Should we reopen the book on Evolution?

again, what we need to understand is that an actual scientist has the ability to be dispassionate about reality. they accept what the evidence shows. a scientists who is a creationist maybe be able to be a decent technician or whatever, but ultimately he just isnt really a scientist because he is abandoning the fundamentals of science. he is not a neutral observer of the facts.

so you may claim "hey thats not fair, you are simply redefining scientist to mean a person who isnt a creatonist!". and that is sorta true, but i am not the one doing the defining.

so once again, the question before is is this: are we children that need to believe fantasies? will we justify our childish stupidity with the obvious lie that faith is something worthwile? cant we quit that?

 

Well, at the very least it is more clear to me why this is such a difficult thing to debate. Have been going over the definitions of science, pseudo-science, etc.

from wikipedia:

If the quote above is accurate as far as the definition of science goes then it seems to me that the only explanation for anything we observe in the world (according to science) must be natural, excluding any supernatural action.

This by definition then excludes any possibility of miracles and one if forced to assume that the origin of life itself must be free of any supernatural action.

I mean, if that is the definition of science then no wonder there are so many atheists.

I have to mention it seems to me that this definition results in a ridiculously narrow view of life in general and is hopelessly bound to result in countless misunderstandings by mankind as a whole. It seems to leave massive potential for people to miss out on the truth of the situation.

I mean, what the hell.....what if God does exist? What about the Virgin Birth? According to this definition it is iimpossible for a virgin to give birth by God's will so this idea from the Bible is not "according to science" allowed strictly from the definition.

But what if it did happen? Seriously, as a hypothetical situation if it did happen science would then reject an actual truth. This seems absurd to me.

I don't see how this is a working definition for something that is supposed to help mankind understand the world better.

If this definition is really the way scientists understand their field then I readily agree they have to reject creationism. The world is here and the only way they are allowed to explain it is through evolution. Intelligent Design is out from the word "go". For them their is no other explanation allowed.

Obviously I would suggest that this definition of science is doing a massive disservice to mankind. I would also like to point out that the fact that there are observed, documented events that cannot be explained through natural causes is reason to admit that science is not the only source of truth for people.

 

what if you win the lottery tomorrow, wouldnt that be awesome? if it makes you happy, believe it. but be aware that you are delusional.

science wouldnt reject any truth. they would reject explanations that lacked any evidence. like magic. if a virgin had a child, science would search for a reason, and if they found none, they would not assume it was an invisible magic man. not really any reason to jump to that conclusion.

yeah. i feel like science could benefit from a lot more lies and unsupported nonsense. evidence? who needs it! all views are equal! lets hold hands and sing. is creationism real? lets have some faith! yay! islam? sure why not? they disagree? dont care, everything is true, we are stupid like children, wheeee!

if i dont have an answer for something, it doesnt make yours true. particularly if yours is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

my question is always this: for you folks that believe in religion, how do you know when to stop? how do you know which faiths are true and which are made up? do you respect tom cruise when he says xenu and the aliens founded earth or whatever? why not? dont you know science doesnt have all the answers? why do you have the arrogance and audacity to tell tom cruise that he is wrong?

 

I should also point out that my understanding of "science" was more along the lines of an explanation of the material world as we observe it. I wouldn't include this exclusion of supernatural causes because it seems obvious to me that there are cases when the only cause for what is observed must be supernatural.


This is a horrible example but there are bizzare events associated with possession that cannot be explained through natual causes. Or prophecies that come true for example or multiple witnesses of miracles.

Not the whole point of this thread, I know....just thought I would clarify what I thought 'science' was when I started the thread.

 

that is a horrible example, primarily because it not true.

you are starting with crap and then assembling reasons why it is true. there is no such thing as possession. there is no reason to believe there is.

of course there are things we do not understand. the quantum world is totally counter-intuitive and borderline impossible to understand. so we simply just dont understand. the end. we dont make some answer up and say it was magic. perhaps it is in fact magic. but why would we jump to that conclusion immediately upon realizing we dont understand it? why cant we just accept something we dont really understand without making up ludicrous embarrassing nonsense?

 

martin:

actually, I think science be forced to conclude that a man caused the woman to be pregnant. That is the only thing in the natural world that can make a woman pregnant.

If that was not in fact the case, science would come to an incorrect conclusion and lead people away from the truth of the matter.

Well, I readily admit a lot of it is how you are raised. I have no illusions that if I had grown up in Afghanistan I would probably be Muslim. The question is only really, are the muslims right or not?

As far as Tom Cruise and the rest of it....it's a long process to come to these conclusions.....basically I start at the beginning and work from there.

There is something here now. Something can't come from nothing so there has to be something that was always present (eternal). (I'm sure you've heard all this before...)

If there is a supreme being then he must be good. If he is good then his creation would be good but also free. Somehow in an abuse of free will the creation "fell" from grace to result in our troubled world now. The only religion that fits with this is either Judaism, Christianity or Islam. I accept that Christ was the Son of God based on historical evidence and hopefully common sense. The church that Christ established is the Catholic Church, therefore I am Catholic.

The competing explanations on the market that deny the divinity of Christ are missing a major portion of what I believe is true, therefore I reject Scientology or Buddhism or Islam.

That is my understanding at the moment....could change but I doubt it. It is a good explantion of the world as we see it (catholic teachings) and i haven't run into a better one.

I don't really have a problem with atheists, anyway. I just don't see how you can explain the world without a supreme being....it's impossible. But to each his own....

 

possession is well documented, you can look into it on your own....I find the subject to be somewhat in bad taste really so don't want to focus on it too much. Pick up a book on exorcism or go talk to a priest....there has to be one in New York that has some experience with it.

Uneducated people speaking Latin backwards, making statements about others that would be impossible for them to know.....it's a long list....the evidence in those cases is quite astonishing.

But I'd rather talk about miracles or something than that.

And Red, as the resident scientist...is that definition of science from wikipedia accurate?

 

Martin...I don't question a person's belief whether it's creationism or evolution. I may not agree or may think someone is lying when they claim they committed a crime (murder, terrorism) based on a spiritual calling but otherwise let people do their thing if it doesn't seriously impact another person.

I don't know exactly how/why my beliefs originated? I surely wasn't forced to believe in any particular manner and my parents didn't take me to church or pass their beliefs on to me. I've attended meetings where creation versus evolution has been discussed and both sides make great compelling arguments. I'm fairly well educated and understand how science works. I also know things that have occurred in my life that I don't believe science will ever explain.

Twenty years ago I would've agreed that the majority of arrogance and audacity belonged to people of faith. In recent years I believe they've belonged to the big bang theorists (including the ACLU) who are determined to get their way.

Regardless of belief...it's hard to argue against the fact that people of faith have helped develop this into a great country and have helped to maintain it. The majority of work done after Katrina was not a result of the government or even due to the people living in the affected areas. The largest contributor has been (and still remains) the faith-based groups who continue to sacrifice their holidays, spring break, summer vacation, etc. to help us rebuild.

I'm not sure why people of faith are deemed "kooks". I can assure you the money most of us give each week in church is better spent than the tax dollars you're paying each pay period.

I don't think Tom Cruise is crazy based on his beliefs. I think the little leprechaun is crazy because he jumps up and down on sofas with Orpah. :hihi: ...and yes, I do believe mad cow Oprah is from another galaxy.

 

i think i have found my religion.


Rastafari movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

of course it isnt!

see, this is why you are so dreadfully wrong all the time. you are eager to beleive what is obviously absurd. people arent actually magically taken over by ghosts. they do however, lie and have hallucinations.

yes, because like the wtc 1 and 2 demolitions, even you are somewhat ashamed to believe it.

there are no priests in new york or anywhere else that have experience with possessions.

why do you believe such stupid bull****?

your arguments are basically like this:

well, if x isnt true, then why is (lie) and (another lie) the case? and what about (yet another lie)?