11-07-2002, 09:49 PM | #361 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Should we give equal valence to Flat earthers and ether theories?
If they come up with some compelling evidence they will be taken more seriously.
__________________
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. |
11-07-2002, 09:52 PM | #362 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Oops and there are less than optimal designs also.
__________________
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. |
11-07-2002, 10:34 PM | #363 |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
In reply to Rian.....The field is always fair for me. That is why I don't get where you are coming from with the "if evolution hit a serious flaw why would you still keep it" point. I wouldn't! Who would insist on believing something that had been discredited with real evidence. not me! But this hasn't happened of course. I treat all theories equal, I have no special fondness for evolution other than it's the most reasonable scientific theory to date. It makes sense,(to me) much more so than anything else out there. I've considered the options, and I'll take evolution.
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 11-07-2002 at 10:44 PM. |
11-07-2002, 10:49 PM | #364 |
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
|
sorry, I'm just taking a quick peek while finishing preparing dinner - what does "swifting" 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! |
11-07-2002, 10:51 PM | #365 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-07-2002, 11:11 PM | #366 | |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
11-07-2002, 11:22 PM | #367 |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
What's for dinner?
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
11-07-2002, 11:33 PM | #368 |
Enting
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: only in your dreams...or nightmares :)
Posts: 93
|
I don't care,
*SORRY FREAK OUT MOMENT*
__________________
Suogan (Or See-o-gon) Translation. (some of it) Sleep, my baby, on my bosom, Warm and cozy, it will prove, Round thee mother’s arms are folding, In her heart a mother’s love. There shall no one come to harm thee, Naught shall ever break thy rest; Sleep, my darling babe, in quiet, Sleep on mother’s gentle breast. Sleep serenely, baby, slumber, Lovely baby, gently sleep; Tell me wherefore art thou smiling, Smiling sweetly in thy sleep? Do the angels smile in heaven When thy happy smile they see? Dost thou on them smile while slumb’ring On my bosom peacefully. |
11-07-2002, 11:47 PM | #369 | ||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We're assuming that the Creator is very, very intelligent. So go ahead and take potshots at his way of creating, if you like. But remember that you're only a human, and he is God. Job once challenged God in the Bible as to why he was doing things the way he was. It was a different topic, but I think the answer might be applied to this question as well. Quote:
|
||||
11-08-2002, 12:09 AM | #370 | ||
Viggoholic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,749
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. |
||
11-08-2002, 12:28 AM | #371 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
ID is a philosophy that is beyond scientific proof so there is an "apples and oranges" problem with dragging this into a discussion about what to teach in a science class.
Problems with ID? How about infantile cancer? Just can't be a problem of sin now can it? EDIT: yeah, I'm days behind on responses to long posts. Too busy reading Tolkien.
__________________
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 12:31 AM. |
11-08-2002, 01:51 AM | #372 | |||||
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
Quote:
Why should ALL examples lead to the same result? They were two examples where our knowledge could be faulty. One from mal-intent the other not. I am failing to see your point here. Is there only ONE way to be wrong? Quote:
Quote:
You state God exist but where is your tangible "proof" If I say the Invisible Pink Unicorn has spoken to me and has said she is real. And that all other faiths are false you would not believe me. Why should I believe you. I am not saying believers are liars but are "sidetracked" by the need to believe. How you tell the difference between a neutral net transient that can example via neuro-science and and supposedly inner knowing? Quote:
Quote:
but you have not given evidence tangible evidence that what you believe is real when someone mentions you just gotta have faith it means that the idea can not stand on its own. as for design flaws the panda's thumb, the human eye, human appendix etc your response about only being human again assumes that there is a creator. If I lowly human can see the design flaws then something is wrong
__________________
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. |
|||||
11-08-2002, 10:30 AM | #373 |
Peer of the realm of Sanguine
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Hill, Marlton, NJ
Posts: 798
|
I really don't understand the great amount of passion that this topic evokes.
There is no conflict between faith and science. Science is the process of observation, questioning, hypothesizing, experimenting, and observing. Scientific theories have given us such wonderful things like space travel, cellphones and computers, on and on. Science is what we can see. It serves our purpose while we are here on earth. Faith, on the otherhand, does not require us to see, but to follow what we believe. Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth. They are two different paradigms of thought. Natural Selection and other theories of Evolution are just that, scientific theories. They should be taught in the science classroom as such. Competing theories about the origins of man that are derived from religious teachings, or intended to reconcile the truth of religious teachings with the natural world or are simply not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom. Scientific truths are truth, religious truths are also truth. We are not always wise enough to reconcile them.
__________________
“"I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider," Fear Complacency! ___________________ Something under the bed is drooling |
11-08-2002, 11:39 AM | #374 | |
The Quite Querulous Quendi
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oxon, UK
Posts: 638
|
Quote:
That reminds me of the Douglas Adams theory of cultural evolution: all societies progress through three phases of intellectual enquiry. These are the what, why and where phases. This is best illustrated re: food 1) what are we going to eat? Once this practical issue is settled, we can evolve to stage 2. 2) why do we eat? Inevitably, this leads to a lot of bloodshed and a crisis point is reached at which the society either blows itself up or evolves to the next stage, namely 3) where shall we have lunch? Having discarded circular and self-referential argument as tiresome, we retire to a jolly nice restaurant and consume some fine food and wines. Accordingly, this debate resides firmly at stage 2. Can we evolve it to the next level? Just kidding... |
|
11-08-2002, 12:45 PM | #375 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
For at least the past 4000 years prior to the last few hundred years, everybody could see beyond reasonable doubt that the sun rose in the morning, moved through the sky, and set in the evening. But now the case against that theory appears much stronger. What scientific models do have is utility for making sense and order of phenomena that we observe. The theory that the sun rises and sets has utility. The theory of gravity and Newtonian physics has greater utility. But what is the confidence that we have in a theory? "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a subjective measure of collective belief that has a bad historical track record. Is there some way to put a metric on whether a theory can be believed beyond reasonable doubt? Don’t quote statistics to me. I know about statistics. Statistics can validate whether measurements are consistent with a theory, but it doesn’t prove the theory. One thing that I cannot tolerate is the argument: Would God deliberately deceive us by making things other than how our senses and observations perceive things? (I don't accuse you of saying this.) The problem is not that He would contradict His own universal laws (whatever they may really be), but that He really is not constrained to make everything simple for us to understand. The sun doesn’t move (except relative to the galaxy), it is we that move. But we don’t see ourselves moving, and we do see the sun moving. If we use Newtonian physics, we can say that if we move in a certain direction long enough we will reach a specific distant galaxy. However, if you really do head in that direction, you find that you miss the galaxy because the light from the galaxy bends due to the motion of our own planet (general relativity). So would God make the world different from what our senses tell us? I guess the answer is yes. It is not because he creates a grand delusion, however. It is because He speaks through His creation as a professor, and not as a kindergarten teacher. Now dogma is a topic I heartily agree with you on. However, this is not a problem with religion as much as it is a problem with all political institutions. In order to be persuasive, you must argue from points of reference that you and your audience believe. Hence, if you want an argument to be accepted by many people, you must simplify your argument and also make many generalizations that aren’t necessarily true. There are reasons why most politicians sound rather dumb. It is because their arguments are tailored scientifically to reach and persuade as large an audience as possible. All human truth institutions will have their priests who decide the more difficult issues and their dogma for motivating the masses. Twentieth century Europe (and especially Germany) was about as far from religious belief as we have seen historically. They were home to many of the most notable scientists and philosophers. Yet this did not protect them from wars based upon dogma held in common by the masses (genetics and race for example). It is better to listen to God as you would listen to a professor. Don’t look for God in dogmatic assertions. Don’t judge Christianity by the Christian with the loudest mouth. |
|
11-08-2002, 01:08 PM | #376 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Chance or design?
A number of people in the evolution debate seem to think that we can tell (scientifically?) the difference between chance and design with regard to our origins. I wonder if you can tell whether this sequence of numbers is the result of chance or design. I will accept the view that if the sequence is generated by a random number generator (a distinct possibility), then it is the result of chance. I can give you more numbers if you like. I can generate a lot of them. It also suffices if you can tell me how you would go about figuring out the answer.
By the way: I don’t like the answer to the related question that if there are imperfections, then we can conclude that there is no design. That’s like saying that there is no design in creation because man sins. It isn’t very convincing. Here is the sequence: 82148086514428810975724587006633057270369833673362 00056812714201995661150244594555982534904380952572 05574857242858361603593313677026782354781321165344 98164706001454776241682796797660674427862946576407 84962524517686838689443904512440168427394150760694 79009714909542858444703742007318191197939567945208 00306803844100550810623055876317229109816671113699 08932261854233260972918093773442131449576665573092 53348850346700237877663432858780990796547938971311 1853061422897692656726171196377622247715 |
11-08-2002, 01:17 PM | #377 | |
The Quite Querulous Quendi
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oxon, UK
Posts: 638
|
Quote:
1) thou shalt not kill, and 2) love thy neighbour as thyself The problem I have is with the large number of rather prominent and self-professed Christians who seem quite at ease with leaving these ethics for Sunday and going around smiting infidels and generally being obnoxious to their neighbours left, right and centre, Monday to Saturday. You're right about mathematics, of course. But this is purely because it is a contrived, closed system. The real world is composed of innumerable shades of grey, and needs a system of establishing "reasonable doubt". Science is open and explicit about this process, providing a means of acknowledging and exploring different views; revelation is private and obscure, and therefore ultimately dogmatic. Whether or not we believe that revelation provides absolute truth, it is a different type of knowledge and does not belong in the science class. cheers d. |
|
11-08-2002, 01:19 PM | #378 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Actually if you go in the direction of the oblect in space you would pass along the same space-time curves due to the gravitational lenses that the light passed through. You would of course have to adjust for relative motion.
Whatever god may have intented by creating a world in which physical evidence contradicts some aspects of a literal interpretation of the bible has little bearing on it's relation to scientific thought. Your sequence is by design. There are no random numbers in a computer. This is a known. A random number generator is still an algorythm with a predictable output. barrellrider is the closest to a rational conclusion to this topic. Everything else is an emotional pitch to one strongly desired, but logically faulty conclusion. Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it.
__________________
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, 01:37 PM | #379 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I get your point Meth. I like to distill things down till they are uncomplicated and clear. (Is this what you call "dumbing down?" indeed! ) I feel I am concerned with what "is". You seem to be elaborating on what "might be". Since I do not have your "faith", the "what might be" comes off as just one of many possibilities that really don't matter to me. Yes, this could be and that could be, but until there's proof I'm not putting much credence in it. If something comes along to disprove (in a big way) the theory of evolution, I'll be right there, listening to every word with delight. Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend! There are way too many religions for starters! I think your son is a doll!
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 11-08-2002 at 01:39 PM. |
|
11-08-2002, 04:10 PM | #380 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pangea
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
Yes, it is ultimately impossible to disprove design, but there is not physical evidence for it. [/QUOTE] I agree. If God gave clear proof that everything was created by design, then people would not have to come to God by faith. They would come to God by sight. That is inconsistent with the Bible. If you say that you won't believe anything unless it can be proven to you first (the infamous reasonable doubt argument), then you rule out any possibility of spiritual revelation. It is true that science works that way, but I wouldn't be my soul on that process as the only way of determining truth. As to evolution, I have no problem with it as a scientific theory except that I think it is a little primitive. The process of evolution sounds to me like attemting to go from a primary grade reader to a Tolkien trilogy by just changing a few letters at a time with the requirement that each step make sense. Actually, I think evolution requires faster steps, more along the way that great works of literature are created. That may to many imply design, but if you assume that human mental processes evolved out of chance, you would readily see that it does not imply design. However, I don't see any contradiction between the basic theory of evolution and biblical creation. Actually, one can take the biblical creation as: first verse: God created heaven and earth. That is all that is said about the creation of galaxies and the rest of matter. The rest is about the creation of life, and especially human life. The seventh day, God rested, is about man's completion -- that we can enter into God's rest. I can expound later if you like. Basically, theology can evolve (or change, although I like the word evolve) just as science can evolve. It is all a study in understanding truth. The simplest interpretation of the bible is not necessarily the winner -- nor is the simplest scientific model the winner. |
|
|
|
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 |