1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I prefer creation.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by HOGCALLER, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. Orthodox

    Orthodox Born again apostate

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    157
    Ratings:
    +15
    Linwood,

    Firstly, this website demonstrates the unscientific nature of Chemical evolution. Read it through.

    http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php , click on the link at the bottom of the paragraph. At least this paper is scientific and technical not just speculation.

    The best resource noted above by Ceridwen is so very bad that I didn’t read the rest. Here are a few intrinsic problems with his paper.

    1. The author posits a "hypothetical protobiont" which would have been sufficiently simple to possibly arise through chemical evolution. This is the state of chemical evolution, when the facts don’t fit your theory, make up some more that do. How very convenient! What was the basis for the hypothetical? I suppose it was the fact that the chemical evolution of simple organisms (such as an amoeba) " mind-beggaringly improbable".

    2. He says that he wants to "show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way". How convenient. Still, this did not stop him trying himself.

    3. With the help of the non-evidenced "hypothetical protobiont", and his special ability to calculate meaningful probabilities the author calculated the chance that life arises to be 4.29 x 1040 . What number is this anyway? It is

    1 chance in 4,290,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we assume that this hypothetical protobiont ever existed and we assume that all of it’s ingredients were swilling around in a bowl reacting once every second then it should evolve once in every 1,359,418,967,221,841,965,168,453,874,819,400 years. Given that the universe is only about 15,000,000,000 years old I’d say this was impossible. To get around this figure the author posits tons of amino acids reacting simultaneously. How they got there is a secret he doesn’t share with us. The author refuses to let us know where the tons came from. There would be an even higher improbability of this whole scenario if we considered the unlikely hood of the chemical evolution of amino acids in the well-established primitive earth atmosphere. It really is unscientific to posit what he has. I encourage you to check it out for yourself.



    mmmm...... I'm actually not so sure about that. I'll admit that chemical evolution is the best natural explanation for life but that doesn't mean it is the best overall explanation for life. I think that it is highly irrational. If you are not convinced by Chemical evolution why do you still adhere to it? Is this just another thing you 'don't know' about?

    He said it last year. Nothing significant has changed in the past decade concerning this question.

    So very brilliant scientist who have a copy of life right before them to copy off are finding it "no simple task" to create 'simple' life. If we are not even intelligent enough to copy life, how are mindless forces of nature meant to create it from scratch. Where exactly are you getting this information from - just for reference.

    I think Hogcaller has done a splendid job of demonstrating the virtual impossibility of chemical evolution. The chance that it arose through random causes is very slim. I think you give this Chance too much of a chance.

    orthodox




     
  2. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
  3. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Ceridwen018 Et al.:



    My above comments and quotation regarding entropy do not go to evolution or origin of life or whatever it is called now days but rather to the physical universe. I would have qualified my statements if I had been aware of an entropy debate regarding evolution or whatever it is called now days. In my mind there has always been a logical separation between Genesis 1:1 (the beginning of the universe) and Genesis 1:2 (the start of the first creative period that leads on to life as we know it on earth), a separation of billions of years. It did come as a total surprise to me that evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life and that there are evolutionary scientists and laymen who believe either in alien creation or even divine creation of life. Wow, what a load of cop-out.



    Scientists can start with existing life and work back. It is no surprise to me that they can ‘reverse engineer’ life and then can conduct experiments in highly controlled laboratory environments that almost produce the desired results. Therefore, I ask myself this question and so should you, “Does that really have anything to do with how life actually started?” The most honest answer is, “Probably not.” Do not misunderstand me; I understand that most scientists believe that these experiments support their theories of evolution and abiogenesis. However, the fact that there is an ongoing debate among scientists about what these experiments actually “prove” makes my point for me, these experiments do not have any real connection to how life got started other than to “prove” that ultimately life must be ‘caused.’ Again, all they are actually proving, to date, is that, no matter whether in big steps or in many little steps, life does not “spontaneously generate.” I may not have said it yet or I may not have said it well, but believing in the ‘religion’ of evolution requires at least as much, perhaps even more, ‘faith’ in the unknown and unexplainable than my religion does. (Follow this link and read the paragraph just above Bibliography.)



