Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International opinions: USA on science!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 132 (329911)
07-08-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hauk
07-07-2006 10:21 AM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
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.
To claim lying you need to demonstrate intent to deceive. I prefer the terms {deluded\ignorant} to describe the condition.
Ignorant means what it says - they just don't know. Willfull ignorance is also an attribute -- willfully staying ignorant and denying evidence and intentionally not pursuing the evidence that contradicts -- due to the fear of the reality you mention.
Deluded is a little different, it can include self-delusion, but it can also include false information being fed from sources of authority. The US was deluded by the false information that the Botch Administration used to justify the Iraq invasion - they didn't choose to believe the evidence so much as trust the providers.
Also calling someone a liar is a quick way to get a suspension .
Welcome to the fray.
Edited by RAZD, : tyupo eh?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 132 (329914)
07-08-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 12:56 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.
Okay, now demonstrate that all evolutionists are card carrying humanists.
Hint -- I'm not. You also say "Look at how many proponents of evolution are atheists as opposed to thiests" -- thus acknowledging that NOT ALL are atheists. All {A} are {B} does not mean that all {B} are {A} -- that is a logical fallacy.
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.
Compare the proportions of {atheists/agnostics/theists/creationists} in all sciences and show that evolution is disproportionally represented by the atheist end of the spectrum.
You are comparing the proportions of a highly educated sector of the population with the rest of the population and that is another logical fallacy. In making surveys correcting for this kind of sample bias it is called "control" on the sample bias.
And as Richard Dawkins once stated, "Darwin provided us the basis for being intellectually fulfilled atheist."
So Dawkins is an atheist (actually more like an "anti-theist" imh(ysa)o). That does not make all evolutionists atheists, it just means that evolutionists include atheists ... and agnostics/theists/creationists ...
This is as false as saying that all fundamentalists are white male republican christians ... just because that is what you are.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : coding
Edited by RAZD, : typo

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 1:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 132 (329973)
07-08-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
07-08-2006 1:28 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
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 produced a list of people that may or may not be accurate. The fact that they needed to produce a list in the first place says that its obvious that mainstream Christianity does not agree with evolution. Its the same thing like Democrats trying to get the "religious" vote by setting up people who outwardly appear "religious." In other words, its a dog and pony show that is easy to recognize.
You also quoted from some Humanist Manifesto. That's fine but it has nothing to do with whether or not Christians support the TOE.
No, that only has to do with the fact that atheists support the theory of evolution. You want ToE to be seen as an unbiased part of science, as seemingly benign as gravity. But it isn't, and those who have stakes in it have a clear and vested interest in an irreligious society.
The facts are that I provided evidence, you only assertion. In addition, you made absolutely silly claims
That isn't evidence of anything other than what I already know... which is that Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians and Episcopalians are compromisers of the truth, by and large. Some were born into that and mean no ill towards anyone. But I'm not speaking about individuals, I'm speaking about, as so many have coined, "the Church." And when belief in Christ becomes this elaborate organization, this is when we know that we're either going astray or that we are that much more succeptable to going astray from clear doctrine.
Please provide evidence that Roman Catholics are not Christians or stop making misrepresentations.
They venerate Mary, bishops, Popes and saints as having iconic status with Jesus. Uh, but read the scriptures. The apostles were no different from you and I or anyone else. They were fallible humans in as much need of salvation as any one of us. Catholics also believe in baptism or regeneration which is the belief that babies need to get their head wet in order to be saved. This completely misses the point of what a baptism is. Baptism does not save, nor does any good work. Ephesians and Titus are clear on that point. They also are generally imbued by the notion that the Pope is the incarnation of Jesus. They also believe in non-canoninical works such as the Apocrypha. They organize themselves more like a buisness than a body of believers and send out Cardinals and priests in the same way someone gets traded to a new team rather than being lead by the Holy Spirit. The list goes on and on. but again, that isn't a jab at any one individual. I know many Catholics who are nice people. I don't doubt the sincerity of many. I just happen to believe that their beliefs run counter to what the scriptures say.
Please show that the Miller-Urey experiment failed or stop making misrepresentations.
Obviously, to keep God completely out of the picture, evolutionists/atheists had to invent their own cosmology and their own version of creation events. This is obvious because without some sort of cosmological evolution, there could not have been a chemical evolution, because that would negate a biological evolution. So many trailblazers attempted to figure it out, such as Oparin, Haldane, Urey, and Miller. Miller posited that simple amino's could have arisen in a prebiotic soup. But nowhere does organic matter spawn from inorganic matter. He concluded that when the earth was still in basic formation that hydrogen, ammonia, methane gas, as well as a few other building blocks, so to speak, were present. In any case, the experiment did not have the success they hoped. What they were able to achieve was the creation of 2% non-living amino acids, but it take 20 specific amino acids just to arrive at one sinlge, solitary protein. As well, the amino's were not living, meaning they still would have had to figure out how to bring it to life. Thus, we are just as far away from creating life from non-life as we've always been, but we've been hard pressed to see the truth found in textbooks. And to be sure, if life could come from non-life you and I both know that every pro-evolution website on the planet would have it plastered on the front page. That's your surest way of knowing that what I've stated is true.
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.
What have I said that is egregious as one would need to be fearful of it?
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.
Some of what I said came from personal opinion based on the things that I've witnessed. Most of it can be attested for, unlike a solid theory of evolution which changes more often than a department store changing room. What exaclty have I misunderstood that you might be able to shed some light for me?

