ID is officially dead.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Christians are often LESS ethical in their behavior than atheists.
... by default, we are often less ethical than non-Christians. Just my opinion.

Do you have anything to support this, or is it just personal experience?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I saw a documentary a while back on Egyptian pyramids. It seemed to suggest that some scholars, even scientists, are open to the possibility that highly intelligent aliens influence earth and may even have germinated life on earth.

There quite a few documentaries like that, but very few scientists or scholars in the relevant fields that think aliens had anything to do with the pyramids - we know who built them, how they were built, and (mostly) why.

The point is that we don't know what's out there. In my belief system, God is not a supernatural being. He's pure matter. He's just my Father. I think any atheist should be open to the possibility that such a being COULD possibly exist, if he is already open to the possibility of aliens on other planets.

Sure, I suspect that most scientifically minded people accept that aliens could (maybe even probably) exist on other planets; but equally, those that know the distances involved understand why it's extremely unlikely that they could directly influence us or we them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another reason a circle can't be squared is because pi is needed to find its area, and pi is an irrational number.

Not so with a square.

The area of a square that is 5 on each side is 25 (5 x 5).

But you can't get an area of a circle to equal 25, since you have to square its radius, then multiply it by pi.

No matter how many decimal places you use, you can't get an exact 25.

Decimal places are not needed:

r = 5/(pi)^.5

A = pi*r^2 = pi*(5/(pi)^.5)^2 = pi*25/pi = 25

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An intelligent creator can create free beings who have the power to change history.

Are you sure you don't mean "the power to change the future"?

A purposeless chain of events just causes what it causes with no plan and no regard for freedom of choice.

Sure; but to cognitively complex, self-aware creatures like us, how is it any different in practice? We're not Laplace's demon, we may be aware that our thoughts, feelings, and emotions are the results of a lifetime's development and experience interacting with our genetic predispositions, but we have no detailed insight into all the factors involved in us thinking what we think and choosing what we choose.

As Isaac Bashevis Singer memorably said, "We must believe in free will - we have no choice".

 

[driewerf]

Just out of curiosity, if someone is not pursuing a career in biology, why should they be willing to learn evolution?

Hi Landon Caeli,
Sorry for the late response.
Different posters have partially answered your question, and I will partially echo these answers. On it's own there is no obligation to know about the theory of evolution. But...
in my humble opinion humans are endowed with intelligence. I sincerly believe in life long learning and improvement. Be it the sciences, philosophy, the arts, a foreign language or mastering a music instrument, i believe that humans should try to improve themselves.
Second, some very important political discussions and issues have an important scientific angle: nuclear energy and nuclear waste, climate change and global warming, food safety and quality, just to name a few. To participate in these debates as a citizen a minimum of scientific knowledge is required. The better you are informed, the more worth is your opinion and the better you can make decisions in these matters.
Finally, debating here. This forum is about creation and evolution. Some posters have shown an abysmal ignorance on the subject they want to debate. Worse, they have shown an unwillingness to learn. Yet they pontificate that the ToE is wrong, while posting error after error. There is simply no fun in this. For having a valuable discussion, the least is to have a basic knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

[tas8831]

It'll be interesting to see what God calls pseudoscience.

Creationism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I guess some of the Fellows have found something that might pay better than failing at biological research. Anti-lockdown treatises.

COVID-19 is no doubt a real disease that should be taken seriously.

[Sounds like a 'but' is coming.]

But, our efforts to control it have come with high costs and unintended consequences.

In their insightful new book The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe, Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Jay Richards and Doug Axe and statistician William M. Briggs grapple with crucial questions:...

 

[sjastro]

I guess some of the Fellows have found something that might pay better than failing at biological research. Anti-lockdown treatises.

COVID-19 is no doubt a real disease that should be taken seriously.

[Sounds like a 'but' is coming.]

But, our efforts to control it have come with high costs and unintended consequences.

In their insightful new book The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe, Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Jay Richards and Doug Axe and statistician William M. Briggs grapple with crucial questions:...

The "Tyranny of Experts............" anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess some of the Fellows have found something that might pay better than failing at biological research. Anti-lockdown treatises.

COVID-19 is no doubt a real disease that should be taken seriously.

[Sounds like a 'but' is coming.]

But, our efforts to control it have come with high costs and unintended consequences.

In their insightful new book The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe, Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Jay Richards and Doug Axe and statistician William M. Briggs grapple with crucial questions:...

Ugh! Not the Discovery Toot. Why can't they move to another state They are the epitome of wrong. If the Discovery Toot was to say that AGW was a definite threat I might seriously consider purchasing one of these:

 

[Phred]

Thanks. I know what Intelligent Design is --just didn't relate that to 'ID'. It'll be interesting to see what God calls pseudoscience.

You'll never know since "God" never says anything and never does anything.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You'll never know since "God" never says anything and never does anything.

There are two ways to find out you are wrong. The easy way, and the hard way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are two ways to find out you are wrong. The easy way, and the hard way.

What is a reasonable test for your beliefs in God?

 

[Phred]

There are two ways to find out you are wrong. The easy way, and the hard way.

The usual underhanded threats from the religionist.

 

[Phred]

What is a reasonable test for your beliefs in God?

In all the years I've been at this I have yet to hear of any. Just scare tactics for the impressionable. Pascal's wager in full force. You'd think that an omnipotent being could do better than this.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The usual underhanded threats from the religionist.

It wasn't underhanded in the least! Nor was it a threat. Just a statement of fact. If you perceive threat from it, then take it as a warning. Either way, if there is a threat, it is not from me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is a reasonable test for your beliefs in God?

"Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test." Haha!

There is none, until he decides to do it. If you can, however, demonstrate any other source of fact and existence, I would be interested in hearing about it. Our own list of facts demands first cause.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Our own list of facts demands first cause.

Yours might. Mine doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test." Haha!

There is none, until he decides to do it. If you can, however, demonstrate any other source of fact and existence, I would be interested in hearing about it. Our own list of facts demands first cause.

Nice try. I am asking you how you would test your beliefs. I did not suggest testing God.

Do you think that you can answer that more than reasonable question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In all the years I've been at this I have yet to hear of any. Just scare tactics for the impressionable. Pascal's wager in full force. You'd think that an omnipotent being could do better than this.

Please notice how he tried to change the test. Of course if one has a made up God the testing one's beliefs is testing one's God. That does not bode well for him either.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nice try. I am asking you how you would test your beliefs. I did not suggest testing God.

Do you think that you can answer that more than reasonable question?

That wasn't a try; I was being funny —at least to me it was funny. I knew quoting the Bible would not be an answer, to your mind. Nice comeback, though.

You said,
"Subduction Zone said: ↑
What is a reasonable test for your beliefs in God?"

What is that but testing God? You will no doubt say that testing my beliefs is not the same as testing God. Perhaps, but I have no way (as I said) to test my beliefs until God shows up.

Maybe it is fair to say I can test them well enough for myself, as my beliefs concerning God include, for example, his trustworthiness. My parents had 9 kids, and seems like always there was a cousin or someone else or two with us. They were missionaries, living by donations as they taught at a Bible institute and had other duties such as maintenance, etc. In other words, they were always well below the poverty level, yet I don't recall ever going hungry, nor being in any other serious need. That may not mean anything to a scientist, but it did to them. Their beliefs were affirmed. Something like that has happened for me too, many times. God has proven himself faithful to me. Yeah, I know —confirmation bias. Ok.