atheism doubled since 2001

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments (Page 21)

Showing posts 401 - 420 of447
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#411
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.
“…one may wonder how Shapiro [James A. Shapiro] remains a member in good standing with the scientific community. Cells, according to Shapiro, are intelligently guiding their own evolution.…This certainly isn’t Darwinism. Nor is it theistic evolution… To be sure, it’s not creationism…it certainly sounds close to intelligent design. And yet there’s a crucial difference, one that Shapiro is able to exploit and that keeps him safe. The difference between intelligent design and Shapiro’s view is not that organisms evolved.…but it is also compatible with an evolutionary process under intelligent control in which the guidance given to evolution is extrinsic, substantive, and detectable.”- William A. Dembski, Book Review, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century

James A. Shapiro agrees that organisms have evolved he disagrees with the mechanism of natural selection.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#412
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.
This has already been posted in another thread by a different poster. You appear to have missed it.

"As you may know, Shapiro’s beef against the modern theory of evolution is that it neglects sources of variation that have been discovered only in recent years, e.g., hybridization, genome rearrangement, and capture of genes from distantly related organisms. He sees these, in a way that he’s never specified, as the drivers of evolution, neglecting or denigrating well-understood processes like natural selection and genetic drift."

"... Shapiro, like [Richard] Sternberg, is widely admired in the “intelligent design” community and there’s a good reason for this. This book is highly critical of old-fashioned evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) using many of the same silly arguments promoted by the Fellows of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Those fellows are dead wrong and so is Shapiro."

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#413
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
Just exactly the kind of dishonest an unintelligent partial-quoting and complete misunderstanding of what that particular scientist is REALLY saying. Thanks, Jeff!

This is just what I described to Job, and, right on cure, you chime in with it!
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.
Well, they COULDN'T because natural selection doesn't CREATE information, it selects from what information is THERE. Information is created by gene duplication, mutations, gene recombination during sex and probably other ways.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#414
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Just exactly the kind of dishonest an unintelligent partial-quoting and complete misunderstanding of what that particular scientist is REALLY saying. Thanks, Jeff!
This is just what I described to Job, and, right on cure, you chime in with it!
<quoted text>
Well, they COULDN'T because natural selection doesn't CREATE information, it selects from what information is THERE. Information is created by gene duplication, mutations, gene recombination during sex and probably other ways.
What evolutionary process is creating the specified information in DNA? How does gene duplication create information?

BTW- that quote was not dishonest. I have no reason to think he did not say that and we know a lot of assumptions are made about evolution that are never demonstrate or proven.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#415
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What evolutionary process is creating the specified information in DNA? How does gene duplication create information?
BTW- that quote was not dishonest. I have no reason to think he did not say that and we know a lot of assumptions are made about evolution that are never demonstrate or proven.
“…genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time.…A theory is a hypothesis that has been subsequently confirmed by abundant, consistent data obtained from tests of the hypothesis.…The theory of evolution by natural selection is… such a confirmed hypothesis…Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics…’Scientific creationism,’‘intelligent design,’ and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However, these represent a collection of beliefs usually based on a literal interpretation of religious texts and are thus disguises for religious doctrine, and not scientific theories.”- The Genetics Society of America, Public Policy Statement
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#416
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask yourself, why don't 'creation scientists'(ROFLMHO) walk the walk? Why don't they actually do some science - write a hypothesis, do the research, produce papers and submit them for peer-review? If they really thought they could prove global flooding took place this would be the way to go.
What makes you think they don't do the research?

As far as "peer review", not all credible works were subject to peer review, or some even initially rejected.

Do you think that there's never bias among
editors of journals who have the final say in what eventually gets published? The editors don't 'always' agree with the 'reviewers'.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#417
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.
There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?
Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.
What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score.

And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
1. It sounds to me as if you're mainly referring to "non-scientist creationists", as opposed to actual 'scientists'. To claim that "Creation scientists" are deliberately misrepresenting themselves is no different than me claiming a "conspiracy theory" that evolution scientists are out to deceive everyone. Whoever you're getting this info from is merely projecting propaganda.

Your average American probably does 'not' receive most of their info on evolution from scientists, but from general media.

What science (collectively) is doing now is not working in America. We (the U.S.) fall to number 17 as far as nations academically in the study of science. And it's not because of 'Creationism'(that little monkey trial didn't happen yesterday). More than likely, it's due to a lack of interest as opposed to lack of intellect. It's very obvious that many Americans embrace evolution because it's the thing to believe. Let the big dogs do the research for them.

When people are intimidated into believing evolution, there's a serious problem. All I have to do is tell 'you' I believe in evolution (macro), and unless I tell you 1 + 2 = 5, I'll be intellectually 'okay' in your book.

As an example, I didn't see this myself, but I heard about a stand-up comic actually say on stage (paraphrasing) "How can those religious folk (or nuts) not believe in evolution (or young earth)? We have "carbon dating" that proves how old the earth is". And as far as I know, everyone 'laughed'(with him, not at him). If referred to comedian said this in a club within a 40 mile radius of a university (as is fairly common), he should have been arrested by the university police, taken to that nearest university, and flogged in the science department synagogue.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that 'evolution' is 'fact'. Maybe it's time to put away egomaniacal comments like "creation science is not science", " creationists are morons", etc., and bring both to the educational table and let people decide for themselves. Maybe this 'monopoly' has allowed for lackluster interest in science, to where people just assume evo is fact....

continued....
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#419
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

continued....

Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.

As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.

I heard a creationist debate on a non-creationist. Both of them were 'not' professional scientists. The 'creationist'(the one who held a view of creationism) knew more about science than the non-creationist. She laughed at the creationist when he said he believed in a young earth. But when the creationist called her on it, she couldn't respond. Her fall back was (paraphrasing), "I wish an evolutionist was here who could properly answer you". It reminded me of a kid saying, "if my big brother was here, he would beat you up".

And this, I would say, represents the average American 'evo', who merely stands behind the big dogs of evolution theory.

If this continues on, your average evo is going to get stunned when confronting a 'real' scientist who believes in Creationism. And can only get reassurance when going back to the words of an evo 'scientist' to give them their comfort zone back.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#420
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.
As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.
You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…

“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”

The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences says…

"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”

The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."

unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bollocks.

Since gravitation is also "only" a Theory, why don't you and the other time wasters just float the f**k off?
Job wrote:
continued....
Maybe evo 'needs' creationism.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
"believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#423
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The scientific method.
Science, unlike religion, is continually peer reviewed.
Science, unlike religion, is not scared to question itself.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#424
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…
“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”
The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.
The National Academy of Sciences says…
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”
The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."
unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.

As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.

Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.

Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#425
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.
Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.
Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.
That's one tenth of one percent. How does that one tenth of one percent probability prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Biblegod did it all?

You really don't know anything at all about science in general nor evolution in particular.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#426
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.
“Creation scientists” present no evidence (other than the bible) to support their various positions. All they do is criticize the evidence presented. Scientists from many different fields provide empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence and the changes in species through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.

“Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal.”- National Science Teachers Association (2007), AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)
Job wrote:
Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However…no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories…”– National Academy of Sciences
Job wrote:
Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.
Evolution takes a long time.

“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#427
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
“Creation scientists” present no evidence (other than the bible) to support their various positions. All they do is criticize the evidence presented. Scientists from many different fields provide empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence and the changes in species through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.
“Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal.”- National Science Teachers Association (2007), AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)
<quoted text>
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However…no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories…”– National Academy of Sciences
<quoted text>
Evolution takes a long time.
“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.

To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.

However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.

So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.

As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#428
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

You say the rock comes down but forget that the Earth also moves up to meet it.

It's that lack of detail that is present in so many proponents of ID.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.
As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#429
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think they don't do the research?
Their writing apologetics and pseudo science on creationist websites.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as "peer review", not all credible works were subject to peer review, or some even initially rejected.
1) Do you have some specific examples?
2) How does one test credibility without peer-review ?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that there's never bias among
editors of journals who have the final say in what eventually gets published? The editors don't 'always' agree with the 'reviewers'.
Of course there is going to be bias. Unlike Christianity, science does not claim to be perfect or infallible. BTW, one can always use an online system like the one below.

"Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/s think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication of your work. PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them)."

http://www.plosone.org/static/information.act...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#430
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.
So you completely dismiss the entire science of geology?

“Development of the geologic time scale and dating of formations and rocks relies upon two fundamentally different ways of telling time: relative and absolute.… The most basic concept used in relative dating is the law of superposition. Simply stated, each bed in a sequence of sedimentary rocks (or layered volcanic rocks) is younger than the bed below it and older than the bed above it.…The nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes is a process that behaves in a clock-like fashion and is thus a useful tool for determining the absolute age of rocks.…Rates of radioactive decay are constant…”– Utah Geological Survey

Geologists use “observations of real world phenomena” to date rocks not divine revelation from a “holy book”. That’s how science operates. Radiometric dating has been proved accurate.
Job wrote:
As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
“Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principal, be able to envision a set of observations that would render them false.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops.~Ron Peterson
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#431
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if

I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.

As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Only speculated? Are you kidding? As I currently forget the Guy and the name of his enterprise behind the Creation and ID ...is it the Intelligent Design Institute?- anyway - He made it really clear at the outset of his "mission" that it was all about Xtianity and promoting it as the correct explanation of...well of everything! He has never been shy about it!

Job, these examples are so bad they dont help your cause at all. You cant compare an old rock to an old human! Its simply a ridiculous comparison! We've all experienced what Old human looks like in some form - exceptions always for the truly young in looks - but most of us (random sampling) have not had an in depth course in geology much less the lab work done to analyze geologic formations!

This is getting ridiculous at this point. You will fight and argue every thing you dont like simply because it might only nominally conflict with your Religious Faith - and will keep drawing another line of "Yeah, but what if?- Yeah, but what if?" It never ends with you folks.

100,000's of people if not more dedicating their lives to making sure Science, and their work/field, gets things as correct as is possible - day after day, year after year...and while some stinkers get thru, and some mistakes are made, or some reclassification takes place (like Pluto) you all want to make it out like the Entire world of science is circumspect and not to be trusted at all - by making a major deal out of the ridiculous.(like Pluto's reclassification)

And worse by questioning things that YOU really are not informed enough on (I include myself) to even question properly, much less caste suspicions on - all because it might, might conflict with certain details of stories written before anyone even understood the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa...!

All you and others do is caste aspersions on people and their careers and the dedication that they and thousands and thousands of others work diligently at each day to improve upon. All because Modern American Xtians are devoted not to the spiritual Work of their chosen Religion and Faith - but in defending a BOOK of stories written before 85%+ of the planet had even been known to exist to these people!


All that Xtians like do is try desperately to keep Reality stuck in the mud of 2K years ago!(Reality isnt even the right term...)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 401 - 420 of447
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

64 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
JESUS DID NOT TAKE YOUR PLACE on THE CROSS 3 min comment 78
Does God exist? (Aug '11) 8 min Big Al 5,818
Stealing the Keys to Heaven (Dec '12) 16 min -Lea- 77,229
Christians, please explain this to me... 21 min 15th Dalai Lama 2,966
Questions for Susan B Lange 38 min xian_kim 32
Cookie's Place 39 min Nc resident 1,784
The Zone Obsession and how PL and HG and SD pla... 41 min Nc resident 17
•••
•••
•••
•••