“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 38 by jar, posted 07-08-2006 1:28 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 07-08-2006 11:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2006 11:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 49 of 132 (329991)
07-08-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
07-06-2006 8:00 AM


Re: Americans
The only reason they know about Cuba is because it is an evil communist totalitarian state that wants to take over South America ....
Is that right? That's all? Whew...I thought they were gonna invade us and force all to live on collective farms and harvest sugar cane!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 8:00 AM RAZD has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 50 of 132 (329996)
07-08-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 10:08 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
And to be sure, if life could come from non-life
And your definition of life, and non life are?
Living things are comprised of the same chemicals and follow the same processes that non living things do. The difference is one of complexity.
Consciousness remains for me a great mystery but consciousness, life, non life are all part of this universe and interact.
Most of it can be attested for, unlike a solid theory of evolution which changes more often than a department store changing room.
Science changes as new information and better theories develop. In this it is superior to religion which strives to conserve the ancient misunderstandings and ignorance. So your charge of change is tacit recognizition that biology is functioning in the manner it's supposed to.
Science is not religion. It doesn't give you the apparent security of simple revealed truths for all times that you can stop thinking and merely complacently continue with your life without doing the work to understand it.
Biology has made tremendous strides but life on earth is extremely complex. That our understanding of evolution is not complete should surprise no one.
I personally am not satisfied with the TOE, but I see that the science must be followed until more is revealed. The ancients thinking that lightning was God's wrath being flung at humans, or that humans have been formed from dust and then a God who had a mouthed breathed into their mouth is the comforting literal images of our past but other than revealing the human brain's strong tendency to understand by analogy to itself, this anthromorphic story telling had useful social and psychological functions but is not a substitute for science.
ID is not doing any useful science. It's an attempt to return to prescientific theocratic society, the Judiac model of the state. Real science is being done in laboratories and out in the field and yes, it's changing. Surprise, surprise!
and people still cling to outdated superstition which can at times surprise me. I expect more of them than that but my expectations are clearly not in keeping with reality so I have to drop my expectations and acknowledge the data.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 10:23 AM lfen has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 132 (329999)
07-08-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Annafan
07-08-2006 1:37 PM


