Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

[voyager9]

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

Allow me to clarify my statement. Science cannot prove, or disprove the existence of a god. Certainly it can prove or disprove various religious teachings... aka Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism. The later statement better corresponds with your analogy.

[HuntPA]

I don't waste time on young earthers anymore. I find them too pathetically ignorant to bother with. I could attempt a factual conversation, but I usually get paid to teach science and I find young earthers typically need at least a couple of years of background education before they can debate the subject intelligently. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

Go ahead and believe whatever fairy tales you wish.

Since you wish to end the discussion with me then, I will sign off on this subject and wish you a good day.

I will add, however, that when adressing someone, calling them "pathetically ignorant" does not evoke feelings of good will. I also implore you not to use such a tone in your classes as it will undoubtedly lead to you losing your position. I know that if I were to take the same tact, that I would no longer be employed the the university that pays me.

[ChiefKN]

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

Tell me what evidence disproves the existence of god? Also, "what religion teaches" is so vague and all non-encompasing that I wouldn't know where to begin.

But keep it up, you're impressing us all with your stunning commentary.

[DeputyMarshal]

That would be "believe" "professor/TA" condescending. I assume of "Rocks for Jocks".

And I assume you've never posted a note with a typo? Aren't you special.

[neiowa]

...

Go ahead and belief whatever fairy tales you wish.

That would be "believe" "professor/TA" condescending. I assume of "Rocks for Jocks".

[DeputyMarshal]

I took geology classes in college. How many have you taken? And they were taught from an old earth viewpoint

So did I. Afterwards I taught them in college. They weren't from an old earth viewpoint but from an objective evidence viewpoint.

I notice that your tone is changing from one of evidence and interpretation to that of "I don't agree, so I am going to call names without factual backing."

I don't waste time on young earthers anymore. I find them too pathetically ignorant to bother with. I could attempt a factual conversation, but I usually get paid to teach science and I find young earthers typically need at least a couple of years of background education before they can debate the subject intelligently. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

Go ahead and believe whatever fairy tales you wish.

[HuntPA]

Please take a geology class.


Only if you presume a flood for which we have no evidence and ignore a rather large body of geological knowledge accumulated over the last few centuries. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.



While there may be a philosophical argument to suggest that the Bible may contain figurative truths, the notion that the Biblical creation story is literally true is, without any rational doubt, absurd.

I took geology classes in college. How many have you taken? And they were taught from an old earth viewpoint. I was unable to have the professor explain to me why you can not find the "geologic column" in complete order anywhere in the world. I also asked how several trees have been fossilized completely upside down through several strata of sedimetary rock. The rock is perfectly formed around the tree (including the needles as they are mostly evergreen) with no evidence that it was somehow inserted.

I notice that your tone is changing from one of evidence and interpretation to that of "I don't agree, so I am going to call names without factual backing." I was looking forward to a factual conversation, or even a philisophical debate, but not a name calling session where you say that I am believe in sky fairies with no grounding in science.

[ThNozzleman]

It's a bit of apples and oranges.

There is overwhelming evidence that smoking is in fact BAD for you. Whereas there is zero evidence one way or the other for the 'magic of religion' as you put it.

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

[ThNozzleman]

Just stick with calling it silly. I don't expect any deeper comments from you.

Heh...and you're really knockin' them out of the park, philosophically speaking, right?

[DeputyMarshal]

According to my theory

Please take a geology class.

To me it makes much more sense in scientific terms that the Grand Canyon is a result of recent events and not millions of years.

Only if you presume a flood for which we have no evidence and ignore a rather large body of geological knowledge accumulated over the last few centuries. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

I am an engineer and have a very analytical mind.

Then I would suggest applying it to actual facts.

I do have great faith that the Bible is true in its account of the Creator and creation.

While there may be a philosophical argument to suggest that the Bible may contain figurative truths, the notion that the Biblical creation story is literally true is, without any rational doubt, absurd.

[HuntPA]

That only works if the "viewpoints" are objectively and equally valid.

In the case offered, the "Evolution" viewpoint is backed up by substantial science.

According to my theory, there was a world wide flood approximately 4400 years ago. During the receding of the waters, a giant lake was formed in the Yellowstone basin. The recently deposited sedimentary rock forming the area now including the Grand Canyon was still relatively soft and was the weak spot. The water then rushed through the narrow hole in the dam creating a canyon through many layers of sedimentary rock. This hypothesis is confirmed in the events immediately following the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the geological features created thereafter.

