Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

I don't think that is what carolinajazz meant by "hogwash".

Life has passed down to us through a process that is brutish, unforgiving, and willing to engage in wholesale slaughter. I don't look to the process of evolution as a guide to proper morality, and the few people who seem to do that are hideous people. Going all the way back to Darwin himself, most biologists wants humans to do better than evolution in the treatment of individuals.

I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I accept tomorrows sunrise as the inevitable result of the facts regarding the earths rotation, and evolution as the inevitable result of the facts of biology.

As for whether the knowledge of past eras was superior morally, it's just as wrong to say they had better morality as to say they had worse morality.

well, I do think that's his general view, but I will concede the point that he is a biblical literalist. . . . if that's the right term. . . .that he considers the biblical account sacred and maybe even "infallible", and that his arguments run to the point that somehow it can still be defended technically as precise truth which a "true" science could or would validate. I differ from him as I don't think it's prudent to hold God responsible for human ideals to that extent.

I think of Science as a discipline or process for evaluating the world within our "reach" so to speak, considering our various tools as extensions of our "reach". I entertain notions about some limits on its usefulness or meaning, particularly when it is used to invoke sweeping conclusions about the past, the future, or things well outside our experience and knowledge. Extrapolations as well as interpolations sometimes fail, but it is often tempting for us to push the limits and sometimes, especially if it satisfies our demands for "validation" of some sort. That is where it can be called hogwash.

 

[carolinajazz]

What hogwash is that?

...well, that birds came from reptiles! The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles! There could be no more shocking statement of hogwash than to say the closest living relatives to men are houseflies, or that the butterfly evolved from a rhinoceros!

Hogwash | Define Hogwash at Dictionary.com

"meaningless nonsense; bunk. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech!"

 

[LogGrad98]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

Um....your post isn't about science or creationism either.

Aaahhh...neither is mine!

Gah!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

hogwash.

you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.

Fact to dispel myth. Seems pretty straightforward. When the arguments for one side is philosophical nonsense, then in a scientific argument, I would imagine the side that's ACTUALLY about science would find the other side pretty ridiculous. But go ahead, keep your rhetoric up. Let's talk about the center of the earth doing a massive invisible group hug as an argument for gravity, too.

I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.

Personal values aren't relegated to solely religious communities, so irrelevant. Are you also saying progressive people equal unhinged people? The implication is that "science" people have unequivocal, and, likely, lesser morals, which would be one of the stupidest things said on a board with Archie and Beantown, which would be saying something.

Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.

Given your previous paragraph, it's warranted. How people act is irrelevant to the debate of something scientific and something unscientific being taught in science class.

I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.

That's why there's peer review, and updating, and replacing. When an interpretation is deemed to be incorrect (as a lot of Darwin's have been in this particular argument), it is replaced. As a mode of comparison, how long did it take the scientific community to toss the Ptolemaic model? How long did it take organized religion?

In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.

How did the "traditional values" get to be in the first place? Easy answer, by replacing what were considered traditional values. Social value of "black man is a lesser individual than white man based on irrational belief" was replaced. Replacing "value system based on irrationality" seems pretty likely to me. The funny thing is that the moral fiber of many religious societies is based on an environment that no longer exists. I mean, look at the ninth/tenth commandment. Flies RIGHT in the face of capitalism and consumerism. Commandment was made when YOUR very survival relied on the success of those around you. Now, not so much.

For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.

Religion is absolutely 100% NOT required for one's moral fabric nor does it hold exclusivity on ANY of its parts of its moral code and still has no part in a science class. Science is about learning, not feeling, and the most philosophical waxing in the world will never change that.

Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.

The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.

And this philosophical irrelevancy and spinning in place is why I think you're trolling all the time.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

...well, that birds came from reptiles! The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles! There could be no more shocking statement of hogwash than to say the closest living relatives to men are houseflies, or that the butterfly evolved from a rhinoceros!

Hogwash | Define Hogwash at Dictionary.com

"meaningless nonsense; bunk. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech!"

FACTS ARE MEANINGLESS.

I mean, c'mon. JUST LOOK AT IT!!!! CAN'T BE TRUE CAN'T BE TRUE GOD DID IT ALL DID IT ALL GOD HE (make sure it's "he," not she, never think that) DID IT.

 

[♪alt13]

FACTS ARE MEANINGLESS.

I mean, c'mon. JUST LOOK AT IT!!!! CAN'T BE TRUE CAN'T BE TRUE GOD DID IT ALL DID IT ALL GOD HE (make sure it's "he," not she, never think that) DID IT.

That's a good point. God probably isn't a dood. He never talks about his wiener. I'm a dood and I talk about my wiener all the time.

 

[♪alt13]

The other day I was chillin with my wiener.

#goodtimes

 

[babe]

Fact to dispel myth. Seems pretty straightforward. When the arguments for one side is philosophical nonsense, then in a scientific argument, I would imagine the side that's ACTUALLY about science would find the other side pretty ridiculous. But go ahead, keep your rhetoric up. Let's talk about the center of the earth doing a massive invisible group hug as an argument for gravity, too.





Personal values aren't relegated to solely religious communities, so irrelevant. Are you also saying progressive people equal unhinged people? The implication is that "science" people have unequivocal, and, likely, lesser morals, which would be one of the stupidest things said on a board with Archie and Beantown, which would be saying something.



Given your previous paragraph, it's warranted. How people act is irrelevant to the debate of something scientific and something unscientific being taught in science class.



That's why there's peer review, and updating, and replacing. When an interpretation is deemed to be incorrect (as a lot of Darwin's have been in this particular argument), it is replaced. As a mode of comparison, how long did it take the scientific community to toss the Ptolemaic model? How long did it take organized religion?



How did the "traditional values" get to be in the first place? Easy answer, by replacing what were considered traditional values. Social value of "black man is a lesser individual than white man based on irrational belief" was replaced. Replacing "value system based on irrationality" seems pretty likely to me. The funny thing is that the moral fiber of many religious societies is based on an environment that no longer exists. I mean, look at the ninth/tenth commandment. Flies RIGHT in the face of capitalism and consumerism. Commandment was made when YOUR very survival relied on the success of those around you. Now, not so much.




Religion is absolutely 100% NOT required for one's moral fabric nor does it hold exclusivity on ANY of its parts of its moral code and still has no part in a science class. Science is about learning, not feeling, and the most philosophical waxing in the world will never change that.



And this philosophical irrelevancy and spinning in place is why I think you're trolling all the time.

Looking at your responses, I can see why you might feel I am trolling you or perhaps some like-minded folks in here. Trolling is only trolling when it comes across as provocative or taunting, or for some other reason is annoying. Other people might actually value the chance to work with some ideas and hopefully have some responses worth considering. When someone is as dismissive of my ideas as you seem to be, while understanding them as poorly as you seem to understand them, and pops off with a comment about me being a "troll", all I care to say is stick around a while and think whatever you wish to think.

I consider science to be much like religion, and I think both modes of thought do change as people learn more. Uneducated folks have a harder time with both changing science and changing religion, that's all. The worst of both possible worlds is when folks want to hitch up the government to enforce their way on others.

 

[babe]

That's a good point. God probably isn't a dood. He never talks about his wiener. I'm a dood and I talk about my wiener all the time.

Pretty sure he's not a "Dude" in any way. .. . not fixated on sexual parts or roles so much as some. Maybe more of practical philosopher. Loves his kids, though.

 

[carolinajazz]

The implication is that "science" people have unequivocal, and, likely, lesser morals, which would be one of the stupidest things said on a board with Archie and Beantown, which would be saying something.



How people act is irrelevant to the debate of something scientific and something unscientific being taught in science class.



