UK Census 2011

[eFestivals]

Just spotted this - you seem to be claiming that church attendances falling off the edge of a cliff is indicative of many parents only pretending for cultural reasons yet you read somewhere that their children are increasingly turning to creationism over evolution ( and it was a genuine request for a link cos there is nothing on google or google scholar to support the assertion). The teaching in schools is so good that it subverts athiest parents but not good enough that it converts those of other faiths to christian evolution.

No, I wasn't claiming that at all.

I said in an anecdotal way there is a massive gap between claims of having a religion and the practising of religion, as shown by Church attendences. This is, by itself, a very strong suggestion that the box ticking in a census is culturally led and not religiously led. Further, there is solid evidence of this happening: I know this, because it's something I've done myself on a variety of occasions and for a variety of different reasons (tho mostly long ago) - and I'm not the only one.

Separately, I've seen reports of an increasing number of schoolchildren who reject scientific teaching - specifically evolution theory - in preference of religious dogma. The greater emphasis on religious teaching in schools as enshrined in law in recent decades is not an irrelevance to this.

[eFestivals]

Nothing is free of bias.

The best post I've seen from you in a long while.

And, of course, it includes worm's drivellings just as much as any other side.

[worm]

The best post I've seen from you in a long while.

Edited March 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No Neil, they choose whether they think it's evidence of something or not.

which would be having a belief in that thing as evidence.

You do love being literally wrong, don't you?

Edited March 22, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The most obvious post, and one that completely negates your stance on evolutionary theory being truth due to evidence. It's apparent due to intellect.

It's apparent to an intellect only because there's something (evidence) to be intellectualised over.

Without a thing to intellectualise over, there is nothing - not even intellect.

The intellect is dependent on evidence. Evidence - the physical kind, at least - is not dependent on intellect. Only the acceptance, the belief, that it *is* evidence is dependent on intellect. And this scenario shows that intellect is secondary to evidence.

But anyway, none of what you're drivelling here is about what I said. You seem to be having the same problem as you always do - that you want all discussions to be on your terms only, and not on the terms of what was actually said.

Which probably explains why you never ever actauly start any discussion. You don't actually have anything of substance to say.

[worm]

which would be having a belief in that thing as evidence.

[worm]

It's apparent to an intellect only because there's something (evidence) to be intellectualised over.

Edited March 22, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Evidence is evidence of something.

Very well done. You've caught up, and stopped being wrong.

Shame you decided to be wrong initially.

A person sees the world and takes it as evidence of God

This where it all falls down.

"Evidence is evidence of something". You cannot have evidence of a thing of nothing.

There is no evidence of god, there is only FAITH that there is a god.

Any 'evidence' is not of god, it is 'evidence' that that faith might not be misplaced.

So, I'll try again, on what grounds does accepting a standard religion over a belief in the Spaghetti Monster have no intellectual validity, but choosing evolution over creationism has.

for the first: they have an identical intellectual basis. In summary, a person chooses to believe either one simply because they want to. Neither has greater substance than the other.

For the second: one has greater substance than the other. There is evidence of evolution; there is no evidence of creationism.

But if you want to try and tell me that there is, then that gets to explain an awful lot of why you talk so much shit.

I never intended to get into another god debate, particularly with a half life. I'm done here.

Edited March 22, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Very well done. You've caught up, and stopped being wrong.

Shame you decided to be wrong initially.

[worm]

Neil, you're assuming that there is evidence of evolution. There isn't. It's a theory. One person sees genes mutate and thinks that there is a religious purpose to it (God), while another sees it as a series of events that are driven by a metaphysical force of some kind, such as surivival (evolution).

I personally see it as pointless absurdity.

[eFestivals]

No, that's what I've been saying all along. You said that evidence can be used to determine intellectual validity, when in fact it can't as you've just confessed.

Make it up, why don't you.

Evidence AND consistency CAN be used to determine in intellectual validity. It ceases to be valid when a different set of rules is used for evaluating identical evidence. It was ONLY that part I was commenting on, nothing else.

