@Yellow - You think the universe came in to existence by accident. I think it came in to existence by design. Why does that make me an idiot? BEYOND that point, I believe in *exactly* the same science that you do. Water boils at the same temperature in my kitchen. The difference between you and I is that you hold on to certain *THEORIES* as if they are fact. I think certain theories are wrong.

Crack open a history book...maybe you will be surprised to learn that there are a great, great, GREAT deal more theories over the years of human history that have fallen to the wayside than there are that were proven as facts. Our particular disagreement happens to be on subjects for which:
1. It is *impossible* to prove or disprove the theory (where man came from)
and
2. (and more importnatly) the answer regarding evolution has *ZERO* impact on 99.9999% of people's lives. Does it really matter if God popped life in to existence versus it emerging from primodial ooze? the idea that this particular answer causes such hatred amongst people....to the point were you think you have to insult me...is kind of pathetic. Have a different belief than me...I don't care...but what you do NOT have is the intellectual integrity to admit that you can, and never will, prove your theory.

@YJ - There is a difference. He only said it points to a creator as you admit. The difference? In the first, random chance could (although it is highly improbably) create the crystaline patterns and even bring about life. But to those willing to open their minds to the concept of a higher power, it is more probable that a higher power did it. The odds of life happening in chaos are mind bogglingly staggering against that it points to the much greater probability that some one set it all in motion and guided it. That is the difference. One says "he exists for certain and this is the prove" and the other says "this leads ne to believe he may be up there).

Yellow
re: #1 and #2 What our society...and what our religions...have lost is the ability to think, and the ability to "philosophize". (Religious) Philosophy is supposed to be about figuring out how God as I believe in Him aligns with the world as I see it, touch it, feel it, measure it, etc. This art is completely lost in our religious leaders.

If I take hear from fellow Christians, so be it. I take a lot of shit from you, too, and I deal with it. Most of the atheists around here are as narrow minded, bigoted and hateful as religious people, and you all talk with the same air of superiority about things for which you have no proof, only theories. i.e., to us, your belief in science where NONE exists (but you'll find it someday if you keep looking...) IS your religion. You'll never prove evolution...but you'd sooner die than publicly profess it isn't true. THAT, my friend, is religion...

TL;DR

I'm fine with the possibility that the universe was created 2 minutes ago with everything just so. Or 6000 years ago. Or however many billions of years ago or even longer than that. Honestly it doesn't matter to me as I have to work with what is now.

Just as with a supreme power. I don't believe in a supreme power, nor do I disbelieve, nor do I particularly wonder. I don't really care. Again, I have to work with the here and now regardless.

What Draug said...it's more probable that God did it is a *great* deal of what went through my mind the further I got in to science. It is actually the *easier* choice once you start playing out the odds...God is easier to believe than science, and God is the more intelligent choice for a scientific mind that grasps the relevant statistics.

@Krellin You're an idiot because you think your argument and mine are no different. You're an idiot because you say unexplained events "point" to ID and then refuse to offer explanation how that is.

#1 that's not what we were arguing. You challenge the big bang as though there were as little evidence supporting it as ID. Which is patently false (do I need to show you? I think you know there is some). That is the only thing I'm arguing right now. Though God is unfalsifiable, the big bang is not. Lacking sufficient current evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is not the same thing as being impossible to disprove.

#2 the ANSWER regarding evolution doesn't have a whole lot of impact, but the discussion of the question in real life sure as hell does. If we allow zealots and fundies to propagate garbage similar to yours as though it were on equal grounds with scientific theory, it holds our progress as a species back.

And I don't insult you merely because we disagree on this issue. I insult you because you're an obtuse, spiteful, ignorant, bigoted little worm, and you don't believe in polite discussion. The only thing you respond to is humiliation.

@krellin - Sorry, I was reading fast in the early parts and misread. I thought that was your view. Sounds like we are more in line. The primary difference being that I don't follow the OT God as being the true divine power. I see Him as being the "goddidit" (as Jack likes to say) of the Hebrew tribes (aka early man). I'm more up in the air as to the divinity of Christ, but that is an entirely different discussion with different reasons for another time.

@YJ - Actually, if I read correctly, Krellin didn't dispute the big bang, he disputes it's cause which I have yet to see evidence for myself. I have seen evidence it hppened, come out of astronomy, but not evidence as to what triggered it.

@draug

" random chance could (although it is highly improbably) create the crystaline patterns and even bring about life"

In an infinite universe infinitely expanding, the probability approaches 1.



@Krellin " to us, your belief in science where NONE exists (but you'll find it someday if you keep looking...) IS your religion. You'll never prove evolution...but you'd sooner die than publicly profess it isn't true. THAT, my friend, is religion... "

Key words being "to us." It's also funny how you say "belief in science where none exists." Dumbshit, the SCIENCE is the process of uncovering the truth, not the truth we expect it likely to uncover. I don't CARE whether the big bang theory specifically is true or not. I CARE that we continually attempt to model theories that align themselves with observation. It could be that somebody someday soon will say, "oops, we fucked up, big bang is bullshit, and here's why," and I'll be all like, whoah. Awesome.

This inability to comprehend this difference is exactly why we find talking to religious people so frustrating. You just. Don't. Get it.

Btw, I want to point out something from earlier.

Draug describes me as a "militant atheist".

Even if true, I'd like to point out this:

Militant theists: They blow themselves up in crowds, fly planes into buildings, and build fortified compounds in Waco.

Militant atheists: They're mean to you on the Internet.

Ich bin amused.

@Draug sounds to me like he's disputing the theory just plenty. He's continually challenging my argument because I ascribe to "theories" which are "magical."

Either he's disputing the big bang theory itself, or he thinks I'm making some statement about how it originated (which I haven't). Either way, he's an idiot.

Now, if you guys wanna theorize about what CAUSED the big bang, I have no opinion about that. And I don't think there are any widely held "magical theories" either among the scientific community either (could be wrong).

Have at her (and yes, I did read enough of YOUR posts that I know this is what you've been talking about all along).

@YJ - But how far are long on the infinite scale are we and how far along were we on the scale when life began? Think of it like a deck of cards. The Ace of spades will flip over eventutally, but the odds of it being the first card are less than 2%. The odds of it being in the front half of the deck are about 50%. If life started very early in the time frame of the universe's, then the odds are extremely slim.

Likewise, with an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite period of time, the odds approach 1 that a monkey (and this is not a=n evolution reference) wrote the complete works of William Shakespeare. So I guess that is the most likely explanation for those writings.

That is how the odds approaching 1 over infinity works.

Druag, I think that argument is flawed.

If you literally DID have infinite monkeys typing on infinite keyboards, random chance DOES become overwhelmingly the most likely reason that Shakespear's works were written.

Infinity times over.

<Thread Hijack>
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist.

@ ghug:
“@Philcore, blind dogmatic belief in AGW is bullshit, sure, but the actual science being done is still science, and climate change is happening. Find something else to be incredibly stupid about.”

I agree that what they do is science. Science is collecting data, modeling the data, making future predictions based on the models, collecting future data to corroborate or refute the prediction. However, if your data and your modeling leads you to a “theory” that human consumption of fossil fuels is leading to an increased CO2 level and that that increase is leading to Global Warming and that that Global warming, through a positive feedback loop is going to have world-wide dire consequences, then if you test that theory over the next 20 years, and nothing happens … then your theory is wrong! You stop doing science when you ignore, explain away or hide the data that you collected which doesn’t support your theory and only hold on to the data that keeps the government funding rolling in.

“climate change is happening”
I absolutely agree with you there. But guess what, it has ALWAYS happened. And man has only been burning fossil fuels for 150 years or so. We see a 30 degree difference in temperature between night and day, every day. We see a 40 degree average difference between summer and winter. We see a daily variance of between 5 and 15 degrees from day to day in the same season. That is a hell of a lot of variation in temperature. If you’re going to try to claim that a .2 degree average rise in temperature across the globe is going to have dire consequences, you’re not really grasping the signal to noise concept.

Lastly, I would like to say that this line “Find something else to be incredibly stupid about.” Just makes you sound like a dick. You can make a point without insulting me, can’t you? I mean we haven’t even had a conversation before on the forum, let alone being constant fueders like some couples on here. And you just want to follow-up what was a reasonable comment with being a complete douchebag?

</ThreadHijack>

@philcore you should talk to Krellin about global warming - he has really insightful opinions and sources about it.

@Jack - militant has only recently taken on the connotation of violent. In the past it has had the connotation of one who is adamant in his views. The atheist hero, Richard Dawkins, called himself a militant atheist in an interview with Thomas Bass for a book published in 1994.

So what, the militant theists who embarked on the Crusades, butchered the entire population of Jerusalem where just "adamant in their beliefs?"

Don't worry. They're just doing your Gods work... like when the Hebrews butchered the entire population of Jericho... your "prime mover" smiled and was well pleased with his chosen people.

For not the first time, I'm very happy to report that its all bullshit, and we should be quite thankful that it is.

Hey Draug on a side note, do you play poker online? For real or play money?

@yellowjacket, do I detect a hint of sarcasm there?

more than a hint :)

@Jack - Crusaders were militant theists. Not all militant theists were crusaders. You fail in that. Sorry. Militant does not now nor has it ever carried a connotation that requires violence. And the term militant atheist does not require violence to apply to one who is adamant in their views.

@YJ - only for fun on occasion, but you can't read people's body language and fun money players are idiots, so it isn't realistic.

OK, I actually fail big time at identifying tells, but I'm pretty decent at picking up betting patterns, so I do pretty well online (yeah, play money, I guess I wouldn't do so well at real money tables).

We should have a f2f webdip poker night in Chicago sometime.

Why Chicago? Let's go to Vegas and fuck around there instead.

I'd just like you to find me a secular group that advocates using planes full of innocents as cruise missiles.

Yep. I think we're more in danger from militant theists than militant atheists. Or people going off their medication and making a huge dramatic production on a forum only to come back a couple days later and weasel out of the consequences of his hilarious shitfit.

Not that I'm talking about anybody in particular, of course. :)

philcore, I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I honestly find it appalling that an intelligent individual such as yourself would come to such an incorrect conclusion. Saying things as simplistic as "the temperature hasn't changed in 20 years" shows a low level of understanding on the topic. If you would like to debate this further, I suggest we move to another thread, I'd also like to know which part of the following logical process you disagree with:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humanity is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Releasing greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere in such quantities will have adverse effects on our climate.

@jack - Ypu are aguing with yoirself because *nobody* here disagrees with you. Militant theists can be the worst of the worst. They incude Hitler and Bin Laden amongst their ranks. But that doesn't alter the fact that you are a close.minded militant atheist.

@ghug - How about this similar leapbof logic.

Plants use CO2 in photosynthesis taking from it what they need and giving us oxygen in return.
We are releaseing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
We are helping plant life which in turn helps us.

Your argument of logic fails when.it passes judgement on the effeft the CO2 has. It has *an* effect. It may or may not be an adverse or detrimental one. In fact, it may help the rainforests long term.

I'm close minded because of....

I insist on evidence, logic, and reason?

I find myths of all kinds unhelpful?

I don't hide behind a veneer of "respect", and instead say what I mean and what I think?

Please, explain this to me.