    I originally had prepared many pages of arguments and rebuttals to the “facts” and figures used on the sites to which you provided links that I was going to post. But after reading the paragraph I link to above I changed my mind—what would be the point? At this point in time it all boils down to “he said, she said.”



    Therefore, let me summarize my reactions to those sites and finalize my arguments to this thread. My first impression of those sites is that they are claiming that it was not “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind,” but instead it was an unbelievably, ‘Somebody’ rigged the numbers kind of lucky ‘chance.’ Also they contain much speculation based on many assumptions of facts not in evidence (non-demonstrable facts) and much deliberate ignoring of most all the factors (facts) that work against those assumptions and speculations. The most prevalent and the most overlooked assumption (preconceived idea, predisposition, prejudice) in all those sites is that since there is life on earth today there must have been abiogenesis and evolution in the past because the alternative is unacceptable and “unscientific.” Anything based on this assumption is automatically suspect to me, first, because I believe that the Bible is in agreement with the facts and, second, because in the recent past cosmologists and physicists operated under a similar assumption and time and the demonstrable facts have proven the case to be otherwise. My belief is it will turn out the same with abiogenesis and evolution.



    Let's now consider some of the factors (facts) the sites ignore as they made their arguments. One factor under much debate among scientists is whether or not the atmosphere of ancient earth was anything like those being used in the experiments. The scientists cannot agree and are punching holes in each other’s theories about this and, in effect, saying that it is “impossible” for it to happen in any of the ways proposed. For example: if the atmosphere wasn’t reducing (little or no free oxygen, an atmosphere that is more conducive to the chemical reactions required) then free oxygen causes a slow down in the production of polymers and causes the polymers that are produced to decompose at a rate equal to their formation. And what if there was a reducing atmosphere? That also does not solve the problem as you then have an atmosphere that is very hostile and that does sufficiently filter the ultra-violet and other forms of damaging solar radiation that would destroy what ever was produced. Move to the ‘sea’ you say. Wrong, most of the required chemical reactions are adversely affected by water.



    Another factor (fact) ignored in all this is mentioned by the book The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.”



    In addition, there are other factors that have a direct bearing on the probability figures arrived at by these sites and that are not considered. While it is true that there are only 20 amino acids used by proteins, there are some 100 known amino acids. And the “selection” process would have to include those. On top of that amino acids can either be right-handed or left-handed, while living organisms are made up entirely of left-handed amino acids. As far the claim that there are billions of ‘coin flips’ occurring simultaneously I don’t buy it. If evolution is true then there are possibly billions of planets going through the same processes. Why wouldn’t those ‘coin flips’ also count into the probabilities? Distance! The same is true even here on earth. It is impossible to have billions of ‘coin flips’ occurring in close enough proximity to matter. Thus their probabilities are overly optimistic to say the least. Whatever final probability figure was arrived at, it was off by at least enough to move things from being “barely possible” back to being “impossible.”



    Above I stated that at this time it all boils down to “he said, she said.” It will not remain that way forever, probably not for long. The facts are what they are and time and advancing knowledge will only reveal the truth just has been the case throughout history and in other areas of science. Romans 1:19-20 states: “what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.” I am supremely confident that creation, “the things made,” will reveal God and his qualities. But no matter how it turns out, I have no reason to fear the truth. How about you?


    .
     
  4. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,697
    Ratings:
    +10,015
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No! :banghead3

    Let's try an analogy and see how it stands up ...
    Orthodox sits down Saturday morning with a deck of cards and decides to play a game before leaving for work Monday morning. He is allowed to pick one card an hour, the object being to draw (as always) the Ace of Spades. The odds of selecting any particular card is 1:52. Unfortunately, given that there are only 48 hours in the weekend, this is impossible.​
    Again, no. There is zero basis for insisting that the Ace of Spades was not the 1st card drawn, leaving you with 48 hours free to sleep, party, and play cricket.
     
  5. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    HOGCALLER,

    The experiements that scientists perform regarding abiogenesis and evolution, are mere building blocks--not entire solutions to the theories. I agree that many scientists disagree on some of the more modern details, which they are in the process of ironing out with continued experiementation, however, enough of them agree on the basic premises to constitue a solid theory.

    We know that life must be caused, and we're pretty sure that life doesn't 'spontaneously generate.' What we're trying to figure out right now, is what that cause is. You would say it is the work of some god, however, I prefer to prescribe to a more scientific and logically founded idea. The fact of the matter is, is that there is no tangible evidence for god, at all, whatsoever. Many creationists try to pick out holes in the evloutionary and abiogenesis theories as proof that there is a god, however this is simply irrational and ridiculous thinking. A shortage of solid and clear evidence for abiogenesis does not in any way automatically constitute evidence for god. What it means, is that we either have more yet to discover about abiogenesis, or that abiogenesis is an incorrect theory, to be replaced by a new one.

    Take this analogy: People once thought that rotting meat produced maggots, because wherever you would find rotting meat, you would usually find maggots as well. It's doubtful that these simple scientists ever got this far, but lets assume that they had a theory for how maggots were created by meat. Lets also assume that many opposed this theory, due to it's incomplete evidence and slightly contradictory experiments. The disagreeing party proclaimed that science was not involved, but rather god made the maggots come from the meat, end of story.

    As we can see today, neither party was correct. The point here is that the scientific party's theories were not replaced with the religious theories, simply because they had incomplete evidence. Rather, experiments were continued, new evidence was discovered, and new scientific theories were founded. Today, these theories are completely solid and undisputed by both the scientific and religious communities.

    I believe that someday the same will happen with the theory of abiogenesis. Many disagree on it today, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect--we just haven't discovered everything yet (and that's ok). Or, just because many disagree, doesn't mean that god exists. If abiogenesis is incorrect, it will be deemed so by new evidence...which will then constitute the formation of a new scientific theory, which will most likely still leave god out of the picture.

    Here, you are thinking like a creationist. The creationists think in a "belief > evidence" format. "I believe that the earth was created in 6 days, therefore I will look for evidence which supports my theory." Scientists, on the other hand, think in a "Evidence > belief" format. "Because I found this evidence, I believe this to be true." In your quote above, you are correct in inferring that scientists favor abiogenesis because it is the most scientific theory. They do not say, "Because I don't agree with biblical accounts, I will look for evidence which contradicts them." They say, "because I found this evidence which contradicts biblical accounts, I do not believe in the biblical accounts."

    I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you 'not buy it' because you have contrary evidence, or because it's outside of your range of understanding?

    As far as probability goes, when faced with infinity, probability ceases to exist. One cannot say that "The Big Bang had such and such probability of happening" because it had an infinite number of times to 'get it right' so to speak. Probability deals with finite numbers only.
     
  6. Orthodox

    Orthodox Born again apostate

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    157
    Ratings:
    +15
    Hey Duet,

    You quoted my last post and responded to it by saying,

    Let’s compare the analogy with the number I proposed above. The chance that I would pick the Ace of Spades within 48 hours is 92.3%, or probability wise 0.923. So, there is a very high probability that I will pick the Ace of Spades before the weekend is up. Now, what’s the probability that chemicals (which I will just assume were ‘swilling around’- contrary to scientific data) will fall together to form this very ‘simple’ hypothetical protobiont (which, remember, there is no evidence for, and is posited by those who hold Darwinism to be true regardless of the evidence). Well, let’s first consider that the chemical evolution of this hypothetical protobiont (HP) had to have occurred within a time frame of 300 million years (this time frame is constructed around Earth’s cooling to life supporting temperatures and the first single cell (much more complex than the HP) organisms in the fossil record). So, what are the chances? Here goes.


    The HP should arise once every 1.3 x 10^33 years (I have simplified the number above for practical reasons). Given that the Hp only has 3x 10^8 years to arise what is the probability that it will? 1 chance in 4.3 x 10^21, or 2.3255 x 10 ^-22%.

    So, the probability that I pick out the Ace of Spades is 9.23 x 10^-2 and the probability that chemical evolution take place is 2.3255 x 10^-22.

    In your analogy there is a very high probability that I will pick the Ace of Spades. In the case of chemical evolution there is an astronomically small probability that the hypothetical protobiont will form. Remember that the HP is just postulated to make chemical evolution less impossible, I didn’t factor in the high improbability that the building blocks of the HP would form themselves and all be located in the same place, I also simplified my numbers after each equation making for a final number designed to favour chemical evolution. Yet the chances are still so small.

    This is one of the reasons why I just don’t have enough faith to be an atheist (Norman Giesler).

    Orthodox

    PS: Got to love the mentioning of cricket rather than baseball!

     
  7. Named

    Named Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Ratings:
    +3
    In order to measure chance, you must know all the possible outcomes of an action. Tell me, Orthodox, do you?

    If I were to generate any random number between 1 and 678 000 000, would you really attempt to refute the result? Having it right in front of your eyes? "How could you land on that number! The chances of that are 1 in 678 000 000!"
    Well! I just did ;) To roll that number AGAIN is next to impossible.
    Please, I wish for people to learn the concept of chance before arguing it -_-
     
  8. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    First of all, it's good to have you back, Named!

    Second of all, GOOD POINT! I hadn't thought of that, but it's so true. One of the benefits of having an imperfect universe and earth, is that there are many ways things can happen. The way that our earth was formed, for example, was not the only possible way. That messes with the probability of things quite a bit, now doesn't it?
     
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,697
    Ratings:
    +10,015
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Do us both a favor and read up on selection bias. ;)
     
  10. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Ceridwen018,

    It was not that long ago when virtually no astronomers, physicists and cosmologists believed in God or “ID” or anything of the sort. That is far from the case now! Why is that? . . . Did all those scientists suffer from some strange viral infection that left them with “simply irrational and ridiculous thinking”? Come on Ceridwen018! Wakeup and smell the coffee. Also, I had hoped that you were above the name-calling and the “holier-than-thou” attitude.

    I am not a creationist so I cannot speak for what a creationist might believe and why. But I can speak to what I believe and why and I can assure you that my belief in God, my “proof” of God has absolutely nothing to do with the “holes” in scientific theories, even though you could drop the moon into some of those holes. How do you know that my “proof” and therefore my believing in God is “simply irrational and ridiculous thinking”? I submit to you that I know a great deal more about the things you believe (science, evolution, etc.) than you know about what I believe.

    You claim: “The fact of the matter is, is that there is no tangible evidence for god, at all, whatsoever.” Really!? Would I be correct to suppose you are an expert on the subject and are therefore somehow qualified to make such a sweeping claim? May I ask how long have you been studying God and the Bible? How is it that you came to know that “incomplete [scientific] evidence” is the basis of “religious theories”?

    Your analogy does not work! If anything your analogy works to support my thinking, let me explain why. First off “spontaneous generation” was a theory. That theory has now been disproved beyond doubt; therefore we can say it is a “fact” that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. History records the experiments conducted by Francesco Redi, Anton von Leeuwenhoek, Lazzaro Spallanzani and finally Louis Pasteur. There were no “slightly contradictory experiments”. There was no disputing and arguing within the scientific community because at each step there was incontrovertible proof in the form of demonstrable facts, facts that we all now accept as disproving spontaneous generation. The only thing that kept Francesco Redi from being able to disprove it “completely” was the lack of technology. As technology improved, as knowledge advanced the facts did not fall out of favor or come into more doubt and question but were progressively, steadily made clear. Lazzaro Spallanzanidid not have to discard or correct Francesco Redi’s work, in fact he couldn't because Francesco Redi’s work was based on actual fact. The process I just described is the antithesis of what we have seen with evolution and abiogenesis. That could not be the case if evolution and abiogenesis experiments were dealing with incontrovertible proof in the form of demonstrable facts!

    In one of our first exchanges in pah’s thread ‘How Old Is The World’ you made claims regarding what the Bible says that you could not support and now you are making claims about what scientists say and again you have no support. There is no “evidence which contradicts biblical accounts”! There may be scientists with theories but there is no “evidence.” If there is any scientific “evidence” that contradicts the Bible’s account I would really like to know about it.

    Ceridwen018, if evolution and abiogenesis are really so irrefutable why are there so many scientists starting to dispute them?

    What do you know that they don’t? Or more likely it is: What do they know that you don’t?







    .
     
  11. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    According to this website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html from Nature magazine, only 7.5% of physicists and astronomers in the National Academy of Sciences believed in a personal God in 1998.

    Can you provide data illustrating the massive paradigm shift you have exalted? Also, have you heard of Project Steve? ;)
     
  12. croak

    croak Trickster

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,804
    Ratings:
    +211
    What's Project Steve? :p
     
  13. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224

    Ceridwen is not making any statement about what you choose to believe. Rather, she is pointing out that what you choose to believe is not based on any type of empirical evidence, but on "revealed faith" which cannot be tested, proven or disproven by use of the scientific method. All of your claims to the contrary do not change the fact that her position is valid.


    Again, you insist on confusing your revealed faith in the existence of God with something that is testable in terms of the scientific method. Your belief in the Bible may be commendable (or not), but it is in no way "proof" of the existence of God.

    As Spinkles just pointed out, you can make any claim you wish as to the "many scientists" that dispute any point. It might give your argument some credence if you would cite some type of statistical evidence - remember though - 88.7 percent of all statistics are made up right on the spot! There are those of us that will want to check the statistics that you might provide (if they do, in fact, exist). Lastly, to say that "many scientists" accept or reject any argument has no real value in a debate. I know people working in a vast array of scienctific fields of study, but that does not make them any more qualified than a bus driver to hold an opinion in a different scientific discipline.

    TVOR

    PS - while you're at it, could you take us back to that point in time when "virtually no astronomers, physicists, or cosmologists believed in ...?" I can't seem to find that era in history. Thanks.
     
  14. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    Ceridwen018, Mr_Spinkles, Voice of Reason, Et al.,

    I am going to attack your religion. And you are going to react just like people almost always react when you attack their religion. You, as a group, are going to be offended and are going to counterattack or, at the very least, defend, excuse, justify and minimize with varying degrees of emotion. Why?

    Because people are people and therefore people act like people. In fact, people almost always have and almost always will act like people. That makes it predictable, not individually but as a group, for people almost always act like people.

    First off a dictionary definition: re·lig·ion 1. (n.) A system of belief, principles, or opinions: . . . philosophy . . . 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    Due to the truisms of the second paragraph what is true of one religion is generally true of the next. So any shortcomings found in one religion are almost always found in the others. Therefore, as I attack your religion do I understand the ramifications of what I just said? You betcha! What is more I will agree and join with you in much, but not all, of what you might say. Now, think for moment of every negative thing you might say . . . and then consider how it applies to you and your religion.

    NARRATOR: All stories of early human history are incomplete. Advances in human genetics, archaeology and anthropology will add new chapters - or perhaps rewrite it altogether. [The possible necessity of that “rewrite” can only mean that what science is now telling us may be a complete fabrication.]

    The above is from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2705first.html

    NARRATOR: When he [a scientist] published his findings, he was immediately attacked [by scientists].

    JAMES ADOVASIO:The majority of the archaeological community was acutely skeptical, and they [scientists] invented all kinds of reasons why these dates couldn't possibly be right.

    NARRATOR: Some claimed that nearby coal deposits had contaminated Adovasio's samples, but he was known to be a meticulous excavator. Eventually, a few other archaeologists began to report evidence questioning the Clovis First theory, and they too were attacked [by scientists].

    MICHAEL COLLINS:The best way in the world to get beaten up [by scientists], professionally, is to [go against established dogma and] claim you have a pre-Clovis site.

    DENNIS STANFORD:When you dig deeper than Clovis, a lot of people do not report it, because they're worried [afraid of] about the reaction of their colleagues [the scientific community].

    MICHAEL COLLINS:I've been accused [by scientists] of planting artifacts. People [scientists] will reject radiocarbon dates just simply because there's not supposed to be any people here at those times, and it just goes on and on and on.

    NARRATOR: Even faced with evidence to the contrary, Clovis First supporters [scientists] refused to accept [the facts] that people could have arrived in America earlier than 13,500 years ago. For, as they pointed out, although it was possible to walk across the land bridge into present day Alaska, ice sheets blocked entry to the rest of the continent until at least that time. As they put it, "If people were coming to the New World before then, how could they get past the ice?"

    Some archaeologists began to defy the dogma and search for an alternative routedown the coast of Alaska. . . .

    NARRATOR: But even as more archaeologists allowed themselves to consider [in other words, as they were being dragged kicking and screaming into open-minded thinking] that Clovis might not have been first, the pillars of the Clovis First theory could not be completely toppled; [there is clear evidence that it is not true, yet] Clovis First remained the entrenched answer to the question of the peopling of Americas.

    The above is from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3116_stoneage.html

    The above is not an aberration.

    Given that people act like people and given the above evidence of what that means in the scientific community, it is an absolute wonder that as many as 7.5% of those scientists will admit to such a thing as belief in a personal God. Considering the great chasm separating admitting “belief in a personal God” from my description of “or anything of that sort,” I submit to you that the actual number of astronomers, physicists and cosmologists that reject evolution or at least some of its parts, such as abiogenesis, does qualify as being “far from the case now!”

    My religion is not based on the ‘possible complete fabrications’ of scientists but some of you seem to base your ideas and beliefs on what scientists say; so why not let someone of that ilk explain to you the possible problems with the tenets of your religion?

    An example of one is Sir Fred Hoyle. He certainly did not believe in a personal God and he certainly did reject abiogensis as “impossible.” And he is not alone. My suggestion is that you investigate why he and other scientists have rejected evolution or at least some parts of it and have written books and papers in support of their views.

    Once, while discussing how to choose a religion, Jesus stated: “Yes, the way to identify a tree [a religion] or a person is by the kind of fruit that is produced.” (Matthew 7:20) Science is not producing the fruits for which I am looking. The above may not count as “tangible evidence” to you, perhaps it should. It certainly does to me.



    .
     
  15. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,697
    Ratings:
    +10,015
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Ignorance, superstition, dogmatism, ...
     
  16. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Hogcaller -

    I don't think you get it. The work of Adovasio and his team at Meadowbrook are examples of why science works - this is the scientific method at its best. Someone (Adovasio) sees empirical evidence that does not fit with the (then) currently accepted beliefs, he proposes a hypothesis that goes against what was commonly accepted, digs laboriously for over a decade (while painstakingly cataloging his data), and proposes a new theory that is supported by his findings. His work is then peer reviewed. This peer review itself is almost always a contentious process. Eventually, the scientific community will come to some conclusion as to which theory best describes the evidence.
    I have no idea how you see this process as confirming your position that because a scientist does not believe in evolution, means that evolution is incorrect. Sir Fred Hoyle's theories of new matter being continuously created as the basis for his "steady state" universe have been rejected by virtually the entire scientific community (based on the discovery of background microwave radiation). Also, his belief that life actually evolved in space is not accepted by credible scientists. Note that he does not reject evolution, rather, he posits that viruses from outer space are the driving force behind evolution.

    Your conclusion does not follow as a logical consequence of the premise. This is a classic example of a non-sequitur.

    As for your "people act like people" diatribe, I have no explanation for this amazing observance. Is it possible that we will next be presented with the paradigm that "blue is blue"?

    Lastly, your use of the definition of religion (just curious - where did you get the definition?) to ascribe the zealousness of religious fervor to those that embrace the scientific method is disingenuous. Let's look at the following from Webster's Unabridged:
    Religion (n.) The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.

    Religion (n.) Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.

    Religion (n.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion.

    Religion (n.) Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct.

    Clearly, you are attempting to tie the scientific method to a belief in a revealed faith. This is because it would make the scientific method appear to be no stronger, or have no more validity than revealed faith. I can't speak for the others, but for myself, your position only becomes more hollow with each futile attempt in this vein. I know, I know - "people are people". I guess I'll have to admit to being a person. ;)

    You suffer from the same malady that afflicts many of the religious zealots on this site - you seek to use science to confirm your revealed faith - and it will never come to pass.

    I read posts by Scott (SOGFPP) and many others and I can respect their views - beliefs in God that are based on revealed faith. I do not share those beliefs, but I do respect them. It is impossible to respect a faith (or the believer) that relies on intentionally twisting and perverting science in a desperate (and hopeless) grasp for acceptance that is doomed to fail, and will continue to be rejected by those that think critically, rationally, and with no preconceived notions.

    Thanks,
    TVOR
     
  17. HOGCALLER

    HOGCALLER Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Ratings:
    +8
    TVOR,



    You say: “I don't think you get it.”



    I say: you are absolutely right! But then again, neither do you. That was my point and you missed it completely.



    You say: “this is the scientific method at its best.”



    I say: exactly!



    At its best, the scientific method results in “stories of early human history [that] are incomplete . . . or perhaps [need to be] rewrite[n] . . . altogether. [The possible necessity of that “rewrite” can only mean that what science is now telling us may be a complete fabrication.]



    At its best, the scientific method results in “they [scientists] invented all kinds of reasons”. Just as they “invent” “stories” and “reasons” for not believing things they also “invent” “stories” and “reasons” to believe things. And then they justify this with the excuse that if these “complete fabrications” are not correct they'll just invent new fabrications.



    At its best, the scientific method results in “MICHAEL COLLINS:The best way in the world to get beaten up [by scientists], professionally, is to [go against established dogma and] claim you have a pre-Clovis site.

    DENNIS STANFORD:When you dig deeper than Clovis, a lot of people do not report it, because they're worried [afraid of] about the reaction of their colleagues [the scientific community]



    The second most religiously opinionated or arrogantly dogmatic people on earth today are some of the scientists. The less demonstrable the evidence and, therefore, the more theory based their particular science is the more arrogantly dogmatic they are. Yes, TVOR, you are right, that is “the scientific method at its best” and “I don't think you get it.” I know I don’t!



    It is not an accident that the title of this thread is “I PREFER creation.” There is no “scientific evidence,” that you will accept, that proves creation. There is no “scientific evidence,” that I will accept, that disproves creation. That does not mean that you and I do not have “scientific evidence” that we believe that supports our individual PREFERENCE. However, you are sadly mistaken if you think that I believe in creation based on that “scientific evidence.” If you say that my beliefs influence my view of the evidence, you are right, but isn’t the same true of you?



    Given the above, doesn’t your belief in science, at its best, constitute a “a system of faith?”And, given the above, doesn’t your system of faith, i.e. religion, at its best, fail the test of logic? If you can’t see that could it be because of your PREFERANCE? Yes, as it turns out, you are only a person.



    .
     
  18. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    I'm sorry Hogcaller - did you say something?

    TVOR
     
  19. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    well that would make things easier on the scientific community and it's followers wouldn't it?
     
Loading...