By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Religious Children Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

MoHasanie on 31 August 2014

Not surprising. I too had this problem when I was younger.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
papamudd on 01 September 2014
Soriku said:

You consider evolution a fairy tale because you haven't done your research. I'm guessing you deny it because it conflicts with your religion and nothing more. We have observed evolution first hand in bacteria and fruit flies since they have short generational spans, if you really want modern day evidence.

 

genetic mutation is not evidence in and of itself of evolution at all. Neither is natural selection for that matter. These are the things that would be major factors in understanding evolution and how it works. However, they do not prove evolution at all as these experiments have never produced a change in kinds, nor has such a thing actually been observed ever. Such arguements are what lead me to believe evolution is more of a faith based view rather than scientific theory. Too often do people seek to use whatever actual scientific observations and findings and apply them to evolution as proof when that is simply not the case. It is grasping at straws for validation and making huge leaps of faith to put these things together.



Talal said:
I will permaban myself if the game releases in 2014.

in reference to KH3 release date

Aura7541 on 01 September 2014
Soriku said:

Many things that were attributed to god in the past we have explanations for today. It's not impossible for the universe to have been created by a god (though once you start getting into specific gods, you're showing certain unobjective biases) but you still need evidence for a claim like that.

Nobody treats evolution like a religion. It's flaunted because it's a legitimate explanation, a fact, and paints quite a different story from the origin of humans in the Bible or whatever.

You consider evolution a fairy tale because you haven't done your research. I'm guessing you deny it because it conflicts with your religion and nothing more. We have observed evolution first hand in bacteria and fruit flies since they have short generational spans, if you really want modern day evidence.

What you say about peer review makes no sense. If evolution was a mere fairy tale as you claim, many scientists would've trashed the theory long ago. Things don't become scientific theories without an overall consensus. Not have it be of great importance 150+ years since it was discovered. If anything, peer review validates it.

Seriously, why do so many people have problems with evolution? It's a very well supported theory that contains piles and piles of peer reviewed papers that support it.

It's great that organisms like fruit flies, bacteria, and mice have short generation spans. Because of that, the probability of genetic mutations or DNA replication/meiotic "mistakes" happen more frequently. That way, we are able to directly observe how they evolve through natural selection and how some mutations are passed on because of their benefits.



DarkWraith on 01 September 2014
padib said:

I have done my research and have even read the articles on the bacteria. I don't remember the exact details anymore but I do remember reading a variety of articles linked to me by staunch atheists and I was not convinced at all.

My mention of one God is not an unobjective bias, it is what I believe to make the most sense as compared to a variety of deities, as one God would be self-fulfilled, not needing to be produced like a variety of Gods would.



There are several issues with some of your posts.

1. In order to posit god as an explanation, you must first demonstrate that god actually exists. Otherwise you could posit invisible sock-stealing leprechauns as a solution to your missing socks.

2. Denial of evolution at this point is, well, delusional. And what I mean by that is that it is in stark contrast to the evidence...

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming." -- Francis Collins, the only NAS scientist who believes in god.

3. Even if evolution were false, this does not provide any evidence for god. It's not a dichotomy here, you've produced a false dichotomy fallacy by claiming this is how it works. If it works like this is your mind, your mind is wrong because it does not adhere to logic.

4. Appearance of design is not equivalent to actual design. Design necessitates intentionality.

5. Design (cont.) is really a worthless argument in general. All teleological arguments are basically flipping a coin and calling heads and tails, covering both sides. Unsure of the lecturer who said this (some maths field about estimations, using a chocolate bar) but he exposed this well.

Scenario 1: Universe replete with life.
Teleologist: Ah, look how finely-tuned the Universe is for life! Clearly, there is design here.

Scenario 2: Our Universe, life only confirmed on one planet.
Teleologist: Ah, look how finely-tuned the Universe is to support life on this one planet. Clearly, there is design here.

As you can see, it's a very dubious process.

6. Universe out of nothing.

This is really a misunderstanding of science, namely things like the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theory wherein we can only move backward to a specific point (in classical physics). No scientist is actually putting for the idea that the Universe sprang forth from a literal nothing. That's what religion necessitates though. A creatio ex nihilo (religion), rather than a creatio ex materia (science).

So, you've actually just denied what you have to believe as a religious person.

*I think I covered everything. Next time do more thinking about the structure of your arguments, ensuring the premises lead to the conclusions you think they do.

whatever on 01 September 2014
Rawrerer said:
Schreckofant said:
 
Rawrerer said:

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.

It is a fact, seriously? So, how did this "God" start to exist than, when it is, according to you, improbable that the Big Bang took place? And how did he "manipulate physics" if, according to you, there is no physical matter? How can he "manipulate" (let's just call ir create) nothing into something, when you actually say that this is not possible?

He just appeared one day I assume? Yeah, definitely sounds more probable. But keep throwing in your scientific and philosophical phrasing                                                                           

 

 God is defined as omnipotent and always was. The theory of a creator cannot be proved or disproved because we live in a finite universe. The theory of God defines him outside our universe.

We know the universe is finite because of the evidence for the big bang.

Sorry, but you can't make this argument and expect to be taken seriously.



Around the Network
whatever on 01 September 2014
padib said:
whatever said:

Sorry, but you can't make this argument and expect to be taken seriously.

Why can't he? You can't explain the origin of the universe. Do you pretend to?

No, I don't.  And I don't say things like "my explanation is outside the borders of comprehension and can't be disproven, so it is more likely to be true"



Aura7541 on 01 September 2014
whatever said:
padib said:
whatever said:

Sorry, but you can't make this argument and expect to be taken seriously.

Why can't he? You can't explain the origin of the universe. Do you pretend to?

No, I don't.  And I don't say things like "my explanation is outside the borders of comprehension and can't be disproven, so it is more likely to be true"

Exactly. I can say an omnipotent pink unicorn started the universe and use that exact excuse. No one can disprove that a pink unicorn started the universe, but does that make it any more true? No.

The huge issue here is that what started the universe is outside the realms of time and space. Because there's no time and space, there is no such thing as cause and effect. This is where the concept of "God began everything" becomes problematic because that is a cause. However, where the universe came from is a realm where there is no such thing as causality.



whatever on 01 September 2014
padib said:
whatever said:

No, I don't.  And I don't say things like "my explanation is outside the borders of comprehension and can't be disproven, so it is more likely to be true"

I think what he's trying to say is that if God were real, we wouldn't be able to prove his existence, he would have to reveal himself, since we see things in the order of our universe. He isn't confined by the laws of our universe, if origins were the reason to believe in his existence.

I'm not sure I completely agree but I think it's a fair stance.

It still doesn't explain his existence.  To say he is omnipotent and always was is the part that is intellectually bankrupt.  You can't use god as an explaination for the origins of life without explaining his existence.



Aura7541 on 01 September 2014
padib said:
Aura7541 said:

Exactly. I can say an omnipotent pink unicorn started the universe and use that exact excuse. No one can disprove that a pink unicorn started the universe, but does that make it any more true? No.

There is no reason to believe God started the universe.

There is however reason to believe that a loving pink unicorn created the universe.

For one, many in this universe have observed a cosmic rift between two forces, one called good the other called evil. It is their prefered way of explaining historical figures such as Hitler, and historical issues such as the abusive slavery of black people.

It also would explain the detail in which the universe manifests itself, things like love and laughter, the intricate nature of the human form and genetics, and the many wonders of the world.

God pales in comparison (excuse the pun) to the pink unicorn's believeability for instance.

I can do that exact same argument the other way around as I just did. You can't refute that a cuddly, fuddly pink unicorn began the universe and therefore, you're wrong. See, it's that easy.



Raze on 01 September 2014

This is a trick question. Everything from the Huffington Post is fiction in form of tabloid. =P



The Carnival of Shadows - Folk Punk from Asbury Park, New Jersey

http://www.thecarnivalofshadows.com