|
|
|
|
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 3326 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 1:45:49 PM |
The principles and empirical processes of discovery
This is taken from www.dictionary.com on the word "empirical'
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b.Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
It means data and data is knowledge my understanding is not in question here it is yours.
you said and I quote;
What science has is not 'worldly knowledge'.
I say yes it is this not about me reading the past posts...
My position is that the knowledge is based on different points one being worldly and asking for fact the other being spiritual and depending on Faith which is a gift from God not from ourselves. Contrary to worldly knowledge which is from ourselves like the need to explain God's hand in creation. I know that both exist my point in this debate is that when measured by the worldly knowledge both positions fall short yet they continue to be.
Why?
Faith is a gift on my side, how do you explain your side?
I am really trying to help you understand what I'm saying here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 2:23:27 PM | Seriously, I think you have an enormous problem with assimilation of the written word, and your employment of logical fallacies is sad.
First, our exchange was in respect to the meaning of scientific method. You provided your sloppy interpretation of that; I respond by providing a dictionary definition of method, one that clearly illustrated the insufficiency of your own position.
Remember you definition of METHOD:
"Method is an application of knowledge here on earth as far as I know!"
I said:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
The dictionary definition says absolutely NOTHING about application of knowledge. It is about the gathering and processing of knowledge. Scientific method is concerned with how we get to the point that we claim something is knowledge.
Engineering and other such fields concern themselves with the application of the fruits of scientific method. Physics applies the knowledge garnered from scientific method, biology too...but these are branches of science - they are not the scientific method. There is an enormous difference.
But in typical logical fallacy fashion, you attempt to use a straw-man argument, and attack the meaning of another word that was not the topic of our original debate.
You say the definition of empirical is this:
1.
a) Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b) Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
And make this conclusion:
"It means data and data is knowledge my understanding is not in question here it is yours."
This is a non-sequitor. First, how is this remotely similar to what you originally offered as teh definition of METHOD...oh wait it is NOT similar at all. Remember writing this "Method is an application of knowledge here on earth as far as I know". Now you are "data is knowledge". How these two statements remotely related.
Actually, it is funny when you consider you statement about data, when considering the definition of data:
1.
Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2.
Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3.
Values derived from scientific experiments.
4.
Plural of datum.
How very strange, it would seem data is "derived from scientific experiments".
You definition of method is clearly wrong. Why is it that you are unwilling to let go of this notion. Scientific method has no requirements of faith, and as all the definitions establish (even your empirical one) the conclusions that science makes depends on observable and verifiable evidence.
Thus my original statement that "science is not about worldly knowledge' it is about method remains accurate. The branches of science that employ scientific method contribute to our knowledge of the world, and the laws that govern it.
I will address your argument as you restated it, sentence by sentence:
"My position is that the knowledge is based on different points one being worldly and asking for fact the other being spiritual and depending on Faith which is a gift from God not from ourselves."
The idea that knowledge is based on different points is confusing to start. To you mean to say that there is two types of knowledge:
Type 1 - the type of knowledge that scientific method produces. I.E. testable, observable, verifiable, and subject to scrutiny.
Type 2 - the type of knowledge that cannot be proven through observation, or testing procedures. I.E. requires you to 'just believe' and use 'faith'.
If that is your position, then I am okay with that, and I would endorse scientific knowledge over that of faith based knowledge, even if it a gift from God.
Next:
"Contrary to worldly knowledge which is from ourselves like the need to explain God's hand in creation."
So you think that scientific knowledge is difficient because we were the ones to produce it. And you suggest that rather then try to test and verify our knowledge we should merely
'accept' that God did it. That is essentially your argument - God did it - if you ask how God did it you have no faith - if you ask for a demonstration or some indication that God did it, you have no faith and you are questioning God's gift.
Well call me naive, I would rather be able to openly question those things that exist in and around me.
And this is the clincher
"I know that both exist my point in this debate is that when measured by the worldly knowledge both positions fall short yet they continue to be."
Time out...you described scientific knowledge as worldly knowledge earlier, and said that science need faith to add up to faith based knowledge. Now you are saying that they both fall short...
What are they falling short of, is there some third type of knowledge you need to describe?
This is good too-
"Faith is a gift on my side, how do you explain your side?"
See you do what a good religious pond does, you set the up science and faith as though they are on opposite sides, as though there is some 'fight' between them. But to humor you and answer you question, my side has scientific method - you know where we actually look into claims of fact, invesitigate them, see if they hold up to scrutiny...my side was the side that allowed you to type your fallacies and post them on the internet. I suppose my side would have and endless thirst for knowledge. I think we are doing all right to.
Also, I would love to understand why you did not address the myriad of other points I raised in the previous post, such as:
1. why do you think there is a conflict between science and religion?