Religion is absolutely 100% NOT required for one's moral fabric nor does it hold exclusivity on ANY of its parts of its moral code and still has no part in a science class. Science is about learning, not feeling, and the most philosophical waxing in the world will never change that.

...the fact of the matter is Darwins theory gave a strong impetus to a host of much godless thinking in the world!

Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” actually fostered worship of the State. Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” deeply influenced the scientific and religious thinking of the time.

The concept of "survival of the fittest" also played a part in the most devastating wars of the 20th century, including the dropping of the 1st atomic bomb that vaporized 70,000 people instantly!

Science and evolution came to form a liaison that left religion—and God—out of the picture. “In the evolutionary pattern of thought,” says Sir Julian Huxley, “there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural.”

Today the evolution theory is claimed to be an indispensable foundation of science. A key reason for the relationship is identified by physicist Fred Hoyle: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth.”

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

hogwash.

you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.

I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.

Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.

I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.

In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.

OB is interesting to me because, while I do think he is thoroughly committed to a progressive agenda, he is at least willing to "walk the line" as to what is or is not "science". Perhaps some others don't want to give him that credit, but I look for it, and am willing to credit him to that extent.

Pearl, to her credit, is getting more educated about the science and has been able to raise some valid points in the discussion, as well.

For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.

Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.

The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.

I like this post for a number of reasons (mainly it's emphasis on values), but lemme say one point of disagreement.

^Here, 'religion' is cast as something pure: good, instructional values. And, in that same move, babe categorically separates 'religion' from 'politics'. In other words, his position will not admit something like 'a band of religious people have tried cleanse the earth of other religious people.' Instead, it would be 'a bunch of people who are perverting religion are waging a war.'

Religion and politics are indistinguishable. A faith in Enlightenment rationality, for example, has all the movement and function of religious conviction.

 

[♪alt13]

Pretty sure he's not a "Dude" in any way. .. . not fixated on sexual parts or roles so much as some. Maybe more of practical philosopher. Loves his kids, though.

lol

Oh god is definitely fixated on sexual parts and roles. Here are a few examples out of many.

Acts 15:1
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved

Timothy 2:11
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Leviticus 12:2-12:5
If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...

...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks...

Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

 

[babe]

lol

Oh god is definitely fixated on sexual parts and roles. Here are a few examples out of many.

Acts 15:1
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved

Timothy 2:11
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Leviticus 12:2-12:5
If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...

...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks...

Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

yah, well, compared to a lot of folks with their porn addictions, I'd call all that simple rules of modesty and conformance to readily understandable positions in the societal fabric.

the reason I do not think porn is good comes from the way it habituates the mind to a merely object/fetish sort of "relationship" in the place of actual conversation understanding of human beings with definite sexual aspects.

Now get out doors. The sun is shining, and there are actual people going up and down the street. Say Hi to a real person.

Gotta go now, bud.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

yah, well, compared to a lot of folks with their porn addictions, I'd call all that simple rules of modesty and conformance to readily understandable positions in the societal fabric.

the reason I do not think porn is good comes from the way it habituates the mind to a merely object/fetish sort of "relationship" in the place of actual conversation understanding of human beings with definite sexual aspects.

Now get out doors. The sun is shining, and there are actual people going up and down the street. Say Hi to a real person.

Gotta go now, bud.

there should be no doubt that babe is among the very best posters in the history of this board.

I'm being serious here... Everyone should appreciate how he can make pragmatism both funny and transcendental. The miseducated blowhards that can't jive with him remind me of why I left academia.

Writing is never good if, as a reader, you don't undergo a heavy dose of a new perspective. Reading can be outright adventurous if that new perspective is quite singular. Babe is one of the few posters to deliver consistently on these terms.

All should rep.

 

[Tarkanian]

if there were an evolution you'd all be my bitches and awesome Tarkanians (brains + chiselled bodies + hairy chests) would survive as a species.
we would eat roasted darkwing ducks, hunt down those creatures with one brow and make love with nasty babes!
there is no mother-****ing evolution, cos you guys still live.
go and pray the deity you believe in!

