Science vs. Creationism

[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.