Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :) - Page 14 - 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, 07:15 PM   #196
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

If they can believe in God without proof,
why not believe in Creationism/ID without it?
they do,

they call this their religious beliefs
and they go to church, also


and a MD will use medical procedures to heal the sick
he may also go to church and believe in God and may say a prayer,
but he will not say his praying healed the sick

If he wants to be a faith-healer,
he should not do this under his Medical license.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:37 PM   #197
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:06 AM
The evolution of worker sterility rests upon the survival or the maximum genetic material.

The Queen Eggs are marked with a type of pherenome that ensures that they will be preferentially treated. There is a frequency of workers that do in fact have the ability to lay eggs (~1/1000) however they do not have this marker pherenome.

The workers relationship to a queens offspring is that they are half siblings (that is they share 25% genetic material) the worker relationship to another workers offspring is that of half sibling offspring (that is 15% shared genetic material).

Because the drones themselves cannot breed they will nurture and protect the larvae with the closest genetic similarity - the queens offspring. By selecting positively for the queen offspring at the extent of reproducing worker offspring it ensures that reproducing worker genes do not gain a high frequency within the population and ensuring that the workers in the colony remain overwhelmingly the sterile offspring of the queen.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:41 PM   #198
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


If they can believe in God without proof, why not believe in Creationism/ID without it?
That is the difference between faith and science. Scientists are human beings too and as such they have the same potential to believe. They can also distinguish between faith and logic, divine and material, and not bring their personal faith in God to the table when dealing with observation and investigation of the world.

Any hypothesis without evidence is not to be believed. If somebody tells me that my life is out of order because of my Chi I will not take them at their word, because I do not think that Chi exists - it cannot be measured. Likewise for most alternative medicines and scams. Quakery florishes because of peoples ignorance.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:46 PM   #199
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If somebody tells me that my life is out of order because of my Chi
so you did get my pm
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:58 PM   #200
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Likewise for most alternative medicines and scams. Quakery florishes because of peoples ignorance.
Still, though, most alternative medicine can, at least, be scientifically tested, even if only to be debunked (but not all of it is deemed to be quackery).

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 12:47 AM   #201
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:06 PM
I feel like this is going in circles

Everything I have to say on this matter I've said on page 10 of this thread.

One thing I'd like to add though - I've gone to private, Christian schools since I was 4 years old (I'm now 21) and I can't ever remember discussing Creationism/ID in a science class....nope...I don't think so. We have, however, discussed it in great length in theology, religion, history (along with the creation stories of countless other religions and cultures), and sociology classes (in the context of how culture influences the interpretation of Scripture). I've never real felt it was necessary or important to discuss ID in my biology classes; I'd rather disect animals and leave the theology to the theology professor.

Just thought I'd make that clear b/c some of the posts in this thread are making it seem like Christians demand Creationism be part of a parochial curriculum, which in my experience is not the case. My parents spent more on my elementary and high school education than most people do on college ($7000/yr) and we'd be damned if we were only every exposed to a single creation story being passed off as science. I'm grateful for the sacrifices my parents made for my pre-college education and I think, if anything, it's taught me to be more open-minded, rather than close-minded to anything that isn't mainstream Christian thought.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 09:04 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 03:06 PM
OK, I'm curious how those proponents of ID on FYM would make it science-worthy. I don't want to be linked. Want to hear it in your own words not using the Bible as a core source, not taking it as an a priori truth for now. How would you argue ID outside of scripture? I'm assuming if you are a proponent of ID, you already know what independent scientific as opposed to philosophical arguments are applicable. I'm willing to hear you out.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 10:39 AM   #203
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
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.
I think this is where we get to the romantic notions of evolution. If we have billions and billions of years (add Carl Sagan voice here), anything is possible.

The complexities of a single cell are such that, if you have all the components right next to each other, and they attempt to form thousands of times per second, the odds that they would form into a cell suggest that is improbable within the entire lifespan of the universe. That's just for one cell.

Even if this occured in stages, the mathematical odd of it occuring do not improve significantly enough to establish clear likelihood of life from nothing.