2. the difference between a theory and a fact, and your blatent misrepresentation of my early posts with regard to this issue.
3. and how religion should be taught in science if they refuse to use scientific methods. | |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 3328 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 3:26:50 PM |
First, our exchange was in respect to the meaning of scientific method. You provided your sloppy interpretation of that; I respond by providing a dictionary definition of method, one that clearly illustrated the insufficiency of your own position.
OK I understand you don't want to agree with my sloppy interpretation. I concede to your view but don't endorse it. I can see how you would see it that way.
The idea that knowledge is based on different points is confusing to start. To you mean to say that there is two types of knowledge:
Yes I clearly articulated that point one is a Spiritual knowledge and one is worldly knowledge one is attainable by effort the other is not.
And this is the clincher
"I know that both exist my point in this debate is that when measured by the worldly knowledge both positions fall short yet they continue to be."
Time out...you described scientific knowledge as worldly knowledge earlier, and said that science need faith to add up to faith based knowledge. Now you are saying that they both fall short...
What are they falling short of, is there some third type of knowledge you need to describe?
NO THERE IS NO THIRD KNOWLEDGE THAT I KNOW OF...
Evolutionist's would attempt to explain life theoretically with no true answer in sight, I am not in conflict with all branches of evolutionist's just the part that says nature is not designed by God.
Creationist's would attempt to explain God with no true answer in sight, I am not in conflict with creationist's just the part that says God exists because of science.
1. why do you think there is a conflict between science and religion?
Because the two are trying to merge and prove God's existence when God is a spirit not a phenomena. I think both views belong in our lives and our children's lives.
2. the difference between a theory and a fact, and your blatent misrepresentation of my early posts with regard to this issue.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the grasping of each others views, I've seen it happen before. I understand that you look at evolution as a theory and not a fact.
3. and how religion should be taught in science if they refuse to use scientific methods.
Who are they?
Religion or to be more specific Christianity holds the view that God created everything and that everything that has life was created by him and that God breathed life into us.
From my understanding there are many scientist that are beginning to conclude that life was designed and the answer may be God. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3329 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 4:49:41 PM | Because the two are trying to merge and prove God's existence when God is a spirit not a phenomena. I think both views belong in our lives and our children's lives.
This is why a Theologistic view has no place in a Science class, glad you agree.
That's the whole point of this thread.
Who are they?
Those who seek to further an agenda by deceitful means.
Religion or to be more specific Christianity holds the view that God created everything and that everything that has life was created by him and that God breathed life into us.
From my understanding there are many scientist that are beginning to conclude that life was designed and the answer may be God.
If that is their conclusion, it's not very good science, ...is it?
A scientist can hold any religious belief he wants until it crosses the line into the other frame of reference, than he isn't acting like a scientist.
Take for example the "Statement of Faith" on all the Creationist sites.
You know where they all are on the web, .....read their mission statements.
They all basically state that they want equal time in the context of science, and that they will NOT observe the scientific method or procedures if they conflict with their beliefs.
In essence, they are expressing that: "we want to be considered scientists even though we refuse to play by the rules and guidelines of science."
Evolution is a scientific fact, natural selection is the theory to explain it.
Should new scientific evidence to the contrary supercede the theory in whole or in part?
It is replaced in whole or in part, in which ever context applies.
If Creationism is to be a valid "science", ...what is to be done with the facets of it that evidence denies?
Hmmmmm?
Throw in a convenient miracle to explain it?
Misinterprate the evidence?
Lie?
Aside from the the former, which is entirely acceptable, ....in theology, ....the other two things, .....do they have a place in either science OR theology?
So, ....how then, ....is creationism valid science?
More importantly, ......consider the latter two issues.
How then are they parctising their "faith",
..........in "good faith"? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 7:01:48 PM |
Evolution is a scientific fact, natural selection is the theory to explain it.
Natural selection is one component of evolution, to be pedantic (or more precise).
--D. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 7:33:30 PM | Could someone explain to me why the great minds of today seem to mention
God in some context in science? If God is irrelevant to the field of science,
why is it that he is mentioned so often. Here on this thread, there seem's to
be outright frustration on the side of science, but when I read books and
excerpts from many scientists, there seem's to be a more calm and willingness
to discuss it and perhaps even embrace the notion of a deity.
Could someone, again I ask, answer why Albert changed his position and accepted
an impersonal God - what is it in his calculations that had him reflect on that
possibility...with GREAT relunctance. Why is this thread shunning discussion
on that...or at least seemingly so.
I confess, I bring this up because I like to let the underdog's here have
a respite and put you guy's on the defensive for a change.
No desrespect. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 7:42:33 PM |
Because the two are trying to merge and prove God's existence when God is a spirit not a phenomena. I think both views belong in our lives and our children's lives.
This is why a Theologistic view has no place in a Science class, glad you agree.
That's the whole point of this thread.
only if your point of view is coming from science is there no place for God. what percetage of evolutionists are God fearing people?
as to the balance of late(tm) responses to his post, should he be reminded creation and evolution share equal billboard space in this thread? Proving God exists using the rules of science is mere trickery by them to disqualify or a attempt to debunk religions whose beliefs are based on a single God.
Has anyones life been changed for the better because of a theory natural selection and/or evolution? How many yes' do i hear?
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 7:59:18 PM | only if your point of view is coming from science is there no place for God. what percetage of evolutionists are God fearing people?
as to the balance of late(tm) responses to his post, should he be reminded creation and evolution share equal billboard space in this thread? Proving God exists using the rules of science is mere trickery by them to disqualify or a attempt to debunk religions whose beliefs are based on a single God. Science is not against the idea of God. Science is not for the idea of God.
Science involves objectively testable phenomena and leaves God to the philosophers and theologists.
Has anyones life been changed for the better because of a theory natural selection and/or evolution? How many yes' do i hear? The idea that an argument is made valid due to the number of people that support it is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum Ad Numerum. The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude is known as Argument Ad Populum. You are doing both of these here.
I respect you religious conviction, but disagree with your position regarding science's malignity toward religion. Science is no more malign to religion than the art of basket weaving is malign toward baseball. The things are not related. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:24:26 PM |
Science is not against the idea of God. Science is not for the idea of God.
Science involves objectively testable phenomena and leaves God to the philosophers and theologists.
statement no. 1 agreed. statement no. 2 is not an absolute statement as long as the only intelligence source to working these theories are humans. statement no. 3 is more obsured based on my opinion on statement no. 2.
there are billions who are not philosophers and theologists but believe themselves in a single God
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:25:28 PM | http://www.religioustolerance.org/sherlock01.htm
This web site claims that many of the positions taken by proponents of evolution
is based on circlular logic and is baseless.
I don't know if any of you want to take a crack at it and read and find a flaw
in the arguement, but I'm studying it now and seem to be taken in by it.
It's the evolutionists that seem to be on the ropes reading this essay.
But I'd like to hear from you if you observed anything questionable in it's claims....just
don't reply with - "i'm not gonna read it, it's another blah blah blah" - keep that
to yourself. Respond if you are serious. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:46:52 PM |
It's the evolutionists that seem to be on the ropes reading this essay.
MY point exactly all along...
Brain examined only 2 of 10 sites I posted, and gave up further digging because, *Gasp*, the sites mention 'God'.
'Others' say they have been 'dismissed' or whatever already, but, same fallable reasoning because of the fact they mention God at work.
"Please"
This is open minded 'reasearch'? "NOT"
Tsur speaks volumes about 'me' doing legwork to check sources, but *DUUUH* seemingly refuses to dig a little and check the increasing number of LIES being routed out more and more on wikipedia and talk.origins. (against 'Creationists')
And as mentioned, 'others' seem to think this is simply a name calling forum against Christians and Creationists, while supporting the fallable THEORY of Evolution.
"Please"
Another obviously uninformed skeptic posts so called 'refutes' against McDowell, but does not realise they are merely by ones not educated for the most part in Apologetics?
"Please"
But I'd like to hear from you if you observed anything questionable in it's claims....just
don't reply with - "i'm not gonna read it, it's another blah blah blah" - keep that
to yourself. Respond if you are serious.
Sadly, most will NOT read it, for as shown countless of times, they are so wrapped up in the infantile mentality of: "My mind is made up, Please, stop confusing me with more factual evidences to support your views. It mentions a supreme being at work, therefore, I MUST automatically discard it and the Bible. So, I think I'll call you a childish name now and hope you will go away."
"Please" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:59:45 PM | Most will not read it and most will skim over it....so what? It can be argued that
on our corner we'll have the same thing happening. I've argued it before...in the end,
it's faith on both sides. Faith in science & faith in God. The ultimate question is
what CREATED the universe. I don't get easily influenced by the different breed's
of cat's dog's and ape's we find in the universe - I don't get influenced by the
various horses. I'm not gonna see a pattern with allllll of those different breeds and
ascert that I came from that ape or this monkey - these monkeys are dead and my
breed is surviving. Mutations? I can't buy it....according to the site, we need several
umpteen billions of more years for the mutations to have culminated to the point of
evolution we are at now.
Gentlemen, do your worst. ;) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:03:30 PM |
Rex Geissler, etc.
Cool stuff, AxyL. Thanks for contributing. Couple of questions, though. I went to the first site, and it seemed no more than a plan outline that one might show to potential contributors. It's an interesting idea, and some really cool archaeological stuff, but what bearing does it really have on the validity of science bearing out creation? There was one interesting point made about there having been 100's of "sightings" and 1,000's of pictures, but (in their words) not one boat! Is the archaeological effort being organised for the purpose of establishing that there is a boat there, or that, should there be a boat, it is the biblical ark?
