At work at the moment, will read all of it when I get home. Did notice though that they say 'don't use that argument, we have no clue whatsoever on how to counter it' a lot, as well as 'We don't know what to say, so let's call it bluff!'.
At work at the moment, will read all of it when I get home. Did notice though that they say 'don't use that argument, we have no clue whatsoever on how to counter it' a lot, as well as 'We don't know what to say, so let's call it bluff!'.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
Why is it so important for creationists to disprove/discredit evolution?
Seems to me that most religious people (i.e., the moral majority) don't have a problem with reconciling between scientific and biblical explanations of origins. They are simply two different interpretations of where life comes from. One derived through the scientific method and the other through theology.
This is just another example of how highly vocal conservative/fundamentalist christians get away with pinning the 'moral majority' to an extremist position. Abortion is another example (as if this thread didn't have enough tension already).
Seems to me that most religious people (i.e., the moral majority) don't have a problem with reconciling between scientific and biblical explanations of origins. They are simply two different interpretations of where life comes from. One derived through the scientific method and the other through theology.
This is just another example of how highly vocal conservative/fundamentalist christians get away with pinning the 'moral majority' to an extremist position. Abortion is another example (as if this thread didn't have enough tension already).
From the article above.
Who gives a dame how scientists obtain their facts. you telling me that from the bible you can produce a more credible theory? I would laugh my a$$ off.
WTF? Why can't unused information be removed? it is natural selection damit! Mutation is not adding information. While it may, it CHANGES INFORMATION.
what contributions? Why is it i find the idea of creationism futile? It is because it "adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.". It just diggges all the evidence from a book written by who knows who, and when. ONE BOOK. It merely hinders the effort in which scientits study the orign of life. The facts are there, whether accept it or not, i don't care.
I don't need a UNI degree or anything higher than year 12 high school to realize that creationism is a load of bogus.
Who gives a dame how scientists obtain their facts. you telling me that from the bible you can produce a more credible theory? I would laugh my a$$ off.
So that creationists would actually get a fact or two for the first time?
WTF? Why can't unused information be removed? it is natural selection damit! Mutation is not adding information. While it may, it CHANGES INFORMATION.
what contributions? Why is it i find the idea of creationism futile? It is because it "adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.". It just diggges all the evidence from a book written by who knows who, and when. ONE BOOK. It merely hinders the effort in which scientits study the orign of life. The facts are there, whether accept it or not, i don't care.
I don't need a UNI degree or anything higher than year 12 high school to realize that creationism is a load of bogus.
arh... misssed the conclusion :
Sorry, the other way around. creationist haven been around for the major part of human history, evolutionists only came into the equation in the relative "last histroy".
Hmmm notice the add on the right of the page? it says:
yeah yeah, dont judge a book by its cover.... but, an "attack"... and "balanced" dont go together..... i am really laughing now... this is a joke.
Sorry, the other way around. creationist haven been around for the major part of human history, evolutionists only came into the equation in the relative "last histroy".
Hmmm notice the add on the right of the page? it says:
yeah yeah, dont judge a book by its cover.... but, an "attack"... and "balanced" dont go together..... i am really laughing now... this is a joke.
Why is it so important for creationists to disprove/discredit evolution?
1. Evolution is taught as FACT in the state run school system (which a majority of our children attend.)
2. Evolution is used as a weapon against the validity of Scripture.
It is important therefore, for us to get information out that will demonstrate the weakness of the weapon being used against us. The claims of the naturalist are much inflated, and often misleading (as the original article demonstrates).
I have had numerous conversations where someone who was struggling to rationalize what he has been taught on PBS with what he has been taught at church. Often there are statements like "But, Evolution is fact - it has been proven? or "If the Bible is wrong on that how can you trust it for anything".
Fact is, the claims of the Creationist are generally valid, but are met with statements like have appeared on this forum:
I don't need a UNI degree or anything higher than year 12 high school to realize that creationism is a load of bogus.
Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
So that creationists would actually get a fact or two for the first time?
because thats what he's been told since he's been a wee lad in sunday school unlike santa clause its ok to believe in this one when your an adult.
And so on (these just from that last few posts, the earlier one's were generally harsher).
This constant mocking from "the other side" makes those of us who understand the weakness of the evidence try to share what we know. If public education were what it was half a century ago, then our efforts would not be necessary. It is unfortunate that students are no longer taught how to think critically. Seeing the weakness on the side of the naturalist is simply a matter of deconstructing their logical analysis. (See above post concerning deductive and inductive reasoning).
The conclusions of the naturalist are induced, not deduced.
1. Evolution is taught as FACT in the state run school system (which a majority of our children attend.)
2. Evolution is used as a weapon against the validity of Scripture.
It is important therefore, for us to get information out that will demonstrate the weakness of the weapon being used against us. The claims of the naturalist are much inflated, and often misleading (as the original article demonstrates).
I have had numerous conversations where someone who was struggling to rationalize what he has been taught on PBS with what he has been taught at church. Often there are statements like "But, Evolution is fact - it has been proven? or "If the Bible is wrong on that how can you trust it for anything".
