Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :) - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2006, 06:19 PM   #181
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

no, science expects others to LEARN it.

it is not about belief.
Scientists believe in the possibility of their hypotheses, or else there would be nothing to do.
__________________

__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:20 PM   #182
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
What ID supporters really are concerned about is:

that God created man in his image.

Are you (supporters) honest enough to admit this?
I don't see that at the core of ID
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:22 PM   #183
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?

Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.

Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.

please: point out these "holes" that are "ignored."

my understanding is that there are limits to human knolwedge. but we are pushing those limits every day.

what is anti-intellectual is to say that we shouldn't bother ourselves with resolving scientific inconsistencies or untangling puzzles. we should recognize that what God really wants is for us just to stop learning.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:23 PM   #184
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s




IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.


What is your basis for this repeated statement?

The last number I heard was that something like well over 50% of scientists believe in God


They just don't look to their religious beliefs to translate into scientific theories, or laws.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:26 PM   #185
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I don't see that at the core of ID


many accept some parts of the evolution theory

they can look at their house cat

and a lion and allow that they came from a common ancestor.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:27 PM   #186
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Oh, you're not being rude? Continually telling me to go back and learn this or that . . . or 'understand the argument before I criticize,' etc. You certainly are treating me like you think I am stupid. But perhaps you can't help it, as that's obviously an extension of your elitism.

I am not failing to understand the terms of the debate - - I understand them perfectly.

What I am trying to say, and am getting TIRED of saying, is that everyone ignoring the elephant in the room is idiotic. It is a FEAR OF RELIGION in the school system that drives the "anti-ID" side of the debate just as much as you all say that RELIGION drives the "pro-ID" debate.

IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.

BAH!

So, stop trying to point me in the direction of 'education' or 'intellect' and step down off that high horse.


it is not calling you stupid to say that you are uninformed.

i don't know a thing about cricket, so it would be safe to say that i am not unintelligent, just uninformed about cricket.

but you seem to want to feel persecuted, so i'll leave you to it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:33 PM   #187
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Earth being spherical, thats a scientific theory and that could technically be disproven
Why do you say "technically?"
It either can or can't be disproven, right?

Quote:
You are right, scientific theories never become the absolute truth, that is because they are not religion. They are tweaked and modified to explain what is observed,
How do you ever have peace that what you believe in is TRUE, then? It does baffle me how it's so comfortable . . .

Quote:
(for instance why are there drone bees? what evolutionary purpose is for these insects to aid the colony? They themselves dont get to breed so what leads to the evolution of sterile animals? - the answer turns out to be the degree of relatedness between the drones and the queen and the breeding males, the drones by enabling the sucess of that breeding are actually ensuring that their common genetic material gets passed down,
Hmmm, interesting.
Their common genetic material is what is passed down, but it is their "unique" genetic material that makes them sterile.
So, the mutation that caused *that* gets passed down, just due to proportion of liklihood in the first place, right - - how does the relatedness of the drone to the queen and breeding males affect it at all?

Quote:
This is moot anyhow because ID would not disprove evolution, ID is adressing the first life forms. In that it cannot provide the evidence, using the religious minded canard of "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
Yet, even a brief mention of it is ABSENT from the classroom.
It's disturbing.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:34 PM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?

Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.

Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.
Lets put the formation of the first life forms in context. We are talking about the entire surface area of the planet, and quite possibly volume at depth as the place of reaction. There is a highly reducing atmosphere, a planet giving off large ammounts of gas through volcanism and impacts from meteorites. There are innumerable places and permutations of reactions that could take place at any given moment in time. Now take this situation and spend one billion years allowing chemical reactions to take place. Is it not plausible that at least once a molecule was formed that could replicate on its own and have some basic form of metabolic process? It is no doubt highly unlikely, but thats the beauty of probability, if we have a near infinite ammount of tries the probability is that it is going to occur.

We have known from the Miller experiment in the 1950's that the basic amino acids can be formed in these conditions, subsequently we have found that clays can aid in the formation of strands of these. We can form "cells" abiotically under similar conditions.

An important molecular clue about the origin of life comes from common attributes within life - namely RNA and it's role in tranfering information. I recomend looking up RNA world online for some information about a few competing ideas in the origin of life on Earth.

