What evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

[Skeptic]

Keoni asked, "What would an atheist accept as evidence of God's existence?"

Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

I know this has been asked before on tOL, but I'm curious how the current batch of creationists might respond.

By "creationist (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html)" I mean someone who believes God poofed life on Earth into existence fully formed, and that humans are not descended from a common ancestor along with other primates or DNA-based life. I know there are other types of creationists, but I don't want to broaden the topic too much.

By "evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html)" I mean common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#evolution) for all DNA (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html)-based life.

First of all, responding creationists must at least allow for the possibility (however remote) that some kind of scientific explanation (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm) based on empirical evidence (even that which may not have yet been discovered) could potentially modify their belief in creationism to such an extent that they could become evolutionists.

Secondly, having become evolutionists, they could continue believing that God created the Universe and even initiated the chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the first living things (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html). But, to be an evolutionist (even a theistic evolutionist) I am stipulating that, given the formation of DNA (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/), by whatever methods, one must at least believe that all DNA-based life evolved from a common ancestor.

What kind of empirical evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html) would suffice? For example, what would satisfy creationists that a fossil (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html) is transitional? Are there transitional fossils between reptiles and birds (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html)? How about between land mammals and whales (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html)? What kind of evidence would suffice to convince you that humans evolved (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/) from previous primate species? Are there any recent developments (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html) that are convincing? (Not too many new developments in creationism, are there?) Is there anything about the predictive power (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html) of evolutionary theory that is convincing?

Of course, in order to answer this question one should be somewhat familiar with the basics of evolutionary biology (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html). If you believe there is currently no evidence for evolution (http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html) or common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) that is convincing, what would be?

[GodGeek3]

Faith doesn't need evidence.
This forum is In Search For Truth. And you need to find it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by GodGeek3
Faith doesn't need evidence. Isn't creationism supposed to be based on some kind of evidence?

Can you conceive of the possibility (however remote) of a certain kind of evidence modifying your views?

If faith does not need evidence, doesn't this make faith blind?

[Jukia]

Skeptic: In my experience, from reading and posting on this site, NOTHING will shake the faith of a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. See the response from GodGeek3. Biblical literalist creationists will not even look at evidence. They believe that the trash found on sites such as Answersingenesis is real science. Anything that questions the Genesis account in the smallest detail is nothing but the work of a conspiracy of God-hating Darwinists who will spend eternity in hell for their disbelief.

Sorry about the last little diatribe, but I get a bit frustrated trying to understand totally closed minds. The whole idea behind science is to investigate and to try to understand the natural universe. Seems to me that the idea behind most creationists is to avoid such an investigation on the odd chance that it might present some evidence at variance with the Bible and, since the Bible is God's inerrant word, we are better off not even trying to go there. Sorry, makes no sense to me, He gave us intelligence and a sense of wonder, we should use them.

[elected4ever]

SkepticKeoni asked, "What would an atheist accept as evidence of God's existence?"
Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

e4e It is not the creationist becoming an evolutionist or the atheist accepting creationism that is the problem. The problem is ones on predisposition toward God that determines the interpretation of the same evidence.

The atheist will say, "See this proves there is no God." The creationist will say, " Look at the wondrous works God has done."

All the atheist has is this life on this planet. He has no future and life is without meaning outside of it. An atheist thumbs his nose at God and says, "I am the epitome of life and I am the answer to my own being." The creationist will say, "I am the creation of a mighty God and in Him I move with purpose and have my being."

It is your predisposition that determines what you will find.

[elected4ever]

The real answer is the answer to this question. This is your beginning point weather atheist or creationist. Can something come from nothing? The lie and the trap that both creationelist and evolutionest fall into is to answere that question with a yes.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Jukia Sorry about the last little diatribe, but I get a bit frustrated trying to understand totally closed minds. In a closed mind, one can be totally right all the time. For people who have been taught to fear being wrong, or who have low intellectual self-esteem, this illusion of righteousness has a very powerful appeal. The appeal of righteousness is the real reason for the "inerrant bible theory". Through the magically inerrant bible, one can imagine that they too become inerrant. They can ratatify any interpretation they might have of the words they read by simply claiming that "God wrote 'em, I read 'em, you don't like 'em, argue with God". It's irrational, but for folks who crave the safety and emotional power that comes from this illusion of righteousness, the irrationality of it is insignificant relative to the emotional payoff.

Creationism, homophobia, cultism, ... it's all part of the addiction to the illusion of religious righteousness. And like any addiction, the addicts are not going to give up their drug of choice without an incredible battle. Reason will be of little value against the power of such an addiction.

[Keoni]

Originally posted by Jukia
They believe that the trash found on sites such as Answersingenesis is real science. Anything that questions the Genesis account in the smallest detail is nothing but the work of a conspiracy of God-hating Darwinists who will spend eternity in hell for their disbelief.

Have you seen that website called No Answers in Genesis (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm)? It's a curious countersite—almost a parody site—to the aforementioned Creationist site. They don't have their own domain, so this hyperlink could break at any time.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jukia
...NOTHING will shake the faith of a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. I'm an optimist. I haven't given up on reason yet! :thumb:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by elected4ever
The real answer is the answer to this question. This is your beginning point weather atheist or creationist. Can something come from nothing? The lie and the trap that both creationelist and evolutionest fall into is to answere that question with a yes. In my first post, I stipulated that "having become evolutionists, they could continue believing that God created the Universe and even initiated the chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the first living things." Therefore, for the purposes of this thread it doesn't matter if an evolutionist believes that "something" came from God, up to the point of the formation of DNA.

However, apart from the topic of this thread, I don't believe something can come from nothing. Neither do most evolutionists, who ultimately trace origins back to the Big Bang. What existed prior to the Big Bang is unknown, and may always remain unknown. And it will take more than a few words out of the Bible to convince me that this something was God. Regardless, the God-poofed theory doesn't really answer the "something from nothing" question anyway. It merely postpones the answer. That is, who or what created God? Did God come from nothing? Did God create existence out of nothing? You see, there is no answer. I would rather keep the question open, than throw some mythical supernatural Something (God) into the equation.

To me, it seems more plausible that the matter/energy/quantum-flux/whatever of the universe has always existed in one form or another. In other words, the universe just is. To ask how existence came into existence may be a question that will forever be unanswerable from the perspective of reason.

But, let us get back to the topic of this thread. What do you say?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX
Reason will be of little value against the power of such an addiction. I have not given up hope yet! :thumb:

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeptic


Have you been following
this (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10657&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) discussion?


Crow is allowing others to participate for limited postings (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=388234#post388234).

If you are interested, you can be my guest.

You have to promise not to post a bunch of long articles, though. Post your own opinions.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Skeptic

Have you been following
this (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10657&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) discussion? No. But I did just read thru several pages. Many thoughtful posts. I didn't expect such good posts from "rednecks." Just shows to go ya. :D

Crow is allowing others to participate for limited postings (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=388234#post388234).

If you are interested, you can be my guest. This past week, I've been ill at home and have had more time to read and post on tOL. However, during the next several days, other projects will need my attention and I will not be able to devote as much time as I would like in this forum. Of course, I will chime in periodically.

Also, it might be difficult for me to give up my "'God poofed' foolishness", as Crow called it. I've been using that phrase on tOL since 1999. I like the term "God poofed" because it conjures up such a magical miraculous image of God instantaneously creating things with the wave of a magical wand... *poof*! :chuckle:

Anyway, thanks much for the offer. I don't want to bite off more than I can chew right now. Between addressing issues in Origins and Current Events, I've got my hands full. Maybe later.
Thanks. ;)

[BillyBob]

OK. If you see anything you would like to respond to in that thread, just let me know.

[Skeptic]

Don't all answer at once! :sigh:

Should I rephrase my initial question? Can you conceive of any evidence that could possibly convince you to switch from a being creationist to believing in evolution?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't all answer at once! :sigh:

Should I rephrase my initial question? Can you conceive of any evidence that could possibly convince you to switch from a being creationist to believing in evolution?


It isn't a matter of evidence, Skeptic. It is a matter of faith. The very definition of 'faith' transcends the need for evidence, and rightly so. This has been my biggest quandary about Christianity. I don't want people to lose their faith. I don't want to convince anybody of evolution or convince them to deny creationism.

Why? Because how we live our lives and treat each other is more important than how we got here.

[Nineveh]

Ok... :)
Well I was a creationist, then I was taught to be an evolutionist, then I was saved, and looked at the evidence again. When I was godless, I saw evolution. In fact, I would say it was evolution that challenged my "child-like" faith, and broke it. Then, when I had the faith of an adult, the challenges of evolution were met to answer any questions (or rather doubts) as to the Truth of Genesis as written/recorded.

