Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,206
#1,206
turambar85 said:
Yeah....thanks a lot for the reminder, but I sadly won't be able to make it. If you go, do let me know how it went!
Click to expand...

It was really interesting. The presentation revealed a much more human side of Darwin, concerning his pride, professional selfishness, as well as his humility and generally friendly nature. I was well aware of people like his grandfather and Wallace, but there was actually a slew of people who were bumping around the ideas as stated in the Origin of Species from the 1830's on up until it's publishing that I had no idea about.

The discussion afterward briefly touched on the seemingly contradictory (in the early 1900's) concepts of genetics and evolution, and how once more was learned about genetics they perfectly completed one another in the way we know them to today. It's hard for me to imagine learning about evolution and natural selection in the absence of any real knowledge of genetics.


David Quammen is coming in April. If you are going to be in Knoxville then you should watch out for that.
 
#1,207
#1,207
turambar85 said:
Now, if we're to play so loosely with language as to make that statement reasonable ... I guess anything goes. But, let's pretend for a moment that we don't want to do that just yet.

First, and I have addressed this many times without a good response so I have to assume you're being lazy, the belief of the atheist and the belief of the christian are not both faith - not if you mean the same thing by faith. Faith for a Christian is the backbone of belief. It says something like "I don't have great evidence, and I don't need great evidence. I'm going to put myself as a firm believer in this proposition because it is meaningful and spiritually necessary. Empiricism or rationalism won't avail you in this arena". The atheist, if she is said to have faith, has something like "I can never know anything for certain, as human reason is fallible and many things thought to be true have been proven false. Because of this, I will tentatively hold hypotheses with the acknowledgement that they may be proven wrong."

Now tentative there doesn't mean waffling. You could hold it very firmly. What it means is that it is only prima facie belief in the proposition. It means that once new evidence comes up you will gladly embrace it for what it is worth.

Second, scientific evidence is not 'a book" like the bible, which is known as the word. The word is unchanging, the book is fixed. Scientific understanding is continually evolving and changing to meet new information. Your book was written almost two thousand years before we learned that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe! And, I know that this is rounding up - but I'm averaging out between the new and old testaments.

Scientific knowledge is subject to tests and scrutiny, and a scientific field of study is rejected if: a) it doesn't prove fruitful to predictive hypotheses, and b) if it shows itself to be utterly unfalsifiable.

I hope (and would pray) that you can see the clear difference.

Can we move on now from this absurdity that is the connection between the scientific mind and the religious mind? By all means, criticize the scientist, but don't pretend she is a metaphysician in empiricists clothing.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume I'm being lazy with answers? You have never really grasped the concept of faith, what it means, what it does and how it changes one. No, the Bible hasn't changed for approximately 2000 years. Where science is constantly changing. Is it because it has to? I think we all could learn from the daily findings now with the global warming scam where scientists have cooked the books so they could still claim the earth was warming. Men can make these "scientific facts" state what they want them to say. The recent proof is with the global warming scam. Now you will say that these men have high intigurity and wouldn't do things like this. Again, see global warming. If you can't trust scientists in situations like this, then why trust them in anything else they say. Where money is envolved, through funding, they will say what they need to say to keep the money rolling in.

As to the center of the universe. Just where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe? Was it not the "scientists" of the period that said this? Those same scientists that used blood letting!

Scientific scrunity? Doesn't science have to 100% prove things? If it has to, then why do they keep changing their findings if they where already proved?
 
#1,208
#1,208
Oldvol75 said:
Why do you assume I'm being lazy with answers? You have never really grasped the concept of faith, what it means, what it does and how it changes one. No, the Bible hasn't changed for approximately 2000 years. Where science is constantly changing. Is it because it has to? I think we all could learn from the daily findings now with the global warming scam where scientists have cooked the books so they could still claim the earth was warming. Men can make these "scientific facts" state what they want them to say. The recent proof is with the global warming scam. Now you will say that these men have high intigurity and wouldn't do things like this. Again, see global warming. If you can't trust scientists in situations like this, then why trust them in anything else they say. Where money is envolved, through funding, they will say what they need to say to keep the money rolling in.

