 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM ?.."what's your job and your field so we know better how to deal with what YOU have to say?"" So, why would that matter as to a posters opinions? My preference would be to be dealt with respectfully. No one has to deal with, "what I say" in any particular way, other than to take it as opinion, nothing more. Like others here, I am only expressing my personal opinion.That olinion changes nothing on how the world or universe evolved. I am hardly telling others how to think, what to believe, how to live their lives, nor am insisting that others share my views on the, so called, meaning of life". However, I do occasionally suggest, to maximize interest, the discussion remain respectful and logical-though I have no say in what others choose to do. ""Er - we're discussing Cosmology and The Meaning of Life here, Ed T"" Discussing Cosmology? That one passed me by, I musta blinked. Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:19 PM The danger in the US at least is one of willful (wilfull?) ignorance. The idea that you can opt your children out of education, or that education is tilted to "respect" the deniers' denials, has resulted in a level of ignorance of science that is unparalleled in the world unless it's where there is no education at all. The fact that Americans can get all the way through high school without knowing arithmetic, let alone the basic biology that would allow them to know how making babies works, and whatever is even stronger than "let alone" enough to understand the reality of evolution... ...whether god made it the way it is, or not, in your opinion. It isn't dangerous to believe that a) science does show an old world but god made it look the way it does, and he did it 4000 years ago, or b) the world is old and evolution happened but god made it happen so that we would be the result. What is dangerous is c) Science is wrong and it *isn't* the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:47 AM Mercy! My reply to Pete got some replies, though not yet from Pete. Joe said: ", but he states his position honestly and tenaciously."... and that is why I keep talking to him. It IS frustrating to me to have my detailed arguments & explanations denied in what I am quite aware are fallacious ways. For all I know, it may be frustrating to Pete that we smart-alec liberal "evolutionists" (I even dislike that word!) can't see the logic of HIS position. Yes... I feel at times like I'm beating my head against a wall, but I'm learning a lot in the process about the structure and resilience of certain types of walls, and the exercise hones my wall-chipping methods. I don't necessarily expect to make holes in a strong wall with my poor, aching head....but I hear the echoes that show my banging is getting some attention....and... I always have the option of getting a ladder and bypassing the wall if it gets too wearying. Enough silly metaphor? Okay. I have debated Pete for several years... (how time flies when you're having fun)... and he IS honest as far as I can tell... and 2 people who know him personally have assured me that is the case. I look at it this way... there are people who hold Pete's basic position MUCH more strongly and with far less concern for even trying to construct a defense of it. Those are the ones who frighten me. Pete has, at least in here, made no attempt to convert anyone or insult anyone. He is locked into a position which requires certain re-doing of logic, definitions of proof & evidence, etc.. in order to proceed. That is why I keep banging my head on that block in the wall. I have said that I wish it were possible to meet Pete at the Seven Stars and spend some time going over things face-to-face... and replying with no hours or days long breaks. *shrug* It is not exactly crucial that I get Pete to see/admit my points, but it is important to ME to practice making them as carefully as possible. (Hi, Pete... I've been talking about you. You are a tough nut to crack....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:54 AM as I would not likely seek his guidance on doing concrete work at my house. Er - we're discussing Cosmology and The Meaning of Life here, Ed T, not bleedin' DIY, for which you'll find all the advice / materials you need down at your local B&Q. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:47 AM So Ed T, what's your job and your field so we know better how to deal with what YOU have to say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:37 AM If it were only the holy text it would be disturbing. But it often carries over into secular idiocies as well - which is frightening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM While Stephen Hawking is very good at his job, in his field of science - beyond that, should one seek his advice/opinion to guide ones life, that which is unrelated to his field of science? Probably not, as I would not likely seek his guidance on doing concrete work at my house. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:17 AM "what OTHER idiocies they are prepared to embrace?" One assumes a fundamentalist and literalist treats all parts of their holy text in the same way. Disturbing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind? Yes, I believe he did - and there was a little jar on Noah's Ark reserved especially for a breeding pair... I prefer the Gnostic view of things in which the despotic creator God of the Old Testament is, in fact, The Devil, and all His Material Works are inherently EVIL. Good is the pure spark of spirit that resides in us as our souls. Hell is therefore Earth... Just as much bollox as the other lot of course but it provides a neat allegory for the essential duality that rests at the heart of the human condition even if it tells us SFA about the real substance of Cosmic purpose, micro or macro. Myth is Dead; it was killed off by Religion. Religion was killed off by Philosophy, and, as Stephen Hawking tells us, Philosophy was killed off by Science which illuminates our very souls - in a strictly allegorical sense of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM Hang on, I feel a Voltaire moment coming on again. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM If we didn't have people like Pete to stand up for the conservative point of view... Joe, Pete isn't standing up for "the conservative point of view" - he's standing up for fantasy, nonsese, ignorance and anti-intellectualism. it seems to me that a person's thinking about evolution or the lack thereof, is just not all that important. Its important, Joe, because if people like Pete are weak-minded enough to embrace creationist hogwash, what OTHER idiocies they are prepared to embrace? There are real-world consequences to believing nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM There are plenty of reasons to be "very angry" with past bad (and often disgusting) practices of those in power, and individuals directly associated, with many organized religions and also the many government enablers. However, belittling and targeting all good religious people with such misdirected anger, merely because they have a God belief, IMO, is a misguided and illogical persuit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM I think you will find it is god botherers who recruit. Dragging rational objectiveness down to the level of a cult just proves how blinkered cults are. I just point out the stupidity of perpetuating it in the light of a reality the shamans and their acolytes cannot answer. Again. To what degree is god putting children in the hospices? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:34 AM ""I actually got angry when I recalled school assemblies and RE, being told God is love."" I propose that there is ample evidence that: For every "angry guy" obsessed with promoting anti-God, and attempting to seek recruits to feed this anger, there are millions of good, hapoy and kind religious folks who feel and practice goodess and exhibit the opposite of anger and disrespect towards others- and their personal life choices. Why dwell on feeding an anger monkey an angry banana? (Aka, get over it and move on to more positive exploits). Just a suggestion, btw, to promote inner peace.:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Lighter Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:28 AM > one doesn't need to prove faith positions. Nor can one. > Would you tell a logic teacher that his concept of circular reasoning and "appeal to authority" and "straw man" are just a matter of opinion and that yours are just as valid? I've had one or two students (out of thousands) who, while not going that far, would indeed question axiomatic concepts because they ran counter to what the students already believed. As I recall, they quickly dropped the course. For the rest (and I can recall myself in their position), the fallacies Bill mentions became immediately obvious as soon as the prof explained, with examples, just why they were fallacies. And treacherous ones, at that. Our textbook also grouped them under "propaganda techniques." Joe, evolution deniers used to be harmless. Then they decided on an education and political agenda, backed by rich evolution deniers. You might remember the 2012 Republican debate when five of seven Presidential candidates publicly denied that he or she accepted evolution as a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:21 AM So let's get this straight. Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind? Sometimes, it needs straight questions to get there. When regulating healthcare, it included inspecting and assessing children's hospices. I actually got angry when I recalled school assemblies and RE, being told God is love. Jesus seemed to be harvesting sunbeams alright. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:01 AM The bad part if the anti religion myth is the obsessive negativism some people opposed exhibit, here and elsewhere. It surely must take much "dark" internal energy to focus on maintaining a myth (with little actual evidence) that none of the millions of people currently experience any positive benefit-socially, personally or otherwise, from their association with an organized religion, or in a belief in a God. A myth that seems to be well maintained in some obsessive anti-God and religion quarters, sometimes masquerading as logical thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM The lauding of those that engage in evasion, obsfucation and fallacy amazes me. The idea that the misrepresentation of methodology and result, insinuations of dishonesty and intimation of agenda where there is none, when presented in a certain way is admirable shows how myopic our collective vision has come as a society. This is the same myopia that allows climate change deniers the run of the media, the anti-vaccination crowd to frighten uninformed parents into exposing their kids to deadly but preventable diseases and is intent on rolling back all the advances made in science, art and culture since the enlightenment, and way before. Things are better said straight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:47 AM I was going to say that lots of people seem to take a literal view of the biblical story of creation, and they seem to be very nice people, for the most part. But I guess I have to admit I don't know anybody who rejects the idea of evolution, except for a few people I've met online. Still, it seems to me that a person's thinking about evolution or the lack thereof, is just not all that important. Most people who are not ideologically inclined, can go for years without thinking about evolution at all. I want my children to know about evolution and accept it as reality, because that's what literate people do. I suppose I see rejection of evolution as a sort of illiteracy, but I don't see it as an evil thing. If I come across illiterate people, I try to be polite and to work around the shortcomings brought about by that illiteracy. Now, Pete isn't going to like that any more than what he gets from all the people who want to do battle with him. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:30 AM Like I say, Myth becomes Bad when people assume that its in any way True, or Sacred. Sacred things are enshrined by Myth; enriched and glorified with humility, wit, wonder, humour and humanity. All the bible tells us is that some psychotic god created an entire & infinite Cosmos billions and billions and billions times bigger than need be simply to make miserable the lives of a few pathetic human beings though punishment or mindless obedience. It is dark demonic turgid dogma that underwrites the repressive religions it has inspired, and continues to inspire, dragging us down into the dark as we struggle towards the light. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:50 AM Joe. There's nothing pleasant in scoffing at the advances in knowledge, dismissing reality and insisting on children being taught fairy stories as real purely because religion attracts people without the wit or wisdom to distinguish fact from fiction. No. pete and his like aren't harmless. They hold society back, or would do if people weren't too sophisticated to be gullible these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:11 AM ". . . .and he does it pleasantly and quite well." That explains a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:12 AM Bill D makes some very good points about the sheer bloody-minded unreasonableness of your position, pete. Of course, you still stubbornly refuse to answer my question: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?" Let me take a stab as to why you refuse to answer it. You believe that the Bible is 'the word of God'. It is because it says it is - but that's circular reasoning - there is no independent authority which confirms that the Bible is the word of God. You could fall back on concensus and authority (within the established churches) but you've arbitrarily decided not to believe in those (except the authority of so-called 'creationist scientists'). Alternatively, you could fall back on faith - but faith is not logical - it is fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence. Therefore, if you rely on faith to support your own position, you can't demand that others use logic, reason and evidence to support theirs. Every time you post, you paint yourself further and further into an illogical, and frankly rather stupid, corner, pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:29 AM In the "Church Joins the Real World" thread, BrendanB said, "This forum is a refuge for fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise." I had to laugh, because it sure doesn't feel like much a haven for even my far more moderate views. Bill, you may be frustrated with Pete, but he states his position honestly and tenaciously. If we didn't have people like Pete to stand up for the conservative point of view, we wouldn't have any representation of the opposing position. So, he fulfills a valuable function, and he does it pleasantly and quite well. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:09 PM Pete.. we have a basic disconnect. "bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments" It seems that because I trust science and logic, you expect that I should type, at great length, a defense of all the points and experiments and discoveries that might bear on my position. And to each of them you merely need to reply that ...'those don't really **prove** your claims, because there are too many missing links or some scientists who don't agree'... On the other hand, your ultimate fall back position is 'faith', and one doesn't need to prove faith positions. Then you use for support a few creationist scientists who use their versions of MY science & logic to cast doubt on the majority of their disciplines. Doesn't seem fair to me. Now, a few people have made remarks about your education. Do remember, you occasionally mention that in your explanations about not delving into technical web sites or following detailed arguments about physics or chemistry. I do not make fun of anyone's education. It is not necessary to go to college to follow the basic ideas about most issues, (and yes..*I* see your posts becoming clearer, even when I disagree)..... but suppose you had followed a different course and found yourself in school, taking courses in biology, geology, logic, etc. There you are, face to face with supposed experts in the very topics we are now discussing, trying to follow the same data you ask ME to explain simply in my own words for you. Assuming you still follow the same religious beliefs you now have, do you raise your hand in class and dispute what these experts tell you? These guys who can answer the question and explain the theories in detail? Would you tell a logic teacher that his concept of circular reasoning and "appeal to authority" and "straw man" are just a matter of opinion and that yours are just as valid? That is what you have done with mine on several occasions. Some definitions and rules of proof...etc... are just not arbitrary, and I HAVE studied them and learned whether & how they conform to standard rules. But you find that 'inconvenient' when I point out some error in your position. You are not dumb.. but you are some combination of stubborn and resolute that you have the right answers..or at least that you don't have to accept that I DO because 'not everyone agrees with me'. You are flatly, absolutely, demonstrably incorrect about what 'appeal to authority & numbers' really means and when it is applicable. You apply a standard rule of argument incorrectly. But...*shrug*... that is about the only way you can deal with much of the points about science and evidence that I & others have made.... and at the same time you assert that religious beliefs are not required to meet the same standards of proof and evidence. You assert broadly that " I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism."...and you base this on - what? Experimental science confirms evolution-- over & over & over! And the 'dino bone soft tissue argument' has been refuted! You cannot demand that all possible data be required before the unusual situation is sensibly explained. Do I sound frustrated? Yup.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM ""So why did Noah leave [ plants ] off the ark?"" Beats me where Mary Jane came from, then:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:45 PM Goes to show ya that God is carnivorous. He ain't no friggin' vegetablarian... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:35 PM So why did Noah leave [ plants ] off the ark? God told him to, obviously, since God don't make mistakes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:26 PM No, pete, you wrote: "by all means trust the findings of science above the bible ,.....if you can demonstrate those findings disprove the bible." That is not an answer to my question. My question was: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?" And if you must know, I trained as a chemist and worked for more than 40 years in commercial labs. For the last 17 years I was responsible for all testing related to product claims. This entailed having a detailed knowledge of how to design scientific experiments and how to interpret the data. Of course, this had nothing to do with evolutionary biology - which, of course, I have freely admitted. Nevertheless, pete, I suspect that I've had more scientific training and 'hands on' experience of practical science than you have. I'm also an amateur botanist and, since I retired, I've had the great privilege of working with some of the best field botanists and ecologists in my part of the country. Because of my interest in natural history I have read fairly widely around the subject. Oh yes and plants are the most important organisms on the planet. The process of photosynthesis ultimately sustains us all. So why did Noah leave them off the ark? And what does the Bible have to say about photosynthesis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:08 PM So, nobody knows any biodeniers that aren't American? I can't decide if that is good news or not. And finding value in mythology is not the same as belief that the myths are historical truth. That fallacy/delusion is dangerous and should not be "respected" any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:45 PM In response to Jack Blandiver, allow me to say that what I love about the biblical creation myths is that they are beautifully poetic, and I read them as such. Yes, these myths were written in accordance with the cosmology of the day, and our modern scientific discoveries have rightly refuted that cosmology. But I don't think the cosmology is the central aspect of these creation myths. The author unfolds the beauty and wonder of our beginnings in six "days," six parallel poetic descriptions of the amazing world that surrounds us. I think the most important phrase in the first creation myth (Genesis 1:1-2:3), is the oft-repeated statement, "And God saw that it was good." And then it ends with a statement of completion, that God rested on the seventh day and thus blessed rest and time for appreciation as a good and sacred thing. Now, the second biblical creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24) is the creation and fall of Adam ('Everyman') and Eve ('Everywoman'), and their eventual discovery of the knowledge of good and evil, symbolized by the eating of fruit (in Latin, "malum," a play on the words meaning "evil" and "apple" which is not present in the Hebrew). The end of this story is often described as the "fall" of Adam and Eve, but it's also the beginning of their adventure outside the protection of Eden and into the challenge of the world. Now, there are those above who say that they don't need such poetic myths for them to appreciate the world that surrounds them, and that's completely true. We don't need art, or poetry, or fiction, or music, or myth. Hell, we probably don't need natural beauty, either. All these things aren't pragmatic, and they're a waste of money, and a lot of people won't understand them. Some may even use these useless and hard-to-understand things in wasteful and even destructive ways. So, I guess that some of the people above would then conclude that we shouldn't have these possibly dangerous things, because somebody might misuse or pervert them. Jack Blandiver clearly characterizes the Bible as Bad Myth [which] oppresses the soul with lurid histories that glorify rape, massacre, oppression, racism, misogyny, infanticide, and every other human atrocity ever devised in the name of a totalitarian Godhead. I'd say Jack is reading something into scripture here, just as some religious and anti-religious fundamentalists have done for millennia. The Bible doesn't The Bible is a very complicated document, full of internal contradictions that do not fit the oversimplifications of some religious and anti-religious fundamentalists. I think that normal people can read the Bible and get a lot from it, but it's a dangerous thing if they can't read it with an educated and open mind. To read the Bible (or any ancient sacred myths) wisely, one must be skilled at critical thinking. Despite what some assert above, I just can't believe that the Bible or most sacred writings are meant to be an instrument of control. I don't think that's what the writers intended at all. Now, it's clear that people of power and authority through the centuries have abused sacred writings as tools for asserting their power, but I don't think that was the intent of the authors. I've read propaganda, lots of it - and it doesn't sound anything like what I read in the Bible. These people I call "absolutists" (both religious and anti-religious) - I think they are people who tend to see the bad side of other people; and I think they also tend to see the power in their lives as being outside themselves, rather than within. There are lots