Did you read my post? Of course not. Far Left. Not mainstream left. Also, I'm not religious so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. Please keep your stupid opinions to yourself.
It's the way the far left thinks and acts. You just have to learn to accept it and laugh at it.Careful Gary; your bigotry is showing. Again.
How very Christian of you.
(1) Thank you for calling me stupid. Good luck with that.
(2) Calling it "far left" isn't any better than calling it "left." Or "Jewish" or "Christian." You're still drawing conclusions about specific individuals on this thread based on your understanding of a behavior of a group. That is what we call bigotry. I'm sorry if you don't like the definition.
Didn't call you stupid. I said your opinion was stupid. Big difference. From what I've seen from your posts, your anti-religion statements make you the bigot, not me.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Few Scientific Theories have been subjected to as much scrutiny, testing, and effort to discredit as Evolution. It has consistently held up under every test. More importantly it allows us to solve problems, ask more questions, and gain a picture of the interrelationships of living organisms. ID does none of those things. You can allow your religious beliefs to cloud...
Interesting assertion. If we dismiss ID as nonscientific, without presenting it as a possibility, that is scientific? Is there scientific knowledge gained by coddling one theory and denouncing the rest as not scientific enough?
Just a shallow understanding of thermodynamics (and believe me, my understand of such is liberal arts shallow), teaches us that things in nature decay. They don't reorganize. Mutations end species, they don't prolong them. The creation of the universe requires a catalyst and a greater expenditure of energy than the universe originally had. While I don't suggest that we teach any principles of doctrine of any religion or anything of the sort, classrooms do not have the freedom to even mention scientific principles that might support creationism, or that don't refute ID the same way they might refute a big bang or modern evolutionary theory.
Also, what efforts to discredit evolution have been resisted time and again by the only theory we are allowed to teach our children in schools? That Piltdown Man and the peppered moth were hoaxes was proven. That the geologic column is anecdotal and not scientific has been suggested - where was that answered again?
That carbon and other forms of dating are unreliable, and that outcome-based researched has used that unreliability to further the cause of evolutionary theory as a replacement for anything else. Did I miss the announcement that carbon and argon dating have been fixed so they are not inconsistent?
Hey - it was Darwin himself who said that Haeckel's embryonic drawings were very important to the viability of his theories. And then it turned out that Haeckel's drawings were frauds, and that he was a racist hack trying to assess a less-than-human status to negros.
In fact, evolution has been so strongly scientifically "tested" that researchers still bring up the hoaxes as evidence, ignoring the fact that Pilt-down Man is a thousand year old human with the filed-down jawbone of an orangutan.
Is that what we mean when we say evolution stood up time and again to scientific criticism? Because what the last post I read said that scientists who have a creationist faith let that faith color their science, while evolutionists are scientists even while they shut out other theories and ignore criticism of their religion.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
It just doesn't sit right with me that the popular vote's choice can be upended by a smartass electoral delegate, much less an inequity due to state populations.
I sort of agree with that, but I think we have to consider that sometimes voters are moved by things that don't work in pursuit of a fair elections. FOr example, media coverage has clearly influenced elections in the past - driving voters on the west coast to polls, or discouraing voters who turn around in their cars after a state is called prematurely over the radio.
The electoral college has to stay, I think, until we open adialogue about changing election dynamics. Maybe a required civics test or voter registration class. Of course, without a way to be sure someone just presents some raw history and facts of government, I guess those changes would need a lot of development, and might not make a difference. If I taught a voter reg class, I would include stuff about economics, tax burdens, laugher curves, etc., while others who got ahold of that class might teach something with a different agenda, and we'd each accuse the other of having an agenda.
I dunno if there's a better solution, so as is at least we all know the rules. Until McCain-Feingold made the process more corrupt.
Way to go, John.
|
In fact, evolution has been so strongly scientifically "tested" that researchers still bring up the hoaxes as evidence, ignoring the fact that Pilt-down Man is a thousand year old human with the filed-down jawbone of an orangutan.
I half-expected you to mention the Cardiff giant, too.
Could you please name one credible scientist or scholar, defending evolution as fact, who cites the Pitldown skull as proof of man's evolution, and include documentation to support your claim?
I've already mentioned comparing fossils and looking at the relative dates of the rocks. I assure you that my geological competence is not under question -- I am well able to distinguish relative ages of rock strata in the field. That's personal, firsthand, physical evidence. Can you provide clear and current examples of the "poor science" and "massaged data"? If so, it should be reported, and I'll be happy to grill any of my colleagues guilty of such (But, again, please leave out Piltdown Man and other ancient-history hoaxes (hoaxes discovered by science, by the way, and oft brought up by scientists as examples of how constant testing within the scientific community exposes hoaxes), and the other usual creationist straw man stuff -- like Haekel's drawings, which lost scientific credibility long before we all were born). I'd be interested if you could provide insight into current examples what you apparently are so well aware of that I have somehow missed in my professional experience.
Important Disclaimer: Mind you, I make absolutely no claims that the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct; I only claim that it's the only theory I know of that has ANY positive physical evidence backing it. Also note that in no way do I fail to allow the possibility that God (or an "intelligent designer") might tweak the process to suit His needs -- that's certainly possible, and there's no way for anyone to disprove it. What I will say is that the fossils clearly show evolution of life over time, that I've found and examined any number of these firsthand, and that I don't believe that God put them there just to fool me.
Just a shallow understanding of thermodynamics (and believe me, my understand of such is liberal arts shallow)
Clearly. I've read Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, and I'm a trained scientist. I feel fairly well able to look at evolution vs. ID. By your own admission (and by the misinterpretation of the 2nd law you've given -- one oft-quoted by creationists who have no understanding of science), you've shown a total lack of even basic knowledge of the science you're claiming to be competent to discredit. I'd suggest that after you've taken few chemistry courses at an accredited university (not a Bible college), we might be able to continue on more reasonable footing.
Alternatively, explain to me the sources of uncertainty in, say, Potassium-Argon dating and how they imply that the method is useless (an error of 100,000 years out of 50 million is only 0.2%, after all)? Or, look up the difference between absolute age (e.g., K-Ar) and relative age (which I cited doing firsthand), and then look again at my previous post.
You might also read the important disclaimer above. Evolution is in no way an attack on God. ID is nothing but an attack on evolution; it has no positive (as opposed to negative) physical evidence of its own.
|
Few Scientific Theories have been subjected to as much scrutiny, testing, and effort to discredit as Evolution. It has consistently held up under every test. More importantly it allows us to solve problems, ask more questions, and gain a picture of the interrelationships of living organisms. ID does none of those things. You can allow your religious beliefs to cloud...Interesting assertion. If we dismiss ID as nonscientific, without presenting it as a possibility, that is scientific? Is there scientific knowledge gained by coddling one theory and denouncing the rest as not scientific enough?
Just a shallow understanding of thermodynamics (and believe me, my understand of such is liberal arts shallow), teaches us that things in nature decay. They don't reorganize. Mutations end species, they don't prolong them. The creation of the universe requires a catalyst and a greater expenditure of energy than the universe originally had. While I don't suggest that we teach any principles of doctrine of any religion or anything of the sort, classrooms do not have the freedom to even mention scientific principles that might support creationism, or that don't refute ID the same way they might refute a big bang or modern evolutionary theory.
Also, what efforts to discredit evolution have been resisted time and again by the only theory we are allowed to teach our children in schools? That Piltdown Man and the peppered moth were hoaxes was proven. That the geologic column is anecdotal and not scientific has been suggested - where was that answered again?
That carbon and other forms of dating are unreliable, and that outcome-based researched has used that unreliability to further the cause of evolutionary theory as a replacement for anything else. Did I miss the announcement that carbon and argon dating have been fixed so they are not inconsistent?
Hey - it was Darwin himself who said that Haeckel's embryonic drawings were very important to the viability of his theories. And then it...
It's late, so I won't try to answer all of this tonight. For the moment let me correct one clearly flawed part of your statements. Mutation that leads to competitive advantage does grant greater probability of survival and if that trait is passed on to offspring, they will be more likely to survive and propagate and so on until the mutation dominates. This has been shown time and again to happen in nature. For example, the adaptation of antibiotic resistant bacteria that lets them survive over their less resistant fellows. You can see it in the survival of sickle cell trait in regions prone to malaria outbreaks vs. the relative absence of that trait in other parts of the world. Those modifications (read mutations) granting competitive advantage is no matter of faith. No matter what your belief it is a fact that those with sickle cell trait survive better than those without it if infected with malaria. It is a fact that bacteria who are resistant to antibiotics will survive better than their non resistant counterparts and will multiply in a host organism until the entire strain is resistant. For an example look no further than MRSA. Kirth and I have both given repeated examples that support evolution and you simply dismiss them because they don't support ID. Yet you have offered nothing beyond irreducable complexity as support for ID. When I am not exhausted from a long day I will explain the myth of irreducable complexity. In point of fact there is no such thing.
To your assertion that carbon dating is unreliable, where do you get that from. On the whole it has proven to be a very reliable way to date the age of things like fossils. The uncertainty they are talking about is it's margin of error. It doesn't mean Carbon dating is unreliable, only that it is accurate to a certain level of significance. That means that with say a 5% error rate (the generally accepted amount in science of all disciplines) a date of 50 million years is off by at most 2.5 million years. That isn't anything like what you are claiming. As to your point about Thermodynamics tending towards decay, that isn't what it says. It says that the universe tends towards entropy because it is the more energetically favorable state. Living organisms combat that natural tendency through the use of energy. On our world that is directly traced to energy from the sun, which is converted by plants along with CO2 into carbohydrates. Animals consume those plants and use that energy themselves. Some animals consume those animals and so on. That energy is then used to maintain an ordered system. There is nothing in thermodynamics about mutation destroying a species. Have you actually taken a science class? Most of this stuff is Cell Biology I and General Chemistry I.
I will come back to this fresh tomorrow. I will reiterate again though. ID is NOT strong scienctifically. It is not supported by empirical evidence and has no basis in existing scientific theory. It is an explanation, but not a scientific one. As such it does not belong in the science classroom. The demand that ID be taught with Evolution is just another attempt by the religious right to get creationism in the classroom. If you want your kids to make their own decisions then you teach them creationism and we will teach them evolution. Then they can make their own choice.
It doesn't mean Carbon dating is unreliable, only that it is accurate to a certain level of significance. That means that with say a 5% error rate (the generally accepted amount in science of all disciplines) a date of 50 million years is off by at most 2.5 million years. That isn't anything like what you are claiming.
Carbon-14 dating has a more limited range of usefulness due to its relatively short half-life (60,000 years before present at most). Potassium-Argon is a better choice when we're getting up into the 50 Ma range.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Mind you, I make absolutely no claims that the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct; I only claim that it's the only theory I know of that has positive physical evidence backing it. Also note that in no way do I fail to allow the possibility that God (or an "intelligent designer") might tweak the process to suit His needs -- that's certainly possible, and there's no way for anyone to disprove it. What I will say is that the fossils clearly show evolution of life over time, that I've found and examined any number of these firsthand, and that I don't believe that God put them there just to fool me.
I apologize if I am misunderstood. Christians, that I know of, don't discount that some variety of species exists over time. What I believe, though, is that evolution is essentially treated as a theory of creation - that modern species have only come about from this unprovable process, and therefore other attempts to explain life on earth are not scientific.
Now, I have my troubles with the theory, still. I would appreciate an explanation of the geologic colum: how can we date it? The index fossils are dated by their place in the column, so that doesn't work. Carbon dating is very unreliable - it carries a number of assumptions and regional corrections. Also, it's only valid within 700 years and expires within 50k years entirely. We can't guarantee that c-14 levels have always been the same becasue we can't do any better than make assumptions about solar radiation, prehistoric volcanic activity, and local strength of the earth's magnetic field. Other forms of radiometric dating are no better. Deeper into the earth, argon dating fluxuates wildly from surface dating. How does a geologist know the age of a rock, or an anthropologist know the age of a specimen?
I can't give you that evolutionary hoaxes are not useful in criticizing the theory. You want to call them straw men, but they are hoaxes that were used to solidify this theory into wide-acceptance, to the point that australopithecus was dated not by his carbon date results, but by the results of a number of rock samples around him, because his date didn't fit into the paradigm of evolutionary development. The numbers had to be manipulated to keep the sample from being too old to fit into a rule-set created by hoaxes and assumptions. Moreover, criticizing them as yesterday's news seems to be the true straw man here. Are they hoaxes or not? Address that, not that they've been disproven by science. All I get from that is that the evolutionary theory they supported lost a step when science disproved them.
I'm not afraid to learn something about geology or microevolution. My sole contention is that one perspective attempts to silence and eclipse the other. Christians are branded as the close-minded ones and yet are assailed, discredited, fired, etc, for not stepping in line with a theory that as yet has presumptive and anecdotal evidence, plus the scandal of proof-by-hoax on many different occasions.
As I said, if anyone has answers that make one theory more scientific than another, I'm not afraid to learn. But evolution has no reason to demand my trust.
|
|
It doesn't mean Carbon dating is unreliable, only that it is accurate to a certain level of significance. That means that with say a 5% error rate (the generally accepted amount in science of all disciplines) a date of 50 million years is off by at most 2.5 million years. That isn't anything like what you are claiming.Carbon-14 dating has a more limited range of usefulness due to its relatively short half-life (60,000 years before present at most). Potassium-Argon is a better choice when we're getting up into the 50 Ma range.
Thanks for the correction Kirth. It's late and my brain is a bit fried. I was more trying to make the point that when we are talking about the certainty of these scientific tests we aren't saying they are utterly unreliable, but rather that they have an amount of error to their accuracy that is generally accepted as a very small percentage. Radioactive decay is something covered in even High School general chemistry. I'm suprised that an educated individual (which ancientsensei clearly is) would claim that such dating methods are hog wash.
Anyway, off to bed I go.
I apologize if I am misunderstood. Christians, that I know of, don't discount that some variety of species exists over time. What I believe, though, is that evolution is essentially treated as a theory of creation - that modern species have only come about from this unprovable process, and therefore other attempts to explain life on earth are not scientific.
There are a number of situations where scientists cannot directly experiment and reproduce the results. That doesn't mean that the processes they follow are not scientific. Hallmarks of a really scientific process are the gathering of empirical evidence and the attempt to figure out what pieces of evidence mean, adjusting theories to find the best fit. One fundamental aspect of that involves adjusting the theories to best fit the evidence we can actually see, even if we cannot replicate the experiment.
As I said, if anyone has answers that make one theory more scientific than another, I'm not afraid to learn. But evolution has no reason to demand my trust.
I'm far more inclined to trust a body of science that has reasonable explanations and strives to find explanations for the things we don't know, rather than accept the theorists throwing up their hands, saying "We can't figure this out so it must be deliberate design." Any scientist who embraces ID is implicitly giving up science as too hard. There are tons of things we can't explain now and will not be able to explain in my lifetime or the lifetime of my grand or great-grandkids. And I'm fine with that. So I won't just give up and attribute the mystery to god's work just because I can't figure it out with the tools and knowledge I have now.
|
|
Mind you, I make absolutely no claims that the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct; I only claim that it's the only theory I know of that has positive physical evidence backing it. Also note that in no way do I fail to allow the possibility that God (or an "intelligent designer") might tweak the process to suit His needs -- that's certainly possible, and there's no way for anyone to disprove it. What I will say is that the fossils clearly show evolution of life over time, that I've found and examined any number of these firsthand, and that I don't believe that God put them there just to fool me.I apologize if I am misunderstood. Christians, that I know of, don't discount that some variety of species exists over time. What I believe, though, is that evolution is essentially treated as a theory of creation - that modern species have only come about from this unprovable process, and therefore other attempts to explain life on earth are not scientific.
Now, I have my troubles with the theory, still. I would appreciate an explanation of the geologic colum: how can we date it? The index fossils are dated by their place in the column, so that doesn't work. Carbon dating is very unreliable - it carries a number of assumptions and regional corrections. Also, it's only valid within 700 years and expires within 50k years entirely. We can't guarantee that c-14 levels have always been the same becasue we can't do any better than make assumptions about solar radiation, prehistoric volcanic activity, and local strength of the earth's magnetic field. Other forms of radiometric dating are no better. Deeper into the earth, argon dating fluxuates wildly from surface dating. How does a geologist know the age of a rock, or an anthropologist know the age of a specimen?
I can't give you that evolutionary hoaxes are not useful in criticizing the theory. You want to call them straw men, but they are hoaxes that were used to solidify this theory into wide-acceptance, to the...
Except that you are afraid, because I, Kirth, and several others have explained to you the process we use to decide if something is more scientific than something else. You just refuse to accept them because they don't support ID. You gather empirircal evidence. You take measurements, you make observations, you construct tests and execute them, etc. etc. etc.
And for the record, I don't expect you to trust evolution. The fact that you would assert that we are asking that of you already demonstrates you are missing the point. The fact Evolution is not a matter of trust. It works as a scientific model for what it explains. I don't worry about whether or not I trust the quadratic equation. It reliably allows me to solve parametric equations. I don't worry about believing in or trustin evolution. I know it works for what it explains. You can say it isn't true and make straw man arguments til you are blue in the face. If you want your child to know intelligent design, teach it to them yourself. It has no place in the science classroom, because it does not meet the criteria for science as a way of knowing. I can't observe it. I can't test it. I can't measure it. I can't disprove it. With Evolution, I can see the fossil record. I can observe the effects of adaptation on both a macro and micro scale (and we have given a gaggle of examples at this point). I can make predictions about what will happen with it as is seen in vaccination medicine. I can demonstrate common ancestry through gene mapping and the complete genome sequences. The entire human genome has been sequenced, so I can compare humans to any other animal to see how similar they are. The percentages would surprise you.
On the whole though, I don't think you can be convinced because you cling to dearly to your beliefs even in the face of proponderous evidence. Kirth, I, and many others have given you example after example. You summarily dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. There is not a single scrap of physical evidence to support ID. Not one. I want to make one last point again because Kirth did the same. Evolution is not an attack on God. Science does not concern itself with the spiritual world. Understanding the fact of Evolution is not mutually exclusive to believing in God. However, creationism is not science. Evolution will continue to be taught in the classroom because it is good science. It have empirical evidence, it have been tested time and again. Just because you ignore the examples doesn't make them untrue.
|
|
...small states well protected in the Senate...
well, since the passage of the 17th amendment, the STATES no longer have representation in the federal government. the senate USED TO be the body that looked after the state government's interest in the federal system, but when the selection of senators were taken from state legislators and given to the public, they, in effect, just became "super representatives" who were beholden to popular opinion, not the voice of the state governments...
this had the corrolary effect of making the 9th and 10th amendments irrelevant.
the electoral college is the last constitutional vestige that the states are equal partners in the federal form of government. remove it, and you may as well erase state lines, as they would become politically meaningless...
...small states well protected in the Senate...well, since the passage of the 17th amendment, the STATES no longer have representation in the federal government. the senate USED TO be the body that looked after the state government's interest in the federal system, but when the selection of senators were taken from state legislators and given to the public, they, in effect, just became "super representatives" who were beholden to popular opinion, not the voice of the state governments...
this had the corrolary effect of making the 9th and 10th amendments irrelevant.
the electoral college is the last constitutional vestige that the states are equal partners in the federal form of government. remove it, and you may as well erase state lines, as they would become politically meaningless...
That's an interesting interpretation of opening up the election of senators to the citizenry of a state. Small states are protected in the Senate because they have the same representation as the large states. There's very little chance a coalition of large states can form a supermajority, immune to filibuster, and push through a lot of large, heavily urban programs without a lot of small state involvement.
And even without state government involvement in national elections, the states aren't at all politically meaningless. States administer tons of federally-backed programs from education to medicare to welfare, all with their own local character imprinted on the programs. States have a significant impact on most government programs that affect people's lives.
|
|
...small states well protected in the Senate...well, since the passage of the 17th amendment, the STATES no longer have representation in the federal government. the senate USED TO be the body that looked after the state government's interest in the federal system, but when the selection of senators were taken from state legislators and given to the public, they, in effect, just became "super representatives" who were beholden to popular opinion, not the voice of the state governments...
this had the corrolary effect of making the 9th and 10th amendments irrelevant.
the electoral college is the last constitutional vestige that the states are equal partners in the federal form of government. remove it, and you may as well erase state lines, as they would become politically meaningless...
That's an interesting interpretation of opening up the election of senators to the citizenry of a state. Small states are protected in the Senate because they have the same representation as the large states. There's very little chance a coalition of large states can form a supermajority, immune to filibuster, and push through a lot of large, heavily urban programs without a lot of small state involvement.
And even without state government involvement in national elections, the states aren't at all politically meaningless. States administer tons of federally-backed programs from education to medicare to welfare, all with their own local character imprinted on the programs. States have a significant impact on most government programs that affect people's lives.
i said "politically meaningless", not "bureaucratically meaningless". states will still be able to waste tax dollars just as easily as the feds either way...
I'm not afraid to learn something about geology or microevolution. My sole contention is that one perspective attempts to silence and eclipse the other. Christians are branded as the close-minded ones and yet are assailed, discredited, fired, etc, for not stepping in line with a theory that as yet has presumptive and anecdotal evidence, plus the scandal of proof-by-hoax on many different occasions.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, but by saying this you're also indicating that you don't think ID has any of these faults... Kent Hovind and his ilk are clear examples that this is simply not true.As I said, if anyone has answers that make one theory more scientific than another, I'm not afraid to learn. But evolution has no reason to demand my trust.
Proper education is a great thing and I'll gladly give you a push in the right direction. Here are some places to start (and remember (this can't be said enough) the theory of evolution does NOT explain how the universe came into being):
What Every Creationist Must DENY
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
As has also been mentioned before, TalkOrigins is a great site, as is The Panda's Thumb.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.
Also one of the reasons why I have a hard time voting for any politician who proudly wears his or her religion on his sleeve. I want someone in charge of things who, when the sh*t hits the fan, doesn't resort to ineffectual prayer to their invisible sky daddy but actually uses his or her intellect and reasoning to get things done.
Most people who say they hear voices or talk to invisible beings we tend to look at as sad individuals who clearly have mental problems... yet another guy who says that he has received orders from god is elected president of the most powerful country on earth? How's that for ironic.
And I certainly can't take any politician who advocates ID be taught in public schools, e.g. Mrs. Palin, seriously either.
I'm not afraid to learn something about geology or microevolution. My sole contention is that one perspective attempts to silence and eclipse the other. Christians are branded as the close-minded ones and yet are assailed, discredited, fired, etc, for not stepping in line with a theory that as yet has presumptive and anecdotal evidence, plus the scandal of proof-by-hoax on many different occasions.(emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, but by saying this you're also indicating that you don't think ID has any of these faults... Kent Hovind and his ilk are clear examples that this is simply not true.As I said, if anyone has answers that make one theory more scientific than another, I'm not afraid to learn. But evolution has no reason to demand my trust.Proper education is a great thing and I'll gladly give you a push in the right direction. Here are some places to start (and remember (this can't be said enough) the theory of evolution does NOT explain how the universe came into being):
What Every Creationist Must DENY
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
Evolution IS a Blind WatchmakerAs has also been mentioned before, TalkOrigins is a great site, as is The Panda's Thumb.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.
Also one of the reasons why I have a hard time voting for any politician who proudly wears his or her religion on his sleeve. I want someone in charge of things who, when the sh*t hits the fan, doesn't resort to...
The truthsess....it burns.
|
|
i've been lurking the left and right political boards and blog sites for a couple of hours now. i think obama is in SERIOUS trouble here. the righties who really dislike mccain are energized by the palin for vp choice. the pro hillary democrats (mostly women, from what i can tell from the posts) are about 95/5 for mccain. union members, "reagan" democrats, middle america types are swinging mccain.
apparently her speech in ohio (which has been described as "brilliant" by everyone on both sides except for the daily kos and du types) has resonated with women across the boards. her shout out to geraldine ferraro, hillary clinton and the original womens suffragettes has women going crazy for her (and, from what i can tell from a lot of the dem sites - again, the ones that aren't daily kos and du - michelle obama is very UNpopular with women...bad sign).
i'm getting the impression the dems made a huge mistake taking the empty suit over hillary...
[edit: and it appears the mccain campaign site crashed a few times after the announcement, due to traffic from people trying to donate to the campaign...]
|
|
I'm far more inclined to trust a body of science that has reasonable explanations and strives to find explanations for the things we don't know, rather than accept the theorists throwing up their hands, saying "We can't figure this out so it must be deliberate design." Any scientist who embraces ID is implicitly giving up science as too hard. There are tons of things we can't explain now and will not be able to explain in my lifetime or the lifetime of my grand or great-grandkids. And I'm fine with that. So I won't just give up and attribute the mystery to god's work just because I can't figure it out with the tools and knowledge I have now.
I hate getting into evolution vs. creation debates on the internet because its really not the proper forum for them and they never seem to go too well but I couldn't let the above quote pass.
The idea that creationism is an abandonment of science is a prime example of 'begging the question.' (Not to mention a bit patronizing and condescending) The debator is clinging to a bias that states that a believe in a supernatural origin is illogical and irrational. It is not a valid point from which to begin a reasoned argument.
Secondly, a belief in ID is not giving up on science. It is a choice, sometimes informed, sometimes not, to interpret the available data in a different way. The fossil record is a prime example of this. Both creationist and evolutionist accept the fossil record. The debate is over what it means.
i'm getting the impression the dems made a huge mistake taking the empty suit over hillary...
I think another tactical error was not choosing Hillary as Veep. Biden was a 'safe' choice, and I think that played to many who are hoping for Change that it's going to be politics as usual. It also disenfranchised a lot of Hillary supporters. She should have gotten the nod, and I think the Clintons are going to become very passive/agressive this election season. It is after all in Hillary's best interests now if Obama loses, it allows her to set up another run in 2012.
I think that if the Democrats come at Palin attacking her 'experience' they will have do some soul searching about Obama's 'experience'. After all, she's in the VP slot, he's in the Presidential slot. Saying 'she's only a heartbeat away from the Presidency' begs the question of how far away will Obama be?
Personally, I applaud McCain for thinking outside the box. I didn't think the old duffer had it in him. I have to say that barring major revelations on Palin, she is a perfect choice to balance him. I feel better about November now that Palin is on his ticket. I wasn't looking forward to voting for Nader.
|
|
I'm far more inclined to trust a body of science that has reasonable explanations and strives to find explanations for the things we don't know, rather than accept the theorists throwing up their hands, saying "We can't figure this out so it must be deliberate design." Any scientist who embraces ID is implicitly giving up science as too hard. There are tons of things we can't explain now and will not be able to explain in my lifetime or the lifetime of my grand or great-grandkids. And I'm fine with that. So I won't just give up and attribute the mystery to god's work just because I can't figure it out with the tools and knowledge I have now.I hate getting into evolution vs. creation debates on the internet because its really not the proper forum for them and they never seem to go too well but I couldn't let the above quote pass.
The idea that creationism is an abandonment of science is a prime example of 'begging the question.' (Not to mention a bit patronizing and condescending) The debator is clinging to a bias that states that a believe in a supernatural origin is illogical and irrational. It is not a valid point from which to begin a reasoned argument.
Secondly, a belief in ID is not giving up on science. It is a choice, sometimes informed, sometimes not, to interpret the available data in a different way. The fossil record is a prime example of this. Both creationist and evolutionist accept the fossil record. The debate is over what it means.
From a scientific lense, a supernatural origin is irrational and illogical because it is not testable with scientific methods. This has been explained at least a half dozen times in this thread. Science does not deal in the supernatural. It just doesn't. If you don't believe me google search the nature of science. The rules for science preclude a supernatural explanation. Again, if creationism is important to you, teach it to your kids yourself. In the science classroom students should learn science. ID is NOT science. For this conversation to have any meaning we have to be able to agree on the ground rules for what science is. It isn't just any old explanation you throw against a wall. There are definitive criteria. ID does not meet the vast majority of them.
Wow. I actually like a lot of what I see, when I look into her. And I can't stand Joe Biden -- horrible choice on Obama's part, IMO, like saying "no change here!" I might just end up voting Republican after all... or maybe not. They all suck. Can I write in Arlen Specter?
Actually, since the president isn't actually elected by the PEOPLE, but by the College of Electors (which is elected by the people), you actually CAN'T write in a candidate for president. The electoral college is the most screwed up thing about American politics.
I actually was pulling for Romney as VP, despite the fact that my 5-year-old niece doesn't trust him (fixed the Olympics, fixed Massachusetts; Romney I mean, not my niece).
The fossil record is a prime example of this. Both creationist and evolutionist accept the fossil record. The debate is over what it means.
If ID looked at the whole of the fossil record, you'd be correct, and ID would be a much stronger hypothesis. But typically it ignores the fact that more complex organisms appear later than simpler ones; that the diversity of fossils increases, rather than decreases, with time (except for mass extinction events like that marking the Permian-Triassic boundary); and that DNA from critters surmised by the fossils to be more recently descended from a common ancestor is always more similar than the DNA from critters surmised to be more distantly descended.
I would appreciate an explanation of the geologic colum: how can we date it? The index fossils are dated by their place in the column, so that doesn't work. Carbon dating is very unreliable - it carries a number of assumptions and regional corrections. Also, it's only valid within 700 years and expires within 50k years entirely. We can't guarantee that c-14 levels have always been the same becasue we can't do any better than make assumptions about solar radiation, prehistoric volcanic activity, and local strength of the earth's magnetic field. Other forms of radiometric dating are no better.
What we have are a large number of independent methods, all of which are in close agreement with each other. On the Atlantic floor, spreading at the mid-ocean ridge occurs at a fairly stable rate: it varies, but not by a large number of orders of magnitude. The magnetic signature of the earth is "stamped" into the iron-bearing rocks as they cool, providing a rough timeline. K-Ar dating of these rocks is quite consistent with that timeline. U-Pb dating relies on the decay of a totally different element, with a different half-life, but has an overlapping "time of usefulness" (based on that half-life) with K-Ar, and gives consistent results with the K-Ar dates, and with the sea-floor spreading estimates. For younger rocks, we can use other methods (U-Th-Pr, C14, etc.), which all provide good agreement. Fission-track dating is a separate dating method for rocks with radioactive elements, and also provides results in agreement with the parent-daughter dates. Finally, when we have a large-scale impact signature (e.g., the iridium spike at the K-T boundary), the radiometric dates of the rocks bearing this signature are in good agreement. For ALL of these to match, and for all of them to be as wrong as the creationist claims, then God would have to have intentionally and carefully skewed all of the wrong results to match each other in order to fool us, and I have no reason to believe a basically benevolent deity would give us the gift of reason and then set up the world so that that gift was useless.
We can also look at the relative ages of rocks, as determined by superposition and a number of other geologic principles (a competent geologist will recognize overturned beds, unconformities, etc.). This doesn't give a date, but rather a "this is younger/older than that" scenario. With experience, it can be done in the field, and doesn't require a lab. Interestingly, the rocks that the absolute methods date as being older are always found in correspondingly older relative positions in the "column."
Human-like fossils are never found in older rocks. Trilobites are never found in recent rocks. Transitional fossils appear in rocks between the ages of the fossils they're transitional for. All exactly as evolution predicts. Again, it's possible that God created them all, and then placed them carefully in the rock record in accordance with His falsification of all the above results, just to fool us. For ID to be convincing, it would need some way to account for all of this correspondence to work out so nicely.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I suppose that I need to do some cleaning up and that some of the heat of this thing is my fault.
I want you fellas to know that I didn't get to read all of your earliest posts. Some information you provided earlier might have helped shape the conversation with some others differently. Your more recent ones I devoured because I became involved, but before that, I was just objecting to the "cancer of the mind" guy.
Now, from your perspective, I have ignored a lot of those claims, when in truth I never read them (though that wasn't on purpose) and sort of got caught in the middle, so I apologize if you have been beating your heads against the wall.
So, the only parts of this talk that remain really important to me are that you guys don't think I am picking and choosing my science, and that I continue to use this talk as a resource to refine myself.
From the perspective of smaller scale species adaptation, I have zero complaints about evolution. On the issue of how life specifically began, and whether man serves a holier (meaning set apart) purpose, rather than being the latest adaptive model...that is where I believe demonstrable and wildly theoretic evolution diverge from one another. And I believe that an agendized education system allows the bad science to ride on the coattails of the good.
So, I apologize if I have you guys rolling your eyes. But I hope you understand that in terms of organisms resisting antibiotics, or tree frogs dveloping poisonous body oils, I get it. But the evidence available for those things, while observable and plentiful, is not suggestive of fish becoming mammals or primates becoming humans. And it is in those presentations of evolution that a lot of hoaxes and manipulated data lie (like the two examples I gave before).
So...my focus has shifted from questioning the way we get the information, to making sure I am not misunderstood - which clearly I have been poor at. I do teach my kids about ID, and I teach them that some of what they learn in school is fact and doesn't discount God's role in creation. But some of what they are taught - perhaps more correctly the manner in which they are taught - is intended to directly contradict that. We Christians are only up in arms because our beliefs about education are continually marginalized. Since a number of researchers are Christians, there can't be a choice of one or the other. It is possible to teach this adaptive evolution we have just discussed without making the claim that man came from primates and that god is dead. While you might rightfully assert you have never made that claim, some have. And when the assumption is made by students and ID is not even mentioned in the classroom, damage is done. Damage that can be prevented by parents, but not necessarily. Parents are overwhelmed these days as it is. But taxes, public education, and social welfare are tangental to this talk and I don't want to go there. Some of the time spent in this forum should be gaming talk. : }
Speaking of which, drop by sinisteradventures.com and check out Nick Logue's project. Very good stuff.
So I hope that clears up some misconceptions about what I am trying to say. I don't trust radiometric dating to tell us a human fossil is 10 million years old. I don't deny the examples of adaptive evolution, though I apparently misused the term mutation and made trouble for myself. I don't want to exasperate folk with better science mojo than me, but I also don't want to yield schools over to an agenda that won't restrict itself to "these are the facts and the rest is unanswered".
|
|
I suppose that I need to do some cleaning up and that some of the heat of this thing is my fault.
I want you fellas to know that I didn't get to read all of your earliest posts. Some information you provided earlier might have helped shape the conversation with some others differently. Your more recent ones I devoured because I became involved, but before that, I was just objecting to the "cancer of the mind" guy.
Now, from your perspective, I have ignored a lot of those claims, when in truth I never read them (though that wasn't on purpose) and sort of got caught in the middle, so I apologize if you have been beating your heads against the wall.
So, the only parts of this talk that remain really important to me are that you guys don't think I am picking and choosing my science, and that I continue to use this talk as a resource to refine myself.
From the perspective of smaller scale species adaptation, I have zero complaints about evolution. On the issue of how life specifically began, and whether man serves a holier (meaning set apart) purpose, rather than being the latest adaptive model...that is where I believe demonstrable and wildly theoretic evolution diverge from one another. And I believe that an agendized education system allows the bad science to ride on the coattails of the good.
So, I apologize if I have you guys rolling your eyes. But I hope you understand that in terms of organisms resisting antibiotics, or tree frogs dveloping poisonous body oils, I get it. But the evidence available for those things, while observable and plentiful, is not suggestive of fish becoming mammals or primates becoming humans. And it is in those presentations of evolution that a lot of hoaxes and manipulated data lie (like the two examples I gave before).
So...my focus has shifted from questioning the way we get the information, to making sure I am not misunderstood - which clearly I have been poor at. I do teach my kids about ID, and I teach them that some of what they learn in school is fact and...
Why don't you trust it? Because if it is wrong, then much of our modern of understanding of physics is also wrong. Given that, so far, physics seems to follow our modern understanding of it then it seems unlikely that this part of it is wrong.
Also, your contention on a divine force has nothing to do with science, whether it is true as you believe or false. This is the part that I think is causing the problem. God is a supernatural force. He acts without concern for the laws of nature and leaves no trace His workings behind. That makes Him completely unscientific as science is the study of natural forces. A supernatural entity literally CANNOT be scientific. Science can also say nothing about the soul (save that we can't find evidence for what it is or even if it is. We have a similar problem with consciousness and free will). Doesn't an you can't have one, just that it can't be tested for scientifically. As ID also relies on a supernatural Designer, it is not science because there is no evidence anywhere to examine. It cannot make predictions, as scientific theories can. It cannot be proven wrong because it's entire contention is a negative which is impossible to falsify (if you disagree, tell me how you'd go about disproving the Designer's existence).
If you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, then you have a problem with science because biology, physics, geology, astronomy and chemistry all agree with each other that you're wrong. If you were right, then the entirety of science should be overturned. As the saying goes "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".
Also, no matter how passionately you believe something, that doesn't make it true and what disagrees with it false. Evolution has evidence (primarily the fossil record and DNA) to support it. If you want to dismiss those, then make your case and give us evidence for why they're wrong, not just because you don't believe them. Until then, evolution stays science because it is science. ID and Creatoinism stay philosophy because that's what they are
. I don't trust radiometric dating to tell us a human fossil is 10 million years old. I don't deny the examples of adaptive evolution, though I apparently misused the term mutation and made trouble for myself. I don't want to exasperate folk with better science mojo than me, but I also don't want to yield schools over to an agenda that won't restrict itself to "these are the facts and the rest is unanswered".
(1) You lack of trust is irrelevant. The data are all that matters.
(2) Science class *must* restrict itself to facts. That is the whole point. This is not an "agenda."(3) You are (and will continue) to "exasperate folk with better science mojo." Perhaps there is a lesson for you here?
*This* is why debating this stuff on the Internet is futile; at the end of the day, the illogical are (by definition) not persuaded by logic.
|
|
We Christians are only up in arms because our beliefs about education are continually marginalized. [...] It is possible to teach this adaptive evolution we have just discussed without making the claim that man came from primates and that god is dead.
As part of the group that should be included in your "we Christians", I'm tired of being made an invisible, voiceless part of my faith by "you" Christians who seek to marginalize, ignore, or condemn those of us who can accept both the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and the scientific fact that evolution perpetuates life on this planet and is manifest all around us. I'm not up in arms about anything but that. And I'm far from alone.
Also, as a teacher, and one who has taught students what evolution actually is, and that Homo sapiens came from primates because we are primates, I'd just like to say that I've never thought of teaching that God is dead because a) He isn't, and b) religious doctrine and matters of faith should never be taught in a classroom unless that's what the class is specifically about.
