|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-08-2002, 04:36 PM | #381 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Pulling numbers out of a hat is still non-random, unless the hat contains a infinite number of "slips".
Please don't expound as I have read the stories. The interpretation of the bible is unnecessary in a model that presumes all the physics of evolution are, to paraphase Einstein, revealing the mind of god at work. This doesn't then attach itself to any particular religion except renaming nature "god". It is still Frankenstein's monster to try and accept and reject enough of each, science and religion, to make the two as one. Many parts of each have nothing to do with the other. The points at which they overlap or conflict are meaningless within the application of each. Most Christians are comfortable with compartmentalising the two and making sense of their world in the light of each as they feel appropriate.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
11-08-2002, 04:38 PM | #382 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
I don't see science and religion as contradictory, especially in the matter of evolution, but I do see Christianity as a religion with plenty of historical assertions that are definitely relevant to the faith. On these accounts, science has been used to discredit Christianity -- going from the Flood to the time of Solomon. It is only in this area that I feel that a biblical model needs to be developed to determine whether there really are inconsistencies between science and the bible. Some people assume that there are. I have spent a bit of time, not really focussed on Creationist literature but scholarly works, to see whether the case is strong. I have found that much of the evidence I've seen thus far falls short of proving the assertions against the bible in these areas. I've also found that a reasonable post-Flood model can be developed, and I am in the process of determining whether a Flood and pre-Flood model can also be developed. Of course, these things are difficult to do by one's self. But since faith is often personal, sometimes one has to attempt it by one's self rather than just assume that what you read is true. If I hadn't checked whether radiocarbon dating did contradict the Flood, I would have just assumed that it did. As it was, I discovered the measurements (reflecting world behavior and not local behavior) did not support Libby's original proof, which would have been convincing had the data supported it. |
|
11-08-2002, 04:56 PM | #383 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
|
|
11-08-2002, 05:13 PM | #384 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
|
11-08-2002, 05:18 PM | #385 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Actually, the universe might... As to science being used to "disprove" the bible, it has been my experience that much of the historical parts of the bible have been verified by science, using carbon dating (dead sea scrolls)among other methods. Would you selectively reject those findings as well? Libby's work may have been refined but it has never been held as unsupported in the scientific community. The same with Newton; Einstein refined his theory but people still use newtonian calulations for everyday applications.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
11-08-2002, 05:52 PM | #386 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
But please, simply because a lot of people are setting a very bad example when they should be doing the exact opposite, don't assume that Christ doesn't exist. (Thinks about it for a second) Besides, such an assumption is illogical. Quote:
Lizra, I know that you don't have a religious faith, and to speak plainly, I'd be amazed if you had a true faith, for you haven't yet met Christ. Faith comes after, and is very vital to Christianity, and in coming to know God better. But its true nature is different. Many people simply assume that you have to have faith to come to know God, but that's a view I've been fighting ever since I started posting on this thread. You don't have to have faith that he exists to ask him if he exists, and if you ask him from a sincere heart and with a willingness to continue seeking until he answers, he will answer. Time is in his hands. For some people, it is the same day they pray, while for others it is several months (Like in my case). He knows what a person needs, but you have to be earnestly seeking him. Barrelrider, I very much agree with just about all of your post. I'd just like to elaborate on it a little, though. Quote:
|
|||
11-08-2002, 06:19 PM | #387 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
|
|
11-08-2002, 06:29 PM | #388 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Lizra and cass -
I'm glad we're in agreement over the amend/discard theory stuff. The reason I wanted to even address it is that some people DO think the th. of ev. can be infinitely amended. I think that MOST of the people on this thread don't, but I was very concerned over those that DO. If people think it thru, they'll see the nonsense in the idea, but many people just hear over and over how it can be adjusted, and thus think that it will ALWAYS be able to be adjusted to fit ANY data. And if they think that, then they will never bother to consider any other theory. And that's also why I was so picky earlier on the thread about people seeing that the "th. of ev. is a theory made ABOUT facts", and that it was not IN ITSELF a fact, because they won't consider any other theories if they have the misunderstanding that the th. of ev. is in itself a fact. Again, it probably didn't apply to most people here, but some people definitely thought that it was a fact, and I wanted them to think it thru and see that it wasn't true. But now onto new things .... Now the third misconception that I want to bring up will probably be a little more controversial, as I imagine most, if not all, of the th. of ev. people believe it. I see posts saying over and over how we shouldn't bring religion into science. But we have already, for atheism is a religion, and it should be taken out of science, too. Now, it's not an organized religion with buildings and hymnals, etc., but it is most definitely a belief w/o scientific proof, which is what th. of ev. people are objecting to about Christianity, and why they are saying it should be taken out of the scientific realm. People are mistaken if they think the atheistic position is scientifically neutral. You say to a Christian, "you can't prove scientifically that God exists!" and I say, "you're right!" Well, as a Christian, I say to the atheists, "you can't prove scientifically that He doesn't!" And I think that the atheists here would probably be able to say that I'm right. Now, what I really object to is when people say that you can't scientifically evaluate the theory of creation by intelligent design! Of course you can't, if that one statement is all you are trying to offer up for evaluation. Neither can you scientifically evalute the theory of evolution by that one phrase. But what you CAN evaluate is a theory that goes along these lines: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: evolutionary processes. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest. Now why in the world wouldn't a theory that goes like this: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: creation by intelligent design. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest." The only thing I changed was putting in "creation by intelligent design" for "evolutionary processes"! Wouldn't everyone agree that BOTH theories are perfectly suitable for evaluation by the scientific method? If not, why not?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 11-08-2002 at 06:31 PM. |
11-08-2002, 06:39 PM | #389 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, RÃ*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.
__________________
We are not things. |
11-08-2002, 06:42 PM | #390 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
I agree partially with your point though. Science should attempt to be as objective as possible; theories should not be clouded by either a fanatic belief in a higher power, or a fanatic lack of belief in a higher power. The key to a good scientific approach is to leave your baggage at the door... I remember from my post-grad papers in anthro, that we dealt with a lot of this stuff. Especially since anthropology isn't technically a science. It was rather irritating how a lot of anthropologists (and I'm dealing mainly with archaeologists here) made the facts BEND to their theories, instead of looking for the most likely answers. Now for a bit of levity: "Let 'em say we're crazy, what do they know Put your arms around me baby don't ever let go Let the world around us just fall apart Baby we can make it if we're heart to heart ... ...And we can build this thing together Stand this stormy weather Nothing's gonna stop us now "
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
11-08-2002, 07:39 PM | #391 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
I think that he very well might have done it through evolution, as well. At the quantum level, everything depends upon chance. It is even possible, by an extremely unlikely chance, that I would be successful in running through a brick wall. This thing happening is so unlikely that I'd say anyone who tried it was quite stupid, but because of chance, it is possible. Evolution also is based upon chance, and if, as Methuselah suggests, chance is or can be manipulated by intelligent design, then it is perfectly reasonable that God could create. The chance of evolution could be the design of God, and this explains his ability to, using evolution, create man in his own image. Quote:
Atheism is a lack of belief, BeardofPants, as you say. But it also isn't proven by science. Religion and nonreligion alike are the same in being beliefs without evidence. Thus, in being alike in nature to religion, atheism, the lack of religion, can be said to be religion. |
||
11-08-2002, 07:51 PM | #392 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Are those lyrics from a song?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
11-08-2002, 08:00 PM | #393 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 11-08-2002 at 08:01 PM. |
|
11-08-2002, 08:06 PM | #394 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
The idea of adding god as an extra step to evolution as in Rian's theory is that it's only purpose is to insert god. It becomes problematic for people of differing beliefs to make use of the theory. It is still not supported by anything except supposition. Many tests have been done to test the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution.
Atheist - one who disbelieves god Agnostic - One who doesn't believe the existence of god can be proven. ...or something like that. BoP... what song is that? Edit: mmmmmm.... belgian chocolate!
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary Last edited by Cirdan : 11-08-2002 at 08:07 PM. |
11-08-2002, 08:55 PM | #395 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Let me add reference numbers to your post, please:
Quote:
(1) Whoa, whoa, whoa there! I NEVER added God as an extra step to evolution!!!!!!! My theory said "creation by intelligent design". (please refer to my post of 3 posts back, if that makes sense). I did NOT add God onto evolution in any way, shape or form. Someone did ask me if that's what I believe, maybe that's how you got confused. (2) That's why I say "intelligent design", not The God of the Christian Faith. (3) Absolutely untrue. As I said in my 3-posts-back post, the initial line of EITHER theory cannot be tested; it is the details of the theory that can be tested ("given this, I expect to see the following in these different fields:". ... ) (4) Good. And many tests should be done to test TESTABLE elements of a theory of creation by intelligent design. (5) Do you mean "one who disbelieves that God exists?" The way you have it worded now, "one who disbelieves god", it looks like you mean "one who disbelieves what God says", which I doubt is what you mean. This is a sincere question! I would really like to be sure of what you are saying.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
11-08-2002, 10:23 PM | #396 | |
Viggoholic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,749
|
Quote:
__________________
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. |
|
11-08-2002, 10:40 PM | #397 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
That is different, however, from saying that you believe that the entire theory has been proven scientifically. Which do you mean? or do neither fit what you mean?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
11-08-2002, 10:53 PM | #398 | |
Viggoholic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,749
|
Quote:
__________________
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. |
|
11-08-2002, 11:39 PM | #399 | |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Quote:
I think you might wanna change that The lack of health can not be said to be health even though they are physical conditions Athiest do not worship being alike in one aspect does not make them the same in another
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
|
11-09-2002, 12:20 AM | #400 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Chance and a supreme being . . . it is impossible to tell, from a scientific standpoint, which is. It's up to you to decide what you believe for yourself. Last edited by Lief Erikson : 11-09-2002 at 12:21 AM. |
||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
Catholic Schools Ban Charity | Last Child of Ungoliant | General Messages | 29 | 03-15-2005 04:58 PM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | RÃan | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |
A discussion about Evolution and other scientific theories | Elvellon | General Messages | 1 | 04-11-2002 01:23 PM |
Evolution | IronParrot | Entertainment Forum | 1 | 06-19-2001 03:22 AM |