What would it take? For me to unknow God. I think the chances of that are equal to those of anyone else convincing anyone else of the non/existance of God. It boils down to the heart.

E4E nailed it :)
"It is not the creationist becoming an evolutionist or the atheist accepting creationism that is the problem. The problem is ones on predisposition toward God that determines the interpretation of the same evidence."

[BillyBob]

Nineveh;
E4E nailed it
"It is not the creationist becoming an evolutionist or the atheist accepting creationism that is the problem. The problem is ones own predisposition toward God that determines the interpretation of the same evidence."

Billy;
That basically means that you allow your faith to presupose the answer to the question.

I couldn't agree more with e4e's assesment. If you have a predisposition towards God and what is percieved by man-made religion as God's word, your interpretation will be slanted towards that expectation. That has been my argument all along.

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=389099#post389099

[Nineveh]

Billy Bob,
"you have a predisposition towards God and what is percieved by man-made religion as God's word, your interpretation will be slanted towards that expectation"

If I am understanding you right, I don't entirely agree. I was raised Lutheran (that didn't teach a rebuttle to evo) in a public school (that taught evo), I lost the faith I had as a child. It wasn't until after I was saved (through reading the Word) did I even have the courage to look at evo's arguments and compare them to the creationist's view. It wasn't that Scripture was lacking evidence, it was that what I had been taught about the evidence was one sided.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
It isn't a matter of evidence, Skeptic. It is a matter of faith. The very definition of 'faith' transcends the need for evidence, and rightly so. So, if I say I have faith that there are little green men living on Mars, does this mean evidence is unnecessary?

Are you saying that if one has faith this is equivalent to saying: "I really don't care about evidence. I just want to believe, because it makes me happy."?

I'm sorry, but there are plenty of people in this forum who have complained that evolution is not scientific and that the evidence does not support it. Now, it's time for them to say what would make evolution scientific and what kind of evidence would support it sufficiently enough to believe it.

I don't want people to lose their faith. I don't want to convince anybody of evolution or convince them to deny creationism.

Why? Because how we live our lives and treat each other is more important than how we got here. Many creationist individuals are not content with just letting evolutionists wallow in their "faith." Many are on a mission to win over evolutionist's souls for Christ, which for them means convincing others to lose their "faith" in evolution.

How we live our lives and treat each other should not be affected by our belief in how we got here. There are many Christians who accept that all life has a common ancestor. And I'm sure those Christians would live their lives and treat people the same regardless of who is right on the issue of origins. The same is true of atheists and agnostics - their lives and treatment of people have nothing to do with the issue of origins.

I DO want people to lose their faith. I DO want to convince others to think rationally and scientifically with regard to how we got here. And if losing faith changes the lives of some and the way they treat others, so be it. Evolutionists are no less ethical than creationists.

[Lucky]

The endless debate on origins. :rolleyes:

Were we there? No.

If not, how could we observe what happened? We cannot.

True science is based on observations.

[Aussie Thinker]

Lucky,

Yep we can OBSERVE…

Fossils
Geology
Genes
DNA
Selection
Speciation

Etc etc.. how much observation to you need to establish a workable theory ?

We can’t see gravity but we can see its effect.

We can’t see evolution but we can see its effect !

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
We can’t see gravity but we can see its effect.

We can’t see evolution but we can see its effect !
Observing the effect of gravity is observing gravity. You jump off the roof of your house and you'll observe gravity. Have you ever observed the evolution of a whole universe?

I didn't think so.

[Aussie Thinker]

Originally posted by Lucky
Observing the effect of gravity is observing gravity. You jump off the roof of your house and you'll observe gravity. Have you ever observed the evolution of a whole universe?

I didn't think so.

I do think so..

I am observing it RIGHT NOW..

Evolution is an ongoing process.. we are currently in the phase 4.5 billion years after the formation of the Earth !

[Jukia]

Nor have I observed the earth being created in six days.
So I look at the evidence that I can find. The evidence from science 4.5 billion years, clearly contradicts a literal reading of the Bible 6 days, 6000 years ago. There really does not seem to be any middle ground. The difference in the numbers is just too great.
It seems therefore that one either needs to accept a literal intrepretation of the Bible or the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports an old earth and evolution, the only way that anyone can believe in a young earth is to ignore the weight and specificity of the evidence and accept as true in the smallest detail the Genesis account. The "science" that is touted on this site and others in support of creationism is simply not science. Bits and pieces of evidence are cobbled together to provide support for one's pre-existing beliefs. If creationists had any real science, they would publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not primarily on creationist web sites. (By the way, if anyone knows the alleged paleontologist Bob Enyart had on a while ago--the one who claimed that he found recent plant material in the jaws of a dinosaur, therefore
the dinosaur could not have died millions of years ago--ask him to contact me, I have yet to receive a response from an e-mail seeking additional information)

Nineveh: If the evidence of evlution appears one-sided, well it is. It is not a public school conspiracy, that is just the way it is. The evidence is on the side of evolution, there is no consistent body of evidence supporting creationism.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia
If the evidence of evlution appears one-sided, well it is. It is not a public school conspiracy, that is just the way it is. The evidence is on the side of evolution, there is no consistent body of evidence supporting creationism.

It's been said more than once just on this thread, the evidence can be explained in more than one way. Fed school presented one side, as if there were no other explanation for the evidence presented. Later, I found there were other explanations for the evidence. How you view those explanations is up to you, but to simply say they don't exist, I can not agree.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't all answer at once! :sigh:

Should I rephrase my initial question? Can you conceive of any evidence that could possibly convince you to switch from a being creationist to believing in evolution?

The features that you would expect to see if common descent were true are the same features that I would expect to see if all creatures have a common designer or common creator.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making the argument that the fact that I don't know how to prove God doesn't exist proves that God doesn't exist.

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Well, yeah, I guess that if I believed in little green men from mars I could find some evidence to explain that. There may be other explanations for whatever evidence you are looking at but none that holds together in whole as the current generally accepted 4.5 billion year story of creation.

And last I knew my kids went to a public school, not a "Fed school" and if you are concerned about the Federal government taking over your local school, this current administration with its test-based system must really drive you nuts, huh. But perhaps that is for another thread.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia
Well, yeah, I guess that if I believed in little green men from mars I could find some evidence to explain that.

Sorry, I must have missed that part. Do you feel compelled to seek evidence for little green men?

There may be other explanations for whatever evidence you are looking at but none that holds together in whole as the current generally accepted 4.5 billion year story of creation.

And I would say the evidence explained about creation makes a neater whole than lopping off parts of the "other" explanation, like the big bang, Darwin isn't expected to explain that, and a biogenesis, darwinism shrugs that off, too. So, to actually get to the question of "how did we all get here", to me the Genesis account seems more "whole" than the "big bang theory" + "abiogenesis" + "the theory of evolution".

[777Zealot]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Keoni asked, "What would an atheist accept as evidence of God's existence?"

Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?



Hi Skeptic.

Firstly I am surprised that you consider the terms creationists and evolutionists as opposite. Biological evolution after all does not deal with 'abiogenesis', thus creation could have preceded evolution.

Secondly, the definition of evolution you provided is not always the same across the board.

Let me start by saying up front that I am a creationist. Indeed I believe the Earth was created +- 6 000 years ago , however I also believe it is impossible to measure the age of the Earth as It could also be indeed 3 billion years old ;)

I'm sure as you are aware 1 day to God is like a thousand years and a thousand years to God is like 1 day. That God functions outside the boundaries of time and indeed the '"laws of man's nature" surprises me very little. Thus that the universe could indeed be 17 Billion years old, also does not surprise me. A Day is measured by the time the earth takes to make a full rotation, but considering the complexity of this in Genesis terms, it all becomes a little confusing.

That God created the universe and life on Earth however is pretty much a given.

Please keep in mind that my scientific background is pretty much limited to high school biology and my subscription to New Scientist. Either way, if I accepted evolution just because someone with 3 letters behind his name tells me it is the truth, I would be just like every other sheep out there, but without a shepherd ;)



First of all, responding creationists must at least allow for the possibility (however remote) that some kind of scientific explanation (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm) based on empirical evidence (even that which may not have yet been discovered) could potentially modify their belief in creationism to such an extent that they could become evolutionists.


Firstly, you have to assume that creationists (on this site atleast) believe in the Bible, that God created the Earth and Universe. The predominant scientific belief is that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth, thus if we have to go by the 'popular' , we would have to believe in evolution no ?


Secondly, having become evolutionists, they could continue believing that God created the Universe and even initiated the chemical reactions that lead to the formation of the first living things (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html). But, to be an evolutionist (even a theistic evolutionist) I am stipulating that, given the formation of DNA (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/), by whatever methods, one must at least believe that all DNA-based life evolved from a common ancestor.


