|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
No matter how far back we take science, it keeps coming down to a completely unknown "entity" or power that orchestrated everything that we are aware of as space and time.
Astrophysicists have made progress explaining how the universe began since telescopes were invented. The big bang happens to be the current accepted theory given the current body of evidence. The fact that it's not yet an iron-clad hypothesis is not proof that some unknown entity "did it for us." It benefits no one except Creationists themselves to explain away whatever we don't currently know as "the work of God."
Quote:
I personally think that it takes more faith to belive in some of the evolution theories that have spouted up (given the impossible odds they toss out) vs. a more practical approach towards hybrid Creationism that does embrace scientific fact.
Combining Creationism with science is "practical" only if you define "practical" as "taking the path of least resistance." Creationism is the opposite of science. Why bother with science at all if you're just going to chalk up every unkown to God?
Quote:
One or two abberations in a system is acceptable to my statistical way of thinking; Evolution and how homo sapiens came into existance is based on so bloody many abberations that it's the statistical equivalent of winning the lottery EVERY time you purchase a ticket.
If individual evolutionary steps are taken on their own without examining the story behind why each step represents a milestone, sure, it looks like a leap of logic. But if you consider that we're talking about a period of a billion years, in which time countless organisms tried and failed to evolve, you realize evolution theory is more trial and error than dumb luck. It's not like the individual steps of the evoutionary chain just happened to turn out that way in direct succession.
FWIW I don't pretend to know if the big bang or evolution will turn out to be 100% correct. In fact IMO every scientist should take a critical eye to whatever hypothesis he's working on. But I do know that trying to combine science with Creationism won't get us any closer to an answer.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by Tom Thumb:
Have you ever been to a southern Babtist or Holiness church? They are very extreme. A person would think their pants were on fire but they are only preaching. Anyone outside of their group is considered a cult member, sinner or devil worshiper.
Methodist or Salvation army churches are more moderate.
I've met some Southern Catholics before, but never any Southern Babtists...
All I know is they are VERY religious!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Astrophysicists have made progress explaining how the universe began since telescopes were invented. The big bang happens to be the current accepted theory given the current body of evidence. The fact that it's not yet an iron-clad hypothesis is not proof that some unknown entity "did it for us." It benefits no one except Creationists themselves to explain away whatever we don't currently know as "the work of God."
I know many people of faith that do not take the default position that if they don't know something then "divine intervention" was involved. I do not discount the work that has been done or the insights that astronomy, astrophysics, mathematics or pure science has given mankind, but all that work has utterly failed to bring forth concrete answers on the origins of existance in this particular dimension we inhabit. Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things...
Originally posted by Viss1:
Combining Creationism with science is "practical" only if you define "practical" as "taking the path of least resistance." Creationism is the opposite of science. Why bother with science at all if you're just going to chalk up every unkown to God?
You're kidding me, right? The most intellectually and spiritually difficult thing I do in my life is try to bridge my personal beliefs about God and my intellect as someone who thirsts for knowledge in all forms. Scripture, common sense and scientific method do tend to butt heads and rub certain areas completely raw, but because they do so I see no reason to abandon one completely for the other.
I would say I have probably chosen one of the more difficult and convoluted paths to take as again, it is one that's rife with second-guessing, doubt and at times wild uncertainty...
Originally posted by Viss1:
If individual evolutionary steps are taken on their own without examining the story behind why each step represents a milestone, sure, it looks like a leap of logic. But if you consider that we're talking about a period of a billion years, in which time countless organisms tried and failed to evolve, you realize evolution theory is more trial and error than dumb luck. It's not like the individual steps of the evoutionary chain just happened to turn out that way in direct succession.
I don't buy it; there are too few precursors to homo sapiens that play out your side of the statistical story and mammals in terms of a species or even looking a step further at a genus. The "leaps" that evolution has taken at times in certain kindoms I can grasp, but chalking up homo sapiens' climb to the top in such short order strains the theory of evolution to the breaking point when it's been the ONLY abberation of this magnatude in the system.
Originally posted by Viss1:
FWIW I don't pretend to know if the big bang or evolution will turn out to be 100% correct. In fact IMO every scientist should take a critical eye to whatever hypothesis he's working on. But I do know that trying to combine science with Creationism won't get us any closer to an answer.
You misunderstand me; I don't wish that scientists to dust their hands off and claim that the search is over and slap up a label that says "God" on top of the evolution charts. What I do wish is that what is seemingly the collective intellectual ego of the scientific community would remember that some of the most extreme experiences and events in human history have been driven by things they have NO ability to measure (i.e., love, hate, faith, doubt) and to at least acknowledge the possibility of the Divine in certain aspects of life. I wish for the search to continue and I would like the scientific community to give the religious community at least a modicum of respect for the beliefs they hold. To reciprocate, the religious community needs to become much more accepting and tolerant of scientific study, even studies that are uncomfortable to those that choose doctrine and canon over scientific method.
I do not respect arrogance from avowed atheists on this topic, nor do I respect the arrogance from holy-rollers on it, either. The problem is that I see more arrogance than understanding from both sides on this topic than anything else.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things...
This is news to me! Please name one modern day researcher who "reluctantly admits" that some external power directed the evolutionary process. I'm not concerned with the "days gone by" persons since evolutionary theory has come a very long way in the last 10-20 years.
You appear to have chosen your words carefully here, so I assume you have some basis for this statement.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Well, since you discount Einstein and then Hoyle (a renounced Anglican that still found some form or concept of "God" in astrophysics) because they are too "old"...
I take it you've heard of Stephen Hawking; he's certainly no atheist, though agnosticism or deism has been more along the lines of what he routinely professes. There's no scoffing when he mentions the concept of God and is known to allow the existance of a Creator to enter in his train of thought...
...or is he just plain nuts?
Hugh Ross, though probably blacklisted by the some in the scientific community, holds some interesting arguments for God. I would submit that he holds a Christian view of God, but his thoughts on a Creator are quite compelling, even without the quotes on scripture.
The fact is that astrophysicists and evolutionists are hitting a "brick wall" in terms of coming to grips on what originated or started the "big bang" and that there's been a scramble by some to prop up any and every other theory (no matter how far-fetched or weak) just to avoid addressing the concept of an "external creator", while some are allowing this to enter the peripheries of the discussion. Let's face it: getting around the Laws of Thermodynamics is a complete and utter b**ch and that's pretty much what's is left for those more intent on disproving the existance of an external Creator.
Those are 4 off of the top of my head; I'll dig up a few more that I've read on.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Whoever is a non-believer answer me this: How does your science explain the spark of life? What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form? I am Catholic, but I also understand that science & the quest for knowlege can re-inforce or conflict the teachings that I have learned. Similarly, any scientist must accept truth when his theories are de-bunked. Learning does not stop when the sermon is over, but rather a new world of knowlege opens. I think evolution is real, and that it happens faster or slower than science may imagine depending on the species & the environmental conditions that require adaptation from that species. Yet I retain my faith.  One can live in the brave new world, yet respect & honor the traditions of faith. One side calling the other stupid because they don't have the answer to 'this question or that', is nothing but destructive & errodes the respect & dignity each demands. Live, & let live. Peace, baby! 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,786
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,786 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
... What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form? ...
Gravity.
-Auto Mak or-
-Experiment or
-Station Wagon or-
-Computeriz or-
I have a foot that is bigger than a foot.
SuperChipFOR SALE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
... What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form? ...
Gravity.
So, if I put a bunch of chemicals in the correct proportions into a paper cup, (* POOF *) life happens?
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Well, since you discount Einstein and then Hoyle (a renounced Anglican that still found some form or concept of "God" in astrophysics) because they are too "old"...
I take it you've heard of Stephen Hawking; he's certainly no atheist, though agnosticism or deism has been more along the lines of what he routinely professes. There's no scoffing when he mentions the concept of God and is known to allow the existance of a Creator to enter in his train of thought...
...or is he just plain nuts?
Hugh Ross, though probably blacklisted by the some in the scientific community, holds some interesting arguments for God. I would submit that he holds a Christian view of God, but his thoughts on a Creator are quite compelling, even without the quotes on scripture.
The fact is that astrophysicists and evolutionists are hitting a "brick wall" in terms of coming to grips on what originated or started the "big bang" and that there's been a scramble by some to prop up any and every other theory (no matter how far-fetched or weak) just to avoid addressing the concept of an "external creator", while some are allowing this to enter the peripheries of the discussion. Let's face it: getting around the Laws of Thermodynamics is a complete and utter b**ch and that's pretty much what's is left for those more intent on disproving the existance of an external Creator.
Those are 4 off of the top of my head; I'll dig up a few more that I've read on.
I think you are confusing the "origins of life" with evolution. No scientist pretends to know what existed before the Big Bang. If someone wants to say that god was the instigator then I would not argue with them. I have no problem with someone believing that god had a hand in the evolutionary process either. Neither of these issues has anything to do with the topic being discussed here though.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
I'm confusing neither; I initially responded to the Evolution train of thought that was being progressed here and it turned into something a little different.
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion since I've apparently "missed the boat"?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