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.
Not at all. No apologies necessary as this is a public forum. I appreciate the niceties nontheless.
It would certainly be interesting to hear how "This is intelligently designed, let's stop investigating it!" would advance science.
Being that there was nothing even remotely akin to me saying that we need to stop investigating anything, I'm not sure how to respond to your words. Can you elaborate on what you meant so I can answer you?
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.
How and why does flagella no longer pose any problem(s) and why should Behe ever stop at one argument in defense of his beliefs?
"Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed."
-Michael Behe
This obviously a very brief synopsis for his argument. For further inquiry, order a copy of his book(s) for a more in depth analysis of his argument.
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?
Everyone constantly looks for justification one way or another. Religion is yet another tool for someone to manipulate another group, but again, this speaks more loudly about man's disposition than it does any given religion, unless that religion is what compels people to inact their own version of justice. Believe it or not, I tend to shy away from "religion." Even the very word makes me shudder. But i understand that this word is the only word that helps us communicate the point of spirituality, so I use it for the sake of clarity.
"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 are people who hate the notion of God, whether they are overt about it or whether it comes across ever-so tacitly. It exists. And anyone so obtuse as to not be able to recognize that isn't qualified to counter-argue that point.
Wow... He never collected thousands of observations and facts during his several-year trip on the Beagle(you know, observation, empiricism?)
My statement was in response to Hauk pleaing for me not to "shoot the messenger," either meaning himself as the messenger or Darwin as the messenger. I took it to mean Darwin himself, so I was merely pointing out that Charles was not the inventor of evolution. Charles did, however, lead the most thorough investigation of it.
As for, you know, his empiricism, he made a few good observations in support of small peripheral adaptations which the entire world, then and now, knew (knows) exists. Where he went awry was asserting that every living thing is ultimately related by noticing different colors, shapes, and sizes of beaks.
At the time of Origins, Darwin most certainly didn't claim that his theory eradicted a "Creator".
Nowhere did I say that Darwin wanted to eradicate the Creator. I said that people have used his book as the first compelling reason to dissasociate oneself from the necessity of there ever being a Creator.
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 might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with you on some level. I don't think that theology has a place in the science classroom, nor does science have room in the theology classroom. And its not that they are mutaully exclusive, but that so much of both are open to interpretation. Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is. Could we ever really understand something so great? But if we can determine that there is a Creator, supported by science, then it gives us a more compelling reason to look at the theological aspects as well. But the Creator has no place in ToE. It just doesn't.
You know, if we're really lucky there might maybe be some time left for mathematics, grammar, geography and (real) biology...
Its only in your imagination that creationists pose some sort of threat to science, especially when so many of them are scientists.
He apparently knows a good deal more than you, lol.
How have you surmised that he knows more than me? Because you hapen to agree with his particular brand of belief?
And, has it really achieved parity in the mainstream?
Perhaps 'parity' was a bit much, but it is undeniable that a rather large scientific exodus has taken place. Many defectors once indoctrinated by evolution are finding themselves in support of a more laudable theory. Since I myself am a defector, I understand this very well.
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.
You presume to know so much about me, but how fair is that? Do you honestly believe that the answer of "Goddidit" is satisfying answer for me? I in no way would satisfied by an answer of such brevity. I enjoy science, just like I enjoy history or any other subject. What I don't like is theory being pawned for truth. I think you can appreciate that being that you believe that my beliefs subvert truth. I guess the only difference being that I respect your right to an opinion.
Did you really write that???? Nice word choice
No, I had my secretary transcribe it as I spoke. Uh, yeah, I wrote it.
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'?
Anything could have some merit to it. I don't think the entire theory of evolution is bunk... Just the bulk of it.
Why does everything have to have a reason/goal? Why should notions of morality be linked to some 'purpose' in life?
Because everything in life does have a purpose. You take a dump for a reason. You eat for a reson. You sleep for a reason. You breath for a reason. You have a heart for a reason. You have a brain for a reason. And this example could be said of all organisms. So why should the conglomerate of all life have no purpose, when demonstration shows that there is some purpose for everything?
You mean, like how some people suddenly 'know' they are Napoleon?
No, a little deeper than that. But something like that only comes by asking for it, praying for it, and meaning it. If you have not, its because you ask not. And if the American fastfood culture of now, now, now, doesn't happen in the timeframe you wish or in the manner you wish, then you will continue to wait in frustration.
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?
That isn't a question that I can answer for you. I understand your premise, but surely on some level you understand that some things are right and some things are wrong. I assume that you understand that absolutes do in fact exist but its going to take you a ilttle investigating to ascertain those truths.
Intelligence does not equal knowledge.
Agreed. And vice-versa.
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.
Knowledge begats knowledge as one builds off another. But we'd likely not be where we are today without the invention of the wheel. And if we were teleported into the past without any knowledge of current evwents and current inventions, we'd be just as ignorant as they were. But ignorant realy isn't a dirty epithet. We are all ignorant of most things. I'd be hard pressed to believe that we even have 1% of the answers and yet mankind shamelessly parades around as if he gave himself knowledge, as if gave himself oxygen.
I just think that we'd better eat some humble pie when it comes to nature, whether we subscribe to atheistic or theistic beliefs.

