|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 10:54:13 AM | "evolutionists exclude said supreme being from their equation all together."
First, I have to reiterate (I think I and others said something to this effect about fifty pages ago) that I take some exception to the word "evolutionist." There really is no such thing. It implies some cult where every member predicates all matters of philosophy to a unifying principle of evolution. I know of no one who would call themself an evolutionist in the way that one may refer to himself as a Marxist. Evolution is one theory in a broad expanse of scientific theories and observations. Even a biologist is not an "evolutionist." Evolution is a theoretical tool that biologists use. That being said, it's a quibbling point, but still needs to be made.
Yes, in science it is excluded from the equation in much the same way that determinism is excluded from quantum physics. Determinism was one of those unwitting presumptions that science caught on to and factored out. It is an a priori axiom that is not directly observable, so there is no scientific reason to assume it's true. Conversely, causality is an assumption that is empirical, and safe to operate under within the confines of science. Unless of course factual data should, in the future, give us reason to doubt it.
"This is often times the problem with mere typed words in this exchange of ideas; we never get to hear the nuances of what one would say vocally, nor do we get to see sometimes the tongue in cheek renditions of some thoughts shared either. *WINK*"
You are absolutely right. I tend to avoid subtle humour, parody or satire on the internet for this reason. My sense of humour in person is actually more of a blend between subtle and absurd. Perhaps I may have mistook your intent at times due to a lack of physical clues.
"True enough, but take that a few steps further, and realise that even 'science' sometimes can not 'explain' EVERYTHING that surrounds us...seen or UNseen.
Give you an example, "FAITH"-wise, I am of the belief that the Biblical account of a 6 day creation period is the Truth, for ME."
Exactly. Science can not explain everything. It probably never will. The more we learn, the more we learn how intractably complex it all is, and yet elegant at the same time. But science is just a tool. What it can't explain is left to other avenues such as religion and philosophy.
"But, this of course is still way much less time than the BILLIONS of SPECULATED years conjectured by some evolutionists."
First lets replace "evolutionists" with scientists, and it is more accurate to say that pretty much all of them regard the universe on the order of billions of years old- between ten and twenty.
"The bottom line thought for me, is that while I believe it to be a 24 hour day, the possibility in my open-mindedness exists for the chance it 'may', 'perhaps', 'possibly' someday be found to be even a day equals a thousand or even said one million years."
This is a neat idea that has been explored by various philosophers.
"In summary, my Faith still has me adhering to the belief that 'God' (Jehovah) "CREATED" it all...
Sometimes though, as mentioned, God in the Bible, has used terms, definitions, etc, to make it easier to understand for the times it was written in.
Even Jesus used Parables in teaching the masses;
Does this mean He lied to get His message across? Of course not."
If starting from the premise that a Christian God exists, this is pretty much the conclusion that I would arrive at. Clearly the bible is not a textbook on how the universe is constructed. It's a collection of parables, historical accounts, legends, genealogies etc. that are meant to inspire wisdom. Like I've said before, I loosely compare it to a zen koan.
"Methinks when we all get there and gather to chat with one another, there will be ALOT of ones exclaiming, as Homer Simpson does when his inner lightbulb glows: "DOH!""
Frankly, I'm rooting for you to be right. I'd prefer not cease to exist. Of course if I'm right, then we'll never know. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 12:12:19 PM | Looks like it's a party of 3 at least - I intend to buy the first round upstairs 
You guys are a hoot to read. Methinks God thinks so too. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 12:36:26 PM | "I intend to buy the first round upstairs"
Really there's beer in heaven? Micro-breweries? Because I like the dark flavorful beer. Ah, what am I saying- I'm sure God brews a damn fine stout. Well, if I die and find myself walking amongst the clouds, I'll meet you guys at a The Angel's Head Pub, and we'll knock back a few.
See this beer looks too watery. They need a porter icon. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 1:41:19 PM |
as a matter of faith, religion treats truth as an absolute. It's either right or it's wrong, and evidence is irrelevant, where as science is quite different, treating truth as comparative.
