“If you dismiss everything that hints of divinity as ‘based on emotion’ (even if it isn’t), how will you ever find out about anything divine who/which does exist?”
Such as? Name me ONE aspect of the world that is explained more parsimoniously through God than through natural processes.
“You are shutting the door on a major area of possible knowledge (science) in that surely a real, actual Creator, if known to you, would be a very important part of your science/knowledge of the universe and to establish a course of scientific discovery which precludes such knowledge is surely a huge error to make.”
This coming from someone who has already dismissed virtually the entirety of modern science because it doesn’t conform with his Bronze Age superstitions – yet I’m the one who supposedly has to open my mind.
“When it occurs to me that there is great importance in how asteroids, etc strike the Earth as part of its history and future in that there is a distinct possibility (one not to be dismissed) that the well-known Being responsible for the creation and history of this planet could be using such events all along to make things happen the way He intends – that is exciting and compelling in one’s personal journey of scientific discovery (even if the ’scientific community’ dismisses it because of folk like Luis).”
No, it dismisses it because of this thing called “lack of evidence”. Apparently you can’t distinguish between the two.
“The other month when that asteroid went just a few tens of thousands of miles away from hitting the Earth (only a handful of times the height of Mt Everest) it makes the future of Earth look so fragile and so much in the hands of the One who decides whether or not the next one will hit.”
Right, and if one DOES hit, then you’ll be shrieking about the End of Days; if it doesn’t, you’ll be extolling “God’s mercy”. In other words, heads you win, tails I lose. You can point to nothing that would conceivably change your mind, and yet you dare to lecture others about being open minded to new possibilities? This doesn’t even rise to the level of stupidity. Moving on:
“Then one looks back and sees how such events could make a planet or moon spin differently and how such events under external intelligent control could determine whether the far side of the moon were ever seen and whether the moon exactly covered the sun in an eclipse and whether the Earth would sustain life and an aqueous atmosphere, etc.”
Yeah, and I can “look back” at Napolean’s wars and ponder how they probably led to events that made my birth possible. Does that mean that Napolean’s wars were launched “in order” for me to be born? No? Then stop talking pap. The ONLY thing one needs to posit to explain the “amazing coincidences” about the Earth’s hospitable conditions is the enormity of the universe. We just happen to live on a planet that had the right conditions for life to arise and evolve. We already know of some 40 extrasolar planets in our galaxy; if the rate of discovery isn’t a statistical fluke, then there are BILLIONS of planets in the universe. Many of them – probably most – will be incapable of harbouring life. But we must, by necessity, live on one of the planets that was able to harbour life, or else we wouldn’t be here talking about it. It doesn’t mean that these conditions were set up in order that we could arise, any more than these conditions were set up so that parasitoid wasps could arise.
“Is this not ‘real science’ as much as speculation about sunspots as next year’s weather or glaobal warming.”
No, it’s not real science. It’s just a subjective reaction to seemingly amazing odds; once we douse this with the cold water of reason and logic, we see that we don’t need to posit Sky-Daddies to explain our existence. Some of us, however, have not yet grown out of that.
“If not I’d prefer what seems more real to me than idiotic opinions of folk who cannot understand the difference between real science and atheism – or science fiction or even just popularist science.”
Yep, AIDS research, disease control, conservation biology, and genetics are all “popularist science” (whatever the hell that means) because they all include strong evolutionary components. This is the back-to-front, Alice in Wonderland fantasy you’ve concocted.
“Give me the knowledge of the Creator as part of science along with the knowledge of what He is creating any day. “
Which is why you know so little. Oh well; when you have blind faith on your side, you can always brush aside reality and then judge others for their lack of commitment to your delusions. The rest of us, on the other hand, are actually interested in how the universe works, and we won’t be stopped from trying to find out because people like you don’t want to part with your selfish comfort blanket.
“Take a break from this narrow constraining ideology”
BAHAHAHAHAHA! Stephen thinks that AIDS research is useless “popularist science”, and yet he want us to – get this, everyone – break away from our narrow constraining ideology! Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. If an acid were as concentrated as your hypocrisy, it would burn right through the Earth and poison everything on the other side.
“You only live twice.”
And like I’ve already said: I’d rather go straight to hell than to spend it in eternity with zombies like you. That would be its own special type of hell. And I don’t mean that to be mean or witty; I mean it sincerely and literally.
“How long will the press and the universities/students keep up the pretence that science is somehow to be associated with atheism?”
When the fundamentalists stop trying to strong-arming science and stop spreading lies about evolution. Then the world’s universities will stop having to fight back in defence of reason and logic.
“The origins of science back in the mists of time were deeply religious.”
There’s a few key words there: “back in the mists of time.” Which is where your brain sadly still resides. Luckily, no one is obligated to stay back with you.
“Real wisdom leads to humility.”
How true. If only you showed a bit of both, and tried to lead by example. You might then live up to some of the fine words spoken by your favourite philosopher, instead of using his name to spread ignorance.
“No matter which way you look at it you cant disprove God and Don’t say “i cant see him” you cant see the wind either”
And you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Don’t say “I can’t see him” because you can’t see the wind either. Anyway, that was a bad analogy; we can measure the wind. Can you “measure” God?
“And Luis here are some scripture to back up God
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 1 corinthians 1:19
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12”
Those mean absolutely nothing to me, anymore than something written in any other holy book. They’re just phrases written by human beings a long time ago, trying to come to terms with their existence through the prism of religion. And that’s fine. What isn’t fine is when people use religion to try to strong-arm science and to make claims that are to be taken on faith “because God said so”. We now have much more satisfying and interesting accounts of our existence than anything that the Bible’s writers believed.
“So the most obvious explanation for the above most obvious observation (aside from dubious minor detail and circular arguments) is that humans were either not around at all until six thousand years ago or they weren’t humans as we have observed them since then”
Which is of course completely stupid because we have FOSSILS of humans that are far older than a paltry (and frankly, pathetic) 6,000 years (for all your talk of God being “great” and of a whole new world of understanding opening up to the people who embrace God in their research, the view of life you’re espousing is frightfully boring, pretty, and parochial. Instead of the mind-expanding and scintillating idea of countless millennia, you would rather than your God be small and petty, operating on time scales of a few millennia. Lame. The universe is grand beyond all imagination; it deserves its story to be told truthfully, even if for nothing else than the sheer joy of learning about it; pushing it through a degrading little prism that spits in its face just so people like you won’t be frightened by big numbers is the epitome of vandalism. That’s what you’ve become: an intellectual vandal).
“That is why the atheists cannot bring themselves to apply even their own version of rationalism or their own version of scientific principles to this but have to restort (as they have done above) to passionate insults and incessant ‘rebuttals’ merely directed against what they would otherwise have to admit make sense – the Bible accounts.”
Yep, the world’s scientific journals are filled to the brim with nothing but insults against Biblical accounts. Scientists travel around the world to give conferences on human evolution that are filled with nothing but attacks on Christianity. Makes a whole lot of sense.
“We have power to overcome such pretence.”
We’ve seen that you also have the power to ignore reality, but then, you see that as a virtue. We’ve also seen that you have the power to fill your children’s heads with fundamentalist filth. It doesn’t mean you should do it.
In short, Stephen: major fail. If I were God, I’d be embarrassed to have you as my ambassador on Earth. You do your faith no favours by defending it with such weak, utterly incoherent and sickeningly dishonest “arguments”. What’s more, you insult God by constantly advertising your complete lack of interest in rationality, even uttering such stupid phrases as “Does it really matter that much whether there is life on Mars or whether Darwin got it right or whether we can be better off with science or stem cell research or a cure to cancer” – but then you tell everyone that the wonder of the universe is created by God! So one minute you’re smearing the universe and its beauty and doing your best to make those who care about science look like dangerous nerds, the next minute you’re trying to take credit for the achievements of science by talking about its religious origins. Pick ONE. Sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy. But I don’t expect you to take heed of any of this; that would require honesty (far beyond the capacity of someone who just KNOWS that he’s right and that isn’t even concerned with investigating the claims he makes). Instead, you’ll continue to do as you ALWAYS do: go off on yet another tangent and spout more scripture (and then lament our lack of open mindedness when we notify you that this ain’t enough). Which is pretty much the only recourse you have, because it’s obvious to anyone reading this that you have no respect whatsoever for truth.
Source : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/26/15-million-years-ago-homo-erectus-walked-a-lot-like-us/