Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

Fortunately, this particular debate about 'Darwinism' is still rather innocent.

Actually, I've found it fascinating. 

As I said elsewhere, there's a lot of people take science on faith because of various reasons, and for that reason science is also a belief system for many if not most people.

The other feature to this topic that stands out most strongly is how many pages it's reached without a single Kitteh-picture :@)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

I dare to disagree. Your point is only valid if you see Christianity only as peacefull and caring. Is it that?.. the Bible tells different.

There are passages in the Old Testament that are violent. A proper theological understanding of the whole Bible, Old and New treatments shows that this violence is not to be practiced today.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

a lot of people take science on faith because of various reasons, and for that reason science is also a belief system for many if not most people

It's a simple matter of choosing to trust or not to trust experts. Truth and belief have nothing to do with it.

The scientific method encourages scientists to mistrust everything and everyone, including themselves and be careful with their conclusions, and at all time to consider that they may be wrong. The result is the best educated guess they can make. And up to now, these best guesses have extended our life-expectancies two-fold and because of them, we live our lives in health and luxury unprecedented in human history.

For non-scientists it's a matter of trust, because they don't have the time, energy and/or education to verify whatever scientists are claiming. Just like I will trust the baker to put nutrients in my bread and not too much unhealthy stuff. Sure, I could 'do my own research' and make my own bread, but I'll find out soon enough that the way I make bread is fundamentally very similar to the way a baker makes it, and generally, they are much better equipped to make their bread superior to mine. If you want to discredit a major part of science, like discrediting bread, go ahead. You better have some really good alternatives.

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

Because unless you can show them thier actions are unbiblcal they are not going to change. They also will probably not believe you about the harm 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

How would you describe the Pharisees and Sadducee's?  

In many ways the Pharisees were like our Chirstian Funamentalists who add a bunch of laws to the Gospel, the Sadducees were like modern liberal Christians who reduce the faith to mere social values and deny the spiritual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

You better have some really good alternatives.

This is a just sayin' post and doesn't need a reply.  But, I hope we have some really good alternatives to fight COVID.  The coronavirus is considered a very rapid "evolver".  This is why we need the cooperation of others, this virus evolves quickly.  What are slow evolvers and what are quick evolvers and what is the difference scientifically, I don't know.  I'd have to look it up as you say.  

 

11 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Because unless you can show them thier actions are unbiblcal they are not going to change. They also will probably not believe you about the harm 

 

Yes, knowing my sister the way I do...she'd be doubtful of the harm too.  She seems oblivious sometimes.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A 22-years-old music prayer has been going on from this room -- they switch musicians every 2 hours. hard to believe -- 22 years!  Sometimes they have pretty good songs..

https://www.ihopkc.org/prayerroom/

"Scripture teaches that night-and-day prayer is deeply connected to the fullness of God's power and purpose being released (Lk. 18:7–8; cf. Isa. 62:6–7). We are offering Jesus unceasing worship, while contending for justice and for the power of the Holy Spirit to be manifest and bring transformation in every sphere of society."

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

It's a simple matter of choosing to trust or not to trust experts. Truth and belief have nothing to do with it.

The scientific method encourages scientists to mistrust everything and everyone, including themselves and be careful with their conclusions, and at all time to consider that they may be wrong. The result is the best educated guess they can make. And up to now, these best guesses have extended our life-expectancies two-fold and because of them, we live our lives in health and luxury unprecedented in human history.

For non-scientists it's a matter of trust, because they don't have the time, energy and/or education to verify whatever scientists are claiming. Just like I will trust the baker to put nutrients in my bread and not too much unhealthy stuff. Sure, I could 'do my own research' and make my own bread, but I'll find out soon enough that the way I make bread is fundamentally very similar to the way a baker makes it, and generally, they are much better equipped to make their bread superior to mine. If you want to discredit a major part of science, like discrediting bread, go ahead. You better have some really good alternatives.

Fact is there there are many self proclaimed expert scientists on opposing sides of almost any scientific question. Unlike your airfoil theory example, evolutionary issues are much harder to prove to get any degree of a consensus even among those professionals as the OP already pointed out. So for non scientists it comes back down to a best guess or faith approach to which is the most feasible. You want me as a creationist to drop my belief that there is a Creator because in what amounts to your professional opinion, evolution is the most likely way it happened in spite of a lack of transitional fossils, unexplained explosions of brand new life forms at various stages of the Earth's history, other life forms that have never changed in 500 million years as well as a list of other challenges to the theory as science comes to terms with how incredibly complex life forms are. The idea that over a billion years random molecules can morph into a human being is an ever increasing stretch where Occams razor favours an Intelligent Designer as being the simplest explanation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

"Give us a child until the age of 8 and we will have him for life."