of people like this - authority is a very big thing for them, because they see their lives as being controlled (or at least seriously impacted) by external forces. And they have good reason to fear these forces and fight to see them controlled. Many religious people use their religion in their fight to control or subdue or defeat these forces, which of course they see as evil. And many anti-religious people see religion as the evil they must fear and subdue and defeat. Many of the rest of us see the power in our lives as being within us, and thus we have less to fear and can be more relaxed and tolerant in our world view. And then some of us just don't care, or maybe we have burdens or responsibilities or joys in our lives that are far more important then worrying about our Weltanschauung just now. But anyhow, for those of you who have no need of sacred myths, that's fine, although I hope you take the time to let art and music and poetry and nature affect you. But don't be afraid of myths - they are what they are, and many people find great value in them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:31 PM By the way, pete - have you ever been abducted by space aliens and had fiendish experiments performed upon you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:29 PM but I seem to be giving more coherent posts Now, that really IS amusing. your contributions probably only reinforce my position Of course they do. Ignorant, uneducated persons can be very set in their delusions, and and no facts need apply. You are attempting to discuss things you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of, pete, and thus all you can do is spout nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:53 PM pete reckons I mock his education. Wrong. I agonise over how my tax appears to have been wasted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:13 PM Ah, but pete7*, but, we are not talking about the finding of a support wall in a house but one brick. You would likely sue a carpenter that tire your house down because one odd brick was found in the wall. Even the Christian believing scientist finding the anomoly cautioned Christians not to read too much into this discovery. You are willing to shoot down the foundation of all science, because a scientist found one item that currently seems not to fit in the otherwise logical science puzzle. Why, because it suits a theory you already hold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:08 PM Where's the rest of my post??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Jack Blandiver Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:39 PM What I love about the biblical creation myth is that God creates the universe some 2,000 years before he was created himself, at a generous estimate. The only existence of such a being is in the stories that are told about him. I'm supposing Christians are atheists are far as other equally credible deities are concerned (Thor, Odin, Horus, Ra et al - see |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:24 PM ah, but I did answer it , shimrod. your question assumed the answer, wheras I say,...if it is the reality revealed by modern science...then you need to demonstrate that it is what you say, and not just you believing what you have been told. so, as you are not too busy, how about telling us what your scientific discipline is, and how that convinces you of evolutionism. well, ed, if I built my house and then discovered that the foundations were shaky at best, and missing at worst,....you bet I would dismantle it. deep time is at least one major block in evolutionary foundations, and until or unless the evidence for a far younger creation is refuted, I reckon your structure is being held up by scaffolding rather than solid foundation. yes, greg/musket, my education did,nt amount to much, but I seem to be giving more coherent posts. your contributions probably only reinforce my position ,and be an embarrassment to the more moderate skeptics here. so mock on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:28 PM But, I suspect that you still don't grasp fully how this type of science knowledge evolves, Pete? Of course he doesn't- he's stated many times that he does not know anything about science, that he has never read anything about science and/or the scientific method science, and he doesn't intend to. You're trying to discuss nuclear physics and quantum theory with a 12-year-old. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:22 PM "and bugs and plantlife were not requisite passengers on the ark." But they're "requisite passengers" on the earth. Anyway, back to my question. Just in case you've forgotten what it was, here it is again: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?" You answer my question and I might consider having a go at answering the questions that you chose to ask me in order to avoid answering my question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:16 PM ""the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet."" Maybe the findings will be svientifically, refuted, maybe not. If not, that does not mean it will not be added to the scientifuc knowledge base. But, I suspect that you still don't grasp fully how this type of science knowledge evolves, Pete7*? Like with all science, knowledge builds on what can be proven (using standard processes) to be seen as reliab3le (aka peer reviewed) information. If new credible information becomes available, and is found to be solidly based, it is incorporated into the mosaic of existing "reliable" knowledge. Rarely does any new, (and previously seen as unlikely) knowledge come forward that cannot be accomodated within existing scientific knowledge framework. When it does, it is unlikely to totally break down the walls of all existing knowledge, as you seem to suggest should occur. The knowledge is accepted and accomodated, even if there is uncertainity as to where it fits in the science knowledge puzzle. It is not ignored, thrown away, nor will it be given meaning beyond what it can be proven to inducate. Quite often the science knowledge process is slow and methodical, to avoid error. This can frustrate those seeking a "quick and dirty" answer to the meaning if the new information.. On a similar note, you do not tear your entire solidly built house down because one brick building block seems to be different than the others. It certainly does mean it is wise to check your house out to ensure the other bricks are solid, and that the new brick does not impact the structure. But, only a nieve fellow would "run off" in all directions crying in wild speculation that this solidly built house is bound to fall because of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:24 PM You are reading it Greg... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:22 PM So Pete, you didn't go to college? How far DID your education proceed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:08 PM bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments. posting a link is fine, and if I knew how to do it , I might do so too, but I hope as extension of the point rather than instead of actually making the point myself. the fact is , the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet. but I will look at links later, if I get time. but , unless this link proves otherwise, these finds contradict experimental science, IF- dem bones is really myo !. I do note that you express the ideas about dog breeding as evidence for evolutionism, but again, that is natural/artificial selection, and is part of the creation model also. and now to your post many post past. maybe, I had not expressed myself well, but you are quite right that many of the bible details are confirmed in archaeology, but I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism. in your next paragraph you again do the bait and switch thing. of course I would be unlikely to doubt the scientists in regard to farming, as their findings are observationally, experimentally verified in the present. what happened in the [alleged] aeons past is not observable, but is interpreted from data. worldview colours this interpretation.....as testified to even by hostile witnesses. your charge that I am discounting the mass of sites that believe evolutionism, is just, seems to me, yet another appeal to numbers and authority. the last paragraph, looks like you are saying that I am using illogical arguments, by comparing them to a formulae you heard 60 yr ago [and which I have not used!]. I may well make some logic errors, but sometimes you say I have, but I have not always agreed. even college educated can get it wrong sometimes!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:37 PM Here is another story of dinosaur studies and here is the shorthand, popularized translation ---------------------------------------------- "This indeed proves what can be done through selective breeding, but falls far short of proving what occued in a real-life, "free range" situation. Unfortunately, such breeding often reinforces medical problems, making long term survival success (including the generated adnormalities) in the wild less likely." Quite so, Ed... but it shows HOW the mechanisms work. By observing both positive AND negative results of breeding, they show in a relatively short time what might have happened if natural selection didn't ...ummmm... select. The program made the specific point that many of show dogs (about 1 in 4) do have medical issues that would affect their survival. By metaphorically 'playing God', we better understand better how Nature works... (off to get some shop work done) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM "and bugs and plant life were not requisite passengers on the ark." Plants maybe not, but where does it say no arthropods? According to biblegateway.com verse 20 of Genesis says this: " Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." You're making this up Pete. If you don't read the bible what hope scientific papers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM "By selective breeding, we are seeing traits develop that 'might' have developed accidentally over time in random evolutionary ways, but can be controlled and found in just a few generations." This indeed proves what can be done through selective breeding, but falls far short of proving what occued in a real-life, "free range" situation. Unfortunately, such breeding often reinforces meducal problems, making long term survival success (including the generated adnormalities) in the wild less likely. One related quote I once heard was "if one let all the inbred dogs run loose and freely breed, in a few generations all of the inbred features would dissapear and the result would be dogs that mostly look like the dogs running wild in many third-world countries today." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:11 PM he has produced his version of the requested answers His VERSION of reality? So do the Holocaust Deniers, Birthers, climate change deniers, and folks that think the moon landing was filmed on a movie set in Hollywood. So whawt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM Greg... he has produced his version of the requested answers. I disagree with them. YOU denigrate them and him. This says more about you than about the science. (you never never answered MY question above) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM shimrod, I don't sit on top of my puter waiting for you to post. even once a day is difficult sometimes as I am quite a busy man. I am not evading your question. btw, did you say what your science line is, and how it informs your evolutionism ?. by all means trust the findings of science above the bible ,.....if you can demonstrate those findings disprove the bible. as you are not claiming much knowledge of biology or theology, maybe your own discipline will help you. I can wait a few days , if you are busy too. and bugs and plantlife were not requisite passengers on the ark. |