41–50 of 172 posts
None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?
You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.
Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but not why.
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?
My favorite one is: Evolution and Creationism should be given equal time in education. Not even the Catholic Church thinks Creationism should be taught (I'm Catholic if it matters) in school as science. From Wikipedia: Here is viewpoint of the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to…
I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).
Yeah, but if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys ? I bet you can't answer me that. (cough)
For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but…
I don't like this outlook because it's too close to "ignorance is bliss" theme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philo…
if they're willing to ignore huge swaths of divine text what makes the existential statements special? if someone made a list of statements, most of which were false but some of which were unverifiable why would anyone accept, as truth, the unverified claims? if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it.
If they did mean scientists who take all of scripture literally, then no I don't actually know any of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.
I was just thinking this when I read your comment. It is probably the largest thing that is holding me to my faith in an a God. Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but not why.
For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philo…
That said, I've seen these sophisticated theists' faces when they walk into a local church (London E17) and realise that the congregation is basically one step up from the Pentecostals and sincerely believe that good things happen to good people, if bad things happen to you then you must be a bad person, and the world is probably 6,000 years old and flat, and that these are actually the people Dawkins was talking about in The God Delusion. I successfully refrained from smirking, 'cos I didn't want to be rude.