« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 ... 21   Go Down

Author Topic: E vs C  (Read 4209 times)

Offline -dead-

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
E vs C
« Reply #225 on: January 24, 2002, 01:26:45 AM »
Evolution is a quite dodgy scientific theory in my uninformed opinion, but Creationism is belief in the Jewish creation myth, which is based on God.

unfortunately, God can never be at the basis of a scientific theory - for to be a scientific theory you have to frame it so that it is provable or disprovable.

Please Note: It does not have to be correct to be a scientific theory - it just has to be framed in such a way that one is able to prove or disprove the theory through experimentation.

According to the Xians (and those guys really know the big G), God cannot be proved or disproved to exist (and I believe it's also a sin to attempt to do so) - apparently one has to make do with having faith in the Lord rather than proof.  So any theory that ultimate relies on the Big G doing his thang is ipso facto unscientific, even by the Xian definition.

Thus God, as far science is concerned, is meaningless (in the logical sense) - in that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of the big G, you have to have faith.

There is a place for the Jewish creation myth in schools - but in comparative religion classes, with all the other weird and wonderful creation myths from around the world, not biology lessons.
Because while God may have something to do with science, science, properly done, has nothing to do with him.
Logged
“The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” --  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, June 5, 2006.

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
E vs C
« Reply #226 on: January 24, 2002, 07:47:19 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
You can find many more articles and web sites that are based on "scientific creationism". This changes nothing of what I said.



From what I gather, this article was about how over-eager scientists, so convinced of evolutional theory as being fact, actually coerse scientific research to make it fit into the theory, whereas they would not even consider doing such in other scientific research. Do you agree that this can happen?
Logged

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
E vs C
« Reply #227 on: January 24, 2002, 10:36:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hblair


From what I gather, this article was about how over-eager scientists, so convinced of evolutional theory as being fact, actually coerse scientific research to make it fit into the theory, whereas they would not even consider doing such in other scientific research. Do you agree that this can happen?


Of course it can happen. That is the beauty of the scientific method though. Any theory / conviction / truth is up for debate. The problem with the Evolution issue is not the lack of evidence for its being accepted as fact, it is its divergence from the Creation Myth as stated in the Bible. Saying that research has been coersed is not the same as it being so. I think these men and women? who signed the petition will continue to say research has been coersed as long as the Bible is disregarded as a science text.
Logged

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12770
E vs C
« Reply #228 on: January 24, 2002, 10:54:16 AM »
Sing with me now -

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
Logged
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
E vs C
« Reply #229 on: January 24, 2002, 11:34:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kieran
Ok, I'll admit it, this makes no sense to me. ;)


 That is why I am not publishing books like Brian Greene.

 Take a look at it. He has a good style. Don't bother with hardcover edition, unless you want to pay few extra bucks for extra color pictures.

 miko
Logged

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
E vs C
« Reply #230 on: January 24, 2002, 11:45:41 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 On the other hand if many of those undoubtedly bright but mostly far from evolutionary biology scientists looked up a popular book "The Blind Watchmaker" by R. Dawkings , they will see that there is as inevitable process of complexity of life arising from inorganic matter as formation of stars from "randomly" assembled hydrogen atoms.

 When you light a match you expect to see a fire even though "random" interaction of molecules of carbon and oxygen is involved.
 Also, you cannot predict the shape of a flame you will get at any point in time.

 Still, the laws of nature ensure that out of many random micro-ineractions completely non-random, complex and very certain phenomena occurs.

 In fact the Evlution Theory is so elegant that it looks more like the way God would choose to set in motion.

 miko
Logged

Offline myelo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
E vs C
« Reply #231 on: January 24, 2002, 02:27:42 PM »
If the quotes regarding Henry Gees book is an attempt to somehow scientifically discredit evolution, Im afraid it misses the mark.

Gee argues for the use of cladistics instead of relying solely on interpretation of the fossil record. Cladistics is a method of analyzing the evolutionary relationships between groups to construct their family tree. The principle is that organisms are classified according to their evolutionary relationships, and that the way to discover these relationships is to analyze common derived characteristics. The primary advantage of cladistics is that it allows generation of testable hypotheses. Cladistic analysis is usually performed on a computer that generates all possible family trees that would fit the data, and you assume that the simplest one is probably correct.