Fact is, the claims of the Creationist are generally valid, but are met with statements like have appeared on this forum:
I don't need a UNI degree or anything higher than year 12 high school to realize that creationism is a load of bogus.
Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
So that creationists would actually get a fact or two for the first time?
because thats what he's been told since he's been a wee lad in sunday school unlike santa clause its ok to believe in this one when your an adult.
And so on (these just from that last few posts, the earlier one's were generally harsher).
This constant mocking from "the other side" makes those of us who understand the weakness of the evidence try to share what we know. If public education were what it was half a century ago, then our efforts would not be necessary. It is unfortunate that students are no longer taught how to think critically. Seeing the weakness on the side of the naturalist is simply a matter of deconstructing their logical analysis. (See above post concerning deductive and inductive reasoning).
The conclusions of the naturalist are induced, not deduced.
LordJezo, I think your link was put forth quite a ways back by Wart who was impressed by all the letters after the arthor's name
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
--------------------
Sorry, but I don't see any evolution theory as attacking any religion. Nor do I see it as a weapon that has been designed to be used against religion. No doubt that it is percieved that way, BUT that is really what my question is about. WHY is the theory of evolution seen as something that must be fought, rather than something that can be integrated?
Will churches suffer if they concede that science can perhaps provide "technical" explanation for origins of man? I doubt it. In fact, I would think that many churches would be seen as more of a place of solace and inspiration IF they take the concepts of modern science and provide a spiritual frame of reference for people to view them through. The technical explanation of our origins IS NOT the same thing as our SPIRITUAL origins. Nor do these two explanantions have to be pitted against one another.
I would respect and consider joining a church, and a pastor, that can distinguish between the two explanations WITHOUT resorting to the typical arguements. There have been many examples where churches/religions/factions have integrated technical advances before. For example, the medical sciences are viewed by most religions as neither pro- or anti- religion. Rather, medicine is seen as something through which the will of God is sometimes expressed.
PastorDon, when induction is derived from elegance, I start deducing things. 
The validity of Scripture has nothing to do with the validity of God. It might just change how you need to think about him. You did that from the time you were a child. Your God today, isn't the same God you first heard about. You probably heard about God before you knew He had a Son. Our ideas of God evolve. Horrible, I know.
The validity of Scripture has nothing to do with the validity of God. It might just change how you need to think about him. You did that from the time you were a child. Your God today, isn't the same God you first heard about. You probably heard about God before you knew He had a Son. Our ideas of God evolve. Horrible, I know.
In the long run, what you're telling me is that if I take a stack of notecards in a helicopter up about 10,000 feet and drop them, that they will randomly sort and select themselves to produce "Anandtech Off Topic" on the parking lot below me. Oh, no, you say, for it requires trillions of times to make this happen. You're right. I'll do it a few more times, and I'll take the helicopter up 25,000 or 40,000 or even 50,000 feet (although by that time I'll need more than a helicopter) and perform the same experiment.
Xirtam, while you may be modeling the notion of randomness leading to order, you are ignoring the realities of the theory. Evolution is not a random theory or a theory based purely on randomness or chance. For your analogy to be more correct, we would have to say that each time a card lands in the right spot, it stays there. Then we do the drop again. And each time the card lands in the right spot it stays there. We do this 10,000 times. Chances are MUCH more likely that we would get them to produce "Anandtech Off Topic." See, you are forgetting to add in selection and relative fitness. Sounds like you read a similarly misguided analogy of a tornado through a junkyard making a 747.
things like snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, and Niagra Falls are certainly orderly and are natural wonders -- and awesome ones at that. But they in no way equate to the intelligent design of, say, Mount Rushmore or a nuclear fusion power plant,
Why? What is the distinction? On a side note, I'm sure you could mathematically "prove" that snow storms are "impossible" due to the complexity of each snowflake if you wanted to, much like people try to do with evolutionary theory.
The principle of evolution as an end-all be-all philosophy ultimately crushes under its own weight. It's self-defeating
Straw man. I don't think I read anyone on here saying it is a philosophy, and it is not taught that way.
They never lose their "horseness," "dogness," or "peopleness," so I'm not calling that evolution, even though you'd like to call it "microevolution" and start making jumps back to the original life that came from the primordial soup that came from... oh, I forgot... you've ditched causality
Nice use of scientific terms (dogness?). Just b/c evolutionary theory is not deterministic doesn't mean it has ditched causality. Do you understand that it is NOT an entirely random process, and selection on fitness is a causal process?
PastorDon
2. Evolution is used as a weapon against the validity of Scripture.
This is not true. They did a study of 17 major highschool biology books and NOT ONE taught evolutionary theory as an origin theory in conflict with the Bible. Again, PastorDon, why are no "creationist" articles EVER published in leading scientific, peer reviewed journals? That would be b/c they can't stand on their own two legs from a scientific perspective.
Thomas
Edit- Fix html
Xirtam, while you may be modeling the notion of randomness leading to order, you are ignoring the realities of the theory. Evolution is not a random theory or a theory based purely on randomness or chance. For your analogy to be more correct, we would have to say that each time a card lands in the right spot, it stays there. Then we do the drop again. And each time the card lands in the right spot it stays there. We do this 10,000 times. Chances are MUCH more likely that we would get them to produce "Anandtech Off Topic." See, you are forgetting to add in selection and relative fitness. Sounds like you read a similarly misguided analogy of a tornado through a junkyard making a 747.
things like snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, and Niagra Falls are certainly orderly and are natural wonders -- and awesome ones at that. But they in no way equate to the intelligent design of, say, Mount Rushmore or a nuclear fusion power plant,
Why? What is the distinction? On a side note, I'm sure you could mathematically "prove" that snow storms are "impossible" due to the complexity of each snowflake if you wanted to, much like people try to do with evolutionary theory.
The principle of evolution as an end-all be-all philosophy ultimately crushes under its own weight. It's self-defeating
Straw man. I don't think I read anyone on here saying it is a philosophy, and it is not taught that way.
They never lose their "horseness," "dogness," or "peopleness," so I'm not calling that evolution, even though you'd like to call it "microevolution" and start making jumps back to the original life that came from the primordial soup that came from... oh, I forgot... you've ditched causality
Nice use of scientific terms (dogness?). Just b/c evolutionary theory is not deterministic doesn't mean it has ditched causality. Do you understand that it is NOT an entirely random process, and selection on fitness is a causal process?
PastorDon
2. Evolution is used as a weapon against the validity of Scripture.
This is not true. They did a study of 17 major highschool biology books and NOT ONE taught evolutionary theory as an origin theory in conflict with the Bible. Again, PastorDon, why are no "creationist" articles EVER published in leading scientific, peer reviewed journals? That would be b/c they can't stand on their own two legs from a scientific perspective.
Thomas
Edit- Fix html
Xirtam, let me add that we aren't dropping cards to spell Anandtech. Evolution has no specific goal or outcome. That's religious thinking. Evolution doesn't care where it takes life. If you re-ran time, life would come out different every time. The planet might be empty or the beings here might have IQs of 3 million. The chances that man would evolve are exactly as you predict, zero. What is truly facinating, I think, is that given the laws of the universe as they are, a creature arose who can love creation. The question I have is does that happen every time life starts somewhere and has some time, and if so what might that mean?
Sorry, but I don't see any evolution theory as attacking any religion. Nor do I see it as a weapon that has been designed to be used against religion.
I did not say it was designed for that purpose. Remember, Dynamite was designed for mining operations and yet found quick application as a weapon.
Will churches suffer if they concede that science can perhaps provide "technical" explanation for origins of man?
Quite the opposite. The Bible teaches that nature can "declare" truth about God. On any subject on which the Bible is silent it is reasonable to turn to Science. My personal beliefs (Dispensationalist) would not suffer one bit if Evolutionary Theory was absolutely true. Jeremiah 4:23-27 is a description of the catastrophe that occurred to the Pre-Adamic Earth. Look there for what existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
I would respect and consider joining a church, and a pastor, that can distinguish between the two explanations WITHOUT resorting to the typical arguements.
The problem with using Science to determine theology is that scientific opinion is almost certainly going to change, whereas Scripture is not. There is the problem is confusing tradition with Scripture (as in Young Earth Creationist), but if we let Scripture speak where it speaks and let Scripture remain silent where it is silent, we can avoid much of the current confusion.
The validity of Scripture has nothing to do with the validity of God.
Thank you for expressing your opinion, Moonbeam. However, emphatically stating something as true does not change the fact that it is only opinion.
The other question that bothers me is where are all the atheist creationists.
There are the "alien seed" guys, who would certainly qualify as ID Theorist.
Evolution has no specific goal or outcome. That's religious thinking.
Actually, Moonbeam, that's the thinking of the writer of the computer simulation mentioned in the original article.
I did not say it was designed for that purpose. Remember, Dynamite was designed for mining operations and yet found quick application as a weapon.
Will churches suffer if they concede that science can perhaps provide "technical" explanation for origins of man?
Quite the opposite. The Bible teaches that nature can "declare" truth about God. On any subject on which the Bible is silent it is reasonable to turn to Science. My personal beliefs (Dispensationalist) would not suffer one bit if Evolutionary Theory was absolutely true. Jeremiah 4:23-27 is a description of the catastrophe that occurred to the Pre-Adamic Earth. Look there for what existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
I would respect and consider joining a church, and a pastor, that can distinguish between the two explanations WITHOUT resorting to the typical arguements.
The problem with using Science to determine theology is that scientific opinion is almost certainly going to change, whereas Scripture is not. There is the problem is confusing tradition with Scripture (as in Young Earth Creationist), but if we let Scripture speak where it speaks and let Scripture remain silent where it is silent, we can avoid much of the current confusion.
The validity of Scripture has nothing to do with the validity of God.
Thank you for expressing your opinion, Moonbeam. However, emphatically stating something as true does not change the fact that it is only opinion.
The other question that bothers me is where are all the atheist creationists.
There are the "alien seed" guys, who would certainly qualify as ID Theorist.
Evolution has no specific goal or outcome. That's religious thinking.
Actually, Moonbeam, that's the thinking of the writer of the computer simulation mentioned in the original article.
The validity of Scripture has nothing to do with the validity of God. Yes , that is my opinion. Aside from that fact, it is also the truth is it not? I gave the steps. You no longer hold the view of God you once did. This proves that one's idea of God is not fixed but can evolve. Therefore any one fixed notion of God may evolve. There is nothing to say then, that the notion of God that's in Scripture that you hold is the final notion of God from Scripture you will hold as your understanding of Scripture evolves. That may mean that even you may come to think that the notion of God that you once held is too limited even as contained in Scripture, (no great achievement for somebody who surpassith understanding, I should think). Essentially then what will change is both your notion of God and your notion of the meaning of Scripture. And anyway, don't you feel just a bit too self important when you say that God has to play by your rules even if you think they are His. I mean, talk about stating something emphatically.
The alien seed guys are faced with the same dilema when faced with where did the aliens come from, unless of course it's turtles all the way down.
I don't inderstand your point about the original article so don't know if I'm commenting on your point by saying that if somebody arguing for evolution makes a mistake it doesn't mean much.
The alien seed guys are faced with the same dilema when faced with where did the aliens come from, unless of course it's turtles all the way down.
I don't inderstand your point about the original article so don't know if I'm commenting on your point by saying that if somebody arguing for evolution makes a mistake it doesn't mean much.
That's why I can't make the cards stick in the "right place," Thomas. I never mentioned that I was *trying* to spell "Anandtech Off Topic," it was merely an argument about specified complexity. What *would* form is not going to be specified complexity in any form, just like a snowstorm process isn't going to produce a snowman complete with boots, buttons, a carrot nose, and a straw hat.
My "pig-headed" refusal to face up to facts about evolution? Which "facts"? The fact that specific complexity arose from the random and unguided processes of natural selection? I don't dispute that natural selection operates. I don't dispute that we see microevolution all the time. Which other "facts" do I need to accept to not be, as you put, "pig headed"? The concept of God is central to the idea of Christianity, for if God is not who Christians say He was, then Christ is not who He said He is. Then Christians, or "little Christs," lose their current meaning as well. To say that "we created God in our own image" is to take a very humanistic approach that cannot be reconciled with Christian ideology. And by the evolutionary process, I thought you and I already agreed that we're not "supposed" to become anything. Whence do things like "love" derive their meaning? If it randomly evolved and could have randomly evolved any three billion other possible ways, the next step in our evolution might just as well be total annihilation by thermonuclear war. Regression, but if only regression to the beginning of an unguided process, it doesn't really matter. Evolution will just create another set of beings who either have IQs of 3 million or it will produce nothing. And there's nothing present within any philosophy you can derive from evolutionary thinking as a whole... (here's where Thomas once again will falsely accuse me of creating a strawman... he likes that one...) to give me any moral reason why I should think that we ought to do anything at all to stop it. For if nature will naturally "select" humans out of the equation, then we're not "supposed" to become anything. Natural selection is itself an unguided process, incapable of intelligently causing anything. It's a phenomenon, not really a process. Something that happens -- and I don't deny that it happens -- but cannot be used to explain the formation of specified complexity.
I would argue that the fact that our ideas of God change have more to do with us changing than with God evolving -- if such a God exists. It's not that horrible a thing to gain more knowledge and understanding.
I'm sorry you felt I "lumped you in with the scientists," Moonbeam. I've read enough of your posts not to make that mistake...
You're truly one of a kind. Oh, and happy 8000.
I never mentioned that I was *trying* to spell "Anandtech Off Topic," it was merely an argument about specified complexity. What *would* form is not going to be specified complexity in any form, just like a snowstorm process isn't going to produce a snowman complete with boots, buttons, a carrot nose, and a straw hat.
Ok, well then at this point you should probably start explaining how dropping cards out of a helicopter is similar to evolutionary biology or speciation or any principles other than randomness. You have not yet begun to do that. You have also not defined specified complexity at all, I assume it is a purposely vague but intellectual sounding phrase.
I personally think your pig headed b/c you refuse to acknowledge the fact that natural selection isn't random, it is guided. Otherwise it would be "natural guess," since the selection on relative fitness is what guides it. I think you're creating a moral dilema for yourself. Learn more about it, evolution is not a system of ethics, it is not a religion, it is not an origin theory. It is just a natural process. I don't accuse you of creating straw men b/c I like it, I accuse you of creating straw men b/c aparently you like to attack straw men. You consistently misrepresent evolutionary theory, how it is taught, and what its basic principles are.
Thomas
Ok, well then at this point you should probably start explaining how dropping cards out of a helicopter is similar to evolutionary biology or speciation or any principles other than randomness. You have not yet begun to do that. You have also not defined specified complexity at all, I assume it is a purposely vague but intellectual sounding phrase.
I personally think your pig headed b/c you refuse to acknowledge the fact that natural selection isn't random, it is guided. Otherwise it would be "natural guess," since the selection on relative fitness is what guides it. I think you're creating a moral dilema for yourself. Learn more about it, evolution is not a system of ethics, it is not a religion, it is not an origin theory. It is just a natural process. I don't accuse you of creating straw men b/c I like it, I accuse you of creating straw men b/c aparently you like to attack straw men. You consistently misrepresent evolutionary theory, how it is taught, and what its basic principles are.
Thomas
And anyway, don't you feel just a bit too self important when you say that God has to play by your rules even if you think they are His. I mean, talk about stating something emphatically.
You have a bad habit of putting words into other peoples mouths. You ASSUME this is what I believe and then state it as fact. You MIGHT even be right, but how do you know.
The alien seed guys are faced with the same dilemma when faced with where did the aliens come from, unless of course it's turtles all the way down.
I agree. I was just giving you an example of atheist ID Theorist. If one admits to Design, and yet denies God, then that one will have to come up with something else.
I don't inderstand your point about the original article so don't know if I'm commenting on your point by saying that if somebody arguing for evolution makes a mistake it doesn't mean much.
What it does mean is that the idea of evolution moving toward a predetermined end is not a religious idea, as you stated. The guys who advocate a "designer gene" are not religious. They have just seen the evidence of design and are looking for something to explain it.
You have a bad habit of putting words into other peoples mouths. You ASSUME this is what I believe and then state it as fact. You MIGHT even be right, but how do you know.
The alien seed guys are faced with the same dilemma when faced with where did the aliens come from, unless of course it's turtles all the way down.
I agree. I was just giving you an example of atheist ID Theorist. If one admits to Design, and yet denies God, then that one will have to come up with something else.
I don't inderstand your point about the original article so don't know if I'm commenting on your point by saying that if somebody arguing for evolution makes a mistake it doesn't mean much.
What it does mean is that the idea of evolution moving toward a predetermined end is not a religious idea, as you stated. The guys who advocate a "designer gene" are not religious. They have just seen the evidence of design and are looking for something to explain it.
Are these "guys" your neighbors? You seem to know a lot about these "guys". Why don't you list the names and religious beliefs of these "guys". Include a brief anecdote explaining how you became aware of thier religious affiliations.
Hehe, I'm with U Thomas on the specified complexity thingi only I got the feeling it really is intellectual and that's why I don't get it.
It's tough following your thoughts Xirtam, because you use words that stand for complex ideas and I don't have the sophistication to follow them. Probably why I'm kind of long winded. I got some of those too, I guess, like banana and teacup, but it's mostly amature stuff. Anyway, much as I know how convenient some of those shortcuts are, I get lost easily.
So I don't get specific complexity because evolution might produce any old kind of complexity, not any specific or particular complexity except the one we actually accidentally got.
I get a sense too that evolution leaves you high and dry ethically, or in want of core principles, not sure how to say it, that it makes everything meaningless. That's true if the meaning doesn't derive out of knowing your true self. I'm suggesting that we are God in a backwards sort of way. Plenty of value there as far as I can see.
Sorry for pig headed. I was talking about myself and forgot for a minute.
As far as: "I would argue that the fact that our ideas of God change have more to do with us changing than with God evolving -- if such a God exists. It's not that horrible a thing to gain more knowledge and understanding."
Yup, God is always the same. It's us gaininng more knowledge and understanding that I'm working on.
I see this catch 22. If for personal philosophical reasons you MUST preserve your notion of God and Christ and the price of that is that people with more common sense, or at least the increasing number of people who think along scientific propaganda, if you wish, if the price is that they are lost, what's the point. I know, it's a narrow way or something like that, but what if it's so narrow that nobody gets through. It also seems like the Catholics are doing ok with this stuff. They got early lessons, though thinking the earth was flat and all.
But like I say I will try to follow your reasoning if I can, but so far I just see somebody who won't jump in cause they think the water's cold.
I'll see your eight and raise you another thousand. Happy 9000 and never turn your back on a boomerang.
It's tough following your thoughts Xirtam, because you use words that stand for complex ideas and I don't have the sophistication to follow them. Probably why I'm kind of long winded. I got some of those too, I guess, like banana and teacup, but it's mostly amature stuff. Anyway, much as I know how convenient some of those shortcuts are, I get lost easily.
So I don't get specific complexity because evolution might produce any old kind of complexity, not any specific or particular complexity except the one we actually accidentally got.
I get a sense too that evolution leaves you high and dry ethically, or in want of core principles, not sure how to say it, that it makes everything meaningless. That's true if the meaning doesn't derive out of knowing your true self. I'm suggesting that we are God in a backwards sort of way. Plenty of value there as far as I can see.
Sorry for pig headed. I was talking about myself and forgot for a minute.
As far as: "I would argue that the fact that our ideas of God change have more to do with us changing than with God evolving -- if such a God exists. It's not that horrible a thing to gain more knowledge and understanding."
Yup, God is always the same. It's us gaininng more knowledge and understanding that I'm working on.
I see this catch 22. If for personal philosophical reasons you MUST preserve your notion of God and Christ and the price of that is that people with more common sense, or at least the increasing number of people who think along scientific propaganda, if you wish, if the price is that they are lost, what's the point. I know, it's a narrow way or something like that, but what if it's so narrow that nobody gets through. It also seems like the Catholics are doing ok with this stuff. They got early lessons, though thinking the earth was flat and all.
But like I say I will try to follow your reasoning if I can, but so far I just see somebody who won't jump in cause they think the water's cold.
I'll see your eight and raise you another thousand. Happy 9000 and never turn your back on a boomerang.
PastorDon, I have a terrible time with people putting words in my mouth, so if I did that I'm sorry. I put the statement is question form precisely to avoid that. I was asking you if you think you are being self important when you do that, to look at that possibility. I wasn't saying you were. I was saying that's how it kinda sounds to me and i was saying that if so that it's being pretty emphatic. As to your last point I still don't get it but seems like rahvin does so you can defend it to him.
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
Nothing funnier than "christians" who think they will live in luxury in heaven while the rest of us burn in hell. Oh yeah, they'll be laughing too. Right.
People believe in mythology like religeon because they fear oblivion more than god or the devil.
People believe in mythology like religeon because they fear oblivion more than god or the devil.
Moonbeam, you make me laugh. I like your sense of humor.
And Thomas, I did explain what "specified complexity" means. These aren't my own words, as I mentioned before. I ripped the idea from one of Norman Geisler's books. In layman's terms, I'm describing the difference between a snowstorm and a snowman. The former is an example of a functional process, the other requires intelligence. Both have degrees of complexity to them, but the snowman requires intelligent design because it is an example of specified complexity. I thought I explained this before. I'm not just throwing out buzzwords to see if there are any managers out there.
1) What guides natural selection? More specifically, "who"? In order for guidance to exist, there must be both an object and an agent of action. The "what" or the species being speciated, would be the object. What or who is the agent?
2) Evolution as you're describing it is not a system of ethics, not a religion, and not an origin theory. Yet I'm not arguing against your definition of evolution as a process we can observe today whereby we have variation. What I do have a problem with is when the conglomeration of these processes we observe -- evolution -- are used to extrapolate backward billions of years until we wind up making guesses about origins, then using that to build our philosophies/religions/what-have-you. Evolution as a process in itself is not an origin theory, but it no doubt leads you to make guesses about origins. Based on your definition, one can be both a creationist and an evolutionist. One deals with origins, the other deals with processes after the origin. So they're in no way contradictory in your view, so for all you know, I really am an evolutionist.
3) As far as misrepresenting how evolution is taught and what it's basic principles are, I don't really think I fell asleep in my high school biology classes, so I think I have a pretty good handle... at least on how it was taught to me.
4) Maybe the strawman problem is that so many different people have different ideas on what evolution is. Nature hasn't "selected" any precise definition, so you go ahead and give me a complete synopsis of your view, and I'll quit applying the strawman that has adequately represented so many other people's opinions regarding evolution. Perchance we agree on 90% of the material. I am a complete supporter of natural selection and microevolution. I have no problems with either of these things. I just don't see that we can universally apply them to extrapolate an origin, and you've already agreed with me.
I'm left with this: what the heck are we arguing about? I'm talking about origins, you're talking about processes I agree with... when we get on the same wavelength, perhaps we'll have a decent discussion.
Have a cup of tea.
Speaking of which, moonbeam, you did raise an interesting point. Does meaning derive from knowing your true self? And if your true self is in a constant state of evolution, does that mean that your meaning is changing as well? How can one know one's true self under a constant state of learning/evolution/whatever-you-wanna-call-it. And before Thomas attacks me again () I just want to clarify that I've diverged from the standard meaning of evolution here and am speaking of evolution of thought rather than of biological evolution. Anyway, you have agreed with me that God doesn't change. Furthermore, you agree that we are evolving. So would we evolve into God, then? This "divine idea" if you want to borrow from the hinduistic principle? The "idea" doesn't change, but the species on earth slowly evolve toward this being instead of derived from it? Or would we just somehow merge our collective teacups into a giant banana?
I love science because it is self-correcting. It, in itself, is an example of evolution. So it's not like I'm discounting "scientific propaganda," but rather the jumps that *some scientists* have made through study of evolution. Kind of like Lamarck and how his view of speciation has been utterly destroyed.
And Thomas, I did explain what "specified complexity" means. These aren't my own words, as I mentioned before. I ripped the idea from one of Norman Geisler's books. In layman's terms, I'm describing the difference between a snowstorm and a snowman. The former is an example of a functional process, the other requires intelligence. Both have degrees of complexity to them, but the snowman requires intelligent design because it is an example of specified complexity. I thought I explained this before. I'm not just throwing out buzzwords to see if there are any managers out there.
1) What guides natural selection? More specifically, "who"? In order for guidance to exist, there must be both an object and an agent of action. The "what" or the species being speciated, would be the object. What or who is the agent?
2) Evolution as you're describing it is not a system of ethics, not a religion, and not an origin theory. Yet I'm not arguing against your definition of evolution as a process we can observe today whereby we have variation. What I do have a problem with is when the conglomeration of these processes we observe -- evolution -- are used to extrapolate backward billions of years until we wind up making guesses about origins, then using that to build our philosophies/religions/what-have-you. Evolution as a process in itself is not an origin theory, but it no doubt leads you to make guesses about origins. Based on your definition, one can be both a creationist and an evolutionist. One deals with origins, the other deals with processes after the origin. So they're in no way contradictory in your view, so for all you know, I really am an evolutionist.
