Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 25, 2005 16:14:33 GMT -5
I understand your position about what you say about the falsification and misrepresentation of scientific findings and theories. That your belief.And I respect that. But since I am a Christian I believe otherwise, because that the way I was brought up, And no one on this Earth is going to tell me otherwise.
No, I don't think you do understand what I'm saying. The science of evolution is a deep, nuanced branch of biology, and too often creationists misrepresent or oversimplify the theory, or even preach falsehoods about it in order to try to strengthen their position. If I said Creationists believe that God created the Universe in three days and then took a nap for the next four, that would be false and ignorant, unless of course I knew better, in which case it would be purposeful obfuscation. In the first case, it would be bad material for an argument and, in the second, it would just be wrong. All I'm saying is that it is not okay to do essentially the same thing just because you're bashing science instead of religion. No matter what you're discussing, misinformation is bad practice. The "Three amazing arguments" (spelled wrong in the subject line, by the way) are based on a poor understanding of what the theory of evolution and Natural Selection are all about, and are largely supported by claims that are simply not true. "Falsification and misrepresentation" have nothing to do with belief, but everything to do with being informed and fair. No amount of belief will change the outcome of an experiment or will erase a discovery from the record. Furthermore, I hate it when people call themselves "Christian" or do things "because they're Christian" as if all Christians believed exactly the same thing. Besides being a sweeping generalization, it's discriminatory. Guess what: I'm Christian, too. Baptized Catholic. Yes, we count. And that's my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 26, 2005 10:44:46 GMT -5
You can see this was a stupid arguement.
One note: FYI For all the Christians/ religous out there the only thing you have to say is Ypu beleive in the word of God and thats it. That all that counts.
And if anyone dosen't like it. Thats there problem. And there loss.
Anf it will be pointless to say anything in repley.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 26, 2005 20:25:07 GMT -5
One note: FYI For all the Christians/ religous out there the only thing you have to say is Ypu beleive in the word of God and thats it. That all that counts. And if anyone dosen't like it. Thats there problem. And there loss. Anf it will be pointless to say anything in repley. That being said, you should stay out of these arguments if that's all you're going to say. Posting to say you're not going to post is useless, unless of course you're trying to increase your post count. :-)
|
|
Stiletto
Dolphinback
violent chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent neanderthal
Posts: 40
|
Post by Stiletto on Jun 26, 2005 22:37:59 GMT -5
I have a lot of respect for people sticking to their guns. God knows, I'm one of the stuanchest for doing it, especially where my beloved science is concerned. And that respect would extend to creationists if not more than compensated for by the pure amount of fallacious and illogical claims they spew out at an awe-inspiring rate. And it bugs the living hell out of me when people hide behind the "that's the way I was raised, so that's why I believe why I do!" argument. It shows a total lack of motivation and desire for truth seeking. I was raised Catholic, and I used to go to church for much of my childhood, and yet, I took the initiative to look at the evidence and made up my own mind, and went from being a believer, to being a hardline atheist from about the time I was 16 onwards. So, I accord a lot of respect to people who take the time to examine both sides of the issue and then say, "I've seen both sides, and I still believe this" or "I have looked at both sides, and now I feel this is the case" because I've been down that road myself, and I know how it is to make such a drastic change, instead of the basic grownup way of going back to being six years old on the playground and saying "you're wrong and I'm right, nananabooboo!" And if people could get their heads out of their posterior orfices and actually take the time to look at the evidence for evolution, and stop preaching falsehoods about it out of simpleminded ignorance and fear, I think they would realise a frightening dearth of any real evidence, besides faith, for such psuedo-scientific and blinding perversions of what passes for an explanation of our natural world! Besides which, if you want to split hairs over the whole bloody issue, science is designed as an explanatory investigation of our natural world. Very simple. God is a supernatural being. Therefore, god is not contained in the scientific scope of things, and is to be disregarded in any sort of logical or sound scientific discussions. Any mention, ergo, in a reported scientific explanation, should be disregarded and cast aside as psuedo-science and realised as religion. Now, I realise that this rant is likely going to get someone all antsy in their pantsy. Frankly, the hell with them. I've said my bit, and I accord them that privilege in return.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 27, 2005 10:52:49 GMT -5
I'd like to add that a look into science will not necessarily make you an atheist. Many scientists believe in God. I think many people avoid "looking at both sides" for fear they will be swayed.
If I remember what I've read correctly, the famous paleontologist Bob Bakker serves his Lutheran parish quite faithfully.
The way I look at it is this: God created everything. All that exists, on a natural level, is God's creation. Human beings are endowed with the ability to think critically, to be curious, to examine in ways that no other creature on this planet can.
Why would God try and trick us?
In other words, why would God allow us to possess these wonderful faculties but then lead us toward error in their use? All the scientific evidence that scientists cull in order to support their theories and findings exist in God's universe and are thus part of God's creation, past or present. Are we to believe that the evidence is put there so that we, discovering it, should dismiss it as false? Or are we to trust that God is not trying to fool us, is not planting false evidence or covering His tracks?
Science is the study of the natural world. If one believes that God is the originator of the natural world, then science, as much as theology, is the study of God.
That's just what I believe, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Jun 27, 2005 13:43:32 GMT -5
It had to happen of course... Wherever there is a messageboard, there shall be an evolution debate!!! One thing, I'd like it if everyone, of both sides tried to debate scientifically, using your natural eloquence to get your point through. Try using a little more subtlety then just plain telling someone to stick their head up their *chocolate* or worse. You don't have to be NICE to each other but remember that he who throws with dirt is loosing ground. I happen to believe in evolution too, Az happens to dislike it sorely as she is a creationist and though I've tried to show her evolution might just work during a museum trip last summer, she'd ehh, suffice it to say she has a pretty effective glare? Her church is all for the literal interpretation of Genesis. Back to the subject, evolution works all around us, every day. In our DNA mutations take place, every day, they are caused by mistakes during DNA replication, UV radiation, chemicals, everything. Most of these mistakes get to be fixed, I repeat MOST. Now if God (assuming we have a God) wanted his creations to be static, unchangining, not evolving he'd have made the mechanism such that ALL these mutations in the DNA would be fixed or be lethal to the cell, right? Well they're not, some mutations do get through. Sometimes, a mutation even turns out to be an advantage. Mutations are how a species can change, adapt. If such changes within a species were impossible, we'd never have been able to breed our dozens of breeds of dogs! So we have mutations in the DNA of all creatures, we have diversity in every single species. Are we each others clones? There's species diversity and the law of the jungle is eat or be eaten. The individual that can survive and breed will have success, spread its genes more. Like during the Industrial Revolution, the white moths stood out on the blackened trees around teh factories and got eaten. The moths with the mutation to be black survived as they didn't suffer so much predation. The species CHANGED color to be able to SURVIVE! Then when the air pollution dropped the trees tunred moe white again favoring white moths and again there was change. If these changes weren't possible, the white moths would have gone xtinct. However, creationists have it that God's creations are perfect and don't go extinct. But the environment changes, always will and always has. Climatic borders change, tectonic plates shift, ice ages come and go... If Gods creations are perfect, how can they be static, unchanging? If Gods creations are static, then how come our own science and culture can progress? If you creationists were to pick up a book on cell biology, you'd also find a beautiful chemical apparatus at work keeping your cells working. The chemical apparatus of the cell and its more primitive relatives, is a nanotechnological masterpiece. Perfection lies in the very mechanisms that allow for life. And it can all be broken down to pure unromantic, unforgiving chemistry, and thats scary, I know. bdsp Vorchia
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 27, 2005 14:49:35 GMT -5
Hear hear.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 27, 2005 23:57:30 GMT -5
One thing, I'd like it if everyone, of both sides tried to debate scientifically, using your natural eloquence to get your point through. Try using a little more subtlety then just plain telling someone to stick their head up their *chocolate* or worse. You don't have to be NICE to each other but remember that he who throws with dirt is loosing ground. Assuming there's any ground to be taken. Some come to the debate with the conclusion already set. You could say this applies to both sides. Assuming, of course, there's only two. However, creationists have it that God's creations are perfect and don't go extinct. But the environment changes, always will and always has. Climatic borders change, tectonic plates shift, ice ages come and go... If Gods creations are perfect, how can they be static, unchanging? If Gods creations are static, then how come our own science and culture can progress? Well, that might be a mischaracterization of creationism. I don't think they deny extinction. After all, the dinosaurs are no longer with us. I think their reasoning would say that God chose to get rid of them for some reason. If you creationists were to pick up a book on cell biology, you'd also find a beautiful chemical apparatus at work keeping your cells working. The chemical apparatus of the cell and its more primitive relatives, is a nanotechnological masterpiece. Perfection lies in the very mechanisms that allow for life. And it can all be broken down to pure unromantic, unforgiving chemistry, and thats scary, I know. bdsp Vorchia See? Didn't I tell you that science has its own eloquence? I even asserted that no religion ever came close to what science describes. Science has a better track record of producing tangible results for humanity. IMNSHO, science is far more beneficial for humans than organized religion ever was. - Aric
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 28, 2005 0:13:32 GMT -5
I have a lot of respect for people sticking to their guns. I don't have respect for people who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la!" God knows, I'm one of the stuanchest for doing it, especially where my beloved science is concerned. Is this conviction due to the weight of evidence and rationality, or is it from unwavering faith in the certitude of your position? There are different ways to reach truth, and not all of them equal. Of course, I know where you're coming from. Just asking a rhetorical question for everyone. And that respect would extend to creationists if not more than compensated for by the pure amount of fallacious and illogical claims they spew out at an awe-inspiring rate. Some are charletans and liars. Most simply believe it because they're told it's true. Truth for them comes from an external Authority and not from a combination of empirical evidence and human brilliance as it is with science. And it bugs the living hell out of me when people hide behind the "that's the way I was raised, so that's why I believe why I do!" argument. It shows a total lack of motivation and desire for truth seeking. Well, for some people, revealed truth is the Truth. It's external and static and eternal. Not changing and contingent the way scientific knowledge is. What they don't realize is that the relative nature is due to human fallibility. So technically, ALL knowledge and truth should be this way since there's no logical reason to think humans are right when it comes to anything. But, people do need their certitude. What a coincidence. My mom is Catholic and I went to a Catholic school. Stouthorn is Catholic as well.... and I used to go to church for much of my childhood, and yet, I took the initiative to look at the evidence and made up my own mind, and went from being a believer, to being a hardline atheist from about the time I was 16 onwards. I used to be an atheist back when I was pushed to make a stand on the supernatural. Since then, I've stopped caring about it. That is, of course, unless someone tries to argue that it has anything to do with empirical reality at all. Then I get annoyed. So, I accord a lot of respect to people who take the time to examine both sides of the issue and then say, "I've seen both sides, and I still believe this" or "I have looked at both sides, and now I feel this is the case" because I've been down that road myself, and I know how it is to make such a drastic change, instead of the basic grownup way of going back to being six years old on the playground and saying "you're wrong and I'm right, nananabooboo!" That kind of rationality requires a certain kind of education and knowledge base. You can't expect people who have little or even no understanding about the process to make good decisions about it. Too bad education standards in this country suck. And if people could get their heads out of their posterior orfices and actually take the time to look at the evidence for evolution, and stop preaching falsehoods about it out of simpleminded ignorance and fear, I think they would realise a frightening dearth of any real evidence, besides faith, for such psuedo-scientific and blinding perversions of what passes for an explanation of our natural world! That requires a shift from the idea that Truth is objective to the mindset that it's relative and even subjective to some extent. That's difficult for people who have been indoctrinated in the former way for their entire lives. Besides which, if you want to split hairs over the whole bloody issue, science is designed as an explanatory investigation of our natural world. Very simple. God is a supernatural being. Therefore, god is not contained in the scientific scope of things, and is to be disregarded in any sort of logical or sound scientific discussions. Any mention, ergo, in a reported scientific explanation, should be disregarded and cast aside as psuedo-science and realised as religion. *nods head* No argument from me. Now, I realise that this rant is likely going to get someone all antsy in their pantsy. Frankly, the hell with them. I've said my bit, and I accord them that privilege in return. Guess it suprised you who answered first. ;D - Aric
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 28, 2005 0:14:34 GMT -5
Ya know, Stouthorn, you sound more like a Deist than a Catholic. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by Stouthorn the Wise on Jun 28, 2005 8:48:39 GMT -5
My religious beliefs are...convoluted. lol IM me about them sometime, if you're interested.
Not a Deist, because I don't believe God is completely uninvolved.
And not the most staunch Catholic out there, either...lol Not even close.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 28, 2005 9:00:49 GMT -5
Decided to log in.
I don't sound like other Catholics you know because, clearly you've had a lot bad experiences with Catholics, and so has Stiletto. I take the same approach to religion I do to my other interests -- read everything.
You'd probably be surprised to know that, officially, Catholicism is not opposed to evolution, and, in fact, does not preach Biblical Literalism. Most people don't know that, because most people don't care to find out the ins and outs even of what they themselves believe.
Side note: watch What the Bleep Do We Know? Very interesting documentary on the interplay of philosophy, spirituality, and quantum physics. A lot of it sounds like bull...but it's interesting bull.
And to conclude my post...I just started reading The Origin of Species. This debate got me thinking, and I decided to go back to the source. It's interesting to read Darwin and see that he was not infallible, and also to see how much of our thought about evolution did not come from Darwin.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Jun 28, 2005 13:51:36 GMT -5
'What the bleep do we know?' had been described by local media as being quite pseudoscientific, to put it nicely... I prefer my science, well, scientific, measurable fact.
If its not the catholic church preaching we should take the bible literary, who IS? Where did it come from?
Ok, I haven't been in evolution debates for a few years... lol Same as I haven't been into paleontology or geology much for a few years...
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 28, 2005 15:11:50 GMT -5
'What the bleep do we know?' had been described by local media as being quite pseudoscientific, to put it nicely... I prefer my science, well, scientific, measurable fact. Like I said, a lot of it is bull, but it's interesting nonetheless. The premise of the film itself is psuedoscientific, so I'm not going to dash the film for pretty much doing what it set out to. Well...difficult question. It comes from two thousands of years of Christianity operating in a vacuum, unchallenged. If you're talking about creationism debates these days, however, you're talking about Protestant Christians. In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of Americans are protestant, not Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Jun 29, 2005 4:02:48 GMT -5
Yes, the protestantism IS hard to miss in the U.S.A... Especially if you happen to spend a few weeks with Az. (last summer) Here there are many catholics, like I was baptised catholic but my parents are atheists and within the family there are many atheists. You will find many little chapels dedicated to mother Mary here. I myself well, I don't know. Azzy wants to convert me and there might be something more then just science. I know she's going to be displeased with my opnion about evolution here but she already knew I tend to stick with it. I'm better at thinking about logical things, religion isn't neccesarily logical, I can't measure it and that makes it difficult, lol. BDSP Vorchia
|
|