Being raised with religion, I saw first hand this example. Many things that were unexplainable were proclaimed as God's will, or God's purpose, so therefore the truth without contestation.
Science seeks an answer to these theological "truths" based upon a comparative analysis. The problem being that some of these "truths" have nothing to compare to, no point of reference.
So perhaps some of the disagreements between creationism and evolutionist are derived from the generalized comparative analysis by the sciences and the unsubstantiated "truths" proclaimed by the creationists.
Maybe if we start at one specific point of debate, hash it out, then move on. Keeping tallies of course. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2680 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 2:52:50 PM | Maybe if we start at one specific point of debate, hash it out, then move on.
The gist of the OP is:
Why should creationism be taught in a science class instead of one that is concerned with religious matters?
You answered this, " the truth without contestation." .....this does not fit the framework of scientific enquiry.
they use lies, misinformation and outright libel
Cite?
My original analogy was quite accurate, Thank You.
Nope.
Consider what you are basing this on:
" I guess then you have not read every single posting. That's a pretty broad and assumptive statement you made; nice try though."
False assumption , nice try though. I've been following this thread since it was posted by the OP, and several others that were posted prior to it. The ID proponents come and go, but they all end up citing Hovind and his ilk.This bunch has an agenda, and it's to co-opt the teaching of science in schools.
"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'."
Hmmm... there is no need to examine ALL, just as there is no need to drink an entire litre of milk to confirm that it's sour.....
No, your analogy is based on false assumption and fallacy, but, as you are holding AIG to be a bona fide source of scientific enquiry, this is par.
They in no way exclude science from their beliefs; just because YOU may not like it, that they proclaim a Christian Faith 'first', in no way takes away from their scientific facts and evidences shown.
Yes it does as it specifically states that if science precludes a faith-based finding, the science is peremptorily disallowed based on: "petitio principii"
And also, I am so happy for you, that you can refer to a dictionary to look up meanings of words, But, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
I'm glad you're happy, too bad about the selective vision thing though......
The definitions quoted do NOT exclude one topic from the other.
Immaterial to the premise, each course of study is valid only if they are taught within the framework that allows for the terms of reference they are expressed in.
evolution in science
creationism in theology
Credible Creationists fully admit to have a belief system in place right up front (HONESTY)
And then use SCIENCE to further PROVE said belief system.
Thank you, you proved my point. They also agree "up front" to discard any science that doesn't fit their agenda,
That being: Evolution = No 'supreme being' at work.
Evolution isn't concerned with theology, no, it is a science. I'm glad you agree.
Meteorologists don't collectively insist on being part of critiquing movies either.
Having said all that, bottom line is, while evolutionists Claim a neutrality of sorts, the facts are that they are NOT (DECEIT)
I would agree with the premise if scientists were actively pursuing an agenda to have their terms of reference forceably included in a Theology course, or on Benny Hinn, or 100 Huntley St. broadcasts, ...but, this is not the case.
Your "bottom line" is the inductive fallacy of false analogy.
Let's try another analogy, draw poker:
The game is 5 card stud(teaching evolution), no draw(using scientific terms of reference), nothing wild. (this is not a theology class)
One individual wants to be included in the game, however, he states that: "Should my hand not be sufficiant to win a pot, I will either: (creationism wants equal time in the guise of science)
A: Draw cards until I can win (only allow for scientific evidence if it doesn't contradict)
B: Be allowed to claim that any of my cards are wild (Allow for divine intervention when science doesn't "fit")
Would you let him in the game?
If he is barred from the game, do you ignore the fact that the game already has rules and claim that the dealer is biased because he isn't allowing another player to make up his own rules?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 2:52:52 PM | "So perhaps some of the disagreements between creationism and evolutionist are derived from the generalized comparative analysis by the sciences and the unsubstantiated "truths" proclaimed by the creationists."
