|
Post by LarsBlitzer on Oct 10, 2003 17:17:49 GMT -5
To be honest, the vast majority of biologists out there would shrug and say "Sorry, we don't have the answers. We only have a theory that, while being the best educated guess we have at the moment, is still a theory. Until we can actually track definite, quantifiable, changes within a species, or one that changes one species into another, or a similar catastrophic biological change can be empirically catalogued and studied, it's a theory."
Unfortunately, the zealotry of the creationism camp has driven evolutionary biologists, skeptics, and the dreaded *gasp!* secular humanists to staunchly defend it as much as their adversaries.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 14, 2003 15:13:22 GMT -5
One thing is postive, that is nothing is 100 percent. If you look at the evidence presented, the stories in the bible are hard to believe.
First ask two question's
1. Where do we get our natural light from?
2. Does religion cancell the laws of physics?
after you anwser I'll continue with a big mistake they can't hide in the bible. (one of many)
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 14, 2003 16:02:02 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind about the Bible is that it is openly stated, except by the most misguided of zealots, to be primarily parabalistic in nature. Like any book that is dedicated to the idea of spirituality, it is ill prepared to discuss science. Just as ill prepared as the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle is when used in conjunction with religions or spirituality...which is something that I've seen on the net. That considered, there are nearly as many (or more) Christian basher zealots nowadays as there ever were Creationist zealots. It's fashionable in todays society to take the occasional poke at the "quaint beliefs of those zealots" and ignore the "quaint beliefs" that might be self held. It's interesting. Now, that said, I don't think that anyone will ever be able to state, with absolute certainty, as opposed to absolute conviction, that Creationism is incorrect, but I still, intellectually, if not philosophicly, scoff at it (the Creationist theory) myself. So, what does that say? Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 15, 2003 12:23:31 GMT -5
It tell me someone is avoiding anwsering a couple sinmple questions.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 15, 2003 12:35:29 GMT -5
Or it shows that the questions themselves are meaningless.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 15, 2003 12:59:18 GMT -5
If one cannot have an intelligent discussion about a myth, then you cna let other discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 15, 2003 15:02:56 GMT -5
Discussions are fine... but your questions are leading.
[glow=red,2,300]Thou shalt not mix science and religion, for doing so muddies both and creates zealots.[/glow] ;D
Actually, I am discussing this. And enjoying it. I just like to point out the often over looked obvious.
Draxy
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Oct 15, 2003 17:25:54 GMT -5
1. Where do we get our natural light from? A: Energy released by atoms fusing.(a simplified answerI know, I just did not want to get into the specifics of subatomc fussion) 2. Does religion cancell the laws of physics? A: It is not supposed to, it is supposed to deal with things of a spiritual nature, not the mundane. Miracles I believe are just natural laws that the invokers made use of with out knowing the exact specifics of.
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Oct 15, 2003 17:57:49 GMT -5
And this place knocked me for the paladin asassin debate... Hmmm wich to believe....... God -vs- Darwinism. I say heck with the debates and BS and retoric, Lets get Johnny Cocherin involved...... ;D I am vey open with my stance on this issue and am not embarrassed to state it nor address it, My opinions tend to be the stuff that degenerates Thanksgiving into one aunt crying, one aunt saying my oh my, and 3 uncles reaching for another drink,........hehehehe OK... Loki3's Opinion. (WARNING) CREATIONISMI will try to keep it short. I feel its BS. now that I got the ice broken......... I will clarify. If there is a "GOD" (See caps out of respect) and "if" the bible is right, the Earth was created in 6 days and if this is so, how do we explain the natural "evolution" if things that takes place. How do we explain then the many many found, confirmed, and verified variations of man so far found. Ime not talkig the monkey looking skulls, I am talking the man "like" skulls and bones found hundreds of times, like the ice man found in Austria. He was enough differeant that he wasnt human per todays standards. If GOD created man in his own image, how did Man then evolve, wouldnt it have been GOD's will to keep man then in his own image, instead of MAKING him become differeant over time. Not EVOLVE over time, GOD would have to have MADE him differeant over time. EVOLUTIONI feel this theory albiet in me opinion is mostly BS and full of holes also, I do feel this is the best "possible" idea behind how I came about. I am not saying I feel this IS THE correct idea. But it does hold alot more water then the latter. I have a PhD in Medievil History, however my original major was Astrophysics. And frankly I can tell ya with precise precision (HUH ? Sorry for that one) that even the folks at the U of M in the Human Anatomy, and Biology departments argue this. So do the folks in the Astronomy and Physics departments......... There simply is not enough information (accurate information) to say one way or the other. I will say this however and I think Ime right on this one. If GOD intended for us to be the only ones, then how is that we have discovered the basic building blocks of life on other planets. Basic yes but they are there none th less. I think that what we have to agree to is that this is sorta like the whats better, 1st edition or 3rd edition question. Opinions.......................... Beleive what ya want, if Faith is the route ya take, Good. If faith in Science (me) is what suits ya then Good.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 16, 2003 0:16:11 GMT -5
Galadon, just a question, what do you mean by natural light? Do you mean visible light? Or do you mean the entire spectrum from one end to the other? The answer is different for different kinds of light. I mean, something like X-Rays are only created in very specific reactions in nature, whereas white light can be created in a multitude of ways.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 16, 2003 11:23:26 GMT -5
Since we don't know the extent of everyones education. I keep things to common knowledge.
Where do we keep our natural light from? The sun.
Does religion cancel the laws of physics? No.
Leading questions. Yes, but sometimes you have to ask questions before to get a correct anwser.
Mixing science with religion, look at the religous people of today and see how they are trying to use science to prove creation. But on to the mistakes of the bible.
The 7 days of creation For me the time involved doesn't matter, a day could have any lenght of time. The 7 days are used more as a reference, for me.
Now you will forgive me if I don't quote the bible exactly, but it's a easy passage to find. On the first page.
We go to the 3rd day and God divided the lightness from the darkness. The lightness was the first day and the darkness was the first night.
Reading this it looks like they were trying to say this was the first day and night. Fine with me, oh wait a minute, the light for the day. Where is the source of light to have a day.
Yes I know, heard it before. You don't understand. Your reading it literaly. You don't have the cultural understanding
Yes, yes now anwser the question. Since this is suppose to be written by man and inspired by a God then the anwser should be no problem.
Well we get our natural light from the sun. No, that's the problem. The sun hasn't been created yet.
And since light needs a source, well.
Anyone care to tell me when the sun was created and what it's use was, according to the bible.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 16, 2003 17:22:28 GMT -5
Good grief Galadon, talk about mythology! Your entire post was full of modern/post-modern myths.
Really? Well, I suppose sitting around a campfire in a cave at night there is no light, or if it is light, that it is un-natural in it's source. THAT'S mythology.
This is what I meant by a meaningless question. Which "law of physics" are you saying that it doesn't cancel? Which religion?
Come on man, when you ask a question this broad there is no correct answer because the question has no correlation to perceived reality.
Which is exactly what you seem to be trying to do here to disprove creationism.
Which it seems to me, is being strengthened rather by your obviously spurious arguements than being detracted from by them.
Ouch man, that one almost hurts it's so full of holes.
See, this is why the two, science and religion, do not mix. Have you ever heard of allegory? Does the word metaphysics ring a bell? Culture has little or nothing to do with this. This is common sense, except to foam at the mouth zealots, of which EVERY idealogy has it's share.
It is NO PROBLEM, except when you try to use it do your laundry. It is ill suited to that task. It was very probably meant NOT to be taken litterally, from the time of it's writing on.
And that begs the question: which translation of which translation of which translation are you using as the basis for your ideas? Some of them differ vastly from the set that you are using. Which of those translation is more correct and captures the original ideas best? If you know, please enlighten us, because no one else does.
Again, this is a meaningless question, because it asks a spiritual source book to do the laundry. It just is NOT suited for it.
That's ok though, as you won't find any of the answers to spiritual questions in "Origin of the Spieces"
(which has almost as many scientificly indefensable holes as the standard Christian Bibles do, even though it was written according to what was understood as the scientific method of the time),
but this does not decrease it's value either.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 17, 2003 11:46:44 GMT -5
Surely you jest.
since fire hasn't been created yet how are you sitting around a campfire. Shall I remind you this is in the time of creation according to the bible.
The laws of physics, all of them.
which religion, all of course. but during the time of creation how many religions were there.
But I see you didn't anwser another simple question, don't worry I understand.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 17, 2003 12:23:07 GMT -5
We will explain more later, by change would you be a liberal Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 17, 2003 14:33:05 GMT -5
A liberal? No. I'm about six steps to the left of Marx. I'm a registered Socialist, even though I think Socialism is doomed to continual failure in the US and is a poor idea over all. The big money will never let it happen in the US anyway. It CAN BE workable in the short term at least, (since it's only really been in place for half a century one can't say more) and in a small nation. I think it could work in a broader venue... but only with the system of checks and balances they have here to avoid the type of abuses that ran rampant in and ultimately destroyed the old USSR. Austria, where I live, has had a socialist or socialist coalition government for more than five decades of prosperity, a lower crime rate than any state in the US and a much, MUCH lower crime rate than ANY country based on the idea of democratic republicanism. The quality of life here is basicly identical in technological terms to the US... you just don't live in terror in even the worst sections of it's largest cities. Hell, Vienna, where I live presently, was just voted the second most desirable city to live world wide. Now, the system here still has flaws galore... but it works a hell of alot better than what we have in the US. Does that answer your question? Now...You did not, in your first post or any other until now, mention that you meant at the creationist myth time that you want to disprove. First... how do you disprove a myth? No one but the zealot takes a myth as fact. Talk to MOST priests, for instance, and even they will tell you that the question can not be answered the way you want it answered. It's like trying to use a law of physics to describe the possible attributes of the soul or to construct an ethical imperative. It simply can not be done. The Bible does not prove or disprove any law of physics. Nor does physics in any way prove or disprove the Bible. As to ALL the Laws of Physics: You do know that some of the Einsteinian "laws of physics" HAVE been called into question by certain observations within quantum mechanics, don't you?. Or that the Newtonian "laws of physics" have such a hiccup in them that they can not even accurately describe the motions of the planetary bodies that they supposedly were developed to explain? That last example is one of a "law of physics" that has been "disproven". The "laws changed". Before you get to enamoured of the science of phyiscs to explain the universe, you had better learn what they actually are and how they work. Too, the "all religions line" would then have to include those that use scientific determinism as part of their ideal. As such, they would cancel such "laws of physics", like certain of the Newtonian ones, that no longer fit the model of the way things work as we "presently" understand them. How many religions were there at the time of creation? That depends upon whether time is linear or not... which we do NOT definitively know the answer to either. If it is not linear, but say, cyclical, they may have ALL existed (will have would exist), including ones that do not yet exist. See the questions you are asking can only have the meaning that the individual involved assigns to them. The one thing that you've said so far that was spot on correct, to the most common perceptions, is that, paraphrased; Nothing is certain. Nothing friend Galadon. Not even the extremely probable fact that the mythologies you want to poke fun at are not correct in essence. You seem like a bright guy, just a bit under informed in some of the areas that you are adressing. Draxy
|
|