Well yes and no. While the Mayans, the Christians, the Native Americans and the !Kung people of Southern Africa are equally wrong, their beliefs of origins are all equally as beautiful.
No, the truth is that the universe in unimaginably ancient, as is the earth, and we and it got here without any god or gods to help us.
That's a truth I proclaim to the rafters.
So to speak.
I would argue that we can't even know that that's true.
My position, as a good postmodernist/poststructuralist, is that there is such thing as truth. There's just no objective way to measure what it is and what it is not.
All I ask is that if we are supposed to criticize evolutionary theory in the classroom, let's start by showing some of that solid criticism here in this thread. If we're being asked to criticize the theory in the classroom, but with what information would we do it? Otherwise I have to agree with billybobsky that this thread should be closed.
No, the truth is that the universe in unimaginably ancient, as is the earth, and we and it got here without any god or gods to help us.
That's a truth I proclaim to the rafters.
So to speak.
You criticise me and other Christians for saying that we know the truth and dare to tell people of other faiths that they are wrong, saying that such truth cannot be known. And yet you have done the exact thing you deny others.
It has always seemed to me that the evolution-doubters are really knowledge relativists. The scientists are the positivists - they believe you can make observations about the world and draw some conclusions. Evolution-doubters argue that those observations are filtered by their agenda, that science is invalid, that creationist beliefs are just as valid as those derived empirically, etc.
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Would you care to explain how a story about a god proclaiming "Let there be..." whatever, and all of a sudden petunias and penguins and people suddenly spring into full-formed existence is less of a joke?
Instead of lazily sitting back and laughing at all of the supposed flaws in evolution, would you care to show point by point how the theory of your choice does a better job? Not just on a few hand-picked pieces of evidence (polonium halos, anyone?), but over a wide breadth of situations, compared against a breadth of evidence?
....this isn't about my beliefs, [WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE] it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
...it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
It sounds like you're getting hysterical. What specific criticisms of the theory of evolution should be mandated?
....this isn't about my beliefs, [WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE] it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
Heh. Hysterical fanaticism about evolution. Don't forget the damnable hysterical fanaticism about the theories of that guy Copernicus. Earth rotating around the sun. Good lord. And Einstein. Speed of what?
Half baked theories and a fanatical devotion to them by misguided fools. And the result is that our educational system is completely hobbled by this mess.
ena, you seem to think you can take a step back and not reveal your position to the audience. its a cheap parlor trick, and one that you are not doing very well. you need to actually for a moment believe no side to be right to ask the questions and phrase them in a manner that is absolutely no sided. but contrary, you are attacking only one position, and it is a position i believe you have more faith (get it?) in than the other, that is why your attacks have to this point given no substance and produced no substance in the responses of others to them. rather than trying to be a dick, why dont you just argue on more firm ground why you want people to realize that some parts of science are faith based. i think the conversation after that point would be more meaningful, in fact start a new topic because this one has strayed far from its start and needs to be locked.
This by no means should be a heated discussion. The question is should there be an alternative critique of evolution and to that I think yes is a very reasonable reply. The theory of evolution is not conclusive nor is any other theory of origins.
I think science must ask questions as if they lay down in complacency they will become blind. We must have a dialogue over this issue of origins.
It has always seemed to me that the evolution-doubters are really knowledge relativists. The scientists are the positivists - they believe you can make observations about the world and draw some conclusions. Evolution-doubters argue that those observations are filtered by their agenda, that science is invalid, that creationist beliefs are just as valid as those derived empirically, etc.
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Actually BRussell many in the evolution field have no evidence of evolution it is rather a faith that it is so. Aganda or no agenda evolution is a faith as it stands. There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
You're right, it's not how it came to be. It's how it changed over time. Not a single bit of evidence? Stop it. Everything we know about every life and earth science is consistent with it. As someone else stated in this thread, new theories have to take the observations explained by the old theories and re-interpret them in a more satisfactory fashion. If you deny those observations in the first place I don't see how we're going to get anywhere.
Maybe some day creationists, with their critical stance toward evolution, will genuinely contribute to science. But in order to do that they must first understand how evolution explains the observation made in the life- and earh-sciences.
A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
It has always seemed to me that the evolution-doubters are really knowledge relativists. The scientists are the positivists - they believe you can make observations about the world and draw some conclusions. Evolution-doubters argue that those observations are filtered by their agenda, that science is invalid, that creationist beliefs are just as valid as those derived empirically, etc.
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Aha, I don't recall any Creationists casting any doubt on the whole process of making observations and drawing some conclusions. But the conclusions that may be drawn are limited. Science can ONLY deal with the material, the natural, so to speak. It cannot speak intelligibly of the supernatural; it can only touch on the Second Causes, not the First.
