|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 4:13:15 PM | "But I barely recognize the description of my profession in this thread."
Fair enough. Please point out what you take exception to in my definition of science if I am one of those people. I would first point out that one can engage in a discipline without ever having to define it, but I think there is a danger in that. That is exactly how one falls into normal science, or simply following a methodology by rote. Having a broader philosophic understanding of that methodology opens the door to revolutionary science. It does not close it as you seem to be implying with your use of the word "pedantic." You say that you don't recognize a description of your profession, but I haven't really seen you give one. As you are a professional scientist, I would be genuinely interested in your input. Also, no one is suggesting that philosophy and science are mutually exclusive. Only that there is an important demarcation that one must be vigilant of. They certainly interreact. That's been my argument all along. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 4:22:43 PM |
Wouldn't want to open up any student minds to creative thinking - or even (quiet!!) - philosophy!
Making the public more ignorant than it already is would not contribute to more creative thinking. I'm guessing you were playing devil's advocate with your comment, but really, taking science out of science class rooms makes people more open-minded? Where are you going with that? You can't be serious. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 4:53:17 PM | | The science discussion would take things off thread, but I bet Aristotle would enjoy listening. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:02:03 PM | Reminder all!!!
keep it nice and keep it chat free folks, or this debate is going to get toasted.
Pandy/moderator | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:14:30 PM | Sorry Pandy - and thanks for keeping us in line. I think we've moved the discussion to a more appropriate thread (bubbly) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:28:20 PM | Look, I wasn't being hostile I was simply asking where Jonny was coming from with his statement as it doesn't seem to correlate well with his background or most of his posts.
I can't see how debating aspects of science being taught in the science class room could be categorized as chat in a thread about Evolution and Creationism.
As far as "keeping it nice"....
...little odd this comment is made now and not when a certain poster is calling other posters impotent, childish, and uneducated repeatedly.
And notice how the most course comment I made was "are you for real" which is slang for "are you serious".
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:32:21 PM | | I honestly think it might be one of those semantic things where we agree more than we realize and are arguing more over subtle differences in the definition of terms. Of course, I don't think defining science is off topic at all. It's at the crux of the topic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:42:34 PM | Before I say anything let me explain that this thread is about Creationism vs Evolution. Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution is a scientific theory illustrating a natural process by which natural organisms change over time by various mechanisms.
That being said, there are several issues being debated (political, philosophical, and scientific). I have noticed that when I advocate my opinion in this thread with confidence and with clear arguments it is often interpreted as a personal attack on certain posters. I will not concede that it is any such thing.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:45:49 PM | "I have noticed that when I advocate my opinion in this thread with confidence and with clear arguments it is often interpreted as a personal attack on posters. I will not concede that it is."
Ditto. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:54:26 PM | I respect both Lizard and wonka (I'm not gonna do the whole list - there are lots of ya!). Regard them as web friends, so I'm not taking offence or being unkind. Maybe Pandy was just warning about the general tone of the thread.
Johnny
You're not going to make me drag all my rambling back from the tea party are you, Lizard? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 7:15:37 PM | from above ...
"I'm still trying to figure out what this evidently insanely popular thread is doing in "Relationships". (I suppose if we hadn't all been created or evolved, there would be no relationships?)"
huh? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 7:22:57 PM | I'm glad Johnny has such a positive atitude toward others participating in this discussion, which is on Creationism (a belief) and Evolution (a scientific theory).
As far as the comment about this thread being in the "relationships" category, I don't think he had his reading glasses on. His argument was the same misinformed flash-in-the-pan remark we tend to get in this thread. Someone pops in and says they know it all and that Evolution has no basis and then disappears before anyone can point out that they may not have an accurate definition of just what the theory is. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 8:07:11 PM | | In the second paragraph there I was not referring to Johnny but to an earlier poster that I can only recall posting once in the thread. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 8:11:07 PM | "I'm still trying to figure out what this evidently insanely popular thread is doing in "Relationships". (I suppose if we hadn't all been created or evolved, there would be no relationships?)"
