Can a religious opinion be wrong?

[hefdaddy42]

Can a religious opinion be wrong?

Yes.

[j]

I was speaking in lamens terms. I don't actually mean suddenly, as in within seconds, I mean comparatively suddenly. For example, for about 200 million years very little evolution occurs, but then over the course of the next 500,000 years lots of evolution occurs. And just because you have never met a scientists who "believes" this doesn't mean it isn't real, its called punctuated equilibrium.

Pretty strange description of punctuated equilibrium, even for "lamens terms", but okay.  For the record, even proponents of this theory agree that plenty of evolutionary change goes on even during periods of stasis, but that it's with much less frequency that they only aggregate into macro changes such as those that mark divergence of species.

Exactly, thats the debate. Some people think that DNA mutations aren't important, others think it is.

I'm unaware of this debate.  To deny that DNA mutations are integral to the theory of evolution would show complete ignorance of its fundamental principles.

No you idiot. Science has evidence. Evidence means that there is no faith. By definition it is not grounded in faith if you have evidence.

  Damn, take it easy bro.  Anyway this is wrong as well, but I'm gonna leave it at that.

-J

[William Wallace]

This might be a good starting point for discussion.  I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP.  You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP.  I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles.  Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable?  It's the same thing with newer religions.

Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.

Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?

[latvianxave8]

I'm unaware of this debate.  To deny that DNA mutations are integral to the theory of evolution would show complete ignorance of its fundamental principles.

No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?

Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.

The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.

Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?

[Chino]

No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation.

No it can't. If genes never mutated, every offspring would be a 100% replica of its parent.

[GuineaPig]

This might be a good starting point for discussion.  I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP.  You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP.  I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles.  Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable?  It's the same thing with newer religions.

Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.

Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?

I'll agree with you on the "skeptic" movement, which I find often is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  I don't hold any of the beliefs you mention, and while I find such beliefs ill-informed I disagree that it's the same as the OP's views.  They're ignorant positions, yes, and ones likely cultivated by adherence to a specific world view, but they're not religiously based.  They're more along the lines of people denying AGW due to political reasons.  It might be a fine line to draw, because the parallel you constructed both feature beliefs built around existing ones, but to me there's a difference between convictions supposedly based on fact (like "Jesus didn't exist) and on faith (thetans).  Maybe I'm splitting hairs.  I'm sure many people (Young Earth Creationists, for example) would claim that their arguments are based upon fact.  It's possible that with such muddled claims it's impossible to draw a dividing line between faith and fact, regardless of what their proponents might claim to be basing their argument on.  You're definitely right that buzzwords which one side claims exclusivity on should be treated with disdain (like one entity you like to link to, for example) and that poor critical thinking should be dressed down regardless of its origins.

And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples.  I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.

[73109]

IIRC, Bosk has stated that the earth is closer to 6,000 years rather than 4.5 billion, which is the general consensus among scientists, and no offense bosk, if that is true, you are most certainly denying what 99.9% of scientists to believe as absolute truth. I don't wan to speculate so I will let him talk for himself about the issue.

[7StringedBeast]

No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation.

No it can't. If genes never mutated, every offspring would be a 100% replica of its parent.

That's not true.  There are dominant and recessive traits.  These are random orderings, so offspring will not be replicas of their parents without gene mutation.

Gene mutation does not need to happen to cause evolution though.  Natural selection can cause evolution.  Bigger faster people, more likely to survive and pass on their genes for being bigger and faster eventually lead to bigger and faster people as small and slow die out.  That is natural selection which over time becomes evolution.

Gene mutation can also aid in evolution and cause evolution to occur.  It can be the catalyst, but is not necessary.

EDIT:  Unless gene mutation causes the differences in the first place.  Which might actually be true and why we have so many different types of people. 

[ack44]

Can a religious opinion be wrong?

Yes.

Can a religious opinion be right?

[7StringedBeast]

Can a religious opinion be wrong?

Yes.

Can a religious opinion be right?

Yes.  Why not?  Remember religion does not equal belief in god or the supernatural.  example being Buddhists.  But either way, the existence of god is not proven or unproven, so yeah they could very well be right.  And if you believe something because of religion that goes against something that is already proven (the earth is round vs flat for example) you would be wrong even though you believe it a certain way.

[Chino]

There are still thousands of people who believe the earth is flat. Google the flat earth society.

[73109]

Really?

[7StringedBeast]

There are still thousands of people who believe the earth is flat. Google the flat earth society.

wow for real?  I mean.... we have images from space showing the earth is indeed round.  The ignorance of people astounds me.

[73109]

Just looked it up. There are like 60 people in it...how stupid can one be?

[ack44]

There are people who believe the earth is a square.

[GuineaPig]

That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.

[William Wallace]

This might be a good starting point for discussion.  I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP.  You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP.  I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles.  Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable?  It's the same thing with newer religions.

Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.

Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?

I'll agree with you on the "skeptic" movement, which I find often is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  I don't hold any of the beliefs you mention, and while I find such beliefs ill-informed I disagree that it's the same as the OP's views.  They're ignorant positions, yes, and ones likely cultivated by adherence to a specific world view, but they're not religiously based.  They're more along the lines of people denying AGW due to political reasons.  It might be a fine line to draw, because the parallel you constructed both feature beliefs built around existing ones, but to me there's a difference between convictions supposedly based on fact (like "Jesus didn't exist) and on faith (thetans).  Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

I'd say you are; neither are based on fact. I'm sure scientologists have reasons for believing in thetans (I think that's what you're referring to) but their claim is no more (or less) based in reality than the Christ-mythers' claims.

  

I'm sure many people (Young Earth Creationists, for example) would claim that their arguments are based upon fact.  It's possible that with such muddled claims it's impossible to draw a dividing line between faith and fact, regardless of what their proponents might claim to be basing their argument on.

If someone is making a claim about religion, e.g. God exists, that can be called a statement of faith. But whether that assertion is defensible or not is another question. We should stop suggesting that faith vs. fact is synonymous with false vs. true.  

And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples.  I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.

Yeah, I'll wait to hear his opinion as well.

[sonatafanica]

Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.

Similar warnings for you.  You are free to disagree with anything you like.  But your P/R posts that I have seen lately are nothing but trolling.  Either contribute or stay out of P/R please.

The latter is probably a good idea, I only come onto this side when I'm tired and bored anyway, so I can be a bit boorish. A bit of a dick, actually. A huge cock, one might say. A sizely penis might be the term, or fat, pulsing john thomas.

Sorry Joe, I never meant to hurt you, I never meant to make you cry.

[7StringedBeast]

That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.

Which also makes sense because cubes are circles.

Anyway, I don't think people's religious beliefs can actually be wrong.  Beliefs are opinions, and there are no right or wrong opinions.  There may be proof for some things, but you have to believe science and math are correct, it is possible for someone to not believe that I suppose.  I don't know philosophically if that makes them wrong or just in disagreement with most of the world.  It really is relative I suppose.  Someone may actually truly believe the world is flat, and though it sounds crazy and is proven to be untrue by people who believe in science and empirical evidence, this person may not even believe in such a thing.  What if they believe they are in the Matrix?  Are they wrong?  Maybe, but I guess if you can believe in God why not believe in the Matrix.  To me they both seem just as credible.

[bosk1]

Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.

Similar warnings for you.  You are free to disagree with anything you like.  But your P/R posts that I have seen lately are nothing but trolling.  Either contribute or stay out of P/R please.

The latter is probably a good idea, I only come onto this side when I'm tired and bored anyway, so I can be a bit boorish. A bit of a dick, actually. A huge cock, one might say. A sizely penis might be the term, or fat, pulsing john thomas.

Sorry Joe, I never meant to hurt you, I never meant to make you cry.

It's okay.  There are times when, if you were a piece of equipment that belonged to Brett Favre, you'd be a purple helmet.  But most of the time, not.

That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.

Which also makes sense because cubes are circles.

Anyway, I don't think people's religious beliefs can actually be wrong.  Beliefs are opinions, and there are no right or wrong opinions.  There may be proof for some things, but you have to believe science and math are correct, it is possible for someone to not believe that I suppose.  I don't know philosophically if that makes them wrong or just in disagreement with most of the world.  It really is relative I suppose.  Someone may actually truly believe the world is flat, and though it sounds crazy and is proven to be untrue by people who believe in science and empirical evidence, this person may not even believe in such a thing.  What if they believe they are in the Matrix?  Are they wrong?  Maybe, but I guess if you can believe in God why not believe in the Matrix.  To me they both seem just as credible.

DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!!  EVER!!!  SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!!  STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!!  WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. 

And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples.  I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.

Yeah, I'll wait to hear his opinion as well.

What??  You know pretty much exactly what I believe in that regard.