This is necessarily a simplified description anyone interested should read the book but the bottom line is this: Far from being inconsistent with evolution, cladistics assumes that any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. This assumption is a general assumption of evolutionary biology.

There is a tendency for creationists to rely on selective quotes taken out of context in an attempt to argue that evolution is not scientifically sound, with no real understanding of the science involved. This would be akin to a scientist with no understanding of religion offering second-hand snippets from the Bible in an effort to discredit all of Jewish or Christian beliefs.

If someone wants to say that evolution doesnt occur because the Bible says it doesnt, then finethats an honest opinion. But if someone wants to make a scientific argument that evolution doesnt happen, then -- as we say on the blacktop -- dont be coming inside with that weak stuff :)
Logged
myelo
Bastard coated bastard, with a creamy bastard filling

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
E vs C
« Reply #232 on: January 24, 2002, 03:35:34 PM »
Well, dammit myelo............thats what I said!

;)
Logged

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
E vs C
« Reply #233 on: January 24, 2002, 09:33:01 PM »
Where's my wingman?!?

Kieran!, four bogies on my 6 !

HELP!

I'm getting gang banged by the pagans!

:)
Logged

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
E vs C
« Reply #234 on: January 24, 2002, 10:15:57 PM »
To everyone harping on Evolution being JUST a theory:  

Gravity...JUST a theory, try stepping off a cliff, do you think you will fly?

Aerodynamics...JUST a theory, you might not fly, but planes do.

Quantum Mechanics...JUST a theory, does just about every piece of electronics in the world work?

Every scientific priciple is JUST a theory.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2002, 10:20:47 PM by Thrawn »
Logged

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
HBlair
« Reply #235 on: January 25, 2002, 06:26:23 AM »
I'd laid off it as I feel there is an understanding of sorts- that is, believers and nonbelievers alike can be scientists, and mentioning the word "religion" in a public school isn't necessarily cause for a school board meeting.

As to convincing a scientist evolution is false? Not a prayer! I have to concede believing means faith, as when Jesus showed the nail holes to Thomas- "You believe because you saw, how much more blessed are those that believe without seeing."

I don't care if they call it religious science or don't, we can study it anyway. Fighting a secular world for a position of honor seems anti-religious anyway, doesn't it? ;) Not turning on ya, just don't think this part is worth fighting for.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2002, 11:53:34 AM by Kieran »
Logged

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
E vs C
« Reply #236 on: January 25, 2002, 09:06:40 AM »
Quote
"As to convincing a scientists evolution is false? Not a prayer! I have to concede believing means faith, as when Jesus showed the nail holes to Thomas- "You believe because you saw, how much more blessed are those that believe without seeing."


Welcome back Kieran.:)  And how blessed are those who see that there may not NEED to be a God to explain the physical world and yet still believe.

And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.
Logged

Offline myelo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
E vs C
« Reply #237 on: January 25, 2002, 09:29:31 AM »
Hblair, didn't intend to gang up on ya, just thought it was an interesting discussion.

Im finding that Im starting to agree with Kieran. So I may have to re-think my position dont want to get kicked out of the pagan club :)
Logged
myelo
Bastard coated bastard, with a creamy bastard filling

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
E vs C
« Reply #238 on: January 25, 2002, 10:05:23 AM »
Thrawn-

Of course gravity is a fact- the theory you refer to is a theory of our understanding of how it works. Same for aerodynamics and quantum physics, etc. Forces of nature exist, your theories are explanations for how they work, not attempts to prove or disprove their existance.
Logged

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4051
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
E vs C
« Reply #239 on: January 25, 2002, 10:06:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target


Welcome back Kieran.:)  And how blessed are those who see that there may not NEED to be a God to explain the physical world and yet still believe.

And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.


And how blessed are those who know what they're talking about. Which verse is it where Thomas is shown "nail holes" Target?

:)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 ... 21   Go Up
« previous next »