Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 136 of 221 (378052)
01-19-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by anastasia
01-17-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Plenty of room for faith, Anastasia? Based only upon our ignorance?
Given human history with so many faith-based assumptions proven in error, and not one instance of reliable evidence on which to presume the efficacy of any faith, for what possible reason should we continue to put any faith in any faith?
But, then, that is the nature of faith, isn’t it. It comforts one in one’s ignorance. However, to tie this in more closely with the present thread, we have seen that faith of any sort, in any philosophy religious or secular, often precludes acceptance of evidence contrary to the precepts of that faith. In our history it is only recently that many organized faiths have been dragged, kicking and screaming against their will, into the realization that the earth orbits the sun and that evolution is real.
For the majority of our history Humanity has been ruled, in large measure, by the dictates of organized religion and articles of faith from Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Confucian, Democrat... For all the good “science” specific monks and priests have achieved over the millennia we see that only those discoveries that do not threaten the articles of faith are accepted. Those discoveries that challenge a sacred dogma, regardless of the strength of evidence, are rejected and their proponents ill treated, hanged, burned, given really nasty looks, etc. Only with the rise of secular law in the last few centuries protecting explorers from being eaten by religionists has our knowledge expanded unfettered. The “culture of ignorance” was and is real.
How can anyone not accept the proposition that religion has in the past and can be presumed from this history to be so inclined in the future to foster a “culture of ignorance?”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by anastasia, posted 01-17-2007 9:55 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 137 of 221 (378309)
01-20-2007 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by anastasia
01-17-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Is it religion?
We have since learned that much can be discovered usig only natural means, but certainly not everything that we question has been answered. There is still plenty of room for faith even if we let down the barriers we think God told us not to cross.
Is this more room for faith, or more room for future research? If we pick faith, the research may never get done and we may be left with only fantasy, never gaining the knowledge that might have been ours.
Why not simply say "We don't know." when we don't know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by anastasia, posted 01-17-2007 9:55 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 221 (387349)
02-28-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by anastasia
01-17-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Now the field has broadened to just 'religion' in your above quote. This makes your position logically less supportable, as now you have to find examples of scientists who had NO religion.
Why?
The religious advocates on this thread seem very keen to work in black and white terms. Scientists can be religious and achieve great things but if they reach a point where they are willing to effectively stop and say "God did it" then at that point they have been hindered by their faith. The 'Beyond Belief' links we have been discussing cite many such examples with Copernicus, Newton, etc. being the most obvious ones. Watch the seminar links - they are worth watching.
Can you even support your position by bringing in any evidence that science was hindered by a religion other than christianity?
The vid links earlier in this thread discuss Islam in this context at some length.
Basically if you have an ideology based on unprovable assertions (religious, political or whatever) then obviously it will be more prone to fosteing cultures of ignorance than one in which evidence and reasoning is at the foundation.
At this stage in history, the mysteries of life and the after-life are still sacred boundaries, which only our ethical, moral, or religious presumptions may hinder/help us in matters relating to these mysteries. There really is no 'educated' position to have concerning souls or the Ultimate/ultimate origins of the world.
In other words all that religion has left to cling onto are those areas which science has yet to provide full answers for. The gods of the gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by anastasia, posted 01-17-2007 9:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 12:43 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 165 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 7:56 PM Straggler has not replied

  
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 139 of 221 (387409)
02-28-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
02-28-2007 8:51 AM


Re: Is it religion?
First off, this is my first post. I just came across this forum a couple days ago and have been reading quite a bit. I found many areas I wanted to respond to, and just decided this was as good a place as any to start.
I would like to say first that for the most part I am very pleased to see "both sides" of this discussion actually talking. Too often we as humans tend to look down upon those who think differently then we do. Yes, that happens here as well, but not as often I would hope. It also happens from both sides, so no one should point fingers too directly.
Now, onto the point.
I can, and must, agree that religion has at many times in the past hindered progress. Although, I think this can be broken down to blaming the people involved, and not the religion itself. People, ALL people at some point, are afraid of the unknown. Some decide to go on in spite of that fear, others decide to stop. As a Christian, I am often offended by what other 'Christians' say and do. This area would be one of them. I believe science is a wonderful thing. I believe God wants us to search, and study, and find out how He did things. I do not think anything we can or ever will discover will disprove He is there. There will always be room for faith, because we can never know everything. I honestly believe that, as a believer in God, or a god, the only reason you would want science halted is because of a deep down fear that what you believe may not be real. I believe that is what has caused the problems in the past, as well as what is causing some of the problems in the present.
I am going to start a new topic, but I would like to make a little point along the lines of that new topic here. Most of us (I will not say all of us, because I know someone would argue with me)...so, Most of us go into a situation with expectations or beliefs. If you believe in evolution, then you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence as supporting that. If you do not believe in evolution, you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence supporting your view. This holds true more often then not. It takes a LOT to sway anyone from something they truly believe. And please, do not try to honestly tell me that all evolution scientists are unbiased and look strictly at the evidence to come to their conclusions. No one is completely unbiased. We believe what we believe, whether that is based on science, faith, or a combination of the two. This is why, with all the evidence that is available, there are numerous scientists that are on multiple sides of this argument.
So, to Straggler, and anyone else who had the same point: I agree, religion has often gotten in the way of science. As a Christian, I find that very disappointing. Too many people have used religion to further their cause, even when their cause was not the 'religion' they profess to believe in.
Edited by bujitsu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 8:51 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 02-28-2007 1:23 PM bujitsu has replied
 Message 144 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2007 3:24 PM bujitsu has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 140 of 221 (387421)
02-28-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 12:43 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Hi, bujitsu. Welcome to EvC.
bujitsu writes:
There will always be room for faith, because we can never know everything.
As I see it, "making room for faith" is the problem. The attitude that faith is a good thing prompts people to put faith ahead of other things.
quote:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is for things that are not seen. It is not intended to trump things that are seen.
If religions saw faith as a backup plan instead of The Plan™, the world would be a better place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 12:43 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 2:01 PM ringo has replied

  
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 141 of 221 (387430)
02-28-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
02-28-2007 1:23 PM


Re: Is it religion?
First off, thanks for the welcome. I am glad to be here.
I agree with you completely. (I won't say Christian or any other religion specifically, because I believe we all fall into what I am going to say)
Too many people who hold religious beliefs are unwilling to look at the facts. I can agree with what many say about that. It does not take true faith to walk across the Golden Gate Bridge, and believe that it will hold me. It would take faith to walk across a bridge over the same area that was obviously weak and might not hold my weight.
Now, that being said...I also believe too many people who are not religious place too much belief in what they feel the evidence shows. Let me explain this before you jump all over it. Science has 'proven' many things in the past, only to have those things proven wrong in later years. Evolution (I am using evolution because that is a major part of this whole discussion) is possibly one of those things. Like it or not, it is still a THEORY. It is NOT a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is jumping ahead of themselves or giving too much credence and 'faith' to the evidence. There are those on both sides, or all sides, of this argument that put too much faith in something. There is evidence that some use to show that evolution is a viable possibility. But, there are plenty of scientists, including Non-Christians, that look at the same evidence, and come up with different conclusions. If at some point in the future, someone could, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove evolution to be a fact, to be the way things have been done...I and most Christians I know would accept that. In truth, I do not think that whether or not evolution is truth is going to change whether or not God is. (But, that is a debate for another time.)
Ringo writes:
As I see it, "making room for faith" is the problem. The attitude that faith is a good thing prompts people to put faith ahead of other things.
I think you are overstating this. It is not faith that is the problem, it is faith without sight. I honestly believe that God is not happy with anyone who claims faith, and yet will not look at the evidence. I have no problem looking at any evidence about evolution, or anything else. I look at it, and study it, and come to a conclusion. You and I (and myriad others) come to different conclusions. It's like the bridge analogy I used earlier. Having faith the bridge will hold me is one thing...walking blindly towards it, and MISSING the bridge, then blaming God because it was not there is another. The bridge was there, you just did not open your eyes to see it.
Here is an example I was thinking about, and I hope this comes across properly. Gravity. We know it is there, we feel it. For years, we did not know what it was. Let's just say, we knew something kept us on this planet. We were not thrown out into space. There were many views on this, many 'beliefs'. Now, we can relatively safely say that all of those beliefs were proven wrong, except the one that is true: Gravity keeps us on this planet. Now, is it possible that 300 years from now, science will have made some discovery that shows our view of gravity, although well meaning, was not actually fact. We looked at the facts, put them together and came up with what we believed was truth, only to have that in the future shown to be not true? Of course that is possible. Do I think that will happen, of course not. All I am saying is...any scientist (or anyone else I would hope) looks at all the evidence they have available, and comes to a conclusion based on that evidence. Most of that evidence is not proof, that is why so many scientists disagree. We have faith, on whichever side we are on, that we are reading the evidence correctly.
Ringo, like it or not, you have faith in your science. You have faith that the evidence you have seen explains the conclusions you have come to. Some day in the future, maybe our faith in that science will be proven right...or wrong...only time will tell.
Edited by bujitsu, : Fixed the code for the qoute box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 02-28-2007 1:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 02-28-2007 2:20 PM bujitsu has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 142 of 221 (387436)
02-28-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 2:01 PM