After all we are continually growing in knowledge since the inception of the Net as we know it and creation and evolution currently exist in tandem whether we want them to or not.
Very good point here. I think the majority of the issues with folks disagreeing is because it's the perspecive they have on those existences.
16,000 animals (only?) contained within a space of 450' X 75' X 45' ?????
I'm better with conceptual ideas, so I'm not pulling up a decent mental picture of what this would mean. On the other hand, is there any reference to plants? I mean, not all plants are aquatic, and surely a flood that lasted for as long as this one was supposed to have would have killed off most if not all of the buried vegetation, wouldn't it?
One big part that is missing in this debate is the fact that there are two different types of knowledge that being spiritual and worldly. It's like mixing oil and water.
I'm sorry, I found this funny. It's exactly what everyone's been trying to say. Evolution = science. Creation = Faith. It's good to see someone who has a strong faith that can recognise that distinction.
Those that are evolutionists have their imagination or you may call it Faith too that something else happened other than what the Bible depicts.
Oops. Appears I might have misinterpreted. Those that accept evolution do so because, yes, there is a good amount of imagination going into the inductive process of defining a problem to test, as well as into the setup for tests to see if the hypothesis bears out. Beyond that, there are facts.
On the other hand, there are other fingers. Creationists, or those who accept the creation account as literal do so based on faith (not sure about the "gift not from ourselves" point), backed up by moral and possible historical observations and guidelines. Nothing wrong with either way of relating to the world. They're simply not built for addressing the same issues.
Since Christians (minus the fundamentalist crowd) are part of the worldly system and understand the basics of natural laws, I would suggest the evolutionists would have to shift their thinking toward the Spiritual in order to level the playing field.
I don't get it. What playing field?
Creationism is a movement of man that would like to prove God exists. Christianity is a movement of God the idea of Christianity is that God Loved us so much he sacrificed himself incarnate that is from spirit to material form. One is void of Faith the other is not can you guess which one has no Faith in the living God.
Not so! This is to the "Devoid of faith" idea. To even begin from a starting point that there is a god is a faith-based, or at least philosophical, position. This may not be the strength of faith that another might have to simply ignore evidence and continue believing, but it is faith, nonetheless.
You speak as if the evolution model is fact. I assure you it is not fact and that it takes faith to believe it.
Please explain how you see this to be true.
If there is no competition then lets share equal time in schools so there are no misunderstandings.
Does this mean that schools are the "playing field?" If so, this is an unfortunate analogy. This is more akin to the field of war. Again, with a one-sided view, however, in that science would be taught in science classes, and religion would have to be taught in religious classes. Which, when focusing on specific faith-based issues as truth, would happen to be unconstitutional.
My position is that the knowledge is based on different points one being worldly and asking for fact the other being spiritual and depending on Faith which is a gift from God not from ourselves.
Okay, I think I get it. What this is saying is that science, being "worldly," seeks to explain observations based on information gathered and repetitive testing, whereas religion, being "spiritual," focuses on explaining observations made by using faith. I'm still a little fuzzy on the "gift from God not from ourselves" issue, but this whole deal makes me think you'd only stand a jury if spectral evidence were allowed.
Faith is a gift on my side, how do you explain your side?
(there's that "sides" thing again!) To the question, I'd say, "rational thought." But, that's just me.
Evolutionist's would attempt to explain life theoretically with no true answer in sight, I am not in conflict with all branches of evolutionist's just the part that says nature is not designed by God.
And there it is. "Evolutionism" is a straw man, a fallacy, and an untenable position. Why? Because it was designed to be by the people who use it as an opposing force to their own beliefs. That's fine. It also pretty much invalidates this type of reasoning from being used in this discussion, since we're not debating the relative merits of faith-based spiritual knowledge versus a fictional position of materialism trying to unseat God. Back to the real debate, perhaps?
Because the two are trying to merge and prove God's existence when God is a spirit not a phenomena. I think both views belong in our lives and our children's lives.
I take it from this that my earlier interpretation wasn't entirely wrong, then; that you would also be opposed to including Creationism and/or ID in science classes. Is this an accurate interpretation?
Okay, too long. I'll be back. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3339 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:26:56 PM | as to the balance of late(tm) responses to his post, should he be reminded creation and evolution share equal billboard space in this thread?
Anybody could see that by reading the question of the OP.
Proving God exists using the rules of science is mere trickery by them to disqualify or a attempt to debunk religions whose beliefs are based on a single God.
Utter nonsense, the entire raison d'etre for the debate here is whether Creationism can withstand the scrutiny of science AS A SCIENCE.
