|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 61 of 188 (375384)
01-08-2007 1:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 1:34 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
Speaking of a pile of coins jar said:
How would you go about determining how they are related? to which TheMystic mummbled:
quote:
I think you better just tell me what you're getting at. I don't know how I would find the parents of coins.
Well perhaps I can try different words. How could you determine what features of various coins are homologous? Edited by jar, : forgot of
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 1:34 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
TheMystic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 62 of 188 (375389)
01-08-2007 2:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
01-08-2007 1:42 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
Ok, so I look up 'homologous' and I read this: "having the same or a similar relation;" and I think, do I have time for this? Well, the second definition is " corresponding in structure and in origin, but not necessarily in function: The wing of a bird and the foreleg of a horse are homologous." So I suppose that's where you're going, but this thread is supposed to be about whether creationism is a cult or not. You're only confirming my opinion that evolution is just a mind game for the elect, an excercise in finding clever ways to defend the absurd. So the wheels start to sink in the mud in a familiar way: The evolutionist is not interested in my line of study and the evolutionist lost my interest and respect a long time ago.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 1:42 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 2:19 PM | | TheMystic has replied | | | Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-08-2007 2:23 PM | | TheMystic has replied | | | Message 76 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 3:44 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 63 of 188 (375390)
01-08-2007 2:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 12:30 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
If we have to argue whether creationism is science we at best waste our time because science, as I'm vainly trying to demonstrate, has no hard definition.
Sure it does.
source Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural. Science is also the organized body of knowledge about the empirical world which issues from the application of the abovementioned set of logical and empirical methods. Science consists of several specific sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, which are defined by the type and range of empirical phenomena they investigate. Finally, science is also the application of scientific knowledge, as in the altering of rice with daffodil and bacteria genes to boost the vitamin A content of rice.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 12:30 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 64 of 188 (375392)
01-08-2007 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
Proper Science? Who is the central authority of science that decides what this is?
There is no central authority of science. Science is a consensus activity. OTOH, one could say that "reality" is the final arbiter of what proper science is, because only that science that allows us to make accurate predictions of reality that are able to be replicated by others is useful and allows science to progress.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 1:32 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
ingmar
Junior Member (Idle past 6315 days) Posts: 1 From: Los Angeles, CA, USA Joined: 01-08-2007
|
|
|
Message 65 of 188 (375393)
01-08-2007 2:19 PM
|
|
|
GodCam
Creationism is not science, because it is entirely faith-based. Science requires evidence to support each claim, and is constantly revised as new proofs are discovered. There is not a shred of evidence to support the claim that God exists, only the words of men. Every "sacrid text" was written by the hand of a man; every "sacrid artifact" was carved or painted or drawn by the hand of man. There are certainly those who believe in God, but belief is not the same as proof. The overwhelming majority of people who believe in God choose not the religion that has the best sacrid texts, or the fairest laws, or the most beautiful churches, or the highest moral standards; most people choose the religion of their parents. This tells us that religious belief is a subjective, learned behavior; nothing more. Theists are letting someone else do their thinking for them, rather than trying to figure things out for themselves. A website that deals with this in depth can be found at: machineslikeus.com. Their "live" GodCam is especially humorous.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 66 of 188 (375394)
01-08-2007 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:01 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
So, would you consider starting a new thread describing what you believe the Theory of Evolution states, and how you believe that Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists are conspiring to deceive everyone else?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:01 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
TheMystic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 67 of 188 (375395)
01-08-2007 2:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
01-08-2007 2:09 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
Science is a consensus activity. Ok, well I don't agree with Darwin. I think his mechanisms can only work in the trivial case, not in a continuous cumulative way. So, me being a scientist and not consensify'ing, I guess Darwin was wrong, eh?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 2:09 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 2:26 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 68 of 188 (375396)
01-08-2007 2:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:01 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
Don't let Jar's love of the Socratic method sour you on science. All he's asking is what qualities you think would serve best for classifying the coins into categories and subcategories: Weight? Shape? Thickness? Type of image? Language? Material of composition? Density? Language? Country of origin? Denomination? Currency type? Age? Amount of wear? Hardness? Use of mythic images? But I think we're way off topic. The opening post tried to argue that creationism is a cult, but I don't think it is. It's just a response of conservative Christianity to what they perceive as the threat of public school science education concerning evolution. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:01 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:44 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
TheMystic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 69 of 188 (375397)
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
01-08-2007 2:19 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
So, would you consider starting a new thread describing what you believe the Theory of Evolution states, and how you believe that Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists are conspiring to deceive everyone else?
I do not lightly disagree with smart people. OTOH, the bulk of smart people throughout the history of mankind have not accepted evolution. So I think I'll try to go with the evidence instead of consensus.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 2:19 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 2:27 PM | | TheMystic has not replied | | | Message 73 by iceage, posted 01-08-2007 3:06 PM | | TheMystic has replied | | | Message 90 by Jon, posted 01-08-2007 11:45 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 70 of 188 (375398)
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
So, will you start that thread so you can explain what you believe are the mechanisms of the ToE and how they cannot explain the observations of nature? If you really have ovoerturned the ToE, you will be renowned as a great scientist and will likely get the Nobel.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:21 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 71 of 188 (375399)
01-08-2007 2:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
So great, strat that thread and show us the evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:26 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
TheMystic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 72 of 188 (375403)
01-08-2007 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
01-08-2007 2:23 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
Don't let Jar's love of the Socratic method sour you on science... classify the coins...
I figured that, I just didn't want to spend the time unless there's some idea why I would want to classify coins in the first place. I'm sure I'd blow his mind if I told him that I thought the family tree of species is pretty arbitrary and he already thinks I'm an idiot.
But I think we're way off topic. The opening post tried to argue that creationism is a cult, but I don't think it is. It's just a response of conservative Christianity to what they perceive as the threat of public school science education concerning evolution.
Quite well stated, I think, at least as far as explaining the sometimes hysterical edge to the issue. I'm realizing that THE OTHER SIDE is often arguing from the [mis-]understanding that creationism or ID is some clearly defined, organized movement when I'm just arguing from the general idea of creation. I assume the Genesis 1 story at this time, but I recognize how little hard evidence there is for that specific story, but, as you can tell, I thoroughly reject the notion that I must be able to prove something in order to hold it as true. You gotta believe something, and I gotta go with what seems to fit the available evidence the best.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-08-2007 2:23 PM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Woodsy, posted 01-08-2007 3:35 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
|
Message 73 of 188 (375406)
01-08-2007 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
the bulk of smart people throughout the history of mankind have not accepted evolution. Bullcrap! Let's see if you can substantiate this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:26 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 3:17 PM | | iceage has not replied |
|
TheMystic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 74 of 188 (375412)
01-08-2007 3:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by iceage
01-08-2007 3:06 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
Bullcrap! Let's see if you can substantiate this.
Uh oh! Percy, did you see what he said? :-) To tell you the truth, I haven't actually done the math, but considering that Darwin only wrote his book 150 years ago or so...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by iceage, posted 01-08-2007 3:06 PM | | iceage has not replied |
|
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3400 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: 08-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 75 of 188 (375418)
01-08-2007 3:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:44 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
You gotta believe something Why? If you are not yet sure about something, why not say so, and wait for better evidence before making up your mind?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:44 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 3:51 PM | | Woodsy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2