Quote:

---

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

---

Quote:

---

thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator),

---

Quote:

---

maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is ... 'real' and 'factual'

---

Quote:

---

saying 'God did it' doesnt undermine legitimate discovery.

---

Quote:

---

it is irrelevant to know who the actual designer was of a watch or television, but what we ought to recognize is the many elements and parts, had to align perfectly, in all their complexity and design, to fullfill the devices purpose.

---

Quote:

---

the complexity of an invention indicates intelligence* so why not the entire universe, in its incredible equilibrium and synchronicities? we believe 'God did it', because we believe order precedes design.

---

Quote:

---

what you are saying instead is that it all 'just happened', as a product of time, and purely random mathmatical chance.

---

Quote:

---

{Do} you believe in an 'atheist' view of a 'universe of harmony'?

---

Quote:

---

i dont believe in chaos guiding evolution

---

Quote:

---

i believe in order through design. i acknowledge that evolutionary changes occur, i do not accept that these processes manifested themselves, beginning with spontaneous generation, to eventually account for the genesis of all life on earth. some people maintain that DNA, and the basic building blocks of life essentially write and guide themselves to create the visible 'order', but i believe instead that it follows patterns which the Creator of the universe established.

---

Quote:

---

why is this position so controversial? .. its one thing to have a faith, its another to ...attempt to justify it

---

Quote:

---

your right.. and i dont have a straight forward answer. the problem with this subject is that im arguing against the status quo; everything people are taught, about evolution.. the age of the universe, biology, is all based around a secular premise that our entire existence(what we know if it) occurred naturally over 'billions of years'. so when you find a fossil, you date the ground by the alleged era that this species supposedly existed, or vice versa

---

Quote:

---

you can guess what 100 million year old soil looks like.. but their is no way to know for sure.

---

Quote:

---

as far as i can tell all of evolutionary science requires this kind of circular reasoning

---

Quote:

---

because the observable evidence IMO doesnt conclude atheistic evolution

---

Quote:

---

im not 'discounting' reality.

---

Quote:

---

i actually include it. talk about subjective idealism.. maybe we should just re-write the last 4-6 thousand years of history, and just pretend that none of this 'deism' stuff ever existed (it was all entirely false, creative inventions maybe) ... and lets just assume that we really did spontaneously occur just a few unfathomable billion years ago.

---

Quote:

---

thats not my 'reality'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredgiblet:EDIT: Non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, ignoring known evidence...pass.

---

Wow Fred you're a quick reader! I'm impressed! It took me 3 weeks to read it. Oh!!!! wait!!!!!....you little scamp....nobody reads that fast. Let me guess...you ran out to the web....google'd the book...ran back with the first bad review you found.....am I right?

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that=Rue

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I read several reviews, none of them convinced me that it would be worth my time to read it and several showed the flaws in logic that I pointed out. I don't know how much free time you have but I don't have enough time to read the books/watch the shows/play the games that I already have, much less read everything that's thrown out in arguments here.

---

That's true, we're all busy. I have the same backlog of books, shows, games, and relatives in varying stages of helplessness. We're just different in that I don't make judgements about anything based on what a critic says. Especially if I have a bias that will likely cause me to gravitate to opinions that validate my own. There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them. Geezer tried to start a book club once with Ann Coulter's Book, I wanted to read it but couldn't bring myself to do it, not even to argue against it, So I think I understand your point

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

"If god created the universe, who created god?" BTW there 's similar conundrum in Hinduism, and according to Wikipedia a joke about it. It goes: what does the earth rest on ? An elephant. So what does the elephant rest on ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest on? Isn't it time to change the subject ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them.

---

Quote:

---

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Indeed, I'm part of the Atheist Al Qaeda, DEATH TO ALL WHO RESIST THE PROPHET DAWKINS!!!!!!!!

---

I hope you don't crash any jumbo jets into my house...but if you need to you can crash a car into my garage door. I can use insurance to get a new one the one I have don't work so good. And your movement will get publicity! I can act terrorized and declare marshal law in my backyard! You can even spray paint DAWKINS LIVES!!! on whats left of the garage door for effect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

---

Quote:

---

The thing that science is discovering is that, even if a reductive view of truth is 'real', it doesn't take into account the infinitely complex ways that the those reductive elements can manifest. Reductive materialism doesn't deny the existence of beauty, love, spirit, etc... But it's not the way to understand those kinds of things. That's where religion will continue to be valuable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

---

I haven't heard a convincing reason why it shouldn't, we already have Science, why do we need Pseudo-Science+God? Why not keep both to the eminant domains they are best at expressing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Pseudo-Science-God", but I do think there's room for, in fact a great need for, a materialist religion. The micro/reductive world of science and the macro/high-concept world of religion are intimately connected - they're the same thing, the same reality. Failing to recognize that cause us lots of trouble and misses so many opportunities for clarity and understanding.

---

Quote:

---

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But there is already holistic and reductionist methodology within Science, it doesn't need to be introduced from outside.

---

Quote:

---

I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing'

---

Quote:

---

To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah, I'm not really talking about combining them - certainly not in some kind of Frankenstein monster that takes the mysticism and fantasy of current religion and tacks it onto science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
*cough*Scientology*cough*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.

---

I don't even know whose quote this belongs to

---

Quote:

---

but I find it a commonly held view on those who question evolution, or science. First of all , I'd like to state that the quote has a major flaw in it, almost immediatly from the start.

---

Quote:

---

My views on evolution come NOT from thinking Christianity ( or any religious viwe point ) are scams, but from the evidence its self.

---

Quote:

---

It STARTS with an interest and desire to learn, and does NOT demand the facts fall into a preconcieved paradigm of religous teaching. I freely admit that I know nothing about an issue , but only what the facts can reveal. If my course of learning takes me to a point where I can concluded that a certain fable or story has no merrit at all with what it is I'm studying, THERE is where I determine it. Not before.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hehe.... I was actually somewhat attracted to the idea of Scientology on first glance. But then I read "Dianetics". Batshit insane, no way around it. I don't really think that disqualifies the concept in general however

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Muh? Isn't Scientology utterly intertwined with Dianetics?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted in: Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod date: Monday, June 25, 2007 - 18:28 by: ANTIMASON

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Science looks for consistent, repeatable phenomena. When an underlying principle is found and characterized, it is given a name like "gravity" to distinguish it from other phenomena like "atoms". That doesn't mean that we know what gravity "is" in some ultimate sense, but we do know how it causes matter to behave. Explaining the falling apple and beauty of snowflakes or the marvel of the cosmos with "god done it" doesn't further our understanding one whit.

---

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'. thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator), maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is OK to believe and whats not, based on what is percieved to be 'real' and 'factual'.

---

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Which is, I think, the major split. anti sees everything in light of the Bible (to be fair he admits it readily) so anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible must be wrong and anything that agrees with his view of the Bible must be right. To a scientist the evidence is the ultimate arbiter, whatever the evidence says is true. To the religiously minded person the evidence is the ultimate arbiter until the evidence disagrees with the preconceived notion of the way the world works at which point the evidence must be wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Del:
I know it's rude but didn't get through the whole thread. I'll put my 2 penneth's worth in anyway if I may.

A wise man (OK a good looking physics teacher) once said to me, the beginning of the universe if science up to the Big Bang, before that, ie. how the matter that exploded got there is the contentious issue. Some say God happened. He said, and I believe this, in infinite time and space there is a finite chance that matter will pop into existence out of nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

---

friend, your opinion is just as biased as mine.. why cant you see that?

---

Quote:

---

you talk about 'evidence'.. when i look around, all i see is evidence of order, and intelligence and intricacy and design; but more importantly, i see purpose.

---

Quote:

---

now, i am skeptical of evolution because it doesnt explain nearly what many claim it does(sort of like global warming)

---

Quote:

---

just look back through our 6-10 thousand years of recorded history, just think of the depth and genesis of human culture, and past beliefs.. and consider other possibilities. if there is any truth to the 'myths' of antiquity, it should make all of us think twice about this lack of 'evidence' for intelligent order and design

---

Quote:

---

which seems more like an opinion (as far as im concerned)

---

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.

---

sure... take your pick of any organism or ecosystem, and observe its purpose and complexity. either things happened by accident, or they were designed that way. you can explain to me in detail how the systems work.. but you then claim it occurred that way itself, by chance(and a little bit of willpower). i disagree, i believe these interdependent systems and patterns were 'designed' that way

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What I don't get is this - why is it that people who can't grasp the idea of the universe coming from nothing have no problem with (a) god(s) coming from nothing ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"If god created the universe, who created god?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
No. Religion is about the supernatural, Science is about the natural. Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing', they have different goals, questions, and ways of answering them, while also operating in significantly different domains. To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

---