Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20211
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
No, you're not pointing out the double standard.
no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven
Quote:
You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there.
and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept
Quote:
Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it.
so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is
Quote:
All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.
all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
The problem is that ID is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific, that is the reason why scientists reject ID. ID is merely an attempt to surround theology in a cloak of scientific validity, when in reality it has no such validity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti -
"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"
why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.
So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,
but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins
Quote:
evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.
ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think
Quote:
Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here. I've never said that Evolution wasn't real. In fact, I'm rather inclined to believe that it is true. I give pretty much everything I cannot explain about a 50/50 shot. I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so. I already told you that I haven't prayed to God since I was 19 and I'm a long way from coming up with any conclusions for myself regarding these issues. In the end, whatever I decide is truth is all that matters in this decision because that's my truth. I would say the same goes for all of you. As far as I'm concerned, this debate has never been about what is the absolute truth, because not a single one of us here really knows for sure or ever will. There has never been a single shred of undeniable proof that validates one while disproving the other.
I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself. The entire point of what I've been trying to say has very little to do with trying to invalidate evolution, or to even say that there is a God. It seems like the pro-evos here think that that is exactly what I'm doing.
I have a problem with my 12 year old brother quoting unfavorable passages from the bible to everyone he knows and talking about the spagetti monster all of the time. I think this is just as scary as somebody who was always trying to convert you to their religion. What's even worse about it is that he doesn't have to go to a "church" to have it so engrained in his brain that this is true. All he has to do is go on the internet and chat with other atheists and people who follow Dawkin's word as "gospel" truth.
As far as I'm concerned, this Dawkins isn't any different than L Ron Hubbard, and his reach seems even farther because his "doctrine" is being taught in schools, without anything to balance it. I read Dianetics and I've been through an auditing process as well. It's a very believable book and it made a lot of sense to me at one point... but if I were to follow that path I would lose any sense of individuality and every decision in my life would ultimately be with the good of the collective in mind. It works for some, but it's just not my bag.
And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution. When I was a kid all I wanted to do when I grew up was go on digs for Dinosaur bones. I enjoyed Biology in high school and I took two Biology courses in college. It just so happens that it is my favorite Science, although I think now I would like to know more about Physics. I never really paid much attention to Physics in high school and didn't persue it at all in College. I was an absolute rock when it came to Chemestry. I could handle the basics, but my mind simply isn't wired right to handle any of the more advanced aspects of Chemistry.
Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it. I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers. I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, espceically considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree. I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.
Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,
but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins
No, most people assume that there is a god that created life, check your facts. Any textbook that states that evolution has THE answer to abiogenesis really should be rewritten, but in science textbooks where facts (like evolution) are taught there will always be questions raised by the lessons. Instead of simply saying that we don't know it is perfectly legitimate to present hypothesis (plural?)(as long as they are depicted as such). Additionally this arguement applies equally well to creationists who state unverified opinons as fact. Abiogenesis is not in any way critical to understanding of evolution, how life began does not change the evidence for how life proceeded to develop.
Quote:Quote:
evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.
ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?
Also, any scientist who claims to know everything must notbe a particuarly good scientist, part of being a scientist is knowing that there is a lot more to learn. We have a pretty good idea of how things have progressed since the Big Bang, there are holes (such as abiogenesis) that may never be filled in, or may be filled in tomorrow. We could be completely wrong but the evidence fits.
Quote:Quote:
Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact
So one person can't answer one question that he probably didn't know was coming beforehand and that invalidates evolution? Have you tried looking up the answer to the question yourself? Could you tell me the question he was asked? (I'm not going to watch an hour-long video just to argue on the internet). Evolution as a whole is an established fact, no reputable biologist will argue against that. There are parts that are speculative, but the basic mechanism is well tested and proven.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"
Is that what Intelligent Design is?
I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.
I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.
I wonder what the rest of it could be for?
I wish I'd be able to live long enough to find out.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?
Hahahahahaha.... show me one person in here who hasn't shown that trait..... including me.
I was beat up pretty bad in here while I was gone.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti -
"you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility"
Why do you keep trying to shoehorn ID into science when it is no such thing? A scientific proposal needs to be able to be tested to see if it's wrong. Since ID isn't testable, it isn't science.
So why DO you keep trying to jam it into science? Just curious.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"
Is that what Intelligent Design is?
I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.
I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.
Yes - maybe Earth's (or another planet's) dominant creature could have been a sulfer-based rock-eater instead. Wouldn't that be neat?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sooooooooo........
Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sooooooooo........
Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right.
We can bash you if you'd like, no problem, you really want us to?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because RWED is dominated by people who attack anyone who QUESTIONS their beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are: Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Bush, health care, socialism, global warming, vaccines, government, evolution, God/deity, paranormal experiences, etc. What they believe is true, and if you question or doubt any part of it, you are automatically labeled as ANTI-their-position.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here...
Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack.
It's the old "you're either for me or against me" mentality. You either believe in global warming, or you are denying it. You either love Bush or hate Bush. You either want everyone to vaccinate or want no one to vaccinate. You either support evolution in its entirety, or you are some anti-evolution quack. There is no agnosticism, skepticism, negotiation, or middle ground with these folks.
But--RWED has a lot of intelligent, rational, and articulate people as well. And it is for their opinions that makes a visit to RWED worth one's time. I've met a lot of nice people I admire here, including you, 6ix. So don't let them get you down. And keep up the good fight for freedom.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You happend to be very civil in your disputes to my comments and I appreciate that. We do happen to see pretty much eye to eye on most of it too I think. If it makes you feel better you can bash me if you'd like. I think I was a punching bag for almost everyone in here today..... geez, you'd think it was Monday instead of Friday.
Just one thought on one of your posts:
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind
-------------------------------------------------
True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.
I agree completely with you here, but why do I have a suspicion that that was meant as a jab at me?
Oh, and wrong thread for this, but I'll tell you what I told rue before since you agree with her in regards to mandatory vaccinations. If you stick me with a needle without my consent, I will retaliate with a bullet without your consent. No offense.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for all that canttakesky. I've had a pretty rough one in here today. I know I'm guilty of being a bit pig headed myself to. We all do that here and in the real world to greater or lesser extents.
I'm just tired of everything needing to be Black or White, and tired of everybody thinking that it's perfectly fine to invade my private life and the choices I make because it's in my best interests.
You're good people..... "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just one thought on one of your posts:Quote:
-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind
-------------------------------------------------
True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.
I agree completely with you here, but why do I have a suspicion that that was meant as a jab at me?
It was meant as a jab at anyone who blindly follows what they were taught as a child simply because they think it's the "right" way to think. If you fall into that category...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It was meant as a jab at anyone who blindly follows what they were taught as a child simply because they think it's the "right" way to think. If you fall into that category...
Fair enough.... I think it's pretty evident that I don't.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so.
Quote:For crying out loud. This is a message board, people post things when they're on-line, not when it's convenient to you. Really sorry you weren't on-line earlier, that must be my fault. Oh and you made this comment while I was asleep at twenty past two in the morning:
I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself.
"Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right."
So do I get to bitch because you made comments while I wasn't here now?
Quote:So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process. Equating bacteria dying unless they have a resistance and as such the resistance becoming more prevalent in the general population and a Human getting a sniffle doesn't say to me that you have this great degree of knowledge on the subject of evolution. If you did you wouldn't be equating the two, unless you were purposefully trying to misrepresent the opposing position with a red herring. In that case I apologise, but I don't think purposefully using logical fallacies to swing debate is any better.
And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution.
Quote:Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.
Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it.
The idea that science is attacking religion is nuts. What's actually happening is Religion keeps coming around to sciences gaff, kicking the door down and stealing science's stuff, smashing up science's TV and telling science what magazines science is a loud to read. Science has not come to religions house and smashed in their front door, science has stood up and calmly said "get out of my house." Religion says that's an attack and this isn't sciences house. Science asks again and again and religion screams louder and louder "Stop attacking me, ohh I'm being oppressed!"
Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.
Quote:Science has done nothing NOTHING to religion. Never has never will. Science has nothing to say on the subjects of morality, spirituality or God. Those are the soul purviews of religion. The conflict is where religion doesn't just want it's house, it wants sciences too, and science not giving that up and walking away is portrayed as an attack. Yes I believe the term Nazi is very apt here, just not in the way you used it.
I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers.
Quote:Because when people of religion KNOW something to be true anything that says different (like science) must be crushed.
I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, especially considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree.
Quote:Yes, there is and it's exactly what WE
I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, there are theories all competing for how how life got started, but even scientist say we probably won't know. You want there to be a double standard as that would weaken evolutions position, but it REALLY is NOT there.
Originally posted by antimason:
no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven
The problem with the ape to man thing is that there is proof, very conclusive from DNA to fossil records. DNA alone we can look back in time and through analysis actually see where there was an attempt at an evolutionary split between chimpanzee and Man but that it failed and the two groups re-homogenised. I think that was bought up here earlier. We can see the development from ape like forms to modern human, clearly. If we were to take the sentence "Apes become Humans" and remove the 'o' "Apes Bec_me Humans" most people can still read it, but some people say "There's no proof that that sentence ends with a Human".
Quote:No, I'm fine with people believing in ID, this is what you don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. I'm fine with people believing whatever the hell they want to believe, but when they try and portray they're beliefs as science then I have a problem. ID cannot be science, it is fundamentally unscientific, and anyone who understands what science is and what it is all about will tell you the same thing.
and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept
Also please drop the Golem stuff. I've refuted that already and you didn't have an answer, this is one of the reasons people get tired of your position, we soundly refute something and instead of coming back with an argument for it you just repeat yourself and hope nobody noticed.
Quote:There's plenty of ways, sometimes it's not anything more than an educated guess, like the composition of the earth's crust, we've bounced sound waves through and can make a good estimate of it's composition but we can't know for sure. But even then it's well out of the realm of philosophy and religion, which by they're very nature have NO supporting evidence.
so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is
Quote:All we are saying is ID isn't science. You want to believe in it fine, but don't portray it as science because it isn't.
all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent posts, Citizen. I especially liked the "breaking into science's house" analogy. I think I'll use it in future "debates" on the topic. 
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Cit... I see we may finally be getting somewhere here instead of attacking each other. I think you made some very valid points here, and perhaps I am mistaken about a few things. I feel that there are some things you are mistaken about as well, but I do feel we are making progress.... allow me to respond to each quote individually.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.
Okay. I'm very willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. I loved my Bilogy teacher in highschool. She was one of the coolest teachers I ever had. I would probably say that I was still pretty religious back in freshman year of High School and not once did I ever think that anything she was teaching me made me doubt in God, even when Evolution came up. Even back then I just kind of accepted this as the "how" God did it. Never once do I remember hearing her say a thing about God, which is exactly how I think it should be taught.
Perhaps the religious community is getting defensive about this issue because they've been alienated from schools recently and have been under attack and instead of trying harder to fight the Government and their cirriculum on this where they should, they've taken it out on Science because, let's face it, Science just makes sence as an enemy of the church where say... English just wouldn't make any sense (I'm speaking from the standpoint of a total layperson and not a scientist, or someone who is as obviously in love with Science as you are). This belief that Science is attacking the church is only solidified in the mind of the religious train of thought when asshats like Dawkins come out and say things that he has to say. I think you're right and maybe I don't know enough about the debate, but if Science and the media keep Dawkins (the Jesse Jackson of Science) as their poster boy, then this is a battle that will never go away.
Quote:
So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process......
Well... maybe I don't know a lot compared to you, but I have taken 3 Biology classes. I think I know a lot more about it than your average layperson and certainly more than somebody religious who views evolution as heresy. I'm not in a who's wang is bigger competition here with you Cit, because regarding Science yours is MUCH bigger, and I lose hands down. I retract the statement.
Quote:
Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.
Maybe you're right here. It just seems that the Church is under so much fire from every direction that it's easy to think that Science is attacking it here. I realize that it is Government attacking the church and maybe now I see that Science has little if nothing to do with that. I'm all about being left alone Cit. You know me.
When you put it that way, I don't really have much of an arguement anymore. Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol
Quote:
Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.
Science needs to do the responsible thing then..... hmmmmmm. I think my replies are getting pretty predicable now.
Quote:
Science has d
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think so, but there's still some things I'd like to address.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's about it man. Maybe we can see a bit more eye to eye here now.
Quote:"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.
Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol
Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.
Quote:Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?
After the $1.25 per pack raise that we're going to have here in the next couple of months I view it as basically I just got fined an extra $425.00, or I took a $425.00 pay cut this year while my non-smoking coworkers didn't.
Quote:Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.
Well, I'm not convinced that God does not have a place in Science yet.
Quote:It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I'm not convinced that Science will not someday disprove God's existance either.
Quote:I don't think what was sent your way was as bad as you say, and I think we can take a look at Antimasons comments for similar sentiments.
Well, after I got beat down like Rodney King today, I have to stand firmly behind my original statement here. Sorry man. Didn't see any shit like that being flung Scienceside.
Quote:Exactly, because Religion is playing on Science's 'homeboy turf' and trying to use it's own rules to do so. It then calls science intolerant when that fails.
In all fairness Cit, the deck is seriously stacked in Science's favor here. You know that to be true.
Quote:Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.
There is absolutely no way for Religion to fight Science because as you've said before, they basically exist on two very seperate plains.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.
Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.
Well I see there is a great and famous mind that believed in a "God" concept now, but I had no idea before. I'm by no means the most well read or informed person in the world, but I do consider myself to be a bit ahead of the curve than many of my peers. I would think that the only people who knew this about Einstein would be Scientists, Science enthusiasts and Historians... and possibly your trivia/quote whizzes and maybe the three other people who lucked out and caught that on one of those history channel exclusives. Anybody can hear the very worst Dawkins has to say about religion by turning on VH1 or Comedy Central. Kinda the lowest common denominator, know what I'm sayin? I'm kind of thinking somebody more in the here and now who has a voice today. You know... somebody that South Park would make fun of (That Dawkins episode is priceless, btw)
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides. Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.
Quote:
Are you saying you should have a pay rise because you smoke?
Certainly not. It's not my employer's place to subsidise my habit, or a runaway government... that may be a perk CEOs get, but it definately was not part of my contract. It won't make me feel any better when they target fat people next in the next 10 or 20 years. They went after the most offensive addiction to others first. I can only see obesity as the next target because:
a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and
b) Many people find it visually offencive, though for PC reasons and plain human decency they don't vocalize their objections to it much after highschool is over.
It's a slippery slope and if the non-smokers don't start stepping up too they're going to be singled out one by one for their own vices in the future.
Do I hear $5.00 for a Twinkie? How about $10.00 and your signature saying you understand that your health insurance won't cover you when you need heart surgery if you eat it? Trust me, they'll know you're eating it when we buy everything on credit and cash is out the door.
Quote:
Science is concerned with the physical, and God is metaphysical, I don't think I can put it plainer than that.
You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe? Most likely we'll never see them, but the laws we know as true today might not be true tomorrow for whatever reason. Pure speculation and in the realm of Sci-Fi I know, but that's how my mind works. Or would an event such as these destroy Science?
Quote:
It's impossible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"
Is that what Intelligent Design is?
I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.
I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.
Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.
I suppose my computer could be built a dozen different ways and still do what it does, but that makes me marvel no less at its design.
So, if these Intelligent Design folks are just saying that everything seems Intelligently Designed, well I'm still with them.
I do wonder about something, though...
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.
Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.
They have shrunk yes, whether or not they are finished shrinking I can't say. The point is that it is a very poor design decision to include something like a tailbone in the human body, the ony purpose would be to have something else to break and hurt us, meaning either the Intelligent Designer is incompetent or an asshole. Additionally, like I said the presence of vestigal body components fits perfectly with science but not so well with ID.
Quote:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Pretty much, there are millions of people with genetic flaws who will be kept alive for their entire lives through medical science that would have had no chance even 50 years ago. Some people might see this as a good thing (we're saving lives!!!) but some might see it as a bad thing (we're letting dangerous genentic flaws propogate!!!).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, humans can't evolve anymore. The natural environment, and hence natural selection, has largely been neutralised, amongst other things because of the medical advances you've mentioned.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Also, the population is too large, so any beneficial mutations won't be able to impose themselves on the population as a whole. If it weren't for point 1, I suppose that over time beneficial mutations could conceivably become a characteristic of the populations in small, isolated communities, which are getting rarer with today's ease of transportation, and these communities wouldn't have much of an effect on the rest of the gene pool of the human population anyway.
So unless we have a global holocaust (or a rapture
) that leaves only a comparatively small number of humans fighting against the environment, humans are done evolving.The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides.
I don't disagree, but its his decision to pursue a radical atheist standpoint. IIRC he's only been doing this for the last couple years, and in reality I agree with some of the things he's been saying, namely that atheists should be able to stand up and proclaim their beliefs without fear of damaging their personal or professional lives. I think he wants to go way too far way too fast, but I don't disagree with him in principle.
Quote:
Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.
As for atheism, yeah you're probably right. But religion is what wins elections (probably the worst indicator of a good politician but I've given up trying to understand peoples actions). There's a few other places where religion is frequently used as a platform as well, music and talk shows come to mind.
Quote:
a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and
No. Maybe more are overweight, but there is a big difference between overweight and obese (like 20% more weight difference).
Quote:
You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe?
No. The moment science considers the supernatural as an answer science goes out the window. Science deals ONLY with the natural world because the supernatural world is untstable and unverifiable.
Quote:
Or would an event such as these destroy Science?
Destroy it? No. If the physical roperties of the world shifted then scientists would just have to start over again figuring things out, though if they shifted often enough scientists would probably give up.
Quote:
Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often that would have, at one point in the past, seemed impossible with what we used to have to work with?
Supernatural phenomena are not testable or verifiable, period. Once you delve into the supernatural all the rules that the tools of science depend on are suspect and can no longer be trusted.
Quote:
Somehow I'm thinking that even if that were to happen I'd still be paying 3 times what I did for smokes when I started 9 years ago.
I hear that patches and gum are cheaper than cigarettes
just saying...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?
Intresting question.
as i understand it there are several forms of evolution that have been identified to date.
1)Genetic Drift.
This i understand is random mutation over time without rhyme or reason in this case there are trends which arfe followed although accumulations of these mutations eventually form into the larger scale mutations which are used in natural selection, it can be noted that this is the form of evolution which is used in genetic dating techniques. genetic drift will continue as long as we reproduce by combining DNA from two or more parents as it is mutations in te combining which cause it.
2)Natural Selection.
This is the form of evolution most widely discussed and as in the western world at least the vast majority of the population has the chance of succsefully reproducing it can be argued that we are no longer under a selective pressure and so no longer are effected by it.
3)Artificial Selection.
This covers everything from eugenics, stud farming to genetic manipulation. where cirtain characturistics are emphesized artificially by some method. it is considered by some to be the next step forward for our evolution although is a highly argued subject.
and is considered dangerouse by many.
Questions? arguments? points?
anyone please.
I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is option 1 (science wins).
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.
Or there's the third option where nobody wins or loses and everyone leaves each other to their own business.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Point 2 neutralised by us neutralising the environment. Points 1 and 3 neutralised by large population sizes (read my post above).
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
1)Genetic Drift.
2)Natural Selection.
3)Artificial Selection.
I guess I didn't consider artificial selection in the human population so much, but I don't think this should count as human evolution as it only affects a very small fraction of the population. I guess over time (if the effort is kept up) it could lead to a branching off from the human race - too bad we won't be around to find out.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.
Where can I sign up?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and mean it literally!
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's somewhat distubing.
Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!
Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:That's somewhat distubing.
Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!
Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-
"Hey man, were've you been?"
"well I swapped over to Linux last week"
"Oh so you've been playing around with all the new features?"
"Well...it's more like trying to figure out how to get my legs to work...it didn't come with drivers see, and also the control scheme is a bit more complicated, plus I had to spend a few days modifying my config files to get the waste disposal service to start...I might make it into work next week or so, I've heard that there's a patch for my leg problems coming"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven
otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate.. but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.. which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious theology since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.
Originally posted by antimason:
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven
Quote:How very magnanimous of you
otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate..
Quote:No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is. That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".
but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes a claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.
Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God. If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.
Quote:Which is why religions and the existence of god aren't...
which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it
Anyone, I've had to say fifty times already...
That's right, not science.
If it's left open as a religion do what the hell you like, it'll NEVER be science.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've stayed out of this debate, largely because I feel Cit has done a wonderful job (as have all the supporting evolution folk). Came across this link today though, and felt I needed to drop it in.
Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...
From the article:
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iot
heri-good-book.html
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen- Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.
but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)
Quote:
No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is.
what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries. if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God.. and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that? isnt that an encroachment on religion? you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and then used to illegitimize religion. there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated
Quote:
That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".
ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own. no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings.. yet scientists in the field will offer this without any alternative perspectives on the issue. if science is what is seen and recordable, then a lot of so-called science today is just hypothesis and philosophy.. but itll get turned around on us Creationists, and youll say "science is about cold hard facts; religion is based on faith"; but it takes faith to believe an unproven scientific hypothesis too
Quote:
Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God.
science itself no.. scientists, yes; thats the distinction im making
Quote:
If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.
the theory of abiogenesis is just like the gnostic/kabbalist myth of the Golem(im sorry if you dont want to hear it), or life springing from non-living matter. if it cant be proven, then that is a belief(in this case an actual religion) being taught as science. i dont expect you to agree with me, but youd be suprised to find that Masonry in many ways shares the same philosophy as the abiogenesis and evolutionary theories
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...
well thanks.. i guess? i suppose its because i tend to take the extreme position on these issues: well my honost opinion about "evolution Sunday" is that these people can believe what they want, they have thee right, and they may be right.. but the bible doesnt say man descended from a lower primate; and theres not a whole lot of ways you can spin the billion year concept, and still interpret the scriptures with any amount of consistency. outside of that it contradicts Jesus' message, which is that we are only in a temporary material('fallen')state, that is inferior to our original design(if you will); in this case the opposite of the concept of a 'progressive evolution'- until the 'messiah' or God reveals himself to mankind, and redeems us. i realize that its an incredible claim.. but thats the beleif, the concept. if they dont want to believe what the bible says, what makes them christian(by definition)? there are a lot of gods that people could pray to that might better suit their idea of an ideal 'god'.. but it doesnt make it the christian God yhwy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm am going to repeat myself one last time, because if you still don't get it nothing short of a hammer is going to be sufficient to beat this inordinately simply premise into your skull. It is NOT my opinion, Science deals with the physical world, and only the physical world, God is not part of the physical world, God is metaphysical by very definition. If God wasn't metaphysical God wouldn't be God. Therefore God can not be a part of science. If you require me to repeat myself again just read this paragraph over and over until you get it or you have an embolism. Whichever happens first, thanks.
Originally posted by Antimason:
but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)
Quote:You don't seriously want the list do you?
what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries.
Quote:No it's because Religion is used to telling people what to think about everything, and now that has changed and religion and many religious folk, yourself included it would seem, want that hegemony back.
if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God..
Quote:I can't answer the question because it's based from a false assumption. I asked you to back up your claim that science has ever made any claims on the existence or non-existence of God, and instead of backing up your claims you repeat them. Either back them up or stop talking shit.
and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that?
Quote:No, since it's not happening.
isnt that an encroachment on religion?
Quote:So you have no problem with science, as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Gotch ya, very magnanimous of you, thanks.
you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and is then used to illegitimize religion.
Also where has Evolution been used to 'illegitimize' religion? Oh that's right, it doesn't mirror the Bibles literal interpretation of creation, ergo it must be attacking religion.
Quote:A belief can not be proven or disproven, a theory can. Evolution isn't a belief system, never has been never will be no matter how often you repeat yourself in order to silence non-religious voices. You continue to repeat yourself on points that have been refuted already hoping that no one will notice, but we have noticed.
there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated
Declaring Evolution a belief system because it doesn't support your belief system makes you out to be foolish, nothing more.
Quote:Repeating myself again because that's all you've done, again. ID is not Science.
ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own.
Quote:No one's seen an intelligent being designing human beings in a workshop either. But there is evidence of proteins and other basis of life being created naturally in environments similar to primeval Earth. So already there's more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for ID. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that data is your problem, not Sciences.
no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings..
Quote:
if science is what is seen and reNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
frankly, im tired of butting heads with you- i get your point, just fine, thank you- i always have
i know God is metaphysical, but he designed us for the physical. i believe God created us, and that the evidence is within the DNA itself; call me an ignorant religious zealot and fool and all you need, but i disagree with you that man evolved from apes.
maybe we can have a civil discussion around here once in awhile, without religion becoming the evil bad guy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.
youre entitled to your opinion, although you dont know me personally. all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned... once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented. that doesnt make me schizophrenic. despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.
youre entitled to your opinion, although you dont know me personally. all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned... once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented. that doesnt make me schizophrenic. despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact
First off, just like to say that I agree with cit in the last few posts (I was out car shopping so I couldn't add my opinion).
Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy, so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact
Just noticed this part.
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither? The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge, yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?
i believe species evolve, but i am skeptical of carbon dating techiniques, geological dating methods, and abiogenesis.. so im not willing to make the leap that human beings over millions of years evolved from apes, which arose from Millers primordial soup. whether you deem me an idiot or not(noting the condescension), this is my opinion
Quote:
The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,
spoken like a true omniscient being
Quote:
yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.
yep. i dont dispute what is observable and verifiable... but people pretend like they watched man evolve personally over millions of years, and there is simply not enough evidence to make that statement conclusively
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,
first off, what would you know about secret societies? youve probably never even looked into the area- but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes). if God does exist, then all of this is related. besides, in this whole thread i barely even mentioned the subject(secret societies), i just offered an opinion that none of you would likely ever hear, consider, or tolerate otherwise
secondly, Citizen made a point of calling me a schitzo, and extending the tirade about how im just a blind fundementalist freak conspiracy theorist; because i mentioned the religious philosophy behind evolution(and its similarities to the occult golem concept). im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?
Quote:
so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.
yah.. your a will(woe)fully ignorant, physchotic bible thumper.. 'no offense'. it gets tiring being the evolutionist whipping post.. i think from now on, instead of offering a different opinion, or another angle that no one else will study into.. ill be another lockstep evolutionist and agree with everything you all say- thatll make for an intersting contribution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?
i believe species evolve, but i am skeptical of carbon dating techiniques, geological dating methods,
Carbon dating is one of many dating techniques that are used, and all of the dating methods are calibrated against know entities and against each other. There is a margin of error but it is far from enough to disprove evolution.
Quote:
and abiogenesis..
Not relevant to evolution.
Quote:
so im not willing to make the leap that human beings over millions of years evolved from apes
Just checking, it's OK for other species to have evolved, just not humans. Is that what you are saying here?
Quote:
which arose from Millers primordial soup.
Once again, not relevant to evolution.
Quote:
whether you deem me an idiot or not(noting the condescension), this is my opinion
I don't think you are an idiot, I just think that you are emotionally invested in incorrect ideas. It happens to everyone.
Quote:Quote:
The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,
spoken like a true omniscient being
The groups that advocate ID do only that, they spend no time or money on researching ID but instead spend all their time reiterating refuted complaints about evolution (which works because most people don't hear the rebuttals), loudly proclaiming how they have been persecuted (because scientists mostly ignore them since they are based in religion and not science), and figuring out ways to get ID into schools. There is a whole section on http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html dedicated to ID, which you might want to check out (section CI down near the bottom).
Quote:Quote:
yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.
yep. i dont dispute what is observable and verifiable... but people pretend like they watched man evolve personally over millions of years, and there is simply not enough evidence to make that statement conclusively
ID is neither observable nor verifiable and no one has seen an Intelligent Designer at work, yet you are seeming to state conclusively that ID is fact?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,
first off, what would you know about secret societies?
Very little. What I know is that there is a good chance that there is one or more groups of people with the power to influence events on a global scale. But since these groups (if they exist) don't do recruiting drives and don't advertise their presence there is nothing I can do about them, no way I can make myself one of them and thus no reason to search for their existence and loudly trumpet any evidence I find to other people. At best I will be wrong and there are no such groups, at worst I will gain the attention of the groups and be disposed of.
Quote:
youve probably never even looked into the area-
Answered above.
Quote:
but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes).
So someone else thought of it first...and? I don't think that there is much of a chance that even a globally significant group could plant enough evidence and influence enough experiments to have had a major impact on evolutionary theory without seriously risking exposing themselves.
Quote:
besides in this whole thread i barely even mentioned the subject(secret societies), i just offered an opinion that none of you would likely ever hear, consider, or tolerate otherwise
But you did mention it, the vast majority of people are going to look at any mention of secret conpiracies as you being batshit crazy like I said. It goes back to the comments about Dawkins earlier, whether he believes that atheism is THE WAY or not he shouldn't be loudly trumpeting it because all it does is piss of the people that he is trying to convince of evolution.
Quote:
im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?
Unfortunetly yes, even here in RWED the climate is not favorable towards global conspiracy theorists (look at the resonses that PirateNews gets). I can't say for sure but I think that most people kind of agree with the opinion that I put forth in my first response here. Also, conspiracy theories float around constantly but rarely is there significant evidence that is obvious enough to get the attention of the layperson (Scientology is one of the few that managed to grab the spotlight for a while).
Quote:Quote:
so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.
yah.. your a will(woe)fully ignorant, physchotic bible thumper.. 'no offense'.
I never said you were woefully ignorant or psychotic or a bible thumper. But if you want my honest opinon? I think that you are largely misinformed about evolution (though you know a fair bit more than the average person that is TRUE about evolution), and that you are emotionally invested in ID because it supports your religious beliefs. As for the conspiracy theories?...well I don't believe that the extent to which some people follow them is healthy, but I admit that there is a fair chance that some of them are true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just want to point out that we'd go a long way toward minimizing hostility and having productive debate if we could get everyone on the same page as far as the definition of evolution goes. There are so many different schools of thought on this that it is unreal.
As a graduate-level scientist, I think that most things that are relevant to what is happening on earth now affecting humanity can be explained in terms of adaptation, without bringing in evolutionary philosophy.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
Man it takes a silly girl to lie about the dreams she has.
Lord it takes a lonely one to wish that she had never dreamed at all.
--Dashboard Confessional
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?
I agree to a certain extent with respect to abiogenesis, that the different hypotheses should be taught as that, hypotheses, not theories. They should be discussed, but not be sold as proven fact. But evolution is different.
To be honest, I find your post quite disappointing. It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, so am I because all we're doing is butting heads. You've not said anything different from your first post on this thread, and repeating oneself while you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen is getting tiresome.
Originally posted by antimason:
frankly, im tired of butting heads with you- i get your point, just fine, thank you- i always have
Quote:But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?
i know God is metaphysical, but he designed us for the physical.
Quote:No because any evidence in DNA is going to be highly subjective, along the lines of "the smile on a babies face is proof of God!" No the smile on a babies face is proof of wind, anything more is wishful thinking. If you want the above to be science I suggest you tell us what this proof is, or at least what form it takes.
i believe God created us, and that the evidence is within the DNA itself;
Quote:Anything I called you was born mostly out of extreme frustration because you just don't listen. All I asked was for you to back up your claims rather than just repeat yourself and instead you just repeat yourself over and over. It's very annoying and extremely frustrating and is just another symptom that this isn't a debate, it's a tactic, whether you realise it or not.
call me an ignorant religious zealot and fool and all you need, but i disagree with you that man evolved from apes.
Quote:That's really funny, we point out it's science that's being attacked and religion doing the attacking and rather than proving otherwise you jump up and down while standing in Sciences house saying "ohh I'm being oppressed!"
maybe we can have a civil discussion around here once in awhile, without religion becoming the evil bad guy
What would be nice is a civil discussion where you didn't make out Science to be the bad guy, made out science to be the spawn of "kabalistic allied governments under the control of the secret societies" and that the only good in the world is to be found in religion and the only people with any morals are Christians. That would be fantastic, but until that day you don't have a damn right to moan about religion being made out as the bad guy.
Quote:And of course if they don't come to the same conclusions as you they must be dupes or stupid or under the boot of the anti-christ or...
all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned...
Quote:Kind of ironic when you're denying Evolution based on your own (lack of) understanding of the theory and your complete lack of compulsion to do any research outside of websites that proclaim it false.
once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented.
Quote:Actually schizophrenics do come up with intricate conspiracy theories based on scant evidence involving great spans of time and people and show a real confusion as to why other people can't see what they do. But nevertheless I didn't say you were schizophrenic, I said you were schitotypal.
that doesnt make me schizophrenic.
Quote:It's just that science is evil and working together with the secret societies to enslave us all, gotch ya.
despite what you say i dont hate science,
Quote:And I hate people saying something is unproven because they don't like the conclusion.
i hate unproven science sold as fact
Quote:I said Schitzotypal, not schizophrenic.
secondly, Citizen made a point of calling me a schitzo,
Quote:Quote me or retract this statement.
and extending the tirade about how im just a blind fundementalist freak
Quote:You talk about the conspiracies behind everything all the time. Calling you a conspiracy theorist is like calling FireFly an ok TV show.
conspiracy theorist;
Quote:
because i mentioned the religious philosophy behind evolution(and its similarities to the occult golem concepNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
So you're saying one shouldn't teach a scientific theory in science class? Since you're a graduate level scientist, I expect you know that a scientific theory is based on tons of evidence and can be regarded as fact, at least until conclusive evidence comes along that disproves it. So it should be taught, right?
My point was that in the context of this thread, discussion of evolution is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. Should be taught, just in a different class. Also, due to time constraints in the classroom, we pick and choose what is important to invest time in. Intelligent design or evolution, we all agree that organisms change as their environments change, so why does it matter?
Quote:
[B/]It shows that colleges and universities aren't doing a very good job in their science education if this is the sort of attitude the scienitists they produce have.
I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.
Man it takes a silly girl to lie about the dreams she has.
Lord it takes a lonely one to wish that she had never dreamed at all.
--Dashboard Confessional
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Look, I hate to sound harsh but science is a worldview... a phisosophy... and anyone who doesn't understand that is a just technician no matter how advanced their degree.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
Science is not a set of 'proven facts' or even proveable theories. Science is about asking "how". The happiest day in science is when a long-held theory falls to a better one... when a paradigm changes that allows us to think more broadly and see more connections. In my view ALL theories are provisional, no matter how useful and predictive they may have been.
And science has no room for god. It is based on a set of a priori assumptions that exclude the answer "god done it" or "here be dragons". Rather than excluding the philosophy of science from science classes, it seems to me that should be the first thing that students learn.
Quote:Then your university is doing a poor job of training scientists and a great job of training tools.
I'd suggest not passing judgement on an entire educational system based on a single post in an internet thread. And my attitudes are shaped by more than the hours I spend in a classroom.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anti- IF god exists... that's a pretty big gaping "if". I'm curious... do you ever wonder "IF" the universe exists?
first off, what would you know about secret societies? youve probably never even looked into the area- but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes). if God does exist, then all of this is related.
And just as an aside, I'm absolutely certain that secret societies of the very powerful exist today, and that some of them are as evil as PN paints them. What I can't quite credit is that these societies go back hundreds- even thousands- of years in a unbroken string of understanding. The basis of power has changed radically since feudalism. In an agrarian society power rested in land, the peasants to work it and the soldiers to defend it. Once mercantilism and capitalism evolved, the nature of power shifted to trade and money. Once the basis of power shifted, one group of people was replaced by another. (My SO's grandfather was an impoverished nobleman who married a shopkeeper's daughter for the lucre that he needed to maintain the lifestyle.) That means that secret society membership shifted as well... they had different secrets to keep, different people to dupe, different information to share, different goals to attain, and most importantly a different source of power which the old elite could not tap into. The fact that they keep their affilliations secret simply means that they realize they'd be obliterated if the average person knew what they were about. If they bond through deviant practices, that is merely an outgrowth- a re-creation- of their sociopathic practices in a milieu of Xtian ethics.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well said, Signy! Wow, that was quite eloquent.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science is about asking "how". ...And science has no room for god.
I am religious. And trained as a scientist. I will argue til I turn blue that a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and that being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.
But religion itself does not belong in science. The scientific method has no room for God or any other ideas that cannot be tested empirically. ID is a religious philosophy and absolutely has no place in a science class.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason that we have this problem is nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing at all about the existance or otherwise of God. The problem is to do with the primacy of the Bible and more specifically with the origins of political and cultural power. That battle, in one form or another, dates back in our history at least as far as the chief and the shaman.
Humans are pack animals, they are associative, be it in extended family groups, tribes or nations one thing that has always been true is that someone has to be in charge. The leader can get his authority for any number of reasons, his strength in arms, his previous success in providing for his tribe, his venerable age, or even his family history. What always remains true though is that he maintains that power ultimately through the consent of the people. To be clear "the people" in this case does not mean everyone his orders could effect, as in the democratic sense, but those people that were in a position to physically depose him. If the leader makes choices that the people agree with and which benefits them, then he continues to be leader. If by mistake or inaction he allows enough desent against his rule to amass, that disquiet will eventually find a rival to voice it. Thus political power is essentially "performance based."
The second string of power is religious. Humans are hardwired for some kind of religious expression and it forms part of us just as the pack instinct does. At some point in our social evolution a point was reached where we had enough food so that some individuals could investigate spiritual matters and be supported by the tribe as a whole. These are shaman, holy men and priests. Their primary objective is to connect to the universe and try to find the big picture, the big patterns that would let you foresee future events and therefore guard against them. Unlike the leaders, the priest gains his power from the belief and actions of the believers. As can be seen this is a parallel and competative power to the political power of the leader. There has always been conflict between the two, we have evidence that in ancient Egypt there was a religious coupe against the first fledging monotheastic religion, and the competition between church and state shaped most of European history.
If I am a leader, I get my authority from the people's willingness to accept my orders. Further, I am leader by results, if the key people that keep me in power do not like what I am doing then I will be out. A religious leader gets his authority from the belief of the faithfull that he is a legitimate spokesman for their diety. To put it crudely, a priest is a priest because they tell you that God said so. It is not a performance related job, nobody expects miracles as a means of proving your claims.
So here is the curent situation. Christians have a holy book called the Bible. Depending on the type of Christian you are the book represents either the teachings of the various prophets edited and mangled by many human hands or the absolute devinely inspired and complete word of God. It gives you a foretaste of where this debate is going that the second group doesn't even acknowledge the first to be Christian just on the basis of that distinction. Now if you are part of the group that believes that the Bible is literally the word of God then you can't allow any challenge to that "truth" to go unanswered. Remember the priest's power is only the belief of the faithful that he is a legitimate messenger, if any doubt exists then the priests power is weakened.
Any activity that challenges the absolute truth of the Bible is disputed. Evolution is one good case because it is so visable. It has to be challenged because if the Bible is not absolutely right, if it can be questioned, then other Bible based agendas the priest wants to push can also be questioned. A fundementalist of any religious stripe is basically the guy that says "I'm in charge because God says so" since we can't ask God directly then the fundementalist backs up his claim by quoting hol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a graduate-level scientist, I respectfully disagree.
Originally posted by Uncomprehending:
As a graduate-level scientist, I think that most things that are relevant to what is happening on earth now affecting humanity can be explained in terms of adaptation, without bringing in evolutionary philosophy.
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance.
There is no topic about our natural and physical world that cannot be examined with the scientific method. Macro-evolution can be studied as a philosophical paradigm, but it can also be subject to empirical inquiry. Granted the actual evidence (fossils and such) is scant and difficult, and the conclusions should be interpreted cautiously. Maybe the origins of life will never be scientifically *proven.* But hypotheses about the possible origins of life can certainly be scientifically and empirically *tested.*
And who is to say that origins of life has no concrete relevance? If we were to discover that it is possible or likely that we evolved from semiconducting rocks instead of warm amino acid soup, wouldn't that be quite relevant to the way our bodies work (perhaps predominantly electromagnetically rather than chemically)? That is to say, relevance is a subjective determination.
I am a homeschooler, and my daughter wants to become a scientist (like her parents). You bet I am teaching her about evolution as part of her science curriculum. I teach her to distinguish between what can be observed and tested, and what cannot, between micro and macro-evolution. I teach her that macro-evolution is a debatable but exciting theory, and if we ever found out more about where we came from, we can find out more about where we are going. I teach her there are a lot of people who tout conjecture as fact, and it is important to know how we know what we know. Some of this is philosophy, but then epistemology is part of science as well.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would more religious people have this sort of attitude, people like myself might not have turned from being simply atheistic to being somewhat antitheistic.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
...a person can be both religious and scientific at the same time, and [...] being one does not necessarily exclude being the other.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like my evolution (both macro and micro), but I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I kind of stop there. I'm still on the fence about how I feel about a higher power and once I figure that out, it will possibly affect my specific thoughts on evolution (never banishing evolution though).
Your bio teacher probably said that viruses aren't alive per se because they are not considered organisms (i.e. cannot maintain there own existence and need to invade/destroy another cell to reproduce), but they are considered a microbe, which is a "living thing we can see". At leas that's what my bacteriology prof. says and I can accept that.
A book series that I think may interest you is "Ring", "Spiral", and "Loop". The books are translated from Japanese and were the basis for the Japanese movie "Ringu". They deal with viruses, mutation, cancer, and some other things addressed in this post. Go read them and love them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
It can be argued that the finches on the Galapagos Islands evolved into the different species found there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sass, No it can't. Well, at least not a serious argument.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oooh, I forgot about the cichlids in Lake Victoria!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?
what were we supposed to debate about in this thread? or was it a trap?
i remember DreamTrove saying you cant debate something that is 'proven', it would be like debating whether the sun would rise; it must have been to bait Creationists out into the open or something, and i bit! i wish i was the one who could prove a Creator exists, but im not really suited to this type of 'forum'.. im not a scientist, or even claimed to be particularly inclined either, and i admit that what i do know are things ive learned cross referencing the occult, and old world theology et all(which is my main focus). but it doesnt mean there isnt some debate going on out there about it all. it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow? i have to say that i appreciate this comment right here though
Quote:
UNCOMPREHENDING-
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow?
Science is based off of natural rules and natural tools, if a scientist looks at a supernatural subject (god) using natural tools, since the supernatural ignores the natural the scientist can no longer trust their tools. Because of this any time that a scientist would attempt to verify the supernatural they would get incorrect results in their tests and the tests would be invalid.
Quote:
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate..
It is, but like I keep saying it has no bearing on evolution, regardless of how life started all the evidence points to evolution afterwards.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AP, Feb 13,2007.
Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Science would be looking for answers that are (a) grounded in the observable and (b) consistent with our current models. If you think that science is going to find "proof" that god exists or suddenly jump tracks to the supernatural then you're sadly mistaken.
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
I thought that was over with a long time ago.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Took time for the theory to evolve into practice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pretty much what I learned in this thread is that anybody who has a hard stance on this issue either way is a great big asshole. I'm happy to say that I don't really care much one way or the other and I hope that you both manage to destroy each other.
Here's hoping that you both choke on each other's bullshit.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
I thought that was over with a long time ago.
Fred, It's come and gone several times in Kansas. Someone was quoted in the AP piece as saying that students have had 5 different standards on Science Education in that state in the last 8 years.
I'm gonna simplify this, and try not to make value judgements- this is summarized from the AP story and reflects what I remember seeing reported.
Before 1999, evolution was part of the curriculum, like that mainstream scientific view above.
In 1999, religious conservatives got elected to the state school board, and put language in the curriculum supporting intelligent design, if not out and out creationism.
They got voted out of office in , I think it was, 2003, and replaced by some liberals. I think there was a court case in there somewhere, and the religious conservatives lost in court. The liberals took out the intelligent design stuff, and put evolution back in.
This is when, I think, you think it got over with.
In 2005, the religious conservatives, maybe a different bunch of folks, won the next election, and put intelligent design in, and all of the " teach the controversy" language, and all of the " evolution is an unproven theory " language.
I think they got sued again, and lost in court again. I think this was one of the cases that shot the legality out from under intelligent design.
Anyway, in the 2006 elections, a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans ( That's how the AP characterizes them. I make no value judgement, nor editorial comment.) won and threw the religious conservatives out. The new , liberal board of education are the guys who put evolution back in this latest time.
The conservative folks released a statement, quoted in the AP piece , saying that they weren't going to fight about it any more, but accept the decision.
Liberal folks released a statement saying the curriculum would remain mainstream at least until the next election.
More details , if ya need or want, 'em , can be found in the Associated Press piece, or by searching the web for news about the Kansas board of Education.
My apologies to anyone of either side who I might have offended here. I made an honest effort to not use any loaded term to describe any group or person, and to report what I remember of the facts and story without referencee documents at hand. It's also possible that in summarizing, I did not give one or the other side's argument its fully detailed, exactly accurate description. Further, I have tried not to express my own opinions, but to repeat the history as objectively as I know how to.
( Boy, I feel like one of those legal guys at the end of a car commercial. " This offer not valid on all models, some buyers may not qualify")
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6string, taking a stance and being able to defend it isn't a bad thing. Taking a stance and NOT being able to defend it is. No prizes for guessing which side is defendable and which one isn't in this debate.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6string- There is a point in ideology where reality no longer matters. Total freedom is an articifical construct, and believing in it to the exclusion of everything else makes one a prisoner of one's own thoughts.
I think you have reached that point. If you REALLY want to be free, you have to open up to the influences around you, otherwise your course is as pre-determined as if you were hypnotized.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever you say brother. Of course it's your opinion that is defendable here in your eyes because that's where you stand. I don't really think that an extreme here is right either way.
Hope you're right and you don't burn in hell one day. I'm not judgeing. If there is a hell, I'll probably be there waiting for you with a big fatty blunt we can smoke on and laugh about how bad we screwed up while we dance on the hot coals. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And from where I'm standing Signym, you suffer from this as much as you believe that I do, so I guess we're all just prisoners of whatever bullshit we happen to believe in. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no way to 'prove' reality. Everything can be assumed to be objective, or subjective. But personally, I'm not willing to step off the 21st floor or walk in front of a train to test how 'real' the world is.
Science assumes an objective real world that runs according to its own rules. It's just a way of trying to discover the rules. You have an idea of how something runs, you test it out. Either it worked, or it didn't and you go back to figure out where you went wrong.
Some people find that idea threatening. They'd rather think of themselves as totally free agents rather than as physical beings in a physical world of physical laws.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.
