Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53
  1.    #1  
    Interesting find about Dr. Antony Flew. It seems he has wrestled with some of the same issues we've tackled in our forum.

    NOTE: to believers. Dr. Flew has abandoned atheism and embraced Theism but not a belief in a God of the revelatory nature (as taught by the big 3 religions)

    http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
  2. #2  
    What are the "Big 3" again?? Let's see there's GM, and Ford, oh I guess Chrysler must be the third. What about like Toyota and Honda??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    per se.
    Glad you got this right -- clulup won't have to correct you!
  4. #4  
    Haven't seen him in the past few days -- probably deserted us for mtdn too ...
  5. #5  
    Oops, he's back, my bad.
  6. #6  
    Well, unless I am insane (which could be true ) I thought I saw him post here ... something about a statement that made no sense ...
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I find this answer by Flew quite interesting (the question was: “Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?”): “Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”
    I wouldn’t call this "Theist" per se.
    What aspect doesn't square with "Theist" per se?
  8. #8  
    By: tjd414 at Yesterday 10:16 AM

    Well, unless I am insane (which could be true :rolleyes I thought I saw him post here ... something about a statement that made no sense ...
    You are correct, I saw it too. He did post but decided to delete afterwards.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by ronbo2000
    You are correct, I saw it too. He did post but decided to delete afterwards.
    It was just a remark on one of the statements in the report , but then I did not see any point in ranting.

    Shopharim, maybe you can tell us what you meant by "the big 3 religions" in "NOTE: to believers. Dr. Flew has abandoned atheism and embraced Theism but not a belief in a God of the revelatory nature (as taught by the big 3 religions)"

    It must be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, right, or in what sense did you mean "big"?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It was just a remark on one of the statements in the report , but then I did not see any point in ranting.

    Shopharim, maybe you can tell us what you meant by "the big 3 religions" in "NOTE: to believers. Dr. Flew has abandoned atheism and embraced Theism but not a belief in a God of the revelatory nature (as taught by the big 3 religions)"

    It must be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, right, or in what sense did you mean "big"?
    On page 10, the questioner refers to the 3 major monotheisms. That must have been stuck in my mind.
  11.    #11  
    On the other hand there's the NFL, NBA, and MLB

    But these are decidedly USA religions.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    On the other hand there's the NFL, NBA, and MLB

    But these are decidedly USA religions.
    I'm in North Carolina....definately ACC country and NCAA basketball country....not so much MLB
  13. #13  
    The big three?

    The Dollar, the Euro and the Yen. :-)
  14. #14  
    The Big Three: The Octagon, James Westphal, and Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It must be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, right, or in what sense did you mean "big"?
    Buddhists must be like 4th. What about Scientology??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16.    #16  
    Won't BUMP this very often, but I find the silence on this thread intriguing.

    Why is it that Religious (especially Christian) ideas expressed in this forum receive voracious scrutiny, while when Darwinian ideas are questioned, there is no examination?

    Where is the defense? Could it be that there is an unspoken acknolwedgement that the theory of evolution lacks scientific stamina (he asks, not sure what will become of him as the monster awakes, but determined to awaken it none-the-less)?
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Where is the defense? Could it be that there is an unspoken acknolwedgement that the theory of evolution lacks scientific stamina (he asks, not sure what will become of him as the monster awakes, but determined to awaken it none-the-less)?

    I tend to be a lurker on the offtopic forum, as too much goes on throughout this entire forum for me to remain up-to-date, but I'll toss in my ideas. Before I begin, some background about me: I was born a muslim but raised by an atheist physicist father who taught me to always question what I believe and a spiritual mother who urged me to consider a possible superior power. As I am a budding scientist, I find my answers to be found in science, and I pursue the path of the atheist until I can be convinced otherwise in a scientific manner.

    The idea of Natural Selection is one that I fully subscribe to, and one which I work with every day; I do biological research which involves manipulating bacteria. I take bacteria which express a certain sequence of DNA and ensure that they are resistant to Ampicillin, an antibiotic. I grow a mixture of these resistant bacteria + random non-resistant bacteria out on a dish of media with Ampicillin in it, and only the Amp-resistant bacteria survive and grow colonies (this is actually more like Unnatural Selection, but it easily illustrates the process by which individuals within a population become more suited to their environment). As such, Natural Selection is an observable process. There are countless observations and scientific reports on instances of NS.

    I fully believe that NS is a crucial aspect of the Theory of Evolution, and find it to be very scientifically valid. The verses in a holy book, on the other hand, cannot be subject to the scientific method, which to me result in a very flimsy argument when confronting statements made by the ToE. There should ALWAYS be examination of any scientific facts which are presented, but so far much of what I read seems to be in favor of ToE.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Won't BUMP this very often, but I find the silence on this thread intriguing.

    Why is it that Religious (especially Christian) ideas expressed in this forum receive voracious scrutiny, while when Darwinian ideas are questioned, there is no examination?
    I followed your link and read through major part of it. It is an interview with Mr. Flew, who used to be an atheist, and, after turning 80, became a theist: "While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true." So Flew's message basically is that "yes, there is a God, but Jesus was wrong because god does not interact with this world (there is no concept of revelation)"

    I don't find the arguments given convincing, it reminds me of the discussions in the Middle Age dealing with the question of "how many angels fit on the tip of a needle" - a question which seems to be of little value as long as nobody has ever ever shown the existence of angels.

    Look at this for instance:
    "HABERMAS: If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?
    FLEW: Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on."

    - That's totally obvious, isn't it? At least IF a god is the first cause, and IF a god exists at all... only there is no sign of that. You can still believe in a god or gods, with or without revelation, but I think you have to accept that there is no evidence whatsoever around. That's why it is called faith, isn't it?

    However that may be, I don't think the Darwinian idea is questioned in that interview. They only mention Darwin in one sentence, without any arguments as to why the present day scientific view of evolution should be wrong.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    I tend to be a lurker on the offtopic forum, as too much goes on throughout this entire forum for me to remain up-to-date, but I'll toss in my ideas. Before I begin, some background about me: I was born a muslim but raised by an atheist physicist father who taught me to always question what I believe and a spiritual mother who urged me to consider a possible superior power. As I am a budding scientist, I find my answers to be found in science, and I pursue the path of the atheist until I can be convinced otherwise in a scientific manner.

    The idea of Natural Selection is one that I fully subscribe to, and one which I work with every day; I do biological research which involves manipulating bacteria. I take bacteria which express a certain sequence of DNA and ensure that they are resistant to Ampicillin, an antibiotic. I grow a mixture of these resistant bacteria + random non-resistant bacteria out on a dish of media with Ampicillin in it, and only the Amp-resistant bacteria survive and grow colonies (this is actually more like Unnatural Selection, but it easily illustrates the process by which individuals within a population become more suited to their environment). As such, Natural Selection is an observable process. There are countless observations and scientific reports on instances of NS.

    I fully believe that NS is a crucial aspect of the Theory of Evolution, and find it to be very scientifically valid. The verses in a holy book, on the other hand, cannot be subject to the scientific method, which to me result in a very flimsy argument when confronting statements made by the ToE. There should ALWAYS be examination of any scientific facts which are presented, but so far much of what I read seems to be in favor of ToE.
    Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. I took a similar path. I don't work as a scientist any more, but I do miss cloning and my E. coli once in a while.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    The idea of Natural Selection is one that I fully subscribe to, and one which I work with every day; I do biological research which involves manipulating bacteria. I take bacteria which express a certain sequence of DNA and ensure that they are resistant to Ampicillin, an antibiotic. I grow a mixture of these resistant bacteria + random non-resistant bacteria out on a dish of media with Ampicillin in it, and only the Amp-resistant bacteria survive and grow colonies (this is actually more like Unnatural Selection, but it easily illustrates the process by which individuals within a population become more suited to their environment). As such, Natural Selection is an observable process. There are countless observations and scientific reports on instances of NS.
    Sherv, thank you for coming out of lurker mode to enlighten the discussion. I hope my questions don't drive you away.

    For the evidence of Natural (or unnatural) selection is not in question. Rather, my question is how do we extrapolate that an occurrence observed in a controlled environment is what occurre in an widely uncontrolled and unpredicatble environment.

    It makes sense that a bactiera intentionally modified to resist a certain substance would survive amidst that substance while other bacteria without such preparationwould not. The next experiement would be to introduce a different potentially deadly substance and see which bacteria adapted in its midst.

    In raw nature, this would equate to an organism that mutated in some way, and then it so happened that the entire (or large portion of the) population was exposed to a specific condition in which that mutation aided survival.

    Possible? Absolutely. Statistical probability of such occurrences resulting in the large number of uniquely qualifiable plant and animal species? Hmmm.

    But, then the more urgent question for me is origin of life. In my limited understanding, natural selection applies to existing organisms but does not address their genesis.

    Am I correct in that assumption? If not, how does natural selection extrapolate to origin of life (plant and animal)?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions