|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Correct me if I'm wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dream Master Inactive Member |
Let me introduce myself. I'm a 21 year old 'young man' studying a 5 year carreer in computer engineering. While biology is not precisely my favorite subject, I've come to believe in certain principles that for the first time in my life, have been subject to a mass debate (a more than century old debate).
I know the entire site is dedicated to debating creationism versus evolution, but I had no idea, whatsoever, that this comparison between apples and oranges was still as backwards as it was 100 years ago. It's too hard for me to actually believe that over 57% of the population in the United States (and just there apparently), believes so naively that God just literally created the world in 7 days. "literally" Doesn't that seem incredibly odd to anyone? I'm a roman catholic living in an ultra catholic country (Mexico), but even the most innocent primary school student would know the difference between a nice fairytale-like analogy to the beginning of the universe and an actual effort to explain, logically and objectively the true creation of the universe. I accept that Creationism is but a childs interpretation of all the theories we have yet to discover about how God, from a superatom to the first homo sapien sapien, created everything.Face it, as a civilization of 'rational' human beings, we can and should only accept our own scientific observations as 'objective education' in the classroom. On what sane grounds does the board of education in iowa or idaho, not educate children in the latest advances of the only universally acceptable ideas of our existance? Creationism is an idea for experienced philosopher and theologists to interpret (I've never seen a more cryptic passage in all the bible), but outside of that, it's nothing more than a bedtime story, an interesting cosmological myth for the enthusiast. The layman is not ready to actually comprehend the implications of comparing creationism with evolution, because he lacks the educated and sought after criteria of an educated man. In my mind this debate is silly. Long before our dear pope said so, to me Evolution, the Physical-Chemical Theory and the Big Bang were already a form of dogma to me. So...Can we play with our own genetic tapestry in the meantime? I don't see why not. Can we equally, in the same manner, rationalize nature's quarks? Oh yes, most definitely Evolution is, currently, the only way to go. If you've got a better, more complex and sophisticated, yet precise idea of how we came about, then by all means debate evolution. But if you give me a fairly vague and cryptic explanation, as the genesis states, without explaining how you 'scientifically' correlate verse to fact, then the current popular interpretation of creationism is not only childish and immature, but also innapropriate. And if this appears to be somewhat of a hostile interrogatory then you'll have to excuse both my frustration and disappointment with a group of people (creationists) who completely lack some form of rational, logical and convincing statements to their perspective. [This message has been edited by Dream Master, 03-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You're in trouble. Engineers are the first to recognize 'design' in nature. From there it's a slippery slope to young earth creationism. Switch majors now before it's too late! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Well, one of the survey's I found put the percentage for creationists at 47% in the US, 49 % of the population accept the evolutionary model ( that is both theistic and atheist acceptance).
I won't comment on the survey till after everyone here gets a chance to look at it. There are some very interesting and strong trends within the poll's data. You be the judge. Oh, by the way, before anyone here thinks that science is about popularity, most of the world believed the world was the center of the universe. Gallileo was persecuted because his scientific research disagreed, he was house arrested, and if I remember correctly, eventually excommunicated. In the end, even though the opinion of the populace was with the church, the science was still a better model, because that is what science seeks, the best theory to describe the observable facts. Popularity is good for politics, not science. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
quote: Interesting, my experience with engineers has been quite the opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: design does not mean a thing joe plenty of people believe that god made humans through evolution- that is design, right? you don't have to believe in creationism to believe in design...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: LOL !!C'mon Joe, tell them you were just being funny. They don't know you well enough here yet~! Joe was referring to a well known creto on the various message boards who flaunts his credentials as an 'engineer' and engineers oughta know a design when they see it. Hey Joe, What's the maximum effective range of Creation Geology ? later jeff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Didn't realize I'd ruffle feathers with the engineer joke. Oh well. I am not sure what you mean by the 'maximum effective range' of creation geology. However, I can tell you that creation 'geology' is not wanted by oil companies. Seems to me that if creation geology was so much more effective than normal geology, oil companies would be falling over themselves to (a) hire creationist geologists and (b) applying the flood model to oil exploration. To my knowledge neither is happening. In fact, I do know of one creationist oil magnate named Hayseed Stevens (NESS.ob) who claims that God told him to drill in Israel and exactly where. Funny thing is, that Hayseed is still investing money in running seismic lines and doing 'conventional geology' to help him locate this godsend of oil. Seems as if this would all be unecessary with divine revelation. At any rate, creation geology is not used in the place where the bottom line is $$. To me, that speaks volumes about the bankruptcy of young earth creationist geology. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dream Master Inactive Member |
I don't argue with intelligent design, it's actually a step closer to accepting that our creation had a purpose and that (as Einstein said it) God does not play dice with the universe.
I don't think evolution actually leaves an all knowing and perfect creator out of the picture.As an engineer, I often love to imagine that every single permutation, cosmic scenario, living thing and love has an equation to it that humanity can find and toy with, but for the time being, I'd have to say that we can't find them all...we just need more time to study them. Intelligent design maybe independent from the 'origin of life' idea, being that at it's root is pure open mindedness, but I can't go thinking that something happened, something designed, of which I have not the slightest idea what it was. I need an anchor, a constant, and that would be evolution. This constant will change to something better, but that's all I need for now. Creationism is an akward step backwards for me because it places too much in blind faith, or magic and our universe has absolutely nothing magical about it. It's all perfect and it's all explainable, but it's not a 'mandrake the magician' scheme. There is a cause and effect in all things in this universe whether people like it or not. Of course there's a design but I need to know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: A buddy of mine was in the army from '79 to '85, posted in Germany. He would relate his expereinces there and if pee-on grunt were button-holed and blamed for a FUBAR - and he tried to EXPLAIN...it was considered an 'excuse'. It was then the grunt would be asked:"What is the maximum range of an excuse, private ?" 'ZERO meters, SIR !!!' ..was the typical response. Much the same as Creation Geology. Thanks Joe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Definitly an army joke. I should know. Currently serving proudly in the US Army.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The most irritatingly-self-righteous creationists I have ever had to deal with have been engineers. They have a special affinity and take comfort in math and certainty, and because they are engineers, they also think that they understand science. Unfortunately, they often don't accept that much of science is inference, not mathematical "proofs", and that they actually don't know much about science. They are also smart and generally analytical, so they can argue well, but they let their partial understanding serve them poorly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Sometimes it is somebody who knows the engineer wielding an argument from authority...actual example from my personal experience in debating a conspiracy-based belief system outside of creationism:
"So and so, an optical engineer, agrees with me that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax..." The person was using a laundry list of one-liners surprisingly similar to those used by some beginning creationists and that was their defense. Misapplication of authority is one of the worst types of argument from authority. Remeber AiG's Creationist Plastic Surgeon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dream Master Inactive Member |
Hmmm, creationist engineers...pompous so called engineers.
Yes unfortunately they exist
quote: Engineers put to practice everything science has given us. One thing is that we might not be as theoretical as investigators but we shine the light on the whole idea and give it a purpose, a technological purpose so that we may further elevate the quality of life for all humans.People don't give us enough credit and we're the ones busting our chops and our brains for the future of mankind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
I have respect for engineers, especially R&D. After I finish my term of service in the army, I want to go back to school for an enginnering major. I might double major in physics as well. I have always had a passion for creating things. Right now, I am absolutely fascinated with the emergence of nanotech and its implications. It seems the technology is where computers were 40 years ago, at the cusp, where R&D is an open field, and where the field isn't restricted by standards yet.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024