|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
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.
With all due respect, I must say this viewpoint departs from purely rational observation and approaches paranoia.
You may not like the wording used, but the underlying truth you cannot argue with. Any major organization attempting to promote it's ideology inherently knows that the best and most successful way to do so is to have their ideology taught to the next generation of society that is unable to logically break down what they are learning during formative schooling years, i.e. public education. You can look at any major ideological group, whether it be scientific naturalists, alternative lifestyle/homosexual organizations, the food industry, and the list goes on. Indoctrination into ideologies is best accomplished with children at young ages when they are too young to resist or understand the consequences of the beliefs they are being subjected to. Of course, parents play an invaluable role, but increasingly public education is becoming a function of parenting as single parenting, divorce, etc., become more prevalent in society. In this light, were scientific naturalism/neodarwinism to be refuted and/or proven to be based not upon good empirical sciences, but rather on philosophy and deepseated prejudicial beliefs, the movement would of course lose it's forward momentum as the basis of modern culture. Yes, there is a lot at stake, make no mistake about it, and those who are leaders in each camp know this truth all too well, which is why they go to such lengths as forming organizations like the NCSE to protect their interests and to further their penetration into public education institutions.
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
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.
If this is the case, why did it not have an effect on what we were taught in school? And if it didn't then, why would it now?
In short, it did. I can pretty much guarantee you that when Darwinism is taught in any public education institution that the empirical scientific data that clearly conflicts with much of the theory is not presented side by side so that each student can make their own judgement call. Evolution is largely presented with such significant false evidence of proof that effectively it's no longer a theory, it's an assumed fact, because the falsifying evidence is discluded purposefully. You either present all of the data, or none of it IMHO. Only then can any rational human being make an educated decision on what to believe, why to believe, and how to believe. Understand I am NOT talking about teaching creationism in any way. I am speaking strictly about teaching about the truth when it comes to the origins of life as we best understand it at the current point in time. Effectively, I'm saying let's stick to what we sware in court, "do you solemnly sware to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,399
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,399 |
Here's a question: If carbon dating is bunk, how do we know how old the Dead Sea Scrolls really are?
I am not going to criticize anyone for being religious. If a Christian belief system helps you in your day to day life and gives you solace in difficult times, that is great. Perhaps you are at an advantage.
But I will say this: keep an open mind. It's this kind of "my way is the only way" thinking that propels religious zealots in all religions. Perhaps another way to consider is to examine the common tenets of all religions, to find the commonalities instead of the differences. Then all religions might get along, instead of holding the Crusades, or issuing fatwas. You know, living in peace and harmony, like a god in any monotheistic system would want.
As a side note, I have to say the Bible doesn't answer all of my questions. And questions are the foundation of science.
98 Silver Frost SVT
97 BMW 540I Sport, six speed
"Blue is for sky, black is for soil, and white is for simplicity, purity and hope for the future"
"A coveted car should never stunt your life, but should make it more rich and interesting."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Indoctrination into ideologies is best accomplished with children at young ages when they are too young to resist or understand the consequences of the beliefs they are being subjected to.
For me, the big picture is enough. We're talking about teaching the prevailing scientific theory on how humanity arrived at where it is today. Regardless of whether a group of scientists supposedly has some sort of interest in covering up the theory's "false claims," it is still nonetheless the general theory to which most scientists subscribe.
Is there an alternative theory we should look into teaching?
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
As I've already said, if it were blind faith, I would have left my beliefs in the dust already, because blind faith = shutting off brain!!
Sounds shut to me.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
And there's more to it than simply a designer? Doesn't creationism and the fact that there was a designer show that there is more to it than simply creationism? Obviously. 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!!
No. Because we would have EVOLVED to compensate for the temperature. The same way cave shrimp EVOLVED to not have eyes. They don't need them!
Originally posted by Woodencross:
As for your pastor, man......I don't know what to say besides the fact that even pastors are human and are imperfect. I'm sorry you were raised with that, but if you would go read the Bible, I challenge you to find a blind faith passage in there.
I have read it many times, It's a great fictional novel.
"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 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Nice try, but it's not going to work. Who are the most respected scientists in the field currently in respect to evolution? Stephen Jay Gould is one, and in his own analysis while he is an avid supporter of evolution, has written many articles analyzing the fossil record and is basically in agreement that there are serious holes in the theory of evolution as Darwin originally theorized that cannot be explained by what the fossil record is telling us. Gould has his own set of theories to fill in the gaps so to speak, and my guess is that eventually a newer theory will replace Darwin's theory, however in order for this to happen, we need people willing to stand up and state that the original theory of evolution according to empirical evidence simply doesn't add up.
Not all scientists agree with you. The few that are brave enough to stand up to the scientific naturalist establishment are generally chastized and oftentimes disgraced and forced out of their chosen profession. Do your homework and you'll see several instances where this occurred.
Yada Yada Yada...
People like cjbladw already know the truth. It is this knowledge, this blind faith fueled by a desire for power and political goals that closes their minds to the simple and obvious reality in front of them. Actually people like cjbladw are probably just unwitting pawns who really believe what they say. Mores the pity.
Cjbladw there is no controversy within the scientific community over the reality of evolution. There is plenty of argument and reflection on the details and how best to apply this theory to an incredibly wide variety of problems. This kind of argument is a normal and healthy part of the scientific method. Scientists who insist on pushing ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny will naturally lose credibility and eventually lose their status as "scientist." Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Evolution has withstood the most amazing levels of scrutiny for over a century and a half.
