Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 152
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is not my intent to be dismissive. It just seems that the theory of evolution is presented as the unapproachable theory, and holes in the theory are not allowed to be mentioned. I am not suggesting that the whole theory is dung. I'm just pointing out the areas that need shoring up. But, I am using the logical verbage of this thread to do it.
    what "holes" in the theory are "not allowed" to be discussed? what makes you think that there aren't fierce debates within the evolution sciences about the details and mechanisms of various evolution pathways? the only explanation for any natural phenomenon that is universally rejected (or "silenced" as you prefer to call it) by all sciences (physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology) is that of divine intervention - because that explains everything and nothing.

    ["Gravity" is the term that we use to describe the phenomenon regardless of its source. I experience that force everyday. I do not question whether that force exists. I do not question the mathematics behind it. I can not attest to the flawlessness of the mathematics, but I can attest to the ability to accurately predict behavior based on those calculations.
    you still don't get the point - why do you assume that the gravitational force that you experience everyday is not a divine force? you see other living creatures around you everyday - and you do not question that the scientific facts about them - that they have several identical functional mechanisms as us (DNA replication for one). You would not question the prediction that a newly developed high energy microwave radiation that can kill a rat, can also kill you. All these science "facts" are used to link the different creatures together in evolutionary science.

    And FYI - there are "holes" in the gravitational theory - that science cannot explain as yet. There are regions of gravitational anomalies that cannot be explained. Gravitational forces do not act predicatably at very short distances or for very small particles. Physics has predicted the existence of gravity waves, but they have yet to be measured. yet you are content to accept the fact that the "laws" of gravity are valid and need not be questioned.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I wasn't advocating it. Just pointing out that evolution is not necessarily natural selection, though natural selectio is evolution. I am a man, but man is not me.

    I guess I should have been clear that I didn't think Lamarckism is valid. Oops.
    thats ok

    its just that there are plenty of folks who would seize on that point to "prove" that evolution is "wrong"
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    And FYI - there are "holes" in the gravitational theory - that science cannot explain as yet. There are regions of gravitational anomalies that cannot be explained. Gravitational forces do not act predicatably at very short distances or for very small particles.
    This is SOOO true! There's a place in Wisconsin Dells, WI called The Mystery Spot where the laws of gravity just don't seem to apply!!! I've seen it myself. When you hang from a chin-up bar in the doorway, your body hits the door jamb. The guide explained that scientists have yet to understand why the small cabin in the woods acts like it does. If you get out that way, you should see it. It's unsettling.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    This is SOOO true! There's a place in Wisconsin Dells, WI called The Mystery Spot where the laws of gravity just don't seem to apply!!! I've seen it myself. When you hang from a chin-up bar in the doorway, your body hits the door jamb. The guide explained that scientists have yet to understand why the small cabin in the woods acts like it does. If you get out that way, you should see it. It's unsettling.
    I would love to - I've heard of other spots too (one in California I think) - it seems pretty cool and weird!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    This has the potential for hijacking the thread .. but, now that you brought it up ...given that most of us have time to follow only a few (and favourite) media channels, those reading NYT, watching PBS, listening to NPR are less biased than those watching FNC and listening to Rush, Ann C etc.

    You'd have to hunt for examples of obvious bias in NYT, NPR (conservatives will say that the bias is well-disguised). FNC and Rush wear their bias on their sleeves and chest as a badge of honor.
    Better served on this thread:

    Is The Media Biased?

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=88924

    .
  6. #126  
    Here is my point of view on the subject:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=222

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=225

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=229

    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    you still don't get the point - why do you assume that the gravitational force that you experience everyday is not a divine force?
    I know we have been through this one before , but this is what I said when you raised that question to me in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    What ever gave you the idea that I accept any scientific theory as absolute truth? When did I ever say that God has shared all the answers to every aspect or field in science? Science is always evolving, always learning, always asking questions, always making new discoveries, and (hopefully) always revising their theories accordingly. I have stated over and over and over again that scientific theories are always evolving. Which, again, you proved nicely a couple posts up when responding to some questions that have been asked about (holes in) evolution.

    One reason I have not brought up a Divine Design for gravity is because I didn't think we were talking about that on this thread.....another is simply because God had not jumped into that discusion with his role in the forces of gravity. I don't feel qualified to speak in his behalf, but I don't doubt that He used it when He create the earth, as we have it now...which is evident since my bum is in my chair and my head is not on the cieling. Once we learn His point of view, then I might be able to weigh in with my opinion.

    But, believe me, when I have to chase my 3 yr old 400 ft in the air bacause his feet won't obey the theory of gravity...I will be asking some serious questions. But for now, I am always interested in what science is going to find out about the realities of gravity and what we might be able to do with that knew, yet to be obtained knowledge.

    In fact if you have some cool new studies on it post in my thread I started:

    COOL SCIENCE
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=89831
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Could the development of life be directed by a group of aliens? Could there have been a wizard who touched a stone with his wand and turned it into a living creature? Many things could have been/could be.

    As long as there is not a trace of evidence for those ideas, I stick to the best explanation we have, evolution, specially because there are tons of evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence for the claim that evolution is not sufficient as an explanation for the development of life on earth.
    Great...and even your best explanation is flawed. You have the right to believe that then.
    The only thing that separates the men from the boys...is the lessons they learn.
    www.planetmills.com
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    However, from a scientific perspective, there is no need for a creator, it makes perfect sense that the first multiplying entities appeared spontaneously.
    Ya know...I was wondering how my Nissan Maxima just spontaneously showed up in my drive way one day. Whewww....thanks for clearing up the fact that a creator was not needed for the car to be built...it just showed up. Now I understand...thank you.
    The only thing that separates the men from the boys...is the lessons they learn.
    www.planetmills.com
  9. #129  
    Hobbes ...nice to see you again
    still missing the point though.
    All I'm trying to say is that evolution should be treated just like any other branch of science - whether it is gravity, optics, nuclear physics, genetics and so on. There is serious scientific debate in almost every area of science, though more in some areas than others.

    So why is evolution singled out by the evalengical fanatics?
    Is it simply because it seems to contradict what is said in the bible? There are lots of other areas of science (geology, cosmology) that would also appear to be guilty of this sin - but these areas of science are not held up for public "debate".
    Is it because it seems hard to understand and therefore to believe it to be valid? Many areas of science are hard to understand and sometimes downright counter-intuitive (quantum physics for example). But the general public is content to accept the scientific theories and facts and "believe" that the science is "real".
    Or is it the fact that most people still can't accept the fact that we have evolved from lower forms? If evolution sciences could only explain how lower life forms arose (say jellyfish) - would this even be a debate? I don't think so.

    So let us strip all pretenses and tell the truth:
    We do not want to believe that evolution happened, especially to us humans! Period.

    So no matter what scientific proof is offered, those who do not want to believe it, will never accept it - but instead will choose to fling garbage such as "supressing other viewpoints" or "closed minds" or "conspiracy of scientists" and so forth. Of course the one thing you can be guaranteed of is that you will not be able to have a truly rational, logical and fact-based discourse.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  10. #130  
    in the spirit of open-mindedness ...

    GEORGIA SCHOOLS TO STOP TEACHING LAW OF GRAVITY

    Murphy’s Law Could Be Next, District Warns

    A suburban school district in Georgia has thrown itself into the vortex of a legal controversy after deciding to stop teaching the law of gravity as part of its science curriculum.

    The Dunnsville Unified School District fired the first salvo in the ongoing debate over the law of gravity last year when it mandated that stickers be affixed to all science texts in the district’s schools indicating that “the law of gravity is a theory, not a fact.”

    District superintendent Charles Leverall said that initially it was not Dunnsville’s plan to eliminate teaching the law of gravity altogether, but merely to inform students that there were other equally plausible explanations for why things fall down.

    “The law of gravity supposedly began when Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall off a tree,” Mr. Leverall said. “We think students are entitled to know that another way an apple comes off a tree is if a talking serpent tells a naked woman to take a bite from it.”

    But after coming under fire for the stickers, Mr. Leverall said that the district decided to stop teaching the law of gravity entirely, and was now moving to ban the teaching of the law of supply and demand, as well as Murphy’s Law.

    “There’s absolutely no proof that Murphy’s Law is true, except maybe Iraq,” said Mr. Leverall.

    Elsewhere, President Bush said today that the theory of “intelligent design” explains the creation of life on Earth but not his Social Security plan.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Hobbes ...nice to see you again
    still missing the point though.
    The point is just because there is not an active debate on every aspect or force of nature that God can control, does not mean that he cannot. It also does not mean that anyone accepts any laws of sciences as absolutely, nevermind what we may discover in the future, fact.

    Do I appreciate the effect it has on my life (unless I am 300 ft in the air and falling!)? Yes
    Do I believe that God may have some aspect in it, in it's use, in it's creation? Yes
    Do I agree that we have a lot to learn about Gravity? Certainly

    All I'm trying to say is that evolution should be treated just like any other branch of science - whether it is gravity, optics, nuclear physics, genetics and so on. There is serious scientific debate in almost every area of science, though more in some areas than others.

    So why is evolution singled out by the evalengical fanatics?
    Probably because it is one of the greatest miracles. Maybe because it is a concept that is actively being attacked by those who adimently appose Design theory. Maybe because they simply believe in it's truth.

    Is it simply because it seems to contradict what is said in the bible? There are lots of other areas of science (geology, cosmology) that would also appear to be guilty of this sin - but these areas of science are not held up for public "debate".
    There is a lot of debate on a lot things pertaining to science and the bible, ie. the flood, how Jesus died given the form of execution, ect... I think this one is just hotely debated because strong convictions on BOTH sides. And oftens unnessicarily over zealous either to disprove anything that has to do with God or the other way around.

    Is it because it seems hard to understand and therefore to believe it to be valid? Many areas of science are hard to understand and sometimes downright counter-intuitive (quantum physics for example). But the general public is content to accept the scientific theories and facts and "believe" that the science is "real".
    Some the strongest religous people I know, and quite a few in history, are scientists. Please read my first link above I had a couple posts back. You will see that Science and Relegion can co-exist, which you do not think is possible.

    Or is it the fact that most people still can't accept the fact that we have evolved from lower forms? If evolution sciences could only explain how lower life forms arose (say jellyfish) - would this even be a debate? I don't think so.
    Actually I think that you keep on missing the point in turning the argument around. A LOT of people on this forum has posted that yes believe in a Creator, but also believe that that the natural order of this world incorporates elements of the evolution and natural selection.

    My question to would be, yes, I am able to recognize that aspects of evolution took place and natural selection seems to be well founded, but would be able to accept the slightest possibility that there was a Superior Being of any kind that made the conditions possible for this natural process to take place?

    Obviously I do believe that the there is a Divine guidance in the development of our world. I also believe that God does often use the laws of nature to achieve his goals. So, yes I believe that God created the earth, and I also believe that it is virtually undeniable that many principles of evolution and natural selection played an important role in that creation, though I may disagree on some small and vital points of the theory. Just how much is truth and how much is still developing scientific knowledge is just as an important of a question in my answer.


    So let us strip all pretenses and tell the truth:
    We do not want to believe that evolution happened, especially to us humans! Period.

    So no matter what scientific proof is offered, those who do not want to believe it, will never accept it - but instead will choose to fling garbage such as "supressing other viewpoints" or "closed minds" or "conspiracy of scientists" and so forth. Of course the one thing you can be guaranteed of is that you will not be able to have a truly rational, logical and fact-based discourse.
    Again, you have seemed to have ignored many of the statements on this thread. I am not in the profession of biology or any science, so I personally cannot answer all questions about questions about evolution. But the fact is that we are still learning. There are questions that it has yet to be fully explain or answer. Science is always suppose to question itself, and that is what science has been doing. When people question the theory in this manner, in an effort to understand...not demean, then we grow and learn. Please don't take offense if there are questions that scientist are posing about evolution, that is what they are suppose to do.

    The relationship between scripture and what is currently understood in science is ever changing. Science continually learns more about the history of life on earth, and we have every reason to believe that much more will be learned as research continues.

    The struggle to correlate a passage in scripture with a specific portion of scientific research has been a challenge for centuries. But experience has shown that what a person understands today will be modified by tomorrow's discoveries. Patience and humility on all sides may eventually resolve a lot of these questions.

    IMHO, it would be arrogant and counter productive to claim that the theory of evolution, as it stands now with ONLY the knowledge we have today is complete and can fully answer all questions of how life began and actually accounted for all steps of theory of evolution. We are still learning. And who knows, when we find the answers to some of these yet to be answered questions, we may have to rethink, redefine, or even replace the theory of evolution.

    Do you or any scientist that you know about really believe we know all there is to know about evolution? Do you really think it can answer every scenario that evidence is showing us today?

    Think about it......after billions of years of the earths existence it has only been in the last 150 yrs or so (a fraction of a second on the geological clock) that we have really made any continual significant advances in the understanding of how our world was created. We have a lot more to learn. At what point in the scientific process are we confident enough to say...that's it we cannot learn anymore, we will never be able to learn anything at anytime to change our current theory of evolution. Then hold that against what God has said he did. And say that's it, God lied.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    This is SOOO true! There's a place in Wisconsin Dells, WI called The Mystery Spot where the laws of gravity just don't seem to apply!!! I've seen it myself. When you hang from a chin-up bar in the doorway, your body hits the door jamb. The guide explained that scientists have yet to understand why the small cabin in the woods acts like it does. If you get out that way, you should see it. It's unsettling.
    Report it to Amazing Randi and collect the big prize ($1,000,000). He has been looking for a demonstrable paranormal event.

    http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

    or the folks at Skeptical Inquirer, the Journal of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal).

    http://www.csicop.org/si/
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The point is just because there is not an active debate on every aspect or force of nature that God can control, does not mean that he cannot. It also does not mean that anyone accepts any laws of sciences as absolutely, nevermind what we may discover in the future, fact.
    Nobody ever said that the laws of science are absolute - just that they are consistent - but flexible to accomodate new discoveries and ideas.

    Maybe because it is a concept that is actively being attacked by those who adimently appose Design theory. Maybe because they simply believe in it's truth.
    I would say that the opposite - Design "theory" does not allow any further line of inquiry using generally accepted scientific methods. Once you accept Divine guidance as an explanation for any natural phenomenon, then science will grind to a halt, because it cannot presume to understand God. Scientists attack ID precisely because of this - it puts limits on the questions that can be asked - they like to keep asking questions and have an open path (and mind) to possible answers.

    There is a lot of debate on a lot things pertaining to science and the bible, ie. the flood, how Jesus died given the form of execution, ect... I think this one is just hotely debated because strong convictions on BOTH sides.
    perhaps ...but it does not spill over into the science classes where alternate theories are taught in geology, physics etc.

    Some the strongest religous people I know, and quite a few in history, are scientists.
    Gregor Mendell, father of modern genetics for one
    You will see that Science and Relegion can co-exist, which you do not think is possible.
    I never said that (check all my posts) - in fact just the opposite. However I've always maintained that religion does not have any business in scientific inquiry (including science classrooms) and vice-versa (scientists should not challenge the bible)

    My question to would be, yes, I am able to recognize that aspects of evolution took place and natural selection seems to be well founded, but would be able to accept the slightest possibility that there was a Superior Being of any kind that made the conditions possible for this natural process to take place?
    Most scientists (including myself) would have no problem with that - the laws or principles of nature (gravity, optics, evolution etc.) could have been proscribed by God. The main thing is that all the laws of nature that been discovered to date have been very consistent and our understanding of natural phenomenon has been based on discovering these principles and applying them to explaining our observations. When a new phenomenon arises (for example when quantum behavior was first observed), that cannot be explained with current set of principles, then the scientists do not immediately turn to a "divine" force for explanation. Instead they painstakingly experiment, observe, theorize, and work - until a reasonable and self-consistent theory can be built that explains the phenomenon.

    Obviously I do believe that the there is a Divine guidance in the development of our world. I also believe that God does often use the laws of nature to achieve his goals.
    No argument there - see above

    So, yes I believe that God created the earth, and I also believe that it is virtually undeniable that many principles of evolution and natural selection played an important role in that creation, though I may disagree on some small and vital points of the theory.
    small and vital? isn't that contradictory? anyway, which points?

    Science is always suppose to question itself, and that is what science has been doing. When people question the theory in this manner, in an effort to understand...not demean, then we grow and learn. Please don't take offense if there are questions that scientist are posing about evolution, that is what they are suppose to do.
    the problem is not with science taking offense at the questions - it is other way around - the religious (christian) fanatics are offended as they're unable to accept a scientific explanation of how humans evolved from lower life forms since it does not include a theological component. why else would they put forward creationism/ID theories?

    IMHO, it would be arrogant and counter productive to claim that the theory of evolution, as it stands now with ONLY the knowledge we have today is complete and can fully answer all questions of how life began and actually accounted for all steps of theory of evolution.
    It is the only available explanation if you do not take intellectually lazy short-cuts of divine intervention. Presuming that we cannot figure things out for ourselves is arrogant and counter-productive.

    We are still learning. And who knows, when we find the answers to some of these yet to be answered questions, we may have to rethink, redefine, or even replace the theory of evolution.
    paradigm shifts do happen in science (i've discussed this before) - but it takes many years (usually decades) of hard work and discussion among the scientific community before that shift occurs. I've used this analogy before - but if you view science as a huge patchwork quilt of knowledge (and always work in progress), then as new ideas are always added to the quilt. Sometimes some areas have to be "repaired" and rewoven to make it whole. But never does the entire quilt have to be destroyed and started anew - it always built on an existing foundation. Accepting ID or creationism into the methods of scientific inquiry is equivalent to shredding or burning the entire quilt of knowledge and starting from scratch using wisps of clouds.

    Do you or any scientist that you know about really believe we know all there is to know about evolution? Do you really think it can answer every scenario that evidence is showing us today?
    again, science never claims to be absolute - these questions cannot be answered in ANY area of science (geology, gravitational sciences, nuclear physics)

    Think about it......after billions of years of the earths existence it has only been in the last 150 yrs or so (a fraction of a second on the geological clock) that we have really made any continual significant advances in the understanding of how our world was created.
    this is really misleading - humans themselves have existed only for a fraction of second on the geological clock - so it is unlikely that lower life forms (like jellyfish) that existed a few hundred million years ago, would have made any significant advances in understanding how the world was created. However, given that documented human civilizations have existed for approximately 5000 years, I would, yes, we have made amazing advances in understanding how the world was created. The possibility that all life forms on earth (including ourselves) had common ancestry was suspected long before Darwin - he was just the first to synthesize the knowledge in a coherent form and publish it. In fact Alfred Wallace also developed the same ideas, independent of Darwin, and came to the same conclusion.

    At what point in the scientific process are we confident enough to say...that's it we cannot learn anymore, we will never be able to learn anything at anytime to change our current theory of evolution.
    we'll never get there (i hope! - otherwise i'm out of a job
    Then hold that against what God has said he did. And say that's it, God lied.
    that's what you're really worried about aren't you? ye of little faith! do you ever see scientists trying to preach an alternative to God in your church? Would you allow atheists to enter your church and try to disprove the existence of God? Would you like it if the government mandated that atheistic science needed to be taught in your children's sunday school? What if your bible was stamped with the words "this book does not represent all the current theories on existence of god"? If your answer is no, then why do you think it is ok for christians to dictate what is taught in a science class?
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Report it to Amazing Randi and collect the big prize ($1,000,000). He has been looking for a demonstrable paranormal event.
    Randi is dead
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  15. #135  
    The Foundation is still offering the challenge...

    Is this some indirect comment? because he is scheduled to speak on Oct 5 and Dec 6 in VA...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16.    #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    what "holes" in the theory are "not allowed" to be discussed?
    How about the absence of an "hard evidence" of an actual species change?
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    what makes you think that there aren't fierce debates within the evolution sciences about the details and mechanisms of various evolution pathways? the only explanation for any natural phenomenon that is universally rejected (or "silenced" as you prefer to call it) by all sciences (physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology) is that of divine intervention - because that explains everything and nothing.
    Knowing who created something does not preculde you from learning how it functions.
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    you still don't get the point - why do you assume that the gravitational force that you experience everyday is not a divine force?
    I don't think I stated such an assumption. I did state that I do not question the mathematics behind the theory, because I have seen the predictions borne out. That does not mean that the mathematics are exhaustive or comprehensive, only predictive.
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    you see other living creatures around you everyday - and you do not question that the scientific facts about them - that they have several identical functional mechanisms as us (DNA replication for one). You would not question the prediction that a newly developed high energy microwave radiation that can kill a rat, can also kill you. All these science "facts" are used to link the different creatures together in evolutionary science.
    Understood. However, in absence of direct evidence of the links, the theory should be discussed as a hypothetical rather than dogmatically declared to me so.

    There is a secondary philosophical divergence between us. Where we probvably diverge in our views is that I don't equate the ability to understand a phenomenon as the proof that a divine being was not involved. I know that there are christians who declare that "the Lord works in mysterious ways." But, that does not mean His ways are undiscernable. It means that they are not always logical from our frame of reference.

    For example, it does not seem logical on the surface that to grow a plant, you first have to "kill" the seed. It would seem logical that the seed would need to be "alive" in order to bring forth life. But the function is quite the opposite. That is "mysterious" but not beyond finding out.
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    And FYI - there are "holes" in the gravitational theory - that science cannot explain as yet. There are regions of gravitational anomalies that cannot be explained. Gravitational forces do not act predicatably at very short distances or for very small particles. Physics has predicted the existence of gravity waves, but they have yet to be measured. yet you are content to accept the fact that the "laws" of gravity are valid and need not be questioned.
    Again, I have not indicated whether or not I question the "laws" of gravity. But, the "holes" you describe may give us the insight into how Jesus and Peter walked atop water.
  17.    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Hobbes ...nice to see you again
    still missing the point though.
    All I'm trying to say is that evolution should be treated just like any other branch of science - whether it is gravity, optics, nuclear physics, genetics and so on. There is serious scientific debate in almost every area of science, though more in some areas than others.

    So why is evolution singled out by the evalengical fanatics?
    Is it simply because it seems to contradict what is said in the bible? There are lots of other areas of science (geology, cosmology) that would also appear to be guilty of this sin - but these areas of science are not held up for public "debate".
    Is it because it seems hard to understand and therefore to believe it to be valid? Many areas of science are hard to understand and sometimes downright counter-intuitive (quantum physics for example). But the general public is content to accept the scientific theories and facts and "believe" that the science is "real".
    Or is it the fact that most people still can't accept the fact that we have evolved from lower forms? If evolution sciences could only explain how lower life forms arose (say jellyfish) - would this even be a debate? I don't think so.

    So let us strip all pretenses and tell the truth:
    We do not want to believe that evolution happened, especially to us humans! Period.

    So no matter what scientific proof is offered, those who do not want to believe it, will never accept it - but instead will choose to fling garbage such as "supressing other viewpoints" or "closed minds" or "conspiracy of scientists" and so forth. Of course the one thing you can be guaranteed of is that you will not be able to have a truly rational, logical and fact-based discourse.
    Let's begin the fact-based discussion here:
    Accdording to the theory, how much of a variation in the off-spring is required for the resultant "child" to be considered a new species?
  18.    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    I would say that the opposite - Design "theory" does not allow any further line of inquiry using generally accepted scientific methods. Once you accept Divine guidance as an explanation for any natural phenomenon, then science will grind to a halt, because it cannot presume to understand God. Scientists attack ID precisely because of this - it puts limits on the questions that can be asked - they like to keep asking questions and have an open path (and mind) to possible answers.
    Why does having divine intervention preclude study of the mechanics?
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    However I've always maintained that religion does not have any business in scientific inquiry (including science classrooms) and vice-versa (scientists should not challenge the bible)
    Why shouldn't scientists challenge the contents of the Bible?
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    paradigm shifts do happen in science (i've discussed this before) - but it takes many years (usually decades) of hard work and discussion among the scientific community before that shift occurs.
    Likewise for theology
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    that's what you're really worried about aren't you? ye of little faith! do you ever see scientists trying to preach an alternative to God in your church? Would you allow atheists to enter your church and try to disprove the existence of God? Would you like it if the government mandated that atheistic science needed to be taught in your children's sunday school? What if your bible was stamped with the words "this book does not represent all the current theories on existence of god"? If your answer is no, then why do you think it is ok for christians to dictate what is taught in a science class?
    I apply such a stamp to a lot of my discussions about the Bible. I have considered the other theories, and they do not satisfy my reasoning. My reasoning is not authorative by any menas, but it is all I have to go on.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Let's begin the fact-based discussion here:
    Accdording to the theory, how much of a variation in the off-spring is required for the resultant "child" to be considered a new species?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

    In case you are trying to show (somehow) that evolution is not a scientifically sound subject, tried and tested through and through, I am afraid you will fail. The testing has been done for centuries now, by people specialised in the field, people who know far more about it than you or I.

    You seem to conclude that there is no evidence for speciation because you don't know examples for speciation, or because somebody (a creationist?) claimed there is no evidence for speciation. But this is not the case.

    Just the first two hits in a long series for "evidence speciation":
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
    http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
    Last edited by clulup; 08/08/2005 at 11:24 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20.    #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

    In case you are trying to show (somehow) that evolution is not a scientifically sound subject, tried and tested through and through, I am afraid you will fail. The testing has been done for centuries now, by people specialised in the field, people who know far more about it than you or I.

    You seem to conclude that there is no evidence for speciation because you don't know examples for speciation, or because somebody (a creationist?) claimed there is no evidence for speciation. But this is not the case.

    Just the first two hits in a long series for "evidence speciation":
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
    http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
    I just asked a question. Thanx for the links. Your commentary is an example of the dogmaticism that detractors claim.
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions