Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 9:02 PM
164 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, marc9000, Meddle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 158 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,739 Year: 2,776/19,786 Month: 858/1,918 Week: 145/301 Day: 28/35 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   What I have noticed about these debates...
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 238 (25180)
12-01-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
12-01-2002 10:02 AM


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been many major and well-respected scientists who believed that the world was created by an intelligent being - it's not just something for those who are uneducated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Like who?

OTOH, so what if there were? Just because they believe something is supernaturally-caused doesn't mean that it was just because they say so. They have just as much evidence as my cat does that the world was created by an intelligent being."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alrighty then!!! These guys were all either around during or after Darwin!!! Just a few...

Louis Agassiz - the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist; 1807-1873
Gregory Mendel - the father of genetics; 1822-1884
Louis Pasteur - the father of bacteriology; 1822-1895
Lord Kelvin - established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis; 1824-1907
Joseph Lister - founded antiseptic surgical methods; 1827-1912
Chandra Wickrasinge - British scientist who worked with Sir Fred Hoyle
Charles Townes - Nobel, physics; 1964
Arno Penzias - Nobel, physics; 1978
Candace Pert - the discoverer of the opiate receptor

Of course, Sir Issac Newton was around before Darwin, but this great scientist once said, "I must profess I know no sufficient natural cause of the earth diurnal motion. Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in His works, but I do not think them alone sufficient for His creation and therefore may be allowed to suppose that amongst other things God gave the earth its motion by such degrees and at such times as was most suitable to His creatures."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 10:02 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 12-01-2002 10:27 PM jcgirl92 has responded
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 12-01-2002 10:41 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 12-03-2002 5:13 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by nator, posted 12-05-2002 11:17 AM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 238 (25183)
12-01-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
12-01-2002 10:02 AM


You said, "Now let me explain to you the fundamental difference between real science and Creation "science".

Real science always works from the evidence found and observed in nature, then formulates hypothese and theories in order to explain that evidence. If reliable new evidence comes to light, it may strengthen the existing theory, or it may contradict it, in which case the theory is modified or replaced. It is this tentativity, or falsifiability, of science, that makes it so dynamic and powerful. What we think is true about nature can change if the evidence is there."

*I want to ask are all Evolution-Scientists really as "scientific" as you think? How many times have we heard about a scientist who had doctored up stuff for the sake of the Theory of Evolution? Ernst Haekel is notorius! Someone wrote of him, "He became Darwin’s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls." Are all Evolution-scientists as unbiased as you would like to think...?

You also said, "Creation "science", by contrast, begins not with the evidence found in nature, but with a given interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible. All of nature must be made to fit into this interpretation of this religious book, which is also held to be without error. So, there is nothing at all which can count against this Bible."

*Both Evolution-scientists and Creation-scientists have their theories with which they interpret the same evidence! You would have to agree that there are not too many scientists who do not have something by which they interpret the evidence they see.

You asked, "However, I am curious; what do you think of Theistic Evolution?"

*Well, I don't think of it at all actually! Don't want to!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 10:02 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 12-05-2002 10:06 AM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 238 (25185)
12-01-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
12-01-2002 7:28 PM


Exactly right Tranquility Base!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 7:28 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 238 (25186)
12-01-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by zipzip
12-01-2002 5:55 AM


Quite right! Some jolly good points my friend!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by zipzip, posted 12-01-2002 5:55 AM zipzip has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 20 of 238 (25189)
12-01-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 8:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jcgirl92:
... just so that you know, there are also geologists out there who believe in the Bible!!!!

Hello JCGirl,

Have you considered what it means to "believe in the Bible"?

When someone asks me whether I believe in the Bible, I never know what they are really asking. There are more than 600 denominations of Christianity out there, all of which have a different take on "what the Bible says," and what it means.

Many people can say they "believe in the Bible," even though they may vehemently dis-believe what you and others believe about it.

When one says s/he "believes in the Bible," does it mean that one believes the Bible is a message from God? If so, then God seems to have a problem communicating. Seems to me that a supreme deity would be able to communicate unequivocally.

Bible study is my principal pastime. There are parts of it which, if specified, I could say "I believe." Seems to me that the requirement, which some pose, - that one must believe it all or reject it all - is on a par with requiring ones spouse to be perfect or suffer total rejection. Everyone chooses what s/he wants to believe of the Good Book. Any what thinks otherwise is kidding itself.

There are people in this forum who love both, Darwin and the Bible.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 8:31 PM jcgirl92 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 9:59 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 238 (25191)
12-01-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by doctrbill
12-01-2002 9:55 PM


"There are people in this forum who love both, Darwin and the Bible."

Jolly good - feel free to do that! I refer you to the first message that I wrote in this thread...

[This message has been edited by jcgirl92, 12-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 12-01-2002 9:55 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 238 (25192)
12-01-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 9:09 PM


quote:
There have been many major and well-respected scientists who believed that the world was created by an intelligent being

Then, Jcgirl, you cite a number of people around during or after Darwin.

Perhaps it would make some sense if you defined what you meant by "the world". Darwin did not offer any opinion on the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, the origin of the earth or the origin of life. So it's difficult to see what you are trying to argue and how this has anything to do with Darwin.

Once you clarify that point, we could examine your nominated scientists further. However, for your nomination of those scientists to have any weight, you will have to demonstrate where their published scientific views directly support your own view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 9:09 PM jcgirl92 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 11:00 PM wj has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 23 of 238 (25195)
12-01-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 9:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jcgirl92:
Sir Issac Newton was around before Darwin, but this great scientist once said, "I must profess I know no sufficient natural cause of the earth diurnal motion."

There are now very good theories to explain earth's diurnal motion.

That's the Great thing about science. It evolves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 9:09 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 238 (25197)
12-01-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by wj
12-01-2002 10:27 PM


Can do - and will do so! I'll be back!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 12-01-2002 10:27 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by wj, posted 12-04-2002 10:29 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3919 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 238 (25206)
12-02-2002 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
12-01-2002 7:28 PM


Hi TB:

'Zactly. I DO make the distinction. You have been invariably civil in our discussions - and I have treated you (hopefully) the same. Which goes back to the last point in my post where "you get what you project". I also agree that the uninformed evo can be (almost) as bad as an uninformed YEC (although apparently a rarer breed).

OTOH, you still haven't answered my questions concerning the evidence for your "novel protein families" wrt the distinction between "kinds".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 7:28 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 238 (25329)
12-03-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 8:31 PM


Folks, here is my view as an informed Christian and a scientist (physician actively involved in basic medical science, sorry not geology). I think God gave us a mind because he meant us to use it.

Science is a great use of that mind and I think we can find out a great deal about the natural world and should make it a priority. I personally am fascinated by many areas of science and read widely. That said, I have never seen anything that contradicts the Bible, just some narrow interpretations of the Bible.

For this and other reasons I (like many Christians) welcome science and scientific discoveries ... the God of the Bible must also be the inventor of the natural world and all its laws. What we learn may change how I interpret certain parts of the Bible that are hard to understand in the first place, it is true. But that is because I realize that the Bible was written so that sheepherders who had no concept of what a dinosaur was could understand the sequence of creation (for example), and also so that a sophisticated scientific culture could also see a general outline.

So if by using the faculties God has given us, we learn deeper details of creation (chemical composition of early atmosphere, etc), I do not have trouble understanding that God had a hand in them. However, even though God is a true scientist and a brilliant engineer, many Christians aren't. That is why the Bible is not a scientific treatise and was never meant to be one.

Treating it as such and pontificating about the apparent inaccuracy of certain details written so that ancient sheepherders would be comforted in knowing they had a God who loved them is missing the mark.

Confront the real issue, whatever faith it is you are going to examine. In Christianity it is this -- humanity has rejected God, but he loves us enough that he has come here, lived as one of us in the person of Christ, and has died as ransom for our sins (willful disobedience of God) so that "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life(John 3:16)."

His question is not -- how comfortable are you with the fact that Genesis does not mention [insert specific scientific detail] so that sheepherders would not be bewildered? Instead it is this: will you accept my gift of salvation and invite me into your life or will you reject me knowing that there is "no other name by which men may be saved?"

This is what makes Christianity a dangerous religion, as an atheist friend of mine warned me. I completely agree -- Christ makes tough claims and asks difficult questions. But give our God your intellectual honesty before you reject him, first knowing that Science cannot protect us from the ultimate (and inevitable) requirement that we answer his real question, either yes or no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 8:31 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 12-03-2002 5:27 AM zipzip has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4522 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 27 of 238 (25333)
12-03-2002 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ten-sai
12-01-2002 8:09 AM


TS:
Emphasis added. To show the inconsistencies of your beliefs. Soooo, if you sincerely believe (NOT!!) people have "the right to live and believe as they wish," you have outed yourself as a HYPOCRITE in the highest order! Congratulations. Are you one of those feminazis?

M: In addition to your extremely limited intellect it is not unexpected that you show the other fundie quality of a profound fear of women.

TS:
Hopefully, you aren't one of the people brainwashing little children in public schools by telling them their parents lied to them about the Bible's creation accounts (or Koran or Torah) and "GOD didn't creat YOU, fool!

M: As opposed to those who brain wash children into saying that god did this or that without any evidence? Interesting that you included the Torah and Koran..do you teach children the truths of those works as well? Do you preach the koran...and why did you exclude the Vedas? or Native American creation myths? Or Greek mythology?

Let's see you propose a
hypothesis of creation that is
1)testable
2) falsifiable

Hint for the layperson laywer..you can't.

TS:
You were created from a swirling dust ball which collapsed on itself into a molten rock where ALL life came from." Such violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a most egregious manner. The irony is that the 1st Amendment is consistent with your above stated belief.

M: Well, thankfully evolution is not abiogenesis and thankfully nobody who studies abiogenesis proposes a "swirling dustball" as the origin of life. You might actually want to inform yourself on the subjects you are opposed to...otherwise your civil case will not only be a profound defeat for you personally, but a huge farce.

TS:
For the record, I don't care if you believe like me, or what you believe. I assume you are an adult and can think for yourself. How about allowing others to do the same when it comes to opining on the ultimate question of life? Unless you've been hiding your evidence of abiogenesis? Perhaps following your own advice would be advisable under the circumstances...

M: Can you actually show that abiogenesis is taught in school or taught in school as a fact? Evolution is covered (sometimes) but abiogenesis rarely.

I guess you should sue the schools also for teaching geography and that the world is round rather than flat as you are forced to accept?

TS:
Among other things, aren't you one of the many who falsely proclaim that there are valid logical principles like "the God of the gaps fallacy" and "abiogenesis is illogical to evolution"????????

M: Demonstrate that the "god of the gaps" is a fallacy. If you have read Darwin (you clearly have not or you are too limited to undestand what he actually wrote) then you would not have to ask why abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics. I take from your multitude of question marks that you are seriously confused.

TS:
Because those are LIES, and no less so even if you believe them. Folks, there is NO SUCH THING as a "God of the gaps fallacy" -- it is not contained in any known existing logical paradigm. Don't believe me? How about a "peer-reviewed" resource on the logic behind "the God of the gaps fallacy"??? It doesn't exist.

M: Why would there be a peer reviewed article on why the gaps argument is intellectually void? That a laywer with no background in science claim that ALL science is lying hardly bears much weight. Contrary to your personal belief, you are irrelevant to science and as a laywer you are professionally irrelevant to the search for the truth.

TS:
Only a person shamelessly insecure about their own beliefs in God would make such a statement and brainwash children into believing the same. Again, you are a hypocrite and have ZERO credibility. Shame on you!

M: As opposed to all the credibility you have?

TS:
Finally, abiogenesis IS the logical imperative of evolution!!!!!!!

M: Up the dosage of your sedative there big boy...take deep breathe and remove the finger from the exclamation point and shift key..there, feel better? Darwin did not say how life began, his theory covers how it developed subsequently. The origin of SPECIES..not the origin of life. That you cannot grasp that says more about the limitations of your intellect and logical abilities than anyone elses.

TS: Believe they are irrelevant to eachother if you want, but it is YOU who are being illogical one here and have absolutely NO evidence for the foundation of your belief in evolution.

M: Except all the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields. I am sure you have read all of it and base your objections on a thorough knowledge of the subject you oppose

TS:
Or maybe you can give us a peer-reviewed article i've been asking for ad naseum on the "logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution"?

M: Try reading the Origin of Species and figure it out yourself like most people with half a brain have been able to.

TS:
Or, since one does not exist, you can be the first to take a stab at it and WE will peer review it right here!!

M: Well, before "we" peer review it let's see if you have any academic credentials...let's see you demonstrate non-random mutation or genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using your profound legal knowledge. It should be easy if you are such an authority on all things scientific.

TS:
Here is your chance to demonstrate your command over logic and make a fool out of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as YOU do. Hypocrite.

M: Your post to schrafinator made a fool out of you already..anything further would be redundant.

How disappointing TS...I thought you might bring a novel angle to creationist arguments against evolution with your legal angle. Instead, you are a below average fundie ranter who has absolutely no idea about science and especially evolutionary biology.

But congratulations on being banned faster than anyone else I have seen on this board...you must be proud of your achievement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ten-sai, posted 12-01-2002 8:09 AM Ten-sai has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4522 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 28 of 238 (25334)
12-03-2002 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by zipzip
12-03-2002 3:36 AM


Hi zipzip,

Do you then also accept the evidence that the observed biodiversity today is a result of evolution or do you reject it as contrary to the bible? If you accept evolution I would say your view is fairly mainstream for a scientist as most are religious (believe in god/gods and accept evolution). But I am not entirely sure of your position (regarding evolution) from your post.

Best wishes,
M

[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by zipzip, posted 12-03-2002 3:36 AM zipzip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by zipzip, posted 12-04-2002 1:44 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 29 of 238 (25360)
12-03-2002 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 9:09 PM


quote:
Lord Kelvin - established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis; 1824-1907

Lord Kelvin was one of the first Old Earthers around. He calculated a *Minimum* age of the Earth to be 40 million years!

Why do these lists of "scientific creationists" always include such dubious characters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 9:09 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 30 of 238 (25361)
12-03-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 8:31 PM


Actually just because a geologist is a Christian does not mean they believe the Earth is 6000 years old or disbelieve in evolution.

From The Affiliation of Christian Geologists:

http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/suppe4.html
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/young3.html
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/wiens1.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 8:31 PM jcgirl92 has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019