Page 2 of 4

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:23 pm
by RMcGirr83
Oh good, and I use this term very lightly, god.

weatherkid, I won't get into punching holes into your beliefs...they are yours and you are free to believe in what you will.

You seem to continue to bring up the Bible, and quoting from it, and there's nothing wrong with that but please do not force your beliefs onto others. I know I don't force anyone to believe what I believe in.

To sum, nobody has absolute, concrete, irrefutable evidence as to the creation of man/races. There are theories and ideas but none have been totally proven to be the fact and make all other theories irrelevant.

So you believe in what you want and I'll believe in what I want. Deal?

PS "Darwin was a communist" shows a little bias/hatred with no substantiated fact about his political beliefs, which oddly enough, has absolutely nothing to do with his evolution beliefs. I may as well say Hitler was the second coming of Christ and felt the need to "purify the land". :roll: (I apologize in advance for those I may have offended with that last sentence btw).
Darcie wrote:as having faith can sometimes be a matter of believing without a concrete reason to do so. :P
Having "faith" can also force one into dispelling all other theories as immaterial and folly...as seems to be the case with the OP.

Free your mind and your body will follow.

BTW, yes Jesus was a real person...just as Pat Robertson is..so what?

Also, was Jesus a Christian, a Jew, an Episcopalian, a Buddhist or a member of some other religion?

It all doesn't seem very logical if you ask me. ;)

PS, I do believe I have had enough of "phpbb.com and religion" type topics. Thanks.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:27 pm
by weatherkid
RMcGirr83 wrote:You seem to continue to bring up the Bible, and quoting from it, and there's nothing wrong with that but please do not force your beliefs onto others. I know I don't force anyone to believe what I believe in.
I'm sorry If I've come across that I'm trying to 'force' my beliefs on you, that was not my intent. My intent was to expose the truth, that people aren't told everything.
RMcGirr83 wrote:So you believe in what you want and I'll believe in what I want. Deal?
o.k. but someone is going to be wrong ;)

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:22 am
by Anon
darcie wrote:In an effort to slightly derail the mounting tension...
What is your feeling on a combination of Evolution and Creation? It seems obvious to most that there is evidence of all species evolving over time. But, for those that also believe in a creator (or even those who don't I suppose), what are your feelings about the six days the world was created in being literal 24 hour days, or six figurative days? How do reconcile the changing of species and natural selection with the bible's account of creation?
You don't have to. Evolution is secular, not atheistic or agnostic. It is completely blind to the idea of a god or reincarnation, so it is entirely possible to believe in unadulterated evolution while simultaneously believing in a god(s) - provided you don't think that such a being(s) ha(s|ve) directly interfered in such a way that alters evolution.

I'm guessing you're talking about intelligent design when you mention a hybrid theory. The problem is that design implies a designer, and for a designer to design something the designer must directly interfere with whatever they are designing. The problem that poses is that it's no longer evolution if species evolve with the direct input of a designer, it's simply creationism under another name.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:42 am
by Lumpy Burgertushie
people that keep saying that ID is not religious may be technically correct. However, it is mainly the religious people that keep using it as an arguement for a scientific theory. That leaves me to believe that they are assuming that the "intelligent designer" was "god", therefore, the bible is correct, etc.



robert

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:00 pm
by SamG
The problem, of course, is that those holding to philosophic materialism are in the same boat. If they are consistent, they will deny any by-design argument of every sort -- philosophic or scientific/pseudo-scientific. Ultimately it's a question of evidence, and to date, the evidence for design is not there, not there in any compelling form, or it has been missed or ignored. Only the specialists are in a position to work that out, it seems to me. I'm willing to let the wheels of science grind on so long as there is genuine intellectual freedom at work.

Something bothers me in all of this, though. For the moment, suppose God exists (we're not defining God at this point except in the most ambiguous way possible, please) and that God is the designer of all that exists in the material world. This is not a religious question at all, at that level, but a question of fact. God's existence or non-existence is a question of fact, not religious faith. The existence or non-existence of a designer is a question of fact, not religious faith. To insist on putting the question into religious terms only really risks closing the door to dealing with the questions of fact. The scientific method (which is a finite tool) may not be able to adequately explore these questions of fact, leaving further exploration to be done by philosophers and theologians. And that might leave crucial questions of fact unanswered in any sort of compelling way. But that's OK. The process is still a legitimate process.

And that's where the debate rubber meets the road, it seems to me. We all know intuitively that we're dealing with questions of fact and not religion, and the ID/anti-ID controversy simply muddies the waters of our thinking, wherever our thinking might be at the moment. Are scientists of whatever philosophical stripe to be allowed to research and explore the questions of fact when it comes to origins? Should they have the freedom to reopen, at their discretion, "settled" questions as new evidence or new techniques or untested ways of looking a the evidence emerge? I should think so. Putting the questions as religious questions only prematurely ends, potentially, the discussion among specialists, and it's not at all clear to me why that would even be desirable.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:20 am
by Anon
Should they have the freedom to reopen, at their discretion, "settled" questions as new evidence or new techniques or untested ways of looking a the evidence emerge? I should think so. Putting the questions as religious questions only prematurely ends, potentially, the discussion among specialists, and it's not at all clear to me why that would even be desirable.
That is how the scientific process works. A theory is deemed to be largely correct if sufficient evidence agrees with it. When evidence comes along that disagrees with the theory, the theory can either be modified or scrapped. This has happened - the theory of the model of the atom has changed greatly (the snooker ball, then the plum pudding, on to what we have now). That was a theory that was greatly modified. Then there's light. It was thought of purely as a wave, but when someone found evidence to show that it wasn't a wave, a new theory was composed (wave-particle duality) to explain what light is.

The distinction between science and religion occurs because not everything can be science. I can say anything I want. I could say that there is a flying teapot that orbits jupiter, and it's so small it cannot be seen. Science doesn't say that it's wrong or right, it just demands proof for me to back up my views.

It's the same with creatiionism. Science doesn't say that it's wrong or right, it simply demands proof from those who claim that it is true. On a personal level, I think that creationism and its offshoots are entirely false, and I can argue that from a philosophical perspective. But from a scientific one I can't actually say "creationism is false", because that would require proof from me.

Because I can say anything, and because I need firm proof to get whatever I say classified as "science", there is another category for things that I do say which are not verifiable or true, and that is religion. Religion is public domain. I can say anything, and claim that it is religion, and nobody can stop me. If I want to get what I say moved from the realm of religion to the realm of science, I have to back up what I say. It is the same story with creationism and ID, the onus to prove its correctness is on them, not me to prove it's incorrect.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:35 pm
by Lumpy Burgertushie
Well said Anon. A breath of common sense and practicality in the midst of a discussion that always seems to lack any common sense or logic etc.


robert

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:49 pm
by SamG
Anon wrote: That is how the scientific process works....

The distinction between science and religion occurs because not everything can be science. I can say anything I want. I could say that there is a flying teapot that orbits jupiter, and it's so small it cannot be seen. Science doesn't say that it's wrong or right, it just demands proof for me to back up my views.
Indeed. But there's no need to resort to a distinction between science and religion, or between fact and flying teapots, to make the point. Furthermore, the line between "fact" and "faith," or more to the point here, between "scientific fact" and "faith," cannot always be so sharp if (and the "if" is important here philosophically) the field of human knowledge is unified.

Consider a random example. I pick it only because I happen to remember where I read it, and because it is within reach. In his delightful (but aging) book titled Black Holes and Warped Spacetime, William J. Kaufmann III makes the following observation in the chapter "The Meaning of Warped Spacetime" (p 66 of the 1979 edition):
To some people, these astronomical discoveries are depressing. To them, the lesson of modern astronomy is that humanity is a collection of insignificant microbes clinging to a small rock that orbits an ordinary star in an otherwise inconsequential galaxy -- just one among billions in an inconceivably vast universe.
Since we're always to be interested in a charitable reading of an interlocutor, let's allow the author the liberty of hyperbole as he makes his observation. Let's also take the liberty of stipulating the factual truth of his observation, since I can see no reason to quarrel with it.

Dr. Kaufmann responds to that pessimistic view in the next paragraph (I'm going to include the first sentence of the following paragraph as well):
I prefer a different view. With each new revelation, the human mind must scale new heights and explore new dimensions. Of course, from a purely mechanical aspect, we are a race of Lilliputian life forms, poised precariously in the biosphere surrounding a very small planet. But through the human intellect, we tiny creatures have the extraordinary ability to examine and comprehend the structure of the universe. This truly distinguishes us form less-evolved animals. Not how insignificant our bodies are, but rather how potent the human mind is -- this is the real lesson of modern astronomy.

A philosophical perspective based on the physical nature of reality can induce profound insights that blossom with awesome power....
All well and good. And obviously not science. If the lesson of modern astronomy can be inspiring, philosophically or otherwise, it isn't compellingly or necessarily so to all people. As such, by any ordinary measure, Dr. Kaufmann has elaborated a statement of personal faith. To those embracing the epistemology of a unified field of knowledge, Dr. Kaufmann did his readers a huge service by elaborating on faith and fact in his book. He could hardly have done otherwise and allow much insight into his view of the meaning of warped spacetime.

Angry unicorns and flying teapots have their place in the discussion to be sure, but they're less interesting to me than coming to grips with Dr. Kaufmann's position in a fair and charitable way. He's speaking properly and within the realm of his subject, and not just saying anything.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:26 pm
by weatherkid
Anon wrote:It's the same with creatiionism. Science doesn't say that it's wrong or right, it simply demands proof from those who claim that it is true. On a personal level, I think that creationism and its offshoots are entirely false, and I can argue that from a philosophical perspective. But from a scientific one I can't actually say "creationism is false", because that would require proof from me.
Can you claim that Evolution is not false?? of course not!! since both sides weren't there to prove it it then both sides then falls into the catigory of religion, both take faith to believe. On one hand evolution says that complex human beings, animals, and plants all evolved from some big explosion of nothing.
It's like saying that if I leave my plate of spagitti long enough it will one day become a truck.
:lol: :D Can you prove that is won't??? ;) :o :D

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:45 pm
by ToonArmy
Once again, evolutionary theory concerns how life has evolved not how life came to be.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:01 pm
by Anon
You can see evolution happening all the time. Micro evolution is extremely well documented, and extrapolating that to include macro evolution is no problem at all.

However, given that the empty bottle on my desk hasn't suddenly become full of the best drink in the world (or any liquid for that matter), I have no proof of creationism, micro or macro :P

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:46 pm
by Semi_Deus
weatherkid wrote:
Anon wrote:It's the same with creatiionism. Science doesn't say that it's wrong or right, it simply demands proof from those who claim that it is true. On a personal level, I think that creationism and its offshoots are entirely false, and I can argue that from a philosophical perspective. But from a scientific one I can't actually say "creationism is false", because that would require proof from me.
Can you claim that Evolution is not false?? of course not!! since both sides weren't there to prove it it then both sides then falls into the catigory of religion, both take faith to believe. On one hand evolution says that complex human beings, animals, and plants all evolved from some big explosion of nothing.
It's like saying that if I leave my plate of spagitti long enough it will one day become a truck.
:lol: :D Can you prove that is won't??? ;) :o :D
That is exactly what it is. Scientists recently discovered that something can be created out of nothing.
And also something can evolve from nothing. Its weird, but true. Don't ask me how, because I don't know.
But life on earth began with nothing, and suddenly there was something which emerged out of nothing.
This is been proven by scientists, its fairly new stuff so there is not much information on it yet. So I cannot provide exact details.

But I had such a discussion with my father 2 days ago. About who is right, and who is wrong.
People who believe in God, Allah, or whoever they prefer. I myself do not believe in god, just by the fact that science has more evidence for its evolution theory, and creation of worlds.
As the Bible and god is in my eyes a story which is made up by some guys in the early years.
Just to have an explenation for all that is here, as they did not have the current means to prove things, so they could not be wrong, as there was nobody who could prove them wrong.
Its the year of Darwin and in Holland there is this huge discussion between scientists and christians. blablabla.. It was a story which was all they had to explain life and evolution of spiecies.

Now there is only one thing scientists have no explenation for yet, and that is the universe. Does it end, if so, whats behind it etc etc. But people who believe in god have no proof of the existance of god, that he created the world, and the creation of the earth, and I mean none at all. The Bible you say? Who wrote the bible? Who says that the text in the bible is true? The Church? And what proof has the church for that? etc etc.

I believe in science and clear facts/proof. Until there is proof for god, I cannot and will not believe in god and the bible.

That is my opinion in this discussion.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:17 pm
by EXreaction
As for the beginning/end of the universe, I wouldn't even bother waiting for even close to real answers. It is completely impossible to say exactly what happened or what will happen. Maybe in hundreds of years we'll have advanced computer models that can figure out what will almost certainly happen based on existing knowledge, but that still has the possibility of being wrong.

IMO, there are more important things to think about, like advances in the medical field so people can live longer, complete repairs of any damaged or destroyed body parts, and disease prevention. I for one am thinking that medical tech will be advanced enough within the next 20 years that someone could have a full prosthetic body if one wanted to and any lost body part will be able to be replaced with a fully working prosthetic (meaning it moves/feels/does just like whatever it replaced). Of course I can't predict when it'll be cheap enough for many people though. :P

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:25 pm
by weatherkid
Semi_Deus wrote:As the Bible and god is in my eyes a story which is made up by some guys in the early years.
read 2 Timothy 3:16
Semi_Deus wrote:I believe in science and clear facts/proof. Until there is proof for god, I cannot and will not believe in god and the bible.
you don't see animals, life, the whole universe as proof of God?? I think the problem is that you don't want to see proof.
Semi_Deus wrote:I myself do not believe in god, just by the fact that science has more evidence for its evolution theory, and creation of worlds.
excuse me but there is no documented evidence of evolution or creation, both need to be taken by faith. Even darwin had doubts about his own theory.

Re: The Origin of the Species

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:37 pm
by EXreaction
Honestly, you are about as clueless as they come.

Stop spouting your nonsense and find out the facts about evolution.

Directly from your own mouth.
weatherkid wrote:I think the problem is that you don't want to see proof.