|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 6:13:23 AM | I am in a constant state of evolution. I broke a finger nail yesturday; it will grow back, even longer before it breaks again.
I don't look at all like I did 20 years ago.
I am a result of two human forms, and all those who "begat" before them. But, I am different in looks, moods, thoughts. My linage is in a state of evolution.
Some of our evolution as mankind is choice. It is unbalanced for man to mate with his sister and she with her various brothers because the results are not so pretty.
The world has balance. The changes of our atmosphere and our land is evidence that everything is in constant motion - evolution - change, and yet an unknown sort of balance.
As I've said before. God may be a woman and women have the right to change their minds.
Oh, yeah; that's man's version of some piece of humor, so therefore it isn't really true; anymore so true as many of our other fashioned belief systems.
We are like mere ants, who may have a plan and execute it; but we are tiny in comparison to the ultimate cosmos plan of someone / something much bigger than ourselves.
Do not even begin to think that the ant, as smart as he seems (geez, leaf cutter ants make ferminted leaves into ant-beer), is in any way close to how intelligent mankind is.
Do not even begin to think that mankind is anywhere as evolved as things yet unknown.
It doesn't matter how much you argue about evolution vs. God's creation. You must admit that there is much speculation and misjudgement in things yet unknown.
There are many truths to evolution (ie: science) and we are learning more everyday.
There are many truths to God and creation and I for one, choose to believe that
God make life as we know it to constantly change, so as to keep us in balance.
And just maybe she gets bored easily....
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 9:47:03 AM | CR- from the beginning I've argued that science, and evolution specifically, does not exclude theism. Why do you care what my personal belief is? I don't care what yours is. You keep wanting to bring the conversation back to my personal beliefs on theism, and I keep telling you that it's irrelevant.
"Conversely, ya gotta admit, that evolutionists world wide even debate as to many specifics on the topic. Creationists for the most part are mostly in agreement as to 'their' versions...I would think that, logistically, one would actually favour a side that has most of it's supporters in agreement, rather than at odds over it?"
It amazes me that you say this after the posts I have made, as you are essentially making my point. Science is all about critical debate. When everyone agrees, that is indicative that they have settled on an absolute truth, and further inquiry becomes moot. Science rejects absolute truth. Science recognizes the search for truth as an ever ongoing comparison of theories. Did you read my post on absolute vs relative vs comparative truth? If so, is there anything you didn't understand that you need me to clarify? I know I can be verbose, so perhaps you didn't understand my point. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 9:47:36 AM |
^^ ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke....I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe..
Who did? When? On what basis? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 10:31:08 AM | "ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke....I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.."
Someone else made this point quite a few pages back, and it was commented on then. The salient issue is that we can only wildly speculate at this point in time as to what the probability of life emerging would be in the first place. Any reference to what that probability is is spurious. Abiogenesis is still a fairly nascent field of study, and we don't really know, with any level of certainty, all the factors that are necessary for life, and the precise environmental conditions that must accompany those factors. I'm inclined to believe that the probability is actually quite good, given the right conditions, conditions that must exist in many locations throughout the universe given it's immensity. Of course my position on that probability is not strictly scientific either as there is no hard data yet to make that assessment with any compelling certainty. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 10:47:42 AM | | There is also the possibility that life exists outside our scientific comprehension. The Mars "rock" that was discovered holds clues, but we know too little to make any certain conclusions... does "It's life Jim, but not as we know it" ring true here? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2631 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:19:38 AM |
does "It's life Jim, but not as we know it" ring true here?
In the context of the OP?
Certainly not on the side of the inclusion of pseudo-science in teaching science in schools. In that respect, conclusions based on divine intervention makes room for this only if it helps buttress an already held belief.
What the argument comes down to is giving equal time and academic weight to:
- Slanting perceptions to fit a fixed conclusion.
- Exposing conclusions under the light of scientific enquiry.