As to the center of the universe. Just where does the Bible say that the earth is the center of the universe? Was it not the "scientists" of the period that said this? Those same scientists that used blood letting!

Scientific scrunity? Doesn't science have to 100% prove things? If it has to, then why do they keep changing their findings if they where already proved?
Click to expand...

Just two things - I would answer more, but you're all over the place, and seem to be sending randomized responses. First, I didn't say the bible said that the earth was the center of the universe, that was an example pertaining to the age of the bible, nothing more.

Second, you know nothing of science if you think it is 100% proving anything. Read some phil. of science....or look at some science sometime. That is not its goal, and is not possible.
 
#1,209
#1,209
turambar85 said:
Just two things - I would answer more, but you're all over the place, and seem to be sending randomized responses. First, I didn't say the bible said that the earth was the center of the universe, that was an example pertaining to the age of the bible, nothing more.

Second, you know nothing of science if you think it is 100% proving anything. Read some phil. of science....or look at some science sometime. That is not its goal, and is not possible.
Click to expand...

Most of my "random" responses have been directly answering your responses.

You may not have said "the earth was the center of the universe" comment, but thats exactly what you meant, you stated it as as incorrect facts that went along with the Bible. To say you meant other wise is incorrect.

So science does not have any goals to prove things right? That doesn't make any sense. If they can't possibly prove anything then why do they even attempt?

FWIW, I teach science. Do you?
 
#1,210
#1,210
Oldvol75 said:
Most of my "random" responses have been directly answering your responses.

You may not have said "the earth was the center of the universe" comment, but thats exactly what you meant, you stated it as as incorrect facts that went along with the Bible. To say you meant other wise is incorrect.

So science does not have any goals to prove things right? That doesn't make any sense. If they can't possibly prove anything then why do they even attempt?

FWIW, I teach science. Do you?
Click to expand...

If you teach science, I am dead serious in saying you should quit your job. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you display no concept of the scientific process or the scientific method.
 
#1,211
#1,211
IPorange said:
If you teach science, I am dead serious in saying you should quit your job. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you display no concept of the scientific process or the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Little harsh, shouldn't you let his superiors decided that?
 
#1,213
#1,213
IPorange said:
If you teach science, I am dead serious in saying you should quit your job. I'm not trying to be nasty, but you display no concept of the scientific process or the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Yes you are just trying to nasty, why lie about it. Just because I don't believe what creation teaches doesn't mean anything. What I'm trying to do is open a few of you folks eyes up to is that science has quite a few flaws and you hold it to be 100% truth, its not. The Observation step is left out the majority of the time. ie. no ones ever witnessed one single time where one thing has evolved, its all speculation on what they think took place, nothing more. Thus the term Theory.

If you're foolish enough to believe that there is not a connection to funding verses outcome, you need more help that I can give you. If your lively hood depended on funding, you would usually get the desired outcome that is sought. To declare these people are 100% honest is just plain foolishness, these people are human beings just like you and I and want their views to be right. If you can't see that, I'm sorry. You have put your faith in men and what they teach, in my experience I have found that men lie. You, me or anyone else has lied in their life time to better their particular position. Remember those time you told your parents something that wasn't quite true?

Found it on another thread that you are funded for research. It all makes sense now, you have an agenda.
 
Last edited:
#1,214
#1,214
IPorange said:
It's my opinion. I didn't decide anything. He'd clearly be better qualified and happier teaching Sunday School or Bible History or something.
Click to expand...

I already do that, for someone that doesn't like people judging you, you obiviously have no problem judging others. From here on out, should I refer to you as "Your Honor"?
 
#1,216
#1,216
666 said:
You teach science, Alabama style.
Click to expand...

Actually, with evolution, I begin with a qualifying statement that I personally do not believe in evolution, then I precede to teach the text from the book.

Nice assumption there though!
 
#1,218
#1,218
Oldvol75 said:
Yes you are just trying to nasty, why lie about it. Just because I don't believe what creation teaches doesn't mean anything. What I'm trying to do is open a few of you folks eyes up to is that science has quite a few flaws and you hold it to be 100% truth, its not. The Observation step is left out the majority of the time. ie. no ones ever witnessed one single time where one thing has evolved, its all speculation on what they think took place, nothing more. Thus the term Theory.

If you're foolish enough to believe that there is not a connection to funding verses outcome, you need more help that I can give you. If your lively hood depended on funding, you would usually get the desired outcome that is sought. To declare these people are 100% honest is just plain foolishness, these people are human beings just like you and I and want their views to be right. If you can't see that, I'm sorry. You have put your faith in men and what they teach, in my experience I have found that men lie. You, me or anyone else has lied in their life time to better their particular position. Remember those time you told your parents something that wasn't quite true?

Found it on another thread that you are funded for research. It all makes sense now, you have an agenda.
Click to expand...

Look up the term scientific theory. This is exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't just trying to be nasty. You don't know the subject matter.

I'm not sure where I gave the idea that I think people are infallible or are always honest. That's why part of the scientific method is retesting and findings being reproducible.
 
#1,219
#1,219
Oldvol75 said:
Actually, with evolution, I begin with a qualifying statement that I personally do not believe in evolution, then I precede to teach the text from the book.

Nice assumption there though!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great way to start learning the material. What would you think of a Sunday School teacher that prefaced the resurrection story with "I personally don't believe that Christ has risen." Absurd.
 
#1,220
#1,220
IPorange said:
Look up the term scientific theory. This is exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't just trying to be nasty. You don't know the subject matter.

I'm not sure where I gave the idea that I think people are infallible or are always honest. That's why part of the scientific method is retesting and findings being reproducible.
Click to expand...

IPorange said:
Sounds like a great way to start learning the material. What would you think of a Sunday School teacher that prefaced the resurrection story with "I personally don't believe that Christ has risen." Absurd.
Click to expand...

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts)."

This a good enough definition? Just where is the observation part of evolution? And you say I don't understand the subject matter? Where has science reproduced evolution and/or measured it? When has science took nothing and made something and/or measured it? I know they've tried but have never made it happen.

Why is it not a way to start it? Do you want me to lie to the kids? I'm not going to lie to them, especially if a kid dares asks a question about it. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with it but I do. I suppose if you were in the classroom and a student asked you about creationism that you wouldn't say, "I don't believe in that". How would you answer? Would you begin with,"In the beginning God created...."? So, would you be fit for the classroom?
 
#1,221
#1,221
IPorange said:
Look up the term scientific theory. This is exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't just trying to be nasty. You don't know the subject matter.

I'm not sure where I gave the idea that I think people are infallible or are always honest. That's why part of the scientific method is retesting and findings being reproducible.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you said it, but I have read the statement on here, that science is the "truth".

Assuming people are fallible, (which I agree with) who do you believe? Would it really make a difference if they were wrong? Personally speaking.
 
#1,224
#1,224
Oldvol75 said:
"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts)."

This a good enough definition? Just where is the observation part of evolution? And you say I don't understand the subject matter? Where has science reproduced evolution and/or measured it? When has science took nothing and made something and/or measured it? I know they've tried but have never made it happen.

Why is it not a way to start it? Do you want me to lie to the kids? I'm not going to lie to them, especially if a kid dares asks a question about it. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with it but I do. I suppose if you were in the classroom and a student asked you about creationism that you wouldn't say, "I don't believe in that". How would you answer? Would you begin with,"In the beginning God created...."? So, would you be fit for the classroom?
Click to expand...

There is plenty of data out there with regards to fossil records and genetic science that qualifies as observation. Sure, this doesn't fit into the whole "God did it" mantra, and of course such thinking forces one to highlight the problems with the observable evolutionary evidence while disregarding the mountains of other evidence.

The simple fact remains though, the extreme basic parts of evolutionary theory are almost considered fact at this point...it is the finer points and intracacies how it happened where there is much debate.

All due respect, I do find it hard to believe you teach this stuff without knowing that difference.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top