Well, ya. That's pretty much what I've been saying. There is a clear demarcation between the two definitions of truth, and is largely what sets science apart from most everything else-psuedoscience, religion, some branches of philosophy, superstition... To put it in overly simple terms (which you know I hate to do  ) if you can't test it, it aint science. Also, if you can and do test it, and it comes up with unsatisfactory results, it aint science. That does not mean that science proclaims any untestable conjectures as false, just not scientific.
"Science seeks an answer to these theological "truths" based upon a comparative analysis. The problem being that some of these "truths" have nothing to compare to, no point of reference."
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Could you restate it? What theological truths does science seek to answer?
Late- I like the card game analogy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 7:35:27 PM | exclude said supreme being from their equation I doubt that is remotely true. There has been no proof that a supreme being doesn't exist, so why would any reputable scientist exclude one? Perhaps what you mean is that they haven't reached a point where they consider that one is essential to their equation.
Wonka has a good point about the confusion of creationists, 'evolutionists' and 'other scientists'. evolution is a very small part of creation, dealing with development since the first occurrences of life and present day creatures in existence. Cosmologists study events from the Big Bang to the formation of the stars and planets. Not sure how you would classify the biochemists who study abiogenesis. While Cosmolgy and abiogenesis are fascinating topics and relevant to creation, criticisms of these topics are not really relevant to evolution.
A day is as a thousand years, which is 360,000 days, which is 129,600,000,000 days which is more years than the age of the universe. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 10:14:06 PM |
To put it in overly simple terms (which you know I hate to do )
Ah - really? I hadn't noticed. Wonka, If not for you I'd barely use my dictionary. :-)
Science seeks an answer to these theological "truths" based upon a comparative analysis. The problem being that some of these "truths" have nothing to compare to, no point of reference."
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Could you restate it? What theological "truths" does science seek to answer?
Oh, just your basic run of the mill miricles. ie: immaculate conception, water to wine, that sort of thing. No point of comparison. Now of course my thrust being that in not having a comparable subject for its analytical review, some of the more enthusiastic proponents of the science/evolution contingent will infer that an "untestable conjecture" is false. Earlier someone (qj? paraphasing) stated and rightly so that science and the scientific methodology empirically claims that although there may be a lack of proof, it does not imply that there is no proof. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 10:28:53 PM | "...stated and rightly so that science and the scientific methodology empirically claims that although there may be a lack of proof, it does not imply that there is no proof."
"Lack of proof" is "no proof" by definition unless you mean that there just isn't proof yet for some conjectures, which is certainly possible in some cases. Allow me to be presumptuous, but I think what you mean is that, just because there is lack of proof, does not imply that it is false, and we've all said this in one way or another. I've said it. QJ's said it. Feral has said it. I'm pretty sure Raze and Dryad have said it too. I'm pretty sure you have also, and I'm sure I'm leaving a lot of others out who have also said it. It is derivable from my demarcation between the different approaches to truth. I'm still not exactly getting your point with relation to metaphysical doctrines like immaculate conception, except to say that they can't be proved false. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/2/2005 11:37:43 PM |
Late - the portion of this class that attempted to show the various different religious beliefs, how they differed, (IE: some do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but a prophet and super good guy only) etc... was when a few people walked out and it was announced a day or two later that the course would not reappear the next semester.
Okay, there's some interpretation I'm doing here, but bear with me. I'm guessing that the folks that "got up and walked out" on the course were offended or upset by the point of view that Jesus might have been only a prophet and a really good guy. I'm also speculating that the course might probably have been pulled due to complaints from those people or others with similar views. This is the problem with interpretation that is not addressed. Had someone pointed out that the discussion was of religions or philosophies that hold those beliefs, rather than those beliefs themselves (possibly assumed out of context to be supported by the course), perhaps the institution providing the class might have argued that the class was not at fault in any way, and could have kept it. Don't know, myself, but like I said, that's how I interpret it. The fact that I'm interpreting through the memory of similar experiences where such intentional misinterpretation took place might have something to do with my perspective.
