h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Can't you understand that? Or is it that you don't want to?

Well Im smart enough to spot when you are lieing and making things up so its probably the second one isnt it. Do you need help with even simple questions like that

I "follow" you around because I am *already* on certain threads. On the others I keep tabs on your persistent and outrageous lies because I think the truth is important and I find it amusing watching you try to slither out of the holes you have dug for yourself.


Do you expect me to answer for every believer in the world?

I dont and never did expect you to answer for every believer on

BUT!!!!!

*you already had* the majority of believers in God are fine with evolution!

You are saying that you have knowledge that most do accept evolution and that a minority do not.

I knew that you knew no such thing and had nothing to base this statement on except your own muddled opinions thats why I asked you for more background info.

one love

No, BB, you don't want background information, you want to enjoy conflict. But not here, please!
Yes, I do have knowledge about that point, I am a believer, aren't I? Creationist groups exist mostly in the USA (with a few in Australia), and are a minority in those countries, and here. Regarding Muslims, ask Adib, but I believe he has said in argument with Hoo, that not all Muslims have the one same view on creation/evolution...
AFAIK, pagans,Sikhs, Bahai etc have differing views, but those who attack believers with slurs about evolution are usually attacking Christians and Muslims.

Im not ashamed to say I enjoy this kind of conflict.

No one is bruised and no blood is shed. We exchange what we think and unmask liars and sock-puppets who muddy the waters and cloud the truth with falsehoods.

Id have been interested to find out how you came to the tentative conclusion of how many of the worlds believers accepted evolutionary science, but I have come to the conclusion that you have simply made up your mind and tied to pass it of as something more than your own opinion yet again.

You have proved this by backing up your views with no substatial or checkable evidence. EG


Creationist groups exist mostly in the USA (with a few in Australia),

How do you *know* this?


I believe [muzakboy] has said in argument with Hoo, that not all Muslims have the one same view on creation/evolution...

Do you know this, if you have read the conversation why not check if you are right or wrong before posting, surely that is not too hard even for you?


AFAIK, pagans,Sikhs, Bahai etc have differing views,

As far as you know, well just how much do you know? It seems like not a lot from here.



but those who attack believers with slurs about evolution are usually attacking Christians and Muslims.

Usually more guess work again why not ask az, what she is actually on about befor going on the offensive?


one love

What's az got to do with this? I was replying to someone with a number, 233something.
It's 0320 GMT, BB, go to bed, have a warm glass of milk, it's very calming.
You scream about me saying things without proof of everything. Where's your proof that I don't remember things, hate this, hate that, in fact, where's your proof that I am *wrong* about believers and evolution? Get a grip, BB, you're losing your sense of proportion.

Hi Nog <>

Depends what type of explanation you're looking for.


A big one !

az. After further reading, I suspect that what you have is a maternity colony of bats. If so, they will depart when the young are independent enough, although it sounds as though they are ill with something, as they certainly do have sonar. Possibly the mothers are ill and the young are leaving too early. You two might just be a mother and young pair.

I think the females of most species depart in the summer and have their batlets together in a separate roost; so don't be too hasty, they might be gone before too long.

toxx

Badge. I suspect that Adelaide is correct. The people who see any conflict between evolution and the biblical account tend to be the more fundamentalist, literalist minority of Christians.

toxx

Hi Adelaide the Cat Woman, I believe you were replying to my post about evoloution being too small. I'm sort of sorry I went to bed with out explaining myself .
So it is with some trepidation that I will begin ( and then take cover )
My views are not based on any religious doctrine, historical research or technical knowledge, they are just my feelings around spirituality.
there is clearly evidene that life on earth has and is changing to adapt to circumstances. But the fact that some form of evolution is apparent here does not serve to convince me one way or the other that there is a god/s.
When looking at the issue of god, I prefer to include "everything", the universe to infinity. Whilst i accept the creationist V evoloutionist argument is interesting, to me its one that is more relvannt to bio science than god.
If we were aware of everything that exists ( which i dont think we ever can be because its infinite) then the earth compared to everything else would be a microscopic speck of dust. So unless you believe that god just made earth and everythng that goes on here and nothing else, then as i said , evolution is just too small.
BB, I'm sorry, I have no proof.
Fire away mox

Hi toxxin.

I too agree Della could be right, but I would never use the idea that most people are not fundamentalist about creation because I, you and especially she has no real way of veifying this assumption.

Any of us could talk about the people we know and who live in our communities and home nations perhaps, remember that what we see of the US is filtered through Hollywood and New York before it is beamed to the rest of the world. Even with the internet there would be no way of having great faith in the way inforamtion we found was from reliable sources and accuratelycollected. So to have such a stab in the dark about attitudes across the whole planet and expect that it *IS* rather than simply has a chance of being accurate is silly. Maybe no one is doing exactly that, but for any of us to build an argument on such unsound foundations strikes me as very silly.

