Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International opinions: USA on science!
Hauk
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 132 (329679)
07-07-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Annafan
07-07-2006 7:01 PM


My misstake.. I got it. As i mentioned earlier, I would accept alternatives to the evolution concept, if it was based on more solid scientific observations then the ones we have today. So I guess we still agree on that one
By the way, I tried Wikipedia. I was actually thinking of Galileo Galilei offcorse. Who they avtually forced to drink that poison, I can not remember. I stand corrected
Edited by Hauk, : Eh... Wikipedia
Edited by Hauk, : No reason given.
Edited by Hauk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Annafan, posted 07-07-2006 7:01 PM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Iblis, posted 07-07-2006 7:49 PM Hauk has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 32 of 132 (329685)
07-07-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hauk
07-07-2006 7:06 PM


Hauk writes:
Who they avtually forced to drink that poison
Socrates, for inventing classical pedagogy. Hemlock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hauk, posted 07-07-2006 7:06 PM Hauk has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 132 (329849)
07-08-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hauk
07-07-2006 10:21 AM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
First let me to thank you for a prompt and thorough response.
Hi. You ask me why i consider creationalism such a treath. I'll give it a shot, but first I woould like to let you know that I'm a science geek, not an actual scientist.
As am I. I think there are only a handful of acting scientists on EvC. Most people are simply enraptured with the sciences but are outside of currently working in the field.
I'm actuali a computer engineer working on computer games (Games, unlike the bacteria flagell, still need intelligent designers). I also have some education in history. Primarily european history.
I assume that was a jab at Michael Behe and all the proponents who belive that bacterial flagellum is indicative of something being, as he calls, "irreducibly complex." I happen to agree with Behe being that it would certainly seem that nature manifests the design of a preexistent cognizance. Just with flagella alone we would have to consider all of its contrivances and how they are harmoniously configured towards a central function. I feel that a purely naturalistic explanation demonizes intuition and balks progress. Naturalism alone is an obscurant which stands in the way of science, in my opinion. Perhaps we can speak more in depth about that in a more relevant topic.
I will try not to mention the most dangerous and most obvious reason for why i fear religon (war and conflict. "It is the will of God").
Well, it sounds as if your bone to pick with religion is man and his penchant for doing the wrong the thing. I happen to share your belief in this regard, but extend it a bit further to say that, religiosity gets in the way of legitimate worship. But I can't seem to make the connection from religion and war. I seem to make a much broader connection that cuts to the heart of man. I find this connection especially easy to make in light of the existance of such monsters as Stalin, Lenin, Tse-Tung, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... {all athiests}.
The first modern human (hunter gatherers etc) are beleived to have been mostly religious in some sort of way, and I dont blame them. They where surrounded by totaly unexplainable phenomenons like gravity, fire, weather, life/death, deseases, night and day cycle, the annual seasons etc.
How would know either way what was going through anyone's mind thousands of years ago? Aren't you simply assuming what you think they might have surmised? I mean, at the end of the day, more than half of biological history is supported by mere inference.
In Europe we burned most of these people alive on big fires blaming them for wichcraft.
"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."
In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."
-Tacitus
I think you need to re-research history and understand that it isn't religion that causes people to persecute other people, its man's sinful and fallen nature. And whether it comes under the guise of religion or of science or of any other attempted justification, only God will judge us on those actions.
In the middle ages, deseases was often beleived to be interventions from gods, so rather then looking for cures etc, people accepted it or made attempts to please the gods by sacrifice and other silly things.
Odly enough, in the middle ages Jews seemed to be immune to such things like the black plague that swept through Europe. Consequently, they were demonized by pagans over it as if they had made a pact with some evil spirit, when in reality, it was their cleanliness and their observance to the dietary laws that prevented them from getting sick. They were largely unharmed because they followed God's law. We know now how much medicinal benefit there is in that. So I suppose it goes both ways.
Allright, so the reason why I'm so affraid of the I.D. movement is that it is competing with science, and any progress for ID theory will be on the cost of science. And science is always neutral.
Science itself is neutral, but most unfortunately, it isn't so for the ones interpreting it. The polarization is clear that on one side we have a group who seeks to explain the natural world around them through the magnificence of God, and on the other end of the spectrum, we have group of people who seek to eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them.
Charls Darvin did not invent the shocking truth about our origin, he discovered it. Dont shoot the messengers.
Darwin did nothing of the sort. Most of Charles' work was an extrapolation off the works of his grandfather, Erasmus. In any case, even the Greeks dabbled with the notion of evoluton, however, after being rejected by Aristotle it faded into obscurity. The point being that man has always had a tendency to shy away from the notion or the need for a Creator to necessitate and oversee all of the physical world.
The way things are now, people like yourselfe, wish to force this nonsence (sorry man, I really think it is nonsence) into schools.
You don't have to apologize for your opinions, but i appreciate your candor. I think the theory of evolution is nonsense and I think its an affront to force children to study something without any alternative, especially when so much of the theory lacks any real substance. the entire theory is built upon inference. I think that any child should be exposed to many different possible explanations and have them draw their own conclusion based upon the evidence, or lack thereof.
To me that is like presenting options to young people who do not yet have the prerequisite to make an intelligent desition about what to beleive in.
That's interesting that you mention that because I have to ask how much exposure you have had with ID. Have you made an honest inquiry on the matter or have you heard from second and thirdhand sources that proponents of ID want to read from Genesis? In other words, do you really understand what ID in order for you to make honest assessment?
I think science is the only way forward for mankind, and I consider ID theory to be a sabotage attemt to science.
Being that ID has now achieved parity with ToE in the mainstream, it obviously has gained its success through science. Why you think that ID'ers want to eradicate science is beyond me. This apparent belief you hold to is what makes me question what you know about it.
Me personally, I think your way of thinking is directly wrong, but I normally accept that people are wrong. But when it comes to ID, i sence a bit of misionary spirit, presented by cowards. I think that many creationalists are cowards as I beleive they fear reality. Like ostriches hiding their head in the sand, it seems to me that you do whatever it takes in order to escape the rather "grimm" truth about us humas and the world we live in. When it all comes to it, I suspect that a lot of you guys are actually lying. Lying to us and to yourselfes. I can not understand how anybody can actually beleive that the world is 6000 years old, despite the owerwhelming evidenses saying it is older.
For as impossible some that seems to you, it is equally, if not more impossible for me to believe that everything derives from nothing, and that complex organisms and ecosystems can arrive and propagate successfully via mutation and natural selection. Its absolutely absurd to me when looking at all of what life is from a holistic point of view.
I'm sure that deep inside yourselfe you agree, but your afraid to admit it. I sincerely beleive that the existens of my ego is eternally lost as the material where my nevrological combinations are stored, dissintegrates (death). I'm also sincerly convinced that the best option mankind have in our strange and seemingly pointless existens, is to make the best out of things.
I suspect that some part of you knows that there is something existentially cognizant, but perhaps you are aware that if such a Being exists, then you are actually going to be accountable for your actions. I think this is more than obvious for some of your contemporaries. Being that people talk about God whether good or bad is a fact that its an important topic. On some level, some of this sinking in. People don't talk about that which is boring and nonsensical. This forum is devoted to such topics. So, on some level you'd have to admit that creation theory has some merit, otherwise, why would there be such an outpouring over nothing at all?
As an atheist I feel i have a "religion" of my own.
I couldn't agree more. You are one of few to actually admit that to yourself. Whether we are atheistic or theistic, religious notions obviously has some sort of significance that has yet to have been explained by any naturalistic explanations.
I am aware of my instincts and try to make the world the best place possible for me, people around me, and my potential kids in the future. To me, darvins evolution theory is actually contributing to make life seem worth living. It gives life meaning. If some new science (real science), should teach us otherwise, i would still accept it.
This begs the question, if there is no greater purpose to life, then why or how do humans have notions of morality? What about Darwin's theory is worth living? Why not just "be"? Why can't humans just exist without any cares? Why do we feel the sting of despair or feel overjoyed with a sense of adulation if there was not something beyond the act of feeling it, itself?
When I'm first at it I also feel it is a bit unfair when I read that many americans disstrust atheists more than any other group. What is wrong with us? "We" are the ones who actually make our desitions on what we know, rather then blindly following ancient manuscripts written centuries before mankind knew the first thing about anything. We mean no harm witch science, and we also have moral and ethics.
