UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How do you harmonize this with an omnipotent creator?
Is he malevolent, capricious, or inept?

He is righteous. What we are observing is an earth under judgement because of sin.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Please support your ratio of evidence-based conclusion to guesses.
(Spoiler alert! He can't because that claim is garbage, like most of this post).

Paleontologist Donald Prothero(a noted believer) said in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters"- Columbia University Press. that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species. This suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

One percent of a thousand piece puzzle is 10 pieces. The other 990 pieces have to be imagined.

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understand their claims, and find that conclusion to be the most likely explanation.

Yup and that is called faith.

Originally Posted by Gozer

We can observe this complexity when we look at the same strain virus that our bodies must re-learn how to fight every year. We can observe this complexity when 99% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. The evidence is all around you if you'd open your eyes.

What "we can be observed" do you consider to refute the theory that "nature left alone becomes more complexed" ?

First I should comment on your statement regarding viruses and our immune system. It is the current complexity of both the viruses and our bodies that allows this yearily struggle to take place.

Entropy is the answer to your question. We are witnessing the decline of everything into simpler forms. Earth and nature isn't building up by rather is in a state of decline. There is less variety in nature today than even 20 years ago. You can argue that variations that are occuring within a species proves otherwise but, the fact is we have less diversity today than yesterday. Animals, plants, fish, ect. are becoming rarier and many species have become extinct in our life time. This has been going on throughout recorded history.

Scientists have even created theories to explain the net loss in species. They hypothesize that somewhere at various distant times in the history of the planet there were periods of rapid mutation followed by long periods of weeding out of the weak. This of course represents a puzzle with no pieces other than the benefit of having no way to disprove it.

Originally Posted by Gozer

It is very silly to assert that your willful ignorance of a rudimentary scientific concept is somehow noble because your feelings get hurt defending it.

It appears to me that you are the one guilty of willful ignorance. You don't even know the limitations in the circumstantial evidence your theory is based on.

Originally Posted by Gozer

The Qur'an claims that the holy text takes precedence over observable evidence - you're welcome to take their zealots under your umbrella if willful ignorance is your criteria - we don't want them.

Yet you embrace scientific theory over observable evidence.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Atheism is a doubt, not a faith.

Yes atheism is a doubt. Creation because of its complexed design strongly suggests a designer. Thus evolution becomes a necessary belief for atheists because it allows them to be comfortable in their ignorance of God.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes atheism is a doubt. Creation because of its complexed design strongly suggests a designer. Thus evolution becomes a necessary belief for atheists because it allows them to be comfortable in their ignorance of God.

Atheism isn't evolution.

Atheism is self-explanatory. Doubt of a deity.

Evolution is a explanation using scientific methodology.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Creation because of its complexed design strongly suggests a designer.

Can you explain this sentence either using logic theory or scientific reason?

It's a loaded statement that serves nothing except to create the illusion of backing up your argument. It rests on two false axioms. Actually it's nothing but two false axioms.

1. Complex design suggests/requires a designer.
2. Creation is complex.

While I'd tend to agree that as a whole 2 may be true, it could really come down to many many simple creations repeated and recycled and constantly changing

Also, 'Creation' is ill defined in this statement. Creation of what? Or am I to assume based on your views and past posts you are talking about the all encompassing religious view of 'Creation'?

[photon]

Yup, it's just question begging.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Paleontologist Donald Prothero(a noted believer) said in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters"- Columbia University Press. that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species. This suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

One percent of a thousand piece puzzle is 10 pieces. The other 990 pieces have to be imagined.

The fossil record is only part of the theory's supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yup and that is called faith.

No, it's not.

You define faith as is "believing something that is said without conformation."

I cannot "conform" that you are a person, you could be a clever bot or a relatively articulate dog. But it is absurd for me to consider your 'personhood' to be a leap of faith. The evidence suggests it is true and the conclusion shall be revisited upon any additional evidence. That's an assumption.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This of course represents a puzzle with no pieces other than the benefit of having no way to disprove it.

It would be pretty stupid if I was using that kind of circular non-logic to base my worldview on, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It appears to me that you are the one guilty of willful ignorance. You don't even know the limitations in the circumstantial evidence your theory is based on.