Yeah, that one baffled the hell out of me too. I think that's my favorite irrelevant and bizarre comment yet. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 9:59:30 PM |
Maybe Pandy was just warning about the general tone of the thread.
There are a few pages on this thread and she seems to be moderating a few other threads. Maybe she got to this a little late, or maybe she enjoyed the show. :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 11:09:57 PM | Then you concede that they are not yours?
I have never said that at all...It is a very real, logical thing, to support the Biblical view.
He also uses various anecdotes to superficially bolster his argument. Are we supposed to think, "oh well, if he convinced a (likely fictional) grad student at his seminar with his spurious argument than that's good enough for me."
Kind of like what you have done on numerous posts?
("what if"..."Picture this"...etc...)
And, you are accusing him of lying? That is Tsur's infantile tactics wonka;
I thought even you were above that.
Life is intractably complex, therefore it must have been designed by a conscious creator is non-sequitur reasoning. Science only attempts to explain the complexity. If, in the end, that leads, from the facts, to a falsifiable theory of god, then so be it. As of yet, this is not the case. As of yet, the complexity is very well accounted for by natural processes.
As the Bible, can and does scientifically as well. As said, it is an interpretation of the facts at hand.
This is a fallacy. I can don any number of hypothetical glasses. I can approach a set of facts from the presupposition that the universe is not mostly empty space but a vast sea of jello. Doing so leads me to no satisfactory conclusions though, so I discard that presupposition.
wonka, wonka, wonka...No, you evidently can not, as shown overwhelmingly by your shrill, clearly one-sided posts. You fully admit to being non-theistic, so how can you possibly don the God-believing hypothetical glasses?
That is akin to a small child saying he can drive a car, or better yet, construct say, a nuclear bomb simply by reading a book about the subject. You are worlds away from fully understanding the Creation viewpoint, when you can't simply grasp the concept of a supreme being outside of your field of view.
Again, quoting the bible is proof of nothing. Even if one concedes it to be divine, that sentence is open to interpretation.
It is proof of everything...for the Creationist...By your even admitting the possibility of it being divine, then offers that the Bible IS proof of what we speak of.
Chill wonka..you know not 'everything', as much as you like to portray you do...
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 12:02:31 AM | "Chill wonka..you know not 'everything'"
ooooo, look out wonka. 'chilling' words from someone holier than tho'. like i said pages ago ...
true believer. why you even engage it is beyond me.
more ...
"That is Tsur's infantile tactics wonka;
I thought even you were above that."
even more ...
"wonka, wonka, wonka...No, you evidently can not, as shown overwhelmingly by your shrill, clearly one-sided posts."
doesnt this guy get the message or what? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 12:55:14 AM | Wonka reminded me of that article I thought of back in the 40ish pages of the thread. That is:
Allen, T., Tainter, J., et. al.
Dragnet Ecology---"Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World.
(Bioscience. June 2001. Vol. 51. No 6. pp. 475-485)
[Allen, T. F. H.; Tainter, J. A.; Pires, C., and Hoekstra, T. W. Dragnet Ecology"Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 2001; 51(6):475-485.]
I've read thousands of academic journal articles. This one sticks out as memorable, important, and also enjoyable to read...
"Science of intrinsic quality needs narratives with explicit values--not just facts--particularly as it faces multiple-level complexity in advising environmental policy, such as planning for energy futures."
Importance of defining meanings of words in science 'narratives'--which all science in words vs math, is. And many, many other ideas...
IF there is such a thing as a 'fun read' in science lit... this is it! PLUS, this will be one of those 'articles' that people look back on in 20 years for content. I might come back to that later.
