Is this stuff really taught in churches?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 25 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]544111[/snapback]</div>

The witty reply: Mark Twain said it best: Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 25 2007, 09:51 PM) [snapback]544147[/snapback]</div>

This may be a semantic quibble, but since you believe in evolution, I would not classify you as a creationist. You may consider yourself a creationist because you believe god set everything in motion for evolution to create the world as we know it, but that's not my definition. So when I say that creationists are idiots, I do not include you in that characterization.

A few brief points: Scientists do not yet know exactly how life first arose, but they have made some real progress. The Teaching Company has an excellent course entitled The Origins of Life. I highly recommend it, the next time it goes on sale. (All their courses go on sale at least once a year, and you can register and have them send you an email when a given course does.) BUT (and this is the important point) just because science does not yet have the answer to a question, does NOT mean that the correct answer is "my imaginary friend in the sky did it."

The Bible includes a great deal of history. Some of it is accurate. Some of it is not. It should be clear, from a plain logical point of view, that if the Bible makes one statement that is untrue, then it is not infallible. As others have noted above, the Bible displays a clear ignorance of natural processes which a creator-god would understand. The Bible was written by humans. It contains a great deal of wisdom and poetry and even some pornography and action adventure. But it is clearly not infallible, and therefore should not be placed above other methods as a way of understanding the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 25 2007, 11:16 PM) [snapback]544111[/snapback]</div>

Ditto!

But these idiots will pick apart your post in an attempt to use it against you (Google the Liberal Rules for Arguing)

P.S. Very well said Viking31....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 24 2007, 11:29 PM) [snapback]543831[/snapback]</div>

Uh, so what's your point? Did you just fall off the turnip truck and are finally beginning to realize billions of billions of people do not subscribe to evolution? (This thread reminds me of the clueless threads burritos consistently starts here on PC).

Yes, grasshopper, it's true, billions upon billions of people worldwide do not believe in the theory of evolution. Many are doctors, lawyers, educators, leaders, and contribute positively to our society... Are they right? Are they wrong? Who cares. And me, I could care less.

Perhaps you personally could start a movement to "reeducate" these hopelessly lost billions and educate to your "superior" ways of thought. I suggest you start with the Vatican, or perhaps Iraq, Iran, Albania, Italy, Greece, Russia,... I'm sure the respective governments and their Imans and priests will welcome you with open "arms" (as in AK-47's and machetes). Look at your history books, it's been tried before countless times, usually with dim results.

C'mon, you're smarter than that!

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 26 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]544232[/snapback]</div>

Why is this so important? There are several possible ways all under investigation as I explained previously.

Do you have a better proposal? What the bible says doesn't count. It has to be tested and proven in the real world.

It is interesting to me how for creationists this is an important point. Once RNA was shown to have enzymatic properties I was done with the problem of the origin of life. Only (unimportant) details remain to be answered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 26 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]544272[/snapback]</div>

The fact that scientists can't explain something(yet or maybe never) is not conclusive evidence that BS written 2000 years ago is true.

As an individual, if you read the daily astrology report and it tells you "You're going to have and awesome day today!" and you like that message, good for you. But don't use that as scientific evidence and preach it like fact to others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 26 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]544232[/snapback]</div>

Faith in the process rather than faith in the details. Or perhaps like Galaxee I should say that it isn't a matter of faith at all, but of evidence and processes.

If we look at the timeline of the earth, about 4 billion years, we actually have a pretty good idea of what's happened in the last oh, billion years or so. There were processes at work over that time period, and those processes and principles are still at work today. Much beyond that, and there's just been so much upheaval an time elapsed that the picture gets a lot murkier. But with what evidence we do have, we don't have any real reason to reject the idea that the principles we are familiar with today and in "recent" history can be extrapolated backwards.

There seems to be a need amongst some people to have answers to everything: absolute, unchanging answers. Unfortunately, that's not the way science works. There are gaps in knowledge, there are even changes in theory when new evidence is presented. Some people will pick at these perceived weaknesses, as though an inability to explain one thing makes the explanations of the things that do have good evidence backing somehow less valid. In the search for absolute explanations, don't reject a perfectly useful scientific theory just because it doesn't explain everything.

But what's a reasonable doubt? To me, and I think to science, that would require proof of an alternate theory, or at least substantial evidence disproving the current theory. We really don't have much proof one way or the other from things that long ago, if you want to use a murder trial standard of "reasonable doubt". With simulations and our knowledge of the processes (chemistry, evolution, etc), we have a pretty good idea that it all started somewhere with a self-replicator of some sort. The current thinking is that those early self-replicators were probably proteins or nucleic acids. There really is no reasonable doubt surrounding our knowledge and applicability of those processes (chemistry, physics, evolution), but the details could very well change. Someone may find in the future that, for example, a carbohydrate/phospholipid chemistry is actually more likely to produce an early self-replicator. But that detail wouldn't change our knowledge of the processes at all, or how we apply them to the present day world around us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 26 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]544259[/snapback]</div>

IMO the issue here is that the webpage in question is using flat-out incorrect data. this whole masquerading-as-science to convince people something fairly well understood is shaky at best, is not only intentionally misleading but destructive to our future generations. who knows how many kids might otherwise have been interested in science and grown up to contribute to our factual knowledge of the earth.

but when you're told you're going to hell for being a scientist... that's a little discouraging.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 26 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]544244[/snapback]</div>

The atmosphere, the sun, the chemicals, did these just appear? Because you keep telling me this stuff worked together.....how did this stuff get there? According to everything you guys have told me, there needs to be "stuff" to produce "stuff", is that correct? Again I asked about how this "stuff" came about and you said it came from something, where did this something come from? If I missed it in your argument let me know but I read it three times without seeing a thing. Also, there is some degree of faith in everything you guys are typing, wouldn't you agree?? I mean have you actually tested what you are telling me yourself or are you taking a reputable scientist's word for it? I can tell you the same thing about the Bible. I believe it because of many reasons, the 40 authors with the same congruent story over the course of 1400ish years, the prophecies where one has yet to be proven wrong, etc. etc. etc. I take these authors words for it. Let's look at the NT. All books excluding: Matthew, James, Hebrews, Jude and a few more were written by Peter, John, Luke, and Paul. All of whom claim to be eyewitnesses to (you guessed it) Jesus rising from the dead and his life here on earth. The fact that these men who hung out with Christ would ultimately give there lives for him after him proving to them what he said to be true is evidence enough for me to believe there has to be something to this Bible thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 26 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]544316[/snapback]</div>

It's a challenge to deal with closed minds that accuse everyone that doesn't think like they do as having closed minds. There are organizations of scientists that support creation/God. Yes, there is intra-species evolution, that's clear. However, human evolution being the result of species changes (Darwin's proclamations have repeatedly been rebuked by science) is a theory not a truth. It's fair to explore that theory, every person in their own way, but to do so accurately you must do it by scientific principles. That will only leave you with theory, not fact.

Another book, Lee Strobel's - Case for Christ - is an interesting read about the research a former atheist did to come up with his conclusion. Ultimately each of us has the choice and the freedom to believe as we see fit. Sure, some will call others names but that's usually out of fear or ignorance. Sticks and stones....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 26 2007, 04:19 PM) [snapback]544366[/snapback]</div>

no no no.

we see the DATA that other scientists have produced and come to our own conclusions. never EVER is it ok to read the discussion section of the paper and assume the author is making relevant conclusions. personally, i don't read anything but the results section, and if i have a question i'll go back to the methods. i make my own conclusions, and sometimes i read the discussion. sometimes.

the bible IS the discussion section. there is no data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]544392[/snapback]</div>

Care to provide some citations for any such rebukes which appeared in peer reviewed publications?

It is pretty well settled that mankind and great apes descended from a common ancestor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Nov 26 2007, 07:46 PM) [snapback]544187[/snapback]</div>

Sorry mate, it was rather late in the evening here.

 

It is ironic that some of the most prolific, intelligent, educated and compassionate posters in this forum seem to take pride in that they have not and will not reproduce themselves. So if, in a generation or two, the world is left to just the idiots, will this confirm that the idiots were, theoretically, the fittest and most worthy to survive?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 26 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]544366[/snapback]</div>

Your implication is that only a "god" could have produced all the "stuff" of the universe, but the assumption leaves a rather gaping unanswered question: where did this "god" come from? Did it spring into being from nothing? Or was it created by yet some larger "god", ad infinitum? If one looks at the universe and declares "something must have made this; it couldn't have been random", such an observation on its face may seem a rational and fair hypothesis, but it does not answer the question of origin, it only sidesteps it, because if "something" (a god, a talented turtle, a Romulan, whatever) did make the universe, WHERE did that something come from?

I have yet to see ANY attempt to answer that question, other than to attempt to duck it, or declare it irrelevant, or otherwise evade it.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 26 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]544427[/snapback]</div>

Settled by who with what scientific proof? Like to see that one. Still a theory without clear fossil evidence or any other proof utilizing the scientific method.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 26 2007, 07:43 PM) [snapback]544497[/snapback]</div>

Christians believe that God always was and always will be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]544392[/snapback]</div>

[sigh] yes, let's go and use THAT terminology again. sorry, old argument, long ago knocked out of the field of viable retorts.

scientific inquiry leads to known facts... we produce more than theories, you know. we KNOW for a FACT that DNA is the genetic material from a series of eloquent experiments. we know very intricate details about how it replicates. facts, not theories.

i'm not getting dragged into the theory argument.

yeah, i've seen that one thanks to my mother in law. i skipped to the biochemistry section and made it through about 5 pages before i was completely disgusted, nevermind how dry the text was, i've read more exciting organic chemistry textbooks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 27 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]544497[/snapback]</div>

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 26 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]544427[/snapback]</div>

Here are some interesting sites:

http://darwinismrefuted.com/

or one with lots of quotes by "idiots" with a lot of letters after their names:

http://www.biggerview.org/DARWINrefutedBrief.htm

"And this is why we can state that leading secular scientists are refuting neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, based on their admissions alone: (1) The theory's explanations (principles, predictions, interpretations) do not match with actual observations in the real world; (2) The theory's principles, predictions, and interpretations limit the advancement of science; and, (3) The theory's principles, predictions, and interpretations are based more on religious faith than on scientific fact."

I'll agree that there are many people out there that are pretty far out there when it comes to personal beliefs, secular and religious. I also believe we are a society of different beliefs that needs to learn more about acceptance and toleration instead of condemnation for different thoughts and beliefs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 26 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]544513[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, a 5 page review.....that's scientific.

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree. Think I'll go back to fun with my Prius.....

 

Would you think me seriously twisted if I said in response:
"Thank God for the First Law of Thermodynamics"
(i.e., energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained) :blink: