<p>^ Odysseus was a carpenter? They really said that? He was king of Ithaca!</p>
<p>that entire article was BS</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is true that the bible does not explicitly state a timeframe. Again, I believe in a younger earth because that seems to make more sense. God didn’t tell me it was true. He just dropped a few hints. I could be interpreting those hints incorrectly. Even if life was created 6000 years ago during a 6 day creation event that doesn’t rule out the earth (and thus radioactively datable rocks) existing before then. “In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth” doesn’t tell us a timeframe.</p>
<p>I will submit my following posts in sequential format, for doing so will ensure that they are read in their entirety, rather than stockpiling thoughts into a single post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not state that science has clear evidence of the physical interactions that produced the Big Bang. But it is inevitably working towards uncovering these truths. Moreover, science produces conjectural thought regarding the universe’s foundation and does not fissure into thousands of ideological bandwagons that proclaim a complete and thorough understanding of its basal origins. Scientific thought forbids the simple exercise of unsystematic, arbitrary judgment in the same manner as religious beliefs that “know” – each in their own particular way – the governing factors that manifested cosmogenesis. </p>
<p>This seems to be a good place to incorporate a George Carlin quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science has gathered the requisite evidence to support the existence of much natural phenomena.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arguing against the method in which genomic mutations may be beneficial is a well-frequented, but baseless and easily refutable argument, used by creationists as some sort of “proof” against evolution. It is based on the notion that the deleterious mutational effects ultimately supersede those that are conducive to survival and hence destroy the genome. However, such thought doesn’t properly demonstrate any relative comprehension of the mathematics governing population dynamics. </p>
<p>Rogue mutations, and even the absence of progressive mutations, do not ultimately effect the process of upward evolution. Even as rogue mutations predominant the population and render a greater degree of mortality, the rate of deleterious mutation will always fall somewhere below 100%, leaving a distinct minority population of the species that have the better fitness. This improved mutant population will reproduce at a rate exponential to the more mortal population, since the negatively mutated group cannot maintain their population for long as the selection losses become more significant and undermine their reproductive capacities. Thus, one sees a steepening nonlinear relationship between the variables of initial population (high for the negatively mutated population, low for the beneficially mutated group) and the rate of reproduction (low for the negatively mutated population, high for the beneficially mutated group). In essence, it is possible to affect the process of evolution, but it is not scientifically plausible to halt its inevitable progression (upward evolution).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t entangle yourselves in technicalities until you completely mishandle or circumvent my basic point. “Theism” is a blanketed term for the belief in some sort of “God” without applying any type of sensitivity to whatever that may mean. My assertion was that by adhering to the sole belief in a specific supernatural authority without the belief in the “God” or “gods” of the thousands of other systems of belief (whether in current existence or not) is an implicit declaration that one’s particular religion is correct. </p>
<p>What provides the corroborating evidence that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, the various “more enlightened” offshoots, or any of the ancient forms of belief are correct as opposed to another non-empirical belief?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Atheism is the means of turning oneself away from the delusions of mindless belief by adhering to reason, experience, and observation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I merely abide by the belief in deriving knowledge on a rational, systematic, and experiential basis since those are the only fundamental methods in which reality is procured.</p>
<p>If you believe in “God,” why don’t you believe in the preposterous pseudo-ontological figures of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy? It’s the same delusional concept. This “ghostly, omniscient force” of nature is derived from the mind’s same capacity to form fantastical, immanent constructs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The lack of basic recognition for material reality is egregiously horrifying considering the time period. Do classifying the Earth as a 6,000-year entity and blatantly dismissing evolution as “a bunch of nonsense” qualify as valid opinions?</p>
<p>MosbyMarion, you are obviously very wrong when it comes to your perspective on the age of the Earth, but what provides you with the intellectual authority to dismiss the fossil record as proof of the bible’s – and by extension – your, ludicrous, implicit calculation? (I do not believe that it is disputable for anyone to wriggle out of bible’s intrinsic 6,000 years computation – [How</a> old is the earth? - Answers in Genesis](<a href=“http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth]How”>How Old Is the Earth? | Answers in Genesis)). </p>
<p>You do realize that the temporal boundary for fossil formation is 10,000 years, correct? And that fossils (petrified biological forms) have been found in geological samples dating [billions</a> of years](<a href=“National Geographic”>National Geographic) back? That basically subverts your entire fixated frame of reference. And yes, fossils do exist. Don’t dispute that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You suggest that the absence of religious devotion denotes the lack of the intellectual potential to “make a mental leap.” So, in essence, by the very nature of your statement, you are suggesting that not adhering to religion denotes an inherent degree of cognitive inferiority. To forestall the probable assault that I am fundamentally misinterpreting your statement, please reread it and the imputed thoughts that you convey. If so, then why is the prevalence of the lack of religious adherence so disproportionate among the academic elite? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although the abiogenetic framework is not yet complete (although much of the epistemological gap has been satisfied with technological advancement and biochemical evidence over the course of the past two decades), it is unwaveringly clear that the progressive biogenetic phenomenon originated from inorganic, gaseous constituents that comprised the initial atmosphere. In fact, Darwinian evolution, even from the most primitive of life forms, absolutely disintegrates any illusory design perception and teaches one to dubiously treat any similar conceptions in other scientific realms. Please reeducate yourself on the matter:</p>
<p>[A</a> Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions – Miller 117 (3046): 528 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/117/3046/528]A”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/117/3046/528)</p>
