Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 91 of 249 (327830)
06-30-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
It is the objection that the school board is using the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' to try to eliminate science from teh science class due to religious purposes.
After all, they don't do the same thing for the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 11:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by CK, posted 06-30-2006 4:49 PM ramoss has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 92 of 249 (327841)
06-30-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ramoss
06-30-2006 4:28 PM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
Gravity is an interesting example - it's one of those things that the general public think that we have "solved" - yet the more I read about gravity, the more I realise that we know very little about it! (at least that's how it appears to me with my limited knowledge of the area).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ramoss, posted 06-30-2006 4:28 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 93 of 249 (327909)
06-30-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Monk
08-18-2005 12:11 PM


Re: Newtonian Physics
Just a pointer for clarification. Newtonian physics is actually demonstratably a subset of General relativity. The equations for both mass, energy, length etc. present in General Relativity an aproximation is then used which makes a specific value go to zero, and then what occurs is that general relativity equations reduce down to Newtonian equations.
Thus at pretty much the major levels General Relativity has superseeded the usage of Newtonian physics in that Newtonian mechanical equations can be derived via relativistic equations.
Newtonian Mechanics has then become of subset of General relativity through an aproximation and substituition within relativistic equations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Monk, posted 08-18-2005 12:11 PM Monk has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 94 of 249 (327911)
06-30-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
06-30-2006 1:54 AM


The truth is not determined by convention nwr... That is why Winston Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the others.' The average joe could care less if something is peer reviewed. We don't trust people just becasue they have a title. We listen to what they say...
Ironically your statement is demonstrating truth by convertion as by convention people discern 'truth' through the listening of other people. To not know of GOD a person's life is truthful because GOD has never been exposed to it thus without GOD this person's life is truthful. While if you expose this person to GOD it then becomes a question of the truthfulness of this person's life because now he has two competing perceptions of his world. Thus by convention if a person finds GOD fits better into his world view then he shall adopt that 'truth'. Thus truth is determined by the convention of listening to another person. Or conversly if the person does not adopt GOD then the person's 'truth' remains true and by convention he follows what he believes.
The truth speaks for itself, and rings loudly with those who seek it. It does not need your support. You need it's support, lest you fall down.
Double edged sword if at one level you claim this then you are also claiming that you could stop participating in this discussion and any other discussion promoting Christianity and Christianity shall do okay. In fact stop evangelizing at all and the religion shall flourish as it needs none of your prosterlyzing. In fact you need not protect it from any form of attack at all for in the end Christianity shall be shown to be the absolute 'truth'.
So I ask the question why do you try to support your faith through these science forums?
Edited by Discreet Label, : language usage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 1:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 9:14 PM Discreet Label has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 95 of 249 (327913)
06-30-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Discreet Label
06-30-2006 9:11 PM


So I ask the question why do you try to support your faith through these science forums?
That is an excellent question...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Discreet Label, posted 06-30-2006 9:11 PM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Discreet Label, posted 06-30-2006 9:36 PM Rob has replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 96 of 249 (327917)
06-30-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rob
06-30-2006 9:14 PM


I am curious as how you find the question to be excellent? Mostly I am interested in how you are thinking about the question, how you interpret it, and perhaps what it means to you in a broader context?
Edited by Discreet Label, : Tiding up the clarity of the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 9:14 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 12:11 PM Discreet Label has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 97 of 249 (327990)
07-01-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Discreet Label
06-30-2006 9:36 PM


I am curious as how you find the question to be excellent? Mostly I am interested in how you are thinking about the question, how you interpret it, and perhaps what it means to you in a broader context?
My initial reason was that it seems to be a waste of time. I do not get the sense that many 'scientific' people are using science to find the truth, but rather to debunk religion. That is called 'bias'. It is like I told a friend of mine... 'Evolution dosen't sell because it is true, but because it is what the market wants.'
I say that because even though I think irreducible complexity and other issues are cut and dry, I have seen for myself how a person can deny that interpretation of the evidence by getting into minutia that totally clouds the issues, such as the definition of information and probability theory.
Those are not fully mathematical and testable issues, and are instead left to the individual to 'choose'. The convention may insist on a definition, but that is ultimately irrelevant as many an empiricist will deny morality as convention, and therefore not true.
The other reason I thought it was an excellent question, is that I thought I was more clever than I have turned out to be. I operate under the same conditions as many others. I tend to project my own interpretation onto others, and I consider myself to be an honest individual. Others may view all people as manipulative because they are themselves manipulative. It is simple transference.
I have found that my education in the terminology and facts within the body of science is far less than adequate to change the hearts of many in this forum. However, even if it were adequate, I do not suppose it would matter for the crusade in question. You cannot defeat a person that refuses to admit defeat.
I for one admit defeat, in as much as I do not posses the power to change anyones heart on these matters. I came into this forum with a partial understanding and appriciation of the fact that only God has that power. I think I have a greater uppriciation for that fact now.
I am just a man, and as such do not create reality (other than whatever evils I can perform to corrupt the reality that already exists), so my proclaimations of truth are rejected without thought by many as a rejection of me. Fruit is born when an individual looks past the prophet and his faults.
This entire excersize has revealed more of my own wickedness and pride to me than I thought existed. My quickness to defend my good name has made me realize that too often I have not sought to glorify our Lord, but myself.
The truth is all that matters, no matter where it is ultimately found. That has always been, and will always be, our redeemer. We are lost, and seek to understand why we are here. But we can never posess such knowledge, without accepting the fact that to be lost, means to not recognize the way, though it is right in front of you in the form of a fork in the road.
Many do not take the fork I preach because of the moral implications. Our Lord has hidden all of reality behind our ablity to be honest to the point of rejecting one's self and his/her sinful desires.
Since our desires are natural, then I ask you, what is wrong with anything?
Perhaps it is the attempt to control ourselves that is our disfunction. Maybe we should simply be who we really are. No hang-ups man!
If we do that, then we will be closer to repentance than pretending our hearts are pure. God only asks that we be honest with Him. Take off the fig leaves and tremble before His holiness. If we ask Him, he will forgive all sin and reveal Himself and mysteries we never thought we'd know. You can know!
But if we insist on our fig leaves, then He cannot forgive and open our eye's because we refuse to see. He is not a fascist, and will not force His reality upon us. The irony, is that that is the only thing we were made for, but we want our sin too. We can't have reality and our sin, because God's reality is perfect.
We set our bar too low and underestimate the relativism of our relativism. We rationalize and obfuscate, searching desperately to have it both ways. When He finally defeats us (sometimes by using very imperfect men), then our eye's begin to open. And reality is so shocking and wonderful...
...that our view of science is skewed in the rush to reconcile things which will not be reconciled with any simple clarity.
What is the definition of science?
Well, appearently it is whatever you want it to be...
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Discreet Label, posted 06-30-2006 9:36 PM Discreet Label has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ramoss, posted 07-01-2006 1:00 PM Rob has replied
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2006 1:34 PM Rob has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 98 of 249 (328004)
07-01-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
07-01-2006 12:11 PM


My initial reason was that it seems to be a waste of time. I do not get the sense that many 'scientific' people are using science to find the truth, but rather to debunk religion. That is called 'bias'. It is like I told a friend of mine... 'Evolution dosen't sell because it is true, but because it is what the market wants.'
That is just projection on your part. Scientific people are using science as a tool to find models on how the things work, and to figure out what happened. The fact that it debunks the literalists viewpoint of the world is totally irrelavant. You are entirely wrong about evolution. Evolution is accepted because it fits the avaiable data, and can have predictive powers about what can be discovered, and has the ability to be tested and falsified. It has withstood 150 years of people trying to falsify it.
Now, scientific people WILL object to people who use psuedo-science, misquotes, and lies to try to push religion into school. That is what the 'I.D.' groups are doing, such as the 'ICR' and the discovery institute. "I.D." is currently not science because 1) it does not have a way to test it, 2) it has not explainatory powers, 3) it makes no predictions. It relys on the logical fallacy of personal incredibility of 'we can't understand it, it must be an "intelligent designer".. and then further proclaims. 'we do not know the charactersitics of this intelligent designer', yet every one of them will admit (I think the Intelligent designer is god'.
It's only arguemetns FOR I.D. appear to be either made up psueodscience (such as Dembski's 'Law of conservation of information')
or attacks on evolution.
There are plenty of very devote CHristians that do not have any problems with evolution. However, they are not the literalists. They are also not the ones that are trying to take science OUT of schools, and insert religion in place of science IN schools.
THe scientists are not attacking religion. They are defending religion against those who would replace science with their particular religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 12:11 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 1:35 PM ramoss has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 99 of 249 (328009)
07-01-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
07-01-2006 12:11 PM


My initial reason was that it seems to be a waste of time. I do not get the sense that many 'scientific' people are using science to find the truth, but rather to debunk religion. That is called 'bias'. It is like I told a friend of mine... 'Evolution dosen't sell because it is true, but because it is what the market wants.
Your experience with 'scientific people' is so completly different from mine that I think you are using a different definition of science and religion than I am familiar with or we must live in a completly different reality.
Many of my professors in the geosciences attended church on a regular basis. My parents and sister attended the Presbyterian Church and knew many of the professors from there including the ones that taught me minerology, geology field camp, and isotope hydrology(!); and taught my sister physical chemistry and metallurgy. Are these 'scientists' debunking themselves every Sunday?
Now, of course in any university that emphasizes science and engineering there are many foreign professors and grad students. It would probably be news to most of them them that they are actively debunking Islam, Judaism, Sihkism, and Hinduism because they are practicing scientists.
Likewise the Lutheran Church my sister attends in Los Alamos, where LANL is, where the bomb was invented, is full of scientists every Sunday.
Of the hundreds of scientists I have met and conversed with, many, if not most, believe in God, and many, if not most, are devout enough to be active members of a given faith. However, none that I know of are supporters of creationism/ID.
You seem to imply that one must support your beliefs concerning creationism/ID to be considered religious. Is that true?
Also, I must ask, how many practicing scientists have you known in your life? Your experiences with them appear completely alien to mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 12:11 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 1:48 PM anglagard has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 100 of 249 (328010)
07-01-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ramoss
07-01-2006 1:00 PM


Thank you for sharing... It is nice of you to show that fundamentalism works both ways. Your bold, black and white reasoning is very entertaining to me personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ramoss, posted 07-01-2006 1:00 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 101 of 249 (328013)
07-01-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anglagard
07-01-2006 1:34 PM


You seem to imply that one must support your beliefs concerning creationism/ID to be considered religious. Is that true?
Not at all. I believed in evolution myself as well as God at one time.
And I am not religious! Religion is mans attempt to be good. If Christianity is not true... then I have no interest in it. But it is true because it is not mans attempt to be good, it is man's admission that he is not good, and a realization that 'good' = 'God'.
Also, I must ask, how many practicing scientists have you known in your life?
None! I reside with the little people... The unimportant and the working class. We don't have the fortune and honor of being able to hobnob with the important and smart! The righteous and the proud!
The movers and shakers... The string pullers... the political...
Those above the fray... The distinguished!
If only I had such connections... Then what?
Then nothing!
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2006 1:34 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2006 2:23 PM Rob has replied
 Message 110 by Discreet Label, posted 07-03-2006 3:31 PM Rob has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 102 of 249 (328024)
07-01-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
07-01-2006 1:48 PM


Also, I must ask, how many practicing scientists have you known in your life?
None! I reside with the little people... The unimportant and the working class. We don't have the fortune and honor of being able to hobnob with the important and smart! The righteous and the proud!
The movers and shakers... The string pullers... the political...
Those above the fray... The distinguished!
If only I had such connections... Then what?
Then nothing!
You sure seem to have a lot of personal vitrol for a group of people that, by your own admission, you don't even know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 1:48 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 3:46 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 104 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 4:33 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 103 of 249 (328042)
07-01-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by anglagard
07-01-2006 2:23 PM


You sure seem to have a lot of personal vitrol for a group of people that, by your own admission, you don't even know.
Not in all cases mind you, but in general, yes, you are right!
No-one likes to see in someone else, the qualities they most hate in themsleves...
I hate pride, mostly becasue I am prideful myself, and understadn how destructive it is.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2006 2:23 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 104 of 249 (328048)
07-01-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by anglagard
07-01-2006 2:23 PM


Just to clarify what it is I am trying to point out; that is, this issue of pride (the root of sin). Let me address another point of yours:
You sure seem to have a lot of personal vitrol for a group of people that, by your own admission, you don't even know.
what I want to point out is that I do know them...
Let me explain by quoting C.S. Lewis:
There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men.
Mere Christianity
Not only are our fig leaves invisible to God. But even to men, the emperor wears no clothes (or is that empericist?).
Proclaming that is meaningless to the individual, until the individual admits his part in that play...
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2006 2:23 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 07-01-2006 5:13 PM Rob has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 105 of 249 (328060)
07-01-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rob
07-01-2006 4:33 PM


As so often happens, you are way off topic.
Let me see if I can steer it back toward the topic, while responding.
Let me point out that most scientists are quite humble. They see themselves as reading what God carved into the mountains and valleys.
By the way, C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 4:33 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Rob, posted 07-01-2006 7:23 PM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024