You know, I used to be an athiest... well, an Agnostic. After resisting for 24 years, I finally was bestowed some revelation, an epiphany of sorts. Any attempt to rationalize it would just not suffice. But this prompted me to reexamine the questions I had asked before. The point being, I've been on both sides of the coin and I truly do understand the athiestic mind. Believe me, I get it. I really do. You asked me about trusting an athiest. I don't adherently distrust athiests. So many friends and coworkers are athiests. I don't flmae them over this. I don't preach to them. I let them be until they ask specific questions. But one has to ask what worth there is "trusting" a person who has absolutely no moral compass to traverse life. If lying is wrong, then why? If there is such a thing as morals, then who sets the standard?
You also stated that you don't recieve information from ancient manuscripts who wrote it before they knew nothing about anything. Um, that's just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people 5,000 years ago were somehow less intelligent? I hope that isn't the case because you'd fail miserably in trying to prove your case. But, you do have treasured tomes, most notably, "Origins." That is the cherished athiestic manual, as well as the Humanist Manifesto, among others.
Oh well... That was my rather messy and lengthy rant on that. Come to think of it, many scientists say the "debate" about ID should not waste intellectual resources, it should rather be ignored. After gettin emotional on the issue myselfe, I see their point.
Being an atheist who use strong words about your beleifs, I do not in any way wish to attack you as a person. We are all brothers in this world. Peace!
You're just asserting your point of view. I hope I was able to convey my message to you that it might prompt you to investigate why creationists feel justified for their beliefs, both scientifically and theologically.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Hauk, posted 07-07-2006 10:21 AM Hauk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 07-08-2006 12:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 39 by Annafan, posted 07-08-2006 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 44 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2006 4:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2006 4:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 132 (329860)
07-08-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 11:49 AM


You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
nemesis_juggernaut, you continue to keep asserting that there is some connection between the TOE and atheism or some desire to write GOD out of the scenario when that is simply not true. There are many supporters of both the TOE and old earth that are every bit as religious as you, Christians, who believe that the Bible shoud be authoritive in matters of faith and belief. They also oppose the teaching of ID and most certainly, Biblical Creationism.
You need to stop asserting things that are not only untrue, but that you have been shown are untrue. If you will look here you will find a list of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy who accept the TOE and oppose the teaching of ID or Biblical Creationism.
In the words of the Clergy Project:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 12:56 PM jar has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 132 (329868)
07-08-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
07-08-2006 12:23 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
you continue to keep asserting that there is some connection between the TOE and atheism or some desire to write GOD out of the scenario when that is simply not true.
Jar, if I'm misrepresenting that evolution is at the base level an atheistic excuse, then you must misrepresenting that creationism represents a religious view. Look at how many proponents of evolution are atheists as opposed to thiests. The numbers don't lie, but rather, attest to this fact very well.
Here are the first 10 clauses in the Humanist Manifesto. Take particular notice to the first.
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation ” all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
What need is there of God when the entire theory subverts the neccesity of their even needing one? It goes all the way back to the beginning, allegedly 4.5 bilion years ago. After the failure of the Miller-Urey experiments and the continued failure of any kind abiogenesis event taking place, this was the one bone that athiests threw towards theists, because the First Cause is still as unexplanable now as it was then. According to ToE, there is no need for God to do anything. And to be sure, Karl Marx stated that his goal in life was destroy Capitalism and Christanity. In the next breath, he writes of Darwin, "Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views." And as Richard Dawkins once stated, "Darwin provided us the basis for being intellectually fulfilled atheist." Evolution is at enmity with God. Period. There is no ambiguity when it comes to that.
I also feel that you continue to misrepresent Christianity by tying together Catholicism. To you, (and this is understandable), you think Christians and Catholics are the same thing. They aren't. And in my opinion they have posed the greatest detriment to Christ. They have compromised the Word of God throughout its misguided existence, causing far worse a damage than any atheist could do. So, if the "Church" (another mischaracterization of what the word acually means) supports evolution, its because they have conceded to popular opinion and not to the plea of scientific analysis.
There are many supporters of both the TOE and old earth that are every bit as religious as you, Christians, who believe that the Bible shoud be authoritive in matters of faith and belief. They also oppose the teaching of ID and most certainly, Biblical Creationism.
There are alot of denominations (which is the silliest thing I've heard of) who reinvent scriptures contained in the Bible to support their own agenda. For instance, by and large, the Methodist church is as liberal and leftist as a NARAL or a NAMbLA rally. You have to understand that saying, "I think Jesus is real" is as meaningless as saying, "I like the taste of tacos" if you pervert the truth of who Jesus actually is and what He actually taught in the scriptures.
