NationStates Jolt Archive

I am an 'evolutionist'? When did I become a scientist?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God; evolution is a field of science. 'Creationists' are those who believe in the Creation suggested in the Bible; 'evolutionists' are those who work in the field of biology. I do not have a job as a scientist.

I am not an evolutionist just because I understand the principles upon which it works. It has nothing to do with belief in something undemonstrated. Please stop referring to me incorrectly as an 'evolutionist'. I encourage others referred to in that manner not to put up with this, either.

/rant

I am an 'evolutionist'? When did I become a scientist?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God; evolution is a field of science. 'Creationists' are those who believe in the Creation suggested in the Bible; 'evolutionists' are those who work in the field of biology. I do not have a job as a scientist.

I am not an evolutionist just because I understand the principles upon which it works. It has nothing to do with belief in something undemonstrated. Please stop referring to me incorrectly as an 'evolutionist'. I encourage others referred to in that manner not to put up with this, either.

/rant
So...? You are neither evolutionist nor creationist?

So...? You are neither evolutionist nor creationist?
We call evolutionists "scientists" and creationists "fundamentalist nuts who need to go back to school".

I am an Evolutionary Creationist. At least that's how I term it.

It is a bit like being refered to as an 'oxyginist' because someone believes that we are inhailing the essense of god and doesen't feel that this 'theory' of oxygen holds water...

It is a bit like being refered to as an 'oxyginist' because someone believes that we are inhailing the essense of god and doesen't feel that this 'theory' of oxygen holds water...
:D ur funnay

It is a bit like being refered to as an 'oxyginist' because someone believes that we are inhailing the essense of god and doesen't feel that this 'theory' of oxygen holds water...
Yeah, but water holds oxygen! unless you beleve that water is an element by its self.

You're just a good, normal lass/lad, Willamena.

Yeah, but water holds oxygen! unless you beleve that water is an element by its self.
Yes, but it doesn't hold what those oxygenists believe to be the tool of life, O2, it only has one oxygen element.

It is a bit like being refered to as an 'oxyginist' because someone believes that we are inhailing the essense of god and doesen't feel that this 'theory' of oxygen holds water...

Ha ha, punny.

No, no, you guys ALL have this wrong. The world was crapped out by The Giant Polkadot Bunny in the Sky (or TGPBitS, as it is affectionately called by true believers). That's why it's round. DUH. I mean seriously, we know that bunnies crap round things. How else could the world be round? Thus it is a bunny crap. And yes, to preemptively answer your questions, nebulae are diarrhea.

Yeah, but water holds oxygen! unless you beleve that water is an element by its self.
Sure it is. Water, fire, earth and air are the four elements. Everyone knows that. Plus all this germ theory of disease bull that the atheist scientists put out is just wrong. Everybody knows that diseases come from an imbalance of the humors and that bleeding, vomiting, or laxatives are all that is needed to cure illness.

Sure it is. Water, fire, earth and air are the four elements. Everyone knows that. Plus all this germ theory of disease bull that the atheist scientists put out is just wrong. Everybody knows that diseases come from an imbalance of the humors and that bleeding, vomiting, or laxatives are all that is needed to cure illness.
What hubris! Illness is only cured if the BUNNY makes it so.

I am an 'evolutionist'? When did I become a scientist?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God; evolution is a field of science. 'Creationists' are those who believe in the Creation suggested in the Bible; 'evolutionists' are those who work in the field of biology. I do not have a job as a scientist.

I am not an evolutionist just because I understand the principles upon which it works. It has nothing to do with belief in something undemonstrated. Please stop referring to me incorrectly as an 'evolutionist'. I encourage others referred to in that manner not to put up with this, either.

/rant
I never quite thought of it that way, but given the propensity to label, it doesn't surprise me.

So adamant are some about afixing a label to others ( particularly to those with whom they choose to disagree ) that they will often slap a label on you based on your position on a single issue.

What hubris! Illness is only cured if the BUNNY makes it so.
Heresy! Everyone knows Her Pinkness cures all diseases!

Heresy! Everyone knows Her Tinkness cures all diseases!
:D

We call evolutionists "scientists" and creationists "fundamentalist nuts who need to go back to school".

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".

So...? You are neither evolutionist nor creationist?
That's correct.

I am an 'evolutionist'? When did I become a scientist?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God; evolution is a field of science. 'Creationists' are those who believe in the Creation suggested in the Bible; 'evolutionists' are those who work in the field of biology. I do not have a job as a scientist.

I am not an evolutionist just because I understand the principles upon which it works. It has nothing to do with belief in something undemonstrated. Please stop referring to me incorrectly as an 'evolutionist'. I encourage others referred to in that manner not to put up with this, either.

/rant


I'm a religious Catholic, who believes in evolution. I fail to see how that could possibly deny the proof of God etc... etc...

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".
Bahahahaha. Thank DB. I needed that.

I'm a religious Catholic, who believes in evolution. I fail to see how that could possibly deny the proof of God etc... etc...

It doesn't. It's only third rate scientists and third rate theologians who say that evolution and creationism have to be at odds with one another.

That being said, it still doesn't make Creationism a science.

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".
Wrong. Evolutionists are people who know that if it can't be percieved by the five senses it can't be studied, so it doesn't belong in a science class. Evolutionists look for real answers, creationists just beleive whatever's handy.

Why can't we all just keep science and religion sepreate? They aren't in conflict until people force them to be so. They are simply two different ways of explaining the same event. Science isn't trying to explain a religious point, religion isn't trying to explain a scientific point...

Until people demand one does both... thats where everything gets messy...

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".
Yes, scientists work from the assumption that they know enough to continue their work, but that is not the same thing as being a know-it-all. And people who understand how science works, even to a limited extent (such as those who took science in school) are not all scientists. Scientists are only those working in fields of science, and generally they have to be open to new possibilities, as their theories are necessarily discreditable. People who claim to be know-it-alls are not scientists, or are silly ones.

Knowing science doesn't make one a scientist. Believing in the Creation does make one a Creationist.

I'm a religious Catholic, who believes in evolution. I fail to see how that could possibly deny the proof of God etc... etc...
I am quite sure it doesn't.

Bahahahaha. Thank DB. I needed that.

Glad to be of service. :D

Why can't we all just keep science and religion sepreate? They aren't in conflict until people force them to be so. They are simply two different ways of explaining the same event. Science isn't trying to explain a religious point, religion isn't trying to explain a scientific point...

Until people demand one does both... thats where everything gets messy...
I have no trouble keeping them separate as, not being a literalist Christian, my religion is not for the purpose of explaining scientific events.

Wrong. Evolutionists are people who know that if it can't be percieved by the five senses it can't be studied, so it doesn't belong in a science class. Evolutionists look for real answers, creationists just beleive whatever's handy.

Meh, has it already been assumed that the natural sciences hold the keys of "true" and "real" knowledge?

Meh, has it already been assumed that the natural sciences hold the keys of "true" and "real" knowledge?
No but it’s a fairly safe bet that the process eventually comes up with the best answer contained within the physical world (and by our knowledge)

Meh, has it already been assumed that the natural sciences hold the keys of "true" and "real" knowledge?
It's not assumed, it's proven fact. Science is the best method of learning anything about the natural world. Before science people tried other methods to learn about the world, and they came up with crazy ideas about spirits, witchcraft, and other false reasons for why things like disease happen. When the scientific method was used we kept getting closer and closer to real answers

No but it’s a fairly safe bet that the process eventually comes up with the best answer contained within the physical world (and by our knowledge)

Meh, has it also been assumed that our current scientific knowledge is the only "true" and "real" knowledge?

Meh, has it already been assumed that the natural sciences hold the keys of "true" and "real" knowledge?
No, just empirical knowledge.

Meh, has it also been assumed that our current scientific knowledge is the only "true" and "real" knowledge?
No just the most correct as of yet knoledge about the phisical universe

Edit or like wilimena said emperical

No, just empirical knowledge.

Yeah. Can God not interfere with empirical knowledge?

Yeah. Can God not interfere with empirical knowledge?
Are you making a postulation that god interferes with studies and data?


Yes, we've noticed the global temperature is going up, but that's most likely god just messing around with the sensors, not anything in reality.

No just the most correct as of yet knoledge about the phisical universe

Edit or like wilimena said emperical

That means that humans could be running around in circles thinking they know everything about the appearance of life when in fact they don't, no?

Meh, has it also been assumed that our current scientific knowledge is the only "true" and "real" knowledge?
If you're talking about the natural world, I don't think that you can argue that science has given us more real answers about how things work than any other method. It's of no use in trying to find answers about philosophy and religion, but it's proven to be the best possible system to obtain knowledge about our physical universe.

I'm an uniembiguarian non-ligomosofic tachitondroist.

That pretty much sums up all I think and stand for, so there's no need for conversation.

Meh, has it already been assumed that the natural sciences hold the keys of "true" and "real" knowledge?

No... many widly held belifes such as evolution are theories. What seperates a proven fact such as "The Earth is Round" is theories have not been proven. However, what seperates a theory from ideal speculation is there is evidence a theory exists. Evolution probably remain a theory, but there is evidence to back it up.

In the case of say Intellegent Desigh there is no real evidence. All it is is ideal speculation.

What seperates scientists from creationists is creationists look at the problem and say "We can't figure out how it works. Why not?" while scientits look at the problem and say "We can't figure out how it works. How can we?"

Yeah. Can God not interfere with empirical knowledge?
If he does, he does so consistently and exactly the same each time so as to mimic a godless universe based on physical laws.

That means that humans could be running around in circles thinking they know everything about the appearance of life when in fact they don't, no?
It is possible but usualy we are working in the right directions

The beauty of science is its ability to become more accurate

Are you making a postulation that god interferes with studies and data?


Yes, we've noticed the global temperature is going up, but that's most likely god just messing around with the sensors, not anything in reality.
No. I mean: God, as God, is able to meddle with the evidence from the beginning of the world (i.e. create it), so we can the data we get. Of course the way we get our data is not perfect, and so what is laid down by God could be misintepreted by humans, no?

I'm an uniembiguarian non-ligomosofic tachitondroist.

That pretty much sums up all I think and stand for, so there's no need for conversation.
I can't believe I was stupid enough to google that...

I am an 'evolutionist'? When did I become a scientist?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God; evolution is a field of science. 'Creationists' are those who believe in the Creation suggested in the Bible; 'evolutionists' are those who work in the field of biology. I do not have a job as a scientist.

I am not an evolutionist just because I understand the principles upon which it works. It has nothing to do with belief in something undemonstrated. Please stop referring to me incorrectly as an 'evolutionist'. I encourage others referred to in that manner not to put up with this, either.

/rant

It is another attempt by the 'creationist' movement to undermine scientific thought, by claiming a kind of parity.

So - they refer to people 'believing' Evolution, as Creationists 'believe' the Creation story...

So - they refer to those who 'get' the evolution mechanism as 'evolutionists', to make them 'like' Creationists.

You see the same thing in the Atheism debates... they talk about 'believing' in god, and 'believing' in Atheism... they talk about Atheism as a religion...

It's all about being able to say "well, you can't fly, either!'

Yeah. Can God not interfere with empirical knowledge?
Has he ever? If so, and if you are looking at it empirically, then you must prove it was him.

No. I mean: God, as God, is able to meddle with the evidence from the beginning of the world (i.e. create it), so we can the data we get. Of course the way we get our data is not perfect, and so what is laid down by God could be misintepreted by humans, no?
The hypothetical still stands. Which is more possible, the data we're reading is correct, or God is fooling around with data to hide something to make it look correct to us.

You're all replying far too quickly! It's three against one - now - until Neo Reogolia comes to my rescue. Will you please slow down???? :p

That means that humans could be running around in circles thinking they know everything about the appearance of life when in fact they don't, no?
That's correct. Humans can do that; scientists, on the other hand, must assume there is always more to know (if they didn't, they'd be out of a job).

You're all wrong. The end.

Has he ever? If so, and if you are looking at it empirically, then you must prove it was him.

What, or who, else could it be?

The hypothetical still stands. Which is more possible, the data we're reading is correct, or God is fooling around with data to hide something to make it look correct to us.

Maybe it's not God who's fooling around with the data. Maybe it's us, as selfish, ungrateful beings, trying to meddle with the data that God set for us.

Maybe it's not God who's fooling around with the data. Maybe it's us, as selfish, ungrateful beings, trying to meddle with the data that God set for us.
No, sorry, it gets caught. Scientists don't lie, or if they do, they don't get away with it for long. That's what peer review is for.

It is another attempt by the 'creationist' movement to undermine scientific thought, by claiming a kind of parity.

So - they refer to people 'believing' Evolution, as Creationists 'believe' the Creation story...

So - they refer to those who 'get' the evolution mechanism as 'evolutionists', to make them 'like' Creationists.

You see the same thing in the Atheism debates... they talk about 'believing' in god, and 'believing' in Atheism... they talk about Atheism as a religion...

It's all about being able to say "well, you can't fly, either!'
And this is precisely what annoys me, this mindless inversion of one position onto another. It's a form of strawman, and seems to be becoming more prevailant (no doubt as a result of availability of opinion via the Internet and, I suppose, television).

What, or who, else could it be?
The great invisible pink unicorn, obviously.

What I want to say is that even if we find empirical evidence that a higher being exist, it doesn't mean it's your God. It can be one of many gods, it can be a manifestation of super intellingent mice from another dimension, it can be a God who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and stumbled upon it.

So why should we assume that the Abrahamic God created the universe?

You're all wrong. The end.
Thank you. :)

No, sorry, it gets caught. Scientists don't lie, or if they do, they don't get away with it for long. That's what peer review is for.
No. I mean, the entire scientific community intepreting the wrong thing. Why not? Smart people are arrogant and are less willing to accept criticism. Many scientists are not evolution scientists and simply borrow knowledge from evolution scientists.

The great invisible pink unicorn, obviously.

What I want to say is that even if we find empirical evidence that a higher being exist, it doesn't mean it's your God. It can be one of many gods, it can be a manifestation of super intellingent mice from another dimension, it can be a God who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and stumbled upon it.

So why should we assume that the Abrahamic God created the universe?
That's stepping a lot into theology - which I'm not qualified - yet? I have a lot of ideas but it would take time and energy to condense, but no, because it's 40 minutes to midnight. Let's keep this very simple. ;)

No. I mean, the entire scientific community intepreting the wrong thing. Why not? Smart people are arrogant and are less willing to accept criticism. Many scientists are not evolution scientists and simply borrow knowledge from evolution scientists.
Evolution scientists have large amounts of debate among themselves. See the bit about the water/human hypothesis. There is no debate about evolution itself, the body of evidence is simply too massive.

But, even when the body of evidence is massive, you still have people chipping away at it. You can find some Lamarckism followers around today, even though that theory was torn to shreads by mandelian genetics. Helps to keep the debate going. Science is the ultimate democracy of ideas, and the best ones win.

What, or who, else could it be?
multiple gods, a goddess, a mindless natural law,

That's correct. Humans can do that; scientists, on the other hand, must assume there is always more to know (if they didn't, they'd be out of a job).
Exactly and as they acquire more data they refine their theory that explains how the data fits

Always remembering that they can and probably are wrong in some aspects but always accepting that and continuing to refine things

What, or who, else could it be?
I could be anything, but empirical knowledge is gained by human observation and experimentation.

EDIT: In other words, it's what we CAN know.

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't"

Interesting. So that means that scientists studying the proceses of evolution and biology are not, in fact, evolutionists. After all, no scientist in her right mind would claim to know it all. If we knew it all, there wouldn't be anything left to study!

No. I mean, the entire scientific community intepreting the wrong thing. Why not? Smart people are arrogant and are less willing to accept criticism. Many scientists are not evolution scientists and simply borrow knowledge from evolution scientists.

Scientists are always checking and rechecking data. That is why scientists leave such detailed notes: so they can be examined. The scientists who aren't evolution scientists would examine the evolutionists data first to see if it makes sence. If the data doesn't make sence they'd try and recreat what they did. If that doesen't work often the original data is disproved, like in the case of Cold Fussion.

Evolution scientists have large amounts of debate among themselves. See the bit about the water/human hypothesis. There is no debate about evolution itself, the body of evidence is simply too massive.

But, even when the body of evidence is massive, you still have people chipping away at it. You can find some Lamarckism followers around today, even though that theory was torn to shreads by mandelian genetics. Helps to keep the debate going. Science is the ultimate democracy of ideas, and the best ones win.

One mistake begets another. Perhaps the fundamental theories of evolution are perhaps mistaken? Before that is rectified, everything else is piled upon it. In due time people either don't know, ingore , or are afraid that if they did care about it everything else would collapse on them.

One mistake begets another. Perhaps the fundamental theories of evolution are perhaps mistaken? Before that is rectified, everything else is piled upon it. In due time people either don't know, ingore , or are afraid that if they did care about it everything else would collapse on them.
Its possible but that would not be a flaw with the process itself

If we find data that contradicts parts of evolution the changes are made … it has happened MANY times already and it will continue to be modified

One mistake begets another. Perhaps the fundamental theories of evolution are perhaps mistaken? Before that is rectified, everything else is piled upon it. In due time people either don't know, ingore , or are afraid that if they did care about it everything else would collapse on them.
You are aware of the evolution of evolution? How much weight was beind creationism before one book tore it to shreads? Arguments are at the core of science. Evidence means more then weight of precident.

multiple gods, a goddess, a mindless natural law,

If this God is going to be a God, then He would have to be consistent since the beginning of time. There is no other more consistent deity in the world than God.

*pants at the increasing speed of new posts*

*satisfied that his own post count has increased significantly*

*leaves the thread*

*for now*

What I want to say is that even if we find empirical evidence that a higher being exist, it doesn't mean it's your God. It can be one of many gods, it can be a manifestation of super intellingent mice from another dimension, it can be a God who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and stumbled upon it.

If we are speaking about a "higher being" as being an entity which is outside the laws of the universe, we cannot possibly obtain empirical evidence of such a being, as we can only measure and observe that which is within our own Universe.

If this God is going to be a God, then He would have to be consistent since the beginning of time. There is no other more consistent deity in the world than God.
What does that statement even mean? Consistent how?

If this God is going to be a God, then He would have to be consistent since the beginning of time. There is no other more consistent deity in the world than God.
What makes you think that a sentient being like a God has to be consistent.

Especially since we, humans are not. Isn't this God fellow supposed to have fashioned us in his image?

*satisfied that his own post count has increased significantly*
Ahh... and that's what it's all about. ;)

You're all wrong. The end.
Quite so. At the behest of some superior deity, Jaladaloth* lead a group of seven angels who created the universe five minutes ago, merely putting down all the evidence of previous existence (fossils, people apparently more than five minutes old, all those "begat"s in the bible, our memories, etc.) to tempt us away from the truth. Anyone who does not accept this is simply too foolish to have earned his way into Heaven.

In other words, our supreme demiurge has Munchausen-by-proxy.

*This was actually a gnostic teaching, Jaladaloth being a bad transcription of JVWH back and forth across a few languages. It's hard to detect sarcasm in cross-language text, but I think they were actually serious.

Heh. Once I leave the thread stops growing. I feel very powerful. :D

Heh. Once I leave the thread stops growing. I feel very powerful. :D
We have yet to find something to start fighting amongst ourselves yet lol

And this is precisely what annoys me, this mindless inversion of one position onto another. It's a form of strawman, and seems to be becoming more prevailant (no doubt as a result of availability of opinion via the Internet and, I suppose, television).

Oh, it's not a 'mindless' inversion... it is a carefully realised strategy... you weaken another argument by comparing it to your own. Thus, if your argument is proved ridiculous, you discredit your opposition by association.

It is strategically brilliant. It is also a 'dirty trick'... and not something you would have thought people with such a 'strong case' would need to rely upon.:(

Oh, it's not a 'mindless' inversion... it is a carefully realised strategy... you weaken another argument by comparing it to your own. Thus, if your argument is proved ridiculous, you discredit your opposition by association.

It is strategically brilliant. It is also a 'dirty trick'... and not something you would have thought people with such a 'strong case' would need to rely upon.:(
Yeah we see the attempt in the “atheism is a religion” argument …by attempting to stretch the definition to fit atheism they are attempting to make discrediting religions also discredit atheism

Heh. Once I leave the thread stops growing. I feel very powerful. :D

Perhaps there is a 'god', and it is you?

We have yet to find something to start fighting amongst ourselves yet lol

Heh. :D How about your love for me? Everybody will fight over that!

Perhaps there is a 'god', and it is you?

Refer to the other thread: I do not have the power to create and destroy matter at will. :D

But if you wish, I can be in control of you and I can be your 'god'. :D

Refer to the other thread: I do not have the power to create and destroy matter at will. :D


That's okay... the thing I noticed in reading the Genesis account in Hebrew, is that it is a little 'less insistent' on the creating matetr from nothing.

In fact, in the native language, it is quite easy to read it as 'god is an architect', rather than 'god makes everything'.


But if you wish, I can be in control of you and I can be your 'god'. :D

Is this a sex thing? ;)

Yeah we see the attempt in the “atheism is a religion” argument …by attempting to stretch the definition to fit atheism they are attempting to make discrediting religions also discredit atheism

It may not be a religion, but atheism is simply the opposite axiomatic statement to theism, neither with any more evidence than the other, and neither, by definition, being a provable statement.

In the end, arguments between atheists and theists are pointless - they aren't arguing from the same framework, so no argument can be made. It would be like a mathematical argument where one person made the beginning assumption that a=b and another made the beginning assumption that a<b. Of course they are going to come at the problem differently!

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".

That's funny! Thanks for the laugh! :D

Oh, it's not a 'mindless' inversion... it is a carefully realised strategy... you weaken another argument by comparing it to your own. Thus, if your argument is proved ridiculous, you discredit your opposition by association.

It is strategically brilliant. It is also a 'dirty trick'... and not something you would have thought people with such a 'strong case' would need to rely upon.:(
At the risk of treding into conspiracy territory, I don't think it's possible that all those who employ this do it consciously. Some are just too sincere for that, others just mean-spirited. But I suppose it could be that it began that way, by a few who consider themselves clever and exploited the gullibility of the masses?

It may not be a religion, but atheism is simply the opposite axiomatic statement to theism, neither with any more evidence than the other, and neither, by definition, being a provable statement.

In the end, arguments between atheists and theists are pointless - they aren't arguing from the same framework, so no argument can be made. It would be like a mathematical argument where one person made the beginning assumption that a=b and another made the beginning assumption that a<b. Of course they are going to come at the problem differently!
I understand that but I was talking the actually attempt to shoehorn it in to the definition in order to “deflect” some of the “damage” in arguments

I think ultimately you are right but on individual argument doing the equivalent of sticking your tong out and going “well you are one too” when it is not strictly accurate is just not good arguing practice (at least not clean debating)

At the risk of treding into conspiracy territory, I don't think it's possible that all those who employ this do it consciously. Some are just too sincere for that, others just mean-spirited. But I suppose it could be that it began that way, by a few who consider themselves clever and exploited the gullibility of the masses?

Oh, I wouldn't say it was some universal conspiracy... more a defence tactic, maybe?

Someone throws a ball at your head... you probably move your hand into it's way, or duck... and so would millions of other people... doesn't mean it is all carefully orchestrated from behind the scenes.

Similarly, I expect a lot of persons arguing the 'evolutionist' concept find it a satisfying defence... and many others either copy that defence, or borrow it - all unknowing that it carries deeper implications.

Heresy! Everyone knows Her Pinkness cures all diseases!
Blasphemer! I shall now fight you to the death!

I'm an uniembiguarian non-ligomosofic tachitondroist.

That pretty much sums up all I think and stand for, so there's no need for conversation.
<3

Blasphemer! I shall now fight you to the death!

No. To the PAIN!

No... many widly held belifes such as evolution are theories. What seperates a proven fact such as "The Earth is Round" is theories have not been proven. However, what seperates a theory from ideal speculation is there is evidence a theory exists. Evolution probably remain a theory, but there is evidence to back it up.

In the case of say Intellegent Desigh there is no real evidence. All it is is ideal speculation.

What seperates scientists from creationists is creationists look at the problem and say "We can't figure out how it works. Why not?" while scientits look at the problem and say "We can't figure out how it works. How can we?"
Very true. However, there's a lot of public misconception regarding what a "scientific theory" is. Many think it's the same thing as a hypothesis... something that we think might be true. In regular English, that is the case. A detective may have a theory as to whodunnit, even without any evidence. But a scientific theory is different. Consider:

The Theory of Relativity - Explains and predicts many previously inexplicable phenomena, no evidence against it except at extremely small scales and in extremely large gravitational fields (acknowledged limitations)

The Theory of Gravity - Explains many things, such as the motions of the planets and stars, the fact that when you throw something up, it comes back down, net forces being put on an object with no visible source, etc. Nothing found to prove it wrong.

When people say that evolution is "just a theory", they're forgetting how much evidence it takes to be regarded as a theory. Then why do scientists still call them theories? Because, unlike some people, scientists (at least good ones) are willing to admit that they might be wrong, even if it's a minute chance. For example, Newton was wrong. Not by much. He was incredibly close, and for day-to-day things we can't measure the difference. But he was very slightly off.

Is there a God? Maybe. If there is, and He/She/It/the BUNNY created the universe, then they happened to create physical laws along with it, which remain constant. Why not study those laws, and their effects, to learn more about the Universe? It's not at odds with religion at all.

Science has the Big Bang Theory. But by virtue of its very nature, it is impossible to tell for sure what caused it. That's where theology can come in.

What, or who, else could it be?
That same logic lead to the ancient Pantheon. Who else but a God could rain lightning from the skies?? Now we understand lightning. Not all that complicated, really.

So please, no "we don't have an explanation so it must be God" nonsense. Could there be a God? Certainly. Are you going to prove it by pointing out gaps in current knowledge? Heck no.

That same logic lead to the ancient Pantheon. Who else but a God could rain lightning from the skies?? Now we understand lightning. Not all that complicated, really.

So please, no "we don't have an explanation so it must be God" nonsense. Could there be a God? Certainly. Are you going to prove it by pointing out gaps in current knowledge? Heck no.
Actually, the pantheon gods were not an attempt to explain natural phenomenon. You did so well on your previous post; please, use that same open-mindedness to realise that there are more explanations in the field of mythology than "religion as a primitive form of science." Mythology, too, has its working theories.

The pantheon gods were not the elements they were represented by; those are just symbols, images that, for cultures without written language, had meaning that could draw a non-literary connection between the god's mood or function and the symbol.

If this God is going to be a God, then He would have to be consistent since the beginning of time. There is no other more consistent deity in the world than God.
So now you're saying what God can and can't do? Why is existence since the beginning of time a necessity?

Actually, the pantheon gods were not an attempt to explain natural phenomenon.
Wasn't that at least part of it? I mean, they were credited with being responsible for natural phenomena, so it would make sense (though of course not necessarily true) that the need for an explanation would have factored in somehow.

You did so well on your previous post;
Thanks :D ::embarassed::

please, use that same open-mindedness to realise that there are more explanations in the field of mythology than "religion as a primitive form of science." Mythology, too, has its working theories.
I wasn't saying that was all it was... it was a connection between different peoples and villages, it was a source of morality and piety and humility, and it gave meaning to life. I was just pointing out one aspect of it, in a simplistic form; sorry if I offended.

The pantheon gods were not the elements they were represented by; those are just symbols, images that, for cultures without written language, had meaning that could draw a non-literary connection between the god's mood or function and the symbol.
Yes, but wasn't it also a form of explanation? I didn't sacrifice enough to Poseidon, and so my ship sank? We have angered Zeus with our impiety, and so he sends us a lightning storm? We lack the favour of Ceres (forget the Greek), and so our crops were poor?

Creation is a belief that the world was created by the Abrahamic God

The God of creationists is not necessarily of Abrahamic extraction; look, for instance, to the "Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory [of Human Origins]" notably espoused by Michael A. Cremo in his 2003 work "Human Devolution" - an interesting read, if at times blatantly misleading and given to employment of out-of-context or otherwise questionable corroborative material.

Cremo, an adherent to "a modern variant of the Bhakti sects that have dominated Hindu religious life over the last one and a half millennia" and a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, argues, in part, for the existence of H. sapiens back into - and perhaps even before - the Tertiary; the literal reality of consciousness and spirit; the extreme antiquity of nonhuman organisms; a Vedic cosmology broadly involving "an original God inhabiting a realm of pure consciousness, a subordinate creator god inhabiting a subtle material region of the cosmos along with many kinds of demigods and demigoddesses, and earthly realm inhabited by humans like us, and an underworld inhabited by ghosts and demons"; and the spiritual descent of humanity from pure consciousness, placing him at odds with the desert monotheism of his counterparts.

Cremo has no qualms about accepting, in a manner of speaking, various notions - as the Big Bang Theory - mistakenly associated by many Abrahamic creationists with the concept of biological evolution or purely materialistic views on the origin of life.

(Brief summary of Vedic account of universal origin, allegedly as related by the Shrimad Bhagavatam and the Brahma Samhita – from pg. 465 of "Devolution"):

…Beyond time and space as we know them Maha Vishnu floats in cosmic slumber upon the waves of the Causal Ocean. From the pores of the Maha Vishnu emerge numberless universes in seedlike form. When Maha Vishnu glances upon the seedlike universes, energizing them with His potencies, they begin to expand in a flash of golden light. Within each universe, elements are gradually formed beginning with the lighter ones and proceeding toward the heavier. While this is happening the celestial bodies are formed. And the universe continues to expand. The universes exist for the length of one breath of the Maha Vishnu. The universes come out from His body when He exhales and reenter his body when He inhales. The length of one breath is estimated to be 311 trillion years. Within this vast period of time, each universe continuously undergoes subcycles of manifestation and nonmanifestation lasting about 8.6 billion years each.

Nonetheless, many of Cremo’s tactics are unfortunately all too familiar – he attempts to bring coherent directive to a selective amalgamation of Hindu spiritual philosophy, like-minded indigenous beliefs the world over, Victorian spiritualism, modern "paranormal" phenomena, and New Age conjecture, calling attention to the disorder and flawed dogma supposedly plaguing certain scientific fields (here, mostly evolutionary science and archeology), the "ineffable complexity" of various organic processes, certain segments of the fossil record, and keynote indicators of a universe "fine-tuned for life".

Amongst this morass, I should note, there remain a few genuinely compelling facets worthy of further investigation – if only, perhaps, through a more impartial lens.

[Please accept my apologies for straying so far off-topic.]

Wasn't that at least part of it? I mean, they were credited with being responsible for natural phenomena, so it would make sense (though of course not necessarily true) that the need for an explanation would have factored in somehow.
It is a simple, no-brainer explanation that was actually popularized by early archaeologists. Mythology, as a study, has more rewarding propositions.

They were not so much "credited" with causing the natural phenomenon (except by aforementioned archaeologists) as they were associated with it --Zeus appearing as thunderbolt, Yahweh appearing as fire. It is that connection (association) that has significance, making the element a symbol, nothing more.

I wasn't saying that was all it was... it was a connection between different peoples and villages, it was a source of morality and piety and humility, and it gave meaning to life. I was just pointing out one aspect of it, in a simplistic form; sorry if I offended.
No offense taken; sorry if I come off sounding hurt, it's just me, today (as you can see by the original post!). Yes, religion was those things you mention; mythology is geared to an individual's personal journey through that religion. The symbolism of lightening and moon, snake and gargoyle, while very much a part of the religion, serve more like a non-verbal guide. It wasn't so much a matter of, 'What else could lightening be but Zeus?' as it was, 'There, look, see the lightening? Zeus has a meaning for me.'

Yes, but wasn't it also a form of explanation? I didn't sacrifice enough to Poseidon, and so my ship sank? We have angered Zeus with our impiety, and so he sends us a lightning storm? We lack the favour of Ceres (forget the Greek), and so our crops were poor?
I have a few ideas about such 'explanations'. Most people do not realise that the Greek myths were written down at a time when their world was already moved away, generally speaking, from belief in the pantheon gods --a sort of last-ditch attempt to preserve the old religions by the scholars of Greece. Philosophy had taken a foothold in Athens in the millennium before Christ, and was held aloft as the highest form of intellectual, and therefore mankind's, achievement. Their philosophies (logic, scientific method, etc.) are the foundation of our civilization, and viewed through the lens of this new mind-set, mythology did not pass the test. The Greek myths were preserved by a people who did not fully understand them or (probably) believe in them.

So what happens when this new mind-set becomes the popular thing in a world where only the scholars write things down? The old explanations are eventually forgotten and replaced with this new "world order," which must inevitably be adopted. (We have seen this happen in our own life-times, with people starting to rely on chaos theory and string theory to explain multiverses... all replacing the old world view. Our old world view will not be so easily forgotten, though, because it is preserved in "stone".)

The study of mythology offers up alternative explanations that, as I said, explore a personal journey through the religion that is much more rewarding than 'I didn't sacrifice, so my ship sank'. :)

The God of creationists is not necessarily of Abrahamic extraction; look, for instance, to the "Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory [of Human Origins]" notably espoused by Michael A. Cremo ... *snip*

Amongst this morass, I should note, there remain a few genuinely compelling facets worthy of further investigation – if only, perhaps, through a more impartial lens.

[Please accept my apologies for straying so far off-topic.]
No problem. I appreciate that the Creationist movement has expanded its boundaries since its formation within Christianity (at least, they claim it as theirs). Still, Christians are the ones to whom I protest, because it is in threads involving their God in particular that the phrase "evolutionist" arises.

Heresy! Everyone knows Her Pinkness cures all diseases!


Do we need to bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism movement in here too?

Let me go get my pirate suit...

We lack the favour of Ceres (forget the Greek), and so our crops were poor?

Persophone i believe.

Wrong. Evolutionists are people who know that if it can't be percieved by the five senses it can't be studied, so it doesn't belong in a science class. Evolutionists look for real answers, creationists just beleive whatever's handy.

Yes, but the five senses taught evolutionists to believe that earth has been around for millions of years. This is not true. It was discovered that earth has been spinning more slowly over the years, and the sun had been getting smaller. If earth did exist a million years ago, the sun would be touching earth, and earth would be spinning so fast thay everything would be flying off of it. The five senses aren't always correct.

Yes, but the five senses taught evolutionists to believe that earth has been around for millions of years. This is not true. It was discovered that earth has been spinning more slowly over the years, and the sun had been getting smaller. If earth did exist a million years ago, the sun would be touching earth, and earth would be spinning so fast thay everything would be flying off of it. The five senses aren't always correct.

Ok your post is confusing and lacking in the little thing we like to call fact.

Yes, but the five senses taught evolutionists to believe that earth has been around for millions of years. This is not true. It was discovered that earth has been spinning more slowly over the years, and the sun had been getting smaller. If earth did exist a million years ago, the sun would be touching earth, and earth would be spinning so fast thay everything would be flying off of it. The five senses aren't always correct.
LOL I needed a good laugh

I would like to see proof of this milarky lol

Persophone i believe.

Demeter actually. Persephone was her daughter who was kidnapped by Hades and forced to be his bride because she ate of the food of the dead. Demeter, however, was the Greek equivalent of Ceres.

It was in some newspaper a long time ago... forgot the name... seen it once in my life a few years ago... some scientist or something found it out.

Yes, but the five senses taught evolutionists to believe that earth has been around for millions of years. This is not true. It was discovered that earth has been spinning more slowly over the years, and the sun had been getting smaller. If earth did exist a million years ago, the sun would be touching earth, and earth would be spinning so fast thay everything would be flying off of it. The five senses aren't always correct.

LOL! Looks like someone's church had a visit from the same lecturer I saw as a kid.

Of course, the assumptions he has to use to make such statements are completely unfounded. For instance, he assumes that the sun has been getting smaller at the same rate since the beginning of time - rather idiotic when you consider that astronomers have shown that stars go through stages in which the size can vary in both directions. He assumes that the Earth's spin has been changing at the same rate since the beginning of time - ignoring the evidence that this may be part of a periodic change in magnetism that induces pole changes in the planet.

Get your science from scientists my dear, not from people who happen to use big words but dont' understand scientific method.

It was in some newspaper a long time ago... forgot the name... seen it once in my life a few years ago... some scientist or something found it out.
And that provides a solid arguement how? LOL thats great

Told you I needed a good laugh

Demeter actually. Persephone was her daughter who was kidnapped by Hades and forced to be his bride because she ate of the food of the dead. Demeter, however, was the Greek equivalent of Ceres.

Right, corrected, well i was damn close

Ok your post is confusing and lacking in the little thing we like to call fact.

So what makes it "lack the little thing you call fact"?

And that provides a solid arguement how? LOL thats great

Told you I needed a good laugh


Well, can you prove it wrong?

So what makes it "lack the little thing you call fact"?

Something that doesnt include fact obviously lacks fact, and i see little fact in your science.

Right, corrected, well i was damn close

Aye, far closer than our compatriot who thinks that a newspaper article equates to good astrophysics! What's next I ask you? The Inquirer being a true source of information on international politics?

What's next I ask you? The Inquirer being a true source of information on international politics?

And of course the earth is flat and jesus invented the model-t.

LOL! Looks like someone's church had a visit from the same lecturer I saw as a kid.

Of course, the assumptions he has to use to make such statements are completely unfounded. For instance, he assumes that the sun has been getting smaller at the same rate since the beginning of time - rather idiotic when you consider that astronomers have shown that stars go through stages in which the size can vary in both directions. He assumes that the Earth's spin has been changing at the same rate since the beginning of time - ignoring the evidence that this may be part of a periodic change in magnetism that induces pole changes in the planet.

Get your science from scientists my dear, not from people who happen to use big words but dont' understand scientific method.

It actually originally came from a scientist, and it is not from church at all... who knows how long it's been since I've gone to church.

Something that doesnt include fact obviously lacks fact, and i see little fact in your science.

That doesn't explain it well enough to me. I need proof that it's not true to believe it's not true.

That doesn't explain it well enough to me. I need proof that it's not true to believe it's not true.

Well that i cant offer you, no more than i can prove the existance of atoms.
But im not trying to convince you of its untruth but explain my scepticism.

That doesn't explain it well enough to me. I need proof that it's not true to believe it's not true.

You need proof to believe something isn't true, but all you have to do is read it once in a newspaper from a source you cannot cite, nor do you know anything about to believe its true?

I'm actually glad to hear that, because I've got some waterfront property in the Sahara desert that I'd like to get you to buy.

It actually originally came from a scientist, and it is not from church at all... who knows how long it's been since I've gone to church.

You can't make the claim that it "originally came from a scientist" without providing the name of said "scientist" so that his credentials can be checked. Otherwise, all we know is that you think you saw it in a newspaper article. As someone involved in scientific research, I can assure you that newspaper articles are never adequate sources. I rarely, if ever, see a newspaper article that accurately depicts scientific research.

Meanwhile, this is bogus for all the reasons I already explained and so many more. The only people that throw this type of thing around are people who claim to be "scientists", but in fact do not have science degrees. They speak in what a layman sees as scientific terms, but make idiotic assumptions (which they present as fact, rather than the assumptions that they are) and completely ignore the scientific method to come to their conclusions.

Interestingly, these same people often whine about the scientific assumption that decay rates are constant - despite the fact that they have not been seen to change and there is no evidence suggesting that they are not constant.

You need proof to believe something isn't true, but all you have to do is read it once in a newspaper from a source you cannot cite, nor do you know anything about to believe its true?

I'm actually glad to hear that, because I've got some waterfront property in the Sahara desert that I'd like to get you to buy.
Morocco? :)

Morocco? :)

<groans and mutters something about nitpickers ruining the intent of his snarkiness>

It is a simple, no-brainer explanation that was actually popularized by early archaeologists. Mythology, as a study, has more rewarding propositions.

They were not so much "credited" with causing the natural phenomenon (except by aforementioned archaeologists) as they were associated with it --Zeus appearing as thunderbolt, Yahweh appearing as fire. It is that connection (association) that has significance, making the element a symbol, nothing more.
Wow... I never knew that. You learn something new every day! I was under the impression that early religion started out as the human response to a perplexing world.

No offense taken; sorry if I come off sounding hurt, it's just me, today (as you can see by the original post!).
No, you didn't "come off sounding hurt", don't worry... it was just that I was afraid that you had taken my simplifications the wrong way, and wanted it cleared up.

Yes, religion was those things you mention; mythology is geared to an individual's personal journey through that religion. The symbolism of lightening and moon, snake and gargoyle, while very much a part of the religion, serve more like a non-verbal guide. It wasn't so much a matter of, 'What else could lightening be but Zeus?' as it was, 'There, look, see the lightening? Zeus has a meaning for me.'
Ok, that makes sense.

I have a few ideas about such 'explanations'. Most people do not realise that the Greek myths were written down at a time when their world was already moved away, generally speaking, from belief in the pantheon gods --a sort of last-ditch attempt to preserve the old religions by the scholars of Greece. Philosophy had taken a foothold in Athens in the millennium before Christ, and was held aloft as the highest form of intellectual, and therefore mankind's, achievement. Their philosophies (logic, scientific method, etc.) are the foundation of our civilization, and viewed through the lens of this new mind-set, mythology did not pass the test. The Greek myths were preserved by a people who did not fully understand them or (probably) believe in them.
That is not at all a new concept: e.g. many Christians today don't necessarily follow the Christian faith. They may instead simply use the teachings of Christ as a moral guide.

So what happens when this new mind-set becomes the popular thing in a world where only the scholars write things down? The old explanations are eventually forgotten and replaced with this new "world order," which must inevitably be adopted. (We have seen this happen in our own life-times, with people starting to rely on chaos theory and string theory to explain multiverses... all replacing the old world view. Our old world view will not be so easily forgotten, though, because it is preserved in "stone".)
There isn't quite enough evidence in support of String Theory yet (that I am aware of, but then again it's all above my head) for it to quite have the same effect as the discovery of the Scientific Method, but I see what you mean. Everything is shifting, and those who resist the shift often wind up hurt and angry.

The study of mythology offers up alternative explanations that, as I said, explore a personal journey through the religion that is much more rewarding than 'I didn't sacrifice, so my ship sank'. :)
Yes... I was more thinking about the Pantheon in terms of the Odyssey, for example. The Gods played a very active role in the journey of Odysseus, and they often acted for just such a reason. I must admit I am not very well versed in mythology itself, except those stories which have diffused into our culture as sayings or idioms.

Yes, but the five senses taught evolutionists to believe that earth has been around for millions of years. This is not true. It was discovered that earth has been spinning more slowly over the years, and the sun had been getting smaller. If earth did exist a million years ago, the sun would be touching earth, and earth would be spinning so fast thay everything would be flying off of it. The five senses aren't always correct.
The Earth is slowing down. Very very gradually. Due to friction with space dust and particles, etc. Just because it's slowing down, doesn't mean that millions of years ago it was going very fast. Example: just because the tectonic plates are moving, doesn't mean that a thousand years ago everything was in a different place. They're moving at about a centimeter a year (at least some of them are). Also, the sun is getting smaller. It's converting infinitessimal fractions of itself into pure energy all the time. But again, even turning back the clock 5 billion years or so to when the Sun was formed, it wouldn't be that big.

This argument is a classic fallacy, I've seen it printed many times. That and the fact that the Moon would have crashed into the Earth, yada yada. Do the actual math. Look at what it says happens each year, and then do some multiplication. Or at least cite your source.

That doesn't explain it well enough to me. I need proof that it's not true to believe it's not true.
Usually it works the other way around... innocent until proven guilty.

When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to back it up, not someone else's to disprove you. If they do, they're doing you a favor.

For an example of how silly things could get if things worked your way:
"Your face is on fire, because Jupiter is in the 3rd house."
"But how in the heck does that follow?"
"Disprove it. I need proof that it's not true to believe it's not true."

You need proof to believe something isn't true, but all you have to do is read it once in a newspaper from a source you cannot cite, nor do you know anything about to believe its true?

I'm actually glad to hear that, because I've got some waterfront property in the Sahara desert that I'd like to get you to buy.

Yay! Pracus! I've not seen you in ages! Welcome back. :)

It is a bit like being refered to as an 'oxyginist' because someone believes that we are inhailing the essense of god and doesen't feel that this 'theory' of oxygen holds water...
Don't be absurd. This is a completly flawed comparison. We all know that respiration is in fact a constant pulmenary excretion of phlogiston.

Yay! Pracus! I've not seen you in ages! Welcome back. :)


Thank you GnI, as always its good to be here. I'm afraid that my presence will be sporadic for the next year though--I'm on clinical rotations and usually don't know my schedule more than two days in advance. Right now I'm on ENT so it gives me more time. Its good to be here though and to see some of the good faces :)

Sorry for the momentary hijack and now back to your regularly scheduled bickering . . . .

Well, can you prove it wrong?
Can you prove there is a 58 chevy nova orbiting mars


No?

Well does it make that true?

See why people that make the positive statement have to prove it

Exactly!

Yeah, but water holds oxygen! unless you beleve that water is an element by its self.
ya, you know ... the five .... water, air, earth, fire, metal. Or wood. Or something like that. There's neat little diagram that goes with it ....


PostScript: Willamena rocks.

Sure it is. Water, fire, earth and air are the four elements. Everyone knows that. Plus all this germ theory of disease bull that the atheist scientists put out is just wrong. Everybody knows that diseases come from an imbalance of the humors and that bleeding, vomiting, or laxatives are all that is needed to cure illness.
Looks like Drunk beat me to it. :(
I think there were leeches at some point too ....

No. Evolutionists are "people who think they know it all when in fact they don't" and Creationists "people who are willing and able to imagine and put their faith somewhere beyond the usual five senses".
*hoping this post is an attempt at levity, like others here*
Evolutionists tend to use tested/testable, reproducable, predictable circumstance that can easily be corroborated with evidence AND senses alike whereas creationists are people who ... well you described it best. Further, you described exactly why creationists don't belong arguing that perspective at all in a scientific setting/manner.
Point to ... *IMAGINE*-ation
FAITH: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.
4. loyalty or fidelity.
(RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER'S, 3rd EDITION)

IMAGINATION: 2. The ability to form mental images of things never experienced.
(RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER'S, 3rd EDITION)


*Note: 1st dictionary i *RANDOMLY* grabbed for definitions .....

Wrong. Evolutionists are people who know that if it can't be percieved by the five senses it can't be studied, so it doesn't belong in a science class. Evolutionists look for real answers, creationists just beleive whatever's handy.
TWICE! ARGH!! ;)

What hubris! Illness is only cured if the BUNNY makes it so.
Ya know, reading it enough times has settled somewhere in my subconscious. It's starting to make *sense* to me now ...

Are you making a postulation that god interferes with studies and data?


Yes, we've noticed the global temperature is going up, but that's most likely god just messing around with the sensors, not anything in reality.
CREEPY. That's what the bunny says!
*conspiracy*

If he does, he does so consistently and exactly the same each time so as to mimic a godless universe based on physical laws.
Ya know, this is worthy of a stencil somewhere, maybe i'll make a T-shirt out of it? You won't sue?

*bows*

No. I mean: God, as God, is able to meddle with the evidence from the beginning of the world (i.e. create it), so we can the data we get. Of course the way we get our data is not perfect, and so what is laid down by God could be misintepreted by humans, no?
You're basically SAYING "God" can't be trusted to "his" "WORD".
Yeah, "WORD". I mean from the beginning, when there was ... the word. Try Genesis.

What, or who, else could it be?
The BUNNY referred to on the first page!!!!
Ignorance is no excuse. ;)

The great invisible pink unicorn, obviously.

What I want to say is that even if we find empirical evidence that a higher being exist, it doesn't mean it's your God. It can be one of many gods, it can be a manifestation of super intellingent mice from another dimension, it can be a God who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and stumbled upon it.

So why should we assume that the Abrahamic God created the universe?
...because, the people who believe in the Abrahamic God SAID so! That's why!
...ooh, i hope this doesn't piss off the bunny. What do i sacrifice to a bunny? a cadbury egg? Lettuce?
:eek:

No. I mean, the entire scientific community intepreting the wrong thing. Why not? Smart people are arrogant and are less willing to accept criticism. Many scientists are not evolution scientists and simply borrow knowledge from evolution scientists.
Two things ....
One, you know enough scientists and understand their positions thoroughly enough to argue with them, to the sense of understanding them as "arrogant"?
Two: Are you under same conditions willing to accept criticism in this forum? Maybe even peer review?

Quite so. At the behest of some superior deity, Jaladaloth* lead a group of seven angels who created the universe five minutes ago, merely putting down all the evidence of previous existence (fossils, people apparently more than five minutes old, all those "begat"s in the bible, our memories, etc.) to tempt us away from the truth. Anyone who does not accept this is simply too foolish to have earned his way into Heaven.

In other words, our supreme demiurge has Munchausen-by-proxy.

*This was actually a gnostic teaching, Jaladaloth being a bad transcription of JVWH back and forth across a few languages. It's hard to detect sarcasm in cross-language text, but I think they were actually serious.
Mycon! The more you know ....!
;)
Good to see a post from you again!

That's okay... the thing I noticed in reading the Genesis account in Hebrew, is that it is a little 'less insistent' on the creating matetr from nothing.

In fact, in the native language, it is quite easy to read it as 'god is an architect', rather than 'god makes everything'.



Is this a sex thing? ;)
Gotta have the right outfits i imagine ....
"Remember - the safety word is 'banana'." *SOCK* - Family Guy ;)

You rock Gravy!!

Evolution is just a THEORY, dangit! Just like gravity.

No. To the PAIN!
...not to the BROKEN NAIL?

Kewwlona']Evolution is just a THEORY, dangit! Just like gravity.
That's the SPIRIT!

The God of creationists is not necessarily of Abrahamic extraction; look, for instance, to the "Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory [of Human Origins]" notably espoused by Michael A. Cremo in his 2003 work "Human Devolution" - an interesting read, if at times blatantly misleading and given to employment of out-of-context or otherwise questionable corroborative material.

Cremo, an adherent to "a modern variant of the Bhakti sects that have dominated Hindu religious life over the last one and a half millennia" and a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, argues, in part, for the existence of H. sapiens back into - and perhaps even before - the Tertiary; the literal reality of consciousness and spirit; the extreme antiquity of nonhuman organisms; a Vedic cosmology broadly involving "an original God inhabiting a realm of pure consciousness, a subordinate creator god inhabiting a subtle material region of the cosmos along with many kinds of demigods and demigoddesses, and earthly realm inhabited by humans like us, and an underworld inhabited by ghosts and demons"; and the spiritual descent of humanity from pure consciousness, placing him at odds with the desert monotheism of his counterparts.

Cremo has no qualms about accepting, in a manner of speaking, various notions - as the Big Bang Theory - mistakenly associated by many Abrahamic creationists with the concept of biological evolution or purely materialistic views on the origin of life.

(Brief summary of Vedic account of universal origin, allegedly as related by the Shrimad Bhagavatam and the Brahma Samhita – from pg. 465 of "Devolution"):



Nonetheless, many of Cremo’s tactics are unfortunately all too familiar – he attempts to bring coherent directive to a selective amalgamation of Hindu spiritual philosophy, like-minded indigenous beliefs the world over, Victorian spiritualism, modern "paranormal" phenomena, and New Age conjecture, calling attention to the disorder and flawed dogma supposedly plaguing certain scientific fields (here, mostly evolutionary science and archeology), the "ineffable complexity" of various organic processes, certain segments of the fossil record, and keynote indicators of a universe "fine-tuned for life".

Amongst this morass, I should note, there remain a few genuinely compelling facets worthy of further investigation – if only, perhaps, through a more impartial lens.

[Please accept my apologies for straying so far off-topic.]
Now THIS makes for a good argument.
Good post. *bows*

And of course the earth is flat and jesus invented the model-t.
No ....
"Jesus built my hot-rod"
-Alien Jourgensen

Mycon! The more you know ....!
;)
Good to see a post from you again!
I'm appreciated... How sweet :D

My sister, from Los Angeles, needs help moving to Ohio. The girl has more stuff than some frat houses that I've seen. She has a deep frier, and she keeps two spare kitchen sets aside for "art projects." In short, I'm stuck driving a U-haul for a bit under a week, with her car in tow as extra storage space. Then I'm back to school and a high-speed internet connection and away from my high-paying government internship, wherein I was ordered to commit an average of 3-400 felonies a day (by personell).

My audience here will benefit from the wisdom and experience I gained there, and my roomate will benefit from the many hours I spent at work figuring out two easy, reliable ways to make a fake ID in about five minutes (I figured a few more on-the-job felonies wouldn't matter...). Your tax dollars were well-spent, my friends.

I am a Creative Evolutionary. Or possibly an Evolving Creation. I'm also not a whackjob.

I am a Creative Evolutionary. Or possibly an Evolving Creation. I'm also not a whackjob.
Is an 'Evolutionary' like a 'Revolutionary', i.e. someone who actively engages in evolution? You mutant, you!

The real conflict between evolution and Creationism is that evolution defies the Young-Earth Creationism by suggesting that the world is older than 6,000-odd years.

"evolutionist" is a slur coined by science deniers to use against people that dont agree with them.

Similar to "abortionist" and its use by the anti-abortion movement.

...not to the BROKEN NAIL?

Well, that'd hurt, for sure...

But, no... "to the PAIN" is a quote from "The Princess Bride", and is different from 'to the death' in that the loser is horribly mutilated, 'disarmed', and blinded, etc... but is left with his ears - so that he can suffer hearing the tortured screams of any women and children that happen to see his horribly mangled body.

It's a cheery little film. ;)

No ....
"Jesus built my hot-rod"
-Alien Jourgensen

Soon, I discovered that this rock thing was true...

Jerry Lee Lewis was the Devil; Jesus was an architect, previous to his career as a prophet.

All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world... so there was only one thing that I could do...

It was... Ding-a-ding-dang, my dang-a-long-ling-long...

how do you no that God didnt create the big bang casuing all this shit u call evolution while he was/has been in control the whole time...? how give a reason not a theory or some hypothesis a 100% proven reason.

Theories :sniper:

Soon, I discovered that this rock thing was true...

Jerry Lee Lewis was the Devil; Jesus was an architect, previous to his career as a prophet.

All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world... so there was only one thing that I could do...

It was... Ding-a-ding-dang, my dang-a-long-ling-long...
I'm beginning to suspect that i say this too much, even though i feel it's merited ...
and definitely in this case ....

You ROCK!!!!!!!!
*bows*
;)

how do you no that God didnt create the big bang casuing all this shit u call evolution while he was/has been in control the whole time...? how give a reason not a theory or some hypothesis a 100% proven reason.

Theories :sniper:

Medic! I think this sentence has suffered a horrible injury! It's lying half dead in a pool of it's own words....

Is the point you are trying to make...: Why doesn't science just accept that God made everything?

If so - you fail to understand science... 'science' doesn't say ANYTHING about 'god', OR the absence of 'god'. It cares nothing for prime-movers. All 'science' trades in, is observation, repetition and verification.

If 'god', or 'creation' can be pigeon-holed into those categories... they become 'science' concepts. If they CAN'T meet those basic criteria, they are NOT 'science' concepts - and so they are LEFT OUT of science... not disproved, not overlooked, not ignored. They just do not 'fit' into the science paradigm.

how do you no that God didnt create the big bang casuing all this shit u call evolution while he was/has been in control the whole time...? how give a reason not a theory or some hypothesis a 100% proven reason.

Theories :sniper:
Hmmm.

I ran across this week, serendipitiously.


Guest commentary: Catholic theology has no fight with Darwin
By KENNETH R. MILLER, The Providence Journal
August 13, 2005
...
man ... invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." Indeed they do.
But Schonborn's assertion that the theory of evolution is inherently anti-God is simply wrong. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis:
"The process (of evolution) is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner — of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak."
Exactly. Science is, just as Pope John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not address what Simpson called the "deeper problem," leaving that issue, quite properly, to faith.
The cardinal's second error was to enter American politics by supporting the "intelligent-design" movement. This movement seeks to short-circuit science by applying political pressure at state and local levels, and the cardinal's misrepresentation of evolution will only further a growing entanglement between church and state. He seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of "intelligent design," unlike Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a "designer" has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature. This view stands in sharp contradiction to a 2004 International Theological Commission document approved by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.
This document carries a ringing endorsement of the "widely accepted scientific account" of life's emergence and evolution; describes the descent of all forms of life from a common ancestor as "virtually certain," and echoes John Paul's observation of the "mounting support" for evolution from many fields of study.
More important, the document makes a critical statement on how to interpret scientific studies of the complexity of life: "(W)hether the available data support inferences of design or chance ... cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency" — that is, dependence upon chance — "in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence."
Right there, in plain view, is the essence of compatibility between evolution and Catholic theology. "Contingency in the created order," the very heart of evolution, is not at all incompatible with the will of God. The church document re-emphasizes this point by stating that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." And evolution, as scientist Stephen Jay Gould emphasized, is truly a contingent natural process.
The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan, while "evolutionist" philosophies that deny the divine do not. Three popes, beginning with Pius XII, have now made this clear.
John Paul's 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church's twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.
Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities — a continuing creation, in which the divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.
(Kenneth R. Miller is a Brown University professor of biology and the author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.)

I am a Creative Evolutionary. Or possibly an Evolving Creation. I'm also not a whackjob.
Would you object to submitting your last sentence for peer review?
;)

Well, that'd hurt, for sure...

But, no... "to the PAIN" is a quote from "The Princess Bride", and is different from 'to the death' in that the loser is horribly mutilated, 'disarmed', and blinded, etc... but is left with his ears - so that he can suffer hearing the tortured screams of any women and children that happen to see his horribly mangled body.

It's a cheery little film. ;)
Rodents Of Unusual Size!!!!!!!! :eek:
Cheery indeed! That movie rocks!
(in my shame i'd forgotten that part :( )
...and it had Mandy Patinkin, from Dead Like Me in it, the fella who was to avenge his father's death.
Awesome.
*bows*

I'm beginning to suspect that i say this too much, even though i feel it's merited ...
and definitely in this case ....

You ROCK!!!!!!!!
*bows*
;)

Why, thank you. :)

I try. Or maybe, I'm very trying... opinions differ. :D

Rodents Of Unusual Size!!!!!!!! :eek:
Cheery indeed! That movie rocks!
(in my shame i'd forgotten that part :( )
...and it had Mandy Patinkin, from Dead Like Me in it, the fella who was to avenge his father's death.
Awesome.
*bows*

His name was 'Inigo Montoya', I believe.

From which, you MAY have seen (in the forums) the occasional suggestion that someone has invoked 'The Montoya Principle'.

In other words, they point out a word has been used to mean something other than what it is received as meaning: "I do not think that means what you THINK it means"... :D

Hmmm.

I ran across this week, serendipitiously.


Guest commentary: Catholic theology has no fight with Darwin
By KENNETH R. MILLER, The Providence Journal
August 13, 2005
...
man ... invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." Indeed they do.
But Schonborn's assertion that the theory of evolution is inherently anti-God is simply wrong. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis:
"The process (of evolution) is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner — of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak."
Exactly. Science is, just as Pope John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not address what Simpson called the "deeper problem," leaving that issue, quite properly, to faith.
The cardinal's second error was to enter American politics by supporting the "intelligent-design" movement. This movement seeks to short-circuit science by applying political pressure at state and local levels, and the cardinal's misrepresentation of evolution will only further a growing entanglement between church and state. He seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of "intelligent design," unlike Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a "designer" has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature. This view stands in sharp contradiction to a 2004 International Theological Commission document approved by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.
This document carries a ringing endorsement of the "widely accepted scientific account" of life's emergence and evolution; describes the descent of all forms of life from a common ancestor as "virtually certain," and echoes John Paul's observation of the "mounting support" for evolution from many fields of study.
More important, the document makes a critical statement on how to interpret scientific studies of the complexity of life: "(W)hether the available data support inferences of design or chance ... cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency" — that is, dependence upon chance — "in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence."
Right there, in plain view, is the essence of compatibility between evolution and Catholic theology. "Contingency in the created order," the very heart of evolution, is not at all incompatible with the will of God. The church document re-emphasizes this point by stating that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." And evolution, as scientist Stephen Jay Gould emphasized, is truly a contingent natural process.
The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan, while "evolutionist" philosophies that deny the divine do not. Three popes, beginning with Pius XII, have now made this clear.
John Paul's 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church's twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.
Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities — a continuing creation, in which the divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.
(Kenneth R. Miller is a Brown University professor of biology and the author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.)

And now, it is YOUR turn to rock.

*bows*

:)

And now, it is YOUR turn to rock.

*bows*

:)
Thank you, thank you. I couldn't have done it without the help of all the little ... photons.
;)
Montoya Principle ... maybe a good rock band name.
(yikes am i channelling Dave Barry?)

If so - you fail to understand science... 'science' doesn't say ANYTHING about 'god', OR the absence of 'god'. It cares nothing for prime-movers. All 'science' trades in, is observation, repetition and verification.

In that case should the big bang theory be discredited and thrown out, since we can't go back in time and observe it?

Thank you, thank you. I couldn't have done it without the help of all the little ... photons.
;)
Montoya Principle ... maybe a good rock band name.
(yikes am i channelling Dave Barry?)

Exploding Montoya Principle would be better... I'm not making this up... :D

In that case should the big bang theory be discredited and thrown out, since we can't go back in time and observe it?

Relevence?

The Big Bang doesn't really have anything to do with what came BEFORE the Bang... and it is commonly assumed that ANY opinion about the Pre-Bang state of play must be (largely) pure speculation.

We CAN observe what appears to be the gradual diaspora of all matter from a centralised locale.

This implies that ALL matter follows trajectories based around a single 'origin' point.

By calculation of velocities and accelerations for masses, it seems that the bulk of the universe started out from that ONE origin point at MUCH the same time... certainly within a reasonable margin of error.

Thus, a logical model, would be that: ALL the matter in the universe started in one place, at one time.

And - since time cannot have existed before 'anything' existed... we can assume that that 'place and time' where the FIRST place and time... and that NOTHING existed before.

Now - of course, we aren't really sure what 'nothing' means, in that context... or how long it remained 'nothing'... it is just 'nothing' in comparison to our current 'something'.

Where is the unfalsifiable material, thus far?

In that case should the big bang theory be discredited and thrown out, since we can't go back in time and observe it?

You can't go back in time, and watch it with a cup of coffee, and some popcorn, but you can observe its effects, and correlate the data from observing radiation, the movement of celestial bodies, and the structure of various systems.

Alright, I just wanted to use the term "Correlate the data" :D Sorry if that above sentance didn't make much sense, its early :headbang:

Anyway, the same method applies to evolution, and a lot of science. We can't observe a lot of things directly, but ideas are forumlated, based on observational evidence, reviewed, improved, and eventually accepted, only to continue to be reviewed and improved. If we could just observe all the fundamentally important aspects of our universe, we could just write a big book of facts that contained everything everyone needed to know.

....

Alright, I just wanted to use the term "Correlate the data" :D
.....
A strangely specific ambition .......

A strangely specific ambition .......

I'm painfully working class. I don't work with data, I work with big hunks of metal and I see my friends with their fancy jobs involving numbers, throwing phrases like "Correlate the data" and "Synergize the flobottunum" around and I feel pangs of intellectual class envy :(

I'm painfully working class. I don't work with data, I work with big hunks of metal and I see my friends with their fancy jobs involving numbers, throwing phrases like "Correlate the data" and "Synergize the flobottunum" around and I feel pangs of intellectual class envy :(
Eh, I've got a comeback involving the true facts that my first college was the Royal School of Mines, where I did metallurgy involving small hunks of metal and now as a statistician I use data mining techniques, but it's late and I can't make it clever. Re-arrange the facts for me until they make you laugh, would you? ;)

Looks like Drunk beat me to it. :(
I think there were leeches at some point too ....

Interestingly enough, leeches actually have valid medical uses... such as when there is excessive pooled blood under the skin after a very serious injury. The leeches remove this blood, and it actually saves the tissue.

/threadjack

...because, the people who believe in the Abrahamic God SAID so! That's why!
...ooh, i hope this doesn't piss off the bunny. What do i sacrifice to a bunny? a cadbury egg? Lettuce?
:eek:

Haven't you been properly schooled?!? I shall prostrate myself to the BUNNY in hopes that It will forgive you, for you show promise.

Clearly, the BUNNY demands sacrifices of play-doh, which was created at the beginning of time as a source of sustenance for small children.

"evolutionist" is a slur coined by science deniers to use against people that dont agree with them.

Similar to "abortionist" and its use by the anti-abortion movement.
Agreed.

No ....
"Jesus built my hot-rod"
-Alien Jourgensen

It was quite a good one too.