The Miller experiment, widely cited as evidence of life from nothing, only produced subcomponents of components of a cell. This does not mean we've created a living cell in the lab.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 10:43 AM   #204
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
OK, I'm curious how those proponents of ID on FYM would make it science-worthy. I don't want to be linked. Want to hear it in your own words not using the Bible as a core source, not taking it as an a priori truth for now. How would you argue ID outside of scripture? I'm assuming if you are a proponent of ID, you already know what independent scientific as opposed to philosophical arguments are applicable. I'm willing to hear you out.
For me it is the simple mathematical impossiblity of life from nothing over the lifespan of the universe.

Mathematical models which support evolution (such as the estimation of the number of planets that could support life) are flawed in that they only consider certain factors and ignore others that create our unique life-supporting planet called Earth.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 01:21 PM   #205
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
OK, I'm curious how those proponents of ID on FYM would make it science-worthy. I don't want to be linked. Want to hear it in your own words not using the Bible as a core source, not taking it as an a priori truth for now. How would you argue ID outside of scripture? I'm assuming if you are a proponent of ID, you already know what independent scientific as opposed to philosophical arguments are applicable. I'm willing to hear you out.
You don't. ID is not a scientific theory; it's a topic of theological discussion and Scriptural exegesis.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:21 PM   #206
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:06 AM
People who support ID most likely do more harm to their belief system than good for it.

The whole movement is comprised of conservative Christians that publicly say they agenda is not about supporting their religious beliefs.

They are trapped into "bearing false witness".

It is sad for a child in a Christian home to hear their elders make these statements, when it is clear the remarks are falsehoods.
It may cause children to loose confidence in their leaders/ parents.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:45 PM   #207
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
People who support ID most likely do more harm to their belief system than good for it.

Please explain....


How could believing in ID harm a belief system that is based on the supreme authority of God?

Or am I mistunderstanding and you're referring to a more specific situation where Christians that use this belief in science?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:48 PM   #208
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
I feel like this is going in circles

Everything I have to say on this matter I've said on page 10 of this thread.

One thing I'd like to add though - I've gone to private, Christian schools since I was 4 years old (I'm now 21) and I can't ever remember discussing Creationism/ID in a science class....nope...I don't think so. We have, however, discussed it in great length in theology, religion, history (along with the creation stories of countless other religions and cultures), and sociology classes (in the context of how culture influences the interpretation of Scripture). I've never real felt it was necessary or important to discuss ID in my biology classes; I'd rather disect animals and leave the theology to the theology professor.

Just thought I'd make that clear b/c some of the posts in this thread are making it seem like Christians demand Creationism be part of a parochial curriculum, which in my experience is not the case. My parents spent more on my elementary and high school education than most people do on college ($7000/yr) and we'd be damned if we were only every exposed to a single creation story being passed off as science. I'm grateful for the sacrifices my parents made for my pre-college education and I think, if anything, it's taught me to be more open-minded, rather than close-minded to anything that isn't mainstream Christian thought.
I had a very similar experience. I went to Catholic high school, a Catholic college, then transferred to a Quaker college (I was not then, and am not now, any of those religions -- the schools were simply better than the area public ones, which quite frankly sucked. The family, ie., my dad -- who was the only one who gave a shit about that stuff -- was Methodist.) In those schools, science was taught in science classes, religious elements were discussed in religion/theology, philosophy, history, literature, etc., classes.

I don't get why people want ID taught in science classes public schools when it isn't even taught there in all religious schools.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:51 PM   #209
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Please explain....


How could believing in ID harm a belief system that is based on the supreme authority of God?

Or am I mistunderstanding and you're referring to a more specific situation where Christians that use this belief in science?
I took it as meaning the latter -- the pushing it as science.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:54 PM   #210
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


I had a very similar experience. I went to Catholic high school, a Catholic college, then transferred to a Quaker college (I was not then, and am not now, any of those religions -- the schools were simply better than the area public ones, which quite frankly sucked. The family, ie., my dad -- who was the only one who gave a shit about that stuff -- was Methodist.) In those schools, science was taught in science classes, religious elements were discussed in religion/theology, philosophy, history, literature, etc., classes.

I don't get why people want ID taught in science classes public schools when it isn't even taught there in all religious schools.
Exactly. It's almost funny to watch!
__________________

__________________
Liesje 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 02:06 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