I have plenty to learn about every field of science.
That's not willful ignorance, it's limited knowledge.

We need to agree that the language that we're using isn't as malleable as the Church's explanations of it's fallibility.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Paleontologist Donald Prothero(a noted believer) said in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters"- Columbia University Press. that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species. This suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

I haven't read this book, but there's a massive, insane mental leap to go from saying that there are far more known living species than dead, to saying therefore that the number of species known only through fossils is insignificant.

There's one obvious reason for this: invertebrates. The vast majority of species that are living on the earth today are invertebrates, (approximately 1.3 million, compared with less than 62,000 vertebrates) which mean that they tend not to fossilize well for obvious reasons. Large vertebrates are the easiest fossils to find, so it's no surprise that's what we've discovered the most of.

Secondly, the percentage of the surface of the earth that we've actually searched for fossils is infinitesimal, as fossil sites consist of very specific erosion patterns. But it defies all logic to assume that the rest of the earth's surface doesn't contain a massive number of fossils. At Dinosaur Provincial Park, for example, the number of dinosaur fossils found outnumbers the diversity of living vertabrates now living in the park, and that's just a 3 million year snapshot of several hundreds of millions of years of history of life.

We've already uncovered 300 unique dinosaur generea, while we know of a little more than 1200 living mammal genere (of which we are inlikely to uncover mor than a handful more, if any). Given the lack of the earth that we've been able to study, and the fact that we discover dozens of new species every year, it's obvious that the number of species currently alive is dwarfed by the number that have lived on the planet.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Can you explain this sentence either using logic theory or scientific reason?

It's a loaded statement that serves nothing except to create the illusion of backing up your argument. It rests on two false axioms. Actually it's nothing but two false axioms.

1. Complex design suggests/requires a designer.
2. Creation is complex.

While I'd tend to agree that as a whole 2 may be true, it could really come down to many many simple creations repeated and recycled and constantly changing

Also, 'Creation' is ill defined in this statement. Creation of what? Or am I to assume based on your views and past posts you are talking about the all encompassing religious view of 'Creation'?

Creation is my assumption because of my beliefs. If you chose you can transpose the word nature. Your break down is pretty accurate.

1. Complex design strongly suggests a designer. The more complexed the design; the more likely a designer is involved. If Darwin truely understood what it would take to produce even the most simple life form in the observable world he might had turfed his theory before it caught on.

2. Creation(nature) is complexed. Pakistani scientists are taking apart that downed american airial drone and more than likely going to be able to understand the technology and, also reproduce it. This is not true for life even though it is studied with earnest.

Variation within genetic codes are not equal to increasing complexity. Seeing the one doesn't mean you have observed the other. Genetic code itself is problematic for evolution theory. There is no reason they would appear out of the theoretical chemical soup. How do you even go from chemical compounds to an amazing organic computer chip. Time alone would never produce an airial drone by itself. Yet it is believed that time produced all the genetic blueprints that make up life today.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

2. Creation(nature) is complexed. Pakistani scientists are taking apart that downed american airial drone and more than likely going to be able to understand the technology and, also reproduce it. This is not true for life even though it is studied with earnest.

It's plausible a country could replicate a machine recently made in another country but it is not plausible that either country could reproduce biological life in the near future, ergo biological life was created by God.

That's a pretty airtight argument.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I haven't read this book, but there's a massive, insane mental leap to go from saying that there are far more known living species than dead, to saying therefore that the number of species known only through fossils is insignificant.

There's one obvious reason for this: invertebrates. The vast majority of species that are living on the earth today are invertebrates, (approximately 1.3 million, compared with less than 62,000 vertebrates) which mean that they tend not to fossilize well for obvious reasons. Large vertebrates are the easiest fossils to find, so it's no surprise that's what we've discovered the most of.

Secondly, the percentage of the surface of the earth that we've actually searched for fossils is infinitesimal, as fossil sites consist of very specific erosion patterns. But it defies all logic to assume that the rest of the earth's surface doesn't contain a massive number of fossils. At Dinosaur Provincial Park, for example, the number of dinosaur fossils found outnumbers the diversity of living vertabrates now living in the park, and that's just a 3 million year snapshot of several hundreds of millions of years of history of life.