Nobody is attacking religion, God, Jesus, Allah, from the terms of reference and the frame of reference of science. Not one person here has tried to disprove the existence of god using logic, ...probably because logic
can neither prove or disprove God, the boogyman. Baal, or any other theological deity because the existence of these things are predicated on the FAITH IN THEM.
Speaking of logic, the "circular logic argument only works if you don't agree with the stated premise.
D'UH!
For a believer, who has faith, who believes the bible proves god exists because it's the word of god.
This is fine in the context of preaching to the converted, and not fallacious as those in agreement have AGREED on the terms of reference.
Read carefully here, science is based on it's own terms of reference that those who pursue knowlege through science, agree on from the outset.
READ VERY CAREFULLY HERE.
The logical fallacy comes into play when one tries to co-opt the other premise via arguing it from another frame of reference.
Is this sinking in yet?
Read the "Statement of faith" in your sources so you can understand that they do not subscribe to the terms of reference OR the frame of reference of science.
Yet wants to be on equal terms with science, ....regarding science.
Can you dig it?
Do you see the complete waste of key strokes when you want to see something like this accepted in the frame of reference where it is NO DIFFERENT in validity than the myth of the Hammer of Thor is in a freaking coal mine.
From answers in genesis:
Q: Why are kangaroos found only in Australia?
A: This may surprise lots of people, but that's not the case.
It's interesting: at our Answers in Genesis seminars, we ask our audience:
How many of you believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? No one puts up their hands. Then we ask: How many believe that Noah's Flood was a real event? All hands go up.
How many believe that Noah's Ark was a real boat? Yes, they agree to that, too. How many believe that two of every kind of land animal, including kangaroos, went on the Ark? Yes, they accept that.
Then we ask: How many people believe that the Ark landed in the Middle East? Up go the hands. How many people now believe that kangaroos came off the Ark after the Flood? They start to chuckle as they put their hands up.
Then we say, how many believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? All the hands now go up.
You see, when we think from a Biblical perspective, we know that all land animals must've once lived in the Middle East.
Has anyones life been changed for the better because of a theory natural selection and/or evolution? How many yes' do i hear?
Were you ever vaccinated for polio?
only if your point of view is coming from science is there no place for God.
It's freakin' immaterial to science
Does anybody have an honest argument to deny this?
Sadly, most will NOT read it, for as shown countless of times, they are so wrapped up in the infantile mentality of: "My mind is made up, Please, stop confusing me with more factual evidences to support your views
Oh, ......the irony.
It mentions a supreme being at work, therefore, I MUST automatically discard it and the Bible.
How utterly libellous, ....
Read the statement of faith before you submit a cite as being "science".
Someone tries to get me to read a cook book when I am trying to talk about poetry, they insist that I am against cooking because they're told, ..."Hey, trying to talk about poetry here, please be logical"
Oh! lok at that bad man, he hates cooking he must hate food! He dismisses the COOK BOOK!
"No, I'm not talking about food"
Look at the bad man, he doesn't believe in food and ridicules those who eat! See?!
Uh, knock it off, it's getting kinda' stupid now.
HE CALLED ME STUPID! HE CALLED ME STUPID! .... can't even talk about poetry without these food haters calling people names.
This my friends is called a "soft" troll, it's baiting others and it's not fooling the people that are watching.
Dig?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:37:54 PM | only if your point of view is coming from science is there no place for God.
It's freakin' immaterial to science
Does anybody have an honest argument to deny this?
inmaterial to science? please unlink man from science and provide us with the protocol.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3341 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:42:02 PM | please unlink man from science and provide us with the protocol.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
Read that, ignore the observer. Just because you stop looking through a telescope, doesn't mean the telescope's not a telescope.
Your turn:
Show me an equasion with God in it.
And not like this? 46 - 987 x (miracle) = 42 (A form of mathematics called "Algebornagain"?)
????????????????????????????????????
Show me a chemical reaction involving prayer.
How about, the mass of an angel
The resonent frequency of a soul
Show me how God belongs in any science?
Has anyones life been changed for the better because of a theory natural selection and/or evolution?
Via derivation/synthesis -
Were you ever vaccinated for polio? or did you avoid it through prayer?
Is a vaccine more reliable if it's made by a pastor as opposed to an immunologist?
Theology is exclusive of science and vice versa.
Just as a conditioning shampoo won't play a role in installing a hard drive in your computer.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT DOING A COMPUTER UPGRADE IS
...............anti-shampoo.
How can the "science" used to explain the ark, be used in a practical manner?
By the same token.
Should the Christian bible be part of public school courses of study in:
Gym Class
Home Economics
French
Algebra
Geography
Physics
English
Creative Writing ...(Hmmmmm....)
Drama ....(well.......)
?????????????????
The OP, it seems some need reminding.
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School? | |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 3342 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:31:56 PM |
Creationists, or those who accept the creation account as literal do so based on faith (not sure about the "gift not from ourselves" point), backed up by moral and possible historical observations and guidelines. Nothing wrong with either way of relating to the world. They're simply not built for addressing the same issues.
Creationists want to prove God exists through science this is contrary to what the Bible teaches I am not one of them I am a Christian (believe in Christ as my Savior) and I believe evolution is a theory not a fact.
Since Christians (minus the fundamentalist crowd) are part of the worldly system and understand the basics of natural laws, I would suggest the evolutionists would have to shift their thinking toward the Spiritual in order to level the playing field.
I don't get it. What playing field?
Well.... we all have worldly knowledge but not everyone has spiritual knowledge that would make it unfair for those with no faith in God and I like to play fair.
You speak as if the evolution model is fact. I assure you it is not fact and that it takes faith to believe it.
Please explain how you see this to be true.
I'll get back to you on this one...I ran out of time. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:08:10 PM |
Could someone explain to me why the great minds of today seem to mention
God in some context in science?
I've got to admit I haven't seen any tendency to be forward in mentioning religious convicitons on the parts of scientists. I've got quite a bit more reading to do, however. One thing that I wonder about, though: Considering the sort of treatment that folks like Copernicus got from religion, perhaps there is some form of stigma that scientists tend to attempt to overcome? Sort of letting folks know ahead of time, "hey, man, I believe too. Don't shoot me down before you check out the actual theory." kind of gig?
No desrespect.
None taken. I'm not sure about the "underdogs" thing, though. If you're referring to folks that take and argue vehemently an untenable position without being in possession of the facts, I suppose one might consider them in need of defense. As for turning it around, it's no skin off me. Science pretty much holds its own.
only if your point of view is coming from science is there no place for God.
I may be wrong, but haven't we all, at one point or another, pointed out that this is bollocks? Science doesn't say there's no place for God. Science only says it doesn't care.
Proving God exists using the rules of science is mere trickery by them to disqualify or a attempt to debunk religions whose beliefs are based on a single God.
I agree with the point that "proving God through science is a sham." Unfortunately, that's what the average creationist argument amounts to. As for how this even applies to attempts to debunk religion, I think you lost me.
Has anyones life been changed for the better because of a theory natural selection and/or evolution?
Through medicine? Probably a whole boatload, if not more.
statement no. 2 is not an absolute statement as long as the only intelligence source to working these theories are humans.
Again, I think this has already been covered. Science doesn't make absolute statements. Nor should we. As for whether or not there is any other intelligent source to scientific theory other than human, you're probably right. But, even if it were otherwise, how would anyone know?
there are billions who are not philosophers and theologists but believe themselves in a single God
Yay them. And this is relevant, how?
It's the evolutionists that seem to be on the ropes reading this essay.
Yep, you're right. The strawman religion that they've set out to attack certainly is under attack. As for someone being taken in by it, that will happen, and it's a shame.
Evolution requires two observations in order to be ‘scientifically proven:’
Actually, this tends to depend on the definition of evolution. In "Darwin on Trial," Phillip Johnson makes a big stink about the broadness of the term and how it can be used to describe fluctuations in gene frequencies in populations on one hand and macroevolution from bacterium to human on the other, with a wide spectrum of meaning in between. I note that "evolution" is not defined in this essay.
A living organism emerging from inanimate matter;
The theory of evolution and the science directly related to it make no claims as to this. Here's some smoke.
Transitional forms demonstrating new DNA coding in their genome for a physical feature not previously seen in their species.
Took me a moment, but I think I might have puzzled out what this is intended to mean. It's not a bad criterion, really, but the wording is difficult. I'd say it might be a good mirror.
Therefore the creationist believes it is absolutely impossible for any random event to produce life from inanimate matter, even if it were possible to have a ‘primordial soup’ mixture containing all the necessary ingredients, covering the earth for billions of years.
This is important to point number one, and therefore, basically irrelevant. Beyond that, it's even saying that this is the Creationist's view of what an "evolutionist" might expect (a billions of years old primordial soup? Where do they get that?). Again, more smoke.
To date no-one has produced any transitional form that indisputably is at a part-way stage of developing any feature novel to its species. The evolutionist’s position is only maintained by displaying some of the large number of evidences for natural selection, and labeling them ‘evolution.’
This one's just pretty. I'm tempted to say "archaeopteryx," but I know someone's going to want more. How about bacteria and other microbes developing immunities to medication that, well, probably weren't there to begin with? What about bacteria that subsist on vinyl? I'm sure there's probably more, even in the incomplete fossil record. Still, good mirror.