[William Wallace]

What??  You know pretty much exactly what I believe in that regard.

I have an idea, but I won't speak for you.

[bosk1]

Short answer:  I believe evolution within species takes place; I believe macro evolution that has produced and is producing different species likely does not.  I believe in a young earth, but do not know how young.  And I believe there is scientific evidence supporting a young earth.  I will leave it to WW to argue the specifics.  He and I may differ on some of the specifics, but it's not important enough to me for me to take a position on every specific sub-issue.

[7StringedBeast]

DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!!  EVER!!!  SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!!  STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!!  WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. 

OMG WHAT HAVE I DONE?!

[William Wallace]

Short answer:  I believe evolution within species takes place; I believe macro evolution that has produced and is producing different species likely does not.  I believe in a young earth, but do not know how young.  And I believe there is scientific evidence supporting a young earth.  I will leave it to WW to argue the specifics.  He and I may differ on some of the specifics, but it's not important enough to me for me to take a position on every specific sub-issue.

My views has changed some in the last year, so I probably won't be arguing for a young earth. I still think Darwinism has been pushed far past it's utility by folks like Dawkins, but a lot of reading and researching into both science and theology has forced me to back off my previously help point of view.

[j]

Gene mutation does not need to happen to cause evolution though.  Natural selection can cause evolution.  Bigger faster people, more likely to survive and pass on their genes for being bigger and faster eventually lead to bigger and faster people as small and slow die out.  That is natural selection which over time becomes evolution.

Gene mutation can also aid in evolution and cause evolution to occur.  It can be the catalyst, but is not necessary.

EDIT:  Unless gene mutation causes the differences in the first place.  Which might actually be true and why we have so many different types of people. 

Nailed it with your edit.  Mutations are what caused those people to be bigger and faster, and thus selected for.

No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?

Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.

The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.

Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?

I haven't said anything about creation or the origin of life.  But the basis for evolution is differences in DNA.  The source of differences in DNA is genetic mutation.  There can be no apes, moles, or mice unless they genetically diverged somewhere along the phylogenetic tree.  In order for this to happen, their DNA had to change (mutate), to give them different attributes.  Then some mutations are selected for and against.

-J

[GuineaPig]

I'd say you are; neither are based on fact. I'm sure scientologists have reasons for believing in thetans (I think that's what you're referring to) but their claim is no more (or less) based in reality than the Christ-mythers' claims.

If someone is making a claim about religion, e.g. God exists, that can be called a statement of faith. But whether that assertion is defensible or not is another question. We should stop suggesting that faith vs. fact is synonymous with false vs. true.  

Big block of text cut out.  Sorry.

I just wanted to point out that I did not equate faith vs. fact with false vs. true.  What I said was that the people making the unsound arguments we talked about would justify them for those reasons; a "Christ-myther" would claim his argument sound based on his factual merit, a Scientologist would use spiritual justification. 

However, I think it's obvious that naturalistic/historical methods of inquiry are superior to faith-based ones.  Unfortunately, many tend to claim the former despite relying on the latter.  I guess that's the similar thread of the examples we've discussed.

[hefdaddy42]

DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!!  EVER!!!  SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!!  STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!!  WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. 

FEAR NOT the return of the NAMELESS ONE!  Have you not SEEN the evidence of the endless DELUSION of your surroundings?  Do you think that is AIR that you are breathing?  Do you still INSIST that there IS, in fact, a SPOON?

He that has ears, LET HIM HEAR!

[bosk1]

STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hefdaddy42]

lol

[Ħ]

evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.

That's not what evolutionists say.

creation is virtually impossible

How?

[bosk1]

creation is virtually impossible

How?

I actually agree with him.  It is virtually impossible. 

...that's why it took God to do it. 

[73109]

fuck

[GuineaPig]

evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.

That's not what evolutionists say.

What?  Latvianxave8 may not be the best emissary on these matters, but he's right here.

[Ħ]

evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.

That's not what evolutionists say.

What?  Latvianxave8 may not be the best emissary on these matters, but he's right here.

My quip was directed at his last statement.  Evolutionists believe that life evolved out of nonlife (self-replicating RNA gradually becoming more complex, for example).

[bosk1]

My views has changed some in the last year, so I probably won't be arguing for a young earth.

Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield were just telling me the other day they didn't feel like they had sold out completely yet and were looking for someone to teach them how.  Can I have your phone number?