Area54

I do not know if I capture accurately the views of other members, but these are the problems I have with the second of those statements. If we are talking Christianity, which I understand we are, then you have to distinguish between Old and New Testament. I have forgotten the correct terminology, but basically the birth of Christ alters the ground rules. Christ basically teaches forgiveness and a fair amount of pacifism. In continually pointing to something from the OT that has been superceded you are fighting a strawman. Now what is very definitely a personal view, but I believe it is one that is well supported: politicians, tyrants, etc have often used religion to achieve their goals. In these circumstances religion and their followers are victims just as those they may be "told to kill". Humans will use any excuse to fight each other. Religion is so often just that - a convenient excuce. That's a fault of humans, not of religion. But you argued that the root cause was religion, but failed to demonstrate that. Your nonsense in this thread has upset me. That's proof that smart people talking crap can annoy other smart peopke who aren't. More to the point, you are seeking to place virtually all the blame on religion and give it virtually none of the credit. That is what I - and I think others - are objecting to. What bits of that were refuted?

The irony is that you have been saying the same thing, even although multiple members have refuted/destroyed/countered your arguments/evidence/assertions.

Just to expand on Strange's point - why are there any religions, including whichever one you follow? The reasons for the existence of any religion (and the reasons there are so many of them) are complex. However, I know of no characteristic that would validate any particular religion as the "correct" one. If you wish to continue with the arrogance and self righteousness of your view of the followers of those other religions, then you might wish to consider that your motivations are probably a sin in your own religion.

I'm a little confused. What are those big, tall pointy things with leaves in your picture. Or in this one, from wikipedia?

I don't see any assumptions in Moontanman's post. Where do you think they are? Nowhere does Moontanman claim that atmospheric oxygen played any role in determining dinosaur size. Indeed, his post was a direct effort to clarify that he was not claiming that. When do you plan to acknowledge and respond to my post from Monday? As it stands you are left defending a silly position. It would be nice for you to acknowledge that so we can get on to matters of substance.

Which doesn't contradict the assertion that the Greeks invented the word, unless you are suggesting the word was imported from another language.

Accretion discs?

Not the same at all. There was good reason to suspect what you meant was what I saw as a possibility. There is no good reason to consider that I was talking of pigeons and porcine product. I included the "appears" as a courtesy to you. If you prefer, I can avoid courtesy in future posts.

I have to disagree very strongly here. As I noted earlier, science employs methodological naturalism. i.e. the supernatural is excluded, not because its existence is denied, but because its existence is considered unsuitable for scientific investigation. The first scientists did not work under this "constraint". The knowledge gathered by naturalists, most/many of them churchmen, that provided the foundation for Darwin and Wallace was done to explore and glorify the creation of God. Darwin set out on the Beagle with the same attitude. I have no objection to the current arrangement, but Mike is correct that it is the current arrangement. If you cannot see the illogic of that, I don't know what to say. There are valuable arguments that can be made for following one or other religion that are not based on choosing a nice philosophy just because it makes you feel good. Your position is no different than if I were to think I shall live to be at least one hundred and fifty when I shall emigrate to Mars, simply because this is what I should like to do! It's just silly. (My unedited post contained many expletives at this point.) Michael Angelo did not portray this concept just because he liked it. He portrayed it because he had been raised in an environment in which the concept was largely unquestioned, in which the sophisticated arguments of scholars supported the concept and in which his own contemplation provided insights and revelations that went far beyond simply liking the idea. Moreover, we have the interesting similarity of the figure of God and his immediate background to the structure of the human brain. Was Michael Angelo making a subtle declaration on a ceiling at the heart of Christianity that he thought God was the product of the human mind?

Could you expand on what you mean by daring? In the sense that it would test a hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong? In the sense that it would raise hackles in the related field(s) of science? In that it would place one in personal, physical or mental danger? In some other way?

Pertinent observations.

No. Science currently employs methodological naturalism. In your words that mean that if we cannot currently stick a probe in it and measure it then it is not suitable for scientific investigation. I agree that we have encountered some things one might describe as unpredictable, contrary to Strange's position. I'd be interested to know what examples you consider fit the bill. How do I not know David Icke's claim the Royal Family is a group of alien lizards is true? How do I not know that a conspiracy of powerful people has prevented me taking my rightful place as a world leader How do I not know that there are not creatures that look like inflated cabbages living in the clouds of Venus? How do I not know that the world was created in the last five minutes, with all previous memories artificially created? In each instance, including yours, I do not know, but if I consider likelihood there is essentially no evidence for believing any of those things. I don't rule any of them out, but I certainly don't give them space on my mantelshelf. You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

I agree. My own remarks about "perpetual motion" were, it seems, more a reflection of my own ignorance and reading comprehension than any stemming from Abnormally Honest.

Nicely put.

Hi quirky88, it's not clear to me why you can't purchase the balls and the system from the existing company. You say it is already being done, which implies that they have the balls in production. It is probable that purchasing a tried and tested solution would be less expensive - and quicker - than trying to develop a new one.

Which is often code for "wild assed guess".

I read it, perhaps incorrectly, as a variant of the perpetual question about perpetual motion.

Many processes are subdivided depending upon scale. It can be a useful distinction. Melanism in peppered moths is on a different scale from the emergence of a new genus. I'm afraid your second observation has lost me. Obviously conception is simply the continuation of life, not its beginning and equally sperm, ovum and zygote are all alive, so I don't see where you are heading with that even as an issue separate from evolution. I did not say that creationists do not abuse the concept, I simply observed that they had not invented it.

I lurked in this and other forums for some time before participating. I noticed, on several occassions, posters making the claim that microevolution and macroevolution Were meaningless terms Were avoided by professional biologists Were introduced by creationists to enable them to explain away observed adaptation, but reject evolution of species I view each of these positions as flawed (seriously flawed), but wonder if any members incline to agree with any or all of them, and if so, why?

Nice finds from both of you. I especially like the second one, on account of the minor parts played by humans and goldfish.

Humans need heroes. In their absence we shall create them.

Seriously? Mike, the assertion that God is aware of the fall of a single sparrow is an assertion made by man. It is hardly surprising that it reflects the same sentiments you feel towards your goldfish. It is not evidence for the divine. It is evidence for the like thinking of men over two millenia. As a side note, if this benign God is only checking in on us once a day he isn't doing his job right.

Point 1: I said you appeared to assert that. I left an element of doubt. Point 2: Your central thesis has been that religion is "bad". The irrational beliefs is one example of this. The opposition to vaccination is a consequence of these irrational beliefs. You have used this and other examples to support your contention that religion is bad. You present a one-sided view. Point 3: I cite examples of the good work done by religious groups in delivering aid in third world countries. At the same time I acknowledge, for example, the child abuse by a subset of priests. I hold a more balanced view. Point 4: Making that point is not attacking a strawman it is dismantling your central thesis.

I am not prepared to invest the time in confirming this, but my education leads me to believe that a singnificant proportion of the first vaccination programs in Africa were promoted, supported, facilitated or delivered by missionaries and church groups. Now, I am not going to deduce from this that all religious are logical and committed to such programs, but I don't think you are standing on solid ground when you appear to assert the opposite.

Should that be Britons?