To speak of "the beginning," however one wishes to describe it, one must and is speaking in theological terms, regardless of how it is disguised. An unbelief in God (or gods) is still a theology, a religion and that religion will dictate how data is interpretated into information.
There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
Fellowship
It's beeen a year, and fellowship still has absolutely no idea what evolution is.
Evolution starts with the premise that there is life. A reasonable assumption.
ena might also like to learn this.
By the way, care to post that "creationist theory of everything" we have been asking for, or are you going to ignore this? Just like you ignore every other request for information. But then, you have to, don't you? After all, it's not as if creationist's have anything that comes close to the success of evolutionary theory. And that burns you up, doesn't it? You hate it that your little creationist fantasy can be so easily discredited.
You know fellowship, I can't wait for you to quote some scientists out of context. Or to quote a bunch of people who died 100 years ago.
Aha, I don't recall any Creationists casting any doubt on the whole process of making observations and drawing some conclusions. But the conclusions that may be drawn are limited. Science can ONLY deal with the material, the natural, so to speak. It cannot speak intelligibly of the supernatural; it can only touch on the Second Causes, not the First.
So, essentially, we're trying to argue with people who believe in magic. Just wonderful. No wonder we don't get anywhere!
Seriously, I have thought about various strategies to discuss this, against people who believe in the "supernatural", and I have yet to come up with one for fair discourse. If a person isn't willing to follow logic, there is very little one can do except to wait for the magic to fail them at some level.
Quote:
To speak of "the beginning," however one wishes to describe it, one must and is speaking in theological terms, regardless of how it is disguised. An unbelief in God (or gods) is still a theology, a religion and that religion will dictate how data is interpretated into information.
To speak of the beginnings without a rational framework for proof only means that one is fantasizing. It is also fine to say that one does not know. Saying it is theological is merely a conflation of politics and science. In other words, science is encroaching upon religious territory as it has through time, and people must defend their religion. Sort of unfortunate that thousands of years of science trumping religious dogma has not changed anything, but we're all humane afterall.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
...sorry, the ammino acid theory doesn't relate to DNA-based organisms. You have no way of getting from one to the other.
Evolution is a joke.
You don't have an answer to my question---and you should admit as much.
What does DNA do?
It provides instructions to make PROTEINS!
What are proteins made of?
THEY
ARE
MADE
OF
AMINO
ACIDS.
Yes, folks, you heard it here first: amino acids are an INTEGRAL PART of DNA studies!
I am a boring web-page about DNA chosen at random!
I, too, am a very dull web-page from a DNA research facility!
As am I.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well yes and no. While the Mayans, the Christians, the Native Americans and the !Kung people of Southern Africa are equally wrong, their beliefs of origins are all equally as beautiful.
It's just that the truth is more beautiful still.
But you deny the existence of truth.
Originally posted by Fangorn
But you deny the existence of truth.
No, the truth is that the universe in unimaginably ancient, as is the earth, and we and it got here without any god or gods to help us.
That's a truth I proclaim to the rafters.
So to speak.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No, the truth is that the universe in unimaginably ancient, as is the earth, and we and it got here without any god or gods to help us.
That's a truth I proclaim to the rafters.
So to speak.
I would argue that we can't even know that that's true.
My position, as a good postmodernist/poststructuralist, is that there is such thing as truth. There's just no objective way to measure what it is and what it is not.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No, the truth is that the universe in unimaginably ancient, as is the earth, and we and it got here without any god or gods to help us.
That's a truth I proclaim to the rafters.
So to speak.
You criticise me and other Christians for saying that we know the truth and dare to tell people of other faiths that they are wrong, saying that such truth cannot be known. And yet you have done the exact thing you deny others.
What is the source of your "superior" knowlege?
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Originally posted by al-Dajjal
Oh dear. Poor ena.
What does DNA do?
It provides instructions to make PROTEINS!
What are proteins made of?
THEY
ARE
MADE
OF
AMINO
ACIDS.
My goodness gracious.
Let's see, how does that give a clear biomechanical model from rocks to DNA-based lifeforms?
Like I said, you don't know, you don't understand and you can't answer my question.
You have a blind faith in an unscientific fable.
Originally posted by shetline
Would you care to explain how a story about a god proclaiming "Let there be..." whatever, and all of a sudden petunias and penguins and people suddenly spring into full-formed existence is less of a joke?
Instead of lazily sitting back and laughing at all of the supposed flaws in evolution, would you care to show point by point how the theory of your choice does a better job? Not just on a few hand-picked pieces of evidence (polonium halos, anyone?), but over a wide breadth of situations, compared against a breadth of evidence?
....this isn't about my beliefs, [WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE] it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
Originally posted by ena
Let's see, how does that give a clear biomechanical model from rocks to DNA-based lifeforms?
Why do we need to go from rocks to DNA-based lifeforms?
Originally posted by ena
...it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
It sounds like you're getting hysterical. What specific criticisms of the theory of evolution should be mandated?
Originally posted by ena
....this isn't about my beliefs, [WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE] it's about the hysterical fanaticism that surrounds the Fable of Evolution and the total loss of free speech/choices in the U.S. education system caused by this hysteria.
Heh. Hysterical fanaticism about evolution. Don't forget the damnable hysterical fanaticism about the theories of that guy Copernicus. Earth rotating around the sun. Good lord. And Einstein. Speed of what?
Half baked theories and a fanatical devotion to them by misguided fools. And the result is that our educational system is completely hobbled by this mess.
CLOSE ME PRETTY PLEASE
I think science must ask questions as if they lay down in complacency they will become blind. We must have a dialogue over this issue of origins.
Fellowship
Originally posted by BRussell
It has always seemed to me that the evolution-doubters are really knowledge relativists. The scientists are the positivists - they believe you can make observations about the world and draw some conclusions. Evolution-doubters argue that those observations are filtered by their agenda, that science is invalid, that creationist beliefs are just as valid as those derived empirically, etc.
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Actually BRussell many in the evolution field have no evidence of evolution it is rather a faith that it is so. Aganda or no agenda evolution is a faith as it stands. There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
Honest people can admit that fact.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
You're right, it's not how it came to be. It's how it changed over time. Not a single bit of evidence? Stop it. Everything we know about every life and earth science is consistent with it. As someone else stated in this thread, new theories have to take the observations explained by the old theories and re-interpret them in a more satisfactory fashion. If you deny those observations in the first place I don't see how we're going to get anywhere.
Maybe some day creationists, with their critical stance toward evolution, will genuinely contribute to science. But in order to do that they must first understand how evolution explains the observation made in the life- and earh-sciences.
A challenge for fellowhips, trumptman, and ena (and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
What are the basic observations about the world that evolution has explained? Can you briefly summarize them - can you make the other side's case? That would be the first step toward throwing over the theory, it seems to me.
Originally posted by BRussell
It has always seemed to me that the evolution-doubters are really knowledge relativists. The scientists are the positivists - they believe you can make observations about the world and draw some conclusions. Evolution-doubters argue that those observations are filtered by their agenda, that science is invalid, that creationist beliefs are just as valid as those derived empirically, etc.
Relativists and creationists: A match made in heaven?
Aha, I don't recall any Creationists casting any doubt on the whole process of making observations and drawing some conclusions. But the conclusions that may be drawn are limited. Science can ONLY deal with the material, the natural, so to speak. It cannot speak intelligibly of the supernatural; it can only touch on the Second Causes, not the First.
To speak of "the beginning," however one wishes to describe it, one must and is speaking in theological terms, regardless of how it is disguised. An unbelief in God (or gods) is still a theology, a religion and that religion will dictate how data is interpretated into information.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
There is not a single bit of evidence that evolution is how creation came to be.
Fellowship
It's beeen a year, and fellowship still has absolutely no idea what evolution is.
Evolution starts with the premise that there is life. A reasonable assumption.
ena might also like to learn this.
By the way, care to post that "creationist theory of everything" we have been asking for, or are you going to ignore this? Just like you ignore every other request for information. But then, you have to, don't you? After all, it's not as if creationist's have anything that comes close to the success of evolutionary theory. And that burns you up, doesn't it? You hate it that your little creationist fantasy can be so easily discredited.
You know fellowship, I can't wait for you to quote some scientists out of context. Or to quote a bunch of people who died 100 years ago.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Aha, I don't recall any Creationists casting any doubt on the whole process of making observations and drawing some conclusions. But the conclusions that may be drawn are limited. Science can ONLY deal with the material, the natural, so to speak. It cannot speak intelligibly of the supernatural; it can only touch on the Second Causes, not the First.
So, essentially, we're trying to argue with people who believe in magic. Just wonderful. No wonder we don't get anywhere!
Seriously, I have thought about various strategies to discuss this, against people who believe in the "supernatural", and I have yet to come up with one for fair discourse. If a person isn't willing to follow logic, there is very little one can do except to wait for the magic to fail them at some level.
To speak of "the beginning," however one wishes to describe it, one must and is speaking in theological terms, regardless of how it is disguised. An unbelief in God (or gods) is still a theology, a religion and that religion will dictate how data is interpretated into information.
To speak of the beginnings without a rational framework for proof only means that one is fantasizing. It is also fine to say that one does not know. Saying it is theological is merely a conflation of politics and science. In other words, science is encroaching upon religious territory as it has through time, and people must defend their religion. Sort of unfortunate that thousands of years of science trumping religious dogma has not changed anything, but we're all humane afterall.
Originally posted by BRussell
(and BTW, I thought ena you had been banned for getting hysterical in one of these evolution threads before),:
Try calming down--stay away if you're going to make cryptic threats.