54% of the American public doesn't believe in Evolution

[quincyyyyy]

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/118-2.gif

What this also showed is a portion of the public is not fully aware of what evolution is. The last question, where it explicitly says what evolution is seemed to get the highest number of respondents who seemed to disagree with evolution.

[ChldsPlay]

Well maybe American's aren't as stupid as I thought they were.

Evolution, at least what most people think of when they hear the term evolution (evolution going by it's true definition is definitely real), is a joke.

[burmafrd]

Just love how kartr makes all these blanket declarations. Its pretty funny.

[Doomsday101]

I guess I fall between the 2 sides as I believe in evolution by Gods design

[trickblue]

What ever happened to "Majority Rules"? ;)

[Hostile]

Always reminds me of this poem.

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Expounding on the things that be.
One said, "gather round and listen you,
There's a rumor rife, that can't be true.
That man descended from our noble race,
Why the very idea is a dire disgrace.
No monkey would ever steal from you,
Or drink himself to a stew.
Starve his baby or beat his wife,
Or take some other monkey's life.
And if I built a fence round this tree,
It would cause you all to steal from me.
Yes, man descended the ornery cuss,
But brothers, he didn't descend from us."

[REDVOLUTION]

Dont worry... The Singularity is Near ;)


Up until now "evolution" has been influenced by environment... The Natural Order.

Soon WE will "create" our NEXT evolution. Instead of adapting to one.

[DallasFanSince86]

Well maybe American's aren't as stupid as I thought they were.

Evolution, at least what most people think of when they hear the term evolution (evolution going by it's true definition is definitely real), is a joke.

Very true.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dont worry... The Singularity is Near ;)


Up until now "evolution" has been influenced by environment... The Natural Order.

Soon WE will "create" our NEXT evolution. Instead of adapting to one.


Nature has a funny way of working itself into any equation. Don't be too quick to discount it's influence on any situation, even a man made one.

;)

[DFWJC]

Dont worry... The Singularity is Near ;)


Up until now "evolution" has been influenced by environment... The Natural Order.

Soon WE will "create" our NEXT evolution. Instead of adapting to one.

YoMick

You may be interested. A grad school buddy of mine started MemeBox...here is one of their (our) sites

http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger

[DFWJC]

I guess I fall between the 2 sides as I believe in evolution by Gods design

I lean this way too....not exactly, but close.

[Doomsday101]

I lean this way too....not exactly, but close.

I don't think man comes from monkeys but I do think early man has evolved from what is known as prehistoric man to modern man. I also think all species evolved throughout the centuries to be able to adapt to an ever changing world. Those that did not evolve and adapt became extinct. I also think it is Gods will that this has taken place. I don't think this all happened by accident

[DallasFanSince86]

I don't think man comes from monkeys but I do think early man has evolved from what is known as prehistoric man to modern man. I also think all species evolved throughout the centuries to be able to adapt to an ever changing world. Those that did not evolve and adapt became extinct. I also think it is Gods will that this has taken place. I don't think this all happened by accident

Yes, this is exactly what I believe.

[quincyyyyy]

Man evolved from monkeys? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

You would have to believe in it because your whole basis for you belief in the bible is that it is infallible, and if that is not true then there is no basis for anything asserted in the bible.

[Doomsday101]

Man evolved from monkeys? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

You would have to believe in it because your whole basis for you belief in the bible is that it is infallible, and if that is not true then there is no basis for anything asserted in the bible.

The bible does not say how old the earth is and those who have tried to calculate that are using the roman or modern day calendar. I don't know what a day is in the eyes of God or what a year is.

[DFWJC]

Potential reading material if anyone is interested.

THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel

-------------------------------------------
Here is a lead-in.

"My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God." -Lee Strobel During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant-or so Strobel thought. But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason. Has science discovered God? At the very least, it's giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling and highly readable account, you'll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator

[REDVOLUTION]

Nature has a funny way of working itself into any equation. Don't be too quick to discount it's influence on any situation, even a man made one.

;)


Well sure... but the only effect "nature" can have on said "future" is in the form of catastrophe stopping/delaying what is soon to be the inevitable.




YoMick

You may be interested. A grad school buddy of mine started MemeBox...here is one of their (our) sites

http://www.memebox.com/futureblogger

Thanks. I will check it out.




The bible does not say how old the earth is and those who have tried to calculate that are using the roman or modern day calendar. I don't know what a day is in the eyes of God or what a year is.

Isnt the earth 4.5Billions years old or so...

[Doomsday101]

Well sure... but the only effect "nature" can have on said "future" is in the form of catastrophe stopping/delaying what is soon to be the inevitable.






Thanks. I will check it out.






Isnt the earth 4.5Billions years old or so...


I was not there, I can't give you and exact age. I know you think I'm old but I'm not that old. :lmao:

[quincyyyyy]

Potential reading material if anyone is interested.

THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel

-------------------------------------------
Here is a lead-in.

"My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God." -Lee Strobel During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant-or so Strobel thought. But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason. Has science discovered God? At the very least, it's giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling and highly readable account, you'll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator

I double majored in Biology and History at a prominent research University. None, not one, of my Biology professors expressed any doubt at all in Evolution, and many times they would even make jokes about creationism. The vast majority scientists know Evolution exists. Eventually the Judeo/Christian/Islamic community will accept this. Like when Christianity was against the world being round, but eventually the Christians gave into reason. And you guys will again give into reason.

[Doomsday101]

I double majored in Biology and History at a prominent research University. None, not one, of my Biology professors expressed any doubt at all in Evolution, and many times they would even make jokes about creationism. The vast majority scientist know Evolution exists. Eventually the Judeo/Christian/Islamic community will accept this. Like when Christianity was against the world being round, but eventually the Christians gave into reason. And you guys will again give into reason.

Wow your professors have never expressed doubts about evolution. Amazing :lmao2: I guess the text they were reading from never doubted any of the theories of evolution did they? Tell me is there anything you and your professors do not know about the beginning of man?

[big dog cowboy]

Isnt the earth 4.5Billions years old or so...
Ask Cbz.

(ducks quickly)

[DFWJC]

I double majored in Biology and History at a prominent research University. None, not one, of my Biology professors expressed any doubt at all in Evolution, and many times they would even make jokes about creationism. The vast majority scientists know Evolution exists. Eventually the Judeo/Christian/Islamic community will accept this. Like when Christianity was against the world being round, but eventually the Christians gave into reason. And you guys will again give into reason.

I too believe in Evolution...with some limits. Hey, your profs are just doing thier job, I understand that. I find (like so many people with science backgrounds) Evolutionary Theory basics to be almost undeniable. But there are limits. Even Darwin was appalled at how far people where running with his concepts of natural selection.
As for your other generalizations about Christians, I'll leave that alone for now.
Back to work....

[quincyyyyy]

Wow your professors have never expressed doubts about evolution. Amazing :lmao2: I guess the text they were reading from never doubted any of the theories of evolution did they? Tell me is there anything you and your professors do not know about the beginning of man?

No its not amazing. You guys don't realize how widely accepted Evolution is in the scientific community. The only scientists who don't believe in it are super religious. Not believing in Evolution is literally like not believing in the world being round to them. It is so bloody obvious.

[trickblue]

And you guys will again give into reason.

It's hard for anyone to give into "reason" when the likes of scientists and individuals such as yourself, ridicule, belittle and mock those that don't see things their way, all the while pushing a science that isn't exact in itself...

That's one thing that always puzzled me about libs. They run around and claim they are tolerant to all kinds and persuasions, yet if you cross their mantra they do all they can to destroy and silence you...

[Doomsday101]

No its not amazing. You guys don't realize how widely accepted Evolution is in the scientific community. The only scientists who don't believe in it are super religious. Not believing in Evolution is literally like not believing in the world being round to them. It is so bloody obvious.

As I said I'm both a person who is a Christian and who believes in evolution by God design. I have had some long talks with my Priest and he does not disagree with the concept of evolution. In the end though there are different ideals of the beginning of man but a lot of unknowns as well

[quincyyyyy]

I too strongly believe in Evolution...with some limits. Hey, your profs are just doing thier job, I understand that. I find (like so many people with science backgrounds) Evolutionary Theory basics to be almost undeniable. But there are limits. Even Darwin was appalled at how far people where running with his concepts of natural selection.
As for your other generalizations about Christians, I'll leave that alone for now.
Back to work....


I really don't care if religious people fill in the minor holes of Evolution with their own religion as long as they accept the basic tenets and displace their religion from those holes as science comes to fill them in as time goes on.

What bothers me is the super religious people who ignore science and believe "adam and eve rode on the backs of dinosaurs" (in the words of Steven Colbert). It blows my mind sometimes.

[quincyyyyy]

It's hard for anyone to give into "reason" when the likes of scientists and individuals such as yourself, ridicule, belittle and mock those that don't see things their way, all the while pushing a science that isn't exact in itself...

That's one thing that always puzzled me about libs. They run around and claim they are tolerant to all kinds and persuasions, yet if you cross their mantra they do all they can to destroy and silence you...

Because it hurts the scientific and technological advancement of our society. That is why people care so much.

