Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
728 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 725 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,822 Year: 21,858/19,786 Month: 421/1,834 Week: 421/315 Day: 17/82 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4251 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 226 of 300 (425179)
10-01-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Simple answer
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 1:43 AM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 228 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 3:11 AM iceage has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4206 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 227 of 300 (425180)
10-01-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by iceage
10-01-2007 12:48 AM


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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by iceage, posted 10-01-2007 12:48 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Vacate, posted 10-01-2007 4:13 AM CTD has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 4206 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 228 of 300 (425186)
10-01-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by iceage
10-01-2007 12:48 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by iceage, posted 10-01-2007 12:48 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 12:21 PM CTD has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 229 of 300 (425187)
10-01-2007 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by CTD
10-01-2007 1:43 AM


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:

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

Found Here

No harm, no foul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 1:43 AM CTD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 230 of 300 (425222)
10-01-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by CTD
10-01-2007 3:11 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 3:11 AM CTD has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 300 (425324)
10-01-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by CTD
09-30-2007 1:26 AM


Re: A word of caution
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Edited by trossthree, : edit - link on definition of FACT.


Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 1:26 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 8:55 PM Force has responded
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:57 PM Force has responded
 Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM Force has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 232 of 300 (425339)
10-01-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Force
10-01-2007 7:04 PM


Re: A word of caution
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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

quote:
Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. People are interested in facts because of their relation to truth.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

quote:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.


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


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 9:43 PM RAZD has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 300 (425349)
10-01-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by RAZD
10-01-2007 8:55 PM


Re: A word of caution
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 8:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:49 PM Force has responded
 Message 236 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 10:07 PM Force has responded
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2007 7:00 AM Force has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 234 of 300 (425350)
10-01-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Force
10-01-2007 9:43 PM


Re: A word of caution
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 9:43 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 235 of 300 (425352)
10-01-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Force
10-01-2007 7:04 PM


Re: A word of caution
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 236 of 300 (425354)
10-01-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Force
10-01-2007 9:43 PM


Re: A word of caution
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 9:43 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 10:24 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM bluegenes has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 300 (425362)
10-01-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2007 9:49 PM


Re: A word of caution
thank you =)


Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 300 (425363)
10-01-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2007 9:57 PM


Re: A word of caution
thank you =)


Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 300 (425364)
10-01-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by bluegenes
10-01-2007 10:07 PM


Re: A word of caution
thank you =)


Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 10:07 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 300 (425370)
10-01-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by bluegenes
10-01-2007 10:07 PM


Atheism as a Limited World View
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 10:07 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2007 11:00 PM Jon has responded
 Message 247 by bluegenes, posted 10-02-2007 10:01 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 285 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2007 10:09 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 297 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2007 1:22 PM Jon has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019