We've already uncovered 300 unique dinosaur generea, while we know of a little more than 1200 living mammal genere (of which we are inlikely to uncover mor than a handful more, if any). Given the lack of the earth that we've been able to study, and the fact that we discover dozens of new species every year, it's obvious that the number of species currently alive is dwarfed by the number that have lived on the planet.

I'm not sure if what your saying really conflicts with the book. You seem to be talking about the potentual of more finds whereas the quote was talking about what has been found. He contends that less than 1 percent of extinct species have been found and less than 5 percent of living species. It sound like you would see that percentage to be even smaller.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Creation is my assumption because of my beliefs. If you chose you can transpose the word nature. Your break down is pretty accurate.

1. Complex design strongly suggests a designer. The more complexed the design; the more likely a designer is involved. If Darwin truely understood what it would take to produce even the most simple life form in the observable world he might had turfed his theory before it caught on.

You're not paying attention. These are not truths like 2 + 2 = 4. This is a statement, which maybe you believe to be true, but has not been proven. There is no truth or logic in it. There is nothing (besides Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort) that states a designer is necessary, nor that the more 'complex' a system is, the more likely a designer exists or is necessary for the system. Furthermore this statement is exactly like the other one I challenged. You haven't broken anything down or presented a truth with which to base your position. Lastly, the drivel you wrote after it is mere hyperbole and opinion. You challenge Darwin about not knowing what it takes to produce life yet I doubt you have even a tenth of the understanding he did. Even if you are indeed better informed than he I would imagine even you would say you don't know what it takes to create simple life. (Besides a 'designer') Either way it doesn't matter because none of that is a logical argument based in any facts, it's just the same old hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

2. Creation(nature) is complexed. Pakistani scientists are taking apart that downed american airial drone and more than likely going to be able to understand the technology and, also reproduce it. This is not true for life even though it is studied with earnest.

You may not believe (read: understand) that people have an understanding of life and nature but there are building blocks with which our increasing scientific knowledge is based. Furthermore, I don't recall anyone saying it was all explained or even close to explained (besides those with religious dogmatic belief, strange ironic twist). The base of knowledge is always expanding, always asking new questions, and in rare circumstances even being altered. Yet it is based on truth, fact, and things that can be observed.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Variation within genetic codes are not equal to increasing complexity. Seeing the one doesn't mean you have observed the other. Genetic code itself is problematic for evolution theory. There is no reason they would appear out of the theoretical chemical soup. How do you even go from chemical compounds to an amazing organic computer chip. Time alone would never produce an airial drone by itself. Yet it is believed that time produced all the genetic blueprints that make up life today.

I guess I would have to yield to your superior biological knowledge probably based on multiple biology and chemistry degrees with focus on genetics. What is it you do again? Besides perpetuate 5000 year old fairy tales?

(I assume) the basis for most of your knowledge comes from books masquerading as science that are marketed and sold to people of belief. Whether it is or it isn't, this last part is more opinion masked as fact. If you want me to give it any credence your going to have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments in your favor from accredited sources.

For starters variations, if new, is increasing complexity in the code. Genes mutate all the time. The ones that are beneficial get kept due to natural selection. So through mutation and selection, YES the code does get more complex. New genes are in fact created. And they go on to become part of the system and even mutate from there. Most are not kept, but some, again through natural selection, become part of the code.

That's all I got for now, because you still didn't answer my first question. Can you in anyway prove that your sentence, 'Creation because of its complexed design strongly suggests a designer' is anything more than opinion?

P.S. since you've used it twice already, 'complexed' isn't a word, complex works fine in the ways you are trying to use it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

It's plausible a country could replicate a machine recently made in another country but it is not plausible that either country could reproduce biological life in the near future, ergo biological life was created by God.

That's a pretty airtight argument.

The comparison was meant to show the level of complexity between the two. Yet one is embraced as not only possible but, probably caused by nature getting more complicated. It wasn't intended to be an airtight argument. In fact nothing I've said disproves the theory. I'm just questioning the probability of it. I also find it annoying that things like the fossil record are seen as solid proof of the theory. They add insight to what was but, in no way completes the picture.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Creation is my assumption because of my beliefs.

Just because you arrive at your conclusions based on your assumptions doesn't mean everyone else does.

Science must withstand scrutiny, and the case has to be either strong enough to overcome any preconceptions, or state the preconceptions outright so that they can come under the same scrutiny.

Science has shown over and over that it changes despite preconceptions, not because of them.

The difference is one of a scientist's "preconceptions" is to accept where the evidence leads, whereas your preconception is to reject anything that doesn't align with your other preconceptions.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

1. Complex design strongly suggests a designer.

1) There's lots of complex structures in nature that do not require a designer, so no not necessarily.
2) Evolution is a designer, via natural selection.
3) Nothing about design implies any god. It could be aliens, or invisible unicorns.
4) Who designed god (or the designer)? If nothing, then you're just question begging again by giving attributes to an entity because the entity needs them to fit your idea.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Variation within genetic codes are not equal to increasing complexity.

There are many different kinds of variation that result in more genetic code with different instructions.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Genetic code itself is problematic for evolution theory.

Hahahaha.. no really, the genetic evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that if there was zero fossil record, evolution would still be the stunning success it is.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is no reason they would appear out of the theoretical chemical soup.

There's lots of reasons, but that's not evolution you are talking about, that's a separate topic. For the purposes of evolution it doesn't matter if the first self-replicating forms appeared naturally, were planted by aliens, or were poofed into existence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How do you even go from chemical compounds to an amazing organic computer chip. Time alone would never produce an airial drone by itself. Yet it is believed that time produced all the genetic blueprints that make up life today.

DNA is neither an organic computer chip nor a blueprint, to use those analogies demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic.

And you haven't shown that it could never happen, you've just said it.

That's the difference between you and science, the only standard you are beholden to is "Does what I am saying agree with my preconception?". Because you cannot disagree with me when I say that if something goes against what the Bible says, you, by definition, must believe it is false. So you are safe in saying all kinds of things like "this is impossible" or "this would never happen", because you have no burden of proof; who needs proof when your preconceptions are by definition the only truth possible?

Science by its methodology actually tries to avoid preconceptions.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You're not paying attention.

O I'm paying attention alright. When your belief system is threatened you start showing your true colours. All of a sudden opinion is worthless unless it is backed up by a thesis by a scientist you respect. Of course that would never happen because anyone who suggested such a theory you would no longer respect. I havn't quoted any creationist apologists so you identify me with some anyway; All so you can belittle my opinion by association. For the record the intelligent design argument has been around longer than Darwin's theory and has been used several times in public debate.

This is a general forum. If you want to talk exclusively with other scientists you've come to the wrong place. Perhaps someone a little less indoctrined than you can see a little bit clearer.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

O I'm paying attention alright. When your belief system is threatened you start showing your true colours. All of a sudden opinion is worthless unless it is backed up by a thesis by a scientist you respect. Of course that would never happen because anyone who suggested such a theory you would no longer respect. I havn't quoted any creationist apologists so you identify me with some anyway; All so you can belittle my opinion by association. For the record the intelligent design argument has been around longer than Darwin's theory and has been used several times in public debate.

This is a general forum. If you want to talk exclusively with other scientists you've come to the wrong place. Perhaps someone a little less indoctrined than you can see a little bit clearer.

Haha, nice try.

[Cheese]

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

For the record the intelligent design argument has been around longer than Darwin's theory and has been used several times in public debate.

And? Are you really citing these two facts to suggest that therefore intelligent design has merit as a theory?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And? Are you really citing these two facts to suggest that therefore intelligent design has merit as a theory?

No I was stating that the intelligent design argument didn't originate with Kirk Cameron or that other guy I was accused of sourcing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No I was stating that the intelligent design argument didn't originate with Kirk Cameron or that other guy I was accused of sourcing.

Oh, I see. Sorry. I misunderstood.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

And yet Benjamin Franklin believed in the power of prayer:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98