Out of curiosity, do the people who are in favor of Creationism being taught alongside evolution also want equal time given to Hindu creation myth, which is quite involved, and occupies time frames distinctly different from the Biblical ones? Or is this a case of "my religion is right and all others are wrong"?
|
|
And, if I may say, Creationism isn't exactly hoax-free, either.
Exhibit 1: Beringer's Lying Stones. In 1725, Dr. Johann B. A. Beringer was sent several parcels containing stone "fossils" of various plants, animals, astronomical objects, and Hebrew letters. Beringer took these as proof of the "marvellous force of Petrifying Moisture" caused by the Great Flood of the Old Testament. The stones were later revealed to be a hoax cooked up by fellow scientists Dr. J. Ignatz Roderick and Dr. Georg von Eckhart to discredit their colleague- a scheme which certainly succeeded.
Exhibit 2: The Cardiff Giant. For some reason, people have forever been infatuated with the biblical phrase "giants in the earth" (Genesis 6:4). The Cardiff Giant was merely the first in a long line of ridiculous hoaxes perpetrated in the late 1800s- The "Solid Muldoon" of Colorado, the Taughannock Giant of New York, the Forest City Man of Illinois... the list goes on and on.
The Cardiff Giant was created by atheist George Hull after an argument with a fundamentalist minister about the veracity of the above bible quotation. It was buried in the back lot of farmer William "Stub" Newell, and later discovered by ditch-diggers. The "giant" was proclaimed to be a petrified victim of the Great Flood, and paraded around the countryside. Though it was finally proclaimed a hoax by paleontologist Othniel C. Marsh, the Cardiff Giant fooled THOUSANDS of people in its year-long run of exposure.
Exhibit 3: Idiots on YouTube. For some reason, latter-day Cardiff Giants and bogus exorcisms have been popping up on YouTube. Mainly spread by the Christian *doom moguls* of saintbirgitta.com, these clumsy fakes are widely believed to be true by many gullible idiots. Here are some examples: 1 2 3 (Is it just me, or does Jesus look a hell of a lot like Yanni/Jim Cavaziel?)
Speaking of YouTube, there are a lot of weird, bigoted people there who feel the need to post nasty, bigoted, unresearched videos (on behalf of God and Jesus). Like this guy. I don't care if linking to his video gets him more hits- if he f*%*s with Henry, he f$%+s with ME.
*This* is why debating this stuff on the Internet is futile; at the end of the day, the illogical are (by definition) not persuaded by logic.
Logic? Never heard of it.
|
|
i've been lurking the left and right political boards and blog sites for a couple of hours now. i think obama is in SERIOUS trouble here. the righties who really dislike mccain are energized by the palin for vp choice. the pro hillary democrats (mostly women, from what i can tell from the posts) are about 95/5 for mccain. union members, "reagan" democrats, middle america types are swinging mccain.
apparently her speech in ohio (which has been described as "brilliant" by everyone on both sides except for the daily kos and du types) has resonated with women across the boards. her shout out to geraldine ferraro, hillary clinton and the original womens suffragettes has women going crazy for her (and, from what i can tell from a lot of the dem sites - again, the ones that aren't daily kos and du - michelle obama is very UNpopular with women...bad sign).
i'm getting the impression the dems made a huge mistake taking the empty suit over hillary...
[edit: and it appears the mccain campaign site crashed a few times after the announcement, due to traffic from people trying to donate to the campaign...]
Let's hope not. Obama is the change we NEED. McCain's choice of Palin was obviously a gimmick pick. I think most intelligent women are smart enough to know that.
Not to mention Michelle Obama is an INCREDIBLE woman; who seems to be a lot more in touch with what the modern American women's rights movement wants.
Hillary would have been a strictly political pick (like McCain's was). I'm glad Obama picked what he thought would be the better VP rather than who he thought would give him more votes. And Biden is not an empty suit; he's done a lot of good work in Congress.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.
I totally agree! I mean if you are religious you are incapable of providing any meaningful contribution to science. I mean just look at some of the people that have helped push science along, they weren't religious (not just organized religion either) in the slightest. People like Mendal or Newton or Einstein or ... oh. [/sarcasm]
Let's hope not. Obama is the change we NEED. McCain's choice of Palin was obviously a gimmick pick. I think most intelligent women are smart enough to know that.Not to mention Michelle Obama is an INCREDIBLE woman; who seems to be a lot more in touch with what the modern American women's rights movement wants.
Hillary would have been a strictly political pick (like McCain's was). I'm glad Obama picked what he thought would be the better VP rather than who he thought would give him more votes. And Biden is not an empty suit; he's done a lot of good work in Congress.
So was McCain's pick of Palin gimmicky or political? I would say Biden was a very political pick by Obama, and a touch 'gimmicky'. It is clearly meant to attract more centrist voters by choosing an 'old white guy'. While I understand that Obama didn't want his run for office overshadowed by Team Clinton, she did seem to be the obvious choice of running mates, considering how many votes she got in the primaries. I personally think if he had swallowed his pride and put her on as VP he would be the next president, hands down.
I think Derek was calling Obama the 'empty suit' not Biden. Biden unfortunately suffers from a spotty campaigning past, and a bit of baggage. What will make or break McCain's run is if Palin turns out to be as good as she appears at the moment. Will the press uncover something horrible in her backstory? No one can say at the moment, but the Internet Gnomes are hard at work scrutinizing every last iota ever published about her as we speak. Either way, it will be an intersting run for the money no matter what. I will thank McCain for revitalizing my interest in this election.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.I totally agree! I mean if you are religious you are incapable of providing any meaningful contribution to science. I mean just look at some of the people that have helped push science along, they weren't religious (not just organized religion either) in the slightest. People like Mendal or Newton or Einstein or ... oh. [/sarcasm]
Yes, I concur. We can't listen to any of these people. If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]
|
|
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.
QFT. I tend to be of the Bill Maher view on religion in general. Religion was one of the main things that helped put Dubya in the White House; more's the pity.
I usually try to avoid talks of religion; but I find the whole creationism/intelligent design scary to be perfectly honest. I certainly don't want anyone that subscribes to these beliefs in the possible position of being leader of the free world. I imagine that might be offensive to those that share those beliefs; sorry for that. But there is a reason why there is a separation of church and state.
|
*This* is why debating this stuff on the Internet is futile; at the end of the day, the illogical are (by definition) not persuaded by logic.Logic? Never heard of it.
It's the stuff that comes out of Nick Louge, it was originally Lougic, but then the common vernacular shortened it to Logic.
Anywho, I don't think that the merits of ID actually have anything to do with the discussion, farther than whether or not you support palin because of it or not. Regardless a lot of the discussion has been facinating.
If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]
Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.
|
|
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.QFT. I tend to be of the Bill Maher view on religion in general. Religion was one of the main things that helped put Dubya in the White House; more's the pity.
I usually try to avoid talks of religion; but I find the whole creationism/intelligent design scary to be perfectly honest. I certainly don't want anyone that subscribes to these beliefs in the possible position of being leader of the free world. I imagine that might be offensive to those that share those beliefs; sorry for that. But there is a reason why there is a separation of church and state.
You know what's funny though, we fail to seperate church and state on so many fundamental levels. Take for example that there is even discussion on gay marraige. It shouldn't be a discussion. Rather than debate whether or not civil unions for gays is the way to go we should be discussing government only recognizing civil unions, I.e. a person who gets married then files a civil union liscence with the government and whether or not someone can get "married" is a decision of the individual church. but instead we debate if the government should recognize gays as able to marry.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.I totally agree! I mean if you are religious you are incapable of providing any meaningful contribution to science.
I didn't say that, don't attribute such falsehoods to me please.
I mean just look at some of the people that have helped push science along, they weren't religious (not just organized religion either) in the slightest. People like Mendal or Newton or Einstein or ... oh. [/sarcasm]
Einstein didn't believe in a personal god (I can't speak for Mendal and Newton). When will Christians stop using that faulty argument?
Besides, as has been pointed out by Brent, Kirth and others, believing in a personal god doesn't have to be at odds with science in general.So, again, please stop attributing falsehoods to me please, I have never said anything about early science not being supported by the church. Since most academics were taught exclusively at church earlier on, of course religious people helped push science along. I'll never claim otherwise as it's a historic fact.
As science started to explain more and more of the natural world around us, though, I think the church started to feel that it encroached more and more on their turf as things that were previously attributed to god now was shown to be natural phenomenons instead of meta-physical ones.
That's how it is today where the church is taking a hard stance on a lot of science. Are religious people really so insecure in their beliefs that fact and evidence threaten them so much? Maybe the reason is that they are all afraid of being proven wrong, that their dearly held beliefs are nothing more than that, beliefs with nothing to substantiate them?
But then again, what if we're all wrong? What if the "real" god is actually the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea? Then you have spent your entire life praying to the false deity! You have elected people into office based on their belief in this false deity too! You have deceived your children into believing in this false deity and thus dooming them too!
Remember "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
-Richard Dawkins
That's how it is today where the church is taking a hard stance on a lot of science.
What "church" are talking about here? For example the Catholic church has put out alot of statements supporting a lot of science out there, so I have to assume you are speaking about some other church. Which church are you talking about? Or is another "conspiracy" out there? The illuminati?
If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.
Yeah, I know. I was just being sarcastic. I'm an evolutionist myself and I enjoyed your debate with the other guy. You did it in a way without attacking his personal beliefs. I wish some others on here would have shown the same respect.
That's how it is today where the church is taking a hard stance on a lot of science.What "church" are talking about here? For example the Catholic church has put out alot of statements supporting a lot of science out there, so I have to assume you are speaking about some other church. Which church are you talking about? Or is another "conspiracy" out there? The illuminati?
I think we can agree on primarily discussing the Christian church in this thread, since I'm sure the overwhelming majority of believers here belong to that particular faith.
Although "Christian church" is a bit ambiguous with all the different denominations which exists within it (if the teachings of Jesus and god are so infallible, how come all the different churches can't agree on them?).Regarding my emphasis in your quote above:
A lot of science out there? Why not all of it? This just goes to prove my point about them being uncomfortable when science starts to break down even more walls and exposes more of the natural world and thus leaving the church with less and less to attribute to their god.
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?
Finally, stop putting forward claims that I have never made. Or no one else for that matter. No one has mentioned the Illuminati, so why bring them up? It makes your arguments seem irrational, emotional and pandering.
Yeah, I know. I was just being sarcastic. I'm an evolutionist myself and I enjoyed your debate with the other guy. You did it in a way without attacking his personal beliefs. I wish some others on here would have shown the same respect.If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but if you are let me say this:
No, I don't automatically respect someone because of their religious belief. I can respect an individual if he or she has earned my respect, but I don't automatically respect them because they have this or that religious belief. Same as you probably don't automatically respect someone just because they have a certain political, economic or musical viewpoint.Why must we give religion this "immunity" to scrutiny and questioning when we don't extend that same "immunity" to all other aspects of a persons life? Just because it's religion? Hogwash I say.
Yeah, I know. I was just being sarcastic. I'm an evolutionist myself and I enjoyed your debate with the other guy. You did it in a way without attacking his personal beliefs. I wish some others on here would have shown the same respect.If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.I don't know if you're referring to me, but if you are let me say this:
No, I don't automatically respect someone because of their religious belief. I can respect an individual if he or she has earned my respect, but I don't automatically respect them because they have this or that religious belief. Same as you probably don't automatically respect someone just because they have a certain political, economic or musical viewpoint.
Why must we give religion this "immunity" to scrutiny and questioning when we don't extend that same "immunity" to all other aspects of a persons life? Just because it's religion? Hogwash I say.
I didn't say religion should be free from scrutiny. You need to use a little tact like Kirth does.
I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.I totally agree! I mean if you are religious you are incapable of providing any meaningful contribution to science. I mean just look at some of the people that have helped push science along, they weren't religious (not just organized religion either) in the slightest. People like Mendal or Newton or Einstein or ... oh. [/sarcasm]
(1) Appeal to authority
(2) Einstein wasn't religious, at least not in the sense you're trying to imply. "God doesn't play dice with the Universe" doesn't mean what people typically infer. Do a little reading about it.
I don't see how Gentle Giant's post lacked tact.
Although... come on, Giant. Hoghwash? Let's not use the H word, Okay? this is a family site.
I didn't say religion should be free from scrutiny. You need to use a little tact like Kirth does.
And by using tact I get the feeling you really mean "don't express your viewpoints if they run contrary to the feelings of people of religion..."
Sorry, I haven't attacked anyone personally (the closest I have is saying outright that I'd never vote for someone as Mrs. Palin because of her stance on ID and other things). I've expressed my general opinion on religion and how I see it influencing the world around me (and how I don't like the influence it has).So if I risk offending someone (indirectly since I'm not "targeting" any one individual on these boards) with that opinion I should just keep it to myself?
No, that to me is kowtowing to the indoctrination that if you question religion and its institutions you're somehow committing a grave sin.
Furthermore, please show me exactly where I have been untactful in the posts I have made here (especially as untactful as e.g. you calling someone's ideas for idiotic...).