If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.
I just wish that science wasn't something else that was up in my grill every damn day. Just leave me out of it. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.
If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.
Um...how do you explain how babies who have never heard of gravity stay down?...Just wondering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6-string
I know you claim to be not religious, but you do seem to keep up with the latest whacko claims. Someone at work told me about this and I didn't believe anything so stupid could be true - but it is:
"Intelligent falling". That seems to be your argument here.
-----------------
""Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise."
------------------------
And Burdett holds a degree in physics from Oral Roberts University (non-accredited) AND published in the 'International Journal of Science', so of course this is a valid challenge to the theory of gravity.
Right?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also have a mea culpa. Somewhere in one of these threads I indicated evolution is only controversial in fundamentalist societies - I may have used either Pakistan or Iran as examples, or both.
It turns out the example is Turkey.
""The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. " ...we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. (as) one-book religions.
"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science."
My apologies to Pakistanis and Iranians.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
""The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. " ...we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. (as) one-book religions.
w00t!!!
WE'RE NUMBER TWO!!!! WE'RE NUMBER TWO!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If current trends are anything to go by, you'll be number one soon enough.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually intelligent falling first appeared in "The Onion" as a joke mocking Intelligent design.
Originally posted by rue:
"Intelligent falling".
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
I can't seem to find any mention of Rev. Gabriel Burdett or Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning out side of connections to this story originally posted by the Onion, the only 'news' site to provide us with the story of the A-Teams exoneration of all crimes by George W. Bush...
I think it's most likely that it's nothing more than a joke that some people have mistaken for real, not that I blame them, the brainless morons who mistake Intelligent Design for Science would likely have come up with Intelligent Falling eventually, along with intelligent seeing (light rays don't propegate via electromagnatism, they are pushed along by Gods toy train set), Intelligent Continental Drift, Intelligent Water...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6String- science may not be in your face every day, but reality is. At least you're open to reality. Some aren't.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sadly, 'intelligent falling' now has a following in the US. 
As to whether 6-string is open to reality, it depends on if he really believes what he calls the Elmer Fudd theory of gravity. If you keep on running and don't look down you won't fall.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i personally think thats pretty lame to bring out the straw-man fundementalists, and accuse all ID as being Creationists; there is a difference. IDs say that evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis havent conclusively proven anything... and an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us. maybe at some point we will learn for sure whether intelligent, complex organisms, or all life on earth for that matter.. could have arisen naturally, on its own accord, or whether it needed an intelligence to seed it. ive heard IDs claim that you cant genetically reduce the smallest organism we know, beyond a certain number of strands, before you reach the hardware(the creation); which would also prove ID.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ID is repackaged Creation, it's not science and your entire argument has been pretty lame and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge.
Originally posted by antimason:
i personally think thats pretty lame to bring out the straw-man fundementalists, and accuse all ID as being Creationists; there is a difference. IDs say that evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis havent conclusively proven anything... and an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us. maybe at some point we will learn for sure whether intelligent, complex organisms, or all life on earth for that matter.. could have arisen naturally, on its own accord, or whether it needed an intelligence to seed it. ive heard IDs claim that you cant genetically reduce the smallest organism we know, beyond a certain number of strands, before you reach the hardware(the creation); which would also prove ID.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You shittin' me??? It was a parody!
Sadly, 'intelligent falling' now has a following in the US
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And an honest layman will admit that theories that account for most of the data are better than hypotheses that account for none.
... an honost scientist will admit that he doesnt know every mechanism of the universe- and cant physically account for or validify something allegedly billions of years removed from us.
The process of science is this: If you don't like the current theory come up with a better one. It should have a nature-based explanation for all of the data at-hand.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti- I've been trying to understand your position. I think you're hoping for the moment when scientists collectively say "By everything that we know about the natural universe 'X' should have never happened. Therefore there must have been a supernatural force involved."
For some people, "X" is evolution. For others, it's the origins of life, and for still others it's the universe itself. Which "X" are you?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen-
ID is repackaged Creation, it's not science and your entire argument has been pretty lame and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge.
you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers. 'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)- but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
antimason:
ID is repackaged creation. And the creation myth was around long before christianity.
ID is repackaged creation. Not science, repackaged creation myth.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been over all this with you before. All the questions in your last post and this one, I'm not in the mood to repeat myself, if you want the answers read what I've already said because frankly your beginning to piss me off.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so whats abiogenesis? are you gonna tell me its proven fact? but itll be drafted into the evolution debate as if we saw it all first hand....a few billion yrs ago..
There are no such things as facts - there are merely things that have been observed, and proven (to the best of our extent) countless times. Abiogenesis...
Y'know what, this does a better job than I do:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTI-
Quote:This is a very unclear statement. Does this mean that IDers can account for SOME species but not others? Does this mean that IDers accept evolution but not abiogenisis? The reason why you're getting in a tangle is because you yourself have not presented a clear statement of ID. That's why I asked "Which 'X' are you?" I'm not sure YOU know which 'X' you are.
you CAN make a distinction.. there are some who are not of any particular religious persuasion, but feel that evolution could not possibly account for all live on earth- i would consider them IDers.
Quote:As far as I can tell, "Creationists" reject the theory of evolution. In their belief, God made all species as they exist today, and fossil records, carbon dating, geological evidence are "tests of faith".
'creationists' are usually christians who are IDers but have a specific religious belief. you can dispute the creationists all you want, its entirely possible they are basing their opinion potentially off of a prior bias(or maybe a post bias)
Quote:ANTI- You have a terrible, fundamental misunderstanding of science. Any scientist who claims to understand the entire workings of the universe is NOT a scientist. The purpose of science is to ask "how". Please do not impute that belief to science or scientists.
but there are such things as objective scientists, and ID is evidently not out of the range of possibility(especially if all life can evolve at random). what im hearing is that, whereas im saying science doesnt know every law yet, so we should be more willingly to entertain the possibility, some of you are certain you know every square inch of the universe already, and not only know God doesnt exist, but that such a Creator would leave no visible evidence of his higher intelligence at work(and i just dont think we can state that immutably)
HOWEVER- There are certain fundamental tenets of science, assumptions which underpin the workings of science which leave no room for 'super'natural.
(a) The first tenet is that we are part of a real, objective universe.
(b) The second is that our senses tell us something about it.
(c) The third is that it operates according to consistent laws or principles.
Up to that last point, I can imagine a 'super'natural universe parallel to ours. However, if a supernatural entity is fickle and messes with the workings of the universe at random then the universe is no longer repeatable, predictable, or capable of being studied. The notion of science goes out the window and we're back to propitiating the gods.
That doesn't mean that there is no mystery in the universe. Our limited human minds cannot possibly analogize everything there is to know. It's possible to stand in awe of the universe without resorting to the notion of god.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME