Dak

First off: I thought that this was the original thread and that 'why atheist' had been split from it, so sorry if I somewhat misunderstood the context of the thread. Secondly, the above actually gives your opinion and isn't rude; 'it's all nonsense', at the very least, is merely a tautaulogy -- "I don't believe in it because I don't believe in it". Finally: I don't know if you were around for the last incarnation of the Philosophy and Religion forum, but there is a reason we're being so anal, and that's because the last P&R forum degenerated into crap because both sides were arrogant and rude, so we're being a bit intolerant of it this time round. if that results in no-one being able to unsubstatiatedly summarize other people's beliefs as nonsense, and that seems a bit excessive, then sorry. We might loosen up a bit, depending on how this goes.

'Religious belief in deities is bullshit' isn't even an argument. How would someone counter it? "No, you're bullshit!!!"? Or maybe "No, Atheism and/or faith in the Scientific Method is bullshit"? I suppose the argument would continue "No, your Mum is bullshit"? "religion is bullshit, because ..." would be better, but if you're going to meaningfully contribute to threads and stuff, you may as well go the whole hog and not be overly provocative and rude. e.g., "religion is wrong, because ..." DID YOU SEE HOW I DID THAT WITHOUT SUMMING UP RELIGIOUS PEOPLE'S BELIEFS AS BULLSHIT??? THE BIT WHERE I SAID THEY WERE 'WRONG' INSTEAD, BECAUSE IT MEANS THE SAME BUT IS LESS RUDE??? OMG THIS IS HARD!!!!!!!1

Motor Daddy has been perma-banned, for pretty much the same reasons as above. Unless it was one of the mods who changed his avitar to a picture of a troll, we probably should have banned him earlier tbh

just out of interest, how does diliberately posting porn violate our hazmat rules? was it tubgirl?

Vexer has been suspended as the next natural step in SFN's crusade against him, and it was is in no way simply because we got pissed off with him disrupting threads to tell us about this crusade that we are waging against him for no reason at all!. Vexer, when you come back: drop it. ---------------- drochaid: banned at own request.

it was in refference to pangloss' earlyer accusation of an unfair bias against conservatism, not directly related to the paper being discussed. the thread's all over the place, if you hadn't noticed with that bit, all i meant is that some conservatives/traditionalists don't want to conserve aspects of our society due to any aversion to tinkering, but rather because certain aspects of our societies are bigoted, and they quite like that because they themselves are bigots (of the 'don't like gays' variety). I'd be quite happy to differentiate them from 'true' conservatives, same as i'd like to differentiate the more loony 'tinker till it explodes without thinking' and 'femnazi' liberals from the majority, but the fact is that these bigots usually get lumped in under the umbrella term of 'conservatism'. when talking about 'liberalism' being intelectually superior to 'conservatism', i get the feeling somewhat that what's being compared is liberalism with bigotry, as opposed to with conservatism of the lets-not-do-anything-drastic variety. if that makes sense? lol, depends on wether you count sub-optimal as being broken, but i do recognise the kind of liberal to which you are alluding they're stoopid agreed. you certainly shouldn't tinker without thinking nor when it's unneccesary -- in fact, i'd go as far as to say that even when you do tinker you should be conservative (just not neccesarily so conservative that you don't tinker in the first place). doh. should've read the whole post first...

for the record, this is exactly what i meant! changing things that need changing is all well and good, but it is risky and can go wrong -- which isn't even addressing the cost of changing things -- neither of which are problems that conservatism has. otoh, sometimes things need changing, in which case there's nothing wrong with being conservative in your changes if that'll suffice (small, cheap, reletively risk-free cautious changes, rather than dramatic, expensive, risky ones). I guess I can see how 'easy and risk-free' could come across as glib, but they are the benifits of conservatism, same as 'actually improving the situation' is the benifit of progressivism. cheers

do i take it you get nature and have read these arguments and answres? if so, was the age factor that pangloss(?) D H brought up earlyer mentioned? i.e., that both conservatism and the mentioned mental traits correlate with age? ta.

so in other words, you're going to ignore anything good said about conservatism, assume anything else said about conservatism is bad, and complain about a persieved bias against conservatism on this board? well then, pangloss, give me an example of what you'd accept as non-dismissive, non-pejorative, relevent compliments of conservatism. what would you say conservatism's good points are? just so i know how to word it for future refference to make it clear im 'doing my bit for PC' and 'being fair' to conservatism.

did you not see my bit about it being less risky and less effort? and the bit where i pointed out those are good things?

I didn't know this thread was about masturbating conservatism's ego, but conservatism is an easy, cheap, low-risk 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' approach afaict, which is cool tho theres a time and place for it. I mean, it's not as if i deside which knot would be ideal for tying my shoes each morning, i just use a double-bow-knott, 'cos that's how i've allways done it (and it's how my parents did it) and it works adequately theres a lot in favour of the less-effort/risk, lazy way of doing things.

if you define conservatism as 'sticking with what we've allways done', then i'd say it's lazy and cautious, which isn't neccesarily a bad thing: why bother going through the effort and risk of changing our society if our society allready works well enough? an improvement isn't allways worth the cost and risk. comparing conservatism with liberalism is like comparing cheese and chalk (or progressivism with bigotry) -- i think it's more the progressivism aspect of liberalism that is contrastable with conservatism. and, tbh, it's not surprising that someone who wants to see things how they are and not take any great effort/risk in changing them unless absolutely neccesary (i.e., conservative) would have different mental traits than someone who is more inclined to change things in order to improve them -- eg, i'd also guess that conservatives are more inclined towards realism, whilst progressives would lean towards idealism. otoh, you have to realise that the reason that the otherwize uncontrastable liberalism and conservatism get compared so often is that our societies, untill quite recently, have been bigoted, and so unselective conservatism will often work to conserve the bigoted aspects of our society (iow, conservatism can act like bigotry, which IS directly contrastable to liberalism) and if you happen to actually be bigoted -- say, a far-right christian who wants legally-enforsed adherance to aspects of the bible simply because it's what you believe -- what you'll want is often an aspect of our current/recent society, and thus you'll get labelled as a 'conservative' for wanting it; this is where, i would guess, the 'liberalism is more intelectual than conservatism' sentiment comes from -- not a comment on progressivism v conservatism (presumably, if our societies became truly liberal, then all the liberals would change to conservatism), but as a comment on liberalism v bigotry (which, i think, has some justification to the claim 'liberalism is smarter'). none of which implys that conservatives are stupid

if they publish in peer-reviewed journals so that any errors can be discovered by others who don't share their biases, then yeah -- tho i'd be sceptical at first (i.e., would wait untill it had actually survived peer-review for a bit). insidentally, i've seen on a few papers a 'full disclosure' bit, where it says something like 'this research was funded by blah', so maybe some journals demand that potential biases be stated?

you offered it as an example of far-left ideologies being determined to prove a correlation between liberalism and intelligence. so, what, science is a "far-left ideology" now is it, because one paper was published that youve interpreted as an attack on conservatism? contrary to what? and omitting something from the abstract != 'burying' followed by: talk about kettle calling the pot black! those 'extra dots' are called elipses, and indicate an ommision from the sentance. in this context, they indicate that i was after a responce, but was too lazy to type 'so would you mind telling me?' on the end (i.e., it was a question, despite not being phrased as such). they're pretty standard punctuation, pangloss. interesting how, from "..." you managed to infer what you did, just after you admonished me for seeing what i wanted too. I wonder if, after i critisised your logic, you just wanted too see and dismiss me as some kind of 'liberal nut' then...

abstracts are limited to 250 words. no doubt the observation is made somewhere within the paper, but the abstract has to be uber-consice. and, tbh, i'm not sure i see the relevence of the study? if it claims that liberals are more intelectual, then this justifies liberals' desire to make this claim (as it lends weight to the idea that it's actually true). if it doesn't claim this, then i don't see the relevence...

hello, try putting your questions in general medicine, or possibly anatomy, physiology and neuroscience, wherever you think they'd fit best.

lmao I also wouldn't have used any 'c's. do eco!

wouldn't logic fit in philosophy of science?

Mrs tilly likes riddles even tho she hates questions phew! figuring out the puzzle was easy, but forming an answre was difficult

According to wp, it's not an accronym, it's a code-word. according to here, it was randomly chosen as a code-word by a computer. not that it's a common accronym

Hello everyone, and welcome to SFN

ooh, logic would be great.

WiSci. It'd increase awareness of it, maybe interest a few SFN members to join it, and would allow us to ask questions etc so that SFN members can contribute to WiSci even if they aren't WiSci members. Just an idea (not nessesarily a good one)

Avast all ye newcomers, and welcome to science forums and debate

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate ======================================================== Please refrain from 'drive-by heathen-preaching', which is where you make one post scorning us for our 'belief' in evolution and then bugger off. This is a discussion forum, not a statement forum. We therefore ask that you stick around to discuss your points with us. Drive-by heathen-preaching tends to merely occupy the moderators' time deleting them, and paints creationists in a bad light. Purpose of this thread This thread was written due to the number of creationists who visit this site to argue against evolution. Whilst this is perfectly ok (this is, after all, a discussion forum), I felt that, due to the posting quality (or lack thereof) of most of the creationists, it would be useful to have a thread to direct them towards, priming them for the debate and addressing a few issues which we have become weary of repeatedly explaining. So, here it is... One thing to note: many of the creationists who have visited us previously have been loons, so I apologise in advance if parts of this post sound like I'm assuming that you're a loon. Religion is belief in powers beyond the five senses; science is an evaluation of empirical knowledge Neither needs to deny the other. It'd be worth bearing this in mind: its generally not worth the effort of trying to convince a scientist to believe that what he logically knows to be a fact is incorrect; likewise, it is usually not worth the effort of trying to logically prove that a religious persons beliefs are incorrect. For a scientist, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist. Having said that, please do not confuse knowledge/logic with belief: please do not attempt to convince us to merely 'believe' that evolution is wrong, and please do not attempt to pass off your belief as evidence. Please bear in mind that this is a science forum: arguments against evolution should be logical/factual. Before you post, please... Read the forum rules. read things you need to know. Learn a little about how scientific arguments are conducted: scientific procedure: scientific procedure hypothesis: Blike's thread Theories/models: And explanation of an observed phenomena or process, which is consistent with observations made of that phenomena/process, and which is supported (and initially based upon) a collection of scientifically supported hypotheses. citing/referencing: Please indicate the source from which you got your facts. Be careful that your sources are reliable and accurate, and do not be offended if someone demands a source: its part of the scientifically process which we are all subjected to. How to cite and reference. logical fallacies; what to avoid doing: Here is a list of logical fallacies. They are invalid ways of applying logic. You may have your arguments rebuked by simple quotes of the name of the logical fallacy that you have committed (eg, 'appeal to tradition'). In which case, look the fallacy up, and either reword your argument so that it is not fallacious, point out why your original argument was not fallacious, or accept the rebuttal of your argument. Note that the accusing you of circular logic doesn’t mean that the claims are false, just that, logically speaking, you must prove them in another manner. Here are a few logical fallacies which visiting creationists have had difficulty understanding. STRAW MAN This is where you argue against a point which was never made, typically a warped version of what was said, which is easier to rebuke than the actual point which was made. An example would be claiming that, were evolution real, and as natural selection is constantly improving us, we should (according to the theory of evolution) be perfect by now. As we're not, evolution is patently untrue. This is a strawman because evolution does not claim that we should be perfect. We are continually 'improving', so to speak, in relation to our fitness to survive in our habitat. As our habitat is constantly changing, this makes 'perfection' hard to achieve. In addition, were we to attain perfection, we would more than likely lose it instantaneously due to our inclination to mutate -- losing this inclination to mutate would be losing our ability to adapt, and so we would hardly be 'perfect' for very long even if we did. So basically, the argument is attacking a claim which evolution doesn’t make, even by extension. For another definition, click here CIRCULAR LOGIC Circular, or self-referencing, logic (AKA begging the question) may well be cited when you attempt to use the fact that god wrote the bible to prove that the bible is correct, and the fact that the bible claims god exists to prove that god exists. The reason that these aren’t valid is pretty simply that you cant use two unproven things to prove each other -- and scientifically speaking, the bible and god are not proven (or disproven). At least one of them (god or the bible) would have to be proven independently of the other first. For another definition, click here And remember, testing an idea (eg, arguing against it, trying to pick holes in it etc) is part of the scientific process and nothing personal . What evolution is (and isn't) Right-ho, there’s a lot of confusion about this in the creationist camp. Basically, this is what evolution is: The change in allele frequency in a population over time Creationists generally define evolution thus: Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god. This is not the scientifically definition of evolution. For a start, the last bit ('without the aid of a god') is not part of the theory of evolution (see below). In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution. You can still find many people who will discuss the other things here, but if you refer to them as evolution people will invariably get confused. Please bear in mind, then, that on this science forum 'evolution' pertains only to the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and the causes and effects thereof. By the way, the correct scientifically term for the all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'. what those other things are With their relevant field. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics) The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology) The creation of life from non-life: abiogenesis (biochemistry) The creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology) The mechanism of the alteration/creation of the different forms of life: evolution (biology, genetics) Learn a little about evolution before completely dismissing it No-one is implying that you need to obtain a BSc(bio.) before you can comment on evolution; only requesting that you make an effort to understand what is said to you, and follow (and read) any links given, and -- mainly -- that you do not profess that the entire field is bull without understanding anything about it. As previously stated, no-one will deny you your right to believe whatever you want, by please do not pedal your beliefs as facts. If you wish to prime yourself with a little basic knowledge of evolution, then read below. Also, if you have a specific argument against evolution, it may be interesting to search for it here, where they have rebuttals of the more common creationists arguments. Basics of evolution by Mokele Evolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time Natural selection = differential propagation of genotypes (due to differences in ability to survive, resist disease, find mates, etc) Sexual selection = differential success in acquiring fertilizations between genotypes (a sub-set of natural selection) Genetic drift = the effects of random chance on evolution, mostly seen in small populations and on genes with low frequency Founder effect / genetic bottleneck = the isolation of a small random or nearly-random sub-set of a population, resulting in alterations in gene frequency due to chance. The modern technical definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time". In layman's terms, it defines evolution as genetic change in a population. There are several consequences of this definition. One is that non-selective forces that affect gene frequency (often strongly) have been incorporated into evolution. This is fitting, since these forces have actually had great impact. One is genetic drift, which is just the effects of random chance in a population. If you have two alleles, equally represented, but no selection acting on them, eventually one will vanish, just by chance, since animals die for non-selective reasons. Another is the founder effect, aka genetic bottleneck, in which a small sample of a population survives a disaster or colonizes a new location. Because this sample is small, chances are that not all alleles will be represented and that the ratio will change. Think of it like having a bowl of red, yellow and blue marbles, where red and yellow are 48% each and blue is 4%. If you take a sample of 9, red and yellow probably won't be equal anymore, and you might lose blue entirely. Then of course there's natural selection, the one we're all familiar with. However, it should be noted that it isn't progress towards perfection or even improvement in an absolute sense, but just adaptation to local conditions and selective pressures (environment, pathogens, parasites, etc). It can also prevent evolution. If you have a population with a bell-curve distribution of a trait, and the extremes are selected against, the mean value will never change. There's also sexual selection, the competition for mates and fertilizations, which can actually run counter to natural selection (with survival-decreasing adaptations like the peacock's tail). More: Demo's thread Radical Edward's thread Glossary of terms Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in a deity/deities Whilst evolutionary theory is, generally speaking, incompatible with a literal interpretation of the book of genesis, it is not incompatible with religious beliefs per se. The theory of evolution describes, scientifically, the mechanism by which life-forms change. Evolution makes no assumptions about why the universe exists in such a manner, or (strictly speaking) how the very first life arose. Nor does the theory of evolution eliminate the possibility that a deity(s) is guiding the process of evolution. Furthermore, evolution does not state or imply that humans do not have souls. The subject of souls is not a scientific one, so science officially has no opinion. Another common gripe with evolution is that it makes man 'less special'. All I have to say to that is that there was nothing special/distinct about the way humans evolved (compared to how other life-forms evolved); histologically, genetically, anatomically and generally all-round-physiologically, there is nothing to separate us from the majority of other animals (except in the way that all species are unique in some manner or another). And yet, we are the only animals which can utilise complex communication, use complex logic, build complex stuff, and have the biggest communities on the earth. There is lots that can be viewed as making humans distinct from other animals, which begs the question why? Why humans, and why only humans. These are questions that can be answered both scientifically and religiously. Basically, evolution could be viewed as making man less special, or it could not. Its a question of personal belief. Examples of how deism and evolution can be compatible The book of genesis can be viewed as allegorical deux ex machina: evolution exists/happens, but is guided by god. This is a very slightly different version of evolutionary theory, but scientifically there is no reason why it couldn’t be the case. It works like thus: imagine a dice is rolled. Whatever the outcome is, it will be unlikely. For example, if a three is rolled, there will only have been a 1/6 chance that that would happen -- ie, more likely than not that a three would not be rolled. Yet we accept the outcome as normal, aware that, unlikely as getting a three was, whichever outcome happened would be unlikely and so the unlikeliness itself is no reason to question its occurrence. However, of all those outcomes, is it not possible that god caused the three to occur? Yup. If the dice were rolled over and over again, then the high frequency of occurrence of the number three would tip us off as to something peculiar happening, but with just the one occurrence, gods' interference would leave absolutely no indications that things were being tinkered with. The implications of this are as thus: the evolution of any given body-plan (including humans) by a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations is slim. Yet humans evolved with exactly this body plan. Are we surprised that we evolved to this plan, when the chances of us possessing this plan were so slim? No. Because, whatever design we ended up with, the chances of getting that specific design would be slim (like the fact that whichever number the dice threw up would only have had the relatively small chance of 1/6), and so we don’t question the fact that this specific body-plan was unlikely to evolve. But, just like the 'god forcing a three' example, there would be absolutely no indication were the hand of god to have guided our evolution to yield this specific end-result, and so it is entirely possible that he did. deux in machina: The belief that all of the natural laws (including the ones that evolution follows) are created and upheld by a deity, whose essence basically keeps the universe 'ticking over'. (its worth noting that Catholicism teaches a form of creation/evolution which basically combines the above three concepts) really intelligent design: The belief that a deity had the uber-planning abilities to create a universe, including all of its energy, matter and laws, and furthermore to design aforementioned laws so that, completely unguidedly, they would result in the emergence of life. God then created the universe with a colossal explosion, and then watched his creation unfold, and life evolve as per his plans. And there are more (see here and here for some more ways in which evolution and religion can be compatible). I'm not trying to convert you to any of the above beliefs, just demonstrating that the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with belief in god(s), or belief in god(s) as creator. Its an issue which comes up repeatedly, and hopefully this post will save having to explain it again. Some useful facts which most visiting creationists have been unaware of Evolutionists are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Scientist are not all atheists and/or Satanists. Atheists are not all Satanists. Evolution is not incompatible with the belief in deities, or the belief that a deity(s) created life, the universe and everything (see above). Science itself is agnostic. To believe or not to believe, for every person, is a matter of personal belief. Some may base their decision not to believe on science, others may base it on something else. Others still base their decision to believe on science, and the wonders and complexities of the universe that it reveals. Basically, there is no reason, scientifically, not to believe in god; nor has science disproved god. Virtually no-one accepts Darwinism anymore. Aspects of Darwinism have been taken, improved upon, and mixed in with modern genetics and Mendel's theories of inheritance, to form the 'modern synthesis', which is the current model of evolution. We are well aware that the theory of evolution is a theory, and are not trying to convince anyone otherwise. If we were trying to hide the fact that it is a theory, then choosing to call it 'the theory of evolution' would have been a mistake. Inserting the word 'just' before the 'a theory' bit accomplishes nothing. Science does not claim that humans evolved from apes or monkeys; rather, that humans, apes and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. And finally... I hope you enjoy your time here on science forums and debate. If you treat others politely and with respect, you will be treated likewise. You may receive some animosity due to the behaviour of previous creationists who have visited this site and behaved/argued poorly (and I'm afraid that, more-often-than-not, they do), in which case I apologise in advance and suggest that you request that they not pre-judge you based on the behaviour of previous visiting creationists. Please do not feel offended if your threads get moved into the philosophy and religion or pseudoscience and metaphysics forum, as they will still more-than-likely be replied to. And please feel free to stick around after your argument against evolution has ended. You will undoubtedly be an asset to the religion and philosophy forum, and you may learn a little more about science, even if its only in a 'know your enemy' kinda way Last thing: remember that, as a creationist, you represent creationists as a whole: insanity, stroppieness, hypocrisy and failure to grasp simple concepts will not improve the light in which creationists as a whole are viewed. Inversely, sanity, reasonableness, refrainment from hypocrisy and the ability to grasp (but not necessarily accept) simple concepts will go some way towards reversing the bad image that the majority of the previous visiting creationists have left us with. --------------------------------------------------- If you find yourself repeatedly having to explain something to the visiting creationists, feel free to add a reply to this thread so we can link to it My thanks to Phi For All and Mokele for their help in creating this post