<p>[The</a> molecular origins of life … - Google Books](<a href=“The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle - Google Books”>The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle - Google Books) </p>
<p>[Endogenous</a> production, exogenous delivery and impa… [Nature. 1992] - PubMed result](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538392]Endogenous”>Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life - PubMed)</p>
<p>In return, please provide me with your evidence for this flip-of-the-wand phenomenon for spontaneous genetic assemblage other than nonselective, uncritical thought provided by some irrational ideological judgment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not post the aforementioned comment, so yes, I would agree that it is not particularly stable to label any such political environment or geographical area as the embodiment of moral order. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was meadow36’s belief, of which I have already addressed. Stating that “God” is indispensable for the sake of self-accountability unravels the entire theistic framework that a moral surveillance system is necessary to do good or taper any anarchic, amoral forces.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If one goes through the bible (‘”God’s” word’) with a pair of scissors with the objective of purging all literature that inherently conflicts with the evidence-based science that is so palpably true today, you would be left with surprisingly little. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am glad that the religious followers are somewhat immune from losing all conscious in this realm of reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should one adhere to a system that does not properly derive knowledge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, complete misinterpretation of my point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about that do you find so self-contradictory or personally entertaining? I do not believe that it is fair to label me as a hypocrite for the mere act of recognizing some degree of principled merit in religion while ultimately dismissing its relevance as an intellectual authority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, but Dawkins is fundamentally correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why so sarcastic?</p>
<p>Again, adhering to the indubitably factual evolutionary perspective is not fundamentalism or faith. Religious fundamentalists “know” the underlying structure and ontogeny of the natural world because of some holy work of fiction that they read and refuse to dislodge, compromise, or reposition their belief. However, scientists do not remain cognitively implacable and adjust their beliefs as evidence suggests and denounce the philosophies of concepts that egregiously conflict with empirical reality. I reach a state of intellectual fulfillment by studying the mathematical and conceptually accurate evidence rather than reading some ancient piece of literature authored by the architects of half-baked, unworkable thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ridiculous. Atheists do not hold indiscriminate belief in what they observe. We believe in the power of science - and the rational and empirical scope that underlies its central foundation - because the evidence is in abundance to demonstrate that we are correct. In other words, anyone can replicate the findings. If evidence happened to suddenly appear that we must accommodate or assimilate into our perspectives we would, in practice, gladly and overwhelmingly do so. However, that is not the case with hidebound religious individuals, who are intellectually calcified by what they read in their book of fairy tales. </p>
<p>As for why I continue to type, I am simply passionately distressed by the irrational inflexibility in dismissing the evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts religion’s position as a valid epistemological tool - but not overzealously indignant. As Dawkins states, “I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly airplanes into their skyscrapers because of a theological disagreement.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, this is a non-sequiter of sorts - I would argue that predestination requires that Mosby be a Christian so he can go to heaven, assuming he’s Presbyterian or Jansenist or some offshoot of those</p>
<p>What do you guys think of Deism or Pantheism or any lessee known “beliefs”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not state that Christianity has clear evidence of the physical reactions through which god created the universe.</p>
<p>I, like you, must look at the world around me and decide what seems most reasonable. You conclude that the world began as a giant expansion of mass that sprung into existence with no known origin or cause. I conclude that the world began when an omniscient being of an unknown nature willed it to do so.</p>
<p>Neither of us are using empirical logic here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not either of those… I try to follow mere Christianity.</p>
<p>I find Deism a bit fragile: God exists but he does not</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed it has. Science is a very useful tool with which to organise observations and predict the future.</p>
<p>For the sake of providing one final thought to my current diatribe, religion teaches us haphazard, unquestionable thought and corrodes the intellect. It indoctrinates us to not engage in a continuous process of cognitive adaptation and allows us to remain absolutely ignorant of the full spectrum of all the powerful and invigorating things that there are to functionally uncover. Despite a few affirmative features (which are virtually unrelated to the intrinsic need for intellectual fulfillment), religion actively corrupts and destabilizes scientific dynamism and ingenuity. Religious bodies are largely illiterate and unsophisticated regarding scientific endeavors and are thus an invalid authority for formulating verdicts regarding scientific and technological demands.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am curious about a couple of things. First:</p>
<p>How many mutations do you think it would take to turn, say, a reptile scale into a feather?</p>
<p>how do you think symbiotic behavior could evolve? For example the cleaner fish/grouper relationship:</p>
<p>Cleaner fish: An instinct to swim into a preatator fish’s mouth.</p>
<p>Grouper: An instinct to not eat small prey fish.</p>
<p>How could either of those be useful unless the other already existed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not my religion. You shouldn’t check your brain at the door. No matter what your belief you should be willing to ask the hard questions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m arguing against atheism in favor of the existence of a god. Once atheism has been ruled out, then we can consider which of the remaining options is closest to the truth. If I say “Japanese cars are better than American cars” then accusing me for not chosin between a Honda and a Toyota isn’t a good way to invalidate that statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Faith. But not blind faith. Also looking at their doctrine and examining their effect on people’s lives. But it’s not my faith I’m defending here, it’s my scientific views.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d always called that logic and science. My reason, experience, and observation lead me to reject atheism due to numerous inconsistencies I see in that belief.</p>