|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492 |
Originally posted by Honkeytonk Monkey:
I don't believe any of it, not even for a second. Even when I was a little kid and my mom tried to explain it to me, I didn't buy it. Does that mean I have a better explanation for where life came from? Nope. Do I give a [censored]? Not really no, I have better things to worry about like scratching my ass.
Nicely put my friend. 
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats".--H.L. Mencken
Bumper sticker,
OXYMORON #65 - Liberal Thinker
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,203
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,203 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Science, or our world, shows that God created the world in a very orderly way. It wasn't chaos, as evolution would have you think, that this world came out of. For example, look at how close our Earth is to the sun!! If it were even the smallest increment closer, we would FRY! And if it were even the smallest increment further away, we would FREEZE! Obviously, the creator knew what he was doing SCIENTIFICALLY when he DESIGNED AND CREATED THE WORLD!!
I think you need to consider a little something in the world of science known as the anthropic principle. Moreover, the "weak" anthropic principle. It states that essentially, the only reason the world is the way it is, is because otherwise there would be no one to ask why it is the way it is. This can be translated also as saying that there are an infitismal number of possible planets, worlds, bacteria, and organisms out there in the universe. Any one of them could be precisely like ours, with one little thing different, and it could fail. This failure would likely be at a very early stage in their development, so they would never even reach the point of asking, "how did i get here". In our situation, we are the sumation of all the right mistakes and coincidences to produce us.
I believe that it is incredibly ignorant to simply put science in a trash bin and say, "To hell with it! Human advancement and pursuit of knowledge is phooey! God created us roughly 3,000 years ago and that's that!"
I do also believe that there is a VERY valid theory that has been mentioned a couple of times which is that someone has put in place those perfect coincidences and arrangements and simply let the world develop. This is to say that evolution is VERY much a fact, IMHO. But this also means that there is a God behind the fabric of reality that keeps everything in order, even if that order makes mistakes and does not do everything right the first time.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Blind faith would be like me looking at my Computer here on my desk and saying that it came out of GOO! I would say, there's no explanation for how it got here, but it's here! And you would look at me like I was crazy and say,"Dude, somebody designed EVERY little part of that computer, and somebody put that computer together by hand, and somebody went to the trouble of putting it in a shipping box, putting it on a truck, and delivering it here, and in then end, somebody even had to hook it up!"
Essentially, your computer did come out of Goo. We all came out of goo. It's the assembly of that goo in the precise order necessary to create us, who in turn assembled the computer, which should be up for debate. Whether there was a God behind it all, or whether we are only here because we are just the right amount of random coincidences. If we were not that perfect amount, we would not be here to ask whether or not we were.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
I would never say that, because I don't believe that anything in this world just happened to get here!! EVOLUTION NEVER TOOK PLACE!! EVOLUTION NEVER COULD CREATE THE WORLD WE HAVE!! Somebody or something designed the world, and something or somebody took the time to put it together to sustain life. That doesn't discount the scientific research!!
Complete foolishness to say this. Just go read a few books, take in some science and realize that you are ignoring 1,000 years of study, experimentation, and reasoning.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
No, it is experience, and knowledge of the reality of things past, present, and future that allows me to go back to the building everyday!!
Please tell me how you have "knowledge" (do you know the difference between knowledge and belief? Please think about this question, at least a bit) of things past and future. If you had this absolute "knowlege" you speak of, you would stop putting up your brick wall of christianity, and at least take into consideration the debate at hand. Instead, it seems to me, that you are doing what so many other hard-headed, stubborn people do. That is, they use Christianity to back up their ignorance like a sword. The true problem lies within you, and you defame Christianity by using it to exemplify your own misgivings and human flaws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by BP:
so you understand all aspects of the bible and koran based on your own undirected interpretation of each? that explains it all. lol!
More than I can say for you. You choose to believe what Muslim schollars tell you and not what Biblical schollars tell you.
Originally posted by BP:
and for some reason it's hard for me to believe that a guy who once said "islam is a terroristic religion" would be able to read/comprehend the koran without bias.
Then perhaps you should go back and re-read that thread you are talking about, because I took that back. 
Again, you are the one saying that the Bible promotes violence and the Koran does not.
the density in your thought and reading comprehension is expected. it took me using an example that can be taken out of context/meaning from the bible (moses,etc) to show you that you're basically doing the same with the koran.
i don't believe that either religion promotes violence or terrorism, nor do the koran or the bible. and just because you took back what you said about islam being a terroristic religion in this forum, doesn't convince me that you still don't believe it and you're not an extremist.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by BP:
the density in your thought and reading comprehension is expected. it took me using an example that can be taken out of context/meaning from the bible (moses,etc) to show you that you're basically doing the same with the koran.
i don't believe that either religion promotes violence or terrorism, nor do the koran or the bible. and just because you took back what you said about islam being a terroristic religion in this forum, doesn't convince me that you still don't believe it and you're not an extremist.
Don't say you are done with a thread and then continue to post. Thats just idiotic.
And like I've said before, I could care less if you call me an extremist. It's laughable really. Pot calling the kettle black. 
Again, like I said. You are quick to believe Muslim schollars but not Biblical ones. Shows you are a true liberal though. 
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
I have no conflict between science and religion in my life.
Religion and spirituality provide a guide on how to treat my fellow man and provides hope for the future.
Science provides a wonderful set of tools for understanding the world around me now.
For 150 years (publishing of Darwinâ??s "The Origin of Species"), hundred of thousands of scientists of all sorts have been examining the natural world and all we see in it. The huge wealth of facts and observations that have been compiled from this effort can best be explained by one brilliantly simple set of rules â??? evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is the combined effort of all these people and one of the great triumphs of the scientific method.
The vast majorities of credible working scientists embrace the reality of evolutionary theory and use it daily to make sense of the world. There is no conflict about this in the scientific community.
The occasional PhD and author making their living by attacking the theory of evolution are doing so for one of two reasons:
1. Pure profit motive. The religious right will buy books and attend lectures that say what they want to hear.
2. A sincere desire to convert their fellow man to their religious beliefs. Bring God into every life. They see science as the new religion of the common man and thus seek to use its trappings and credibility as a powerful means to convert the unbeliever.
Both these types of people have lost their scientific objectiveness and have no credibility in the scientific community. But that doesnâ??t matter. Their real audience is not the scientific community; it is those who do not have a background or understanding of science. They are trying to move the masses.
The problem for them is that as loud and urgently as they proclaim their truths, their arguments are not scientific and thus will never be accepted by the scientific community. Efforts to have creationism taught as â??scienceâ? will be fought at all levels by those most capable of determining what is science and what is not â??? working scientists.
Now ask me, do I believe that God created the earth and put man upon it? Of course I do. God created all that you see and experience. He gave us intellects capable of appreciating this world, admiring and treasuring it and attempting to understand it at every level. The results of applying this intellect to the world around us lead to many theories and one of the richest and most powerful of these theories is evolution.
A far more productive line of inquiry for the religious right is to ask why did God created the world in such a way as to lead us to the theory of evolution? What is the purpose of it? This is a proper and welcome role for religion and spirituality.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
When any critic of evolution demands empirical evidence, neo-Darwinists just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed, or they avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms which relegate selection to a less important role (which fundamentally changes Darwins original theory BTW). The "fact" of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
...the purpose of neo-Darwinism is to persuade the public to believe that there is no purposeful intelligence that transcends the natural world
Interesting post. But I don't see the above being relevant to high-school curricula.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
When any critic of evolution demands empirical evidence, neo-Darwinists just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed, or they avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms which relegate selection to a less important role (which fundamentally changes Darwins original theory BTW). The "fact" of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
...the purpose of neo-Darwinism is to persuade the public to believe that there is no purposeful intelligence that transcends the natural world
Interesting post. But I don't see the above being relevant to high-school curricula.
The point is that evolution is presented as fact in most curriculum, when it should not be given it is empirically impossible to demonstrate the science and we should not hesitate to teach this material as such. It is not fact, and much of the actual empirical evidence when looked at objectively shows exactly that. Granted, one could argue that science is not entirely empirical, as there are certain basic theories that we cannot prove, yet are fundamental to basic scientific principles. Overall, scientific naturalism has produced a "colored glasses" effect within the scientific community, in so far as if you approach empirical evidence looking for what you want to find, i.e. with a preconceived prejudice, oftentimes you will find it, but that doesn't mean the science is correct. This is the entire reason for double blind studies in the pharma industry, we need to be doing something similar when it comes to scientific naturalism and evolution at this point. What are we really afraid of in so doing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The point is that evolution is presented as fact in most curriculum
Is it? I have only my own personal experience from 20-odd years ago to go by, but I remember it being presented as "this is the theory that most scientists subscribe to."
Is the colored glasses phenomenon more prevalent today than it was say 10 years ago?
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The point is that evolution is presented as fact in most curriculum
Is it? I have only my own personal experience from 20-odd years ago to go by, but I remember it being presented as "this is the theory that most scientists subscribe to."
Is the colored glasses phenomenon more prevalent today than it was say 10 years ago?
Yes, times have changed since you and I went to school Viss1. Obviously, this topic to an extent is subjective as it quite often comes down to the personal attitudes and beliefs of the presentor of the evolutionist materials, and therein lies the battle that is being fought. Essentially, what we're all batting around here is a battle for the consciousness of the culture.
Persons who do know share scientific naturalists a priori commitment to naturalism are wise to think that the reigning theory is not merely incomplete, but quite inconsistent with the empirical evidence in existence. The analysis and the questions surrounding the origins of life cannot be left to the sole determination of a class of experts, because important questions surrounding religion, philosophy, and cultural power are at stake. Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question at the most basic levels. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story (just as those in the religious circles do), and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When we decide to critically ask, "Is the theory (of evolution) true?" we should not be satisfied with the answer, "It is good science, as we define science." We are really struggling with the basic definitions of science in regard to evolution, and if you look far enough under the covers, you won't like what you see.
The colored glasses phenomenon has been at work within the scientific naturalist community for decades now, it's not a question of the last 10-20 years. Even Darwin himself basically stated that the complete fossil record, under his theory, would comprise itself primarily of transitional fossil records. The history at current of fossil species includes two undisputed features particularly inconsistent with Darwin's gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear.
2) Sudden appearance - species arrive suddenly, not gradually by any kind of steady transformation of it's ancestors, it appears all at once and completely formed.
Anyways, all of this is great info to share, but the bottom line is that I do not "believe" in the theory of evolution because an objective analysis of the supporting empirical evidence does not support it in my analysis. I recognize I'm in the minority, and that the scientific naturalist community has spent a considerable amount of time and energy creating a myriad of arguments to defend their ground, but that doesn't make their underlying philosophy correct. What I see is people on both sides of the table digging in their heels and refusing to let go of their prejudices in an effort to find the real truth, and until we are willing to do just that, the truth of the origins of life will remain uncovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Persons who do know share scientific naturalists a priori commitment to naturalism are wise to think that the reigning theory is not merely incomplete, but quite inconsistent with the empirical evidence in existence. The analysis and the questions surrounding the origins of life cannot be left to the sole determination of a class of experts, because important questions surrounding religion, philosophy, and cultural power are at stake. Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question at the most basic levels. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story (just as those in the religious circles do), and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When we decide to critically ask, "Is the theory (of evolution) true?" we should not be satisfied with the answer, "It is good science, as we define science." We are really struggling with the basic definitions of science in regard to evolution, and if you look far enough under the covers, you won't like what you see.
cjbaldw, your post is a perfect example of how the religious right approaches this topic. It is a political issue pure and simple. All this mumbo jumbo about scientific priesthoods and cultural influence and some kind of implied conspiracy in the scientific communityâ?¦all of it is the fabrication of the religious right and all of it is basically crap.
Scientists do not see evolution in those terms. Scientists see evolution as simply the best internally consistent explanation for the richness of life that we see on this planet.
Youâ??re right that the scientific community does have an immense cultural influence on society. It gained and maintains that influence by faithfully applying the scientific method and the incredible benefits that it brings to our society. There is nothing mysterious or hidden about science â??? it is totally open and available to anyone with a willingness to learn.
In any event, the real issue here is not science, or the definition of science or anything along that line. The real issue is the threat to the churchâ??s power and influence posed by a method of describing the world that basically says, â??question everything.â? How dare scientists explore the nature and origin of life! â??? these are topics that only the priesthood has the right to address. This is too important a topic to be explored outside of religion, and besides, we already know the answer! Our holy book lays it all out!
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
