|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One Question for Evo-Bashers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
Given the broad spectrum of religious beliefs held by evolutionists
[ Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, deists, agnostics...etc. you name it. ] - the only commonality being the acceptance of mainstream science... Please explain why there are no secular creationists ? Those being persons that accept the creationist's 'science' and evidences without any religious affiliation. Surely creation science is based soley on evidence. Why hasn't this evidence convinced a single, solitary, secular scientist to side with the creationists ? ( pardon the alliteration ) regards, jeff ------------------"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Beacuse the "science" hasnt made any standard breakthrus. I am however to continually "cook" up ideas in biology that are not even on the radar screen by using creationist influence to NOT think like an evolutionist and some day one of my many suggestions is bound to be the standard since now I am back at the high school level. Creationist "science" does indeed exist but it is like the specialization one has never heard of remaining the the objective subjectivity of its "credible" practioners. This was the word used to distinguish different kinds of taxonomists and it applies as well to creationism as whole for those who wish not a denominational affilation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist). ------------------Romans 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
I think sonnikke has it the wrong way around. Such persons believe in a creator and then go looking for the "evidence" to support their belief.
And why a christian creator? I see the same "evidence" of a creator being cited by fundamentalist jews and moslems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
S:
Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist). M: That is why there are scientists who are christians but "christian science" as practiced (LOL!) by groups like ICR is not science. They tack on the word science to give themselves the appearance of credibility that they do not posess. "Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". " M: You sure put a lot of limits on your god...he/she/it seems to be shrinking progressively by your constraints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
WJ- this is a very fine hair to split being essentail spirtual. While I can "perceive" the way around you attempt I can not 'conceive' the same. Similarly not, the evidence, by which I take it you meant it in a LEGAL and not Academic maNNer, being in part scientific IS NOT (iN mY Opinion). You may "see" it his way and even be willing to tesitfy in a cour of law that this is how you have seen it and believe you will continue to 'saw' it etc but I THINK ( this is not belief"")in the next 100yrsetc this will not be so different to you as you think. \
And that seems to be your "point" or 'position'? For me the "evidentairy nature" in creationISM of any eval asseses a difference that even when two or three are gathered togehether in agreement does not seem to come out expressed the same. You may assert that my creationism is at fault and you are entitled to you own opnion. It would repay to read Galelio's LINE in Cantor's point-set. There is still SPITRUAL room for reconciliation but if the elastic is confused with the electirc in this nature even the science without being sensitve to this religious point WILL NOT be able to think God's thoughts after him. I could as well be in Nepal for this matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
M, you may "say" this is *not* science especially since Wolfram kind has achieved print but the scientists behind such an instutition as this are not 'selling' the hydrodynamical details short as Wolfram could be or have done. They insist on a more historically tight view on the pedagogy of entropy and in this balance the future of biology hangs. No mere snake systemitist will turn the dillma's tide even if one beat up Bill Clinton aka ACLU in court. It was wrong how sex got taught in shools and now with vedio violence the same per education dollars should not be misspent. Biology has a burden that physics never had ethically until the nukes. There is however no albatross.
I undetstand the difference between Scientific Creationism and Creation Science but Ruse, maybe like you, thought this was something akin to a philosophers real word play. Problem is that philosophy of biology as philosophy of science has not done its job but remains attached largerly to the idea post-Russel that Kant had been chained out of all but asthetic interest. This was and is not true. The point here is that "tacking" or 'Brad nailing' the word "science" in here in fact inheres when one Spritually considers a difference between this as SCIENCE and so-called "Biblical Creationism" but if you refuse to consider where the faith is expressed or do not follow the 'spritual nature of it' then the elastic seems to yield and you model may only have ONE electron in it. NOw that can not really be the correct perspective on it no matter which side you look at it on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: But if Creation Science is truly science, then evidence is all that is required. It sounds as if you're adding requirements to Creation Science that regular 'secular' science does fine without. How would " realiz(ing) and accept(ing) God as... the cause of the world" be scientifically verified ?IOW, how is personal, subjective revelation a part of objective science ? If one insists on including these parameters in their science, these parameters must be testable, verifyable or falsifyable. Otherwise, what you have is no longer science. quote: Is there a prescribed process we might follow to verify this claim ?Perhaps a new drug that can medically " lift the veil off your mind " is in order ? ...maybe shock therapy ? regards, jeff ------------------"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: Well, it's the "design argument", the evidence lies in the fact that we can conclude a Designer was behind the visible attributes we see around us. We have no problem realizing that cars, houses, watches, airplanes, etc etc, all have an intelligent designer behind them. How do we scientifically prove that? We can't see the designer, we don't know who they are, but we know with certainty, that those things did not arrange themselves from 1000's of individual parts, into an organized, specialized, and fully functioning machine, as it were, without careful planning, design, function, and intelligence behind it. I suppose that the "veil" comment was exactly related to that very problem. Best wishes,Sonnikke ------------------Romans 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: We have no problem recognizing that because we know who made them. We have evidence for the designer that does NOT rest on the analysis of the design.
quote: I know you are serious, but questions like this really destroy your credibility.
quote: What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: There's no need to curse. Yes, you are correct, that's entirely possible, however, without going to all that trouble, it is still evident that a plane is designed simply by observing its features, mechanisms, layout, details, etc... deciphering a non designed object from a designed object is easy to do (ie. an eroded rock vs. a designed stone spearhead). Likewise, we can infer design in life. ------------------Romans 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
quote: I'm sure you can show me this conclusive evidence without using analogies... quote: Take any airplane, car, house etc, and you'll be able to learn of every designer involved. You could get their name, see their picture, shake their hand (unless they're dead of course). quote: And there's the analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: "Damn" isn't cursing. God says it all the time.
quote: It wouldn't be evident if we didn't already have knowledge of our own designs. Take the example of tribal and isolated cultures thinking that planes are birds or gods. They don't assume, based on design characteristics, that such things were built by humans.
quote: Because we have examples of both to compare. Since we can make comparisons between manufactured stone tools-- via wear patterns which indicate usage-- and naturally fragmented rock, we can determine that other rocks are or are not manufactured. However, it is worth noting that the most primative stone tools are debatably not chipped into any real pattern, but just broken in half and used as best as could be.
quote: Which are the designed life forms and which are the not-designed ones? With the ability to make that comparison, there is no way to infer design. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: I assume you're joking of course..
quote: We are speculating here, and I would venture to say that even the most primitive tribe would recognize design, since they would have designs of their own (ie. spearheads) and could decipher the difference between a hut they built, and a pile of lumber that had washed ashore.
quote: Again, we're speculating.
quote:I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here. Best wishes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. Not speculating. It is field of study called cultural anthropology. Sure, I suspect pretty much anyone could distinguish between a hut THEY BUILT and a pile of lumber. This is exactly the point. They know huts are designed because they build them.
quote: No we are not. This is a field called paleoanthropology and this is precisely the methods used to determine what is a manufactured tool.
quote: We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024