The flow of the Little Colorado River into the Colorado river is at a direction against the flow of the Colorado. This indicates that the convergence of the rivers is relatively young. River geology dictates that as rivers converge, the meeting points of the rivers form an acute angle where the flows merge over time. Younger rivers can form obtuse angles where the flows converge in directions of opposite flow. Erosion then changes the direction of flow of the rivers so that the convergence angle is moved to acute. This has been observed in river formation and flow change after geological upheavil, subsidance, or other catasrophic change that changes the flow of the two rivers so that they intersect.

To me it makes much more sense in scientific terms that the Grand Canyon is a result of recent events and not millions of years.

I am an engineer and have a very analytical mind. While I have great faith, I also understand that there should be evidence to substantiate my beliefs and evidence from what I believe to be the history of the world. I have looked into these evidences and have been convinced that understanding the facts from different viewpoints will alter the conclusions drawn from the interpretations of the said facts. I have found more than enough evidence and even more hole is the old earth accounts that point me that indeed my theory is correct. I also do not have all of the answers or claim to know about all of what we have as part of our physical universe. I do have great faith that the Bible is true in its account of the Creator and creation. I put this in here so that you understand my assumptions while looking at information and how that affects my interpretation of what is seen. Also, I want to make sure that people understand that I am not here to preach either.

[DeputyMarshal]

This brings up an interesting point to the debate. How much is the interpretation of the evidence influenced by one's end viewpoint?

That only works if the "viewpoints" are objectively and equally valid.

In the case offered, the "Evolution" viewpoint is backed up by substantial science. (I'm not sure how an example of physical geography and long term erosion get labeled as the evolution viewpoint...)

The "Young Earth Creationist" (pronounced "ignorant crackpots") viewpoint lacks any credible scientific support. It's a classic example of trying to rationalize the data to fit a preconceived conclusion. Nevermind that the conclusion contradicts numerous other well supported theories in several other disciplines.

Both views can look at the same evidence and use it to bolster their own theory.

The difference is that the Y.E. Creationists don't have a "theory;" they have a collection of tall tales concocted to fit their presupposed conclusions.

[HuntPA]

We can see where the evidence takes us and what the evidence suggests but we have no direct observation.

This brings up an interesting point to the debate. How much is the interpretation of the evidence influenced by one's end viewpoint? For a case in point.
Evidence - The Grand Canyon exists in Arizona

Interpretations:
Evolution:
This is a classic case of water erosion taking eons of time to wear through several strata of rock. This shows how the rock was formed by deposit of the sediment, compression, and rock formation. This is followed by extreme time frames of erosion wearing through the rock as a very slow uplift raised the top surface.

Creation:
This is a classic case of catostrophic flooding carving a channel in a very short amount of time. Because the top of the canyon in the middle is a higher elevation than the beginning of the river in Utah, the river could not have eroded through as the water would have needed to flow uphill for some period of time. Whereas the Mount St. Helens eruption formed features very similar. The ash dopsited in layers very similar in appearance to the canyon. The back up of water was then breached carving a canyon through the layered levels of ash that mimicked the way that the Colorado River flows through the canyon.

Both views can look at the same evidence and use it to bolster their own theory. Some smart person once had a couple theories about this phenomenon. I think that he called it Relativity.

[doughesson]

Most US Navy wardrooms have a gentleman's agreement that religion,politics and women should not be discussed during meals.
This is because the officers will at some point have to depend on one another and not decide because someone has a different point of view that "I ain't helping that sorry SOB" or similar sentiment.
Some people will always be thin skinned baloons in a world full of sharp objects and we will have to have such strictures in place to avoid conflict between people who should work together under stress.

Would it be any different than an African-American muslim saying "Allah akbar" at a KKK rally? Or even a christian church?

Your proposal (and mine) only prove to folks like me why religion is more harmful than beneficial.

[DeputyMarshal]

There are several atheist organizations:

I was looking for "atheist organization" that conduct scientific research -- not extremist crackpots -- that's where most of those groups fall. The run of the mill garden atheist doesn't belong to any atheist organization. (BTW, Freedom from Religion isn't an "atheist" organization.)

This means that it will always be a debate of theories, beliefs, and conjecture.

Agreed. We can see where the evidence takes us and what the evidence suggests but we have no direct observation.

I enjoy a good philisophical debate as it exercises a part of my brain that is dormant most of the time.

Ditto.