“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 39 by Annafan, posted 07-08-2006 1:37 PM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Annafan, posted 07-09-2006 8:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 132 (330002)
07-09-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Iblis
07-08-2006 2:01 PM


Re: lol @ Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
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.
Yeah, I think you misinterpreted the taco referrence. The uh, tacos, had no real significance. What i said was claiming to believe in Jesus is as asinine as someone liking the way tacos taste. Simply claiming to follow Jesus does not represent actually following Jesus. In other words, it all means nothing to me if the adherents are like whitewashed tombs. You know what, i just can't get it across the way Yeshua can, so allow for Yeshua to break it down.
"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.' As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven 8 before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.' Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?
And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.'
You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it; one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it; one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. But these you should have done, without neglecting the others.
Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.'
Thus you testify against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?
Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!
-Matthew 23:2-37

“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 41 by Iblis, posted 07-08-2006 2:01 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Iblis, posted 07-09-2006 4:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 53 of 132 (330041)
07-09-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 11:48 PM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
Annafan writes:
It would certainly be interesting to hear how "This is intelligently designed, let's stop investigating it!" would advance science.
NJ writes:
Being that there was nothing even remotely akin to me saying that we need to stop investigating anything, I'm not sure how to respond to your words. Can you elaborate on what you meant so I can answer you?
Well, you didn't say it but it is the consequence. Can you show me how 'it was designed by an intelligent being' differs from 'stopping to investigate'?
Can a scientist, who comes to the ID conclusion, really be expected to gather additional useful knowledge about a particular subject? Does the ID conclusion leave any room for useful additional information? Can any additional information claim to be useful, if it just floats in the middle of the air and doesn't somehow integrate into our total body of (naturalistic) knowledge? Does it really deserve the label 'knowledge'?
And a very important question: how can he/she possibly KNOW at some point that the ID conclusion is 'valid'. Given that a continued research into naturalistic explanations in biology and all other fields of science continuously keeps producing those naturalistic explanations, eventually? In other words: does a scientist really have any other choice but continuing her research after naturalistic explanations?
In short: once you accept the 'ID' stance, science is effectively thrown out of the window. That is the implication. Science comes to a halt.
Apart from these general points, I won't address your examples of so called 'Irreducible Complexity' individually (I'm not the right the person to do it, and there are a million threads about it already in these forums).
NJ writes:
Everyone constantly looks for justification one way or another. Religion is yet another tool for someone to manipulate another group
I won't disagree... It's an interesting question though, whether in the absence of organized religion, there would be ANY sort of agreement about anything spiritual. Isn't organized religion, and the diversity and disagreements that come about, a natural consequence of the vagueness and interpretability of scriptures?
Annafan writes:
"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.
NJ writes:
There are people who hate the notion of God, whether they are overt about it or whether it comes across ever-so tacitly. It exists. And anyone so obtuse as to not be able to recognize that isn't qualified to counter-argue that point.
Wow, that's a nice bullet-proof formulation, lol.
I'm already glad that you just claim 'there ARE people' and not that 'ALL scientists' hate God.
Personally (granted, I'm not a scientist), I really don't feel like I 'hate' God. Mostly because it's hard to genuinely hate something you think doesn't exist (try to hate the Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.. It just doesn't work! )
The real explanation is pretty simple: when a scientist is open-mindedly investigating nature, he doesn't like to be told that someone's particular version of 'God' doesn't want him to look deeper into something. It is not the God that is hated, but the people behind it who impose their particular God, to which the scientist himselve can not relate.
How would you feel if a Pastapharian told you that you shouldn't further investigate the evolution in the number of pirates over the last 5 centuries, for example?
NJ writes:
(Charles Darwin)Where he went awry was asserting that every living thing is ultimately related by noticing different colors, shapes, and sizes of beaks.
He had a very sharp mind, indeed... That's why roughly only two people could connect the dots at the time, with the evidence available at that time. No hereditary mechanism available, no molecular genetics... and still they already saw it! All credit to Charles and Alfred.
NJ writes:
