignorant by and large, and I think it is rather inappropriate in ANY debate to suggest that someone's ignorance on a given subject pervades into all other areas. Of course, there are logical limits, such as someone who is convinced that 1+1=4, but you see what I mean.

Actually, I'm not seeing that "proper" education in evolution has much of a relation at all to a good education overall. I.e, "understanding" evolution hardly makes a person inherently knowledeable.

For instance, I'm in 10th Grade and my standardized tests for the last couple years have placed me out of high school.

I'm not saying this to suggest that I am unusually intelligent; rather, I am suggesting that the standards of education are somewhat lax. A few decades ago I would have been average.

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

I'm not saying that this is due to teaching evolution, but it's certainly obvious that accepting evolution hardly makes one intelligent.

In fact, the kids in schools these days would accept whatever the teacher rams down their throats; they couldn't care less what the teacher gabs about all day, as they are more interested in, shall we say, extracurricular activities.

However, I would point out that when you teach kids that they are descendant of apes, this strips away the concept of moral responsibility. After all, they are just glorified apes. Thus, they tend to act accordingly; this results in a very counterproductive attitude and lifestyle.

So is evolution responsible? No; I can't state that. However, I will state that it is unreasonable to suggest that disagreeing with evolution necessarily implies overall incompetence, or that agreeing with evolution implies overall competence. And I will also state that, while evolution is hardly the root cause, it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to help, and probably does contribute to delinquency in students.

Well, I didn't intend for this to be so long, but there it is.

You're not ignorant, you just partake in ignorance. A lot. Stop crusading against science, try reading about it instead.

[Phier]

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

In fact, since the moon landings has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

In fact, since Watergate has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

In fact, since computers has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

In fact, since the theory of relativity has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

I have an assignment for you which will be very funny to you in 20 years. I want you to save these posts, in hard copy, and put them in a box in your parents basement labeled 'My thoughts 2009'.

20 years from now, which isn't very long you will find out, you will find them, and you will really enjoy it. I wish I had more of my childhood musings saved.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, a typical form of logical fallacy.

[Copperknickers II]

You can think me ignorant in science, if you must (and of course you do because we disagree; this is reasonable), but that hardly makes me ignorant by and large, and I think it is rather inappropriate in ANY debate to suggest that someone's ignorance on a given subject pervades into all other areas. Of course, there are logical limits, such as someone who is convinced that 1+1=4, but you see what I mean.

Well, you do seem rather convinced that ''Book=Truth'', which is the equivalent in literacy of 1+1=4.

Actually, I'm not seeing that "proper" education in evolution has much of a relation at all to a good education overall. I.e, "understanding" evolution hardly makes a person inherently knowledeable.

Of course it does! The entire universe functions in a certain way. Aspects of biology and physics (the most commonly argued things on this forum, i notice noone tries to deny chemistry) can be seen in social studies such as history, economics and even sport. Understanding the mechanisms by which the world around you works is one of the hallmarks of knowledge. Outright denying it is ignorance indeed.

For instance, I'm in 10th Grade and my standardized tests for the last couple years have placed me out of high school.

I'm not saying this to suggest that I am unusually intelligent; rather, I am suggesting that the standards of education are somewhat lax. A few decades ago I would have been average.

Not lax, but different. Besides, technical skill has nothing to do with knowledge. Einstein was terrible at arithmetic and literacy class.

In fact, since evolution has come into the classroom, teenage delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and STDs have increased dramatically, as well as illiteracy in high school graduates.

Not true at all, many schools in the US do not teach evolution and they have plenty of those.

However, I would point out that when you teach kids that they are descendant of apes, this strips away the concept of moral responsibility.

As you say, they couldn't care less what the teacher is talking about, that has nothing to do with it.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Once again, it seems that if I suggest that something might have to do with something else, I am represented as trying to present this as PROOF!!!

I am not saying by any means that dilenquecy, illiteracy, STDs, etc are derivative of evolution.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, a typical form of logical fallacy.

It is indeed a logical fallacy, when I present those statistics as evidence that evolution must be evil.

What I was saying is rather the reverse, that evolution simply hasn't stopped these things from happening. Thus, accepting or not accepting evolution doesn't necessarily imply brilliance or idiocy, respectively.

I am simply tired of the attitude that I must be mentally incompetent, when anybody can see that I know how to form coherent sentences.

Let's actually look at what I DID say! Won't that be neat?

Most of you have picked up my statements out of context and represented them as EXACTLY what I said I wasn't saying!

I'm not saying that this is due to teaching evolution,

So is evolution responsible? No

So can we dispense with putting words in my mouth?

I will clarify, however, so as not to seem unfair. The point of my post was:

I will state that it is unreasonable to suggest that disagreeing with evolution necessarily implies overall incompetence, or that agreeing with evolution implies overall competence.

If I my post seemed too much to the contrary, then I am saying right here that it was not my intention to do so.

OK? OK.

Thank you!

[Ummon]

Ah, what a sad unproven assertion. More than unproven, dishonest.

[Copperknickers II]

Please go ahead and disprove it then, it will be most interesting.

[Ummon]

I suspect you may be easy to boredom and slow to read, because I usually provide extensive reference for anything I post. Unfortunately, bias clouds even the most well-intentioned mind, doesn't it.

References: like in the past was done with mormonism, and the assertion you mock above is derived from the conclusions reached there.

Of course you may imagine that dispelling (again and again) doubts of the most contorted kind must be a profession for me.

(I see the post was edited)

[Copperknickers II]

I suspect you may be easy to boredom and slow to read, because I usually provide extensive reference for anything I post. Unfortunately, bias clouds even the most well-intentioned mind, doesn't it.

References: like in the past was done with mormonism, and the assertion you mock above is derived from the conclusions reached there.

Of course you may imagine that dispelling (again and again) doubts of the most contorted kind must be a profession for me.

Indeed it is a vibrant profession, though that is primarily because you are its sole practitioner. Perhaps its time to accept defeat?

You do indeed provide extensive references, and i am indeed guilty of skipping over a lot of them, but the fact is that all of those references are strawmen. I have yet to see you make one single direct counterargument.