The "life from nothing" aspect of evolution is population pressures acting upon naturally formed and competing self-replicating molecules. Regardless of how the first life forms got here it does not disprove evolution, because population pressures still apply even to "intelligently designed" life forms.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:39 PM   #189
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

it is not calling you stupid to say that you are uninformed.

but you seem to want to feel persecuted, so i'll leave you to it.
I didn't say you called me stupid. I said that you were TREATING me like you thought I was. And you were.

Oh, yes, poor little me. Please leave me to my pity-party.

I just call a spade a spade. Sorry if you don't like it.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:41 PM   #190
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

The last number I heard was that something like well over 50% of scientists believe in God
If they can believe in God without proof, why not believe in Creationism/ID without it?
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:43 PM   #191
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Because even with "God's existence" as a theory, must an attempt to prove it take place before it's decided, in the scientific community, that it's UNPROVABLE?
Devise a proof of God?

Prayer to a Christian God having an influence on sick peoples health while prayer to Allah or Polytheist Gods do not. If there was something statistically significant about praying to that particular deity and it had an effect on peoples health then perhaps that God exists - such a result would certainly warrant investigation.

Measure the soul, now the essense of the religious metaphisical is the soul, weigh people before and after death, see if there is an instantaneous loss of mass. Put them in a closed insulted environment, if the soul is made of energy then perhaps there will be a change in tempreture at time of death.

Kill Believers - just get a few million true believers and start killing them off one by one, surely the God as he is painted would intervene somehow to stop the slaughter..... okay maybe that ones too far.

But religious minded folk have their own proof, religious iconography, weeping statues that for some reason weep oil and dye, mysterious shrouds that radiocarbon date back to the middle ages and not to the time when some guy called Jesus supposedly existed. These "proofs" have been disproved by scientific investigation, won't stop believers though because that investigation is going to be somehow flawed, the measurements cannot be properly taken with these things and the results are upset by Gods will.

Are any of these suggestions legitimate ways of proving the existence of God? What about quantifying that euphoric orgasmic feeling that believers have through understandings of neurochemistry - finding here and now explanations for feelings.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:48 PM   #192
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Why do you say "technically?"
It either can or can't be disproven, right?
Proof the earth is round, use measurements of shadows at the same time and measure the differences.

But (just thinking) what if the Earths roundness was actually some sort of higher dimensional twist where a 2D plane was contorted into an apparent 3D sphere. Some strange thing that nobody ever expected like we were living in a hologram universe. Such a thing would disprove a spherical earth.

Although given what we know I think that the spherical earth theory has a high threshhold of evidence, evolutionary biology also has a very high threshold of evidence that it can explain best and is a large aprt of the reason that "alternative beliefs" that fail to explain as much are not given the same respect within the scientific community.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:50 PM   #193
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Let me ask you something, A_Wanderer . . .

Is there ONE theory of origins/evolution . . . the whole shebang - - - all of it - - - ONE theory that is commonly accepted WITHOUT VARIATION in the world-wide scientific community?
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:00 PM   #194
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 11:58 PM
I am gone for the night . . . but A_Wanderer, I look forward to your response.

Also, my question about the drones . . . lemme know.

Have a good one, everyone. Everyone. EVERYONE.

(hee hee!)
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:02 PM   #195
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:58 PM
No I do not think that there is a grand unifying theory of evolutionary biology or of the origin of Life on Earth that every single scientist thinks is right. You have Darwinian Natural Selection, Punctuated Equalibrium, Sexual Selection, Evolutionary Advantages of Social Behaviour, Kin Selection etc. There are common threads within all of these such as empiricism and falsifiability.

I think that there is widely accepted evidence, such as vestigial traits in many organisms, the fossil record ~ evidence for extinction, transitional forms and life throughout deep time (over millions of years), mutation and variation are also widely accepted as it heritability and the science of genetics.

Evolutionary biology is a field of ongoing research, there are different theories of how species evolve, the rate of evolution within populations and if the rate has been the same in the past.

The origin of life is a very tough question, we do not have fossils that go back right to the beginning, we have some indirect evidence of life such as the Banded Iron Formations that show the atmosphere seasonally alternating between reducing (native iron) and oxidising (rust). There is also the molecular evidence that is researched. Because the field is still in it's infancy it is hotly debated, and there are different camps as to how life came to dominate the planet. I would suspect that as with most things we will accumulate enough evidence to begin to eliminate certain possibilities, disprove assumptions and get closer to what was actually going on in those early days.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com