Nowhere did I say that Darwin wanted to eradicate the Creator. I said that people have used his book as the first compelling reason to dissasociate oneself from the necessity of there ever being a Creator.
Equally many, or even more, have just repositioned that Creator. Often only after a serious personal spiritual struggle, but they were honest to themselves that the evidence could not be denied.
Annafan writes:
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?
NJ writes:
You might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with you on some level. I don't think that theology has a place in the science classroom, nor does science have room in the theology classroom. And its not that they are mutaully exclusive, but that so much of both are open to interpretation. Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is. Could we ever really understand something so great? But if we can determine that there is a Creator, supported by science, then it gives us a more compelling reason to look at the theological aspects as well. But the Creator has no place in ToE. It just doesn't.
Ok , so we probably would get along pretty well.
I still just don't understand why you can at the same time maintain that science and theology AREN'T mutually exclusive (which many practicing scientists will agree), and yet have so much trouble to accept evolution. You say 'Recognizing that a higher cognizance may exist does not mean that we have to define what the Creator is.', but isn't that exactly your problem? That you want your particular type of Creator, while the evidence points against that particular type?
NJ writes:
Its only in your imagination that creationists pose some sort of threat to science, especially when so many of them are scientists.
Any one of them who wants Creation to be thought alongside evolution, in science class, is MORE than an imaginary threat. And that happens to be the standard meaning of creationist in this whole argument.
Annafan writes:
And, has it really achieved parity in the mainstream?
NJ writes:
Perhaps 'parity' was a bit much, but it is undeniable that a rather large scientific exodus has taken place. Many defectors once indoctrinated by evolution are finding themselves in support of a more laudable theory. Since I myself am a defector, I understand this very well.
Maybe the theory is more 'laudable', but I still prefer theories for their usefulness.
Annafan writes:
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.
NJ writes:
You presume to know so much about me, but how fair is that? Do you honestly believe that the answer of "Goddidit" is satisfying answer for me? I in no way would satisfied by an answer of such brevity. I enjoy science, just like I enjoy history or any other subject.
Apparently it satisfies you. Because it is what ID inevitably points to. There is absolutely nothing usefull to be learned about a supposed intelligent designer. The conclusion itself paralyses the urge for deeper understanding. It is, by all means, a "Goddidit".
NJ writes:
Because everything in life does have a purpose. You take a dump for a reason. You eat for a reson. You sleep for a reason. You breath for a reason. You have a heart for a reason. You have a brain for a reason. And this example could be said of all organisms. So why should the conglomerate of all life have no purpose, when demonstration shows that there is some purpose for everything?
Purpose is interpretation. Does a flower 'like' the sun, or does it happen to grow towards the sun through biochemical principles? It all depends on whether you want to give it an anthropomorphic twist or not.
NJ writes:
No, a little deeper than that. But something like that only comes by asking for it, praying for it, and meaning it. If you have not, its because you ask not. And if the American fastfood culture of now, now, now, doesn't happen in the timeframe you wish or in the manner you wish, then you will continue to wait in frustration.
I'm not American and I don't like fastfood
Annafan writes:
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:
That isn't a question that I can answer for you.
Not entirely unexpected
NJ writes:
I understand your premise, but surely on some level you understand that some things are right and some things are wrong. I assume that you understand that absolutes do in fact exist but its going to take you a ilttle investigating to ascertain those truths.
The fact that I understand the absolutes, without needing a book for it, speaks for itself.
I'm not sure I like the word "absolutes", though. These are just principles that apparantly imposed themselves because they happen to be successful. They impose themselves on (most of) us, by making sure that we like them. So "emerge" is a better word than "impose". Empathy is a simple word for the basic principle behind it all.
NJ writes:
Knowledge begats knowledge as one builds off another. But we'd likely not be where we are today without the invention of the wheel. And if we were teleported into the past without any knowledge of current evwents and current inventions, we'd be just as ignorant as they were. But ignorant realy isn't a dirty epithet. We are all ignorant of most things. I'd be hard pressed to believe that we even have 1% of the answers and yet mankind shamelessly parades around as if he gave himself knowledge, as if gave himself oxygen.
Well, if the knowledge doesn't come from ourselves, then where does it come from?
NJ writes:
I just think that we'd better eat some humble pie when it comes to nature, whether we subscribe to atheistic or theistic beliefs.
Openminded investigation is not arrogance. Capitulating and taking the easy 'intelligently designed' way out is not a sign of humility. We have to take our own future into our own hands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 11:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 132 (330065)
07-09-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
07-08-2006 10:08 PM