Some of the non-religious persuasion think they have the only true answers too; denouncing all other beliefs as false.
Okay, here's the ticket. This is true. Some people do interpret science and its subset of biology, evolution, to infer that there is no creator-god. These people, just so we're clear, are operating on just as irrational a level as those who say that all supporters of evolution refuse to accept God. Thus, those beliefs are irrelevant to science.
I am taking my issue from something Ferel said about the religious believing they "have all the answers". I don't think that is a true statement anymore than I would believe that all scientists think alike.
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.
Fair enough. As a point of fact, I didn't mean "the religious," so much as "religion" as an institution. Moral answers, granted, is the general thrust of what religion is supposed to be about. However, there have been some posts on here in the past when the line has blurred between the "absolute truth" of morality, as expressed through religion and the accuracy of interpretation regarding scientific findings. The two don't mix. Hope I've cleared this up some, but if it doesn't make sense, let me know.
.....do you see where I'm going with this?
The two don't mix well.
Hadn't even read this while I was writing that. Great minds think alike, eh? Good thing ours do too.
Much the same with the Creationists viewpoints; While there are the aforementioned opposing viewpoints, with dubious counter evidences at best, they do for the most part, take even moreso the same attack they accuse 'Creationists' of: Attempt to simply discredit, by mostly misinformation, speculation and conjecture, rather than actually examine fully the opposing factual evidences at hand.
CR, I've been referencing AiG myself, independently. I've also been reading it. I don't doubt that they've got some halfway good science going on, in the few spots where they're dealing with actual science. The point I make is that the science does not actually strengthen the position of creation. It may cast doubt on evolution; it certainly raises more questions for evolution to research in its quest for answers. However, the science behind Intelligent Design simply does not show any direct causal evidence for the existence of a creator.
Therefore, also within each of those studies, the 'Creation' Model could be applied, as it relates naturally to each specific science.
This would work. It really would, if there were evidence that scientifically supported the claim.
Your broad generalisations to simply cast off 'creation' into a theology class are really not well informed or well researched.
I'll admit I don't know it all. And, if you think my observations are not based on complete information or research, please tell me where I can find more information. I really would like to see if there is actual empirical evidence of creation.
We always think we've learned the final truths of the world when we dig up another ancestor who looks a bit different.
Who thinks these things?
A different method than scientific discovery.
Exactly the point.
As noted below, They in no way exclude science from their beliefs;...
Except in the case of evolution.
just because YOU may not like it, that they proclaim a Christian Faith 'first', in no way takes away from their scientific facts and evidences shown.
Except when it comes into direct conflict with scientifically derived information that precludes the political agenda.
The regard for the 'god not in evolution' topic, was also to refer to the long said phrase, that Creation infers a Creator; It is a hand in hand examination that can not be seperated one from the other.
The issue is not that this is or isn't the case. It's patently true that "creation" assumes a "creator." What this does, however, is render the argument unscientific, in that the assumption is neither observable nor falsifiable.
...am having to make reference to the facts that most evolutionists exclude said supreme being from their equation all together.
I did point this out. Yes, evolution, the theory used to help understand the development and diversity of life on Earth, does exclude from its premises anything not observable or irrelevant to the study at hand.
That being said, it's a quibbling point, but still needs to be made.
I disagree. The fact that this hypothetical "movement" to promote evolution (in opposition to biblical literalism) is pointed out so often raises serious misgivings about some folks' understanding of the debate. It turns it into an "us vs. them" mentality, and confuses the core issues of the debate. I, for one, am not so much offended at the use of the term as dismayed at the effect it has on people's perceptions of one another as being in diametrically opposed camps with no hope of reconciliation.
Science seeks an answer to these theological "truths" based upon a comparative analysis. The problem being that some of these "truths" have nothing to compare to, no point of reference.
