The “Threat” of Creationism...
-
I did not call just Carl Sagan ignorant, I called everybody ignorant. Read it again, idiot.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: I did not call just Carl Sagan ignorant, I called everybody ignorant. <Edit> Nevertheless, you did call Carl Sagan ignorant.</Edit> John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
John Carson wrote: Scientists are not obliged to stop telling the truth just to avoid offending religious sensibilities. This is not a matter of Sagan and Asimov. It is the nearly universal view among respected scientists that evolution is a fact. If the religiously inclined don't like hearing the truth, tough. There you go, displaying the ignorance I was trying to point out. Damn, you people definately are as bad as fundamentalists.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: There you go, displaying the ignorance I was trying to point out. Damn, you people definately are as bad as fundamentalists. You seem unable to distinguish between opinions that are well founded and those that are not. There is such a distinction and if there were not, then there would be no such thing as science. As has been pointed out many times, there is a difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
nssone wrote: I did not call just Carl Sagan ignorant, I called everybody ignorant. <Edit> Nevertheless, you did call Carl Sagan ignorant.</Edit> John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
But it read like you were trying to defend Sagan as the only person not ignorant, where as I included everybody as ignorant.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
But it read like you were trying to defend Sagan as the only person not ignorant, where as I included everybody as ignorant.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: But it read like you were trying to defend Sagan as the only person not ignorant, where as I included everybody as ignorant. I have no strong opinions on Carl Sagan either way. But I think that he is among the less deserving of the description of "ignorant" among those commenting on scientific questions. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Maybe it was all just made to make us think that it looks older than 6,000 years?
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: Maybe it was all just made to make us think that it looks older than 6,000 years? This is a very old argument, dating from at least the nineteenth century. If the world looks like it was made by evolution, then perhaps God just made it look that way. God was evidently out to deceive us (perhaps so he could boost the numbers in Hell). By the same token, perhaps the world was created 5 minutes ago and God just created us with memories and holes in our socks. This of course would mean that all of the events recorded in the Bible never happened since the world didn't exist at the time they were alleged to have occurred. It is possible that all this is true. But there is no reason to believe that it is. Moreover, if you are willing to disregard all evidence on the basis that God simply faked it, then plainly it is not possible to do science at all. You can't do religion either. Perhaps the Bible was written by one of the Hindu Gods for a joke. It's fake too. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Jason, I think that voting your post down was a way for people to show that they disagree with your statement without actually starting an argument over it. I wouldn't take it personally. Have a happy new year!
I don't take internet arguments seriously. But really, if you disagree, why not say why?
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Shog9 wrote: i thought about voting you a '5' to offset the 2 '1's you'd already received for this innocuous post. Then i realized how ludicrous this would be - it is a frank statement of appreciation for another's words, and deserves neither excess praise nor condemnation. Do you really think that calling Carl Sagan ignorant (without in any way substantiating the claim) qualifies as "the most intelligent statement I have read yet about all of these religious threads". Such a claim is absurd. What Jason did was simply applaud an insult. I am not averse, on occasion, to either giving or applauding an insult. But I have never been surprised if others have not liked me doing so. Nor should Jason be. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Do you really think that calling Carl Sagan ignorant (without in any way substantiating the claim) qualifies as "the most intelligent statement I have read yet about all of these religious threads". Such a claim is absurd. What Jason did was simply applaud an insult. No, you could replace Carl Sagan with Albert Einstein, George Bush, Bill Clinton, John Carson or Jason Henderson. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and if none of us know all of the answers then we are all ignorant. Do you know how the universe was created? Do you know if there is a God? I didn't think so. Please respect that some people do believe there is a God. We aren't boobs or stupid idiots. We just have different beliefs.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
I don't take internet arguments seriously. But really, if you disagree, why not say why?
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: I don't take internet arguments seriously. Good. I wish I could say the same about myself, a lot of times I take things too personally. I need to learn from you. :-) Jason Henderson wrote: But really, if you disagree, why not say why? I think sometimes people feel that they should display disagreement with a statement, but don't feel it is necessary to get into a "formal" argument about it. I guess voting system gives you a kind of an easy way out - you disagree, but you don't really state why... ;-) In case if you want to know why I personally disagreed with your post - it is because calling one of the well regarded proponents of science like Carl Segan to be ignorant without any supporting evidence is hardly an intelligent argument/statement, even if it is in agreement with the way you feel.
-
Maybe it was all just made to make us think that it looks older than 6,000 years?
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
Well, I guess we have 2 explanations then: one is that scientists are correct and our universe is really about 20 billion years old and so on... or someone or something spent an enormous amount of resources and time to trick the whole human race into thinking that universe is older than 6000 years... Occam's razor comes to mind... I vote for the simplest explanation. Which one do you vote for?
-
John Carson wrote: Do you really think that calling Carl Sagan ignorant (without in any way substantiating the claim) qualifies as "the most intelligent statement I have read yet about all of these religious threads". Such a claim is absurd. What Jason did was simply applaud an insult. No, you could replace Carl Sagan with Albert Einstein, George Bush, Bill Clinton, John Carson or Jason Henderson. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and if none of us know all of the answers then we are all ignorant. Do you know how the universe was created? Do you know if there is a God? I didn't think so. Please respect that some people do believe there is a God. We aren't boobs or stupid idiots. We just have different beliefs.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: No, you could replace Carl Sagan with Albert Einstein, George Bush, Bill Clinton, John Carson or Jason Henderson. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and if none of us know all of the answers then we are all ignorant. All of us are ignorant but, in context, the description is often intended as an insult. I believe that was the case in nssone's post. If you did not intend it as such, then I withdraw the criticism. Jason Henderson wrote: Do you know how the universe was created? Do you know if there is a God? I didn't think so. I think science understands a lot about how the universe was created and that this understanding will continue to improve, as it has to date. I defer to the experts. The only thing I claim for myself is that I have good enough judgement to know that deferring to the experts is the sensible thing to do. Do I know if there is a God? I don't have absolute knowledge about anything and can't prove absolutely that God does not exist just as I can't prove absolutely that Elvis isn't alive or that there isn't a Santa Claus. However, I feel confident that there are no good grounds for believing that God exists. Jason Henderson wrote: Please respect that some people do believe there is a God. We aren't boobs or stupid idiots. We just have different beliefs. I don't believe that Christians, in general, are "boobs or stupid idiots", though I do believe that only a minority of the population (Christian or non-Christian) is intelligent and well-educated enough to be very good at assessing the merits of scientific arguments. I do believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that modern creationism is rubbish. In this, I am simply deferring to the overwhelming scientific consensus. A lot of Christians agree with me on this. As for those who don't, I suspect that the majority haven't looked into the matter carefully. Of the minority who have, some are blinded by their religious conviction, while others lack the skill to assess the arguments (or to ascertain what the overwhelming scientific consensus favours). John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell