"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion"

[Kaleb]

I suppose this is true. However, people appear to infer something from it that is completely untrue:
That all opinions are equal.

In fact, opinions are almost never equal, though often enough they are close enough that both warrant consideration by the other. An opinion or belief based on hearsay or blind faith is basically worthless, when compared to an opinion based upon fact or empirical evidence.

I see this statement all the time, and very often from smart people. I suspect their adherence to the politically correct belief that all people are equal makes them reluctant to even entertain the notion that some people's opinions are worth more than others, when further consideration will show it as being inherently obvious.
For instance, I value the opinion of my professor far more than I value the opinions of my classmates (In one case, another of my profs is a complete idiot, doesn't seem to understand the material he's presenting at all, and often draws completely incorrect conclusions from simple, famous experiments, but that's hardly an entertaining story).

So yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that might give them the right to hold foolish opinions, but it certainly does not justify them holding those opinions. If someone holds foolish opinions despite evidence to the contrary that far outweighs the evidence that supports their opinions, there is one obvious conclusion: that person is a fool.

Now, I just need to compress that into a speech for use everytime I hear someone use this d**n phrase like it means something. =)

[Soul-Divider]

try this:
"Your a fool"

that should work...it's understandable by 99% of people and if you get bored, then you can recite it all.
Still this is correct.
example:
person 1: that wall is stupid, reason: because it is
person 2: It's not stupid, reason: because walls do not posses intellegence of any format, and thus cannot be given a description relative to the ammount of thinking capacity or otherwise they posses.

Opinion 1: Valid yes.
Opinion2: valid yes. However these two are not equal, as we all know, person 2 is more or less correct, and thus if theese were to eb held as equal, that would mean there'd be no need for any type of evidence or any form of backing up for any statement to be considered true (imagine the courts)



Ok. I just drabbled on then, not really sure what I was typing..hope it made sense =P

[Silas]

It's like coming up behind a guy in the Express Lane that the supermarket where it is clearly posted "11 items or less" and he has about 54 items. One might think, "This guy can't count." while another, "This guy can't read."

However, Kaleb is refering to when people come to a conflict and instead of trying to find the one true answer (if any) they just use the escape "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion." True, but not all opinions are precise or accurate. If an "intelligent" person says that to cover his own ass, it's because he doesn't truly know, but he would rather think he is in the right. If he is saying it to cover up someone else, it's because he doesn't have an answer.

But that's just my opinion.

[Avelon]

Hey, now. I used that phrase in "Okay fine", not meaning to cover anyone's ass.

[Kaleb]

xtreeme said:

<Lots of spelling mistakes and a complete lack of cohesion.>

Seriously, what the hell was the point of all that? Maybe Silas' explanation will help you puzzle it out, but I thought I was rather clear.

[Jest]

I agree with you Kaleb, however most things can not simply be discussed untill you reach an end. Like Religion versus Evolution. People have been pointing out flaws in both for so many years that we have one thousand and one excuses for every point brought up. Frankly it's at the point where it almost is simply a matter of opinion, and no one has yet to figure out who's is worth more.

Theres been brilliant men on both sides of almost any debate. You can't just say one persons opinion is worth more. Because, that's just your opinion is it not?

But it's much like me, how I put great worth in my fathers opinions. Even though he's been wrong on many occasions.

In the end, everyone is entitled to their bliss, ignorance, opinion, and or lack there of. Untill of coarse we meet the man who can tell us who's opinion is worth more. Or did he allready come, get hung on a cross and people are argueing the worth of his opinion. XD

Well, now that I've trailed off, added something christian which Kaleb will possibly tear at and gone of on tangents I think I'll take my leave.

[Avelon]

Isn't it you Christians who say it's not the place of humans to judge? =p

You almost make a good point, Jest, but I don't think you're on quite the same wavelength as Kaleb. An opinion based on indisputable fact is worth more than one based on assumptions or blatant falsehoods. By 'indisputable fact', I actually mean 'anything that is as close to proven as possible, that only idiots argue against', since everything can be disputed.

[Kaleb]

admin said:

I agree with you Kaleb, however most things can not simply be discussed untill you reach an end. Like Religion versus Evolution. People have been pointing out flaws in both for so many years that we have one thousand and one excuses for every point brought up. Frankly it's at the point where it almost is simply a matter of opinion, and no one has yet to figure out who's is worth more.

How can you be so wrong? I know you're a Christian, and the church is hardly a supporter of independent thought, but that excuse only goes so far.

First off, it is inherently wrong to suggest that subscribing to a religion is somehow the same as believing in Evolution. You're already approaching it incorrectly. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection is an attempt to understand, to find the truth about the natural world. Religion is an attempt to tell people that you already have all the answers. I'm sure you've heard that thinking you know something is the surest way to avoid learning, and it's definitely true. To suggest that it is a matter of opinion, that all beliefs are equal is an insult to the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to finding the truth, rather than attributing everything that's unexplained to a higher power, especially a higher power with no evidence supporting its existence.
Natural selection is indisputable. You cannot argue against it. The mind rebels at such an attempt to warp reality. Evolution by means of natural selection is likewise impossible to argue against, though the extent to which such evolution takes time and over what time frame is not beyond question. If one believes in evolution because of the mass of evidence that supports it, and another believes against evolution because his pastor and his parents say that God did it, of course the opinion of the evolutionist is worth more, because his belief is based on concrete, positive principles. I fail to see how this is not self-evident, perhaps you could explain it to me?

admin said:

Theres been brilliant men on both sides of almost any debate. You can't just say one persons opinion is worth more. Because, that's just your opinion is it not?

Now, there might be some anti-evolutionists (I use this term because it may be wrong to generalise all Christians as being against evolution, mostly because at some indeterminate point in the future they will see how hard it is to argue with fact and adapt their beliefs, meanwhile admitting nothing.), that are smart, but they obviously weren't smart enough (or wise enough, if you prefer), to question their own beliefs and examine them without prejudice. Now, the entire point of my first post was that you can, and should, say that the values of opinions do differ. If someone believes in... well, evolution, because it's the example you've used, because he's seen the evidence for it, his belief is worth more than the Christian who beliefs against evolution because his pastor told him that's the way it is, for two reasons:
First, because the evolutionist's belief is based on scientific fact and comprehensive theories, while the Christian's belief is based on hearsay, and 100th-hand hearsay at that.
Secondly, belief against something because it contradicts your own beliefs is inherently flawed. Just because you believe something does not make it true, and all other modes of thought false.

admin said:

But it's much like me, how I put great worth in my fathers opinions. Even though he's been wrong on many occasions.

Not meaning to offend you or your dad, but this suggests you shouldn't place as much value in your father's opinions. For some slight relief of tension at this point, I'll quote the parable George W. Bush couldn't: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

admin said:

In the end, everyone is entitled to their bliss, ignorance, opinion, and or lack there of. Untill of coarse we meet the man who can tell us who's opinion is worth more. Or did he allready come, get hung on a cross and people are argueing the worth of his opinion. XD

You make an incredibly wrong statement, and then follow it with a joking statement which, coincidentally, is based on personal belief without anything resembling proof.
How can you possibly feel that people are entitled to bliss? No one gets bliss, ever. They're foolish themselves if they think they are. Obviously we aren't entitled to that. Neither are we entitled to ignorance. There is no justification for stupidity. And is it even possible to have a lack of an opinion? One can not feel strongly about something, can avoid giving their opinion for fear of conflict, or many other things, but I don't see how someone can not have an opinion on any given subject.

Now, I do not intend to insult anyone with this, but I would happily insult you for hours if I felt it would make you think more about the material I presented. Try to put aside your own beliefs, discard that political correctness bullnuts about equality, and just think about facts. Facts are what matter. Sure, an anecdote has some weight, but a million anecdotes aren't worth one fact.

[Gostie]

Good post.

*Salutes*

[Silas]

I went to make a big post, but I got signed out and it the form got cleared when I hit the post button. I will comment tomorrow, but what my post is going to say is "Evolutionists like Kaleb have more faith than many Christians. Evolutionists are greater hypocrites than the stereotypical Christian. Their fact is flawwed because it's based on assumptions which are considered facts because they are based on the fact based on them. They just loop things around and then deny that there is anything wrong with their beliefs. Half of them don't even know because they don't even think about anything being wrong with them."

And Christians can believe in science without believing in evolution. Because evolution isn't science.

People can be blissful or ignorant. eg. If you were to ask some refugee from Rwanda which was the better scripting language: perl, python or ruby, and he fails to have an opinion, is that because he is ignorant, blissful, stupid or denying he has an opinion?

And lets try to keep our posts short, it's hard for anyone to get into a discussion when they have to read a novel, then another novel in retort of the first one, rinsed and repeated.

[Avelon]

I recommend putting your intellectual affairs in order, Silas. =p

Evolutionists not only don't have more blind faith (which is the term you should have used) than Christians, they fail, in every sense of the word, to be hypocrites. Let's deal with these two accusations one at a time.

I see you didn't put forth any examples of how evolutionists loop facts; nor did you explain 'assumptions which are considered facts because they are based on fact based on them', which I can make little sense of. Fact based on their own existence? Logical assumptions following a single, core fact? I can think of no better example of fact that existence itself. We DO exist. Argue with that, if you can. Logical assumptions based on fact are more formally known as theories than hypocrisy, but to each his own, I guess.

Evolution is factual, unless you want to sit here and call archaeologists a myth, and fossils false leads somebody's sick God threw down here for the sole purpose of confusing us. What you REALLY want to contest is the precursor to evolution; such as the infinitely popular 'Big Bang Theory', which it pleases me to no end to point out is a theory, not an example of looping quasi-facts.

The question is, are we products of evolution? Considering those mythical d**ned archaeologists have actually uncovered various phases of evolution that might, just MIGHT not be us, and may instead be ape-men that completely died out, I would venture to say 'Yes'.

Hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs you do not share. If I were to suddenly start preaching, I would be a hypocrite. If Arilan started talking about how very trite and boring Harry Potter is, she would be a hypocrite.

What makes an evolutionist a hypocrite? And are you so intimately familiar with evolutionism that you can smell the ones who are secretly Christians?

As for anyone, much less Christians (who have historically never agreed to anything for at least 10 years before switching sides and pretending they never disagreed), believing in science without evolution, there are two things to say:
1.) Christians don't believe in any kind of science. "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." In Christianese, that translates to 'Heresy'. Questioning the obvious (All is God's work inJesusnameweprayAMEN) was actually cause to be axed in the Dark Ages, you know.
2.) How is evolution not a science? We're here. How did we get here? Please consult the above definition for 'science' I supplied, then - with a straight face, mind you - tell me again that evolution isn't a science.

People CAN be ignorant, but that doesn't give them the right to REMAIN ignorant when presented with the opportunity to be otherwise. It's a betrayal to the nature of humans to close your mind and refuse to ask WHY things are the way they are. Christians serve again as a perfect example for what I now dub 'traitorous, inhuman bigotry'.

- Love,
The Logic Troll

[Eskimo]

I'm not going to write a whole lot since <complaints>I'm tired, have a sinus infection, cold, throat infection, hungry, can’t think straight*goes on complaining for an hour and acerbates everyone*</complaints>

I do agree with you that evolutionists are rarely hypocrites; I mean to believe in evolution (unless you’re one of those stupid theistic-evolutionist who should be shot) you also, most likely, adhere to the relativistic worldview of secular humanism and can thus not be a hypocrite by the moral standard.

Christians, from what I’ve observed, are usually emotionally based in their beliefs, considering that we live in a culture where 95% of sermons talk on an emotional level and not an intellectual. Christians, as J.P. Moreland put it, have lost their minds since the awakenings. Where emotional sermons converted people to their beliefs, and where intellects put out the kick ass on those mindless Christians:p

Since I don’t want to go into a big speech, I’ll simply put why I believe in the existence of a supernatural being... First off I have a problem believing in evolution because: the first and second law of thermodynamics. The first law states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Of course one might stipulate that if matter can neither be created nor destroyed then God cannot exist, however, Christians believe the universe was created by unnatural means and thus this attack has no foundation. The second law of thermodynamics is of course the law of entropy, which we all know proves the universe had a definite beginning. Thus with this said, if we are to apply the first law of thermodynamics to it, the universe had to come from something else if it had a beginning and if it can’t have come about through natural means, since matter cannot itself come into being by natural means, then it had to have come about by supernatural means. Also the missing transitional forms to which Darwin said would be abundant have, of course, never been found. I suppose it depends what form of evolution you adhere to for anymore attacks I could use. That is the Puncuated Equilibrium hypothesis or strict Darwinianism. (The second of which I believe to be quite outdated as with every other religious book I've come across)

I also lean towards the belief in a supernatural God because, the teliotory argument. That is there can’t be a creator without a creation anymore then there can be a painting with a painter. I would blabber on, but I’m sure you’ve all heard these reasons and I’m too lazy to put in my own personal reasons right now...

[Silas]

See this is what I meant by huge posts. I can hardly bring myself to read it since I would much rather spend this time playing WoW or watching a movie or doing homework or many sticking my genitals in a blender. But I will endure and try to keep going.

Example of evolutionist looping facts: These dinosaur bones are 16 million years old because the carbon dating says so. This carbon dating says they are 16 million years old because these bones are 16 million years old.

Since we assumed that carbon dating is accurate and it's results provide fact, that's an assumption considered a fact.

Hypocrisy
1. [n] insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
2. [n] an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
Either you are a hypocrite or you are ignorant. Kaleb and you have to now duke it out whom is correct.

And now I will put up my own arguement against evolution. I can personally believe that a species will adapt to an enviroment, in which being that the fittest survive and the less fit die off. Then those better suited to their enviroment breed and produce offspring with similar capabilities thus surviving. However, to think that somehow a species can become another species is the blind faith I was talking about. Then to tell me that evolution is correct on that is either hypocrisy or ignorance.

[Kaleb]

Hah! I got people to post! So there! Now head on over to my thread in Music ---> it's much less hostile over there.

First off, I have to ask: Do you know how Carbon Dating/Radiocarbon Dating/C-14 Dating/whatever else you want to call it works? Your post seems to suggest you do not.
Now, I will admit that C-14 Dating is based on some rather large assumptions, but we don't have much for reasons to suggest those assumptions aren't true. Now, it's been more than a year since I wrote a paper on this, but I think I've still got the general idea of what those assumptions are:
1. Cosmic radiation converts N-14 to C-14 (This isn't really an assumption, it's true!)
2. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is a constant.

Hmm... Yeah, that looks like all of them. Now this has been true as long as we've been able to test it. I admit, this is a rather large assumption, but it's supported by all calculations and evidence up to this point. Also, no one is guilty of the reasoning you accuse them of. C-14 dating was tested on objects which have known ages, such as skeletons from various periods, mummies, etc.

Now, in closing: If you are going to attempt to discredit a technique, you had best understand the technique before you try to do so. Otherwise, you might get caught in your own ignorance. Even your example suggests to me you lack basic understanding of C-14 dating, because carbon dating is not used on objects that are older than 50,000 years. Its half life makes it unsuitable for calculations after that point.
Perhaps the hypocrite/ignorant decision belongs with you, eh?

Now, I might not especially like Eskimo, but I find no real flaw with his reasoning. He looks to established scientific principles, but I disagree with his conclusion. He seems to infer that because we cannot explain how everything happened in the earth's history, this is proof of a higher power. However, this is an example of negative reasoning, and goes against the nature of science. The only way to suggest (or prove, though proof will never figure into this sort of argument,) that something exists is through positive, empirical evidence.
400 years ago, we might have thought the only way for man to fly was by divine intervention. Now, we have Bernoulli's Principle, which explains flight rather well. I would contend that our inability to explain the beginning is not proof of a higher power, it's proof that science still needs to go further.

[Avelon]

silas said:

And now I will put up my own arguement against evolution. I can personally believe that a species will adapt to an enviroment, in which being that the fittest survive and the less fit die off. Then those better suited to their enviroment breed and produce offspring with similar capabilities thus surviving. However, to think that somehow a species can become another species is the blind faith I was talking about. Then to tell me that evolution is correct on that is either hypocrisy or ignorance.

Since Kaleb graciously took care of the rest, I'll just begin and end here.

You are aware, I trust, of the astoundingly obvious presence of microevolution? Within as little as a generation, humans adapt to their habitat - mountain-born children often have larger lungs, as the air is thinner. Fat stores build more quickly in colder climates, and more slowly in warmer climates. (This can take as little as a year, as it's just a change in metabolism) So debate all you like, but you can't deny microevolution, no matter how you try.

Macroevolution is another story, and I can see where you might think (or not), and realise that there are some problems with the concept.

I displace myself from blame that I can't think of any on your side of the debate, however.

I'll give you a simple example: Why, if we do not have tails, do we have tailbones that are, for all intents and purposes, identical to those of any other primate? Nerve endings could just as easily do what they do - end - in the lower spinal column. All it does it give thin people an ass ache when they sit too long - a design flaw (if you'll excuse my blatant scorn of creationism) that I'm sure will be worked out by the next release (less than a millenium away, I'd guess).

I don't feel it's too hard to believe that the skulls and the rare full (or mostly complete) skeletons of what appear to be human-monkey hybrids could be our ancestors, or that a split evolution (one species becoming two and moving in different evolutionary directions) is out of the question - after all, I can't think offhand how the neandrothol skull could fit into the evolutionary chain, as it would have had to take on the features reminiscent of apes, then shift back to the original proportionate, rounded design we share with monkeys.

This is cold logic, with no added flavours. It makes sense, and that's enough to start with - science takes care of [most of] the rest. This is an appeal to your basic human nature(s; is anyone but Silas really arguing against evolution?), and I have attempted to word it simply, so it can be easily understood without reaching for a dictionary every other sentence. You're welcome.