exclusivity: creationism and evolution
I proclaim that those who would promote the exclusivity of either idea is only promoting their own personal or political agenda.
Many of those in high regard in the fields of faith and science would attest that neither idea is exclusive of the other. Those of high regard, in either field, that would proclaim the exclusivity of either are damn fools, and only trying to advance themselves through the politics of faith and science.
The lay persons that would attest to the exclusivity of either idea (creationism and evolution) is a victim of the propaganda perpetuated by the persons politicing in the arenas of faith and science.
Besides both ideas are just that, ideas, neither verifibly to 100% certainty. If either camps wish to further proclaim that it is, then I'd like for you to show me your time machine.
Science requires faith in its systems, Faith requires reason to maintain morality.
Many of those in high regard in the fields of faith and science would attest that neither idea is exclusive of the other. Those of high regard, in either field, that would proclaim the exclusivity of either are damn fools, and only trying to advance themselves through the politics of faith and science.
The lay persons that would attest to the exclusivity of either idea (creationism and evolution) is a victim of the propaganda perpetuated by the persons politicing in the arenas of faith and science.
Besides both ideas are just that, ideas, neither verifibly to 100% certainty. If either camps wish to further proclaim that it is, then I'd like for you to show me your time machine.
Science requires faith in its systems, Faith requires reason to maintain morality.
Comments
ie this world is not split ONLY by hard core conservative christians vs those who believe in the science the way the western world has the concept of it.
but you are right .. any ideology, those who promote their beliefs / opinions as the ONLY available truths are pretty annoying.
Originally posted by pig
I proclaim that those who would promote the exclusivity of either idea is only promoting their own personal or political agenda.
Many of those in high regard in the fields of faith and science would attest that neither idea is exclusive of the other. Those of high regard, in either field, that would proclaim the exclusivity of either are damn fools, and only trying to advance themselves through the politics of faith and science.
The lay persons that would attest to the exclusivity of either idea (creationism and evolution) is a victim of the propaganda perpetuated by the persons politicing in the arenas of faith and science.
Besides both ideas are just that, ideas, neither verifibly to 100% certainty. If either camps wish to further proclaim that it is, then I'd like for you to show me your time machine.
Science requires faith in its systems, Faith requires reason to maintain morality.
Holy crap.
Creationist refer to a single holy text the Bible
Sciences is based upon observations. It's not a dogma and is subject to change. The bible will never change.
You canno't compare a dogma : religion, with sciences.
Now if you think that the scientific way of thinking is crap, watch out a little around you. Without sciences and the scientific way of thinking, you will not tape on any computer, will not have water, fridge, car, TV, phone ....
You will have nothing. Sciences have proved to work. You are surrounded by evidences of this. Feel free to ignore it
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Holy crap.
Creationist refer to a single holy text the Bible
Sciences is based upon observations. It's not a dogma and is subject to change. The bible will never change.
You canno't compare a dogma : religion, with sciences.
Now if you think that the scientific way of thinking is crap, watch out a little around you. Without sciences and the scientific way of thinking, you will not tape on any computer, will not have water, fridge, car, TV, phone ....
You will have nothing. Sciences have proved to work. You are surrounded by evidences of this. Feel free to ignore it
Please Creationists, be true to your dogma, give up everything Science has given you, and go live as hermits in the forests.
In light of the all scientific observations about these matters, and "science" as you are all defining it -- statements such as
Sciences is based upon observations. It's not a dogma and is subject to change.
and
Please Creationists, be true to your dogma, give up everything Science has given you, and go live as hermits in the forests.
are PROFOUNDLY bigoted and misguided.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- even your own Big Bang theories must break the known laws of Science.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Darwinists....[edit].... are extremists. They refuse to believe anything is going on besides their creation theory.
I can't speak for every darwinist, but that's just BS.
Either God is bound by the process, he created it, or God does not exist and the process is entirely natural. But the process is very real and is as much an established fact as is gravity or thermodynamics. Maybe certain people's interpretation of God needs to Change.
I think you've subconsciously bought into the Creationists mass of deceptions, but recognise they are idiots.
Originally posted by dmz
You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- even your own Big Bang theories must break the known laws of Science.
Another deception. Big Bang theory starts at Planks time, and before Planks time, it is known that the classical laws of physics do not hold. There is no scientific community cover-up to fool us into believing we know more than we do. I guess your 'divine new book' is misrepresenting classroom science again.
Again, Big bang theory does not state that God did not do it, and Big Bang theory doesn't state that the whole universe just appeared from nothing on a cosmological whim.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Both Darwinists and the religious right are extremists. They refuse to believe anything is going on besides their creation theory. Any honest mathematician will tell you that statistically the possibility of everything happening by chance without any intelligent design are as close to impossible as anything can get. Nor am I going to place my understanding based a litteral english interpretation of a text that has been translated into so many times to get to english that who knows how much of the original meaning remains.
And an honest statistician will tell you the mathmetician should go back to his proofs because he doesn't have any grasp on the VASTNESS of parallel combinatorial powers available. Parallel combinatorics are truly one of the irresistable forces in the universe.
Originally posted by Hiro
And an honest statistician will tell you the mathmetician should go back to his proofs because he doesn't have any grasp on the VASTNESS of parallel combinatorial powers available. Parallel combinatorics are truly one of the irresistable forces in the universe.
His statement seems to me to be a basic logical fallacy. Sure, the odds that this particular world would result, if you had to guess before it happened, were extremely low. But you can't say, after it happened, that the odds were low that this particular world would have happened. It's like rolling 5 dice, getting a 3,5,1,1,6, and then saying "the odds of that happening were so low that there must have been divine intervention!"
Originally posted by MarcUK
Big Bang theory starts....
MarkUK it's Theor[IES]. There are many and they differ greatly.
The only extremists are those who can´t accept that other people doesn´t believe in the same as them and apparently can´t be convinced.
My take: When I read about the evolution of life I know it is true. But when I see the work of Bill Viola, Lars von Trier, listen to Arvo Pärt, feel the touch of my lover or is heading up Glen Clova from Dukehead in Scotland or heading down towards Lillehammer from Sjusjöen in Norway on my skies or heading out into the Negev desert an early evening it all reveals a truth to me, about myself and about the world. The first kind of truths is a logic truth I will never feel in my body and never be a physical part of me but can be formulated in words very precisely. The second is a experience of truth felt with my body and hard do describe for others.
I have realized that the second kind of truths are harder to share than the first one but when you do it is much more satisfying than to share the first one. When religion is the sharing of physical experienced truth it is one of the strongest social binding forces in the world. When it is intellectual battles it tries to be what it is not (science) and loose its greatest potential (the truth you feel). It looks at religion from the outside and make it an object instead of a living part of you. When religious believers try to battle science it has already bowed to the supremacy of its logic and is trying to escape the domain where it is strong (The heart of man).
Originally posted by Anders
DMy take: When I read about the evolution of life I know it is true. But when I see the work of Bill Viola, Lars von Trier, listen to Arvo Pärt, feel the touch of my lover or is heading up Glen Clova from Dukehead in Scotland or heading down towards Lillehammer from Sjusjöen in Norway on my skies or heading out into the Negev desert an early evening it all reveals a truth to me, about myself and about the world. The first kind of truths is a logic truth I will never feel in my body and never be a physical part of me but can be formulated in words very precisely. The second is a experience of truth felt with my body and hard do describe for others.
I have realized that the second kind of truths are harder to share than the first one but when you do it is much more satisfying than to share the first one. When religion is the sharing of physical experienced truth it is one of the strongest social binding forces in the world. When it is intellectual battles it tries to be what it is not (science) and loose its greatest potential (the truth you feel). It looks at religion from the outside and make it an object instead of a living part of you. When religious believers try to battle science it has already bowed to the supremacy of its logic and is trying to escape the domain where it is strong (The heart of man).
That is truly beautiful. A tear came to my eye.
Originally posted by Anders
Do you all have post-election-stress-syndrome? Don´t´you know how to wind down after the election?
The only extremists are those who can´t accept that other people doesn´t believe in the same as them and apparently can´t be convinced.
My take: When I read about the evolution of life I know it is true. But when I see the work of Bill Viola, Lars von Trier, listen to Arvo Pärt, feel the touch of my lover or is heading up Glen Clova from Dukehead in Scotland or heading down towards Lillehammer from Sjusjöen in Norway on my skies or heading out into the Negev desert an early evening it all reveals a truth to me, about myself and about the world. The first kind of truths is a logic truth I will never feel in my body and never be a physical part of me but can be formulated in words very precisely. The second is a experience of truth felt with my body and hard do describe for others.
I have realized that the second kind of truths are harder to share than the first one but when you do it is much more satisfying than to share the first one. When religion is the sharing of physical experienced truth it is one of the strongest social binding forces in the world. When it is intellectual battles it tries to be what it is not (science) and loose its greatest potential (the truth you feel). It looks at religion from the outside and make it an object instead of a living part of you. When religious believers try to battle science it has already bowed to the supremacy of its logic and is trying to escape the domain where it is strong (The heart of man).
You resumed the whole story here.
Nice post.
I will also add that this position is shared by a vast majority of christians believers ( I don't speak for the others religions, but I guess it would be the same)
Originally posted by dmz
In light of the all scientific observations about these matters, and "science" as you are all defining it -- statements such as
and
are PROFOUNDLY bigoted and misguided.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- even your own Big Bang theories must break the known laws of Science.
I am not ashamed of my self.
If you disagree with my view on the way science is based, argue
As for my statement on science needing faith, it needs the faith that it's systems are fundamentally sound and that these systems will produce repeatable results. If you have no faith in it's systems, then it fails. Scientists also work with the premises of many unverifible theories that were developed by their predecessors. Yes, these theories are supported by other verifible phenomena, but often we lack the tools to measure these behaviors that should hold true to other phenomena. So, it takes faith of the current observer that the previous observations a. were correct in the first place and b. hold true to the currently observed phenomena.
Lastly, Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest and Darwin was a Christian. Also as Asimov once said, "Non-existence of proof is not proof of non-existence."
Lay evolutionists and lay creationists, or lay whatever the f--- you are, get off your high horse, before you find out your pony is just a toy rocker and you're going nowhere.
My argument as to why faith needs reason may come later.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I am not ashamed of my self.
If you disagree with my view on the way science is based, argue
Common descent from one species is not supported in the fossil record. At all. You have expolsions of Phylum..... bla bla bla. You know this, and I know this, the whole world knows this.
But it doesn't matter because of a DOGMA......
-----------------
Main Entry: dog·ma __ Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: dgm also dägm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas \\-mz\\; also dogma·ta \\-md., -mt\\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from dokein to seem good, seem, think -- more at DECENT
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : one or more definite and authoritative tenets b : a code or systematized formulation of such tenets (as by a theoretician or a school of art or philosophy) <pedagogical dogma> <communist dogma> c : a point of view or alleged authoritative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds : an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion
[snip]
Citation format for this entry:
"dogma." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (22 Dec. 2004).
-------------
......that DOES NOT CHANGE. When evolution hits a hard fact -- like explosions in the fossil record -- that fact is reinterpreted based on the ORIGINAL TENET. The problems of irreducibly complex systems fitting the Darwim model of mutation/adaptation are excepted on FAITH in a DOGMA that evolution will "someday" be demonstrated and tested. There is NO DIFFERENCE between your FAITH and mine when I look at the Bible in Luke and say the "Quirnius issue" has a 'probable' solutuion that will be conclusivley proven someday -- and yours, when you look at MASSIVE SYSTEMIC problems getting evolution 'off the ground' and say "we will find answer someday".
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you say that Christians don't understand "science" because they are "locked" into the Bible -- all the while you are intractably locked into a Dogma of your own. I respect your intelligence, and your dedication to what you believe. But I do not respect intellectually dishonest arguments.
_
_
Originally posted by dmz
Common descent from one species is not supported in the fossil record. At all. You have expolsions of Phylum..... bla bla bla. You know this, and I know this, the whole world knows this.
But it doesn't matter because of a DOGMA......
-----------------
Main Entry: dog·ma __ Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: dgm also dägm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas \\-mz\\; also dogma·ta \\-md., -mt\\
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from dokein to seem good, seem, think -- more at DECENT
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : one or more definite and authoritative tenets b : a code or systematized formulation of such tenets (as by a theoretician or a school of art or philosophy) <pedagogical dogma> <communist dogma> c : a point of view or alleged authoritative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds : an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion
[snip]
Citation format for this entry:
"dogma." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (22 Dec. 2004).
-------------
......that DOES NOT CHANGE. When evolution hits a hard fact -- like explosions in the fossil record -- that fact is reinterpreted based on the ORIGINAL TENET. The problems of irreducibly complex systems fitting the Darwim model of mutation/adaptation are excepted on FAITH in a DOGMA that evolution will "someday" be demonstrated and tested. There is NO DIFFERENCE between your FAITH and mine when I look at the Bible in Luke and say the "Quirnius issue" has a 'probable' solutuion that will be conclusivley proven someday -- and yours, when you look at MASSIVE SYSTEMIC problems getting evolution 'off the ground' and say "we will find answer someday".
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you say that Christians don't understand "science" because they are "locked" into the Bible -- all the while you are intractably locked into a Dogma of your own. I respect your intelligence, and your dedication to what you believe. But I do not respect intellectually dishonest arguments.
_
_
1) I did not refeared to Evolution in my thread.
2) religion is a dogma. NO one is offuscated by these statement. The ten commandements are a dogma, but I see no wrong here.
3) Science is not a dogma. But here you assume that science = evolution. You are assuming too fast. For me evolution is the best theory avalaible until someone will brought me something better, that will answer all the questions. Same thing with the big bang theory : it's the best theory avalaible (the best description around), but if scientists will bring something better, I will follow them. The universe according Newton is way different from the one of Einstein, but both where following the scientific way of thinking.
4) Christians are not all locked in the bible. I never met a single christian around me (except on the net) who give faith in the evolution theory or the genesis. For them, like Anders (read his post) religion speak about the heart and the spirituality, not the real world.
Are you assuming that all christians think like you ?. For your own personal info, My elder daughter follow catechism (the other is too young for the moment).
5) for my dishonnesty : I will reply to you, that what is dishonnest is to put simplistic words in my mouth such as : christians don't understand science. By saying this you made the statement that every christian take the genesis for a science book. I never made this statement : see 4.
Originally posted by pig
I myself am a creationist that believes in the process of evolution. But you can not say that the evolution theory is 100 % verifiable. Yes, there is evidence that supports it, but were any of us there to verify it, our minds scope exceeds our physical limitations. Just because we perceive it does not mean we can prove it to an absolute degree. But we can support it with evidence of reason.
As for my statement on science needing faith, it needs the faith that it's systems are fundamentally sound and that these systems will produce repeatable results. If you have no faith in it's systems, then it fails. Scientists also work with the premises of many unverifible theories that were developed by their predecessors. Yes, these theories are supported by other verifible phenomena, but often we lack the tools to measure these behaviors that should hold true to other phenomena. So, it takes faith of the current observer that the previous observations a. were correct in the first place and b. hold true to the currently observed phenomena.
Lastly, Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest and Darwin was a Christian. Also as Asimov once said, "Non-existence of proof is not proof of non-existence."
Lay evolutionists and lay creationists, or lay whatever the f--- you are, get off your high horse, before you find out your pony is just a toy rocker and you're going nowhere.
My argument as to why faith needs reason may come later.
My apologies here, I didn't understand fully your first post.
I have faith in the way science works, not faith in the established science. I do not take for granted, all the theories that exists. But I believe in them, since nothing better is avalaible right now.
For me today science discribe in a much more accurate way the real word (not the mystical one) than the genesis, but I have the conviction that tomorrow science will discribe it in a better way.
The big band theory was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, who loved to say , that science and religion should not mix together. He loved to quote the answer of Faucoult to Napoleon while witnessing the pendule experience.
Napoleon: and where is god in all that
Foucault : god is not an hypothesis.
I will add, that nor the Big Band theory nor the evolution theory are negating the existence of god. The evolution could be the ultimately intelligent way of creating the life, even the more complicated ones. Evolution could be the tool created by_god, around the universe (why limiting things to earth ? ) to promote life.
The same could be found for the big bang.
What is more intelligent than creating the most complicated and sophistaced pattern out of basic and simplistic physical laws. You could assume that by creating the physics laws, god made the universe according to his own will, but also giving it the free will.
The chaos theory, could be the way god give the free will to us humans.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
1) I did not refeared to Evolution in my thread.
2) religion is a dogma. NO one is offuscated by these statement. The ten commandements are a dogma, but I see no wrong here.
3) Science is not a dogma. But here you assume that science = evolution. You are assuming too fast. For me evolution is the best theory avalaible until someone will brought me something better, that will answer all the questions. Same thing with the big bang theory : it's the best theory avalaible (the best description around), but if scientists will bring something better, I will follow them. The universe according Newton is way different from the one of Einstein, but both where following the scientific way of thinking.
4) Christians are not all locked in the bible. I never met a single christian around me (except on the net) who give faith in the evolution theory or the genesis. For them, like Anders (read his post) religion speak about the heart and the spirituality, not the real world.
Are you assuming that all christians think like you ?. For your own personal info, My elder daughter follow catechism (the other is too young for the moment).
5) for my dishonnesty : I will reply to you, that what is dishonnest is to put simplistic words in my mouth such as : christians don't understand science. By saying this you made the statement that every christian take the genesis for a science book. I never made this statement : see 4.
intellectual dishonesty, Powerdoc, not being dishonest as in "lying".
Maybe I'm being to harsh -- but I interpreted your statements as excluding Christians from scientific reasearch. Perhaps I am putting too many of MarkUKs words in your mouth.