This thread hasn't "evolved" beyond this premise, and it's clear that creationism can only exist in the same course of study as evolution (a science), if we allow for the acceptance of logical fallacy IN science.
Evolution = Science
Creationism = Theology
Much the same as -
Dance = Performance Art
Architecture = Engineering
Should science be forced into classes on theology?
Should Architects be forced to dance? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:21:20 AM | That's true skypoet, and relates to my point. Even our vague definitions of what constitutes life may very well be myopic and limited to our anthropocentric perceptions. Life does not necessarily have to be carbon based. It doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to molecular structure even. Perhaps there is some other form of self replicating, mutable encapsulation of morphological information that is not molecular. In fact, the quest for Artificial Intelligence may very well be an example of the need to consider more latitude in our definition of life.
"Architecture = Engineering"
I agree with the spirit of your post, but, for the record, this is inaccurate. Architecture is a synthesis between art and engineering. In fact it's closer to art really, as many architects have only a cursory understanding of engineering and rely on actual engineers to edit their blueprints. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:38:07 AM | late
Pure speculation, on my part I assure you, but does it harm to think outside the box when it's still in topic?
Wonka; I like your anthropocentric direction, i.e. we are by our very nature, as human beings, limited to an understanding of the universe that is anthropocentric. To be human means to see the world in a certain way. In this sense at least, anthropocentrism is somewhat inevitable or should that be viable? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2634 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:39:29 AM | Life does not necessarily have to be carbon based.
Science agrees with you, so do many religions, ....but for different reasons.
I agree with the spirit of your post, but, for the record, this is inaccurate.
That may well be, but I stand by the analogy(I was thinking more along the lines of derivation rather than synthesis), even though it's a mangled Framk Zappa quote
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"
-FZ
many architects have only a cursory understanding of engineering and rely on actual engineers to edit their blueprints.
Still somewhat inaccurate, drawings that go from engineers to CAD programmers to the shop floor/site, are almost always, ....wrong. Like science, the final result is still subject to the empirical.
late™
(Ex- Architectural Metal Fabricator) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:49:54 AM | Should Architects be forced to dance?
Well of course, Yes.
Oh, but wait, do we teach Ballroom, Tango, Hip Hop, or maybe Disco, Ballet???
Same problem with Creation. Whose form of creation do you teach?
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories among the peoples of the world: Cosmic Egg (Finnish), Separation of Earth and Sky (New Hebrides), Creation from a Primordial Being (Norse), Earth Diver; Dualism (Huron), Emergence (Lipan Apache), Creation by Spoken Word; Repeated Creation (Quiche Maya), or my favorite, THE ELOHIM!
The oldest remaining beings in our universe originated about halfway out from the center of our universe, also known as the Great Central Sun. This are is where most of the life is. One of the groups looked around and decided that if they wanted to propagate their species, it would be better to do it outside their established area. So they looked around, secretly, in the outer perimeter of the universe, and found Earth.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:51:40 AM | from cr above ...
"While I am on the side of those FOR allowing 'some' kind of Creation version into the school systems, I think it could be done along the lines of at least allowing it as an alternative view, or showing what 'some' believe as well."
which version? one or all? the first one? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:51:53 AM | "Still somewhat inaccurate, drawings that go from engineers to CAD programmers to the shop floor/site, are almost always, ....wrong. Like science, the final result is still subject to the empirical."
Good point. Like science it is subject to critical examination and empirical testing. As a carpenter I am well aware that nothing is finalized until the finished product, and even then not necessarily so. Since engineering, as a discipline, is itself not conclusively finished, that would follow. Since we're mangling quotes, I'll mangle Popper- science is trial and elimination of error. Also, I know science is in agreement with my comments on the definition of life, but bear in mind that science also admits it to be a vague and difficult to define term.
Skypoet- yes anthropocentrism is somewhat inevitable, which is largely why science follows the methodology it does. Science always tries to be as objective as it can be, in an attempt to factor out these presuppositions, and fully admits that, many times in the past, it's progress has been hampered by not recognizing implicit assumptions, a perfect example being the implicit assumption that space and time are absolutes that Einstein brought our attention to. That's why science treats truth as competitive- read posts 2551 and 2553 to better understand my point, so I don't repeat myself too much. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2638 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 11:59:20 AM | "While I am on the side of those FOR allowing 'some' kind of Creation version into the school systems, I think it could be done along the lines of at least allowing it as an alternative view, or showing what 'some' believe as well."
which version? one or all? the first one?
How 'bout all of 'em?
....In a Theology class of course.
I don't think anybody here is calling for the outright ban on the teaching of creationism, rather, placing it's teaching in a course of study that is appropriate to the subject matter. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:22:40 PM | "I don't think anybody here is calling for the outright ban on the teaching of creationism, rather, placing it's teaching in a course of study that is appropriate to the subject matter."
That is exactly the point. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2640 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:32:18 PM | Yup, 3 questions in the OP:
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
1 - The meat trying to be passed off, isn't "beef"
2 - The "money" is in the form of an IOU
3 - ....or Theology, .....indeed, why? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:53:51 PM |
which version? one or all? the first one?
and...
How 'bout all of 'em?
....In a Theology class of course.
I don't think anybody here is calling for the outright ban on the teaching of creationism, rather, placing it's teaching in a course of study that is appropriate to the subject matter.
First off, for 'thisis2weird', I was initially referring to the Biblical account of 'Creation'; However, for the sake of the public school systems, and with deference to the North American institutes, I was proposing, that since in ascending grades, in History classes, various world cultures, ideologies, socio-political systems, and RELIGIONS are taught, as a basis for students to better grasp what the worlds populace (Read: "Humanity") is all about.
Further though, in respect to my suggestion, Since world religions are taught as basic education, for examinations of beliefs, etc, but not PROMOTING said religions individually, why not then, in 'Biology' classes, where the Theory of evolution is mostly taught, also do comparative studies showing the Biblical Creation account?
I would even *gasp* be open to the idea, since it IS a 'public' school system we are discussing, to have 'other' creation accounts entered into the cirriculum as well, for at the very least, comparative studies.
While there have been many here who disagree, There IS credible, scientific studies and evidences FOR a 'Creation' account, thereby, allowing it to be studied as same said alternate view of the origins of life, etc.
But 'late', I distinctly do remember, some shrilly arguing Against said 'Creationism' studies in a public school system, for their various reasons.
Creation, by it's very namesake, implies automatically, a CREATOR; i.e. 'god', supreme being, intelligent design, etc, etc. Hence, religious overtones are perhaps a by-product of said topic, as opposed to the predominant evolution stance, that no 'higher power' is responsible.
Admittedly, even as we have seen in thousands of posts here, it would be perhaps a logistical nightmare, as to where to even start for some kind of common ground basis for the teaching of 'any' Creation account, without the warning bells going off from the ones who maintain 'religion' should be kept out of the school systems. (As far as promoting it that is.)
But, going back to my History classes example, if it can be done in THOSE classes, why not in the science (i.e. Biology) classes as well?
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:01:28 PM | "But, going back to my History classes example, if it can be done in THOSE classes, why not in the science (i.e. Biology) classes as well?"
The fact that some historians may disagree notwithstanding, I would not consider history science, as it is not intersubjectively testable. Archeology and paleontology, which are related to the discipline of history, on the other hand are sciences, but history goes beyond those factually based disciplines to posit theories which must remain, without benefit of a time machine, highly speculative and untestable. Anyway, religion's relevance to history is undeniable. I don't think anyone would argue that point. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2643 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:08:58 PM | There IS credible, scientific studies and evidences FOR a 'Creation' account
Nope, in 107 pages, not one cite has survived the scrutiny of the science it aims to contradict.
The terms of reference are what is at stake, the only arguments against are strawmen and petitio principii
The thrust of the matter is:
Those who seek to make divine intervention inclusive to the study of sciences, seek to do so to further the agenda of their faith, ....NOT the agenda of science.
When teaching electronics, should prayer be a valid avenue of trouble-shooting and repairing a short circuit? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:13:51 PM | hmm, methinks you kinda missed a little my comparative analysis wonka...
My point was, 'Religion(s)' are taught in History classes, with basically examinations of the historical and cultural facts at hand, but without usually promoting one religion over the other.
The same then could be applied to teaching the Biblical account as an 'alternative view' (vs. evolution) of the origins of life, etc.
Another thing that would bog this down in the school systems, in part, would be the bias of the teachers in said classes, whether they be for Creation and against evolution, or vice versa.
While I agree with you somewhat on 'some' historians being in disagreement, certain world events happened exactly the way they did; As much as some revisionists subtly and sometimes NOT so subtly, attempt to either discredit certain events, (The Holocaust for example) or cast doubt on said events as well, well established historical data always proves said fallable revisionists wrong every time.
As I'd mentioned before, some non-religious individuals even dare say Jesus Christ never existed, as a very short sighted attempt to discredit the Bible; But even Jewish and Roman Historical unbiased texts from that time period mention Him several times.
'late' says:...
Nope, in 107 pages, not one cite has survived the scrutiny of the science it aims to contradict. I guess then you have not read every single posting. That's a pretty broad and assumptive statement you made; nice try though.
Have you actually ever, with an open mind, examined 'ALL' of what 'answersingenesis.org', Creation Research Society, and a vast number of other organisations have to say? Looks on the surface from your generalisation statements, the answer would be 'No'.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:18:10 PM |
EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXCLUDE GOD.
Minor point of order here: yes, it does. Science and evolution do not preclude the possibility of a creator, but the theory of evolution and the methods used to research and test it do exclude the assumption of a creator.
While I am on the side of those FOR allowing 'some' kind of Creation version into the school systems, I think it could be done along the lines of at least allowing it as an alternative view, or showing what 'some' believe as well.
Yes, it naturally borders on religious injections, but I think with enough input, it could be brought to enough school boards to as to be shown as the proverbial alternative.
I disagree, at least in regard to science classrooms. "A little input," or "a little time, thoughtful discussions and patience" would almost invariably yield the same thing. In order to stay true to both the spirit of ID and the intent of science classes, it would boil down to a caveat at the beginning of the study of evolution to the effect of, "Now we're going to study the mechanism by which life changes over time. There are those who believe that there was an ultimate beginning lifeform that procreated and changed over time to give rise to all life on Earth, and there are those who believe that all life on Earth spontaneously appeared, and life went on from there. Neither of these positions is relevant, however, so we'll go on with the lesson."
I would think that, logistically, one would actually favour a side that has most of it's supporters in agreement, rather than at odds over it?
Okay, not to be ugly about it, but this just seems like saying, since there's one camp who are all convinced, why not join them, be convinced, and call it a day? The phrase "intellectual laziness" keeps popping up in my mind, but I want to believe you mean something entirely different.
"ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke....I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.."
Someone else made this point quite a few pages back, and it was commented on then. The salient issue is that we can only wildly speculate at this point in time as to what the probability of life emerging would be in the first place.
I still argue that the "estimate of the number of atoms in the universe" has got to be wild speculation as well. The entire argument is one of appeal to emotion, specifically wonder. Wow, isn't it wonderful that this scientist is such a wise man that he can figure out the number of atoms in the universe, as well as the probability of this by no means understood or even observed problem? And, doesn't that support the wonder of God, since we can't figure how such astronomically improbable things could ever come about (without investigating)?
Should Architects be forced to dance?
Considering the gracelessness of modern architecture in some cases, it might help.
Of course my position on that probability is not strictly scientific either as there is no hard data yet to make that assessment with any compelling certainty.