 

[♪alt13]

yah, well, compared to a lot of folks with their porn addictions, I'd call all that simple rules of modesty and conformance to readily understandable positions in the societal fabric.

the reason I do not think porn is good comes from the way it habituates the mind to a merely object/fetish sort of "relationship" in the place of actual conversation understanding of human beings with definite sexual aspects.

Now get out doors. The sun is shining, and there are actual people going up and down the street. Say Hi to a real person.

Gotta go now, bud.

Who is standing up straw men now? Naked straw men to boot.

 

[One Brow]

...well, that birds came from reptiles!

Birds are indeed a specialized form of reptile, and that is the inescapable result of the evidence, so i accept it.

 

[One Brow]

...the fact of the matter is Darwins theory gave a strong impetus to a host of much godless thinking in the world!

Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” actually fostered worship of the State. Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” deeply influenced the scientific and religious thinking of the time.

Communism was independent of evolutionary theory.

The concept of "survival of the fittest" also played a part in the most devastating wars of the 20th century, including the dropping of the 1st atomic bomb that vaporized 70,000 people instantly!

A favorite lie from the religious, that is not relevant at all to the truth of evolutionary theory,

Today the evolution theory is claimed to be an indispensable foundation of science.

Of biology, because it is.

 

[One Brow]

yah, well, compared to a lot of folks with their porn addictions, I'd call all that simple rules of modesty and conformance to readily understandable positions in the societal fabric.

Like most people railing against government interference, when the social fabric forces people to abandon their freedoms in ways you support, you come on board the government enthusiastically.

 

[carolinajazz]

Birds are indeed a specialized form of reptile, and that is the inescapable result of the evidence, so i accept it.

...."evidence?" Universally heralded as the one great "link" between all birds and reptiles is Archaeopteryx. Here is how evolutionists imagine Archaeopteryx may have been preserved as a fossil.

Imagine, says an ornithologist "a strange birdlike creature the size of a crow" gliding over an
ancient Bavarian lake.

"Or was it more reptile-like? We cannot be sure," continues the story- for "it appeared to have some of the features of both reptiles AND birds.

"Suddenly," goes the dramatic tale, "our birdlike
creature, with its feeble powers of flight, was
unable to cope with a sharp gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned."
(Biology of Birds, Wesley Lanyon, page 1).

Evolutionists admit they must SPECULATE about the origin of birds. But they insist that the layman need not even question the validity of their theories!

Notice! "In attempting to reconstruct the early evolutionary history of many groups of animals a certain element of judicious speculation ... may be a valuable weapon" (Evolution, ed. by De
Beer, p. 321).

In most books on the subject, authors first
admit they are making "educated guesses," and
then follow with a broad, all-inclusive, sweeping
statement that such and such DID POSITIVELY
OCCUR!

They have already decided, on sheer faith, that birds evolved from reptiles! So they seem to imply: "Even though I must guess, imagine and speculate- you must assume my theory is so CORRECT that you needn't bother even thinking about it!"

But if our myriads of birds evolved from slimy
reptiles, is there any REAL fossil EVIDENCE of a
part-bird, part-reptile? Is there such a thing as a
HALF-scale, HALF-feather found?

The fossil "record" concerning the hazy
hypothesis that supposes birds came from reptiles
is much like dozens of feet of missing film! Where
are all the many HUNDREDS of VERY DIFFERENT creatures which would have represented the INTERMEDIATE stages of development?

And remember, IF these notions of evolution
could possibly be true - these "intermediate"
stages would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones. That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" to bring down Archaeopteryx, his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like bricks! And the fossil record, therefore, would contain FAR MORE "INTERMEDIATE" species than it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive!

But there ARE no "intermediate" species!

....yeah, you got TON'S of evidence!