we, creationists
-
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 09:25 AM)
Well, you've certainly said a mouthfull! And, I've got to admit it's going to take me a while to sort through it all. So, for now, I'll just respond to one paragraph, which, I think, I can interpret correctly:
"Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that."
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
"But I promise you that I will not discuss the bible with you before I've read it, or otherwise you can tell me the same about it like what I'm telling you about maths."
Huh? Who asked you to "discuss the Bible"? I don't believe I even mentioned the Bible in any of my posts. . . I would, however, recommend it to you. There's a lot more in it, not related to intelligent design, which you might find useful on other occasions (at the end of your life, perhaps). And, ahhh . . . taking you at your word and given the eventuality, I hope I could tell you MORE about IT, though I admit I am no expert, than you have, so far, told me about "maths".
Maybe I'll get back to you re the balance of your post.
BTW, you seem to spend a lot of time talking about various "interpretations" in your post, given you reject the idea of scientific interpretation entirely. Excuse me, but, there, you sound a little schizophrenic to me. "Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that." . . .
And all this time, I thought that's what science IS the illumination of fact and the interpretation of same. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 12:18 PM)
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
My definition is not different from what you can find in scientific literature and it's not my job to teach you maths and physics. Your previous messages haven't convinced me that you are able to discuss this seriously, so it wouldn't make any sense to make further explanations, because whatever I would say, you would try to make a travesty out of it.
Regarding the original message - You guys wonder why scientists don't take creation-cretins serious? You don't have a single evidence for all the nonsense you call "creationism", the only thing you can present as "evidence" are the tales from the fat ol' volume. But then you dare to say that there is no evidence for all scientific findings which doesn't fit your views of this universe which only allows things you
believe
in. And when the tons of evidence from which you say that they don't exist are slapped around your ears, you say that they are not valid, and your only explanation therefor is that you don't
believe
that something like a clear scientific evidence does exist (well, this is the point in the discussion where we are now). As if you - people who
believe
in unproven and unprovable myths and fantasies from ancient storytellers, and who always only
believe
in things instead of proving them - are in the position to comment on scientific evidences. Or look at the silly creationism - "scientists" who walk around at prehistoric sites to search fossils of dinosaurs and homo sapiens together in the same layer - they never have found anything and they never will - but the same idiots dare to say that the thousands of fossils which prove evolution are no valid evidence. Now, who do you guys think who you are, that you dare to expect that serious scientists EVER will accept your "theory" as worth to be discussed equal to evolution?
I don't want comment the rest of your message because it's the same nonsense as usual. Don't worry about responding to my previous message, I'm not any longer interested in what you have to say and I will not reply to your further comments. We will never agree on this topic and we would both waste our time if we continue this discussion.
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution? -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 03:37 PM)
You're very young, aren't you Rangely? . . . (At least, you seem intellectually to be so.) Let us all just hope that as you mature, your mind opens and your certitudes, as well as your ego, find a calmer framework in which to cook. Remember, as Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is the province of knowledge to speak and it is the priveledge of wisdom to listen." To do so will benefit you much more than, I think, you can now envisage. I offer two more quotes, from which we may BOTH benefit:
For you
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope
And for me
"A wise man will not communicate his differing thoughts to unprepared minds "
Benjamin Whichcote -
charliechan007 — 18 years ago(October 02, 2007 05:21 PM)
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"?
I suppose it could be absolutely clear AND cogent. That would be more than absolutely clear. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 01:32 AM)
cwente2if you're looking for absolutes in science, there are none. However that does not mean that there are not certain natural laws that don't come close to a certainty. Very few learned people dispute the fact that the earth is round..or that gravity works. I am saying the evidence for evolution is in accord and in leaque with these kinds of "theories." Evolution in the minds of an overwhelming number of scientists has attained a level of certainty akin to the solar system and gravity. And I do think the "scientiic method" works very well indeed to keep intelligent minds open.
Creationists love to point to what they think is a raging controversy in evolution. There are questions indeed about some of the formerly accepted processes of evolution. (Was it slow or punctuated or some combination of the two?) There are a number of questions there. But there is little question that evolution happened and is happening now. But the creationists love to distort this to suit their own wild agenda. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 08:28 AM)
cnalbrecht,
" if you're looking for absolutes in science, there are none."
First of all, I'm not looking for "absolutes in science". As a matter of fact, it seems to me I'm the only one joined in this discussion who is not.
However, and since you've opened the door, I'll ask you how you can make that statement without first ascertaining the perspectives of the claimants ("intellectual" relativity)?
"Very few learned people dispute the fact that the earth is round.. or that gravity works."
Of course. But, a few years ago (historically speaking), "very few learned people" disputed the fact that the earth was flat and had no clue that "gravity worked" or, even, what the hell it is which is my point.
""Creationists " (I am not one)" love to point to what they think is a raging controversy in evolution."
Again, of course for two reasons: 1) They don't believe the theory, and, 2) there ARE raging controversies in evolution, always have been, and probably always will be since the theory is unprovable. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 12:38 AM)
cwente2I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. But the scientific "community" for some time now has thought of evolution as factnot theory. I'm assuming you meant theory as in a projected hypothesis rather than an outline of tenets. Creationists love to point out that evolution is "just a theory." Apparently they have no problem revealing their ignorance as to the dual nature of "theory." Probably many know this important distinctionbut use it anyway to try to foster what they must know is a hollow if not a pathetic claim.
The vast majority of scientists all agree that evolution has happened and is happening as we speak. The only controversy Revolves around some of it's procedures. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel every day upon arisinglol. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 08:15 AM)
Don't be concerned. You're not a bearer of "bad news". In this case, you're the bearer of inaccurate news.
First of all, a theory is not "a projected hypothesis". It is an hypothesis (speculation, or guess; contemplation; analysis of facts in their ideal relations to one another). Secondly, your reference to "an outline of tenets" is, simply not germain to a discussion of evolution. I don't know anyone who has supposed that. That definition applies to the general or abstract principles of ANY body of facts as distinguished from applied science or art. Eg., the THEORY of music. It's a different concept all together except the spelling of the word is the same. So . . . we're back to hypothesis. And, I'm not so sure "the scientific 'community' for some time now has thought of evolution as fact" because it, simply, isn't. Though some scientists may do so, we can take from that that there are a few scientists around who are unwilling to make some important distinctions. Maybe we should take a survey and find out who in that illustrious community, for whatever reason, is inclined to play fast & loose with "the process"?
No doubt, there are more scientists (I wouldn't necessarily include geneticists in this, as many of them have serious problems with the whole concept) who believe evolution represents the correct analysis of an amalgamation of facts. I'm inclined to agree with them. But, a majority vote will not make an hypothesis a fact under any circumstances nor, will your seemingly desperate desire that it should be thought of as such. The over-arching fact IS: The truth of evolution CANNOT be proved any more than can the truth of general relativity (Einstein, himself, said so). -
per_stefansson — 18 years ago(January 16, 2008 11:34 AM)
Oh c'mon..
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press release June06.pdf -
co_ca22 — 18 years ago(September 18, 2007 09:28 PM)
You don't read our sites;to those of you who say you did, have you ever heard of "they will look and not see, listen and not understand"? How long did you read?What did you look for? What we have to say, our ideas, or how wrong we are?
It seems what you are saying is the only way to know if someone read your sites correctly is for that person to come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is wrong and they have been tricked by those heathen scientist, and if not they read these Creationism sites incorrectly.
Well in that case I dont think you have ever read anything about evolution correctly, and you should make sure you read our sites correctly before you tell us to read yours correctly. -
inco2007 — 18 years ago(September 24, 2007 04:42 PM)
It seems what you are saying is the only way to know if someone read your sites correctly is for that person to come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is wrong and they have been tricked by those heathen scientist, and if not they read these Creationism sites incorrectly.
No, it's because by the way you argue us you don't know what we believe and our ideas regardless if they are right or wrong, the issue is not if we are right or wrong but that you don't even know who we are and what we want just because you refuse to check how we describe ourselves. you're fighting a straw man not us. THAT straw man - yes - he is stupid, illogical, caveman and replaces reality with fiction. Who would be that stupid to take the Bible as reality if evolution was really a scientific fact?
Because you don't read us (or Intelligent Design-ers) you're not aware of the neo-darwinian Inquisition that reigns over the scientific community all over the world. The old Catholic Inquisition used to stifle anyone who dared to question or disagree with the official dogma. No matter what one said he had no choice but to be possessed by the devil and Satan was speaking through his mouth and he needed to be purified through fire. Exactly the same now anyone
who doesn't seem to be sure about evolution becomes automatically a pariah. Whatever he says has no choice but to be wrong and illogical.
You think that 99.9% of the scientists take evolution as a fact and the other insignificant part cannot be called scientists regardless the degrees they hold. Then expect for a BIG surprise for a lot and in a growing number are keeping their anti-evolution opinions for themselves to not have their careers terminated, they've seen what others endured. When this bomb will explode you'll really have hard time to reduce so many to amoeba's intelligence like you do now and you'll have difficulties heralding out loud "evolution is science!" to not be laughed behind your back.
READ BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY, so you'll be prepared to give answers when asked about your beliefs that you think are facts (you'll learn maybe the difference between facts and interpretations that are presented as facts). Your precious scientists have one mission in life: to explain the existence of everything out of nothing without first trying to answer if there is a someone (or some) who created everything. They arbitrarily chose that there is no god so now they are bound to prove something that never happened: evolution and big bang. They see pre-humans in bits and pieces of fossils (sometimes just one tooth alone is a homo something) that can easily be regarded as an extinct ape or fully human depends on what you want them to be. Or present evidences that later are proved to be hoaxes by other evolutionists and still they linger for decades in biology textbooks as proofs for evolution. They make outrageous assumptions when translating certain isotope radio activities in millions of years for rocks, and when they say different dating methods concur that is because these assumptions are accordingly adjusted to have them concur. They imagine things that were never detected like dark matter to glue the universe together because otherwise the big bang would've scatter it into oblivion well before the forming of stars and planets(i read recently they literally glued the famous evolution-in-action pepper moths to the trees). The list of irregularities is long, nobody is forcing you to read it, i'm just telling you about the growing number of professionals out there who reject big-bang and darwinism and maybe just 30% are christians. Call them all idiots if that feels good, but be sure they are not just a few. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 12:03 AM)
LOLOh my God (or whomever is running the universe)what a rambling tirade. Every time I hear these kinds of irrational rants I wonder exactly whom the person trying to convince. Almost invariably it comes out that they are trying to convince themselves. Deep down I think many fundies have grave doubts about the whole "creationist" movement. You point out the supposed growing legions of scientists who are ready to explode into creationism. On what is that based? What evidence do you have for such a statement? I could just as easily point out the many sophisticated members of clergy who really don't belive what they are preaching every week. But feel they OUGHT to belive it. How hypocritical is that?
It's aways interesting, if not enlightening, to ask people why they believe as they do. What system or evidence do you have that enables you to believe such and such? Most of the time it comes down to someone's opinion or just wishing things would be the way you would like them to be. As an atheist and a supporter of evolution, I can honestly say I have no agenda for forcing people to believe as I do. I am content to let the facts speak for themselves. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and absolutely no evidence to support God or creationists claims. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 05:10 PM)
As I've said, I am what you might call a God-believing evolutionist, not a creationist. But, the knife cuts both ways:
Both the creationist and evolutionist claim evidence, but both interpret the evidence differently (regardless of whose it is). Ie., One is not persuaded by the evidence of the other that the other's position is the truth.
The creationist reasons deductively, from the greater to the smaller, when he suggests things were created by an intelligent God. . . But, so do you, when you suggest they were not. Neither argument is provable inductively (with physical evidence). Both require a good deal of faith.
Why don't you just, POLITELY, agree to disagree, and let providence (however you define it) enlighten you both . . . in good time? -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 12:28 AM)
cwente2Oh how I would dearly love to see what kinds of evidence Creationists offer to support their claims. Aside from wishful thinkingthey have no evidence. It's amusing how we ask for evidence in every other realm of our livesbut somehow religion is exempt. How very convenient. In asking very simple, but straight forward questions, I keep getting the same responses. Okyou believe in this "God. What does He/She/It look like? Where does this entity live? Heaven you say. Where is that? How do you know God is love? I either get a series of "I don't knows"or we go around in argumentative circles. Neither is either satisfying or productive.
I am happy in my own little world herelol. Then someone asserts there is a God. The burden of proof is for that person to convince me of that assertion. As far as I'm concernedthere is nothing like a God anywhere near me. The problem, of course, is that not only can't they show me this godbut that's there's no evidence to support their assertion. How is that a rational argument?
"Why don't you just, POLITELY, agree to disagree, and let providence(however you define it)enlighten you both."
Hahahaaaathis is the final refuge of the the believer. It's either "just shut up and believe"or"I believe because I believe, you should also."
No thank you. I will still conduct my life in accordance with with rational thought. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 09:12 AM)
I would have expected more from you, cnalbrecht. You've written some fine posts on other sites.
By its very nature, religion is not subject to proofs of an empirical nature. Neither is love, nor hate, nor charity, nor greed, etc. Yet, such realities effect all our lives as much as does applied science. Personally, I prefer living in a world in which love trumps hatred and charity is to be praised over greed. I see those imperatives as important as you see the importance of a functioning centrifuge.
Surely, your life cannot be as banal as your post implies.
BTW, I wish I could remember its title, but its sub-title is "A Guide For the Twentieth Century Pagan", and it was written by Mortimer Adler some years ago. (Adler was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago and, for many years, the Editor in Chief of the "Encyclopedia Brittanica".) In this book, Adler proves the probability of the existence of God. He does not go into the precise nature of God. That, of course, is a matter of faith. I think you would find it interesting, assuming I can come up with the title and assuming your mind is sufficiently open to matters metaphysical or spiritual. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 04:59 PM)
"It's either 'just shut up and believe'or"
I don't recall anyone asking you to either "shut up", OR "believe". . . And, aren't you asking us to believe that evolution - an hypothesis - is fact?
"I believe because I believe, you should also."
Well . . . what's wrong with that? We do it every day. You have a mother. Do you tell her to believe that you love her? Can you prove it? You can give her evidences, but can you prove it?
And so, to believe in something not necessarily provable is irrational(?) like your belief that the accident of evolution is a fact and, derivatively, that life is but a "sliver of light between two eternities of blackness".
To borrow your phrase, "no thank you". I'll conduct MY life in accordance with the "irrational belief" that life has meaning. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 03:18 AM)
You're being disingenuous. You know I reduced your sentence to it's ultimate essence, which I interpret as "shut up and believe." You of course are free to believe whatever your mind dreams up. I am saying look at the facts. The facts are that an overwhelming majority of scientists regard evolution itself as fact. The theory has now attained "fact" status. On the other hand, you have no evidence or "facts" for the existence of God. If any facts were ever availablethis discussion would not be happening. By the by..I don't see how something as magnificent and multifarious, such as the fact of evolution, can be called an accident.
Howeveryour last sentence is the most telling. Basically you believe in an irrational approach to existence. Good luck with thatlol. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 03:32 PM)
cnalbrecht,
"You're being disingenuous."
Perhaps a little. But, I was just responding to what you said, not what you expected me to hear.
"The facts are that an overwhelming majority of scientists regard evolution as fact."
First, how do you know that? Can you give me the number of scientists who regard evolution as a fact as compaired to the number who do not? I AM interested in facts, so give them to me . . . then, I may concede the point. Otherwise and second, if your assertion is true, then might it not be that the alleged majority is wrong to do so? Majorities have been wrong before and often.
"Theory" and "fact" are two seperate words with different meanings. Check a dictionary (any dictionary). As I've said before - and you haven't shown me how I am wrong - facts ("that which has actual existence" Webster's Seventh Collegiate) are not determined by majority vote. Eg. - it is a "fact" that cotton is softer than limestone at ambient temperatures in the South. A majority vote will not make cotton harder or limestone softer.
"The theory has now attained 'fact' status."
Is that so? With whom? Same response as above, but I would add if it has done so, it has done so incorrectly, as fact and theory cannot be the same, by definition. And, as I've said before (with no thoughtful refutation from you) a theory is "The analysis of a set of facts in their ideal relations to one another. (an hypothesis, guess) " . . . I think what you MEAN to say is that a majority of scientists see evolution as being the best hypothesis for the accumulation of facts found thus far. As I have, also, said I agree with that. Why isn't that enough for you?
"you have no evidence or 'facts' for the existence of God."
You're fond of mixing, or ignoring, reasoning processes essential to an organized assessment of a thing or an event(deductive vs. inductive). When we're talking evolution (a physical process), we're talking scientific, or inductive reasoning, excluding the "accident" part. Re God (the heart of the accident part), we're talking deductive reasoning . . . and so, in precisely the same spirit, I may as well say that "you have no evidence of 'facts' for the NON-existence of God."
I've offered this all before and you haven't responded substantively, except to repeat your initial prejudices. Constant repetition of a point of view, like fudged definitions and majority rule, does not make it true. Where are your arguments for the truth of an entirely epistemological/metaphysical assertion like "there is no God"?
"I don't see how something as magnificent and multifarious, such as the fact of evolution, can be called an accident."
Strange comment from an athiest. No intelligent designer (?) what else can it be called, then? BTW, I've never heard an adamant evolutionist (academic type) accept that its occurance could come from anything other than the "accident" of its own existence. . . Not one. So, ask your own colleagues that question, not me.
"Basically you believe in an irrational approach to existence."
You and I have, apparently, different definitions for the rationality of existence (an interesting subject for another thread). I'll proceed on the basis that mine is the most truthful and, ultimately, rewarding in all respects, thank you.
"Good luck with that"
Thank you, again.
BTW, I'm not so sure continuing this discussion will bring either of us any closer to detente'. I see your ideas as firmly set in concrete a singularly unscientific place for them to be.