Coming up next, the shooting fish in a barrel contest. Should be .. a lock.

(June 10, 2015 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: I have the luxury of changing my mind as new evidence come to light without turning my worldview on its head. An atheist does not. 

Are you for fucking real? Tailoring your conclusions to new evidence is the definition of a scientific understanding. If somehow there were convincing evidence that pointed to the theory of evolution being false, then science would stop purporting the theory of evolution. Hell, you'd win a damn Nobel prize for that kind of evidence. And I have no idea why the fuck you're conflating evolution with atheism, since neither has anything to do with the other, and there are millions of Christians that accept evolution as both a "fact" and a theory.

(June 10, 2015 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: My options range all the way from yours to God did it all in 6 days and everything in between. Like I said before, time will tell which of these options will be removed from the table. I have the luxury of changing my mind as new evidence come to light without turning my worldview on its head. An atheist does not. 

And I have no problems with christians who don't deny science. I said it before, the literalists are the objects of my contempt. As far as I saw it for a very long time, evolution doesn't exclude a deity. It just renders the in his image account and the absurd mud golem story unbelievable.

I'm still agnostic, meaning that I can neither prove a positive nor a negative. It's only that I absolutely don't believe in the bible. For various reasons. Known history being one of them and one of the others being that I'm absolutely certain that we as humans share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. DNA analysis as well as now useless remnants in our bodies make one of the strongest cases possible.

(June 10, 2015 at 11:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: I have the luxury of changing my mind as new evidence come to light without turning my worldview on its head. An atheist does not. 

Are you for fucking real?  Tailoring your conclusions to new evidence is the definition of a scientific understanding.  If somehow there were convincing evidence that pointed to the theory of evolution being false, then science would stop purporting the theory of evolution.  Hell, you'd win a damn Nobel prize for that kind of evidence.  And I have no idea why the fuck you're conflating evolution with atheism, since neither has anything to do with the other, and there are millions of Christians that accept evolution as both a "fact" and a theory.

But you already said that evolution was fact so you can't possibly think it possible to change your position. Also, if evolution moves from "fact" to false, what might an atheists' position be as to how we got to life as we know it--without changing your worldview on its head. BTW, I did not conflate evolution with atheism, I said it would turn your worldview on its head. 

(June 10, 2015 at 11:40 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 11:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Are you for fucking real?  Tailoring your conclusions to new evidence is the definition of a scientific understanding.  If somehow there were convincing evidence that pointed to the theory of evolution being false, then science would stop purporting the theory of evolution.  Hell, you'd win a damn Nobel prize for that kind of evidence.  And I have no idea why the fuck you're conflating evolution with atheism, since neither has anything to do with the other, and there are millions of Christians that accept evolution as both a "fact" and a theory.

But you already said that evolution was fact so you can't possibly think it possible to change your position. Also, if evolution moves from "fact" to false, what might an atheists' position be as to how we got to life as we know it--without changing your worldview on its head. BTW, I did not conflate evolution with atheism, I said it would turn your worldview on its head. 

Good christ you're dishonest. I made it painfully clear that science doesn't deal in absolute assertions of truth. I only used the word "fact" because you were so insistent on its use. It's the best model we currently have that is supported by mountains of evidence. If you want to deem that a "fact" that's your problem. If evidence emerged that disproved evolution then we would stop purporting evolution. How is it that hard to understand you black-hole dense asshat.

And, if you hadn't already gathered on your repeated splatters of shit against the wall, there IS no "atheist position" on anything besides "do you believe in god". There is no atheist science or atheist theories any more than there is muslim algebra or hindu gravity.

(June 10, 2015 at 11:44 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: It's the best model we currently have that is supported by mountains of evidence.

And it stands pretty much unchanged for 150 years. Modern science only added to it, but never found any loopholes in Darwin's original claim.

(June 10, 2015 at 11:49 am)abaris Wrote: Modern science only added to it, but never found any loopholes in Darwin's original claim.

And if it did, we'd change our conclusions to fit the new evidence.

(June 10, 2015 at 8:27 am)SteveII Wrote: Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory.

See, this is exactly what I mean: you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of biological life, taking into account the genetic mutations that occur at every stage of replication; common ancestry is an inference made due to numerous observations of how our genes work, and how genetics and phylogeny recapitulate in every case. Does all life descend from a common ancestor? Yes, as far as we can tell, since all of the evidence points to this. We may not know for certain, but on the balance of probability, all of what we currently know points to this.

Quote:I am suggesting that we label fact as fact and theory theory. They both have clear definitions and it shouldn't be too hard to categorize them.

Yes, those terms do have clear definitions, one of which you have gotten exactly wrong, here. What were you saying, about your religion not being anti-science? Perhaps you were going to tell us how a practitioner of your religion would never misunderstand basic scientific terminology that one with a clear grounding in science learns before beginning anything else?

Quote:Related to that, I do object to the teaching in many/most grade/high school science classroom that life sprang from non-life. There is no evidence of that.

Yes, there is: Miller-Yurey experiments, Joan Oro's experiments... it's not perfect, but at least we can demonstrate that it's theoretically possible. And you're talking about abiogenesis now, not evolution.

Does it bother you that every concept you've talked about so far has been completely misinformed, yet your overarching argument is that your religion doesn't impede your understanding of science?

Quote:Regarding teaching students untrue things. I could have been clearer. Teaching that some Christians proposes ABC (Genesis literalist), and such and such religion proposes XYZ is not teaching untrue things.

However, that's also something that kids already kinda know? Putting that in the science classroom just gives it an unearned air of credibility; leave it in religious study, where it belongs.

Quote:It does not follow that a stance against parts of evolutionary theory = anti-science. 

You just used "it's just a theory!" and you're protesting a label of anti-science. Tell me, did you do any research at all into the scientific usage of theories, or the state of modern evolutionary theory, before you decided all this?

(June 10, 2015 at 11:44 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 11:40 am)SteveII Wrote: But you already said that evolution was fact so you can't possibly think it possible to change your position. Also, if evolution moves from "fact" to false, what might an atheists' position be as to how we got to life as we know it--without changing your worldview on its head. BTW, I did not conflate evolution with atheism, I said it would turn your worldview on its head. 

Good christ you're dishonest.  I made it painfully clear that science doesn't deal in absolute assertions of truth.  I only used the word fact because you were so insistent on its use.  It's the best model we currently have that is supported by mountains of evidence.  If you want to deem that a "fact" that's your problem.  If evidence emerged that disproved evolution then we would stop purporting evolution.  How is it that hard to understand you black-hole dense asshat.

And, if you hadn't already gathered on your repeated splatters of shit against the wall, there IS no "atheist position" on anything besides "do you believe in god".  There is no atheist science or atheist theories any more than there is muslim algebra or hindu gravity.

I remembered incorrectly, that was someone else who used the word fact. I'm sorry. You atheists all look alike. 

Point taken on the use of the word atheist.

My point I was making is that evolution is not evidence against Christianity. It seems, however, crucial that evolution be true to attack Christianity. 

(June 10, 2015 at 12:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: My point I was making is that evolution is not evidence against Christianity.

No, but it is evidence that christianity is not required. The complete lack of evidence for, and the impossibility of many of the claims in, the christian narrative, is the evidence against christianity.

Quote:It seems, however, crucial that evolution be true to attack Christianity. 

Nope. We don't need an alternative to point out that your claim is untrue; it just so happens that we have an alternative to large swathes of the creation narrative that is supported by all the facts.