[Doomsday101]

I really don't care if religious people fill in the minor holes of Evolution with their own religion as long as they accept the basic tenets and displace their religion from those holes as science comes to fill them in as time goes on.

What bothers me is the super religious people who ignore science and believe "adam and eve rode on the backs of dinosaurs" (in the words of Steven Colbert). It blows my mind sometimes.

Yet what aggravates others is the arrogance of some in the scientific community who act as if there is just no doubts at all about their theories of the beginning of man. The ideal that we must accept everything you say lock stock and barrel is just as bad as those you mock and laugh at.

[REDVOLUTION]

I was not there, I can't give you and exact age. I know you think I'm old but I'm not that old. :lmao:

Ok so you cant account for the 1st half billions year or so... no prob :laugh2:



Ask Cbz.

(ducks quickly)

Did yu duck quick enough lol


No its not amazing. You guys don't realize how widely accepted Evolution is in the scientific community. The only scientists who don't believe in it are super religious.

True... very true.


Yet what aggravates others is the arrogance of some in the scientific community who act as if there is just no doubts at all about their theories of the beginning of man. The ideal that we must accept everything you say lock stock and barrel is just as bad as those you mock and laugh at.


Both sides are littered with doubt. I tend to lean towards what you can prove... but cant fully discount stuff you cant.

Thats the great thing about "beliefs" - you can choose what you want to believe.

[Doomsday101]

Both sides are littered with doubt. I tend to lean towards what you can prove... but cant fully discount stuff you cant.

Thats the great thing about "beliefs" - you can choose what you want to believe.

I agree but that is the point. quincyyyyy comes in and mocks the one side and then turns around and says you must buy into this believe with no doubts about it.

[trickblue]

I agree but that is the point. quincyyyyy comes in and mocks the one side and then turns around and says you must buy into this believe with no doubts about it.

He wants people to renounce their faith in God, and put their faith in what he says...

Got to hand it to him though... he does have it all figured out...

[Hostile]

He wants people to renounce their faith in God, and put their faith in what he says...

Got to hand it to him though... he does have it all figured out...He couldn't figure out where his butt was if it didn't itch.

[quincyyyyy]

I agree but that is the point. quincyyyyy comes in and mocks the one side and then turns around and says you must buy into this believe with no doubts about it.

I am not mocking anyone. I am not calling anyone stupid or anything, so I don't know where you are getting this from. I am just stating the facts. If the facts disturb you that is not my fault.

[trickblue]

I am not mocking anyone. I am not calling anyone stupid or anything, so I don't know where you are getting this from. I am just stating the facts. If the facts disturb you that is not my fault.

The facts of evolution are hardly concrete. They require a great deal of blind faith...

[ScipioCowboy]

Man evolved from monkeys? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

Speaking of "not knowing what one is talking about," the Bible never provides an age for the earth, nor it does state the earth is flat, nor does it purport a Ptolemaic view of the Universe.

Genesis states that the earth was created in six days, and in the Hebrew language, the word day can have three possible meanings: a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, or an indeterminate period of time (i.e. an age). These different definitions have given rise to two primary schools of Creationist thought:

1) Young-earth Creationists, who believe the earth is just over 6,000 years old.

2) Day-age Creationists, who believe the universe (including the Earth) was created over an indefinite period of time, possibly spanning billions of years.

Many Americans reject evolution because the issue has been used as a wedge by both sides, religious and atheistic, and because many atheists have used a evolution as an argument against the existence of God.

However, as Alan Gross (a postmodernist critic of science whose writings have no religious leanings) points out in his work The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, "evolution embodies an ontology of process rather than product." In other words, the belief that evolution is the sole cause of all variation in life involves a process that is not yet supported by the fossil record. There are, in fact, huge gaps in the fossil record; therefore, belief in this process requires a "faith" in the existence of fossils for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Unfortunately, neither side of this debate has made much effort to differentiate the various concepts included in evolutionary theory. Instead, evolution is treated as an all-or-nothing belief; one can only believe in evolution if they simultaneously accept every concept tagged as evolutionary. Such extremism is unfortunate.

Personally, I believe in microevolution--the notion that animals can mutate and adapt to their environment--and most Christians would likely accept microevolution as well. In my opinion (which is could be supported by this study), most Americas, including myself, reject evolution as the sole cause for all the life on planet. And this is a perfectly rational and intellectually defensible position given the fossil record.

[quincyyyyy]

The facts of evolution are hardly concrete. They require a great deal of blind faith...


You go on believing that if it makes you feel better about yourself. As long as you leave national and local scientific policy decisions up to the scientists, people who actually know what they are talking about, and not politicians and religious fanatics.

[DFWJC]

Speaking of "not knowing what one is talking about," the Bible never provides an age for the earth, nor it does state the earth is flat, nor does it purport a Ptolemaic view of the Universe.

Genesis states that the earth was created in six days, and in the Hebrew language, the word day can have three possible meanings: a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, or an indeterminate period of time (i.e. an age). These different definitions have given rise to two primary schools of Creationist thought:

1) Young-earth Creationists, who believe the earth is just over 6,000 years old.

2) Day-age Creationists, who believe the universe (including the Earth) was created over an indefinite period of time, possibly spanning billions of years.

Many Americans reject evolution because the issue has been used as a wedge by both sides, religious and atheistic, and because many atheists have used a evolution as an argument against the existence of God.

However, as Alan Gross (a postmodernist critic of science whose writings have no religious leanings) points out in his work The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, "evolution embodies an ontology of process rather than product." In other words, the belief that evolution is the sole cause of all variation in life involves a process that is not yet supported by the fossil record. There are, in fact, huge gaps in the fossil record; therefore, belief in this process requires a "faith" in the existence of fossils for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Unfortunately, neither side of this debate has made much effort to differentiate the various concepts included in evolutionary theory. Instead, evolution is treated as an all-or-nothing belief; one can only believe in evolution if they simultaneously accept every concept tagged as evolutionary. Such extremism is unfortunate.

Personally, I believe in microevolution--the notion that animals can mutate and adapt to their environment--and most Christians would likely accept microevolution as well. In my opinion (which is could be supported by this study), most Americas, including myself, reject evolution as the sole cause for all the life on planet. And this is a perfectly rational and intellectually defensible position given the fossil record.

Nice post.

There is another side element to this as well; we are just starting to grasp the concept of "time". The notion of accelerating and decelerating time (as we know it and in our limited dimension) changes things further. We really still have no clue, but we are making advances....and those advances often point more toward a Creator than away from one.

[Hostile]

The facts of evolution are hardly concrete. They require a great deal of blind faith...You mean they still haven't found the Missing Link?

Shocking.

[quincyyyyy]

oh and by the way, Evolution is also based on numerous genetic studies. Not just fossil records, as it is almost impossible to acquire a perfect fossil record for anything. Because many if not most of the species that have ever lived on this planet did not leave behind fossils, because to do so conditions would have to be just right. And to put that ridiculous condition on scientists to present a perfect fossil record with no holes is ludicrous, and just gives people a permanent excuse to be... Well I won't say it but you know.

[ScipioCowboy]

Like when Christianity was against the world being round, but eventually the Christians gave into reason.

You just repeated number two on the Historical Association of Britian's list of common historical misconceptions. The belief in a flat earth was not perpetuated by medieval Christianity; in fact, most Christians of that time believed that the Earth was round.

According to scientist Stephen Jay Gould, "there was never a period of flat earth darkness."

Try again.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

[Doomsday101]

I am not mocking anyone. I am not calling anyone stupid or anything, so I don't know where you are getting this from. I am just stating the facts. If the facts disturb you that is not my fault.

"You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

You would have to believe in it because your whole basis for you belief in the bible is that it is infallible, and if that is not true then there is no basis for anything asserted in the bible."

Now you don't see these comments you made as mocking of others? Yet the thing you believe in has its own holes in it that no one knows the answers too so they fill in those holes with their own hypothesis

[trickblue]

You go on believing that if it makes you feel better about yourself. As long as you leave national and local scientific policy decisions up to the scientists, people who actually know what they are talking about, and not politicians and religious fanatics.

And you go on believing what you want to believe if it makes you feel good about yourself. Just don't force the public school system to teach my children your unsubstantiated theories on Evolution or Global Warming...

See... this way we can BOTH feel good about ourselves without pushing our beliefs on each other...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Any other trollistic topics you would like to discuss there Mac Davis?

[quincyyyyy]

You just repeated number two on the Historical Association of Britian's list of common historical misconceptions. The belief in a flat earth was not perpetuated by medieval Christianity; in fact, most Christians of that time believed that the Earth was round.

According to scientist Stephen Jay Gould, "there was never a period of flat earth darkness."

Try again.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

[quincyyyyy]

"You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

You would have to believe in it because your whole basis for you belief in the bible is that it is infallible, and if that is not true then there is no basis for anything asserted in the bible."

Now you don't see these comments you made as mocking of others? Yet the thing you believe in has its own holes in it that no one knows the answers too so they fill in those holes with their own hypothesis

I don't mind people believing in whatever as long as it doesn't get in the way of science.