They talk about how any science, put in words, is a 'story' about the facts. Many different 'stories' can be told about the exact same facts. SO, scientists must be aware of this and take responsibility for the 'story telling,' and as the story teller (who always has values that influence the 'story.' Scientists, aware of this, are better able to understand how their views might influence the story they tell based on facts. This is far from objective, but closer to objective than any other form of understanding we know of so far...
If I remember, that article says something like: science isn't perfect, but still the best game we've got in town.
The next "Einstein" or "Galileo" might find some missing inspiration, there. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 1:19:01 AM |
As far as the comment about this thread being in the "relationships" category, I don't think he had his reading glasses on.
Yeah, that one baffled the hell out of me too. I think that's my favorite irrelevant and bizarre comment yet.
GUILTY as charged ... apparently, I did not have my "reading glasses on" ... or else, by some wierd internet glitch, it appeared to me that this thread was listed under "relationships" ... probably the former ... not that I have or need reading glasses ...in any case, it was probably my mistake ...please accept my sincerely offered apologies for being "irrelevant and bizarre"! I can see why you felt that way.
His argument was the same misinformed flash-in-the-pan remark we tend to get in this thread. Someone pops in and says they know it all and that Evolution has no basis and then disappears before anyone can point out that they may not have an accurate definition of just what the theory is.
NOT GUILTY as charged. I did NOT pop in saying I "know it all" NOR did I say that "evolution has no basis." Check back to the post in question (2624) and you will see that the questions asked are neither irrelevant nor bizarre. Any answers to my relevant and non-bizarre questions? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 1:24:38 AM | doesnt this guy get the message or what?
And, what 'message' would that be, oh weird one?
That you are of the same infantile mindset as tsur, to be of only able to throw childish insults?
I am sure wonka can defend himself without the need for a Junior High School mentality type as yourself adding impotent, meaningless comments.
as *I* (and others, including Forum Moderators) have said before to you:
"Grow Up", and stick to the topic at hand.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 7:27:56 AM | If there is no "creation", and an intelligent, creative force behind it all, where and how did it all get started?
Why, oh Why, do people believe the universe is too complex to have been created with out a designer, yet God, vastly more complex, can spring into being out of completely nothing????
They say, oh it's too complex to be randon chance so an even more complex system must have popped into being and then designed the less complex system. Dah? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 8:01:19 AM | | and you know what trewq? because quartz and mica have such organized crystals they were made specifically by the hand of god. probably when he/she/it smote some ancient culture. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 10:14:26 AM | "Kind of like what you have done on numerous posts?
("what if"..."Picture this"...etc...)"
Not at all the same. First I tend to clarify the fact when I am using a broad analogy as opposed to a specific fact, and secondly, an anecdote is not the same as an analogy used to explicate a point. I'm not saying that there is inherently anything wrong with an anecdote either, just that it is only appropriate in certain contexts. Anecdotes can be used to give a personal example of a supposition to better illustrate it, but he was more implying that the stories somehow strengthened his position. They do not, any more than my giving an example of some guy who lost his faith. Have you ever seen me do that? I don't because one person's personal experience is not substantive proof. It's an appeal to emotion.
"And, you are accusing him of lying? That is Tsur's infantile tactics wonka;
I thought even you were above that."
Very well, I'll give you this. It was not necessary to include "probably fictional" in my comment. Frankly, it does ring of a fabricated story to me, but I have no way of knowing that for sure, so, for the sake of argument, I'll take him on face value. It has no bearing on my argument anyway. I will remind you that your reference to Tsur was unwarranted. You attacked him based on something I said? You know that is wrong. Also, comments like "I thought even you were above that." are hamfisted attempts to guilt me into accepting your position. I assure you that such tactics have no effect on me. All you need to use is logic. I retract my implication that he was playing fast and loose with the truth, because I can't really know either way. That's all you need to say.
"wonka, wonka, wonka...No, you evidently can not, as shown overwhelmingly by your shrill, clearly one-sided posts. You fully admit to being non-theistic, so how can you possibly don the God-believing hypothetical glasses?