I think this illustrates one of the points that we haven't really gotten to in the debate, at least not in detail. I read this, I see humility. I've noticed througout that the humility of both sides starts at an almost equal point: we just don't know for certain. Scientists tend to carry this with them througout the method of observation/research/experimentation/etc. They're looking for the facts, or at least the next previous causal step. On the other side, there's plenty of humility, in that, well, we're all subject to the Divine, and therefore we can't dictate what can or has happened. On this side of the debate, it is accepted that a fantastically superior being created the world, and we're all practically bugs skittering around trying to figure it out, until religious truth is revealed to us. I think the problem that I have (at least as far as the conduct of the debate) is that it's at this point that humility seems to go out the window. Bolstered with an unprovable absolute truth of a moral nature, some folks suddenly lose track of the fact that we still don't know for certain. Science tends to believe it has a functional method for answering its questions, but relgion tends to believe it has all the answers. At least that's the way it looks to me. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2646 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:34:02 PM | Have you actually ever, with an open mind, examined 'ALL' of what 'answersingenesis.org', Creation Research Society, and a vast number of other organisations have to say?
No, fortunately the work, in terms of scrutiny of these sites, is all ready well represented. talkorigins is one of many sites that exists to expose pseudo-science, the work has already been done in terms of critical thinking.
There is no "Unified Quantum Physics/ Biology/ Archeology/ Et Al" disipline of science taught in schools, if there was such an ill-concieved pursuit, then I suppose there would be a "Science of Creation".
No such unified course of study exists. In terms of "science", creationism is a "pseudo-science", as such I have no problem with it being included in a course of an academic study. One already exists, it is called Theology.
I'll go one further, I don't think that it should be an elective, in regards to academic study. As long as no "belief system" is given more weight than any other, I think such a course would not only open minds, but it would foster healthy skepticism and illustrate the importance of critical thinking.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:38:00 PM |
There is no "Unified Quantum Physics/ Biology/ Archeology/ Et Al" disipline of science taught in schools, if there was such an ill-concieved pursuit, then I suppose their would be a "Science of Creation".
I believe your talking about a Grand Unification Theory. Science admits that this does not exsist yet, but encourges scientists and thinkers to keep taking steps to solve the puzzle. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:40:01 PM | Hey Feral- new pic. Cool.
"Considering the gracelessness of modern architecture in some cases, it might help."
Another laugh out loud moment from Feral. I'm still chuckling when I read that over again.
"but without usually promoting one religion over the other.
The same then could be applied to teaching the Biblical account as an 'alternative view' (vs. evolution) of the origins of life, etc."
Which is why it is a subject for comparative religion along with Feral's ideas of creations, the Hindu version, the Morman, etc. I have explained exhaustively why it's not science as have many others, so, since you refuse to accept what is the prevailing definition of science there is really no compromise here. What constitutes scientific theory is the issue, so we'll have to agree to disagree as they say.
"While I agree with you somewhat on 'some' historians being in disagreement, certain world events happened exactly the way they did; As much as some revisionists subtly and sometimes NOT so subtly, attempt to either discredit certain events, (The Holocaust for example) or cast doubt on said events as well, well established historical data always proves said fallable revisionists wrong every time."
Why CR, I'm so proud of you. This is a cogent and rational rejoinder to my post. Of course I would point out that Nazi Germany is so close to us in history and there is so much media evidence that to refute it happened is patent nonsense. Speculations as to whether or not Alexander the Great was gay, on the other hand, are open to debate. I would also add that I am not one of those non-religious people who think Jesus did not exist. I think it's safe to assume he probably did based on what evidence we do have. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2649 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:40:40 PM |
Grand Unification Theory
Hmmm.... "Spinoza's God" maybe?
(jk) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 1:49:00 PM |
Hmmm.... "Spinoza's God" maybe?
Pfft. David Suzuki wannabe.  | |
|
|
| Page 106 of 156
|
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, 131, 132 |
|
Home
login 