[ScipioCowboy]

oh and by the way, Evolution is also based on numerous genetic studies. Not just fossil records, as it is almost impossible to acquire a perfect fossil record for anything. Because many if not most of the species that have ever lived on this planet did not leave behind fossils, because to do so conditions would have to be just right. And to put that ridiculous condition on scientists to present a perfect fossil record with no holes is ludicrous, and just gives people a permanent excuse to be... Well I won't say it but you know.

A number of genetic studies also reveal problems in modern evolutionary theory.

The bottom line is this: If your theory relies on elements for which there is no verifiable evidence, you must have a specific something in order to believe in that theory. Can you guess that specific something? I'll give you a hint: It starts with 'f' and ends in 'h.':D

[quincyyyyy]

And you go on believing what you want to believe if it makes you feel good about yourself. Just don't force the public school system to teach my children your unsubstantiated theories on Evolution or Global Warming...

See... this way we can BOTH feel good about ourselves without pushing our beliefs on each other...

I think the school system should be able to push scientific fact (not "beliefs") on your children if they want to. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it home school your kids.

[Doomsday101]

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Galileo was not executed he was excommunicated and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life

[vta]

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

:lmao: :lmao:

Whatever? If the fact doesn't work, install a 'whatever'.

Galileo wasn't executed. He died under house arrest at the age 77.
Perhaps you should do better than take what you've read as personal intelligence and actually try to understand how it might apply to your life... if it even does.

[quincyyyyy]

The bottom line is this: If your theory relies on elements for which there is no verifiable evidence, you must have a specific something in order to believe in that theory. Can you guess that specific something? I'll give you a hint: It starts with 'f' and ends in 'h.':D

You can verify it with genetic research like I previously said and support it with archaeological evidence as well.

A number of genetic studies also reveal problems in modern evolutionary theory.


No there aren't.

Maybe with minute aspects of Evolution, but not Evolution as a whole, that is generally agreed upon by everyone with scientific training and who doesn't have a religious bias.

[trickblue]

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

WHATEVER? THAT'S YOUR REBUTTAL? :lmao:

Got a link to that?

Nevermind, seeing it's a valid argument, I've provided you with one...

Link (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/whatever.jpg)

[quincyyyyy]

:lmao: :lmao:

Whatever? If the fact doesn't work, install a 'whatever'.

Galileo wasn't executed. He died under house arrest at the age 77.
Perhaps you should do better than take what you've read as personal intelligence and actually try to understand how it might apply to your life... if it even does.

Who put him under house arrest? Yeah that is what I thought.

[ScipioCowboy]

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Actually, much of Galileo's opposition came from fellow scientists, such as Tycho de Brahe, whose careers were contingent upon the veractiy of geocentrism.

Oh, and Galileo died of natural causes. May I suggest you re-enroll in that "premier research institution." You clearly missed some stuff.

[quincyyyyy]

WHATEVER? THAT'S YOUR REBUTTAL? :lmao:

Got a link to that?

Nevermind, seeing it's a valid argument, I've provided you with one...

Link (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/whatever.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy

[Hostile]

I think the school system should be able to push scientific fact (not "beliefs") on your children if they want to. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it home school your kids.You're an offensive jerk.

[vta]

Who put him under house arrest? Yeah that is what I thought.

:lmao: :lmao2:

Yeah, Q. Whatever.

:lmao:

[trickblue]

I think the school system should be able to push scientific fact (not "beliefs") on your children if they want to. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it home school your kids.

I'm a taxpayer with three children in school. I will have my say in their education...

Oh... and Evolution is not a scientific fact... it's a theory...

[Danny White]

Speaking of "not knowing what one is talking about," the Bible never provides an age for the earth, nor it does state the earth is flat, nor does it purport a Ptolemaic view of the Universe.

Genesis states that the earth was created in six days, and in the Hebrew language, the word day can have three possible meanings: a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, or an indeterminate period of time (i.e. an age). These different definitions have given rise to two primary schools of Creationist thought:

1) Young-earth Creationists, who believe the earth is just over 6,000 years old.

2) Day-age Creationists, who believe the universe (including the Earth) was created over an indefinite period of time, possibly spanning billions of years.

Many Americans reject evolution because the issue has been used as a wedge by both sides, religious and atheistic, and because many atheists have used a evolution as an argument against the existence of God.

However, as Alan Gross (a postmodernist critic of science whose writings have no religious leanings) points out in his work The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, "evolution embodies an ontology of process rather than product." In other words, the belief that evolution is the sole cause of all variation in life involves a process that is not yet supported by the fossil record. There are, in fact, huge gaps in the fossil record; therefore, belief in this process requires a "faith" in the existence of fossils for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Unfortunately, neither side of this debate has made much effort to differentiate the various concepts included in evolutionary theory. Instead, evolution is treated as an all-or-nothing belief; one can only believe in evolution if they simultaneously accept every concept tagged as evolutionary. Such extremism is unfortunate.

Personally, I believe in microevolution--the notion that animals can mutate and adapt to their environment--and most Christians would likely accept microevolution as well. In my opinion (which is could be supported by this study), most Americas, including myself, reject evolution as the sole cause for all the life on planet. And this is a perfectly rational and intellectually defensible position given the fossil record.

That is an extremely well-thought-out post right there.

I just went through a religious education class (I'm Catholic) and we discussed this at length. To paraphrase our instructor, the teaching of the Church is this:

In general, nothing in the Bible should be taken to contradict scientific fact. If you believe that God created the earth and all life upon it, and if you believe that God authored the laws of science and nature, then you cannot reject legitimate scientific facts about the history of man and earth without rejecting God at the same time.

God would not lie to us... at the same time, not everything is known to us. So if it is a fact that the earth is older than 10,000 years, then we must be willing to accept that time as portrayed in the Bible is different than our modern conception of time.

I have no problem with many of the concepts of the theory of evolution. I see nothing there that contradicts the idea that God created all life. I also understand that we don't have a complete understanding of creation or evolution.

Unlike others, who may think they have all the answers, I know I do not.

[ScipioCowboy]

No there aren't.

Yes. There are.

Maybe with minute aspects of Evolution, but not Evolution as a whole, that is generally agreed upon by everyone with scientific training and who doesn't have a religious bias.

Once again, you're guilty of placing all evolutionary concepts under one huge umbrella term. Evolution has many different aspects and implications, some of which are far more theoretical than others.

[quincyyyyy]

I'm a taxpayer with three children in school. I will have my say in their education...

Oh... and Evolution is not a scientific fact... it's a theory...

This is also part of the problem. People don't understand what a scientific theory is. Evolution has been peer reviewed and can be verified with scientific evidence. Creationism can't and wasn't. Relativity is also a theory, but your GPS wouldn't work without it (time dilation and what not). Understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-0)

[quincyyyyy]

Actually, much of Galileo's opposition came from fellow scientists, such as Tycho de Brahe, whose careers were contingent upon the veractiy of geocentrism.

Oh, and Galileo died of natural causes. May I suggest you re-enroll in that "premier research institution." You clearly missed some stuff.

I didn't study Late middle age scientific history, sorry if there were some factual inaccuracies, but the main thrust of my argument is correct. The church did inhibit scientific progress. Like putting Galileo under house arrest. That is a fact.

[ScipioCowboy]

This is also part of the problem. People don't understand what a scientific theory is. Evolution has been peer reviewed and can be verified with scientific evidence.

And I'm forced to wonder if you understand how science works. Falsification, not verification, is the key to scientific research. Simply verifying a theory does not lead to acceptance within the scientific community; all possible explanations must be identified and falsified.

[REDVOLUTION]

The facts of evolution are hardly concrete. They require a great deal of blind faith...

Not accurate.

More of evolution can be proven than anything in religion.


Nice post.

There is another side element to this as well; we are just starting to grasp the concept of "time". The notion of accelerating and decelerating time (as we know it and in our limited dimension) changes things further. We really still have no clue, but we are making advances....and those advances often point more toward a Creator than away from one.


True. Time has more answers than we currently know.


Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Yes Religion will always fight science until its proven. They have too.



I don't mind people believing in whatever as long as it doesn't get in the way of science.

Thats the thing. Science can prove many things.
There is an exception where once something is proven with science that later "using science" it is disproving... but usually to advance to something else....

[ScipioCowboy]

That is an extremely well-thought-out post right there.

I just went through a religious education class (I'm Catholic) and we discussed this at length. To paraphrase our instructor, the teaching of the Church is this:

In general, nothing in the Bible should be taken to contradict scientific fact. If you believe that God created the earth and all life upon it, and if you believe that God authored the laws of science and nature, then you cannot reject legitimate scientific facts about the history of man and earth without rejecting God at the same time.

God would not lie to us... at the same time, not everything is known to us. So if it is a fact that the earth is older than 10,000 years, then we must be willing to accept that time as portrayed in the Bible is different than our modern conception of time.

I have no problem with many of the concepts of the theory of evolution. I see nothing there that contradicts the idea that God created all life. I also understand that we don't have a complete understanding of creation or evolution.

Unlike others, who may think they have all the answers, I know I do not.

Thank you.

I agree with much of what you say. I would only add that I personally don't believe in the epistomological superiority of science. I believe God has given us a number of equally valid means of studying and knowing the world, including science.

[Doomsday101]

I didn't study Late middle age scientific history, sorry if there were some factual inaccuracies, but the main thrust of my argument is correct. The church did inhibit scientific progress. Like putting Galileo under house arrest. That is a fact.

True and the church under John Paul admitted the churches mistake. The Catholic Church does not rule out science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out.

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.

The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'.

'Free from sin'

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.

Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

[ScipioCowboy]

I didn't study Late middle age scientific history, sorry if there were some factual inaccuracies, but the main thrust of my argument is correct. The church did inhibit scientific progress. Like putting Galileo under house arrest. That is a fact.

It's also a fact that scientists are guilty of inhibiting scientific progress. After all, most of the astronomers in Galileo's time were geocentrists.

[trickblue]

This is also part of the problem. People don't understand what a scientific theory is. Evolution has been peer reviewed and can be verified with scientific evidence. Creationism can't and wasn't. Relativity is also a theory, but your GPS wouldn't work without it (time dilation and what not). Understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-0)


First of all... don't talk down to me. I'm not a mindless liberal, but rather I think for myself...

Second. Using Wikipedia as a definitive source is a joke...

Third. I can sit here all day with you and counter every single thing you argue in regards to Evolution with another set of facts.

If you could think for yourself, you would realize that Darwin's Theory is full of holes. Unlike you, I don't have all of the answers, but I am smart enough to realize the only three things are assured in life. Death, taxes and the greatness of the Dallas Cowboys...

I thought liberals touted their open-mindedness. Your mind is as closed as a nuns legs...

[trickblue]

Not accurate.

More of evolution can be proven than anything in religion.

Not accurate... they both require a great deal of blind faith...

[quincyyyyy]

True and the church under John Paul admitted the churches mistake. The Catholic Church does not rule out science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out.

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.

The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.

The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'.

'Free from sin'

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.

Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

I thought the pope was infallible. Uh Oh. Catch-22.

[Danny White]

Thank you.

I agree with much of what you say. I would only add that I personally don't believe in the epistomological superiority of science. I believe God has given us a number of equally valid means of studying and knowing the world, including science.

If I implied that, I didn't intend to.

I was doing some searching inspired by this thread and came across this entry regarding "Catholicism and Evolution," which some may find interesting even if they aren't Catholic. There's also a great entry on Galileo on that site.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

[Danny White]

I thought the pope was infallible. Uh Oh. Catch-22.

This is from the same Catholic Encyclopedia I referenced above. In short, he was not formally condemned by the Pope or the Church. It may seem like a semantic difference to you, but I assure you that it matters when it comes to the concept of infallibility.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope -- who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope -- and not of the body which calls itself the Church.

And von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):

The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.

It may be added that Riceloll and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff.

[quincyyyyy]

If I implied that, I didn't intend to.

I was doing some searching inspired by this thread and came across this entry regarding "Catholicism and Evolution," which some may find interesting even if they aren't Catholic. There's also a great entry on Galileo on that site.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

A scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis are two completely different things. Just skimming over that article it seems it uses both terms, which mean completely different things, interchangeably. Again this shows why religion and science needs to be kept separate, because religion doesn't know what its talking about.

[ABQCOWBOY]

First of all... don't talk down to me. I'm not a mindless liberal, but rather I think for myself...

Second. Using Wikipedia as a definitive source is a joke...

Third. I can sit here all day with you and counter every single thing you argue in regards to Evolution with another set of facts.

If you could think for yourself, you would realize that Darwin's Theory is full of holes. Unlike you, I don't have all of the answers, but I am smart enough to realize the only three things are assured in life. Death, taxes and the greatness of the Dallas Cowboys...

I thought liberals touted their open-mindedness. Your mind is as closed as a nuns legs...


You forgot one Trick.

#4 Romo is always going to be hooked up with somebody pretty hot.

That last one kinda gets me every time. :D

[trickblue]

You forgot one Trick.

#4 Romo is always going to be hooked up with somebody pretty hot.

That last one kinda gets me every time. :D

I did leave that one out... :doh:

[Doomsday101]

I thought the pope was infallible. Uh Oh. Catch-22.

In matters of scripture he is considered infallible by the Catholic Church. However that does not mean Catholics in a wide range of topics have to agree with the Pope

[DFWJC]

I didn't study Late middle age scientific history, sorry if there were some factual inaccuracies, but the main thrust of my argument is correct. The church did inhibit scientific progress. Like putting Galileo under house arrest. That is a fact.

I just find it odd that you would use Galileo as your example of science vs religion. Yes he did tee off the Pope and was placed under house arrest. The irony here is that Galileo believed the Bible to infallible! He just (correctly) believed that there can be different intepretations of the same text.

Just for grins, here are few other famous scientists who were also believers.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

[trickblue]

I don't mind people believing in whatever as long as it doesn't get in the way of science.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...

[Danny White]

A scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis are two completely different things. Just skimming over that article it seems it uses both terms, which mean completely different things, interchangeably. Again this shows why religion and science needs to be kept separate, because religion doesn't know what its talking about.

I may be wrong, but I think it's using the term "theory of evolution" more as a brand name, and claiming that it's, in reality, a hypothesis.

I'm sure you'd disagree with that claim, but I think it explains any inconsistency.

[Hostile]

In matters of scripture he is considered infallible by the Catholic Church. However that does not mean Catholics in a wide range of topics have to agree with the PopeI didn't know the whole Christian world was Catholic either.

[REDVOLUTION]

Not accurate... they both require a great deal of blind faith...


Ok... I am always willing to learn.... so how is that? :)

[REDVOLUTION]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...


This is ok.
Although I might replace "lame" with "narrowminded" or "extreme"

"blind" I would replace with "choice" could be "agenda"

[Danny White]

I didn't know the whole Christian world was Catholic either.

Not yet. :laugh2:


I think the Catholic question came out of the Galileo tangent. For what it's worth, though, Luther also condemned the Copernican model of the solar system.

[quincyyyyy]

I just find it odd that you would use Galileo as your example of science vs religion. Yes he did tee off the Pope and was placed under house arrest. The irony here is that Galileo believed the Bible to infallible! He just (correctly) believed that there can be different intepretations of the same text.

Just for grins, here are few other famous scientists who were also believers.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Well according to the Catholic religion the Pope is infallible, so if you are indeed Catholic, which Galileo was, you can't hold a view that diverges with the Church. So in a sense Galileo, whether he wanted to or not, was showing the cracks in the Catholicism's most fundamental beliefs.

[iceberg]

In matters of scripture he is considered infallible by the Catholic Church. However that does not mean Catholics in a wide range of topics have to agree with the Pope

thank you. i get tired of people parading this around as if it means more than it does.

[Danny White]

Well according to the Catholic religion the Pope is infallible, so if you are indeed Catholic, which Galileo was, you can't hold a view that diverges with the Church. So in a sense Galileo, whether he wanted to or not, was showing the cracks in the Catholicism's most fundamental beliefs.

As I explained on the previous page, that's an inaccurate interpretation of the Church's teaching on infallibility. Also, again, the Pope did not condemn Galileo, nor did he issue an "infallible" statement on the nature of the solar system.

Not every statement that comes out of the Pope's mouth is considered infallible.

[sacase]

Whatever, hardcore Christians were against A LOT of scientific achievements. They even executed Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. But eventually Christianity gave into reason and realized they were wrong. The same will happen with Evolution, I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Do you just make up stuff as you go along? Galileo was not executed.

[Doomsday101]

I didn't know the whole Christian world was Catholic either.

Only in the minds of us Catholics. :laugh2:

[Doomsday101]

Well according to the Catholic religion the Pope is infallible, so if you are indeed Catholic, which Galileo was, you can't hold a view that diverges with the Church. So in a sense Galileo, whether he wanted to or not, was showing the cracks in the Catholicism's most fundamental beliefs.

Evidently you don't know much about the Catholic Church just as you did not know much about Galileo since you had him executed at the hands of the church. :laugh2: Also the Catholic church as acknowledged mistakes it has made in the past and they even teach that not all Popes were good popes matter of fact in over 2,000 years of the Catholic church we have had some very bad leaders of the church but we still exist to this day.

[Hostile]

Only in the minds of us Catholics. :laugh2:Personally, that doesn't bother me in the least.

:grin:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It's hard for anyone to give into "reason" when the likes of scientists and individuals such as yourself, ridicule, belittle and mock those that don't see things their way, all the while pushing a science that isn't exact in itself...

That's one thing that always puzzled me about libs. They run around and claim they are tolerant to all kinds and persuasions, yet if you cross their mantra they do all they can to destroy and silence you...

when did evolution become a "lib" mantra? Seems to me any right thinking individual (no pun intended) knows evolution is far more likely than creationism or pseudo creationism aka "intelligent design".

[CanadianCowboysFan]

re scriptures, everyone knows that the bible as we know it was chosen by men, some texts like the Gospel of Judas and the Gnostic texts as well as others were deliberately excluded by early Christians as they didn't conform with early christian teachings.

Relying on the bible for anything is in reality relying on man.

[DaBoys4Life]

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/118-2.gif

What this also showed is a portion of the public is not fully aware of what evolution is. The last question, where it explicitly says what evolution is seemed to get the highest number of respondents who seemed to disagree with evolution.

how did they get 54% of the American public. I didn't do this survey. The people in the military that are overseas didn't do it. People in jail didn't do it it makes no sense. It's more like 54% of the people who responded to this pool.

[Sasquatch]

And this is a perfectly rational and intellectually defensible position given the fossil record.

Arguing that there is a omniscient and omnipotent being on the basis of slight gaps (there is evidence of transitional species) in the fossil record is neither rational nor intellectually defensible. There's no logical connection between the two whatsoever. This is nothing more than pseudo-intellectualism coming to the defense of pseudo-science.

[Brandon]

Not believing in evolution. What a joke. Dinosaurs weren't real also right!

[ScipioCowboy]

Arguing that there is a omniscient and omnipotent being on the basis of slight gaps (there is evidence of transitional species) in the fossil record is neither rational nor intellectually defensible. There's no logical connection between the two whatsoever. This is nothing more than pseudo-intellectualism coming to the defense of pseudo-science.

Pseudo-intellectualism is a criticism often levied by the intellectually myopic, whose ranks are filled with those who believe that science is the only way of knowing all that is knowable.

Both Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard, and Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science, have gone so far to suggest that the term "psuedoscience" has lost any substantive meaning and is currently no more than an "inflammtory buzzword" used for attacking one's opposition in "media sound bites" (like, say, a message board).

And the gaps in the fossil record aren't so slight; they're the rule rather than exception.

And the belief that the universe reveals a creator through its design is a perfectly rational argument. This is what Einstein ultimately came to believe. Plato and numerous other philosophers have made similar arguments. ID isn't irrational simply because you don't believe it.

[Sasquatch]

It's also a fact that scientists are guilty of inhibiting scientific progress. After all, most of the astronomers in Galileo's time were geocentrists.

You don't suppose that's because "science" at the time wasn't distinguished from what we now consider pseudo-science (alchemy, astrology, etc) with many "scientists" being affiliated with religious institutions or members of the clergy?

[Sasquatch]

Pseudo-intellectualism is a criticism often levied by the intellectually myopic, whose ranks are filled with those who believe that science is the only way of knowing all that is knowable.

Both Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard, and Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science, have gone so far to suggest that the term "psuedoscience" has lost any substantive meaning and is currently no more than an "inflammtory buzzword" used for attacking one's opposition in "media sound bites" (like, say, a message board).

And the gaps in the fossil record aren't so slight; they're the rule rather than exception.

And the belief that the universe reveals a creator through its design is a perfectly rational argument. This is what Einstein ultimately came to believe. Plato and numerous other philosophers have made similar arguments. ID isn't irrational simply because you don't believe it.

And what do your esteemed professors McNally and Laudan think of the word "crap"? Because that's what your position is, as if your belief has anything to do with the fossil record. Aren't you the one that sanctimoniously rails against intellectual dishonesty from time to time?

Plato also believed that only the fittest and most educated should have the right to procreate, that all children should be wards of the state from early on so they would have only one loyalty (to the state, not the family), and that pederasty was good. So what's your point?

[trickblue]

when did evolution become a "lib" mantra? Seems to me any right thinking individual (no pun intended) knows evolution is far more likely than creationism or pseudo creationism aka "intelligent design".

I never said it was a lib mantra...

I was simply comparing him, as a professed lib socialist, to the mantra of libs to be open-minded. He is setting that movement back 80 or so years...

As I stated earlier, there are MANY holes in Darwinism and it takes faith to believe them all. I don't understand why that is a stretch for some. Darwinists seem to have to have absolute turn-key belief in their views when the science is incomplete.

I'm certainly not saying I am right. I know what I believe (which I haven't even espoused yet). There are WAY too many unanswered questions in the universe, and to see someone come in here and set the dogma, unequivocally, is just flat out aggravating.

You and I have been far apart on the political spectrum since we have known each other, but I like you and consider you a friend. We don't always agree, but we more often than not, agree to disagree.

Qyyyyyy is a newbie here and I would think he would post after some research in the forum, but he hasn't. When I realized he already knew everything, well, I understood...

[Sasquatch]

As I stated earlier, there are MANY holes in Darwinism and it takes faith to believe them all. I don't understand why that is a stretch for some. Darwinists seem to have to have absolute turn-key belief in their views when the science is incomplete.

What's a stretch is contending on that basis that the Biblical account of creation is equally valid. It's a purely negative argument.

At the very least, evolution has compelling, verifiable evidence that supports its claims even if some questions remain unanswered. How much positive evidence is there indicating that the Bible is the revealed word of God or that is God's son, separate yet the same with the Father? What positive evidence is there suggesting that Christian creation myth should be privileged over others?

At best, it's a poor comparison. At worst, it's politically-motivated obfuscation.

[trickblue]

This is ok.
Although I might replace "lame" with "narrowminded" or "extreme"

"blind" I would replace with "choice" could be "agenda"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/einstein.jpg

Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ;)

[Cochese]

I never knew that many people lived in Kansas...

[trickblue]

What's a stretch is contending on that basis that the Biblical account of creation is equally valid. It's a purely negative argument.

At the very least, evolution has compelling, verifiable evidence that supports its claims even if some questions remain unanswered. How much positive evidence is there indicating that the Bible is the revealed word of God or that is God's son, separate yet the same with the Father? What positive evidence is there suggesting that Christian creation myth should be privileged over others?

At best, it's a poor comparison. At worst, it's politically-motivated obfuscation.

Politically motivated? Is that what you reduce it to? I am not hiding anything, nor am I reducing it to any agenda...

Both take a great deal of faith. Partial truths are still just that... partial truths. Are you prepared to write in stone evidence that is partially answered?

I will correct this for you:

At the very least, evolution has compelling, verifiable evidence that supports its claims even if MANY questions remain unanswered.

[Sasquatch]

Politically motivated? Is that what you reduce it to? I am not hiding anything, nor am I reducing it to any agenda...

Both take a great deal of faith. Partial truths are still just that... partial truths. Are you prepared to write in stone evidence that is partially answered?

I will correct this for you:
At the very least, evolution has compelling, verifiable evidence that supports its claims even if MANY questions remain unanswered.


When you try to equate something that has a VAST amount of vetted, verifiable, and quantifiable evidence in support of its central claims with something that has NO verifiable evidence in support of its assertions then one has to suspect that what's being presented is something other than an impartial and sincere analysis of their respective rational validity.

[quincyyyyy]

Pseudo-intellectualism is a criticism often levied by the intellectually myopic, whose ranks are filled with those who believe that science is the only way of knowing all that is knowable.

Both Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard, and Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science, have gone so far to suggest that the term "psuedoscience" has lost any substantive meaning and is currently no more than an "inflammtory buzzword" used for attacking one's opposition in "media sound bites" (like, say, a message board).

And the gaps in the fossil record aren't so slight; they're the rule rather than exception.

And the belief that the universe reveals a creator through its design is a perfectly rational argument. This is what Einstein ultimately came to believe. Plato and numerous other philosophers have made similar arguments. ID isn't irrational simply because you don't believe it.

It is completely unreasonable to expect a complete fossil record, as many if not most species don't have fossil remains left on earth. Because conditions have to be just right to have their remains preserved.

A fossil record is just part of what scientists use to prove that evolution exists, and its not even necessary to their case. There is so much more that goes into it. DNA mapping, for example, also gives pretty solid proof that certain species are related and came from a common ancestor.

[quincyyyyy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/einstein.jpg

Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ;)


Fine science without religion is lame. Without religion science is boring... It doesn't matter. Religion is not necessary for its existence. Science is in the latter case. Religion is blind without science.

[trickblue]

When you try to equate something that has a VAST amount of vetted, verifiable, and quantifiable evidence in support of its central claims with something that has NO verifiable evidence in support of its assertions then one has to suspect that what's being presented is something other than an impartial and sincere analysis of their respective rational validity.

What if top scientists in the field refuted your claims? Are they nuts? Certifiable? Religious Right?

Fine science without religion is lame. But religion is not necessary for its existence. Science is.

You are the man arguing with the very Dali-Lama of Science... Albert Einstein...

If you have issues there, take it up with him...

As one of the most brilliant men that ever lived, he struggled with questions of absolutism and definitive resolution. Luckily for us, you have fulfilled his dream: You have the answer to everything...

So, what is the real secret to E=MC2 pratel?

[Cochese]

You are the man arguing with the very Dali-Lama of Science... Albert Einstein...


You mean the guy that called the bible childish? That guy?

[Sasquatch]

What if top scientists in the field refuted your claims? Are they nuts? Certifiable? Religious Right?



You are the man arguing with the very Dali-Lama of Science... Albert Einstein...

If you have issues there, take it up with him...

As one of the most brilliant men that ever lived, he struggled with questions of absolutism and definitive resolution. Luckily for us, you have fulfilled his dream: You have the answer to everything...

So, what is the real secret to E=MC2 pratel?

I don't claim to know everything. I just think your attempt to equate science with religion is total bunk.

[quincyyyyy]

\

You are the man arguing with the very Dali-Lama of Science... Albert Einstein...

If you have issues there, take it up with him...

As one of the most brilliant men that ever lived, he struggled with questions of absolutism and definitive resolution. Luckily for us, you have fulfilled his dream: You have the answer to everything...

So, what is the real secret to E=MC2 pratel?

Well I was in full agreement with him. Science is boring without religion. But religion is disabled without without science. No argument there. Doesn't mean science needs religion, but obviously religion needs science.

Not really sure what you want to know about E=MC2. I used it when I studied chemistry when we wanted to find what part of nuclear matter gets converted into energy in certain reactions. Basically it shows matter and energy can be interchangeable. It was very ground breaking as you can tell.

[trickblue]

I don't claim to know everything. I just think your attempt to equate science with religion is total bunk.

See... there ya go... I didn't equate science to religion... I just questioned Darwin's theory...

So if we question Darwin, we are wrong?

Einstein seemed to think the two were intertwined, but then again, he is old school and not as enlightened as you...

I ask this question again... what if non-Christian, respected scientists disagree with Darwin? (quick... google... there are MANY of them)...

Do you disagree with them? Are they on the payroll of the evil right? Can they not think for themselves? Will Underdog rescue Sweet Polly Purebred from Simon Bar Sinister in time? Tune in tomorrow to find out...

[Cochese]

Einstein seemed to think the two were intertwined, but then again, he is old school and not as enlightened as you...


Am I the only one that reads the news?

"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - Written a year before he died. Lets leave Einstein out of this if all you are going to do is cherry pick quotations. If you seriously put that much faith into what he said, it might be time for a little self reflection.

[quincyyyyy]

See... there ya go... I didn't equate science to religion... I just questioned Darwin's theory...

So if we question Darwin, we are wrong?

Einstein seemed to think the two were intertwined, but then again, he is old school and not as enlightened as you...

I ask this question again... what if non-Christian, respected scientists disagree with Darwin? (quick... google... there are MANY of them)...

Do you disagree with them? Are they on the payroll of the evil right? Can they not think for themselves? Will Underdog rescue Sweet Polly Purebred from Simon Bar Sinister in time? Tune in tomorrow to find out...

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[Cajuncowboy]

Man evolved from monkeys? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You guys don't know what you are talking about. Man and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor. One didn't evolve from the other.

OK so wait a minute. According to the Bible the Earth is 10,000 years old. Do any of you guys believe in that? (this is not a rhetorical question I expect answers)

You would have to believe in it because your whole basis for you belief in the bible is that it is infallible, and if that is not true then there is no basis for anything asserted in the bible.

I would have to get into a religious discussion to prove how wrong you are and it is not allowed on this forum.

I will say this however.....

You are proof that there are more than one species that can type.



































:p:

[Sasquatch]

See... there ya go... I didn't equate science to religion... I just questioned Darwin's theory...

So if we question Darwin, we are wrong?

Einstein seemed to think the two were intertwined, but then again, he is old school and not as enlightened as you...

I ask this question again... what if non-Christian, respected scientists disagree with Darwin? (quick... google... there are MANY of them)...

Do you disagree with them? Are they on the payroll of the evil right? Can they not think for themselves? Will Underdog rescue Sweet Polly Purebred from Simon Bar Sinister in time? Tune in tomorrow to find out...

I'll take your word for it. But I find it hard to believe that you innocently used the words "faith," "belief," and "dogma" without this purpose in mind.

I think your question is pointless. Scientific debate and skepticism are a healthy and a necessary part of the scientific process. What if some learned religious thinkers questioned the validity of the Bible? The Bible couldn't stand up to a fraction of the scrutiny that evolution is subjected to which is precisely why the two are not on the same level as creationists would have us believe.

[trickblue]

Well I was in full agreement with him. Science is boring without religion. But religion is disabled without without science. No argument there. Doesn't mean science needs religion, but obviously religion needs science.

Einstein disagrees...

Not really sure what you want to know about E=MC2. I used it when I studied chemistry when we wanted to find what part of nuclear matter gets converted into energy in certain reactions. Basically it shows matter and energy can be interchangeable. It was very ground breaking as you can tell.

That was a joke... although it would be fun to delve into the subject...

Now, although I don't fully understand Newtonian/Classical Mechanics and it's role in mass-energy equivalence, I'm fully willing to debate the subject with you...

We can get a keg... what's your poison...

[Cochese]

Einstein disagrees...





Let me guess, you are a Christian? Well Einstein disagrees with YOU, your holy book and your after life system, but it doesnt really matter because once upon a time he made a quotation that vaguely supports your belief system and thats the only thing that matters dag nabbit.

[trickblue]

I'll take your word for it. But I find it hard to believe that you innocently used the words "faith," "belief," and "dogma" without this purpose in mind.

I think your question is pointless. Scientific debate and skepticism are a healthy and a necessary part of the scientific process. What if some learned religious thinkers questioned the validity of the Bible? The Bible couldn't stand up to a fraction of the scrutiny that evolution is subjected to which is precisely why the two are not on the same level as creationists would have us believe.

Actually I used the words "faith", "belief" and "dogma" all on my very own... promise...

My question ISN'T pointless, but rather point on...

We NEVER see respected scientists on TV that question Global Warming or Evolution, but the fact is that their are many... and they are prominent...

Evolution can't even suck the pinkie toe of the bible as far as scrutiny... the 60's are over my friend... ;)

[trickblue]

Let me guess, you are a Christian? Well Einstein disagrees with YOU, your holy book and your after life system, but it doesnt really matter because once upon a time he made a quotation that vaguely supports your belief system and thats the only thing that matters dag nabbit.

Research... is your friend...

Einstein was not a Christian, nor a practicing Jew...

You don't even know what I believe... I've never stated it, but I like to play Devil's Advocate...

Now... if you want to argue... "dag nabbit"... I LOVE that...

Now... pick your subject and I will argue with you...

C'mon... I don't bite...

[Cochese]

Research... is your friend...

Einstein was not a Christian, nor a practicing Jew...

You don't even know what I believe... I've never stated it, but I like to play Devil's Advocate...

Now... if you want to argue... "dag nabbit"... I LOVE that...

Now... pick your subject and I will argue with you...

C'mon... I don't bite...

Research is my friend? You are the one using one cherry picked quotation to support your stance. Well done, must have taken you minutes to look that up.

[Sasquatch]

Evolution can't even suck the pinkie toe of the bible as far as scrutiny... the 60's are over my friend... ;)

I don't think it's a matter of the Bible answering its critics as much as the obstinacy of its adherents. :D I have yet to read about any concrete evidence proving that the earth was created in seven days or that of Nazareth was a divine being capable of suspending natural laws and performing miracles.

[trickblue]

Research is my friend? You are the one using one cherry picked quotation to support your stance. Well done, must have taken you minutes to look that up.

Sigh...

Look at my post right before yours... then get back to me...

I'll be waiting...

btw... be sure you know my stances in here before you go around defining me...

I'll also debate you on any subject any time to prove "fill in the blank"... ;)

[notherbob]

These kinds of discussions are often interesting but seldom enlightening as most people argue their predetermined positions without being open to learning new things. Yet if we don't open our minds to seeing things from new perspectives, how is it possible to learn and grow intellectually?

If science reflects the real truth about reality and if religion reflects the real truth about reality, how can there be any differences between them? Usually, we just end up defending what we claim to believe in, whether we actually believe it or not, just so we don't give in to the other viewpoint.

Religions and science both change over time (Evolve?) Catholicism is no longer the same as it was when I was a child - it has rejected the St. Christopher and the St. George stories as myths and medical science once thought stress caused ulcers until two MDs from Australia proved in the 1990s that ulcers are caused by bacteria (helicobacter pylori). Things change.

How can we learn new things if we keep clinging doggedly to the old without ever considering other possibilities?

Until the 1930s astronomers didn't know that galaxies were not a part of our milky way but were way beyond it and our milky way was just the local galaxy that our solar system was part of.

If the universe were only a few thousand years old, as some believe, we would not be able to see any other galaxies at all and only a handful of stars would be visible in the night sky - just those within the few thousand light years.

Both scientists and religionists need to allow their minds to become open to other ideas so they can grow. Even if it means abandoning outmoded ideas, that only opens up new doors to understanding things unimagined before.

Einstein was right about one thing - relativity - it all depends on how you look at it; that is, your perspective. After all nothing in the universe is solid, all is comprised of nothing but energy affected by energy; that's what E=mc2 is really all about. If you can learn to think independently, it becomes the basis for melding science and religion into a single reality but your mind has to grow out of the old before it can understand the new, which was really the old anyway, we just didn't recognize it until we thought about it. It is what it is whether each of us recognizes it or not. All religious and scientific thoughts in the world are nothing but energy in different forms - deep, huh?

No, I don't know it all but I try to allow myself to continue to grow so that I can learn a little more of it as I go on through life.

[Cochese]

I've never stated it, but I like to play Devil's Advocate...




Exactly what I'm doing. I'm not letting that one silly Einstein quote be used to support any science/religion argument when he has said so much more against the subject of modern religions.

[trickblue]

Exactly what I'm doing. I'm not letting that one silly Einstein quote be used to support any science/religion argument when he has said so much more against the subject of modern religions.

Well... we can certainly play the quote game... if you want...

I actually didn't "cherry-pick" that quote... it was a theme consistent throughout his life...

That being said... let's play...

[ScipioCowboy]

You don't suppose that's because "science" at the time wasn't distinguished from what we now consider pseudo-science (alchemy, astrology, etc) with many "scientists" being affiliated with religious institutions or members of the clergy?

And herein lies the problem with overusing words like "pseudo-science."

If pseudo-science and science were, according to you, "indistinguishable" during the time in question, then pseudo-science is just as reponsible as science for giving us the heliocentric model of the solar system. After all, Copernicus and Galileo were devout Christians who were "affiliated with religious institutions."

Oh, and remember Isaac Newton--the guy who wrote the book on gravity, developed calculus, and produced a myriad of groundbreaking scientific accomplishments?

Not only was Newton a devout Christian, actually stating that "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done," his first passion was alchemy. It seems that Newton's infatuation with pseudo-science didn't prevent him from becoming "the greatest scientist who ever lived," according to many historians.

[Cochese]

Well... we can certainly play the quote game... if you want...

I actually didn't "cherry-pick" that quote... it was a theme consistent throughout his life...

That being said... let's play...


Did you read the news story this week? Just out of curiosity, because this discussion is going pretty much nowhere.
http://www6.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20080513/einstein.bible/

[ConcordCowboy]

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/a/ac/Creation_vs_evolution.png

[trickblue]

Did you read the news story this week? Just out of curiosity, because this discussion is going pretty much nowhere.
http://www6.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20080513/einstein.bible/


Of course I did... did you not see this one?
"Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said.
So if we are to believe the great scientists, how can we discount the inconsistency of arguably the greatest of them all?

I've still never taken a position... I'm just sayin'...

[ConcordCowboy]

http://www.saintjoe.edu/~dept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

[Sasquatch]

http://www.saintjoe.edu/%7Edept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

In a nutshell.

[Cochese]

In a nutshell.

Thats why these discussions are always so painful.

[Cajuncowboy]

Let me guess, you are a Christian? Well Einstein disagrees with YOU, your holy book and your after life system, but it doesnt really matter because once upon a time he made a quotation that vaguely supports your belief system and thats the only thing that matters dag nabbit.

Einstein now agrees with US, our Holy Book and our "after life system".


Better late than never.....OR is it?

[trickblue]

http://www.saintjoe.edu/%7Edept14/environment/rogero/creationism.jpg

It's all perspective, my friend... all perspective... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/um_osu.jpg

[Cajuncowboy]

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/a/ac/Creation_vs_evolution.png

I'm gonna give this thread all of the rest of tonight and tomorrow until I get done with work then if the mods are still allowing this kind of thing I am going to blow all of you atheistic, non believing doofus' out of the water. :banghead:

[ScipioCowboy]

And what do your esteemed professors McNally and Laudan think of the word "crap"? Because that's what your position is,

Actually, "crap" applies to those whose positions rely too heavily on emoting and specious speculation on the intents of others.;)

as if your belief has anything to do with the fossil record. Aren't you the one that sanctimoniously rails against intellectual dishonesty from time to time?

Intellectual dishonesty is more akin to pretending that your epistemology isn't rooted in a set of preconceptions concering the underlying operations of reality. As long as we're engaging in crass speculation, it's equally valid to assume that your opinions on Intelligent Design have very little to do with its rationality and more with its association with certain worldviews.

Everyone here knows I'm a Christian. I'm very forthright about who I am and what I'm about. All of my opinions and beliefs, religious or otherwise, are based on the sum total of my 30 years of experience in life, and that experience has taught me that a God does indeed exist. And that He involves Himself in the affairs of man.

My epistemological perspective may differ from yours, but that doesn't make it any less rational.


Plato also believed that only the fittest and most educated should have the right to procreate, that all children should be wards of the state from early on so they would have only one loyalty (to the state, not the family), and that pederasty was good. So what's your point?

None of this proves anything. Simply because some of Plato's beliefs have become politically unpopular in modern times does NOT undermine his reputation as a great thinker and philosopher.

[ScipioCowboy]

It is completely unreasonable to expect a complete fossil record, as many if not most species don't have fossil remains left on earth. Because conditions have to be just right to have their remains preserved.

Your point is neither here nor there. If your belief relies on evidence that cannot be verified, you, by definition, have some element of faith.

A fossil record is just part of what scientists use to prove that evolution exists, and its not even necessary to their case. There is so much more that goes into it. DNA mapping, for example, also gives pretty solid proof that certain species are related and came from a common ancestor.

Actually, DNA mapping and the fossil record must work together in this respect. Regarding evolutionary theory, DNA mapping is fairly pointless without a point of comparison.

[Cochese]

Einstein now agrees with US, our Holy Book and our "after life system".


Better late than never.....OR is it?

O RLY? Any proof?

I'm sure good ole Al is leering down from heaven, checking out some young fox take a shower as I type.

[Cajuncowboy]

O RLY? Any proof?

I'm sure good ole Al is leering down from heaven, checking out some young fox take a shower as I type.

No, he'd have to be looking up if he held the views you said and I guarantee the last thing on his mind is some babe in a shower.

[trickblue]

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/a/ac/Creation_vs_evolution.png

More like this... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/um_osu-1.jpg

[Cochese]

More like this... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/um_osu-1.jpg

Im a Michigan fan, and even I will say thats friggin silly.

[trickblue]

Im a Michigan fan, and even I will say thats friggin silly.

and this?

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/a/ac/Creation_vs_evolution.png

[Cochese]

and this?

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/a/ac/Creation_vs_evolution.png

Quite amusing.

On the other hand, the positions have been reversed for nearly a decade on the picture that you posted, making it largely irrelevant.

[trickblue]

Quite amusing.

On the other hand, the positions have been reversed for nearly a decade on the picture that you posted, making it largely irrelevant.

Oh I know... one's silly one's not...

One's funny, one's not...

One's irrelevant, one's not...

What's your criteria?

I'm trying to understand you... really...

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_ .jpg

[Sasquatch]

My epistemological perspective may differ from yours, but that doesn't make it any less rational.

Sure it does.

[ScipioCowboy]

Sure it does.

Reread my point about intellectual myopia.:D

[Cochese]

Oh I know... one's silly one's not...

One's funny, one's not...

One's irrelevant, one's not...

What's your criteria?

I'm trying to understand you... really...

They have won 7 out of the last 10. If you wanted to reverse the positions and post it to mock me, it would be more effective.

[Cajuncowboy]

Hey do you believe MSNBC???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/


Proof that the Earth, or at least dinosaurs are not as old as you think.

[Sasquatch]

Reread my point about intellectual myopia.:D

Your position has ZERO positive content so your only recourse is to cast doubt on science as merely another religion and its defenders as narrow-minded religious zealots. Yours is nothing more than a shell-game and a con cloaked in academic speak and post-modern jargon.

In fact, your whole post-modern critique of science is puzzling and self-defeating as it essentially leads to the conclusion that both sicence and religion are INVALID.

Have it your way. :D

[trickblue]

They have won 7 out of the last 10. If you wanted to reverse the positions and post it to mock me, it would be more effective.

Actually those are just some fun digs at Concord... which I'm sure he'll have fun with...

I'm more interested in other issues in regards to you...

Exactly what I'm doing. I'm not letting that one silly Einstein quote be used to support any science/religion argument when he has said so much more against the subject of modern religions.

Did you read the news story this week? Just out of curiosity, because this discussion is going pretty much nowhere.
http://www6.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20080513/einstein.bible/

You attempted to belittle me by accusing me of "cherry-picking" while posting an article that is obviously "cherry-picking"...

I'm confused...

[Cochese]

Actually those are just some fun digs at Concord... which I'm sure he'll have fun with...

I'm more interested in other issues in regards to you...





You attempted to belittle me by accusing me of "cherry-picking" while posting an article that is obviously "cherry-picking"...

I'm confused...

Its not really cherry picking, it has numerous quotes about his lack of faith in religion from different times in his life. Including one that was allready posted several pages back. Certainly more than the ONE, singular, that you used.

But as I said earlier, this string of conversation is going nowhere.

[trickblue]

Its not really cherry picking, it has numerous quotes about his lack of faith in religion from different times in his life. Including one that was allready posted several pages back. Certainly more than the ONE, singular, that you used.

But as I said earlier, this string of conversation is going nowhere.

I'm not being negative here...

The Einstein quote I gave is VERY famous and relevant to many. How you chose to accept it is within yourself....

Lacking faith in religion and lacking faith in God are entirely different aspects... I don't subscribe much to any particular religion although I am active in a particular church. I not only take issue with some of my pastor's teachings, we have had healthy debates about it and are very good friends...

You can't do a drive-by, give an opinion then say a rebuttal doesn't matter, and expect no reply...

That's not how it works in here...

[ScipioCowboy]

Your position has ZERO positive content so your only recourse is to cast doubt on science as merely another religion and its defenders as narrow-minded religious zealots. Yours is nothing more than a shell-game and a con cloaked in academic speak and post-modern jargon.

In fact, your whole post-modern critique of science is puzzling and self-defeating as it essentially leads to the conclusion that both sicence and religion are INVALID.

Incorrect.

The postmodern critique (which isn't mine, by the way) holds that true objectivity is myth, and that every mode of inquiry, including science, is subject to its own set of epistemological biases concerning the underlying operations of reality. Consider, for instance, the cartoon that Concord posted; it contends that science is only concerned with objectives facts and the undeniable conclusion generated by those facts. However, it overlooks the methods by which science ascertains and identifies facts. For instance, science rejects any phenomenon that is not falsifiable or studiable under controlled settings. This represents an epistemolocial bias, overlooked by the cartoon.

Postmodernism never states that all knowledge or truth is invalid. Nor do I. Postmodernism simply holds that knowledge is a social construct; in other words, something becomes knowledge when society deems that it's knowledge.

As I've said before, I don't completely agree with Postmodernism, but it makes a very compelling argument concerning the unavoidable bias and subjectivity associated with knowledge construction.

Speaking of "nothing positive," your endless emoting and pontifications on my "real intent" attest to the validity of the postmodern position.;)

[Sasquatch]

Incorrect.

The postmodern critique (which isn't mine, by the way) holds that true objectivity is myth, and that every mode of inquiry, including science, is subject to its own set of epistemological biases concerning the underlying operations of reality. Consider, for instance, the cartoon that Concord posted; it contends that science is only concerned with objectives facts and the undeniable conclusion generated by those facts. However, it overlooks the methods by which science ascertains and identifies facts. For instance, science rejects any phenomenon that is not falsifiable or studiable under controlled settings. This represents an epistemolocial bias, overlooked by the cartoon.

Postmodernism never states that all knowledge or truth is invalid. Nor do I. Postmodernism simply holds that knowledge is a social construct; in other words, something becomes knowledge when society deems that it's knowledge.

As I've said before, I don't completely agree with Postmodernism, but it makes a very compelling argument concerning the unavoidable bias and subjectivity associated with knowledge construction.

Speaking of "nothing positive," your endless emoting and pontifications on my "real intent" attest to the validity of the postmodern position.;)

Yawn. Invalid to the extent that it doesn't offer a privileged description of objective reality. Of course, you knew that but never miss an opportunity to dazzle us with your .... ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

Yawn. Invalid to the extent that it doesn't offer a privileged description of objective reality. Of course, you knew that but never miss an opportunity to dazzle us with your .... ;)

I might know that...if I was privy to your own personal definition of invalid.:D

[junk]

I'm a taxpayer with three children in school. I will have my say in their education...

Oh... and Evolution is not a scientific fact... it's a theory...

Well, then I'd hope you are also adamantly against any sort of religious belief being taught in school.

[ConcordCowboy]

More like this... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/um_osu-1.jpg

:laugh2:

But really that should be the other way around...based on the last few years.

:p:

[ConcordCowboy]

It's all perspective, my friend... all perspective... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/cowboyszone/temp/um_osu.jpg

Now THIS one I agree with!

Makes perfect sense.

:D

[REDVOLUTION]

These kinds of discussions are often interesting but seldom enlightening as most people argue their predetermined positions without being open to learning new things. Yet if we don't open our minds to seeing things from new perspectives, how is it possible to learn and grow intellectually?

If science reflects the real truth about reality and if religion reflects the real truth about reality, how can there be any differences between them? Usually, we just end up defending what we claim to believe in, whether we actually believe it or not, just so we don't give in to the other viewpoint.

Religions and science both change over time (Evolve?) Catholicism is no longer the same as it was when I was a child - it has rejected the St. Christopher and the St. George stories as myths and medical science once thought stress caused ulcers until two MDs from Australia proved in the 1990s that ulcers are caused by bacteria (helicobacter pylori). Things change.

How can we learn new things if we keep clinging doggedly to the old without ever considering other possibilities?

Until the 1930s astronomers didn't know that galaxies were not a part of our milky way but were way beyond it and our milky way was just the local galaxy that our solar system was part of.

If the universe were only a few thousand years old, as some believe, we would not be able to see any other galaxies at all and only a handful of stars would be visible in the night sky - just those within the few thousand light years.

Both scientists and religionists need to allow their minds to become open to other ideas so they can grow. Even if it means abandoning outmoded ideas, that only opens up new doors to understanding things unimagined before.

Einstein was right about one thing - relativity - it all depends on how you look at it; that is, your perspective. After all nothing in the universe is solid, all is comprised of nothing but energy affected by energy; that's what E=mc2 is really all about. If you can learn to think independently, it becomes the basis for melding science and religion into a single reality but your mind has to grow out of the old before it can understand the new, which was really the old anyway, we just didn't recognize it until we thought about it. It is what it is whether each of us recognizes it or not. All religious and scientific thoughts in the world are nothing but energy in different forms - deep, huh?

No, I don't know it all but I try to allow myself to continue to grow so that I can learn a little more of it as I go on through life.



EXCELLENT POST!!!

[REDVOLUTION]

Incorrect.

The postmodern critique (which isn't mine, by the way) holds that true objectivity is myth, and that every mode of inquiry, including science, is subject to its own set of epistemological biases concerning the underlying operations of reality. Consider, for instance, the cartoon that Concord posted; it contends that science is only concerned with objectives facts and the undeniable conclusion generated by those facts. However, it overlooks the methods by which science ascertains and identifies facts. For instance, science rejects any phenomenon that is not falsifiable or studiable under controlled settings. This represents an epistemolocial bias, overlooked by the cartoon.

Postmodernism never states that all knowledge or truth is invalid. Nor do I. Postmodernism simply holds that knowledge is a social construct; in other words, something becomes knowledge when society deems that it's knowledge.

As I've said before, I don't completely agree with Postmodernism, but it makes a very compelling argument concerning the unavoidable bias and subjectivity associated with knowledge construction.

Speaking of "nothing positive," your endless emoting and pontifications on my "real intent" attest to the validity of the postmodern position.;)

Kinda funny....

Dont Agree
Agree
Dont completely agree

:laugh2:

[quincyyyyy]

Your point is neither here nor there. If your belief relies on evidence that cannot be verified, you, by definition, have some element of faith.



Actually, DNA mapping and the fossil record must work together in this respect. Regarding evolutionary theory, DNA mapping is fairly pointless without a point of comparison.

It is not feasible Archaeologists to be able to acquire a fossil record of every single specie that has ever lived, but they can for some of them and extrapolate to connect the dots. That is perfectly reasonable for them to do.

But I did say in my post that there are other pieces of evidence besides a fossil record. DNA Mapping was just an example of another method. You guys seemed obsessed with the fact there are a few holes in the fossil record, which is helpful but unnecessary to Evolutionists' argument.

[quincyyyyy]

I'm not being negative here...

The Einstein quote I gave is VERY famous and relevant to many. How you chose to accept it is within yourself....

Lacking faith in religion and lacking faith in God are entirely different aspects... I don't subscribe much to any particular religion although I am active in a particular church. I not only take issue with some of my pastor's teachings, we have had healthy debates about it and are very good friends...

You can't do a drive-by, give an opinion then say a rebuttal doesn't matter, and expect no reply...

That's not how it works in here...

But you didn't seem to understand the quote though. He was saying life with only hard core science and no religion is boring. And life without science and only religion is ignorance. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And I gave an Einstein quote as well. To sum up: God never produced an ethical code, its inherent to mankind. You don't have an eternal soul, and will rot in the ground when you die. Deal with it.

[Doomsday101]

But you didn't seem to understand the quote though. He was saying life with only hard core science and no religion is boring. And life without science and only religion is ignorance. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And I gave an Einstein quote as well. To sum up: God never produced an ethical code, its inherent to mankind. You don't have an eternal soul, and will rot in the ground when you die. Deal with it.

Well since none of us have died do we really know what happens after death? Try it and tell us about it. :laugh2:

[quincyyyyy]

Well since none of us have died do we really know what happens after death? Try it and tell us about it. :laugh2:

And yet you guys seem absolutely certain that there is a heaven.

[iceberg]

And yet you guys seem absolutely certain that there is a heaven.

how can you be sure this is not? God tell you when no one else was looking?

[Doomsday101]

And yet you guys seem absolutely certain that there is a heaven.

Yes it is based on something you don't have or understand FAITH. It is true you can't see or touch faith and a belief that there is something bigger than all of us.

As I have said before I believe in evolution maybe not to the same extent or exact believe of evolution as you but I do think man and animals have evolved throughout the centuries and continue to evolve to adapt to the environment in which we live.

I don’t think because something like the mentioning of dinosaurs is not mentioned in the bible does not mean they did not exist it just has no bearing on man and his relationship with God

[quincyyyyy]

how can you be sure this is not? God tell you when no one else was looking?

I'm about 99.999999% certain. This idea of a heaven is pretty far fetched. I'm equally certain that our creator is not a Giant Spaghetti monster.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well I think I let the religious debate go on long enough.

Closed.

[trickblue]

Well, then I'd hope you are also adamantly against any sort of religious belief being taught in school.

Absolutely I am...

I also have no problem with a moment of silence for students to pray to themselves or meditate, but religious teachings should be left to the family... unless it is a private religious school, of course...

[trickblue]

:laugh2:

But really that should be the other way around...based on the last few years.

:p:

Now THIS one I agree with!

Makes perfect sense.

:D

I knew you would like them... and yes, OSU has owned Meatchicken over the last few years...