Re: bunches of hypocrites
-
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
-
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
In the bounce the soubject says: Returned Mail- Domain Not Found (John@enrnews.com) The other people don't bounce, so it doesn't look like a Chris's problem...
-
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
private schools would do much better to present both sides of the issue as well What both sides again? There is no sides here. Only one side, evolution, is a science. The other is a halucination. It's as if said that maybe the kids should learn that Earth is flat and the Sun circles around the Earth and the Universe is a huge glass sphere with the stars painted on the shpere.
-
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
John, I think this thread's running out of steam - we are pretty close on this one, except for the usual array of totally non-negotiable points! 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.) What I was attempting to say is that it is rarely the case that a scientific theory goes from 'right' to 'wrong' in one step (although it has happened, of course). What I mean here is that evolutionists are questioning evolution, but the nature of that questioning is to try and 'clean up' or 'resolve' details - and yes some of these details are quite important. But finding a detail is wrong and must be changed does not invalidate the entire theory. You cannot use the creationist view to disprove evolution - a theory cannot disprove a theory. We can have two (or more) competing theories. We can choose to have our own personal favorite (I like theory a, you like theory b). However, in science you can never 'prove' a theory. There is always the chance of error - this is a key part of the scientific method, it has a built in error correcting facility, since it NEVER says "this theory is proven". Rather it says "this theory is the most likely to be true". As I said previously, you can hope to disprove a theory, but that cannot be done simply by offering an alternative theory. To truly defeat a scientific theory, you must show that theory is not supported by the evidence. Then you move to step 2 - find an alternative that supports it better. I do not belive that creationists have achieved step 1, and therefore the status of step 2 (the alternative theory) is irrelevant. And my comment about evolutionists disputing creationist objections was simply meant to indicate that this is an area of active debate, and I have read MANY strong arguments against various creationist objections. Simply listing perceived creationist objections (as the article you posted did) does not prove them to be valid, nor uncontested. As you say, it also doesn't prove them wrong just because an evolutionist disagrees - that's why this is a debate! According to your logic, no one should ever be imprisoned based solely
-
private schools would do much better to present both sides of the issue as well What both sides again? There is no sides here. Only one side, evolution, is a science. The other is a halucination. It's as if said that maybe the kids should learn that Earth is flat and the Sun circles around the Earth and the Universe is a huge glass sphere with the stars painted on the shpere.
Anyone who's actually looked at the issue seriously, knows that evidence must be interpreted. Therefore, there are "sides". Please read up on at least one of the many refutations of your statement before assuming that you're right. 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... Well, I changed my email address to one of the aliases my company uses. Maybe that'll make a difference.
-
John, I think this thread's running out of steam - we are pretty close on this one, except for the usual array of totally non-negotiable points! 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.) What I was attempting to say is that it is rarely the case that a scientific theory goes from 'right' to 'wrong' in one step (although it has happened, of course). What I mean here is that evolutionists are questioning evolution, but the nature of that questioning is to try and 'clean up' or 'resolve' details - and yes some of these details are quite important. But finding a detail is wrong and must be changed does not invalidate the entire theory. You cannot use the creationist view to disprove evolution - a theory cannot disprove a theory. We can have two (or more) competing theories. We can choose to have our own personal favorite (I like theory a, you like theory b). However, in science you can never 'prove' a theory. There is always the chance of error - this is a key part of the scientific method, it has a built in error correcting facility, since it NEVER says "this theory is proven". Rather it says "this theory is the most likely to be true". As I said previously, you can hope to disprove a theory, but that cannot be done simply by offering an alternative theory. To truly defeat a scientific theory, you must show that theory is not supported by the evidence. Then you move to step 2 - find an alternative that supports it better. I do not belive that creationists have achieved step 1, and therefore the status of step 2 (the alternative theory) is irrelevant. And my comment about evolutionists disputing creationist objections was simply meant to indicate that this is an area of active debate, and I have read MANY strong arguments against various creationist objections. Simply listing perceived creationist objections (as the article you posted did) does not prove them to be valid, nor uncontested. As you say, it also doesn't prove them wrong just because an evolutionist disagrees - that's why this is a debate! According to your logic, no one should ever be imprisoned based solely
(I've organized things out of order here, if that matters.) I hope that makes it as clear as mud!! Actually, I think I can see a few recognizable shapes in the mud that must be our discussion! ;P For real, I do agree that we're getting close to or already are understanding each other. I think this thread's running out of steam - we are pretty close on this one, except for the usual array of totally non-negotiable points! Hmmmm... Well, I plan on giving you some solid stuff that we can discuss this time. Trying to get you to understand where I'm coming from doesn't seem to be much of a problem right now. Maybe that'll infuse our conversation with some good steam! :) You cannot use the creationist view to disprove evolution - a theory cannot disprove a theory. We can have two (or more) competing theories. We can choose to have our own personal favorite (I like theory a, you like theory b). However, in science you can never 'prove' a theory. You're right. I was referring to an impression your post gave that only scientists who still believe evolution are capable of validly disproving it. That was likely a misunderstanding, since those who think evolution is wrong are unlikely to believe it! So, they've got to believe something else, and there are only two basic options (at least for now). What I was attempting to say is that it is rarely the case that a scientific theory goes from 'right' to 'wrong' in one step (although it has happened, of course). What I mean here is that evolutionists are questioning evolution, but the nature of that questioning is to try and 'clean up' or 'resolve' details - and yes some of these details are quite important. But finding a detail is wrong and must be changed does not invalidate the entire theory. If details were the only question, you'd be right. However, I have a different take than you here. ... To truly defeat a scientific theory, you must show that theory is not supported by the evidence. ... Ok, so what is the "Theory of Evolution"? We've been talking about it without defining it. I believe we've already defined the creation view rather well, but have missed defining evolution. Here is my understanding of the basic assumption of evolution. * All that exists is ultimately a result of chance (mostly random) processes. These accidents are all that was involved in the origin of the universe, life, and what followed. If you disagree on that, please tell me why, because I've never heard of a any v
-
(I've organized things out of order here, if that matters.) I hope that makes it as clear as mud!! Actually, I think I can see a few recognizable shapes in the mud that must be our discussion! ;P For real, I do agree that we're getting close to or already are understanding each other. I think this thread's running out of steam - we are pretty close on this one, except for the usual array of totally non-negotiable points! Hmmmm... Well, I plan on giving you some solid stuff that we can discuss this time. Trying to get you to understand where I'm coming from doesn't seem to be much of a problem right now. Maybe that'll infuse our conversation with some good steam! :) You cannot use the creationist view to disprove evolution - a theory cannot disprove a theory. We can have two (or more) competing theories. We can choose to have our own personal favorite (I like theory a, you like theory b). However, in science you can never 'prove' a theory. You're right. I was referring to an impression your post gave that only scientists who still believe evolution are capable of validly disproving it. That was likely a misunderstanding, since those who think evolution is wrong are unlikely to believe it! So, they've got to believe something else, and there are only two basic options (at least for now). What I was attempting to say is that it is rarely the case that a scientific theory goes from 'right' to 'wrong' in one step (although it has happened, of course). What I mean here is that evolutionists are questioning evolution, but the nature of that questioning is to try and 'clean up' or 'resolve' details - and yes some of these details are quite important. But finding a detail is wrong and must be changed does not invalidate the entire theory. If details were the only question, you'd be right. However, I have a different take than you here. ... To truly defeat a scientific theory, you must show that theory is not supported by the evidence. ... Ok, so what is the "Theory of Evolution"? We've been talking about it without defining it. I believe we've already defined the creation view rather well, but have missed defining evolution. Here is my understanding of the basic assumption of evolution. * All that exists is ultimately a result of chance (mostly random) processes. These accidents are all that was involved in the origin of the universe, life, and what followed. If you disagree on that, please tell me why, because I've never heard of a any v
John, We are about to run into the edge of my ability to respond - we are getting into very, very deep biological, geological and astological areas, and I am certainly no expert. But I'll try !!! If details were the only question, you'd be right. My reading of current evolutionary theory is that it remains largely consistent, with problems relating to the lack of fossil records for 'intermediaries' (there are some, but not as many as expected), and in the failure to find a 'trigger' that can create 'life' from 'organic matter'. These are important details, but are NOT considered either insurmountable or contradictory to the established theory. These are therefore the areas of continuing development. My belief is that research into these areas will yield answers eventually, and therefore validate evolution. That hasn't happened yet, and the theory may have to 'adjust' as the evidence arrives. I would reject any portrayal of evolution as being 'fatally flawed', or 'doomed' - it is, as expected, evolving!! * All that exists is ultimately a result of chance (mostly random) processes. These accidents are all that was involved in the origin of the universe, life, and what followed. For myself, I have always limited 'evolution' to the creation and development of life on earth - expanding it to encompass the creation of the universe is not something I would normally expect - but you are free to offer support that the majority of evolutionists are referring to the 'whole thing' if you can. In fact, I'd go further and suggest that to many evolutionists, it is mainly concerned with how life develops and changes, rather than how it started. The 'origin' question is essentially an 'intersting side issue'. some scientists don't care where they end up after studying the evidence, but that is rarely the case Well, we enter the realms of bias ourselves here. I fully expect scientists and evolutionists to be human, which means they have biases, and they can lie and cheat if need be. But my bias leads me to also expect 'science' to transcend individuals. I strongly disagree that almost 200 years of evolutionists are simply 'sheep' afraid to rock the boat, or misguided people unable to independantly examine new data. Scientists have bias, science has none. The fact that you can quote any number of evolutonists who have expressed reservations and unease with various details of the evolutionary theory is all the proof I need that they are not simply 'keeping quiet' - yet very few
-
John, We are about to run into the edge of my ability to respond - we are getting into very, very deep biological, geological and astological areas, and I am certainly no expert. But I'll try !!! If details were the only question, you'd be right. My reading of current evolutionary theory is that it remains largely consistent, with problems relating to the lack of fossil records for 'intermediaries' (there are some, but not as many as expected), and in the failure to find a 'trigger' that can create 'life' from 'organic matter'. These are important details, but are NOT considered either insurmountable or contradictory to the established theory. These are therefore the areas of continuing development. My belief is that research into these areas will yield answers eventually, and therefore validate evolution. That hasn't happened yet, and the theory may have to 'adjust' as the evidence arrives. I would reject any portrayal of evolution as being 'fatally flawed', or 'doomed' - it is, as expected, evolving!! * All that exists is ultimately a result of chance (mostly random) processes. These accidents are all that was involved in the origin of the universe, life, and what followed. For myself, I have always limited 'evolution' to the creation and development of life on earth - expanding it to encompass the creation of the universe is not something I would normally expect - but you are free to offer support that the majority of evolutionists are referring to the 'whole thing' if you can. In fact, I'd go further and suggest that to many evolutionists, it is mainly concerned with how life develops and changes, rather than how it started. The 'origin' question is essentially an 'intersting side issue'. some scientists don't care where they end up after studying the evidence, but that is rarely the case Well, we enter the realms of bias ourselves here. I fully expect scientists and evolutionists to be human, which means they have biases, and they can lie and cheat if need be. But my bias leads me to also expect 'science' to transcend individuals. I strongly disagree that almost 200 years of evolutionists are simply 'sheep' afraid to rock the boat, or misguided people unable to independantly examine new data. Scientists have bias, science has none. The fact that you can quote any number of evolutonists who have expressed reservations and unease with various details of the evolutionary theory is all the proof I need that they are not simply 'keeping quiet' - yet very few
Just a check here. Creationists do not believe that God is continueally creating things. God created the world with laws so they could be followed. Miracles are rare -- that's why they are called miracles. The normal way of things is that there is a natural explanation for things. That is exactly why Bible-believing people began the study of science. My reading of current evolutionary theory is that it remains largely consistent, with problems relating to the lack of fossil records for 'intermediaries' (there are some, but not as many as expected), and in the failure to find a 'trigger' that can create 'life' from 'organic matter'. These are important details, but are NOT considered either insurmountable or contradictory to the established theory. These are therefore the areas of continuing development. My belief is that research into these areas will yield answers eventually, and therefore validate evolution. That hasn't happened yet, and the theory may have to 'adjust' as the evidence arrives. I would reject any portrayal of evolution as being 'fatally flawed', or 'doomed' - it is, as expected, evolving!! Well, similar things could be said about the Creation viewpoint. I haven't found any evidence which has no possible logical explanation from the creationist model (without constantly resorting to miracles as you seem to think we do). You'd say (have said) the same thing about evolution, so this one isn't going to get us anywhere specific. _http://www.skepticfriends.org/hoax4.htm http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm_ Hmmm... I wish I understood this better, but from what I can tell it sounds like a reasonable explanation. (A reasonably diligent search through Google didn't find any good or bad reviews of the information in those articles, so I'm on my own here.) But, if Gentry was right, I would have wondered if the only reason God did that was to confuse evolutionists. *shrugs* Anyway, there is plenty of other evidence to use. That was just one I'd run into recently. And at this point I feel that we can go no further - if the links I have provided are not enough to convince you that the biblical flood could only have happened with supernatural assistance, then I can do no more. Uh, I must not have explained it well enough. :-O Yes, it is very likely that miracles were involved in the Flood. In fact, moving all of the animals into the ark was one of the things that were almost definitely a miracle. HOWEVER, if the Flood did happen, the evidence is sti