In other words, their testimony in support of this or that means squat to me. Furthermore, you don't want me to base my scientific beliefs with my religious ones because it taints the integrity of the tests. I agree fully. Whenever possible I avoid that like the plaugue. I'm only interested in the truth, whatever that may be. Currently, I feel that a mere naturalistic explanation lacks the substance for creating and sustaining life.
I just scrolled through the list of suporters. Virtually all of them were the typical 3 offenders (Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal). Again, that means nothing to me.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 07-08-2006 12:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 07-08-2006 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2006 1:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 07-08-2006 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 41 by Iblis, posted 07-08-2006 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2006 5:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 132 (329870)
07-08-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 12:56 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
... if you pervert the truth of who Jesus actually is and what He actually taught in the scriptures.
You are welcome to come over to the Bible Study forum and attempt to correct that perversion.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 12:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 132 (329871)
07-08-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 12:56 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
quote:
Jar
But I want to play, too!
-
quote:
if I'm misrepresenting that evolution is at the base level an atheistic excuse, then you must misrepresenting that creationism represents a religious view.
Why? The only people who push for creationism are people who do so based on their religious beliefs. That makes creationism a religious belief. On the other hand, those who accept the theory of evolution span almost every denomination of every single major religion. That would seem to indicate that the theory of evolution is independent of religion; indeed, it is based on evidence and the logical inferences that can be made on the evidence.
-
quote:
Look at how many proponents of evolution are atheists as opposed to thiests.
It would be interesting to see the statistics on which you are basing this on.
-
quote:
Here are the first 10 clauses in the Humanist Manifesto.
Why should anyone who is not a humanist care about the opinions of the humanists?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 12:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 1:41 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 132 (329872)
07-08-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 12:56 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
I just scrolled through the list of suporters. Virtually all of them were the typical 3 offenders (Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal). Again, that means nothing to me.
That's fine, you are free to believe any fiction you want.
The difference is that I supplied a list of over 10,000 Christian Clergy that accept the TOE and oppose the teaching of Biblical Creationism and its clone, ID, you provided nothing but your own argument from incredulity.
You also quoted from some Humanist Manifesto. That's fine but it has nothing to do with whether or not Christians support the TOE.
The facts are that I provided evidence, you only assertion. In addition, you made absolutely silly claims, for example:
I also feel that you continue to misrepresent Christianity by tying together Catholicism. To you, (and this is understandable), you think Christians and Catholics are the same thing. They aren't.
Please provide evidence that Roman Catholics are not Christians or stop making misrepresentations.
After the failure of the Miller-Urey experiments and the continued failure of any kind abiogenesis event taking place, this was the one bone that athiests threw towards theists, because the First Cause is still as unexplanable now as it was then.
Please show that the Miller-Urey experiment failed or stop making misrepresentations.
For instance, by and large, the Methodist church is as liberal and leftist as a NARAL or a NAMbLA rally.
Please provide the support for that assertion or stop using it.
Frankly, I am glad you made your post. It is a great example of what many in the US believe, and I hope that the viewers from other nations will read it and understand fully why positions such as yours should be feared and hopefully they will take care that the infection of ignorance does not spread to their shores.
The point is that your post contained nothing but personal opinion and misrepresentations. It is at the heart of the issue being discussed here, a retreat from reality and shows a total misunderstanding of Science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 12:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 10:08 PM jar has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 39 of 132 (329873)
07-08-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 11:49 AM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
First of all, Nemesis, I appologize if I give the impression of 'breaking into' your private conversation with Hauk. But I noticed some of the obvious 'vulnerabilities' in his post, obviously due to some inexperience, and I couldn't hold it, hehe
hauk writes:
I'm actuali a computer engineer working on computer games (Games, unlike the bacteria flagell, still need intelligent designers). I also have some education in history. Primarily european history.
NJ writes:
I assume that was a jab at Michael Behe and all the proponents who belive that bacterial flagellum is indicative of something being, as he calls, "irreducibly complex." I happen to agree with Behe being that it would certainly seem that nature manifests the design of a preexistent cognizance. Just with flagella alone we would have to consider all of its contrivances and how they are harmoniously configured towards a central function. I feel that a purely naturalistic explanation demonizes intuition and balks progress. Naturalism alone is an obscurant which stands in the way of science, in my opinion. Perhaps we can speak more in depth about that in a more relevant topic.
It would certainly be interesting to hear how "This is intelligently designed, let's stop investigating it!" would advance science. I'm listening... Maybe start by imagining what would have become of the great Middle Ages if they would have adopted that stance back then!