Watching the moving goal posts makes me dizzy.
quote:
Obviously, to keep God completely out of the picture, evolutionists/atheists had to invent their own cosmology and their own version of creation events.
Perhaps. But since most evolutionists/atheists don't care enough to keep God completely out of the picture, they never got around to "inventing" neither their own cosmology or their creation myth. They merely let the evidence lead them where it did.
-
quote:
Miller posited that simple amino's could have arisen in a prebiotic soup.
And Miller and Urey showed that they could. So their experiment was a success. You claimed it was a failure. Miller and Urey made a hypothesis, and the experiment confirmed their hypothesis. That is a success. If life arose on earth without divine intervention, then the simplest hypothesis would be that relatively complex organic molecules would have to exist first. It was not really known how easy it would be to produce the necessary organic molecules without intelligent intervention. Miller and Urey (and all the subsequent experiments) showed that it is no big deal for organic molecules to be produced. This experiment did exactly what it was supposed to do, and we all (well, maybe not the creationists) learned something from it. That is an extremely successful experiment; I can't imagine how the experiment could have been more successful.

"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 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-08-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:45 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 132 (330072)
07-09-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chiroptera
07-08-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
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.
That's fine. It may or may not be true. But as I alluded to, the same exact thing could be said of evolutionists who chose the theory because it satisfies some urges to reject God. I mean, none of this is new. Its been going on since the beginning. The only difference is the delivery method of going against Him.
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.
People make deductive reasoning all the time, and though this may be hard for you to concieve because we live in 2006, virtually everyone believed in a Creator(s) in the not-so-distant past. And the only reason they believed it was because of the complexity around them. But now or days people finding a space shuttle out in the woods think it developed all by itself over billions of years.
If, as a result, some of these individuals then become agnostic or atheist, that is a different phenomenon.
No it really isn't. And I highly doubt that evolution had nothing to do with so many people's aversion towards God. I mean, you're preaching to the choir because I remember all of what I believed in the past. Without ToE there is no reason to be an atheist in confidence. Its a fish out of water without the theory. That's presumably why its so threatening that anyone should counter their hope for nothingness and meaninglessness.
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.
Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion, but certain evolutionists might be inclined to believe that the bullet developed through millions of years of time in said organism.
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.
I think you are missing the deeper meaning behind what a creationist believes. A flower needs good soil, ample sunlight and plenty of water. Without these basic elements, the flower will wilt and die. Those are natural reasons for why the flower would live or die. The evolutionist would say, "Its nature." The creationist would say, "Its nature through the rules of the Creator." Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes, there are naturalistic explanations for how and how anything in nature grows or dies, but it was indicative of a mind to institute the parameters about nature. You see photosynthesis only as apart of nature. I see photosynthesis as an obvious of intent.
Its like a computer. If no one knew what a computer was, some people might be inclined to believe that they grow out in the wild and that their capablilities developed over millions of years. Other people would look at it and logically surmise that someone programed it the way it was intended.
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.
No, I just believe that there is nothing apart from the Creator. For me, its not that God is so transcendental that we cannot know Him, but rather He is so immanent in the affairs of the universe that there is no place devoid of Him. If you were in all spaces, all dimensions of time and space, what would distinguish you from one thing to the next? Yes, there is nature, but perhaps there is only nature because of the Creator. Again, you don't need to define what the Creator is. That part only comes by personal revelation through faith. That is just something that canot be understood by all. And let me tell you, that's the frustrating part. Its like being let in on a secret and you want to divulge that information but you can't. Not for a lack of desire, but because it only comes on an individual basis. Anyway, that's a little too metaphysical for this topic.
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.
The majority of "religious" people are probably just that, religious. And as I've shared elsewhere, that's means squat to God. Everyone is religious one way or another. That's a sinister thought to many people, but religiosity is anything followed with a particualr zeal. And being that ToE completely innundated the masses through indoctrination, it became just like , "what goes up, must come down." People learned not to question it. It became a very powerful dogma. So, some people, the "religious people," learned to consolidate both. Others saw ToE as their get-out-of-jail-free card for the need of a Creator. It became their special creation theory and they used it as a tool to impugn the Creator.

“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 42 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2006 2:06 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2006 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 132 (330073)
07-09-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nwr
07-08-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
usually the term "creationism" is used to refer to "Young Earth Creationism", which is part of the beliefs of a 20th century religious cult.
If YEC originated in the 20th century by a religious cult, then where does Moses fit into the picture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 07-08-2006 2:10 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 07-09-2006 12:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 132 (330074)
07-09-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by anglagard
07-08-2006 4:26 PM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
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.
You seem incapable of climbing a curb 4 inches high, so allow me to help you. It isn't "religion" that causes people to kill others. It isn't guns that cause people to kill each other. It is people from all walks of life who kill people. This is a relfection and a backlash of what sin does to people. "Religious" people aren't immune to sin. And if there is any eternal justice that supersedes mankinds highest courts, then allow for Providence to do that which is righteous.

“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 44 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2006 4:26 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 2:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 58 of 132 (330077)
07-09-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
07-09-2006 12:17 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
If YEC originated in the 20th century by a religious cult, then where does Moses fit into the picture?
I expect Moses understood that the creation and flood stories had human origins and were not the direct inerrant writings of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 132 (330078)
07-09-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
07-08-2006 4:44 PM


Re: The worst thing on planet earth
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.
ID has never been a facet of science, nor has evolution. They are both theories that employ science as a means to verify its claims. ID needs no testable hypothesis in the same sense that evolution does because its all about observation. We aren't expecting any animals to ever change into other animals. You are. Therefore, you need a hypothesis, and it must updated constantly to make predictions about future events. As far as peer review literature, the scientific community is under the general assumption that creation was bunk before they ever had a chance to understand what it is, only because it smacks of theology.
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis

“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 45 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2006 4:44 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 132 (330083)
07-09-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
07-09-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Reading between the lines
quote:
But as I alluded to, the same exact thing could be said of evolutionists who chose the theory because it satisfies some urges to reject God.
But evolutionists don't chose the theory of evolution because it satisfies any urge to reject God. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with God. Whether or not evolution is a fact has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god.
(1) There may have been a god who created the universe, and this god may have created the universe a few thousand years ago more or less as we see it now.
(2) There may have been a god who created the universe, this god may have created the universe several billion years ago, and the history of the universe after this creation may be as described by modern science.
(3) The may not be any god at all; the universe may be only a few thousand years ago, having come into existence more or less in the state that we observe it today.
(4) There may not be any god at all; the universe may have come into existence several billion years ago, and modern science has an accurate description of the history of the universe after it began.
Each of these four scenarios is a possibility; there is no a priori reason to accept one and reject any of the others. The only way one can make any attempt to choose one or the other is based on evidence. The evolutionist will choose (2) or (4) because the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence shows that the universe has a great age and a definite, long history. The atheist will choose (3) or (4) because she feels that there should be some evidence for the existence of a god when there is none.
If the scientific evidence did not indicate an ancient universe, then there would be no way the atheist could choose between (3) and (4). If the scientific evidence indicated that the universe was only a few thousand years old, then the atheist would choose (3) over (4). I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. I don't understand why you fundamentalists think you know atheists so well you can tell us what our motivations are and what are reasoning processes are, when you clearly don't understand atheism at all.
However, as it turns out, the evidence is quite clear that the universe is billions of years old. That is why an atheist will choose (4) over (3), and why a Christian will choose (2) over (1).
-
quote:
virtually everyone believed in a Creator(s) in the not-so-distant past. And the only reason they believed it was because of the complexity around them.
Just like in the not-so-distant past everyone believed that the stars and planets went around the earth -- the only reason they believed that was because of the motion they observed in the skies.
-
quote:
Without ToE there is no reason to be an atheist in confidence.
Sure there is. There is no good evidence that a god exists, and if a god existed (especially one that was concerned about humanity) I would expect there would be better evidence than a self-contradictory text worshipped by people claiming to "feel" an invisible presence. I could quite easily and happily be an atheist with full confidence even if we did not know anything about the history of the world before our known historical records.
-
quote:
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 reason I quote passages from your post is so that you will remember the point to which I am replying. I wrote the above passage in response to a specific claim that you made, namely, that my statement that the theory of evolution is independent of religious belief is somehow a religious belief in itself. I replied that it is not. It is not a religious belief to think that one can examine actual physical evidence and that it is reasonable to make the obvious deductions based on that evidence. Since so many different people who have so many different religious backgrounds can accept the theory of evolution shows quite definitely that the theory of evolution is independent of religious view.
-
quote:
People learned not to question it. It became a very powerful dogma.
What are you talking about? People question it all the time. There is a significant industry ministry in the U.S. that exists simply to question it. Furthermore, for over 150 years working scientists have questioned it, both the entire theory and significant portions of it. The reason that it is accepted is because people have questioned it, people continue to question it, but it continues to pass every single test that people put to it.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Accidentally hit submit instead of preview.
Edited by Chiroptera, : I think I had it right the first time.

"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 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx 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