Portraying evolution as a theory in crisis because of ongoing debates about its details is simply an example of lying. Obviously the audience for such lies is not the scientific community. These lies are intended for the most uninformed public.
Of course any power or influence built on falsehoods and subterfuge is temporary at best. Putting God back into public life is a noble goal that deserves better than what we see here.
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: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by jthursby:
THE HOLY BIBLE The greatest fictional writing of our time!
 Are you trying to start an argument with this comment? Just because you choose not to believe it does not make it fictional. 
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by jthursby:
THE HOLY BIBLE The greatest fictional writing of our time!
Are you trying to start an argument with this comment? Just because you choose not to believe it does not make it fictional.
tim, there have always been people who have a burning need to start fights. this is just one of those moments. either that or a bad lapse of judgement of the part of jthursby in what so far has been a mostly pleasant conversation. i for one am going to ignore the comment
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,155
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,155 |
So...  How many Neanderthals remain on Earth today?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Yada Yada Yada...
People like cjbladw already know the truth. It is this knowledge, this blind faith fueled by a desire for power and political goals that closes their minds to the simple and obvious reality in front of them. Actually people like cjbladw are probably just unwitting pawns who really believe what they say. Mores the pity.
Cjbladw there is no controversy within the scientific community over the reality of evolution. There is plenty of argument and reflection on the details and how best to apply this theory to an incredibly wide variety of problems. This kind of argument is a normal and healthy part of the scientific method. Scientists who insist on pushing ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny will naturally lose credibility and eventually lose their status as "scientist." Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Evolution has withstood the most amazing levels of scrutiny for over a century and a half.
Portraying evolution as a theory in crisis because of ongoing debates about its details is simply an example of lying. Obviously the audience for such lies is not the scientific community. These lies are intended for the most uninformed public.
Of course any power or influence built on falsehoods and subterfuge is temporary at best. Putting God back into public life is a noble goal that deserves better than what we see here.
You can continue to attack "people" like me, even though you have no idea what my beliefs are, you can continue to dismiss arguments based upon the same rhetoric the NCSE does (you've done a great job so far  ), or you can keep this thread on topic and argue based upon the merits, which you continue not to do, I am still waiting.
Just to make it clear, I am not opposed to the theory of evolution, I am opposed to presenting theory as fact when there is both considerable fossil record evidence that directly opposes evolutionary theory (in particular surrounding the pre and post Cambrian explosion ages) as well as a considerable lack of fossil record evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution. Who knows, maybe some day the evidence will be uncovered. I highly doubt it though.
The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion of around 600 million years ago (using the carbon dating other people in this thread have mentioned). Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist, puts it, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life, and he conceded in The Origin of Species no less that "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have "swarmed with living creatures".
In more recent years, empirical data shows evidence of bacteria and algae in some of the earth's oldest rocks, and it is generally accepted today that these single-celled forms of life may have first appeared as long as four billion years ago. Bacteria and algae are prokaryotes, which means each creature consists of a single cell without a nucleus and related organelles. More complex eukaryote cells with a nucleus appeared later, and then dozens of independent groups of multicellular animals appeared without any visible process of evolutionary development in the fossil record. Darwin's theory requires that there have been very lengthy sets of intermediate forms between unicellular organisms and animals like insects, worms, and clams. The evidence that these existed is missing, however, and with no good excuse.
The absence of pre-Cambrian ancestors has been debated now for over a century. The artifact theory - that they existed but the fossil record does not contain them - and the fast-transition theory - they really did not exist and the evolution of modern anatomical plans occurred with a rapidity that threatens established ideas about the gradual pace of evolutionary change. The fact is these massive holes in the theory are still up for debate to this day JEDSContour, and no matter how much you post dismissing the data I've provided, it doesn't dismiss these facts. It only further proves my overall point, that "people" like yourself are just as brainwashed in one direction as your erroneous assumption about "people" like me.
I won't even go into mass extinctions that have also been documented at this point in time, and how much more problematic these events make evolutionary theory.
So, I'm still waiting for a coherent argument based upon the merits JEDSContour, and I have a feeling there will not be one coming from you because in my experience when people have no cogent argument they resort to personal attacks, if not aimed at the person directly, then aimed at the assumed type of person they are dealing with, however erroneous that assumption may be. Care to step up to the plate with some actual facts for a change?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
For me, the big picture is enough. We're talking about teaching the prevailing scientific theory on how humanity arrived at where it is today. Regardless of whether a group of scientists supposedly has some sort of interest in covering up the theory's "false claims," it is still nonetheless the general theory to which most scientists subscribe.
And for most people the big picture is plenty, and in the big scheme of things, well, most people could give a damn about the origins of life when all is said and done.
And I'm not screaming cover up here either. I'm simply after the truth. Let's tell the real truth, which is that we empirically know a great deal less than has been claimed by the scientific naturalist community. I'm all for continuing the pursuit of truth no matter what subject we're speaking of. The truth is our friend, and no amount of rhetoric coming from either side is going to help us get closer to the truth.
Quote:
Is there an alternative theory we should look into teaching?
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to ask: Should we formulate alternative theories to eventually teach?
Seriously, I'm NOT saying we shouldn't teach good science. I'm saying let's clearly define what good science is and let's at least admit (as Ruse and even Gould now is starting to do) that there may be some ideological problems and philosophies that have produced bad science that are preventing us from making meaningful forward progress in regard to the origins of life.
In many ways, Darwin, were he alive today and were he to see the empirical evidence that has been uncovered, IMHO, would have fundamentally altered The Origin of Species accordingly, he said as much in his actual text as my other post mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