I also love the numbers game being played on the whole percentage difference between humans and apes.
I'm done with that. There are some good points, as always, brought up that ought to be used to help direct investigation. New questions and the like. And that's cool. The misrepresentations of what's known, well, not so much.
One last thing, though. The argument that, due to one person's calculations of the statistics involved (I'm not going into my arguments on statistics), one particular set of inferences based on the evidence is not valid, does not immediately validate only one other possibility. I think the tendency to reduce the investigation to either/or is really selling both science and religion short.
Brain examined only 2 of 10 sites I posted, and gave up further digging because, *Gasp*, the sites mention 'God'. 'Others' say they have been 'dismissed' or whatever already, but, same fallable reasoning because of the fact they mention God at work.
See, this, I think is one of the issues that gets in the way. I'm not dismissing or invalidating any of the sites, myself, and I don't feel it's necessary. In the case of AiG, however, Late has a point. It's not that they "mention God" that makes their arguments untenable, it's that they state on the very first page, that if something in science, verifiable or otherwise, disagrees with their interpretation of scripture, whether or not the thing exists, it doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that open-minded, either.
...the increasing number of LIES being routed out more and more on wikipedia and talk.origins.
Again, could you cite specific examples? I don't think I've got time in my reading schedule to dig through the immensity of those sites to find all the points you reference. Not to mention that you've made a claim, and I'd like to support you if you back it up.
And as mentioned, 'others' seem to think this is simply a name calling forum against Christians and Creationists, while supporting the fallable THEORY of Evolution.
I believe the "name-calling" issue has been done to death. Let's please get beyond that. As for the theory of evolution being fallible, that's kind of wired into it, being science and all.
...they are so wrapped up in the infantile mentality...
BTW, is this the sort of thing you're referencing, when you speak of "name-calling?" Just curious.
I can't buy it....according to the site, we need several umpteen billions of more years for the mutations to have culminated to the point of evolution we are at now.
I can understand that view, and I certainly support you in feeling that way. I also see another way that the math could have gone (although I don't doubt there are many others, as well) and am not impressed with the statistics cited. I also believe that we don't have the full story, and that there may come more evidence to explain the problems that we are witnessing. That's the point behind science, after all.
inmaterial to science? please unlink man from science and provide us with the protocol.
I'm confused, but I want to try this. Man does not equal God. I'll turn it around and turn it up: GOD DOES NOT EQUAL MAN. How does this statement apply? Well, science does not address the nature or existence of a supernatural deity. That's what you're responding to, a post that basically says this. Then, you come back with "then man needs to be disconnected from science."?!?! How the hell does this even factor in? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:14:08 AM |
inmaterial to science? please unlink man from science and provide us with the protocol.
I'm confused, but I want to try this. Man does not equal God. I'll turn it around and turn it up: GOD DOES NOT EQUAL MAN. How does this statement apply? Well, science does not address the nature or existence of a supernatural deity. That's what you're responding to, a post that basically says this. Then, you come back with "then man needs to be disconnected from science."?!?! How the hell does this even factor in?
science requires humans, humans address nature or existance of a single God. as long as humans are the workers in science, then the purpose of science of evolution is at best is fallible.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3345 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:31:28 AM |
science requires humans, humans address nature or existance of a single God. as long as humans are the workers in science, then the purpose of science of evolution is at best is fallible.
Syllogistic fallacy -
quaternio terminorum
Besides, your conclusion, ...even though you arived at it via syllogistc error, makes the point for the exclusion of theology and science.
Science that doesn't allow for fallibility, ....ain't science.
Faith that doesn't allow for fallibility, .......is faith.
You
Don't
Get
It
You are doing everything to avoid the topic of the thread, why?
Science isn't on trial here, neither is God.
What the debate is about is:
How can you reconcile theology in the context of science AS science IN THE TERMS AND FRAME OF REFERENCE ............of science.
Hmmmmmmm? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 12:50:54 AM |
Creationists want to prove God exists through science this is contrary to what the Bible teaches I am not one of them I am a Christian (believe in Christ as my Savior) and I believe evolution is a theory not a fact.
Then, other than our religious affiliations, we're in agreement.
Well.... we all have worldly knowledge but not everyone has spiritual knowledge that would make it unfair for those with no faith in God and I like to play fair.
Somehow, this entirely fails to answer the question.
as long as humans are the workers in science, then the purpose of science of evolution is at best is fallible.
Okay, how 'bout, I reiterate?
As for the theory of evolution being fallible, that's kind of wired into it, being science and all.
Now, wasn't that fun? Let's learn more about science! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 1:03:22 AM | imho there is noway anyone can reconcile theology and evolution. i agree neither side is on trial, but it is a battle for anyone who wishes to listen. you take mighty big steps when you judge me 'you don't get it' i weight your muscle power exactly the same with less authority, much less.
your attempt to argue or reconcile theology in the context ... as science in the terms and frame of reference proves zero.
as to avoiding the topic of the thread the topic itself is obsured. I avoid nothing.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 1:38:22 AM | Show me how God belongs in any science?
I would ask this: what is most likely to first emerge into being in this 'universe' as we see it.
Matter? Or a conscience mind? There are only two choice's to make....it can be argued
it's a 50/50 chance for either side.
The real struggle of humanity and probably the first question we asked of ourselves
is who are we? What is the purpose? Where did we come from?
I view science as a means to ultimately answer these questions. We will strive
to leave this planet and send probes through the galaxies and seek life outside
the solar system. Attempting to find life on Mar's...any sign. We are struggling to answer these questions.
God is just another possibility that has not been excluded.
Every other week, we see and hear about discoveries looking and gazing near
the very 'birth' of the universe. We are trying to find out what our purpose is.
What is the purpose of a higher and intelligent mind when life can struggle along
as fishies in the ocean and compete in the food chain that way. Why should only
one mammal emerge and be blessed with super intelligence over all other mammals? What
kind of mutation is this? I'm sure the squid made a wrong turn during the
solar ray storms and is forever kicking himself for it.
Don't accept blind faith - my faith is built upon a more secure foundation. Mine is built
upon (to a degree) by science itself. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3349 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:00:39 AM | imho there is noway anyone can reconcile theology and evolution.
Is this a delibrate strawman fallacy, .....or are you just being obtuse?
i agree neither side is on trial
Not the purpose of this debate, correct.
but it is a battle for anyone who wishes to listen.
Now you're contradicting yourself.
you take mighty big steps when you judge me 'you don't get it'
I didn't have to take any steps, either you don't get it, or you are being willfully obtuse, ....it's your words that illustrate that you "don't get it", .....or, you are dropping non sequiturs left and right just to be a nuisance.
i weight your muscle power exactly the same with less authority, much less .
Okay, out of morbid curiosity I am going to try to make sense of this.
(I weight your muscle power) (exactly the same) (with less authority) (much less)
Hmmmmmmmmmm....... non sequitur
your attempt to argue or reconcile theology in the context ... as science in the terms and frame of reference proves zero.
My attempt?
 Charlie, Charlie, Charlie..... if I tell you this, will you promise to "get it"?
Here's the raison d'etre for the debate:
Introduction to the premise, ......ready?
I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
This would be "teaching science, of which "EVOLUTION" is inclusive, now, we are getting to the crux of the matter.
(no pun intended)
Why should the idea of creation be taught outside of Sunday School?
There, see? that wasn't so hard, what do they teach in "Sunday School? Charlie?
Science?
Nooooo......
In case you haven't "got it" yet, the "outside of", means in schools, public schools where they teach the science of biology which is inclusive of...... wait, ..it's coming.
Evolution.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Creationists mentioned and often cited in this thread, and it's 3369 posts, of which I am the second post and after I press send, the 3369th post, so you can be sure I know what the topic is, I was the first to respond to the OP.
Regardless, ....These folks have been trying to push for their story of Creation, to be taught along side of evolution in the, .....here it comes.....
SCIENCE class.
They have been doing so by offering what they call the "science" of Creationism, into the classrooms as a scientific answer to the scientific fact of evolution, and it's theory, "Natural Selection"
Natural selection, evolution, and yes, science......they don't play in the frame of reference of religion, or theology, which is what the Creationists base their idea on. Science doesn't go into churches and challenge the bible. Why?
Because. It's. NOT. Concrned. With. It.
However, since science is not pressing an agenda in the church for the church to challenge, certain ministries (old testiment literalists) (um, ....theological), have donned the mask of science's terms of reference (and misinterperating them BTW), and tried to use the Courts to force school boards to inlude their take on reality, in biology(a science) classes as a refutation of evolution(SSsscience).
Thus, it's the Creationists(theology) who want to be taken on equal terms(science) with evolution(science) in public(non religious) school's science(science) classes during the teaching of evolution(science).
.........You "get that" yet?
The OP is asking.
WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF !
Of Creationism.
And here we are, debating that (some of us)
as to avoiding the topic of the thread
Uh huh?
topic itself is obsured
Do you mean?
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
Well, yeah, that's my whole point, .....the idea of teaching Creationism in a Biology class is:
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
My point exactly, though some still try to peddle the same bunk that was dismissed months ago, go figger, eh?
I avoid nothing.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/28/2006 3:30:51 AM | you can add the word absurd along side with obsure.
there is nothing logical about evolution to begin with
i believe you might turn you attentions to christian schools as they dont seem to have any problems with having many, many classes without the evolution science nonsense.
| |
|
|
| Page 134 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
