|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
CTD writes: From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. I think this case demonstrates what I mean. Two thoughts. 1. Wow... why the sudden appearance of "evolutionists" into the discussion. I am going to suppose from this that your own definition of Christian excludes anyone who might believe in evolution. So folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc. are out in your way of thinking. 2. That is correct! language is not fixed and either are species. To discover the reality in these areas consult early English literature, such as the works by Chaucer, for the former and the closest Natural History museum for the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
iceage
That is correct! language is not fixed and either are species. To discover the reality in these areas consult early English literature, such as the works by Chaucer, for the former and the closest Natural History museum for the latter. Both are fixed. It is a question of degree. Even most evolutionists do not claim a parent and offspring change species in one generation. And language would be worthless if words were in the habit of changing their meanings more than once per day. And what would the market for dictionaries be? Hmmm... I had not considered the role of the dictionary publishers. Perhaps there's an optimal amount of change in the language which they think will promote sales... This could be the beginning of a new conspiracy theory!* * Pardon my abuse of the term 'theory' - just ain't funny if I apply more accurate language. Besides, they abused it first!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
1. Wow... why the sudden appearance of "evolutionists" into the discussion. I am going to suppose from this that your own definition of Christian excludes anyone who might believe in evolution. So folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc. are out in your way of thinking. This is why a forum needs private messaging. I tried to let this pass, but it won't do. I am not here to offer new definitions. One may suppose all sorts of things. If you want to get it right, either keep guessing or find out what the Scripture says. Regardless of how you choose to suppose I think, I have already stated that common use of the term is pretty broad. It is not so broad as to include anyone and everyone. Do you maintain that as evolutionists, "folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc." would be expected to insult all Christians in the manner one witnesses in that thread? I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at how loyal the opposition has been in this case. It's not easy to repair a reputation. You guys should probably start a new thread. While I think the general practice of redefining every other word is a key evolutionist strategy for promoting abiogenesis, big bang, & evolution "theories", it's a stretch to discuss this particular example to such an extent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Even most evolutionists do not claim a parent and offspring change species in one generation. I should hope not. The only claims I have read in that regard are creationists claiming the evolutionists believe dogs give birth to cats or whales or other such nonsense.
And language would be worthless if words were in the habit of changing their meanings more than once per day. I hate to put words in someones mouth but when Iceage mentioned Chaucer and early english literature he was not talking about the morning newspaper.
This could be the beginning of a new conspiracy theory!* * Pardon my abuse of the term 'theory' You didnt abuse the term theory. Remember:
Wikipedia writes: Found Here The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. No harm, no foul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not here to offer new definitions. One may suppose all sorts of things. If you want to get it right, either keep guessing or find out what the Scripture says. So, you're not going to tell us what you think.
Do you maintain that as evolutionists, "folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc." would be expected to insult all Christians in the manner one witnesses in that thread? In which thread have all Christians been insulted?
You guys should probably start a new thread. While I think the general practice of redefining every other word is a key evolutionist strategy for promoting abiogenesis, big bang, & evolution "theories" ... ... you are totally wrong. Which is a splendid reason why you should give up. If you want to start a thread about this rubbish, instead of running away from the subject, then feel free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
CTD,
I thank you for your post, it verified something that I was wondering deeply inside my mind. What exactly is your understanding of Abiogenesis and the word FACT? My understanding of Abiogenesis is that it simply means life created/developed from non life. To be honest, I don't believe GOD is a Biological being. So with my belief on GOD, there is no way to understand it via Science. Science is only the study of nature or things that can be physically/biologically understood. So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. I think the most rational behavior is to keep an open mind in all topics. I recently started reading about sound equalizers in order to tune my computer speakers. I wanted to be able to understand what frequencies are and what decibels are. I came across an interesting thought in the process of learning about sounds. There are frequences that the human ear can not hear unless you increase the decibels of that particular frequency. In some cases if you turn up the decibels the human ear still can't hear the sounds. So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision. Anyways, I have not had time to look into my ideas/thoughts but they are ideas which should be researched. My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist. Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? A theory can have a high level of confidence so why call a good theory a FACT? Anyways. Peace. P.S. Forgot to include the link: Fact - Wikipedia Edited by trossthree, : edit - link on definition of FACT. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, This is a false dichotomy. Are you saying you could not be a scientist or even do science because of your faith?
but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? Fact - Wikipedia quote: Theory - Wikipedia
quote: I don't see anything there about calling a theory a fact. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : faith science Edited by RAZD, : added 2nd P to fact quote compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
RAZD,
trossthree writes: If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD,
RAZD writes:
This is a false dichotomy. Are you saying you could not be a scientist or even do science because of your faith?
You need to quote the entire context of my above paragraph. I was saying that atheists believe in Science and nothing else. An atheist perception is limited to the reality of Science. A very limited understanding, it leaves no other potential understanding of origin, a very closed minded individual would be an atheist. Don't get me wrong I know there are other individuals who believe in God/or whatever but also believe that the respective theories above are considered fact. My point with the word fact was to say that Abiogeneis,BB,TOE, are all theories but because of their reputation they are facts in the eyes of an atheist/scientist. I know you are going to comment on my usage of "atheist/scientist" so I will add that im describing an atheist scientist above, not any other form/belief of scientists. You will not be able to change my understanding of the meaning of fact as I realize the original meaning of FACT: "The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete." per wickipedia. Peace. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That was also very strange.
Before you start lecturing us all on what atheists think, why don't you find an atheist and ask him what he thinks? 'Cos then, when you tell us what atheists think, you could be telling the truth, instead of reciting nonsense. You might want to find out some stuff about science too. I don't think you're deliberately lying, but you are talking rubbish about stuff that you've never bothered to learn about, and that disturbs me. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. Splendid. Then you will be eager to learn that your latest rant is a halfwitted attack on a strawman of your own construction.
I recently started reading about sound equalizers in order to tune my computer speakers. I wanted to be able to understand what frequencies are and what decibels are. I came across an interesting thought in the process of learning about sounds. There are frequences that the human ear can not hear unless you increase the decibels of that particular frequency. In some cases if you turn up the decibels the human ear still can't hear the sounds. So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision. Anyways, I have not had time to look into my ideas/thoughts but they are ideas which should be researched. My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist. Oh, hurrah, you discovered the existence of reality. You know, if you go on thinking like that, eventually you'll realise that it is possible to know about the past without owning a time machine, and then you'll start saying stuff about the past that's actually true, and who knows where it might end?
Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? Of course, the imaginary scientists who call something a fact when it is a theory are just some crazy nonsense that you've made up in your head, as we all know, except possibly you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
trossthree writes: An atheist perception is limited to the reality of Science. A very limited understanding, it leaves no other potential understanding of origin, a very closed minded individual would be an atheist. Not at all. When you don't have a blind faith in a God, your mind is open. You can consider the possibility that the universe was created by a team of wizards, for example, or by Goddesses, or mischievous elves, or by some kind of automatic process in other dimensions. Being an atheist frees the mind to consider endless possibilities. It is those emotional weaklings who remain in the religion of their childhoods whose minds remain closed by faith without reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
bluegenes writes: Being an atheist frees the mind to consider endless possibilities. Does it, or does it merely place the mind into another [constricted] world view?
When you don't have a blind faith in a God, your mind is open. How is it possible that only after limiting your mind to 'not have a blind faith...' can you suddenly say that your mind is then unlimited? Is having to put your mind into the state of 'faithless' in order to achieve limitlessness itself a limit? Is making 'faithlessness' a requirement for an unlimited mind not a limit itself? Jon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024