Meanwhile, you've decided to have an argument over something completely different. It appears that that 'd;' word that you used to love so much has gone right out of fashion for you - hardly surprising tho, as you're so very shit at it.

There is no evidence of evolution either, only an intellectual theory that inteprets stuff as evidence.

There's no evidence you're a thick twat either. Way to go, smart lad. PMSL.

[eFestivals]

Neil, you're assuming that there is evidence of evolution. There isn't. It's a theory. One person sees genes mutate and thinks that there is a religious purpose to it (God), while another sees it as a series of events that are driven by a metaphysical force of some kind, such as surivival (evolution).

I personally see it as pointless absurdity.

I personally see you as pointless absurdity.

There *IS* evidence of evolution; things very definitely - and literally - evolve.

Whether it's one or the other theory behind can be disputed, but there's evidence of evolution.

[worm]

Evidence AND consistency CAN be used to determine in intellectual validity. It ceases to be valid when a different set of rules is used for evaluating identical evidence. It was ONLY that part I was commenting on, nothing else.

[eFestivals]

You need intellect to see something as evidence.

Correct. It's not something I've disagreed with.

None of the rest of what you've said is anything to do with my initial point, and is all worthless and irrelevant bollocks to that initial point.

I'll leave you to carry on talking that worthless and irrelevant bollocks. I'm sure you'll manage very well.

[worm]

I personally see you as pointless absurdity.

There *IS* evidence of evolution; things very definitely - and literally - evolve.

Whether it's one or the other theory behind can be disputed, but there's evidence of evolution.

[worm]

Correct. It's not something I've disagreed with.

None of the rest of what you've said is anything to do with my initial point, and is all worthless and irrelevant bollocks to that initial point.

I'll leave you to carry on talking that worthless and irrelevant bollocks. I'm sure you'll manage very well.

[eFestivals]

Evolutionary theory ...

... is not the same thing as evolution.

You've failed with that 'd' word yet again.

[eFestivals]

Only because you can't understand it.

PMSL.

You're saying nothing I don't already know.

But more to the point, you're saying nothing at all about what I actually said. Which part of this are you failing to get, not just once, but continually?

To put it another way: there is no evidence for evolutionary theory being correct in exactly the same sense as there is no evidence of God existing. They are two theories that use the exact same evidence.

as ever, you couldn't be more wrong.

That is, unless you're going to show me heaps of people who got their belief in god thru things such as fossils ... rather than via simple indoctrination, which is the basis of the vast majority of religious beliefs.

[worm]

... is not the same thing as evolution.

You've failed with that 'd' word yet again.

[worm]

That is, unless you're going to show me heaps of people who got their belief in god thru things such as fossils ... rather than via simple indoctrination, which is the basis of the vast majority of religious beliefs.

[Ed209]

Fossils are not evidence of evolution either.

[MrZigster]

So, are we going to write "Stop Selling Arms" somewhere on our census returns or not then?

[eFestivals]

Not the fact we have fossils, no. But the changes we have observed in fossils collected from different periods of history is evidence, as is the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

all evidence of evolution. It doesn't prove the theory of evolution, but its evidence that the theory is correct.

Nicely put.

[eFestivals]

So the belief in God has just as much scientific validity as the belief in evolutionary theory. I don't think that you believe that at all.

What you're effectively saying is that anything without an empirical basis is to be distrusted if it is to be considered valid. So what about the theory of space, gravity and economics? There's no empirical evidence of those either.

What you're effectively saying is that anything you've not first said yourself is to be distrusted, because only you can be right.

Shame you've shown thru-out this attempt to pick an argument about nothing I've said that you're not, eh?

At some point you might cotton on that I'm not playing ball. I've said what I've said, and that stands. Post as much drivel about something entirely different as you fancy.

[eFestivals]

So, are we going to write "Stop Selling Arms" somewhere on our census returns or not then?

That's probably even more pointless than writing 'Jedi' into the religion box. After all, it's not like it'll be collated and presented to anyone who is able to stop selling those arms.