I was homeschooled, kindergarten until engineering school*, just before turning 15. They, with a little help from my emergency backup parents (my neighbors), had this child for 15 years.

I've met people (not many) who, when they learn this, wonder what I've been "indoctrinated" into. They presume my parents wanted to fill my mind with some odd ideology from which I could not escape. Well, maybe they did! Anyone who's watched me here over the years knows I'm odd.

4 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

IMHO I would like to see religion removed altogether from the curriculum of state primary schools.

I'd not want to deprive public school students of an analysis of the large role religions have played in human history. But, I understand what might be your concern that such analysis is impossible without raising the ire of the faithful, or promoting religion rather than analyzing it.

Religion is not going way, we should understand it...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion

* A Jesuit one! ;-).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What are slow evolvers and what are quick evolvers and what is the difference scientifically, I don't know.

I never heard anyone really use that term literally, 'slow' and 'quick evolvers'. Maybe some scientists do by way of shorthand during a presentation.

Generally, RNA viruses replicate their genomes with less fidelity than DNA viruses, because the corresponding proof-reading and repair enzymes are less accurate or even absent for RNA viruses  than for DNA viruses. As a result, most RNA viruses have a higher mutation rate than DNA viruses. And thus, there is more variation and a higher chance of producing a new variant that happens to replicate or spread more effectively than their parent. I guess on average, RNA viruses qualify as 'fast evolvers' more than DNA viruses.

But there are so many more factors that result in slower or faster evolution. Replication speed for one. Human-born gut bacteria like E. coli can replicate once every 20 minutes. Most anaerobic bacteria are a lot slower. Eukaryotic organisms like amoeba replicate only every day. The slower you multiply, the slower you evolve. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics in a manner of days. sometimes gradually, through point mutations, sometimes, instantly, within a single generation, through horizontal gene transfer. More complex organisms take much longer, sometimes even millions of years to adapt to new food sources or develop a revolutionary new body part.

Carl Sagan on crabs that evolved samurai faces:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Fact is there there are many self proclaimed expert scientists on opposing sides of almost any scientific question.

Evolution is developed and supported by real scientists with degrees based on merit. What self-proclaimed expert scientists say is irrelevant.

Opposing sides of a scientific question is really a weird concept. When there is a question, you can have one or more explanations for them, hypotheses. With enough experimentation, reason and debate, scientists can reach a consensus on which 'side' seems the best.

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

evolutionary issues are much harder to prove to get any degree of a consensus even among those professionals as the OP already pointed out

They may disagree on a particular aspect on how things evolve, like whether chromosome 3 split in 2 parts first and then gene XYZ got a multiplication of its TATA box promoter/enhancer region, resulting in the organism getting bigger tail feathers, or the other way round (TATA box first, chromosome split later), but the mechanism by which evolution occurs is not a matter of debate at all.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

lack of transitional fossils

I should not really do this.

You can't prove your great great great grandmother is really your great great great grandmother, because even her bones have probably decayed by now. Imagine how hard it is to find a 'transitional ancestor' of yours from even just a few generations back after millions of years.

1. Finding the right fossil to support an evolutionary claim can be hard, because fossils of many species are extremely rare.

2. There are, nonetheless, plenty of 'transitional' fossils. Mostly because such species lived in great numbers and in environments that facilitated excellent fossilization. And they are so well documented, they have a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils . So go ahead and jump into full denial by telling us all how unreliable Wikipedia is (it's irrelevant here, because this page refers to uncontroversial, peer-reviewed scientific papers). Or just ignore these arguments. Or make up a few new allegations that no one but you yourself made up, like this one:

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You want me as a creationist to drop my belief that there is a Creator

I never said or implied anything like that at all. I have no hope for you. I'm merely countering you to convince others.

I've done this too often. I'm not doing it anymore. Believe whatever you want. Don't worry about antibiotics resistance or emerging infectious diseases or the development of new life-saving medicine using techniques that rely on evolutionary mechanisms, like the phage display system, that won the inventors a Nobel Prize a few years ago.

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 You want me as a creationist to drop my belief that there is a Creator

No. We want you to remain open to demonstrable truth. Not falsify it in favor of that supposed Creator of yours.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You want me as a creationist to drop my belief that there is a Creator

I would be very happy if you considered very carefully what the Bible's Creation account says, and what it doesn't say, and remain open to all the possibilities, and not try to force any particular idea into the text with explanations of observed phenomina that are absurd. Explanations like dinosaurs being chased back and forth over the same spot by the churning waters of Noah;s flood, so they left tracks in sedimentary layers on top of other tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

No. We want you to remain open to demonstrable truth. Not falsify it in favor of that supposed Creator of yours.

I have been waiting 50 years already, I don't have a lot of time left so you'll have to speed it up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TDD123 said:

Because focusing on that alone robs all of us of valuable contributions of scientists with religious backgrounds ? The Bing Bang theory being one of them ?

I think you misunderstand me about my saying I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.  Okay, matter is in constant motion.  We know that for a fact, mostly of matter we cannot see.  So, matter is in essence banging around all of the time and that IS what it's designed to do, so what I am saying is this is part of it's design to do that - bang around, collide.  So, what I am saying is this pattern of "banging" seems to be a part of the universe itself in regards to the matter it contains.   So, I'm saying perhaps the Big Bang Theory is inherit in the design of the universe itself.   Or, in other words, that is how the universe is designed.   I was throwing in the why not more earths than as a fantastical question, however, it was something to be taken with a grain of salt.  

The kinetic theory of matter (particle theory) says that all matter consists of many, very small particles which are constantly moving or in a continual state of motion. The degree to which the particles move is determined by the amount of energy they have and their relationship to other particles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

I should not really do this.

You can't prove your great great great grandmother is really your great great great grandmother, because even her bones have probably decayed by now. Imagine how hard it is to find a 'transitional ancestor' of yours from even just a few generations back after millions of years.

1. Finding the right fossil to support an evolutionary claim can be hard, because fossils of many species are extremely rare.

2. There are, nonetheless, plenty of 'transitional' fossils. Mostly because such species lived in great numbers and in environments that facilitated excellent fossilization. And they are so well documented, they have a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils . So go ahead and jump into full denial by telling us all how unreliable Wikipedia is (it's irrelevant here, because this page refers to uncontroversial, peer-reviewed scientific papers). Or just ignore these arguments. Or make up a few new allegations that no one but you yourself made up, like this one:

I never said or implied anything like that at all. I have no hope for you. I'm merely countering you to convince others.

I've done this too often. I'm not doing it anymore. Believe whatever you want. Don't worry about antibiotics resistance or emerging infectious diseases or the development of new life-saving medicine using techniques that rely on evolutionary mechanisms, like the phage display system, that won the inventors a Nobel Prize a few years ago.

You're right, it is an old argument that goes nowhere because neither side can produce demonstrable proof that what they believe is how it actually happened, however expert one is. It is faith based for either side. A few antibiotic resistant diseases and conjectured transitional fossils are a long way from proving that all the life forms in existence today have a few random molecules as their common ancestor. Just as is the inability to prove that all life forms popped into existence fully formed at the whim of a God(s).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Except that Chistianity is far more diverse than what you were exposed to. In one of your posts you said man's free will is central to the Bible, but in actually free will is one of the most debated and divisive ideas in Christianity. 

No, free will in relation to spiritual issues is debated. Free will itself is upheld in all denominations of Christianity. It is the areas free will exists that are debated.

For example, Catholics believe in free will as far as everything is concerned. Lutherans believe in free will only as far as non spiritual matters are concerned. Calvinists believe in free will but is bonded by sin until transformed. Methodists believe in free will however it cannot be given without grace. Etc.

But that is way off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talligurl said:

 Explanations like dinosaurs being chased back and forth over the same spot by the churning waters of Noah;s flood, so they left tracks in sedimentary layers on top of other tracks.

Who or what was chasing them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 5:34 AM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

There's no conspiracy among scientists to cancel anyone who disagrees with them. Quite the contrary. If someone truly has the opportunity to shake up some feathers in the 'establishment' (resulting in a better understanding of things, of course), all the better.

I'll leave you this though:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/03/in-the-name-of-academic-freedom-a-scientist-calls-for-punishing-creationists/

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Who or what was chasing them?

In order to explain the fact that fosselized dinosaur tracks can be found in sedimentary layers above other layers with other dinosaur tracks the floowing explanation was given by Younf Earth Creationists,

While the flood waters were rising there were great surges of water, These surges came up ove the remaining land areas, The dinosaurs would run away from the surge in one direction laying down tracksh, the surge would then deposit sediments over those tracks, Later those dinosaurs whould be chased back the other way over the same spot by another surge of water, laying down more tracks that got covered up. In this was multple layers were layed down with dinosaur tracks in some of the layers one over another

 

Edited by Talligurl
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

In order to explain the fact that fosselized dinosaur tracks can be found in sedimentary layers above other layers with other dinosaur tracks the floowing explanation was given by Younf Earth Creationists,

Are you a YEC? I did get the idea that you were but perhaps I am assuming wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...