That is akin to a small child saying he can drive a car, or better yet, construct say, a nuclear bomb simply by reading a book about the subject. You are worlds away from fully understanding the Creation viewpoint, when you can't simply grasp the concept of a supreme being outside of your field of view."
Where do you get this notion that someone can't objectively use the rules of deduction starting from a given set of axioms whether he is emotionally tied to those axioms or not? It's absurd to suggest that I can't consider gods existence and reason from there. In fact I have many times, even in some threads in this forum. Your analogy of a child driving a car is way off the mark. First of all, a child can drive a car. My friend has taken his child for lessons in a parking lot, so your analogy disproves your own point. Also, one could construct a nuclear bomb from reading books, so, again, your analogy is flawed. Bolyei and Lobachevsky developed non-Euclidean geometry by assuming that Euclid's parallel axiom was wrong. They didn't believe it to be wrong as a matter of ideology; they simply took the position of working from a different axiom. You are confusing reasoning with emotional attachment. This relates to the process of science in general. Scientists are not emotionally attached (or they shouldn't be) to their suppositions. It's all about objectivity. The fact is that I CAN grasp the idea of a supreme being. It's just not a satisfactory conjecture for me. That's a personal choice. It is not my objective to argue an unprovable conjecture. It's a personal choice, but you're suggestion that I can't comprehend it is an insult to my intellect to say the least.
"Chill wonka..you know not 'everything', as much as you like to portray you do..."
CR- I am well educated and articulate. I have no intention of apologizing for that, or pretending I'm not so people will like me more. I have never claimed to know everything; in fact, my central position is the diametric opposite- that no one can claim absolute knowledge or truth. I am not trying to portray that I know of everything by commenting on those subjects of which I do have some knowledge. Please refrain from such heated verbiage. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 10:18:53 AM |
Why, oh Why, do people believe the universe is too complex to have been created with out a designer, yet God, vastly more complex, can spring into being out of completely nothing????
Clearly, trewq, God HAS a designer. The designer is the mind of man! Makes for a migraine-inducing recursive conundrum, doesn't it? LOL | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 1:28:47 PM |
Still, on topic, why does there have to be a necessary conflict between evolution and creation? Couldn't evolution simply be the "developmental method' employed by a Creator of sorts?
This has been covered before, but in brief. Evolution is the proces by which LIFE changes over time, not how it came into existance (Abiogenesis) and so it is posible for both to be true.
If the "big bang" theory (without an intelligent creative force) is true, isn't that rather like those cartoons where a house gets blown up and then magically falls to the earth in the form of a house again? How did a universe that is obviously put together with an enormously intelligent design get that way? Spontaneous generation? Design without a designer? That doesn't make a lot of sense, "scientific" or otherwise.
For a start, the big bang is not part of Evolution. The universe is the way it is, because it follows very strict laws. Have you ever watched fractal paterns being formed. They follow a chaotic path but build up to form intracate and complex desighns.
Gravity forces atoms to cluster together forming stars and planets and the motion of said stars and planets. A combintaion of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic interaction dras the Atoms into the shapes they are and also alow for atoms to combine into molecules. They govern the shape and size of everything by some very basic and simple interactions.
See quantum field theory for more) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Also, re the theory of man evolving from apes: despite the fact that some acquaintances of mine do lend credence to the theory, they still haven't found the "missing link" and I doubt they ever will.
You are right here. We will never find a missing link, because as an Archaeologist, we don't look for missing links. The Idea of missing links is a popular misconception of Evolution. We look for transitional forms, (Of which many thousands can be found, such as the mudskiper fish.) as Evolution is more like a trea than a chain.
When one thing Evolves into another, that thing dose not stop existing, or evolving itself, it caries on along its own branch. As such we look for things that show characteristics off both, then work out what postion it has on the evelutionary tree.
(For more see evolutionary tree.) http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html | |
|
|
| Page 104 of 156
|
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 |
|
Home
login 