Re: Is it religion?
bujitsu writes:
Evolution (I am using evolution because that is a major part of this whole discussion) is possibly one of those things. Like it or not, it is still a THEORY. It is NOT a fact.
You're misunderstanding the terminology. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Evolution is observed - there are lots of threads on that here if you choose to seek them out. Evolution is a fact.
The "Theory of Evolution" is an explanation of that fact - it explains how evolution works.
Ringo, like it or not, you have faith in your science. You have faith that the evidence you have seen explains the conclusions you have come to.
But faith in science is not valid science. Science has to be objective - different people have to be able to draw the same conclusions from the same observations.
It is not faith that is the problem, it is faith without sight.
AKA "blind faith". I agree. That is why faith in science is not valid.

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 141 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 2:01 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 3:12 PM ringo has replied

  
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 143 of 221 (387442)
02-28-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
02-28-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Ok, I think some of this honestly comes down to semantics. You say potato, I say potAto.
We can continue to argue about this and won’t come to a conclusion.
Let me kind of sum up what I am saying.
Evolution, as a WHOLE, is still a theory. Micro-evolution (or variation) is fact. Macro-evolution is theory. Evolution in small forms, which many view as adaptation, is a fact. What most Christians, and many scientists, argue with is evolution on a huge scale. As in, evolution of one species from another; dinosaurs becoming birds, and such. Adaptation is proven, and is a fact. Evolution, on a monumental scale, is still a theory. Not many scientists are trying to show that evolution on a minor scale is true. Because the facts are there to show it.
Ringo writes:
The "Theory of Evolution" is an explanation of that fact - it explains how evolution works.
Sorry, not how I or many see it. Evolutionists see adaptation (or evolution on a small scale) or even micro-evolution and use that evidence to 'prove' that evolution on a large scale, or macro-evolution, happens. That is NOT a fact. Could it be a fact, yes I will say it COULD be. But, it has not, nor can it at this time, be PROVEN. It is believed by many to be true, because of the evidence they have seen. On the other side, it is still believed by many to be false, also because of the evidence they have seen.
Ringo writes:
But faith in science is not valid science. Science has to be objective - different people have to be able to draw the same conclusions from the same observations.
Sorry, I STRONGLY disagree.
Question: Why do so many scientists, on both sides, honestly view the evidence, and come to many different conclusions?
Answer: Because the true answer to it all is NOT obvious. Many things can be deduced, or hypothesized.
All scientists have faith that the observations they are making are true based on the evidence they see. You perform and experiment many times, coming up with the same answer; you have faith that this answer is correct. Is it? Most likely. Is there a possibility that it is wrong, OF COURSE. You can NOT honestly tell me that you KNOW 100% that every answer you (or any scientist) has come up with is 100% correct. That is just arrogance. (And please don't bring up some simple little thing that is obvious. I am talking more about the big things, like evolution.) It may be 100% correct with all the evidence we presently have, but if there is ANY doubt, it is open to discussion. Plenty of scientific discoveries in the past have been shown to be wrong not long after. Including many in recent years.
I agree, science has to be objective. But, no one goes into a study of something like evolution without some preconceived notions. At least no these days. You believe evolution completely (or at least I am assuming you do). Because of that, when you look at the evidence, you will obviously lean towards evolution heavily. It would take something HUGE to push you the other way. ANYONE is that way. You read the evidence, with the beliefs you had before hand, and come to a conclusion.
I am not in any way trying to prove, or disprove evolution. Or even to sway you in any direction. I am just saying that; Faith comes into play for everyone. Call it what you want to. Deny it if you like. You have faith in evolution, and everything you read or study or find is 'tainted' by that. I do not use the word 'tainted' as a bad thing here. I do not believe in evolution on a huge scale, and everything I study or read or find is 'tainted' by that. It would take something huge in the opposite direction for either of us to change our view. That holds true to most scientists, on either side of the argument. And there are more then two sides to this argument. There are many non-Christian scientists that do not believe in evolution on the large scale, but do not believe in creation either. Why is that? Because they look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
Edited by bujitsu, : fixed some formatting problems

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 02-28-2007 2:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 02-28-2007 3:46 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 221 (387443)
02-28-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 12:43 PM


Re: Is it religion?
quote:
If you believe in evolution, then you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence as supporting that. If you do not believe in evolution, you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence supporting your view.
Actually, this isn't true. Maybe some people have a preferential blindness that prevents them from noticing evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint, maybe some people hallucinate evidence in favor of their viewpoint that doesn't exist, but most people, even the most incredibly biased ones, can look at the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions about that evidence, even when it is contrary to their viewpoint.
The Copernican model of the solar system is a case in point. Pre-Gallileo everyone was incredibly biased against a heliocentric solar system. Yet the evidence provided by Galileo and Brahe/Keplar convinced the vast majority of scientists (or proto-scientists) that the planets actually revolve around the sun.
Frankly, I do know of people who are so biased that they will force the evidence to fit their preconceived viewpoints. But these are cases where either the person is pathologically committed with her viewpoint, or where the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. Neither of these really apply to the vast majority of scientists working in the geological, biological, and astrophysical sciences.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 12:43 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 3:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 145 of 221 (387445)
02-28-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Chiroptera
02-28-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Chiroptera, you took my statement way farther then it was intended. I agree that there are plenty of delusional people out there, on every side. But, my statement is still correct, just not to the extent you took it. Everyone has a bias. Now, that does not mean that you will take that bias and not apply the evidence. Someone may believe they can not get wet, ever. But, once thrown into the pool, they should change their mind. If they come out, dripping wet, and still deny that they can get wet..then yes, they are delusional.
I think we can agree that any scientist, or any person, worth paying attention too, is willing to weigh the evidence honestly. There are plenty of scientists that have weighed the evidence, repeatedly, and still do NOT support Macro-evolution. How can that be? Are they delusional? Of course not. (At least not that I, or we, know of.) They just do not see the evidence pointing to the same conclusions as some others.
This is not directed at you, but I do want to add. I, and many others, take serious offense at those who believe in macro-evolution, and accuse us of being deluded or hallucinating because our view differs from theirs. We are all coming to some conclusion based on the evidence we see. Yes, there are those who would deny certain thing to be true, even if they could be proven as a fact. As a Christian, I honestly have no problem in the long run if science can PROVE that macro-evolution of the species occurred. At this time, it CAN NOT, and anyone who says otherwise is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on their own delusion. There are deluded people on both sides of this argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2007 3:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 02-28-2007 3:52 PM bujitsu has replied
 Message 148 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2007 3:57 PM bujitsu has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 146 of 221 (387447)
02-28-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Is it religion?
bujitsu writes:
Evolution, as a WHOLE, is still a theory.
As I said, you're not understanding what a theory is.
Question: Why do so many scientists, on both sides, honestly view the evidence, and come to many different conclusions?
They don't. If you think they do, please give examples.
You can NOT honestly tell me that you KNOW 100% that every answer you (or any scientist) has come up with is 100% correct.
Of course not. Only faith claims to be 100% correct.
You believe evolution completely (or at least I am assuming you do).
Your assumption is wrong. I don't "believe" evolution at all.
I am just saying that; Faith comes into play for everyone.
And I'm saying you're wrong. Faith is not allowed in science, precisely because it produces the misconceptions that you have.
I repeat, faith is for what is not seen. Science deals only with what we do see. No overlap.
There are many non-Christian scientists that do not believe in evolution on the large scale....
You've been duped. There are almost no scientists - Christian or not - who don't accept the fact of evolution.

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 143 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 3:12 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 147 of 221 (387450)
02-28-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 3:40 PM


Macro-Evolution?
And as a Christian I take serious offense when you post something like:
This is not directed at you, but I do want to add. I, and many others, take serious offense at those who believe in macro-evolution, and accuse us of being deluded or hallucinating because our view differs from theirs. We are all coming to some conclusion based on the evidence we see. Yes, there are those who would deny certain thing to be true, even if they could be proven as a fact. As a Christian, I honestly have no problem in the long run if science can PROVE that macro-evolution of the species occurred. At this time, it CAN NOT, and anyone who says otherwise is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on their own delusion. There are deluded people on both sides of this argument.
Evolution is a FACT and the TOE is the best explanation to date of how it happened.
In the words of the Clergy Project:
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.
Those who doubt that so called macro-evolution has occurred are simply delusional and are dedicated to a Cult of Willful Ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 3:40 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 4:05 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 221 (387452)
02-28-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 3:40 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Hi, buje. Sorry, I forgot to welcome you to the forum. It's pretty fun here -- I hope you enjoy it.
quote:
There are plenty of scientists that have weighed the evidence, repeatedly, and still do NOT support Macro-evolution.
Actually, there isn't. Creationists have supplied lists of scientists who supposedly do not accept the theory of evolution, but those lists have a few short comings:
  • The lists are quite short, at most a couple of hundred out of the tens of thousands of scientists that accept the theory of evolution;
  • most of the scientists in question do not work in the relevant areas of biology and so don't have any more expertise in evaluating the evidence than you or I; and
  • the scientists in question are usually believers in some sect or another that has creationism or ID as part of their tenets so they come to the evidence with, as you put it, a priori biases.
-
quote:
Are they delusional?
That is one possibility.
-
quote:
We are all coming to some conclusion based on the evidence we see.
What do you know about the evidence? There are plenty of threads on this board about the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution and about alleged evidence against. Feel free to join in a discussion about evidence, or start your own thread if their is any particular set of evidence you'd like to argue for or against.
-
quote:
As a Christian, I honestly have no problem in the long run if science can PROVE that macro-evolution of the species occurred.
Great. In fact, macroevolution has been proven, at least as proven as a scientific concept can be. That is not due to "bias" -- it is simply an appraisal of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it and the lack of evidence against.
-
quote:
At this time, it CAN NOT, and anyone who says otherwise is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on their own delusion.
This sounds like you've already pretty made up your mind. Is this an example of the bias that you are talking about?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 3:40 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 4:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 149 of 221 (387453)
02-28-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
02-28-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution?
Wow...Just...WOW.
I will stop this line of responses. You are WRONG. Period. Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is NOT. The very fact that you are even TRYING to say that Macro-evolution has been proven, and that those of us who doubt it are delussional and part of some cult, is astounding. How can you say something that is completely unobservable is proven. You can NOT observe macro-evolution. You have observed micro-evolution, and from that drawn the conclusion that it must continue on and become macro-evolution. The fact that you can not concede this point shows your arrogance in the whole argument. I at least was, and am, willing to admit that there is a possibility of the other view. Although I, and MANY others do not see the evidence as supporting that.
As far as 'The Clergy Priject', I will have to read up on it. Although, I must say, anyone that has this to say :"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." Shows to me that they are also too prouf of their own findings.
You, and many like you, jump on those that do not support what you believe in and call us deluded, or some other term. Yes, many in the 'Christian' or religious ranks do the same thing. Either way, I think that is wrong. We should be able to agree to disagree. But no, you say if anyone looks at your findings, and disagrees with your view of them, they are deluded and should shut up. Hmmm, this sounds just like what was said to people in the dark-ages by the church. You are doing the same thing now. I find that rather interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 02-28-2007 3:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 02-28-2007 4:17 PM bujitsu has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 150 of 221 (387455)
02-28-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bujitsu
02-28-2007 4:05 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution?
We should be able to agree to disagree. But no, you say if anyone looks at your findings, and disagrees with your view of them, they are deluded and should shut up.
You are, of course, free to believe anything. I would never limit that.
However when it comes to truth and reality, it must be pointed out that what you are saying is simply false.
How can you say something that is completely unobservable is proven.
The exact same way we know that you had a great-great-great-great-great grandfather.
It is time that I and other Christians speak out. Anyone who embraces or teaches or preaches Biblical Creationism, that there was a World-wide Flood, that macro-evolution is not a fact is simply wrong. These are not matters of belief, they are facts. To try to pretend otherwise is simply to promote ignorance, an act of Hubris and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 4:05 PM bujitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by bujitsu, posted 02-28-2007 4:25 PM jar 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