3) As far as misrepresenting how evolution is taught and what it's basic principles are, I don't really think I fell asleep in my high school biology classes, so I think I have a pretty good handle... at least on how it was taught to me.
4) Maybe the strawman problem is that so many different people have different ideas on what evolution is. Nature hasn't "selected" any precise definition, so you go ahead and give me a complete synopsis of your view, and I'll quit applying the strawman that has adequately represented so many other people's opinions regarding evolution. Perchance we agree on 90% of the material. I am a complete supporter of natural selection and microevolution. I have no problems with either of these things. I just don't see that we can universally apply them to extrapolate an origin, and you've already agreed with me.
I'm left with this: what the heck are we arguing about? I'm talking about origins, you're talking about processes I agree with... when we get on the same wavelength, perhaps we'll have a decent discussion.
Have a cup of tea.
Speaking of which, moonbeam, you did raise an interesting point. Does meaning derive from knowing your true self? And if your true self is in a constant state of evolution, does that mean that your meaning is changing as well? How can one know one's true self under a constant state of learning/evolution/whatever-you-wanna-call-it. And before Thomas attacks me again (
) I just want to clarify that I've diverged from the standard meaning of evolution here and am speaking of evolution of thought rather than of biological evolution. Anyway, you have agreed with me that God doesn't change. Furthermore, you agree that we are evolving. So would we evolve into God, then? This "divine idea" if you want to borrow from the hinduistic principle? The "idea" doesn't change, but the species on earth slowly evolve toward this being instead of derived from it? Or would we just somehow merge our collective teacups into a giant banana? I love science because it is self-correcting. It, in itself, is an example of evolution. So it's not like I'm discounting "scientific propaganda," but rather the jumps that *some scientists* have made through study of evolution. Kind of like Lamarck and how his view of speciation has been utterly destroyed.
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
Moonbeam, I only took issue with calling science a religion. True, science does rely on faith to an extent, but the difference is that it makes a conscious to minimize it. And further, it does not believe in a supernatural creator of the universe. If you can dispute this, feel free to do so, but the argument "science deludes itself (relies on faith to some degree), religion deludes itself (relies on faith to some degree), therefore science = religion" just doesn't convince me.
Well Mani, I guess I can't convince you better than you have. Basically you're saying that science = faith and religion = faith. I learned in math, and it may have evolves some since I last studied it, but I learned that if science = faith = religion then science = religion. You got all the pieces and they fit, but you don't seem to like the conclusion. I got the same problem with the religious types, don't worry about it.
Xirtam, as to who guide what I would suggest as a thought experiment maybe the orogenesis of some flat plateau land along what will become the continental devide. Not sure if it fits the bill or not but here goes anyway. Raindrops like births keep falling on the land and start a flow. Things are pretty flat so their's really no guidance to speak of. The water accumulates and finds its way out slowly and by chance, but begins to eat at the soil below. Over time rivulets become streams then rivers that cut deep into the rock. Some flow into one ocean and some into another. All the raindrops are guided in the direction of their flow by the path that raindrops which fell there before took. Once the bed is cut the path is determined. At first the water just flows because it has to. It flows a lot of different ways but settles on a repertory of limited ones, ones that work, survive, because they fit the physics of hydrology. The river of life also flows but the course of it's beds is determined by environmental factors, the interplay of different life forms with each other, climate etcetcetc. Orivinally only simple organisms were found on plateaus, but later on it began to rain Hipopotami and monkeys. The rivers that hipopotami flow down never become the river of man, but the river monkeys flow down can lead to, well, you know, apes. AND you know ehat that means. Yup, have a banana.
As to the metaphysics encapsulated under the rubric 'a merging of teacups into a giant banana', that requires some facility with the concept of a banana split. The self divided against the self. Briefly, and I mean briefly, I believe that the path to self knowledge is guarded by two vicious dogs, screaming harpies, and millions of mirrors of unimaginable horrors. We see ourself. Yuck. Anyway we are some happy apes that got a bad fix and went on a bad trip. The road back is a kind of dying, seeing our ugliness, understanding where it came from, feeling. Where we need to get to is before we split in two. Before we got a false ego, became a false person. The real person is a happy ape with a big brain and lots of various talents. Being a happy ape imparts a sense of happiness and a sense of rightness. This is the truth and I know it in my bones sort of thing. Their ain't no doubt cause it's all perfect. Anyway is that God? I think it might be. Is it absolute. Close enough for government work. It will be thousands of years to change very much. And I think that what keeps life going is an inner joy at being alive. So maybe God doesn't change so much as we just enlarge him. Anyway something for the stew pot.
Xirtam, as to who guide what I would suggest as a thought experiment maybe the orogenesis of some flat plateau land along what will become the continental devide. Not sure if it fits the bill or not but here goes anyway. Raindrops like births keep falling on the land and start a flow. Things are pretty flat so their's really no guidance to speak of. The water accumulates and finds its way out slowly and by chance, but begins to eat at the soil below. Over time rivulets become streams then rivers that cut deep into the rock. Some flow into one ocean and some into another. All the raindrops are guided in the direction of their flow by the path that raindrops which fell there before took. Once the bed is cut the path is determined. At first the water just flows because it has to. It flows a lot of different ways but settles on a repertory of limited ones, ones that work, survive, because they fit the physics of hydrology. The river of life also flows but the course of it's beds is determined by environmental factors, the interplay of different life forms with each other, climate etcetcetc. Orivinally only simple organisms were found on plateaus, but later on it began to rain Hipopotami and monkeys. The rivers that hipopotami flow down never become the river of man, but the river monkeys flow down can lead to, well, you know, apes. AND you know ehat that means. Yup, have a banana.
As to the metaphysics encapsulated under the rubric 'a merging of teacups into a giant banana', that requires some facility with the concept of a banana split. The self divided against the self. Briefly, and I mean briefly, I believe that the path to self knowledge is guarded by two vicious dogs, screaming harpies, and millions of mirrors of unimaginable horrors. We see ourself. Yuck. Anyway we are some happy apes that got a bad fix and went on a bad trip. The road back is a kind of dying, seeing our ugliness, understanding where it came from, feeling. Where we need to get to is before we split in two. Before we got a false ego, became a false person. The real person is a happy ape with a big brain and lots of various talents. Being a happy ape imparts a sense of happiness and a sense of rightness. This is the truth and I know it in my bones sort of thing. Their ain't no doubt cause it's all perfect. Anyway is that God? I think it might be. Is it absolute. Close enough for government work. It will be thousands of years to change very much. And I think that what keeps life going is an inner joy at being alive. So maybe God doesn't change so much as we just enlarge him. Anyway something for the stew pot.
but the snowman requires intelligent design because it is an example of specified complexity.
First off, that is circular logic or a self defining (and therefore meaningless) term. You have also not in any way described the difference between a snow man and a snow storm. Additionally, a snow storm is much more "complex" isn't it? But it requires no "intelligence" as it is a natural process. I don't see your point on the whole example.
1) What guides natural selection? More specifically, "who"? In order for guidance to exist, there must be both an object and an agent of action. The "what" or the species being speciated, would be the object. What or who is the agent?
It is not guidance in an active hands on sense like me guiding my car down the road. It is guidence in the same sense that gravity guides falling objects (what guides a waterfall? or a comet?). Relative fitness is what guides natural selection leading to more fit individuals. Natural selection would probably be unguided if there were not population size limits, but when individuals compete for resources, the more fit generally do better.
-- evolution -- are used to extrapolate backward billions of years until we wind up making guesses about origins, then using that to build our philosophies/religions/what-have-you. Evolution as a process in itself is not an origin theory, but it no doubt leads you to make guesses about origins. Based on your definition, one can be both a creationist and an evolutionist. One deals with origins, the other deals with processes after the origin. So they're in no way contradictory in your view, so for all you know, I really am an evolutionist.
So you have an issue with the Big Bang Theory. Thats different. And yea, you could be a creationist (not a literal) evolutionist. You could be an evolutionist, but I doubt it given some of your posts This is not just my definition btw, according to a 1997 study of 17 major highschool text books it is taught that way also.
, so you go ahead and give me a complete synopsis of your view
Well, the complete synopsis would not be encompased with one post or one thread. Many volumes are written about a complete synopsis. But the short version is this: Evolution is the process by which heritable and variable traits are selected based on relative fitness in environments that cannot sustain an infinite amount of individuals.
Thomas
First off, that is circular logic or a self defining (and therefore meaningless) term. You have also not in any way described the difference between a snow man and a snow storm. Additionally, a snow storm is much more "complex" isn't it? But it requires no "intelligence" as it is a natural process. I don't see your point on the whole example.
1) What guides natural selection? More specifically, "who"? In order for guidance to exist, there must be both an object and an agent of action. The "what" or the species being speciated, would be the object. What or who is the agent?
It is not guidance in an active hands on sense like me guiding my car down the road. It is guidence in the same sense that gravity guides falling objects (what guides a waterfall? or a comet?). Relative fitness is what guides natural selection leading to more fit individuals. Natural selection would probably be unguided if there were not population size limits, but when individuals compete for resources, the more fit generally do better.
-- evolution -- are used to extrapolate backward billions of years until we wind up making guesses about origins, then using that to build our philosophies/religions/what-have-you. Evolution as a process in itself is not an origin theory, but it no doubt leads you to make guesses about origins. Based on your definition, one can be both a creationist and an evolutionist. One deals with origins, the other deals with processes after the origin. So they're in no way contradictory in your view, so for all you know, I really am an evolutionist.
So you have an issue with the Big Bang Theory. Thats different. And yea, you could be a creationist (not a literal) evolutionist. You could be an evolutionist, but I doubt it given some of your posts
This is not just my definition btw, according to a 1997 study of 17 major highschool text books it is taught that way also., so you go ahead and give me a complete synopsis of your view
Well, the complete synopsis would not be encompased with one post or one thread. Many volumes are written about a complete synopsis. But the short version is this: Evolution is the process by which heritable and variable traits are selected based on relative fitness in environments that cannot sustain an infinite amount of individuals.
Thomas
Evolutionist, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian...whatever.
Jesus died for you. He Loves You. So do I.
God Bless
Tanner
Jesus died for you. He Loves You. So do I.
God Bless
Tanner
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter