Re: bunches of hypocrites
-
First, I agree that there are Creationists that hang on to ideas which have been rebutted rather convincingly by evolutionists. So, don't think I took the other thread as an offense. Second, don't think that I assume all evolution-believing people are hypocritical either. (I just happen to believe that there are actually more people who unhypocritically (is that a word?) believe that evolution is true than there are unhypocritical people who believe that Creation is true.) :| Anyway, I would like to be able to get (have gotten?) a read on what other people think about this site. It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it appears that a couple of you would actually be interested in checking out the site. (Mike? David? Paul?) :-D Here it is: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm Specifically a subpage: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John *briefly wonders if he's jumping in over his head again*
-
First, I agree that there are Creationists that hang on to ideas which have been rebutted rather convincingly by evolutionists. So, don't think I took the other thread as an offense. Second, don't think that I assume all evolution-believing people are hypocritical either. (I just happen to believe that there are actually more people who unhypocritically (is that a word?) believe that evolution is true than there are unhypocritical people who believe that Creation is true.) :| Anyway, I would like to be able to get (have gotten?) a read on what other people think about this site. It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it appears that a couple of you would actually be interested in checking out the site. (Mike? David? Paul?) :-D Here it is: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm Specifically a subpage: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John *briefly wonders if he's jumping in over his head again*
I had a quick scan. FWIW I'll make two comments. 1/ The young earth theory is so obviously not tenable, nor is it what the Bible says. Genesis 1 indicates God created men, and Genesis 2 records a later date when He formed *a* man, Adam. A careful reading of the Genesis record will establish this for anyone curious. 2/ I have no problems with schools teaching my daughter the theory of evolution. I will obviously raise her to know what I believe and have experienced, any parent, even an athiest, will do that. But ultimately there is no benefit and much harm in hiding other viewpoints from her and not teaching her to think for herself. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
First, I agree that there are Creationists that hang on to ideas which have been rebutted rather convincingly by evolutionists. So, don't think I took the other thread as an offense. Second, don't think that I assume all evolution-believing people are hypocritical either. (I just happen to believe that there are actually more people who unhypocritically (is that a word?) believe that evolution is true than there are unhypocritical people who believe that Creation is true.) :| Anyway, I would like to be able to get (have gotten?) a read on what other people think about this site. It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it appears that a couple of you would actually be interested in checking out the site. (Mike? David? Paul?) :-D Here it is: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm Specifically a subpage: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John *briefly wonders if he's jumping in over his head again*
What evolution-believing people? Evolution, my ignorant friend, is a science and not a religion, thus it can't possibly be believed. By trying to compare it against the creationists or religious ideas (that are definately not scientific) you are comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't make sense at all. Science is about research and asking questions, putting the questions and answers to the test, finding a new theories to replace or extend the old ones. Finally, ask a new questions and new answers... Now, even thought you have to keep the distance to every scientific theory, you can still use it to do certain things. The creationism doesn't give any scientific way to measure or predict things, it can't be put to the test and it can't be falsified. Thus it's not scientific. The theory that provides all the answers doesn't asnwer anything in fact. Evolution is a dynamic and usefull way to describe the world around. It doesn't answer all the questions and it never will. It allows to ASK the questions rather than to give an instant answers. That is how the science works, nothing to believe. Like, do you believe in the math? Well, do you believe there is a square root out of -1? And yet humans are able to use such a thing (ever heard about the complex numbers?).
-
First, I agree that there are Creationists that hang on to ideas which have been rebutted rather convincingly by evolutionists. So, don't think I took the other thread as an offense. Second, don't think that I assume all evolution-believing people are hypocritical either. (I just happen to believe that there are actually more people who unhypocritically (is that a word?) believe that evolution is true than there are unhypocritical people who believe that Creation is true.) :| Anyway, I would like to be able to get (have gotten?) a read on what other people think about this site. It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it appears that a couple of you would actually be interested in checking out the site. (Mike? David? Paul?) :-D Here it is: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm Specifically a subpage: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John *briefly wonders if he's jumping in over his head again*
John, the primary reason sites of this type are not of much interest is for one fundamental reason that people of a religious nature always overlook. Within the context of the scientific methodology it is *OK* to be wrong. Being wrong about something does not invalidate the scienitific method, it simply means the theory in questions needs to be reevaluated based on new information. That is the primary *strength* of science not a weakness as the religious community would have people believe. Religion plays a very dangerous game when it confronts science headon. Religion is based upon faith, not upon evidence. If you have to rely upon scientific methodologies to validate your religious beliefs, all you achieve is a validation of the scientific methodology not of your religion. The strength of religion is in its appeal to the human ability to have faith in the unknown, the unknowable. *That* is the weakness of science and the strength of religion. If you want to show me something of interest concerning religion, show me something that appeals to faith, not to science. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
First, I agree that there are Creationists that hang on to ideas which have been rebutted rather convincingly by evolutionists. So, don't think I took the other thread as an offense. Second, don't think that I assume all evolution-believing people are hypocritical either. (I just happen to believe that there are actually more people who unhypocritically (is that a word?) believe that evolution is true than there are unhypocritical people who believe that Creation is true.) :| Anyway, I would like to be able to get (have gotten?) a read on what other people think about this site. It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it appears that a couple of you would actually be interested in checking out the site. (Mike? David? Paul?) :-D Here it is: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm Specifically a subpage: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John *briefly wonders if he's jumping in over his head again*
John, First, we are talking here about 'macro-evolution', not 'micro-evolution', right? Well, classical Darwin 'macro-evolution' has problems. Has had for a while. However, I believe this article exaggerates the extent of the problems. Many evolutionists see the need to update/modify/enhance that theory, but (it appears to me) not many outside of the creationist movement are advocating it's complete removal. For evey creatonist who raises an objection to some aspect of evolution, I can find an evolutionist who will dispute the objection. It's not a debate that has been concluded, by a long shot. The creationists are offering a counter theory - Intelligent Design. Now that we have two theories, we can start examining and testing to determine a winner, right? No, because only one of the theories is falsifiable (evolution). Since ID contains a 'supernatural' element, it cannot be falsified - part of it's argument is "it is because god made it so". This is an unchallengable argument. Therefore, ID cannot be falsified. For the same reasons, it cannot be proven. Therefore, we can only examine evolution and see if we can falsify that. Fine, that's what we should be doing - tesing the current theories with new data, and updating if required. So what happens if we succeed in falsifying evolution? Does that prove ID? No. IF we can come up with no other theory other than ID that adequately explains the facts, then ID is the new superbowl champion (for the time being). We then continue to look at the evidence, and see if we can unthrone that theory. Assuming for a moment that ID becomes the dominant accepted theory. Would that prove the existence of god. Probably - depends on how poor any alternative theories were. Would that convert me from an Atheist? Yes, into an Empirical Agnostic. At that point I would be forced to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural power at some point in the history of the universe. That power may or may not still exist. That power may or may not have an interaction with humanity. That's a LONG LONG way from proving the existence of the christian god. And just to demonstrate why this seems so irrelevant to the christian cause, let me offer you two alternative theories that are just as valid as ID : 1. Aliens. The good old Erik von Daniken theory. Little green men in spaceships came to earth several billion years ago, and either seeded the earth with live stock, or "intelligently designed" the primodial soup to produce it's current crop of life
-
John, First, we are talking here about 'macro-evolution', not 'micro-evolution', right? Well, classical Darwin 'macro-evolution' has problems. Has had for a while. However, I believe this article exaggerates the extent of the problems. Many evolutionists see the need to update/modify/enhance that theory, but (it appears to me) not many outside of the creationist movement are advocating it's complete removal. For evey creatonist who raises an objection to some aspect of evolution, I can find an evolutionist who will dispute the objection. It's not a debate that has been concluded, by a long shot. The creationists are offering a counter theory - Intelligent Design. Now that we have two theories, we can start examining and testing to determine a winner, right? No, because only one of the theories is falsifiable (evolution). Since ID contains a 'supernatural' element, it cannot be falsified - part of it's argument is "it is because god made it so". This is an unchallengable argument. Therefore, ID cannot be falsified. For the same reasons, it cannot be proven. Therefore, we can only examine evolution and see if we can falsify that. Fine, that's what we should be doing - tesing the current theories with new data, and updating if required. So what happens if we succeed in falsifying evolution? Does that prove ID? No. IF we can come up with no other theory other than ID that adequately explains the facts, then ID is the new superbowl champion (for the time being). We then continue to look at the evidence, and see if we can unthrone that theory. Assuming for a moment that ID becomes the dominant accepted theory. Would that prove the existence of god. Probably - depends on how poor any alternative theories were. Would that convert me from an Atheist? Yes, into an Empirical Agnostic. At that point I would be forced to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural power at some point in the history of the universe. That power may or may not still exist. That power may or may not have an interaction with humanity. That's a LONG LONG way from proving the existence of the christian god. And just to demonstrate why this seems so irrelevant to the christian cause, let me offer you two alternative theories that are just as valid as ID : 1. Aliens. The good old Erik von Daniken theory. Little green men in spaceships came to earth several billion years ago, and either seeded the earth with live stock, or "intelligently designed" the primodial soup to produce it's current crop of life
I usually try to stick with code on 'CODE'project but since this seems to be a popular topic I thought I'll clarify a couple of points. Terminology: ------------ Allah: It is the arabic word for God. A suprise to many will be that Christian arabs use the same word. The the word it self in arabic is very unique in several ways from a linguistic view. Unlike the english word for God, Allah is a word used to reference the one God. In the english language we can have the word 'gods' In arabic it cannot represent pluralism. In arabic it also is unique word in the that it doesnt take masculine or feminine(ie goddess). etc etc (hey its way past midnight local time) Quran/Koran(I commanly see it spelled both ways): It is the exact words of Allah (God) as brought down to the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). It is considered the lasting miracle of Islam. Not one dot has changed and remains as it was brought 1400+ years. It is memorized by millions around the world. It contains no contradications, is a linguastic miracle(ie one of the challanges the Quran gives is to make even one chapter like it), and is Islams proof and miracle. ------------ The problem with alot of these types of impersonal discussions on the interenet is the use of 'science' to justify things. People spew out a couple of: though 'evolution' this or 'the universe is like that' without really knowing what they are talking about. The problem with that is no one reading has the attention span to read and wait and then read some more and respond and wait(can't wait till this new generation of '1-min attention span' grow up). Thats the reason why I tend to stay away from these topics on the net. I thought I would point out a couple of 'science' points: Chris Maunder(sorry taking a shot while ur not around) recently wrote: "A self defeating question. If space/time isn't infinite, then what's outside it? And outside that? The trick is: there is no outside (stop trying to picture it!)." Space as we know it is finite, an unfathomable size but finite. In fact I believe scientists estimate that it grows something along the magnitude of a couple trillion miles per second(this in its self is amazing) not sure if that is squared or cubed. As for time according to our understanding it also has a definite start. On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion, usually Christianity a
-
I usually try to stick with code on 'CODE'project but since this seems to be a popular topic I thought I'll clarify a couple of points. Terminology: ------------ Allah: It is the arabic word for God. A suprise to many will be that Christian arabs use the same word. The the word it self in arabic is very unique in several ways from a linguistic view. Unlike the english word for God, Allah is a word used to reference the one God. In the english language we can have the word 'gods' In arabic it cannot represent pluralism. In arabic it also is unique word in the that it doesnt take masculine or feminine(ie goddess). etc etc (hey its way past midnight local time) Quran/Koran(I commanly see it spelled both ways): It is the exact words of Allah (God) as brought down to the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). It is considered the lasting miracle of Islam. Not one dot has changed and remains as it was brought 1400+ years. It is memorized by millions around the world. It contains no contradications, is a linguastic miracle(ie one of the challanges the Quran gives is to make even one chapter like it), and is Islams proof and miracle. ------------ The problem with alot of these types of impersonal discussions on the interenet is the use of 'science' to justify things. People spew out a couple of: though 'evolution' this or 'the universe is like that' without really knowing what they are talking about. The problem with that is no one reading has the attention span to read and wait and then read some more and respond and wait(can't wait till this new generation of '1-min attention span' grow up). Thats the reason why I tend to stay away from these topics on the net. I thought I would point out a couple of 'science' points: Chris Maunder(sorry taking a shot while ur not around) recently wrote: "A self defeating question. If space/time isn't infinite, then what's outside it? And outside that? The trick is: there is no outside (stop trying to picture it!)." Space as we know it is finite, an unfathomable size but finite. In fact I believe scientists estimate that it grows something along the magnitude of a couple trillion miles per second(this in its self is amazing) not sure if that is squared or cubed. As for time according to our understanding it also has a definite start. On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion, usually Christianity a
I feel like arguing today, well, let's see... I usually try to stick with code on 'CODE'project (snip) Well, here is your first mistake - this is the Lounge, no code. Want some code? Go to the code section! ;P The problem with alot of these types of impersonal discussions on the interenet is the use of 'science' to justify things. Wrong again - science is here to explain and explore. People spew out a couple of: though 'evolution' this or 'the universe is like that' without really knowing what they are talking about. Now, back off - who people? From the posts here I can assure you that most of the people knows exactly what they are talking about. The level of discussion about the evolution is very hight. On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question. ' Frankley I say: so what if things evolved. Yeah, you could also ask: so what if Earth is spinning, or so what if matter is built with atoms or so what if electron has an electrical charge. Well, intelligent mind is always curious about the world. A. Many Microbiologist using computer simulation say that the time period needed for such mutation and evolution was way above the required time that it took place. And many others say it's just enought. That simply proves that we don't know how to build the computer models on the subject just yet. B.In physics there is a law that the natural order of things is to go from order to disorder(some of you might be familiar with the sci-fi vision of heat death which is based on this concept). Err, I think you are talking about the enthropy. It's about the systems in general, not about it's particular pieces. You can organize some part of the system, but at the cost of dissipating energy (heat) and thus a total entropy increases, but the part you were organinizing get's organized. Well, that just means that you need the energy to do things. Though making the leap that man came from 'Ape' Well, it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Evolution simply states that all the species emerge from a common ancestor at some point. That is easily proven by analizing the build up of the living bodies, DNA and the fossils research. Non
-
What evolution-believing people? Evolution, my ignorant friend, is a science and not a religion, thus it can't possibly be believed. By trying to compare it against the creationists or religious ideas (that are definately not scientific) you are comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't make sense at all. Science is about research and asking questions, putting the questions and answers to the test, finding a new theories to replace or extend the old ones. Finally, ask a new questions and new answers... Now, even thought you have to keep the distance to every scientific theory, you can still use it to do certain things. The creationism doesn't give any scientific way to measure or predict things, it can't be put to the test and it can't be falsified. Thus it's not scientific. The theory that provides all the answers doesn't asnwer anything in fact. Evolution is a dynamic and usefull way to describe the world around. It doesn't answer all the questions and it never will. It allows to ASK the questions rather than to give an instant answers. That is how the science works, nothing to believe. Like, do you believe in the math? Well, do you believe there is a square root out of -1? And yet humans are able to use such a thing (ever heard about the complex numbers?).
Um... You must not have even read this page at all. http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John
-
John, the primary reason sites of this type are not of much interest is for one fundamental reason that people of a religious nature always overlook. Within the context of the scientific methodology it is *OK* to be wrong. Being wrong about something does not invalidate the scienitific method, it simply means the theory in questions needs to be reevaluated based on new information. That is the primary *strength* of science not a weakness as the religious community would have people believe. Religion plays a very dangerous game when it confronts science headon. Religion is based upon faith, not upon evidence. If you have to rely upon scientific methodologies to validate your religious beliefs, all you achieve is a validation of the scientific methodology not of your religion. The strength of religion is in its appeal to the human ability to have faith in the unknown, the unknowable. *That* is the weakness of science and the strength of religion. If you want to show me something of interest concerning religion, show me something that appeals to faith, not to science. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
I'm not sure you read this page. Did you? http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John
-
Um... You must not have even read this page at all. http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm John
-
John, First, we are talking here about 'macro-evolution', not 'micro-evolution', right? Well, classical Darwin 'macro-evolution' has problems. Has had for a while. However, I believe this article exaggerates the extent of the problems. Many evolutionists see the need to update/modify/enhance that theory, but (it appears to me) not many outside of the creationist movement are advocating it's complete removal. For evey creatonist who raises an objection to some aspect of evolution, I can find an evolutionist who will dispute the objection. It's not a debate that has been concluded, by a long shot. The creationists are offering a counter theory - Intelligent Design. Now that we have two theories, we can start examining and testing to determine a winner, right? No, because only one of the theories is falsifiable (evolution). Since ID contains a 'supernatural' element, it cannot be falsified - part of it's argument is "it is because god made it so". This is an unchallengable argument. Therefore, ID cannot be falsified. For the same reasons, it cannot be proven. Therefore, we can only examine evolution and see if we can falsify that. Fine, that's what we should be doing - tesing the current theories with new data, and updating if required. So what happens if we succeed in falsifying evolution? Does that prove ID? No. IF we can come up with no other theory other than ID that adequately explains the facts, then ID is the new superbowl champion (for the time being). We then continue to look at the evidence, and see if we can unthrone that theory. Assuming for a moment that ID becomes the dominant accepted theory. Would that prove the existence of god. Probably - depends on how poor any alternative theories were. Would that convert me from an Atheist? Yes, into an Empirical Agnostic. At that point I would be forced to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural power at some point in the history of the universe. That power may or may not still exist. That power may or may not have an interaction with humanity. That's a LONG LONG way from proving the existence of the christian god. And just to demonstrate why this seems so irrelevant to the christian cause, let me offer you two alternative theories that are just as valid as ID : 1. Aliens. The good old Erik von Daniken theory. Little green men in spaceships came to earth several billion years ago, and either seeded the earth with live stock, or "intelligently designed" the primodial soup to produce it's current crop of life
First, we are talking here about 'macro-evolution', not 'micro-evolution', right? Yes. 'micro-evolution' or 'natural selection' can be observed and has no real bearing on the theories of origins. Well, classical Darwin 'macro-evolution' has problems. Has had for a while. However, I believe this article exaggerates the extent of the problems. Many evolutionists see the need to update/modify/enhance that theory, but (it appears to me) not many outside of the creationist movement are advocating it's complete removal. For evey creatonist who raises an objection to some aspect of evolution, I can find an evolutionist who will dispute the objection. It's not a debate that has been concluded, by a long shot. Ok. So, you're saying that an evolutionist has to dispute evolution before evolution can be show to be faulty? Wouldn't it naturally be the case that someone who no longer thinks evolution works would tend to quit believing it? Then what should they believe if the creationist view can't be used to disprove evolution? Please explain what you're thinking here. (BTW, an evolutionist merely disputing an objection isn't enough to discredit the objection.) The creationists are offering a counter theory - Intelligent Design. Now that we have two theories, we can start examining and testing to determine a winner, right? No, because only one of the theories is falsifiable (evolution). Since ID contains a 'supernatural' element, it cannot be falsified - part of it's argument is "it is because god made it so". This is an unchallengable argument. Therefore, ID cannot be falsified. For the same reasons, it cannot be proven. Therefore, we can only examine evolution and see if we can falsify that. Fine, that's what we should be doing - tesing the current theories with new data, and updating if required. Then you have an incredible problem with the way that we detect the difference between natural and human-caused accidents. According to your logic, no one should ever be imprisoned based solely on evidence. A witness would be needed. But then, why believe the witness, since someone can postulate a theory that explains the crime from "natural processes". BTW, the "Detecting Design" section of the second link I gave you is directly related to this. So what happens if we succeed in falsifying evolution? Does that prove ID? No. IF we can come up with no other theory other than ID that adequately explains the facts, then ID is the new superbowl champion (for the time being). We then
-
I feel like arguing today, well, let's see... I usually try to stick with code on 'CODE'project (snip) Well, here is your first mistake - this is the Lounge, no code. Want some code? Go to the code section! ;P The problem with alot of these types of impersonal discussions on the interenet is the use of 'science' to justify things. Wrong again - science is here to explain and explore. People spew out a couple of: though 'evolution' this or 'the universe is like that' without really knowing what they are talking about. Now, back off - who people? From the posts here I can assure you that most of the people knows exactly what they are talking about. The level of discussion about the evolution is very hight. On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question. ' Frankley I say: so what if things evolved. Yeah, you could also ask: so what if Earth is spinning, or so what if matter is built with atoms or so what if electron has an electrical charge. Well, intelligent mind is always curious about the world. A. Many Microbiologist using computer simulation say that the time period needed for such mutation and evolution was way above the required time that it took place. And many others say it's just enought. That simply proves that we don't know how to build the computer models on the subject just yet. B.In physics there is a law that the natural order of things is to go from order to disorder(some of you might be familiar with the sci-fi vision of heat death which is based on this concept). Err, I think you are talking about the enthropy. It's about the systems in general, not about it's particular pieces. You can organize some part of the system, but at the cost of dissipating energy (heat) and thus a total entropy increases, but the part you were organinizing get's organized. Well, that just means that you need the energy to do things. Though making the leap that man came from 'Ape' Well, it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Evolution simply states that all the species emerge from a common ancestor at some point. That is easily proven by analizing the build up of the living bodies, DNA and the fossils research. Non
>>On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question. >>person would use that as their 'proof' for the disbelief in God Never heard of that one - that simply doesn't apply. Evolution doesn't research that subject, sorry to disappoint you. It's again rather the opposite - religion tries to impose that since it's all God's creation then evolution has no place. Actually, that's a common misconception. Some evolutionists are pressing awfully hard against Christianity. There are things like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which use evolution to support their position. Also, there are plenty of scientists who write books that include disparaging remarks about religious belief. Check out "The God Question" section of the second link of my previous post. (Plus a lot of other off-shoots from the first link.) OH, don't forget about Thomas Huxley, either. John
-
Did you email me something apart from your post? No, my email address is not fake and Chris appears to know that some people aren't getting notifications but isn't sure why. John
-
Did you email me something apart from your post? No, my email address is not fake and Chris appears to know that some people aren't getting notifications but isn't sure why. John
-
Well, when I reply to you, the notification is send and then I am gettings a bounce mail (have two of them already and probably one more after I finish that post) with the error "Domain not found"
Hmmm... Maybe that's Chris' problem? What's the address the returned messages are trying to use? It should be "John@enrnews.com". If that just plain doesn't work, I'll try changing the address. BTW, Thanks! John
-
I had a quick scan. FWIW I'll make two comments. 1/ The young earth theory is so obviously not tenable, nor is it what the Bible says. Genesis 1 indicates God created men, and Genesis 2 records a later date when He formed *a* man, Adam. A careful reading of the Genesis record will establish this for anyone curious. 2/ I have no problems with schools teaching my daughter the theory of evolution. I will obviously raise her to know what I believe and have experienced, any parent, even an athiest, will do that. But ultimately there is no benefit and much harm in hiding other viewpoints from her and not teaching her to think for herself. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
1/ It seems rather obvious to me that Chapter 2 is an expansion of chapter one. Just like books written today, Genesis begins with an overview, then goes into specifics. 2/ I agree. That's the way public schools should work. In fact, private schools would do much better to present both sides of the issue as well, even though both systems will end up with a bias toward one side or the other. John
-
>>On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question. >>person would use that as their 'proof' for the disbelief in God Never heard of that one - that simply doesn't apply. Evolution doesn't research that subject, sorry to disappoint you. It's again rather the opposite - religion tries to impose that since it's all God's creation then evolution has no place. Actually, that's a common misconception. Some evolutionists are pressing awfully hard against Christianity. There are things like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which use evolution to support their position. Also, there are plenty of scientists who write books that include disparaging remarks about religious belief. Check out "The God Question" section of the second link of my previous post. (Plus a lot of other off-shoots from the first link.) OH, don't forget about Thomas Huxley, either. John
Evolution itself does not disprove (or prove) God. How an individual evolutionist interprets his field is up to him. Like it ws said further up on this very thread: God can not be proved or disproved. Why can't God have created the earth and the Universe in the same way we would write a self modifying program? Create the basic building blocks and add a few rules that govern how they interact, and you have a system that can macro-evolve. Not many Christians today take the Bible at it's word anyway, unlike Muslims who beleive the script to the dot.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Evolution itself does not disprove (or prove) God. How an individual evolutionist interprets his field is up to him. Like it ws said further up on this very thread: God can not be proved or disproved. Why can't God have created the earth and the Universe in the same way we would write a self modifying program? Create the basic building blocks and add a few rules that govern how they interact, and you have a system that can macro-evolve. Not many Christians today take the Bible at it's word anyway, unlike Muslims who beleive the script to the dot.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I agree, but my point was a counter to the one made by George. He seems to think that evolutionists never attack religious thought. That just isn't true. John
-
John, the primary reason sites of this type are not of much interest is for one fundamental reason that people of a religious nature always overlook. Within the context of the scientific methodology it is *OK* to be wrong. Being wrong about something does not invalidate the scienitific method, it simply means the theory in questions needs to be reevaluated based on new information. That is the primary *strength* of science not a weakness as the religious community would have people believe. Religion plays a very dangerous game when it confronts science headon. Religion is based upon faith, not upon evidence. If you have to rely upon scientific methodologies to validate your religious beliefs, all you achieve is a validation of the scientific methodology not of your religion. The strength of religion is in its appeal to the human ability to have faith in the unknown, the unknowable. *That* is the weakness of science and the strength of religion. If you want to show me something of interest concerning religion, show me something that appeals to faith, not to science. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
Well said.
-
I feel like arguing today, well, let's see... I usually try to stick with code on 'CODE'project (snip) Well, here is your first mistake - this is the Lounge, no code. Want some code? Go to the code section! ;P The problem with alot of these types of impersonal discussions on the interenet is the use of 'science' to justify things. Wrong again - science is here to explain and explore. People spew out a couple of: though 'evolution' this or 'the universe is like that' without really knowing what they are talking about. Now, back off - who people? From the posts here I can assure you that most of the people knows exactly what they are talking about. The level of discussion about the evolution is very hight. On another note there is the 'evolution' thing. People who use this to usually try to say that things(animals/plants)/Humans evolved over the centuries and use it as point of proof against the message of religion Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question. ' Frankley I say: so what if things evolved. Yeah, you could also ask: so what if Earth is spinning, or so what if matter is built with atoms or so what if electron has an electrical charge. Well, intelligent mind is always curious about the world. A. Many Microbiologist using computer simulation say that the time period needed for such mutation and evolution was way above the required time that it took place. And many others say it's just enought. That simply proves that we don't know how to build the computer models on the subject just yet. B.In physics there is a law that the natural order of things is to go from order to disorder(some of you might be familiar with the sci-fi vision of heat death which is based on this concept). Err, I think you are talking about the enthropy. It's about the systems in general, not about it's particular pieces. You can organize some part of the system, but at the cost of dissipating energy (heat) and thus a total entropy increases, but the part you were organinizing get's organized. Well, that just means that you need the energy to do things. Though making the leap that man came from 'Ape' Well, it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Evolution simply states that all the species emerge from a common ancestor at some point. That is easily proven by analizing the build up of the living bodies, DNA and the fossils research. Non
Thats another reason why I only like discussing this in person things are scewed and taken out of there context or misunderstood. 'Well, here is your first mistake - this is the Lounge, no code. Want some code? Go to the code section!' I know that but that is the reason 'I' come here. 'Wrong again - science is here to explain and explore.' Hmmm, so how am I wrong, I am not sure, I dont disagree but if you insist. 'Quite the opposite in fact. It's rather the religion party that is in attack, evolution simply doesn't raise the question' My point wasnt about attacking or not attacking its about people who disbelieve in God try to use this is there reason, its pretty dangrous when one is not sure what they are talking about. 'Err, I think you are talking about the enthropy. It's about the systems in general, not about it's particular pieces. You can organize some part of the system, but at the cost of dissipating energy (heat) and thus a total entropy increases, but the part you were organinizing get's organized. Well, that just means that you need the energy to do things.' Hence the 'natural' order. 'And many others say it's just enought. That simply proves that we don't know how to build the computer models on the subject just yet.' Actually I doubt you will find many in the MicroBiology field that who use the current theories as they are taught in high school, there are many modification, but is used as a simple theory to teach students. 'Well, it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Evolution simply states that all the species emerge from a common ancestor at some point. That is easily proven by analizing the build up of the living bodies, DNA and the fossils research. None of the todays living species are the ancestors of the others, they all evolve together and the ancestor is long time dead. But that is actually only a part of the story. It's worth to notice that at the early stages of life, before the cells formed, there was quite a period of the parallel evolution. At those days the horizontal transfer of DNA was more common than today. If you analize the cells structure you might notice that some parts are also carring their own DNA. The horizontal transfer of DNA is still happening today, so the whole ancestors story is only a part of the evolution.' My point was people use it as an excuse to disbelieve in God, not the fact of what it states. I have no problem with people using it to explain my occurances. 'See, the whole point of religion is to believe. If there wa