That's never stopped us before though so would you care to have a got at these questions?


What part of the evolution accepting majority that Della tells us about have been to school and been taught it by a properly qualified and accredited teacher or teachers?

What percentage have not been to schoool but have spent time reading or talking about it?

What percentage of peole who have encountered evolutionary science can understand it?

Of people in the whole world who are in the broadest sense spiritual what proportion create their own hodge podge of ideas including both evolution *and* creation of life that is neither one nor t'other. Therefore making it impossible to drwn a line and say these do and those dont believe in evolution?

one love

Badge. I agree that using a statistical term was probably a technical error on Adelaide's part. I'm far more interested in the argument as to whether the fundamentalists or the compatibilists have the more plausible view.

Knowing the statistics, which I agree we don't, doesn't tell us much of interest. That's partly because the result, as you point out, depends on exactly what question we ask.

However, this exchange about who said what, and why, is of even less interest to the majority of us, I would suggest. Being academically precise is fine, but let's not make mountains out of molehills.

toxx

I have mixed feelings about "compatabalists".

Having been one for a while I know what a dizzying dance it is trying to keep a foot in both camps while not tripping up on any of the contradictions inherent in trying to do this. I have a grudging respect for those who can say Evolution and all supporting science is false. That's not to say they dont annoy the hell out of me for failing to accept even the most basic of scientific *facts* because of where they are scared doing so will lead them.

They are annoying in a different way to those who cherry pick the ideas they want (hey I was there once). God must have started life because how could animals just appear although yes they can evolve
Thought at least these people are slowly moving towards the light.

Neither of these views is really plausibleto anyone but those who hold them though the view that evolution is real is atleast supported by repeatable experiment.

one love

Adelaide - Congratulations on making the 20,000th posting to this thread! ... here's to the next 20,000.

Hi Blickybadger
'They are annoying in a different way to those who cherry pick the ideas they want (hey I was there once).'
Please go easy on us... it's not obvious why you reacted so very strongly to Adelaide's comment.

Adelaide

more

Post 20000 Congratulations.....and Jubilations.....ect...ect... Hic......Falls Down Gets up again Falls down, tries to get up but gives up in the face of sophorific effects of illusiory H2G2 Synthahol.......

Pops a soberup pill And adds on a more serious note...

Blickybadger


I have a difficulty, with the idea that everything that is said must be proved beyond all dispute (Yes it is the same SD that posts the long epistles full of references and dense Logic, supporting his somewhat atypical beliefs and arguments)

I recently posted on another thread an item which I know is as true as far as anything can be, but can't find a good reference at the moment, does that mean I should not post an opinion based on that Knowledge. And also given that from my point of view most knowledge is in the end an opinion about experience (Even Reading) should I actually have to prove my knowledge and therefore my experience is true.

If I post I am posting an opinion. I feel that this is true for others, I might argue with that opinion and attempt to disuade them of it or convince them mine is better, BUT, I dont think it is reasonable to say to them they are twisting the truth.

I might be getting upset over a Joke and I hope that, that is the case, but if not I for one am willing to take at face value the opinions posted here and that they represent good faith.

Hi, moxonthemoon. Well, evolution/creation... basically, I believe God did make the Universe, as well as the earth - also, that evolution, which I regard as proved, was the means used, to produce humans. Then, I believe, humans (I don't know about any other beings) got something, an added extra - spirituality, if you like. I find the concept of extra-terrestrial life fascinating and that something similar may well the case with them...

Toxxin, I didn't use any statistical term! Blicky accused me of saying "85%", but I actually just said "probably most" ...In my opinion, BB is making a mountain.

Thanks, Andrew! Have some more !

Adelaide. Maybe it's the way I interpret things, but I take 'most' to mean more than 50%. Ok, it's rather a folksy way of saying something statistical, but it still seems to be so in contrast to 'some', for example. Well, even there, 'some' means 'more than zero', and also implies the existence of the thing(s) referred to. Guess it's just my academic background coming out as usual. I try to keep it in check, honest!

toxx

Blicky. I take the view that a form of compatibilism is the most plausible account of things. God starts the ball rolling, as it were, and then things work out through the processes He set in motion. I know this is rather more like Deism than Theism, but it makes sense to me.

An omniscient being has to get it right first time, so there's really no need for further interference. On the other hand: something must have started the material world going, and the response of the physicists is fine as far as it can go - but doesn't/can't tell us how the 'big bang', 'singularity' or whatever originated.

toxx

I wonder if the argument re the causation of the Big Bang, when linked to god is as much an exploration of the concept of the Infinite, a mathemetician would surely argue that the concept does not determine 'god' one way or another, the absence of a scientifically known cause for the big bang doesn't support the existance or non-existance of an omnipotent god, it simply acknowledges that as far as we can know there is a boundary to what is known and what logically can be known, it doesn't indicate the limits of what is there to be discovered.