And oh, the flagella example no longer poses any 'problems' and Behe had to dig up something new already, if you didn't hear the news. Obviously, he can go on like that for quite some time... More than enough goalposts to move, lol.
NJ writes:
I can't seem to make the connection from religion and war. I seem to make a much broader connection that cuts to the heart of man. I find this connection especially easy to make in light of the existance of such monsters as Stalin, Lenin, Tse-Tung, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... {all athiests}.
NJ writes:
I think you need to re-research history and understand that it isn't religion that causes people to persecute other people, its man's sinful and fallen nature. And whether it comes under the guise of religion or of science or of any other attempted justification, only God will judge us on those actions.
Not much to argue there... Religion isn't necessary for war. But I would argue a bit of religiosity certainly helps to know that your cause is the 'right' one, without having to think a little further?
hauk writes:
Allright, so the reason why I'm so affraid of the I.D. movement is that it is competing with science, and any progress for ID theory will be on the cost of science. And science is always neutral.
NJ writes:
Science itself is neutral, but most unfortunately, it isn't so for the ones interpreting it. The polarization is clear that on one side we have a group who seeks to explain the natural world around them through the magnificence of God, and on the other end of the spectrum, we have group of people who seek to eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them.
(bold by me)
"Eradicate the notion of God by the natural world around them?" That's just nonsense, a strawman. The problem is that a certain version of 'God', put forward by certain fundamentalist people, conflicts with open minded research. Of course, when it is not allowed to think anything that threatens an unsupportable worldview, you get polarisation.
There's plenty of room for a 'God' left if you really need one.
hauk writes:
Charls Darvin did not invent the shocking truth about our origin, he discovered it. Dont shoot the messengers.
NJ writes:
Darwin did nothing of the sort. Most of Charles' work was an extrapolation off the works of his grandfather, Erasmus.
Wow... He never collected thousands of observations and facts during his several-year trip on the Beagle(you know, observation, empiricism?) ? That's quite new.
NJ writes:
In any case, even the Greeks dabbled with the notion of evoluton, however, after being rejected by Aristotle it faded into obscurity. The point being that man has always had a tendency to shy away from the notion or the need for a Creator to necessitate and oversee all of the physical world.
At the time of Origins, Darwin most certainly didn't claim that his theory eradicted a "Creator". He uses the word itself quite a few times. Of course, he was aware that it eradicated a certain type of Creator (one that was necessary to intervene in evolution). And although you are right that the notion of somekind of evolution existed before, Darwin (and Wallace) got it out of the realm of speculation and philosophy.
NJ writes:
I think that any child should be exposed to many different possible explanations and have them draw their own conclusion based upon the evidence, or lack thereof.
Of course you want all those hundreds of creation myths to be taught... And of course in science class, where they obviously belong. Or maybe just ONE particular one, for some (good?) reason?
You know, if we're really lucky there might maybe be some time left for mathematics, grammar, geography and (real) biology...
NJ writes:
Being that ID has now achieved parity with ToE in the mainstream, it obviously has gained its success through science. Why you think that ID'ers want to eradicate science is beyond me. This apparent belief you hold to is what makes me question what you know about it.
He apparently knows a good deal more than you, lol. And, has it really achieved parity in the mainstream? And if it would, would it follow in any way that it gained success through science? Some popular books carefully pushed by propaganda don't equal science AFAIC.
NJ writes:
For as impossible some that seems to you, it is equally, if not more impossible for me to believe that everything derives from nothing, and that complex organisms and ecosystems can arrive and propagate successfully via mutation and natural selection. Its absolutely absurd to me when looking at all of what life is from a holistic point of view.
What has always made my head spin, is how people like you consider the concept 'explanation'. You come to the conclusion "Goddidit", and your curiosity is satisfied. I never understood that. What value does a particular 'explanation' have when it can be applied to every possible question, present and future? It is completely beyond me! It literally is a showstopper void of any useful information.
NJ writes:
Being that people talk about God whether good or bad is a fact that its an important topic. On some level, some of this sinking in. People don't talk about that which is boring and nonsensical. This forum is devoted to such topics. So, on some level you'd have to admit that creation theory has some merit, otherwise, why would there be such an outpouring over nothing at all?
Did you really write that???? Nice word choice, 'merits'... Concepts, no matter how worthless/wrong/imaginary in themselves, obviously DO have significant (negative) effects on reality quite often. Does Nazism have 'merits'? Does Muslim terrorism have 'merits'?
Hauk writes:
As an atheist I feel i have a "religion" of my own.
NJ writes:
I couldn't agree more. You are one of few to actually admit that to yourself. Whether we are atheistic or theistic, religious notions obviously has some sort of significance that has yet to have been explained by any naturalistic explanations.
Obviously, Hauk speaks for himself. But I think he just poorly worded it. There are definitely very important differences between atheism and religion, which clearly make that they can not simply be classified together.
=====================================================================
positiveatheism.org writes:
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
=====================================================================
hauk writes:
I am aware of my instincts and try to make the world the best place possible for me, people around me, and my potential kids in the future. To me, darvins evolution theory is actually contributing to make life seem worth living. It gives life meaning. If some new science (real science), should teach us otherwise, i would still accept it.
NJ writes:
This begs the question, if there is no greater purpose to life, then why or how do humans have notions of morality? What about Darwin's theory is worth living? Why not just "be"? Why can't humans just exist without any cares? Why do we feel the sting of despair or feel overjoyed with a sense of adulation if there was not something beyond the act of feeling it, itself?
Why does everything have to have a reason/goal? Why should notions of morality be linked to some 'purpose' in life?
NJ writes:
You know, I used to be an athiest... well, an Agnostic. After resisting for 24 years, I finally was bestowed some revelation, an epiphany of sorts.
You mean, like how some people suddenly 'know' they are Napoleon?
NJ writes:
Any attempt to rationalize it would just not suffice. But this prompted me to reexamine the questions I had asked before. The point being, I've been on both sides of the coin and I truly do understand the athiestic mind. Believe me, I get it. I really do. You asked me about trusting an athiest. I don't adherently distrust athiests. So many friends and coworkers are athiests. I don't flmae them over this. I don't preach to them. I let them be until they ask specific questions. But one has to ask what worth there is "trusting" a person who has absolutely no moral compass to traverse life. If lying is wrong, then why? If there is such a thing as morals, then who sets the standard?
Euhhh... If there is such thing as morals, exactly which religious manuscript do you choose to define your standards? Do you always agree when a book itself says it is the right one?
NJ writes:
You also stated that you don't recieve information from ancient manuscripts who wrote it before they knew nothing about anything. Um, that's just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people 5,000 years ago were somehow less intelligent? I hope that isn't the case because you'd fail miserably in trying to prove your case.
Intelligence does not equal knowledge. People back then had the disadvantage that they couldn't stand on the shoulders of the giants that we had. We learned a couple of things over the last 5000 years.
regards,
Annafan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:48 PM Annafan has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 132 (329874)
07-08-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Chiroptera
07-08-2006 1:18 PM


Reading between the lines
Why? The only people who push for creationism are people who do so based on their religious beliefs.
Hang on Chiro, lets think about this from another context. Some people gained a belief in a Creator because of the evidence for this or that. You are assuming that most people only believe in Creationism because of their religious affinities. But the same could be said of evolution. some people lost their faith in God because of the evidence presented in favor of evolution. It goes both ways. But what should be very evident is that evolution and God are as much polar opposites than the north and the south pole.
That makes creationism a religious belief. On the other hand, those who accept the theory of evolution span almost every denomination of every single major religion. That would seem to indicate that the theory of evolution is independent of religion; indeed, it is based on evidence and the logical inferences that can be made on the evidence.
Creationism is simply the belief that an Artificer created all life simply by looking at the big picture, and weighing odds between what is in the realm of possibility and what is not. Taken a step further, most creationists happen to believe that the evidence attests for what the Bible says. However, evidence should NOT attempt to fit the Bible. Evidence should be evidence, and if it happens to point to an infallibility for the bible's sake, then more to it.
But as you said, evolution is independant of any mainstream religion. Surely, however, you realize that it is in itself a religious belief, similar to Druidic belief. The whole point is that its independance comes not from a religion, but an independance from God. It seeks this and you can see it in every aspect.
Why should anyone who is not a humanist care about the opinions of the humanists?
Why should anyone who isn't a Christian or a creationist care about the opinions of Christians and/or creationists? I care about them for the same reason they care about me. They see me and my beliefs as detrimental to society and I see their beliefs as being detrimental to society.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2006 1:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 07-08-2006 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 41 of 132 (329876)
07-08-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 12:56 PM


lol @ Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
You have to understand that saying, "I think Jesus is real" is as meaningless as saying, "I like the taste of tacos" if you pervert the truth of who Jesus actually is and what He actually taught in the scriptures.
No I'm sorry I have to disagree. I'm sure I can produce a sizable assortment of people who genuinely like tacos while also successfully perverting the One True Religion. From all sides of any question. People named Bush, people named Chavez, people named Muhammed, even people literally named Jesus. I'm sure you yourself can think of dozens of known taco-lovers near you who have it All Wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 12:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:06 AM Iblis has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 132 (329877)
07-08-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 1:41 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
quote:
You are assuming that most people only believe in Creationism because of their religious affinities.
Since all of the creationists that I know personally are creationists for religious reasons, and since I have seen no statistical studies showing that this does not describe most creationists, I think this is a good assumption.
-
quote:
But the same could be said of evolution. some people lost their faith in God because of the evidence presented in favor of evolution.
You are getting mixed up here. Creationists accept creationism because of their religious beliefs; very few, if any, looked at the actual scientific evidence and decided that the earth had to be created only 6000 years ago. On the other hand, there are people who, like me, were creationists but on studying the science came to accept the theory of evolution. If, as a result, some of these individuals then become agnostic or atheist, that is a different phenomenon.
-
quote:
Creationism is simply the belief that an Artificer created all life simply by looking at the big picture, and weighing odds between what is in the realm of possibility and what is not.
Actually, creationism consists, in part, in confusing ignorance about processes with overall impossibility.
-
quote:
But as you said, evolution is independant of any mainstream religion. Surely, however, you realize that it is in itself a religious belief,
Now you are making no sense. A body is found in a locked room with a bullet hole in its chest and no firearms in the room. The most logical inference based on these facts is that someone shot the individual, took the gun with her, and locked the door after her. A fundamentalist, a liberal Christian, a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist will all come to the same conclusion. Of course, further examination may supply additional details, or we may find that the described scenario isn't quite correct, but the conclusion is a logical reading of the facts as known. It is independent of religion; now, for some bizarre reason, you are claiming that this makes it religious in nature.
The main assumptions that go into the theory of evolution are the same ones that go into any other scientific theory; physical data do not "lie" -- they are there and can be examined by anyone, and that one can infer logical deductions about the physical world from the data; and that simple logic and further observations can distinguish reasonable interpretations and unreasonable interpretations. If the theory of evolution is somehow "religious", then there is nothing that is not religious. That can be true, I suppose, if you define "religious" in such a way, but then being religious and not being religious loses any usefulness.
-
quote:
Why should anyone who is not a humanist care about the opinions of the humanists?
...I care about them for the same reason they care about me.
You have trouble sticking to a point, don't you? Your original point was that the theory of evolution was somehow linked to atheism, and you quoted the Humanist Manifesto to support that contention. I don't see how that supports your claim in any way, especially when the majority of people with religious beliefs have no trouble accepting the theory of evolution.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

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


Message 43 of 132 (329878)
07-08-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 1:41 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
Creationism is simply the belief that an Artificer created all life simply by looking at the big picture, and weighing odds between what is in the realm of possibility and what is not.
That would be a kind of philosophical creationism, which is fully compatible with evolution. However, usually the term "creationism" is used to refer to "Young Earth Creationism", which is part of the beliefs of a 20th century religious cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:17 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 44 of 132 (329901)
07-08-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 11:49 AM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
I think you need to re-research history and understand that it isn't religion that causes people to persecute other people, its man's sinful and fallen nature.
Here is a list of 43 examples of man's sinful and fallen nature that for one reason or another have an awful lot to do with religion.
The domain name theskepticalreview.com is for sale!
I agree that someone needs to re-research history. The question is who.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:23 PM anglagard has replied

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


Message 45 of 132 (329903)
07-08-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 11:49 AM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
Being that ID has now achieved parity with ToE in the mainstream, it obviously has gained its success through science.
For the millionth time ID is not science, it creates no testable hypothesis, it has not been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it is not suported by the vast majority of scientists.
CI001.3: ID in the public.
Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Propaganda Minister for those who are history-challenged) once said that if one repeats a lie long enough, the people will eventually believe its true. Is this the desperate strategy of ID supporters since being exposed as purjurists at Dover?
I hope you are just befuddled rather than being delibrately misleading because: Exodus 20:16 - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:41 PM anglagard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024