Which would be why science doesn't seek answers to theological truths and confines itself to the observable, phenomenal world. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 12:31:56 PM | Here's something, I found on the Web, that some of you Christians might find interesting:
Evangelist preaches 'God-glorifying' evolution
By Jill Smith Religion News Service
For the past three years, Michael Dowd has traveled the country with his wife, science writer Connie Barlow, sleeping in their van or at friends' homes and preaching a 14-billion-year-old gospel.
''The Great Story,'' as Dowd calls it, presents the epic of evolution as sacred and meaningful, rather than as a mechanized process of random improvements. It combines the discoveries of science with a reverence for God and a reinterpretation of Christianity.
Dowd was ordained as a United Church of Christ minister but is no longer connected with a specific denomination. The self-described ''evolutionary evangelist'' recently brought his message to the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Washington County in Hillsboro, Ore.
Question: You started out as a conservative, fundamentalist Christian. But you're at a very different point today. Can you tell me a little bit about your spiritual journey?
Answer: I grew up Roman Catholic, oldest of four kids. But my parents divorced when I was 12. Then in my teenage years, I went with a friend to a Baptist youth camp and it was very conservative. It shaped my world view quite a bit. I tried to get everybody saved and nobody wanted to be saved, so I got really frustrated.
I struggled a lot with drugs and alcohol in my later teenage years. Then I joined the Army and spent several years in Germany. That's where I had a born-again experience and was discipled in a conservative evangelical context, in an Assemblies of God church.
I went to Evangel College, an Assemblies of God college. I was going to double major in biology and biblical studies. My first day, the biology teacher held up the textbook we were going to use and I just completely freaked. I walked out of class. I told my roommate that Satan obviously had a hold in this school. I could not believe a Bible-believing college could be teaching evolution.
Q: So what got you to your current position?
A: Two big factors. One, I met a hospital chaplain who (called himself) a Buddhist Christian. He was literally the most Christlike person I had ever met. My head said, ''Get him saved'' because he was theologically so liberal I was sure he was going to hell. My heart said, ''Ask him to mentor you.''
It was also the Evangel professors that were clearly embracing evolution and were clearly Christ-centered people. I couldn't write them off as being demonically possessed.
Q: So they showed you how to accept evolution and still be Christian?
A: The school's basic philosophy was: ''All truth is God's truth, wherever it's found. If there's a conflict between science and the Bible, the conflict is probably our interpretation of one or the other.'' The professors taught us there was more than one way to interpret the Bible faithfully.
Q: How has your view changed?
A: In 1988 and since then, having embraced the universe story, I no longer see Christianity as the one right, true religion. Nor do I see God as primarily being outside the universe. I see God as a sacred name for the whole of reality.
Q: That sounds very different from the idea many Christians have of a personal God who can be their friend.
A: Yes, but it's more intimate for me now. When I had a picture of God as being outside the universe, I imagined prayer as petitioning a supreme being to act in a certain way. Now, prayer is like a cell in the body communicating with the very body of which it's a part.
Q: Do conservative Christians show up to debate you on your speaking tours?
A: All the time. I always try to respond lovingly, respectfully, not defensively. When I speak to conservative Christians, the very first thing I say is: ''You are absolutely right to have rejected evolution. Because the only version of evolution most of us have been exposed to is a chance, meaningless, mechanistic process. But I'd love to share with you why I'm passionately excited about a God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way of thinking about evolution.''
Some of the same guys (who come to my programs ready to do battle) have come up and literally given me a bear hug at the end. They say, ''You haven't converted me entirely, but I'm not threatened by your perspective.'' | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 7:04:44 PM |
Your broad generalisations to simply cast off 'creation' into a theology class are really not well informed or well researched.
I'll admit I don't know it all. And, if you think my observations are not based on complete information or research, please tell me where I can find more information. I really would like to see if there is actual empirical evidence of creation.
That has been directed at 'late', Feral..sorry you thought I was replying to you..LOL
Speaking of 'late':
they use lies, misinformation and outright libel
Cite?
Try, most of the contributors to that site?
I've been following this thread since it was posted by the OP, and several others that were posted prior to it. The ID proponents come and go, but they all end up citing Hovind and his ilk.This bunch has an agenda, and it's to co-opt the teaching of science in schools.
ID proponets come and go...because this is actually a 'dating' site, maybe they found their guy or gal, and moved on?
And, care to PLEASE supply references that "they all cite Hovind..."
Another broad, generalised and misleading (incorrect) statement.
And oh, PLEASE give the references that there is a conspiracy to co-opt the teaching of science? "this bunch has an agenda"? Pluuuuuease....(references PLEASE) I'm glad you're happy, too bad about the selective vision thing though......
Oh, I get it; you are confessing your prejudiced bias for the flawed, fallable theory of evolution, right?
Immaterial to the premise, each course of study is valid only if they are taught within the framework that allows for the terms of reference they are expressed in.
evolution in science
creationism in theology
Ok, so using my previous History class comparison, are you now saying we should take the long studied topic of world religions OUT of the History classes and also throw THAT into the Theology class too?
What's next? Throw Hygiene classes into Theology classes too??
("Cleanliness is next to Godliness" after all...*WINK*WINK*)
Thank you, you proved my point. They also agree "up front" to discard any science that doesn't fit their agenda,
Gee! JUST like evolution scientists do!
 Hmmm... there is no need to examine ALL, just as there is no need to drink an entire litre of milk to confirm that it's sour.....
Actually, in your case, the CORRECT analogy would be, you watch the opening credits of the movie, and get up and leave because you do not like the way they are presented, without even staying to watch the actual movie, and THEN go around telling everybody what a LOUSY movie it was, and drag in the critic's review to bolster your case.
In summary, you have not cited any facts or evidences herein, only your opinions, with speculations, conjectures, and off the mark analogies.
I'm shocked that as a 'Moderator', you have reverted to 'chatting', when we mere mortals are told the Forum Rules forbid it.
"I intend to buy the first round upstairs"
Really there's beer in heaven? Micro-breweries? Because I like the dark flavorful beer. Ah, what am I saying- I'm sure God brews a damn fine stout. Well, if I die and find myself walking amongst the clouds, I'll meet you guys at a The Angel's Head Pub, and we'll knock back a few.
Ashley & wonka, you guys GOTTA try some of our East Coast micro brewery stuff sometime, some of them have won International Awards too!
"Cheers" | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2688 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 7:18:07 PM | "they all cite Hovind..."
And his ilk.
ilk
n : a kind of person
And oh, PLEASE give the references that there is a conspiracy to co-opt the teaching of science?
Pluuuuuease....(references PLEASE)
Are you not aware of recent court cases?
Gee! JUST like evolution scientists do!
cite: re: evolution scientists discarding the scientific method
Ok, so using my previous History class comparison, are you now saying we should take the long studied topic of world religions OUT of the History classes and also throw THAT into the Theology class too?
Nope, that's not even the topic of this thread.
Actually, in your case, the CORRECT analogy would be, you watch the opening credits of the movie, and get up and leave because you do not like the way they are presented, without even staying to watch the actual movie, and THEN go around telling everybody what a LOUSY movie it was, and drag in the critic's review to bolster your case.
Nope, it's like not standing in a line for a public washroom to see a movie.
I'm shocked that as a 'Moderator', you have reverted to 'chatting', when we mere mortals are told the Forum Rules forbid it.
Cite please, through proper channels or this is libel. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 7:31:35 PM | I'm shocked that as a 'Moderator', you have reverted to 'chatting', when we mere mortals are told the Forum Rules forbid it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite please, through proper channels or this is libel.
1) It was a tongue in cheek comment, made light-heartedly...
BUT, since you are replying...
2) I will quote a line from YOUR posting, concerning Rules made 6/27/05 at 10: 09: 34 AM:
Please note the following common reasons for post and thread deletions:
*Chat (will be deleted from forums.*)
3) This was but one the the Rules posted, and 'chat' was mentioned a few times by you in said post.
Are you not aware of recent court cases?
I do not have "Court TV" on 24/7; My apologies. So, care to reference Please?
Ok, so using my previous History class comparison, are you now saying we should take the long studied topic of world religions OUT of the History classes and also throw THAT into the Theology class too?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, that's not even the topic of this thread.
So, care to explain then why you and some others are beating the Creationism-taught-in-science-class topic over the head severely IN this thread?
Nope, it's like not standing in a line for a public washroom to see a movie.
Hmm...A negative Hypothesis; Not very scientific, eh?
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2690 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 7:51:02 PM | Creationism-taught-in-science-class topic
Because it is the topic of the thread. Creationism is Theology based, not science based.
Chat
Accusing me of abusing the forum rules in an effort to further an "argumentum ad hominum" in a thread is not a part of honest discussion and violates several of the forum rules. That is a fact that isn't up for interpretation. Moderators are necessary, or the forums cease to exist, this is another fact. Thirdly, being a moderator does not preclude one from participating in the forum threads, besides having the responsibilities of forum moderation, we are also members of POF. If I have abused my position as a moderator, report it via the proper channels, ie: the forum abuse thread on the help forum. Be advised though, if you intend to pursue a vendetta agains a site volunteer by falsely accusing them, it probably won't yield the results that you want.
Hmm...A negative Hypothesis
Not a hypothisis at all.
let me re-iterate with what I feel is a better analogy:
draw poker:
The game is 5 card stud(teaching evolution), no draw(using scientific terms of reference), nothing wild. (this is not a theology class)
One individual wants to be included in the game, however, he states that: "Should my hand not be sufficiant to win a pot, I will either: (creationism wants equal time in the guise of science)
A: Draw cards until I can win (only allow for scientific evidence if it doesn't contradict)
B: Be allowed to claim that any of my cards are wild (Allow for divine intervention when science doesn't "fit")
Would you let him in the game?
If he is barred from the game, do you ignore the fact that the game already has rules and claim that the dealer is biased because he isn't allowing another player to make up his own rules?
As for the agenda of the ID proponents, there are many references to court cases here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/
If their raison d'etre isn't to have their religious views included in science classes, than why does this thread even exist? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 8:09:13 PM |
Chat
Accusing me of abusing the forum rules in an effort to further an "argumentum ad hominum" in a thread is not a part of honest discussion and violates several of the forum rules.
As said, stated very clearly in my reply, I was speaking tongue in cheek.
But I was also quoting rules, rules you posted, and also mentioned by "Pandy" (a Moderator as well) in post # 2628 of this thread; Since you specifically asked me to 'cite' for you.
Summary: You asked; I answered.
let me re-iterate with what I feel is a better analogy:
draw poker:
I feel, IMHO, your analogy is flawed and does not clearly reflect the subject at hand.
I also feel, IMHO, that my analogies have been far more accurate.
But, guess what, Welcome to the Human Race, where not everyone thinks like me, nor do we all think like you. We all though, have the right to our OPINIONS.
"Vive Le Difference!" | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2692 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 8:14:08 PM | I feel, IMHO, your analogy is flawed and does not clearly reflect the subject at hand.
How?
Which fallacy is it guilty of?
What is the flaw, does science NOT have anything to do with the "divine"? Does creation not allow for it, and even BASE itself on it?
Many sciences have within their bodies of work, things that are counter to what is expressed by churches, mosques, temples, etc., and their respective beliefs.
You don't see them trying to force these issues on them, ...probably because they recognize that there are different terms of reference and so the pursuit is a waste of time, not to mention pointless.
Science doesn't account for the "divine" because it isn't in the frame of reference of science.
This is the whole point. You don't measure miracles with an plumb bob or a frequency counter.
If you look at this in reverse, the same thing applies.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/3/2005 9:51:35 PM | It's not like AIG is open to science - their own 'Statement of Faith' from their website says so clearly:
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
So it's quite clear that AIG a priori simply rejects any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of Scripture to show a young Earth.
That's not science, it's religion. If physical evidence contradicts a claim made in the Bible, then the Bible is simply wrong. I'm quite fine with that. So was the Church for most of the last 2000 years. The Bible is chock full of allegory.
And I note with amusement that one poster actually had the chutzpah to criticize someone else for not reading AIG's website. Note that anyone who *did* study AIG's website would of course know AIG's 'Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use' page ( link ). The obvious conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.
Oh, some of us *do* know AIG's ideas, likewise ICR or other groups. They're all cranks. Now it's your turn; why don't you go read some actual science?
--R.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 11:20:16 AM |
I'll admit I don't know it all. And, if you think my observations are not based on complete information or research, please tell me where I can find more information. I really would like to see if there is actual empirical evidence of creation.
...Feral..sorry you thought I was replying to you..LOL
Regardless of to whom the comment was made, I'd still like some information.
And oh, PLEASE give the references that there is a conspiracy to co-opt the teaching of science?
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document
Big recommendation on this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/worldview.asp
Ok, so using my previous History class comparison, are you now saying we should take the long studied topic of world religions OUT of the History classes and also throw THAT into the Theology class too?
The distinction is that religion (all religions, by the way) has had a demonstrable impact on history, and what is taught in history classes is the fact and effects of religion's role in history. Comparably, one could include religious input in a biology class if it were demonstrably applicable to the material. Since there is no empirical evidence of religion having directed or otherwise affected the course of life's development, there is no reason to include it in biology classes.
I feel, IMHO, your analogy is flawed and does not clearly reflect the subject at hand.
I also feel, IMHO, that my analogies have been far more accurate.
I disagree with how you feel.
This is the whole point. You don't measure miracles with an plumb bob or a frequency counter.
If you look at this in reverse, the same thing applies.
Not sure I agree with this. Certainly, science has no tools with which to measure or directly observe supernatural effects, religious fervor, faith, etc. However, it has long been the policy of religion in general to assign moral values to aspects of the phenomenal world. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2695 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 3:26:47 PM | However, it has long been the policy of religion in general to assign moral values to aspects of the phenomenal world.
Sure, ....different toolbox though, this is where the two are mutually exclusive.
.....both ways.
You can't argue religion on science terms either, different toolbox/frame of reference.
Like math and music.
Ever open a greeting card with a logic chip that plays even something simple like "Jingle Bells"?
Unless you are tone-deaf, ..... there is always at least one note completely out of intonation. The chip using "perfect" divisions of the 12 tones, ......doesn't work, even within' one octave. You have to skew the numbers to account for tonality and resonance shift. The chips aren't sophisticated enough. In music the low end is always slightly sharp, the high end slightly flat.
tempered
Neat to watch on a scope.
Different frames of reference.
Tone-deaf acoustical engineers are completely useless.
Same with a piano tuner who uses a freq counter ONLY.
Sounds like ass, most people can't hear it, .....to the few who can, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Different terms of reference.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 3:39:12 PM | | Late, I agree. The point I'm making is that science comes from a viewpoint that is critical of its tools. Religion might be to a degree, but, with the insistence that the material world is subject to theology (how they get from the will of God to what they believe that will to be, I don't know), it's understandable why some groups would continue the argument once they are shown the dissonance. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 3:47:31 PM | | Like this thread, creation and evolution seems to be going on indefinitely! | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2698 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 4:05:27 PM |
with the insistence that the material world is subject to theology
This is where they cross the line into intolerance, simple solution.
Don't cross the line, no problem.
.....Dissonance, hyuk hyuk...... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 4:09:32 PM | | Thought you'd catch that. And, like I said, I agree. To me, it's mostly about understanding the viewpoint that leads to the argument, since, to me, the argument seems rather straightforward. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2700 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/4/2005 4:46:25 PM |
the argument seems rather straightforward.
And, .....black and white,
....there's no grays here.
Creationism IS valid, .....in the context of religion.
It is in a box of it's own making, outside that box?
Petitio Principii | |
|
|
| Page 108 of 156
|
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, 133, 134 |
|
Home
login 