This I find interesting. As you might have read Enyart's discussions, you would have realised he happened to point to Crick and the complexity of DNA. The complexity and unlikelyhood of Abiogenesis thus leads us to believe that evolution rests on no foundation so to speak. It's a novel idea, but IMO the same as a computer virus becoming self aware and then claiming that nothing created it :) Basically its saying evolution is valid from
3.....9 , but 1 and 2 it does not account for.


Of course, in order to answer this question one should be somewhat familiar with the basics of evolutionary biologyIf you believe there is currently no evidence for evolution or common descent that is convincing, what would be?


A more complete fossil record ? A better explantion and 'practical' lab proof of abiogenesis ? Better proof for avian evolution ?
Perhaps you can explain to me how kangaroos managed to 'evolve' a pouch ? Dog's have evolved from a common ancestor for what 30 000 years, yet take a look at the difference between a corgi and a great dane. No mutations required in 30 000 years to explain the difference. Why do I need to to disbelieve God created different animals and that they dont share a common ancestor ?

3 Types of DNA ? Common ancestor ?


While I am fully willing to support evolution (as I use to believe in it) together with my Creationist belief, I just happen not to believe in it.

We're are the only known lifeform in this universe. String theory leads me to believe it's not by chance' either. That God created man and life on earth in such infinite DNA detail and indeed created animals in a way that they could adapt genetically to a changing environment I doubdt not. That they all evolved from a single ancestor I dont buy.

In conclusion the answer is 'just too many unanswered questions' and it seems no way to disprove evolution :jump:


Z

[Jukia]

Zealot:
Hard to reconcile your comments with those of YEC'ers that a day is a 24 hour day. Seems to me that you are just making excuses.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Jukia


And last I knew my kids went to a public school, not a "Fed school" and if you are concerned about the Federal government taking over your local school, this current administration with its test-based system must really drive you nuts, huh. But perhaps that is for another thread.

Government school would be a more appropriate term. It is ,however, fair to say that the federal government is involved more than just a little.

[Jukia]

delmar: You are correct, the Feds are very involved and they get more involved every day.

[777Zealot]

Originally posted by Jukia
Zealot:
Hard to reconcile your comments with those of YEC'ers that a day is a 24 hour day. Seems to me that you are just making excuses.


I dont have to buy a YEC belief to believe in creation.

I take a variety of views and opinions. Once I've done that I make up my own opinion based on scientific evidence and Biblical statements.

I could just as easily say that Man originated from 'dust' , thus follow the God created the primordial pool evolutionary approach.

I don't however SOLELY use scientific facts/data to make up my views.

The ultimate reason I dont believe in a twenty four hour day creation (and I'm by no means saying this isn't true), is the issue of information we receive only now from say 10 000 light years away.

This would lead me to believe the Universe is older than 6 000 years.

The second issue is mainly that God created the Sun on the first day. First day being what ? One rotation of the Earth ?

***

My issues with evolution is that all the pieces of the puzzle do not fit and thus I don't believe diversity to be a result of evolution. In much the same way Athiests dont believe in God, I dont believe in Evolution.

You can try explain avian evolution to me, indeed I have spent considerable time considering "bottom up" and "top down" theories, but I fail to believe it. Indeed all explanations of evolution ends up mere speculation (and often far fetched), which sorry to say is not enough to change my belief.

PS, I fully believe natural selection, just not organisms evolving into other organisms. :think:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
The features that you would expect to see if common descent were true are the same features that I would expect to see if all creatures have a common designer or common creator. So, how do you decided which route to take? Can you conceive of any possible evidence that could flip you over to the side of common descent?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making the argument that the fact that I don't know how to prove God doesn't exist proves that God doesn't exist. This thread has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of God. It has to do with whether creationists can conceive of evidence that might convince them that life evolved. You could still be a theistic evolutionist. There is no stipulation that you have to drop the God theory. For the sake of this discussion, I'm allowing for the possibility that God played a role up to the formation of DNA. It's what happened after that that is the question.

[BillyBob]

Zealot;
PS, I fully believe natural selection, just not organisms evolving into other organisms.

Billy;
Then how do you explain the fact that different species have existed during different time periods? How do you explain that there was a time when all creatures lived exclusively in the oceans, where did the land animals come from? There were no mammals for 100's of millions of years during which time all sorts of different animals came and went. Where did the mammals come from if they didn't evolve from other animals?

[Dimo]

Since I am a Christian spiriualist and accept the findings of science, I believe in both common descent and common design. It may be that the YEC view is based on a false dichotomy founded on thier own predisposition that Genesis is a scientific/historically accurate account of origins. To me the distinction between common descent and common design is a moot point. They are two sides of the same coin.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't all answer at once! :sigh: I think the silence is speaking volumes, Skeptic. "Let he who has ears, hear..."

Should I rephrase my initial question?You could try but it won't do any good.

Can you conceive of any evidence that could possibly convince you to switch from a being creationist to believing in evolution? Most creationists of my acquaintance became that way, not because of evidence, but as an accessory to their religious faith. Thus their position is not based on evidence, but faith. In that case, evidence will not move them, even if they understood it.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Dimo
Since I am a Christian spiriualist... What's that? :confused:

[Lucky]

Lucky writes...

Have you ever observed the evolution of a whole universe?

AussieThinker replies...

I do think so..

I am observing it RIGHT NOW..

Evolution is an ongoing process.. we are currently in the phase 4.5 billion years after the formation of the Earth!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you 4.5 billion years old? :rolleyes:

[Dimo]

Well I am a creationist and an evolutionist, so you don't have to convince me.

What evidence would it take to convince a YEC that evolution is true?

Everything and/or nothing.

[Dimo]

Dimo posted:

Since I am a Christian spiriualist...

Zakath posted:

What's that?

Dimo:

A dualist.

My belief system is based on empircism and spirituality. My spirituality is influenced greatly by the example set by JC.

[Dimo]

Lucky posted:

Are you 4.5 billion years old?

Dimo:

Are you 150 years old?

Then how can you possibly know about the Civil War?

I strongly suspect that the subatomic particles of which he/she is made are much older than 4.5 billion years.

[Jukia]

Dimo: Nice thought re the Civil War.

[777Zealot]

Billy;
Then how do you explain the fact that different species have existed during different time periods?

I dont believe the Earth and life on Earth to have existed for millions of years. I also don't believe you would be able to accurately measure the 'age' of rocks to 2 billions years ect..



How do you explain that there was a time when all creatures lived exclusively in the oceans, where did the land animals come from?



You believe they existed exclusively in the oceans, I dont. I also dont see the benefits of being limited to lungs and living in water (dolphin/whale). How did the 'blowhole' evolve ? Seriously how did the kangaroo's sack (to keep its Joey) slowly over every generation evolve when it would have no purpose for the majority of it's development span ?

Basically I buy into the 'watchmaket' hypothesis. I just cant see a dove (with the complexity we all know it requires to fly) have ANY advantage by having a 'semi-developed' wing.

Also, other than that 4 winged fossil, there seems to be no fossils of the 'intermediary' birds that must have at one point glided all over the world.

I'm just an evolutionary athiest I suppose! The answer of 'it just slowly happened over millions of years' just isn't good enough for me. Indeed the only visible example of an animal supposedly evolving is the Dog from Wolf. 30 000 years of inbreeding to produce a specific breed, just shows me that there seems to be no need for evolution to produce greatly varying fossils of what is essentially the same species.

Did a Great Dane evolve from a Corgi ? No. Yet how much has man changed in the last 'supposed' 30 000 years ?



There were no mammals for 100's of millions of years during which time all sorts of different animals came and went. Where did the mammals come from if they didn't evolve from other animals?

Hehe, they were created ?

Let me put it this way. I believe God created a vast array of animals. I also believe a great amount of them have become extinct though natural selection. I also believe animals are able to adapt based on their environment, such that the animals with better suited gene's will survive. Much like when I go to a sunny area, I get a tan (better skin protection) animals adapt to suit their environment.

I don't however believe that organisms evolve into other species such that a dolphin is an ancestor of the whale ect. It could well be the case, I just dont believe it as the most likely answer!

The fact that evolution does not include the full origin of life of earth, to me makes it incomplete. I might as well believe God created all the creature on Earth seperately.

I also dont understand why IF evolution was the answer, we have no found life on other planets. Pyrolobus fumarii can survive at 130 C in the most desolate areas, yet there seems no evolution on any other planet other than earth.

So my answer is probably

1. More complete fossil record. It's just too imcomplete.
2. Perhaps a better conceptualisation of evolution ?
3. Life on another planet.
4. Perhaps if God showed it to me...

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Dimo
Lucky posted:

Are you 4.5 billion years old?

Dimo:

Are you 150 years old?

Then how can you possibly know about the Civil War?
No, I am not 150 years old. But humans were around to observe the Civil War. No human in all of human history has observed the evolution of the universe.

[BillyBob]

I think the point was that the Universe is still evolving.

[Jukia]

Lucky: So if people are/were not around to observe something, it is unknowable?

[servent101]

Back to the start though - what evidence would convince a creationist that evolution is true?

The first thing would be to dispell their belief in the apologetics that they hold concerning the Bible. How? Good question,,, and one that I have not found the answer too yet.

For people who have an understanding of metaphysics and the process of logical deduction - if this could be taught to the person, it might help.

Though the merit of accepting evolution - is it really worth it, what does it promise us? Though not based on scientific reason the trust in Biblical account over today's science is somewhat of a no-brainer. The Bible offers us everything, (eternal life in Jesus Christ) while what does science offer us - the grave.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Jukia]

Perhaps science offers us the ability to use our marvelous God-given intelligence to try to understand the rest of His marvelous creation.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by servent101
Though the merit of accepting evolution - is it really worth it, what does it promise us? One should base one's belief on what believing might do for us? I thought rational beliefs were those that made sense according to reason, not how they might affect our lives or pay off after we die.

Though not based on scientific reason the trust in Biblical account over today's science is somewhat of a no-brainer. The Bible offers us everything, (eternal life in Jesus Christ) while what does science offer us - the grave. The Bible offers you a fairy tale and a pipe dream. What science offers is reasonable understanding of the world around us. If it came down to it, I would rather be sad (which I'm not) and know the truth as best as we can, than be happy as a result of holding on to a pipe dream and living in a fantasy world.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by 777Zealot
Let me start by saying up front that I am a creationist. Indeed I believe the Earth was created +- 6 000 years ago , however I also believe it is impossible to measure the age of the Earth as It could also be indeed 3 billion years old ;) Glad to see you have an open mind. Why would the age of an old Earth be impossible to measure?

That God created the universe and life on Earth however is pretty much a given. Why must there have been a God to create it?

A more complete fossil record? Now, we're getting someplace! The fossil record is improving.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html

A better explantion and 'practical' lab proof of abiogenesis? Remember, I stipulated that one could believe God formed the first DNA and still be an evolutionist (theistic).

Better proof for avian evolution? Science is progressing in this area.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

Perhaps you can explain to me how kangaroos managed to 'evolve' a pouch? Good question. But, don't you think it remains an empirical question? Shouldn't we allow for the possibility that we might someday figure this out? Why jump to the God-poofed-fully-formed conclusion, when there is so much more investigating to do?

http://www.nature.com/nsu/981210/981210-4.html

Dog's have evolved from a common ancestor for what 30 000 years, yet take a look at the difference between a corgi and a great dane. No mutations required in 30 000 years to explain the difference. Without changes in genes (i.e. mutations), how could dogs have been bred to exhibit such differences? Isn't dog breeding simply controlled selection, rather than natural selection? And, ah.... aren't you over your 6000-year limit? :D

Why do I need to to disbelieve God created different animals and that they dont share a common ancestor? In order to be rationally consistent with science?

While I am fully willing to support evolution (as I use to believe in it) together with my Creationist belief, I just happen not to believe in it. Perhaps, you should give it more consideration. :thumb:

We're are the only known lifeform in this universe. Stay tuned.

In conclusion the answer is 'just too many unanswered questions' and it seems no way to disprove evolution. There are indeed many questions. But, there are not so many questions so as to cause a rational disbelief in biological evolution. Evolution could be disproved (i.e. falsified), if sufficient evidence were presented that contradicts it. However, such evidence has not been presented, despite the claims of some creationists.

What is NOT falsifiable is the claim that God did it. Therefore, creationism is ultimately not scientific.

[BillyBob]

Servent;
Back to the start though - what evidence would convince a creationist that evolution is true?

Billy;
The fossil record alone should be sufficient.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by 777Zealot
My issues with evolution is that all the pieces of the puzzle do not fit and thus I don't believe diversity to be a result of evolution. If you studied evolution in more detail, you might find that more pieces of the puzzle fit than you think.

Evolution explains diversity beautifully! :thumb:

Theodosius Dobzhansky (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky) said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

In much the same way Athiests dont believe in God, I dont believe in Evolution. If you really look at the evidence supporting evolution, rather than just accept what creationists say about it, you might reconsider your position.

You can try explain avian evolution to me, indeed I have spent considerable time considering "bottom up" and "top down" theories, but I fail to believe it. Indeed all explanations of evolution ends up mere speculation (and often far fetched), which sorry to say is not enough to change my belief. What could more more far fetched than the belief that some supernatural entity simply poofed all life into existence fully formed! Talk about far-fetched speculation!!

Evolutionary biology (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/execsumm.html) is based on over a century of scientific research. Before dismissing it, I suggest studying it much more carefully.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by 777Zealot
I also dont see the benefits of being limited to lungs and living in water (dolphin/whale). How did the 'blowhole' evolve? ...

I don't however believe that organisms evolve into other species such that a dolphin is an ancestor of the whale ect. It could well be the case, I just dont believe it as the most likely answer! Read (don't skim) this: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)

Also: Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea) (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm)

Whale Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html) - check out the 5-minute video clip.
The fact that evolution does not include the full origin of life of earth, to me makes it incomplete. I might as well believe God created all the creature on Earth seperately. Just because we don't have a complete explanation of the origin of life on Earth, does not mean that we don't have a good idea about how life evolved.

I also dont understand why IF evolution was the answer, we have not found life on other planets. How many planets have we been to where life might be possible? One(Mars)? The jury is still out. Wow! Are you impatient, or what?

Pyrolobus fumarii can survive at 130 C in the most desolate areas, yet there seems no evolution on any other planet other than earth. Stay tuned.

So my answer is probably

1. More complete fossil record. It's just too imcomplete. It's not too incomplete to accept that life evolved. Do more study.
2. Perhaps a better conceptualisation of evolution? What do you propose?
3. Life on another planet. Stay tuned.
4. Perhaps if God showed it to me... I'm afraid you'll be waiting a very long time for this. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Here's a nice site:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/index.html

[BillyBob]

400 Bad Syntax
The request appears to be improperly formatted.
Found error in this section of the request: GET /Backgrounders/index.html HTTP/1.1 Accept: */* ~~~~~~~: ~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Accept-Language: en-us ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Host: www.txtwriter.com Connection: Keep-Alive

[PureX]

Some people seek to make their idea of what is real and true more accurate by constantly testing it. Other people have chosen an idea of what is real and true and intend to defend that idea against any information or experiences that might threaten it.

The question of this thread is what evidence could a person of the first type present to a person of the second type, that would convince them to change their idea of what is real and true? Since any evidence presented to them would be actively dismissed if at all possible (as this is their conscious intent), I can't imagine what evidence coud be so powerful that it could not be dismissed, somehow. Especially if the idea of what is real and true that is being defended includes the viability of irrationality (a belief in divine magic, for example). Once "truth" has been established, anything that does not support the "truth" has to be a lie. If it appears to be true, and can't be denied by any other reasonable means, then there's always "divine magic" to explain away the apparent contradiction.

So I can't see how anyone could convince anyone else (who was already convinced that they know the "truth") of anything. It's a closed circuit, and it's this very unassailability that makes it attractive to people.

[BillyBob]

PureX;
So I can't see how anyone could convince anyone else (who was already convinced that they know the "truth") of anything.

Billy;
I think that evolutionists are more flexible than creationists because Evolutionists are more interested in discovering truth through scientific means and would be more willing to rethink their entire view about natural history if scientific discoveries provide new, contrary theories. Creationists, on the other hand, are less apt to accept contrary evidence because their main premise is based on faith, not science.

Evolutionists have nothing to lose if their theories are proven false, in fact, they have everything to gain, namely, truth.

Creationists are more interested in reinforcing what they already believe than what may actually be, even at the cost of rejecting truth.

[PureX]

Originally posted by BillyBob I think that evolutionists are more flexible than creationists because Evolutionists are more interested in discovering truth through scientific means and would be more willing to rethink their entire view about natural history if scientific discoveries provide new, contrary theories. Creationists, on the other hand, are less apt to accept contrary evidence because their main premise is based on faith, not science.

Evolutionists have nothing to lose if their theories are proven false, in fact, they have everything to gain, namely, truth.

Creationists are more interested in reinforcing what they already believe than what may actually be, even at the cost of rejecting truth. I think that's an excellent assessment, but I often wonder once I reach this point ... is one better than the other? Does it really matter which of these attitudes we take toward truth and reality? The first cerainly is more adaptable, but at what cost? The second certainly is stronger (unshakable), but at what cost?

Is there a way that each of these attitudes could somehow recognize and respect the other? Or better still, work together?

I'm dreaming, I know.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by PureX
I think that's an excellent assessment, but I often wonder once I reach this point ... is one better than the other? Does it really matter which of these attitudes we take toward truth and reality? The first certainly is more adaptable, but at what cost? The second certainly is stronger (unshakable), but at what cost?

Is there a way that each of these attitudes could somehow recognize and respect the other? Or better still, work together?

I'm dreaming, I know.

Ah, good questions!!!! I ask the same exact ones quite often.

My [current] conclusions are these:

It is unimportant that either camp convince the other.

Let's assume that Creationists are 100% correct in their understanding of how Earthly life was created and let us also assume that Christianity is exactly as described by the New Testament, complete with Heaven and Hell. Personal salvation is the ultimate goal of Christians as is the salvation of others, so I can understand why Christians are adamant about spreading their Gospel, it is usually meant to be a genuine outreach of love. Salvation is not dependent on believing in Biblical Creation, however, I can see how it may enhance faith in God to simply accept the Bible as literal truth. By doing so, personal faith will be strengthened and as a result, all sorts of life changing events will most likely be experienced. As they happen and are recognized, faith likely becomes stronger and belief in literal Biblical interpretation is augmented.

So, even if Creationists are wrong about the reality of biological history, their own lives are ethically and morally guided by their faith and they will likely flourish as good, decent people.

If Evolutionists are proven correct? Hmmm.... I have sat here for 30 minutes pondering that and have erased 3 or 4 paragraphs that I had started. I can't say that there would not be spiritual ramifications for the evolutionists by simply understanding the truth. But that kind of truth does not automatically dictate a moral lifestyle.

In fact, if there is no God, then the idea of morality becomes relative. That is not to say that Evolutionists cannot be moral people, but it shifts the parameters of the definition of morals.

So, what is better. To believe a falsehood that enhances your life and all who you come in contact with? Or to be aware that you know statistical truth in all of its cold, impersonal reality?


I dunno.......

[PureX]

Yeah.

In the end all I can do is admit that I am a certain kind of person, and that to try and deny my own nature just makes me crazy. I was born to doubt, to question, to poke at anything that claims to be truth. There is no organized religion, philosophy, or world view that I will ever be able to fully respect. I'm just not made that way. And I've got to figure that those folks who aproach life the other way probably feel the same way about how they are, too. Maybe the point never was to each convince the other, but for each to appreciate the other.

That's a pretty tall order (at least for me), but I really don't see any other viable options.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
400 Bad Syntax
The request appears to be improperly formatted.
Found error in this section of the request: GET /Backgrounders/index.html HTTP/1.1 Accept: */* ~~~~~~~: ~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Accept-Language: en-us ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Host: www.txtwriter.com Connection: Keep-Alive Hmmm. I have no problem with the site.

[Skeptic]

PureX and BillyBob,

You both superbly point out the dilemma of the creationist-vs-evolutionist debate. But, dag nab it, I refused to give up on those YECs! Am I a hopeless optimist? :bang:

I have this feeling that science will soon present us with such powerful empirical evidence confirming biological evolution (even though I think the current evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is overwhelming to most open minded individuals), that YECs will just feel compelled to rethink their position!

Imagine this:

1. A young-Earth creationist actually reads a book detailing evolution that was not written by a fellow creationist.
:read:

2. This creationist has a paradigm shift toward common descent as he realizes he had been misinformed by a cartoon version of evolution all along.
:idea:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Jukia
Lucky: So if people are/were not around to observe something, it is unknowable?
It should not be passed off as scientific fact.

Here's something I found in a dictionary...

Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible.

It would be impossible for humans to have observed the evolution it's own self. And without that necessary observation, you are just plain out of luck with trying to convert this skeptic.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky
It would be impossible for humans to have observed the evolution it's own self. And without that necessary observation, you are just plain out of luck with trying to convert this skeptic. Lucky, let's say you're right (even though I don't agree) about needing to observe something directly in order to study something scientifically. Even though you have not observed evolution, is it possible that there is circumstantial evidence after the fact that is sufficient to rationally suggest that evolution did occur? Is it possible, even remotely so, that all life does have a common ancestor, regardless of whether anyone observed it happening?

[servent101]

Skeptic

The Bible offers you a fairy tale and a pipe dream. What science offers is reasonable understanding of the world around us. If it came down to it, I would rather be sad (which I'm not) and know the truth as best as we can, than be happy as a result of holding on to a pipe dream and living in a fantasy world.

What science has to offer us is an understanding of the physical, science is not meant to deduce what comes after the physical - this is rightly under the category of metaphysics. Nor is science in the business of determining what a "reasonable understanding of the world around us" is. These are pipe dreams as much to scientists studing evolution, as the Christians who use apologetics to base their faith on.

What is metaphysics? check here http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10756

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[777Zealot]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Also: Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea) (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm)



Sceptic, you've answered 3 different posts. I dont know where to start.



Whale Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html) - check out the 5-minute video clip.
Just because we don't have a complete explanation of the origin of life on Earth, does not mean that we don't have a good idea about how life evolved.



You have heaps and bounds of theories within the ToE. Indeed every evolution explanation I have heard to me comes across as just another person explaining to me how it must have happened, but clearly has little actual proof that it 'did' happen that way.



How many planets have we been to where life might be possible? One(Mars)? The jury is still out. Wow! Are you impatient, or what?


We know Earth isn't the oldest planet in the universe, we've made concerted efforts to listen and send messages all around the universe for other lifeforms. Nothing. If evolution is the answer, there has to be a multitude of substantially advanced lifeforms out there that we just dont seem to be able to find. I realise the vastness of space, however I dont see that a problem when considering the technological leaps made in the last 50 years even.


It's not too incomplete to accept that life evolved. Do more study.
What do you propose?
Stay tuned.
I'm afraid you'll be waiting a very long time for this. :chuckle:

I still dont actually know what it takes to disprove evolution. I've asked that question on a forum before and no-one seemed to know the answer...



Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."


Good for Theo :)


If you really look at the evidence supporting evolution, rather than just accept what creationists say about it, you might reconsider your position.


My original position was one supporting evolution (after high school biology). Only later did I even hear the creationists arguments and start to question certain aspects of evolution.


What could more more far fetched than the belief that some supernatural entity simply poofed all life into existence fully formed! Talk about far-fetched speculation!!


As compared to the believe that life simply 'poofed' itself into existance ?


Evolutionary biology is based on over a century of scientific research. Before dismissing it, I suggest studying it much more carefully.


I don't dismiss evolutionary biology, I don't walk around proclaiming evolutionary biologists as liars, I merely don't share in their beliefs.


Remember, I stipulated that one could believe God formed the first DNA and still be an evolutionist (theistic).


And God allowed man to randomly evolve into His likeness ? Dunno about that one :)


Good question. But, don't you think it remains an empirical question? Shouldn't we allow for the possibility that we might someday figure this out? Why jump to the God-poofed-fully-formed conclusion, when there is so much more investigating to do?


What did Darwin say again would disprove his ToE ? Granted however we could figure this out in future, but will we know for sure or will it be a case of 'this is how it MUST have happened ?'


Without changes in genes (i.e. mutations), how could dogs have been bred to exhibit such differences? Isn't dog breeding simply controlled selection, rather than natural selection? And, ah.... aren't you over your 6000-year limit?


Surely inbreeding is responsible for the substantial changes in the canus lupus ? Are seedless grapes forinstance not just a result of selective breeding ?

6 000 years. I mentioned an example from science that estimates wolves to have been demosticated 30 000 years ago. Im not agreeing with then, merely argumenting their statement. My question is that if such substantial diversity can be found within the same species and in such a short period of time, could this not explain the fossil record ?

Simply put, place a fossil of every type of dog from smallest to largest and tell me you that isn't a perfect picture of evolution ? Different shapes, same species.

But then species is difficult to define no ?


There are indeed many questions. But, there are not so many questions so as to cause a rational disbelief in biological evolution. Evolution could be disproved (i.e. falsified), if sufficient evidence were presented that contradicts it. However, such evidence has not been presented, despite the claims of some creationists.


So everyone that disagrees with your view is irrational ? Sorry Sceptic, I'm pretty willing to accept evolution os God's method of creating the world, but putting pieces of Lego together and saying a Car evolved from a Lorry, and a VW Polo 6 is the Common ancestor of both the VW Polo5 and VS Passat doesn't work for me.

:thumb:

PS. A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I point to evolution. Along comes F which opposes the ToE. Does that mean the whole system fails to work ? No, it just means the whole theory either incorporates F in such a way that it fits in to bare minimum with the entire theory, and presto, ToE back online, or else F just doesn't seem to fit in at all and thus F must be false.

Hehe, chat again a few months from now. I'm off to see some sun. Oley Oley, its Holiday, fealin hothothot...

Stay well.

Z

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by servent101
What science has to offer us is an understanding of the physical, science is not meant to deduce what comes after the physical - this is rightly under the category of metaphysics. How do you know there is anything beyond the physical?

Nor is science in the business of determining what a "reasonable understanding of the world around us" is. How do you propose going about obtaining a reasonable understanding of the world around us, while minimizing the risk that we are deluding ourselves?

These are pipe dreams as much to scientists studing evolution, as the Christians who use apologetics to base their faith on. What makes studying evolution a pipe dream?

What is metaphysics? check here http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10756 I currently don't believe there are any "ultimate" or "absolute" truths. I believe we can only obtain temporary truths (lowercase "t"), while the alleged Truths (uppercase) will always be unknowable. Of course, I don't know this with absolute certainty. :D

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by 777Zealot
Hehe, chat again a few months from now. I'm off to see some sun. Oley Oley, its Holiday, fealin hothothot... I'll address you other points soon. But, I have one question before you leave: Did you read any of the links I posted regarding evolution? If so, which ones and did you read them or quickly skim them?

[BillyBob]

Zealot;
And God allowed man to randomly evolve into His likeness ? Dunno about that one.

Billy;
Define 'likeness'. Do you think God looks like a hairless primate? [my wife might argue the 'hairless' part :D]

[BillyBob]

Lucky;
It would be impossible for humans to have observed the evolution it's own self. And without that necessary observation, you are just plain out of luck with trying to convert this skeptic.

Billy;
Have you observed Creationism?

[Ross]

Lucky,

You're making an interesting argument. If I've got it right, you're saying that you will only believe what another human observed and wrote about. Does this mean that you think nothing happened before humans had the ability to write or that things happened but we can never know what they were. If you could clarify this, I have a couple of other questions for you.

Ross

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lucky, let's say you're right (even though I don't agree) about needing to observe something directly in order to study something scientifically. Even though you have not observed evolution, is it possible that there is circumstantial evidence after the fact that is sufficient to rationally suggest that evolution did occur? Is it possible, even remotely so, that all life does have a common ancestor, regardless of whether anyone observed it happening?
Within the context of philosophy, one can believe anything they choose to believe.
Originally posted by BillyBob
Have you observed Creationism?
Humans have not observed the creation of the Universe, nor have they observed the evolution of it. I do not believe either of the two ideas should be considered exact science, but should be considered philosophy and/or religion.
Originally posted by Ross
You're making an interesting argument. If I've got it right, you're saying that you will only believe what another human observed and wrote about. Does this mean that you think nothing happened before humans had the ability to write or that things happened but we can never know what they were. If you could clarify this, I have a couple of other questions for you.

Ross
Wrong. I'm not saying that I will only believe what another human has observed. But as far as science goes, observation is mandatory. Otherwise you have blind science, which is not science at all. Some might even call that faith. But the principle of observation as part of the scientific approach is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness.

[Dimo]

Lucky, I have a couple questions for you.

Let's say you have never been to the ocean. One summer you take a week long vacation at the ocean. You notice the tide coming in and going out approximately twice a day.

Can you safely assume that the tide went in and out before your vacation, and that it will continue when you leave?

Can you safely assume that this is due to natural causes?

Can you safely assume that this is due to "supernatural" causes?

[BillyBob]

Lucky;
Humans have not observed the creation of the Universe, nor have they observed the evolution of it. I do not believe either of the two ideas should be considered exact science, but should be considered philosophy and/or religion.

Billy;
Why should evolution be considered a religion? Is chemistry a religion? Plate tech tonics? Biology? Astro Physics?

[Aussie Thinker]

Lucky,

I don’t think you quite understand science and “observation”.

Most of sciences “observation” has NOT been direct observation but more indirect cause and effect stuff.

No one has ever OBSERVED gravity.. but they can observe its effect. No one has EVER seen an atom but we can observe their effects etc etc..

Now with evolution we HAVE observed the drivers of evolution:

1. Mutation
2. Sexual Selection
3. Predatory Selection
4. Environmental Adaptation
5. ETC ETC

We have also OBSERVED the effects of evolution.

1. The Fossil Record
2. The change over time of species
3. The emergence of “new” creatures and systems
4. ETC ETC

Science CONCLUDES from these Observation that evolution or something VERY like it happened.

Lukcy I assume from your “need” for observation you do not “believe” in atoms ?

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Dimo
Can you safely assume that the tide went in and out before your vacation, and that it will continue when you leave?

Can you safely assume that this is due to natural causes?

Can you safely assume that this is due to "supernatural" causes?
Taking the role of a scientist:

I would make no assumptions whatsoever. I could hypothesize on my observations, but a lot more than that would have to be done before I would pass it off as scientific fact. Run tests, consult my peers, etc. etc.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Lucky;
Humans have not observed the creation of the Universe, nor have they observed the evolution of it. I do not believe either of the two ideas should be considered exact science, but should be considered philosophy and/or religion.

Billy;
Why should evolution be considered a religion? Is chemistry a religion? Plate tech tonics? Biology? Astro Physics?
Whoa whoa whoa. Re-read what I said.

...should be considered philosophy and/or religion...

In fact, call it whatever you want, but don't call it true science.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
1. Mutation
2. Sexual Selection
3. Predatory Selection
4. Environmental Adaptation
5. ETC ETC

1. The Fossil Record
2. The change over time of species
3. The emergence of “new” creatures and systems
4. ETC ETC

Science CONCLUDES from these Observation that evolution or something VERY like it happened.
I've seen "scientists" draw multiple and often conflicting conclusions from that list of things.
I assume from your “need” for observation you do not “believe” in atoms ?
You wrongly assume. Science has its great purposes, but it doesn't mean I only believe what true science can prove as fact.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

Someone slipping them 20 hits of LSD.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky
In fact, call it whatever you want, but don't call it true science. Please provide us with clear examples of true science.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Lucky
Whoa whoa whoa. Re-read what I said.

...should be considered philosophy and/or religion...

In fact, call it whatever you want, but don't call it true science.


Well, I mentioned related sciences such as chemistry, plate techtonics, biology and astro-physics. Evolution theory is based on these and many other sciences. Because of this, evolution is also a science. Creationism, on the other hand, is based directly on religion. Once the religion is identified, then the 'science' supporting it can also be identified, or more accurately, created. Any Creationist 'science' I have ever seen is contradictory to REAL science. In fact, Creationists should stop citing science as their proof since they reject science every time it proves them wrong.

You can't have it both ways. Either you guys are going to use science, in which case you will instantly become evolutionists, or you will stop defending your religion with science altogether and admit that creationism is an unnecessary extension of religion, and scientifically unfounded.

[Aussie Thinker]

Lucky,

You wrongly assume. Science has its great purposes, but it doesn't mean I only believe what true science can prove as fact.

So let me see.. can’t observe atoms but expert scientists tell me they are there.. so I will accept that.

Can’t observe evolution but expert scientists tell me it happened.. so I won’t accept that !

WHAT ???

Would it be that one conflicts with a fundamental literalist interpretation of the Bible and the other doesn’t ???

It must be WONDERFUL to just pick and choose which parts of science we will accept and which we wont … trouble is it is the same way CRAZY people think !

[Keoni]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Someone slipping them 20 hits of LSD.

That is gooood! :darwinsm: I like that.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
PureX;
So I can't see how anyone could convince anyone else (who was already convinced that they know the "truth") of anything.

Billy;
I think that evolutionists are more flexible than creationists because Evolutionists are more interested in discovering truth through scientific means and would be more willing to rethink their entire view about natural history if scientific discoveries provide new, contrary theories. Creationists, on the other hand, are less apt to accept contrary evidence because their main premise is based on faith, not science.

Evolutionists have nothing to lose if their theories are proven false, in fact, they have everything to gain, namely, truth.

Creationists are more interested in reinforcing what they already believe than what may actually be, even at the cost of rejecting truth.

In my ears your argument sounds like " If you didn't have your head buried in the sand you would believe what I believe".
Thing is for most of my life I did believe That the world was millions of years old. If you would have asked me at the time what it would take for me to beliieve the earth was 6,000-10,000 years old I might have tried to offer such a standard but i knew that only fools and crackpots believed the earth was young.
What changed my mind? Evidence that made sense to me.

[Sealeaf]

Servent101 said,The Bible offers us everything, (eternal life in Jesus Christ) while what does science offer us - the grave.
This is undoubtedly true, but shows twisted thinking. It is a sort of bread and circus approach. We are invited to give our support to the "candidate" that promises us the most goodys.

Indeed the belief in the infallablity of the Bible will give us a comforting certainty about our existence after death. Where as science will not tell us anything there is not testable evidence for. It makes no claim that there is no life after death, just that it can't be tested yet.

(Actually there is excellent support for existence beyond the bounds of time in relativity theory but that's for another thread.)

I don't believe in God and Jesus because of any promises they made to me. They did not buy my belief. The promises make my belief joyous, but they don't make it real. My belief is grounded in my observation of the behavior of the believers I have met and heard reliable report of. They seem admirable and I want to be like them so I study the basis for the beliefs they have that motivate them to be admirable. These beliefs are logical in the most part and not contrary to reason. They do not conflict with science or common sence. They do not require I believe in an infallable book. An infallable and loving God yes, but not that everything that can be known was written 2000 years ago, and that we can't discover any truth outside of that.

If what you think the Bible means conflicts with what science has demonstrated to be true then your interpatation of the meaning of the Bible is in need of correction.

[jeremiah]

If you, right now, can make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside with the knowledge that I am about as significant as a grain of sand on a beach, with a life span that is now 5 billion years less than that grain and counting, then I will consider evolution.
Or if you can make me feel more gratitude, love joy and peace toward the quaddrillion quadrillions of life forms that lived and died so that I am living now and for a few decades, rather than for the immeasurable gratitude I now have for the one and only man who died specifically for us on a cross two thousand years ago, so that I at least have the hope of living forever, then I also will recant. Give me your best shot.
In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving, and Thank God for this day and every day, past and present which He has created.:)

[BillyBob]

That's the problem. People want to feel warm and fuzzy inside, but that isn't the goal of science. It is, however, the goal of religion.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by deardelmar
In my ears your argument sounds like " If you didn't have your head buried in the sand you would believe what I believe".
Thing is for most of my life I did believe That the world was millions of years old. If you would have asked me at the time what it would take for me to believe the earth was 6,000-10,000 years old I might have tried to offer such a standard but i knew that only fools and crackpots believed the earth was young.
What changed my mind? Evidence that made sense to me.


I know Delmar, that is why I usually refrain from these debates. The one we are debating with Crow kinda got me dragged into these peripheral discussions. It is mostly a waste of time and becomes unnecessarily divisive. I am happy for anyone who believes in Creationism, especially if it augments their faith.

[jeremiah]

No, that is not the goal of the Christian religion. The goal of Jesus was. " I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly."
The goal of the Spirit is to convict and convince the world of its sin, and to lead the repentant to Christ.
The goal of Science is to discover the truth about the world.
It appears to me that today's scientists want to find truth without testing all the possibilities. They do not seem to care when their findings lead to nihlism, Unfortunately, that is completely out of touch with living, breathing, feeling, and caring people. For instance, the conclusion of most scientists is that the solar system will one day be a black hole, and this seems to be their reaction.:devil: :devil: :devil:
If they be right and that be true, this is most people's reaction to such a speculation.:cry: :cry: :cry:

[servent101]

Skeptic

Of course, I don't know this with absolute certainty.


You have been reading PureX, haven’t you?

How do you propose going about obtaining a reasonable understanding of the world around us, while minimizing the risk that we are deluding ourselves?

The path is already laid, the foundation already poured, for the person who wants to endeavor to “obtain a reasonable understanding of the world around us. The thread I sent you too is getting long, but I will cut and past from there for you.

Zakath
quote:

That's why fundies make poor scientists. "I don't know" is what drives much scientific research. When one has "all the answers" then there is no need for research...



I agree with the statement you made here, hopefully if you do not have all the answers, that you give up on research.

Granted I understand that you have concluded the subject of metaphysics is not a science, because what has been observed, or what can be observed is either preposterous and/or subject to human error and/or that there is no observation to base the science on.

The questions then that arise.

1) What has been observed since you last contemplated the subject?
2) What constitutes the logic of something being preposterous?
3) What defines human error?
4) What are the parameters of an observation?
5) Under what field do we contemplate such things?


The field that these and other questions concerning the contemplation of what comes after the physical is traditionally called metaphysics – It is as much as a science as the contemplation of the study of the physical in that it is based on logic, observation and sense. The fact that the parameters of an observation are not the same as the physical, does not justify calling metaphysics a non-science.

_(A little side trip)_

Zakath
quote:

I think you're hoist on your on petard, here, servent. Please try to explain to this weary materialist/naturalist what you mean by "observation and contemplating the supersensible."

If something is beyond the senses (which I'm interpreting "supersensible" to mean) then how does one observe it or contemplate it?




Zakath
quote:

If by “physical” you mean the “natural universe” (i.e. all matter and energy) then according to some folks, like materialists or naturalists, there is nothing outside the natural to be considered. And, unfortunately for the opposing view (supernaturalism? Spiritism?), there is little or no evidence to support their view other than a relative handful of subjective human observations. In essence, from a materialist or naturalist point of view your question is moot and does not need to be addressed.



Metaphysics is not at all well able to be the subject of contemplation by materialists or naturalists. By contemplating the supersensible I do not mean – nor does the term mean something that is beyond the senses… the term means rather the super sensibleness of the train of thought that derives at a logical conclusion. This train of thought, based on observation, in the trained logic of metaphysics and those who endeavor such intellectual pursuit is called metaphysics. It is the basis for the reasoning process of all correct thinking, the foundation of the articulation and categorizing of the physical world, but again – once we have categorized the physical world – to insist on the same laws that we observe and categorize the physical with to be applied to “what comes after the physical” an obvious intellectual error. So you may say – there is no way of knowing by the laws that govern the physical, the supernatural – granted, and I agree with you… but what are the reasonable guidelines that would govern this pursuit of mirroring the non-physical into words for us to understand and enlighten each other with? There will be those who simply have no interest in the matter – namely materialists or naturalists, so be it, but what of those of us who do want to contemplate and share this “reality” – what are the supersensible trains of thought that convey these observations?

jjjg and all


I looked through A brief history of time, as advised and read pages ten, eleven and twelve - then on to the end of the chapter. The book is in my bookshelf, one of many to be read sooner or later. I'm going to acquire a set of Science Encyclopedias... someone I know is giving them away a later version.... I will find some information in them. but back to Stephen - I skimmed the book, looked in the index, glossary, the chapters, and found nothing apparent about metaphysics at first glance. I was looking through another book, my most recent Bible - You can Heal Your Life by Louise L. Hay - there in which I find that she is a metaphysical teacher - according to metaphysic today (?) - So it seems metaphysics today is on the fringe of our experiences - healing, personal growth, etc. The book was published in 1984.

So what exactly is metaphysics today? I will check a typical source.

I will check my big dictionary first - Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English language/1989
quote:

metaphysics 1) the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology and is always intimately connected with and epistemology.



and (the old one) -don't know how old - that page is lost.
quote:

metaphysics - (meta ta physika, beyond natural sciences) , the study of the first principles of being; the science of pure being; the study of mind.



I will have to post the meanings of ontology, cosmology and epistemology - as that will help me to remember them later on in the discussion. if it is necessary.
quote:

ontology - the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such, as distinct from material existence, spiritual existence, etc.


quote:

cosmology - the branch of philosophy dealing with he origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements and laws. And esp. with its characteristics as space, time, causality and freedom


quote:

epistemology - the branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, and methods and limits of human knowledge.



Hawkins though was good - interesting reading, and sort of practical to this discussion, though I am more so defending metaphysics as a science... something that is able to if allowed to, pass the inspection of scientific scrutiny, and by which the reasoning of science is dependent upon.

The debate has been interesting... I never thought of metaphysics as the subject of healing, of being, as Zakath has. It is apparently - as evident of the book "You can heal your life" taken this meaning today. As the discussion went on I was looking for postulating reasons why the theory of Evolution according to Metaphysics - or right thinking is not correctly a science- and I think some of those reasons valid still, and more than that in the world in which I live and learn there seems to be the audacity of some people to deny the Spiritual because it cannot be measured by the same experiments as the physical; clearly a misconstrued notion or an incorrect thinking structure.

The bottom of the page 13 and on to 14 in Hawkins book... "These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate."

At the end of the chapter Hawkins also shows concern for our chances of survival, the survival of our species. He goes on to say
quote:

"But ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world."



I agree with Hawkins observation here, and this capacity of the human race may be our best hope in finding solutions to the problems we all face. This quest for knowledge as far as I can deduce from the reasoning process I posses is rightly sought under the banner of metaphysics, not science, and definitely not under the banner of evolution.


With Christ's Love

Servent101

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Keoni asked, "What would an atheist accept as evidence of God's existence?"

Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

Billy;
How about some sort of contact with extra-terrestrial life? It would certainly give them reason for pause.

[wiseman]

Originally posted by BillyBob

How about some sort of contact with extra-terrestrial life? It would certainly give them reason for pause.

Naw, CS Lewis dealt with this in the space trilogy

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Keoni asked, "What would an atheist accept as evidence of God's existence?"

Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

Billy;
How about some sort of contact with extra-terrestrial life? It would certainly give them reason for pause. Pause for a few seconds, perhaps. What might be more persuasive is if these extraterrestrials took our creationist friends on a faster-than-light-speed (if possible) trip to several other planets where life was in various stages of evolution, as well as show them face-to-face the intelligent inhabitants of many other worlds.

What do you think folks? Would this convince you Young-Earthers out there?

[Osel]

>>> What evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?

Solid scientific proof.

Thusfar there is no earthly explanation for creation. The existence of God cannot be proven nor disproven.

We must be objective with our faith.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by jeremiah
No, that is not the goal of the Christian religion. The goal of Jesus was. " I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly."
The goal of the Spirit is to convict and convince the world of its sin, and to lead the repentant to Christ.
The goal of Science is to discover the truth about the world.
It appears to me that today's scientists want to find truth without testing all the possibilities.

Scientists are just like anybody else -- they often see what they want to see.

They do not seem to care when their findings lead to nihlism, Unfortunately, that is completely out of touch with living, breathing, feeling, and caring people.

Again, scientists are just like anybody else, and they tend to filter all observations through their worldview to reach an interpretation which is consistent with such a view. A secular scientist and I could look at the exact same thing and reach entirely different conclusions based on our worldviews.

For instance, the conclusion of most scientists is that the solar system will one day be a black hole, and this seems to be their reaction.:devil: :devil: :devil:
If they be right and that be true, this is most people's reaction to such a speculation.:cry: :cry: :cry:

Actually, our sun isn't massive enough to ever become a black hole, even if you include the mass of the rest of the solar system.

[Eli_Cash]

Pause for a few seconds, perhaps. What might be more persuasive is if these extraterrestrials took our creationist friends on a faster-than-light-speed (if possible) trip to several other planets where life was in various stages of evolution, as well as show them face-to-face the intelligent inhabitants of many other worlds.

What do you think folks? Would this convince you Young-Earthers out there?

No, because that just presupposes evolution occurs. We don't see things in terms of being stages of evolution, we see creatures. The proposition that a particular ecosystem is in a particular stage simply begs the question.

[tseeker]

Pause for a few seconds, perhaps. What might be more persuasive is if these extraterrestrials took our creationist friends on a faster-than-light-speed (if possible) trip to several other planets where life was in various stages of evolution, as well as show them face-to-face the intelligent inhabitants of many other worlds.

A have news for you: the "fi" in sci-fi stands for fiction.

[BillyBob]

Thanks for the literary lesson.

[jeremiah]

To One Eyed Jack:

I must have miscalculated the density of some human skulls in my calculations.:D
Anyway what most scientists believe is that the sun will eventually cease to exist in its present form and all life that has evolved will thus be destroyed, in the distant future. That is the end view of naturalism and evolution, is it not?
Compare that to the end view of Christianity. Those who have chosen Christ will live forever in contentment with Him, in a perfect world of love, joy, and peace. Those who have rejected Him will also get what they have chosen.
Hence that is why I answered this thread's question as I did.
What would cause me to believe in evolution? Basically if it offered hope of eternal life. Instead it offers death for EVERY species and EVERY individual? A nihlistic viewpoint if there ever was one?
So even if evolution were true I wouldn't care for it. As I pointed out in a previous post there are people who do not believe in any God and believe all life on earth will be ended some day and they are:devil: or unemotional about that conclusion? I always liked Mr. Spock but I just can't relate to him.:D

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To One Eyed Jack:

I must have miscalculated the density of some human skulls in my calculations.:D

Never underestimate the density of the human skull. :)

Anyway what most scientists believe is that the sun will eventually cease to exist in its present form and all life that has evolved will thus be destroyed, in the distant future. That is the end view of naturalism and evolution, is it not?

Yes. Unless we can get to some other solar system. Then of course there's that pesky heat-death of the universe thing to deal with, which I don't see any way around.

Compare that to the end view of Christianity. Those who have chosen Christ will live forever in contentment with Him, in a perfect world of love, joy, and peace. Those who have rejected Him will also get what they have chosen.

This is correct.

Hence that is why I answered this thread's question as I did.

I was simply pointing out an inaccuracy in your statement. Better that I call you on it than one of the evolutionists. If we are going to debate them scientifically, then we should know what we're talking about. Otherwise, they aren't going to take us seriously. Of course, few of them do anyway, but at least they're not going to make me feel bad when they accuse me of not knowing anything about science.

What would cause me to believe in evolution? Basically if it offered hope of eternal life. Instead it offers death for EVERY species and EVERY individual? A nihlistic viewpoint if there ever was one?

True enough, but some of them believe we're going to become gods -- the same lie Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden. As to what would make me believe in evolution -- I can't really say. It would certainly have to be something that I haven't seen yet. I used to believe in evolution, and I don't any more.

So even if evolution were true I wouldn't care for it. As I pointed out in a previous post there are people who do not believe in any God and believe all life on earth will be ended some day and they are:devil: or unemotional about that conclusion? I always liked Mr. Spock but I just can't relate to him.:D

[Spock impersonation]
Fascinating.
[/Spock impersonation]

[Dimo]

OEJ posted:

I was simply pointing out an inaccuracy in your statement. Better that I call you on it than one of the evolutionists. If we are going to debate them scientifically, then we should know what we're talking about. Otherwise, they aren't going to take us seriously. Of course, few of them do anyway, but at least they're not going to make me feel bad when they accuse me of not knowing anything about science.

Dimo:

Please don't feel bad that you know next to nothing about science. At least you still have that warm fuzzy fealing from your belief system founded on ignoring the implications of empirical evidence.

[Stratnerd]

What would cause me to believe in evolution? Basically if it offered hope of eternal life. so your belief in something is based on what makes you feel warm and fuzzy and not based on rationality? Do you also believe in Santa? Why not?

[jeremiah]

Please go back to my post #88 and read my "warm and fuzzy" in context. There was a lot of intended sarcasm in it.
The evidence that I have studied and pondered makes me think that this world was created, which then supports what I believe.
However if there were no evidence for a God or that we were created, I think that I would still believe in Him anyway, rather than ultimately being reduced to less significance than a 5 billion year old grain of sand!
Also I have zero gratitude or love or even any appreciation for evolution, since the way it is usually described, it is a completely random and uncaring force. On the other hand I have a tremendous gratitude and love for the one who hung beaten and naked on a cross for us and gives me life.
For me at least, evolution leaves me completely empty. I am simply trying to honestly answer the question presented in this thread. For me it is not just a question of evidence. To convince me you would have to give me a better reason than simply because it is true.
If evolution were true, I can think of a hundred lies I would believe in just to escape its utter nihilism.

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

I guess I will just NEVER understand your mindset.

I have all the same feelings as you.. I need to be wanted, I want to have a purpose, I desperately do not want to die without an afterlife.

But…

What I want is nothing to do with what is…

I can’t just pretend that life is something it isn’t

I also want millions of dollars and supermodel girlfriends … but I can’t pretend I have them (besides the wife would not be impressed with the latter).

Your way of thinking is that a world view must make sense to you emotionally as well as logically.. fair enough I guess .. but I just cannot understand that.

Considering my worldview is at ODDS with what I would want emotionally I cannot fathom someone who cannot divorce what they want from reality.

[jeremiah]

To Aussie Thinker:

Fair enough, there are a lot of people's mindset's that I can never understand either. But again I do not think that my beliefs contradict my observations and thinking. I just could never embrace Evolution if it coincided with my observations and analysis.
There are many people who can not accept Christ, for one reason. He says that there is a hell and that some people will die their forever. I feel the exact same way about evolution. Everyone and every thing that ever lived here gets to die forever. At least with God, I have a choice. Evolution gives you one lifespan of limited choices and some happiness. There is no deep meaning to anything that I do. Any warm and fuzzy feelings that anyone has for anyone else in this life is unreal. If you think that you have any meaningful relationships or importance, than you have divorced yourself from the reality of evolution.
Again evolution somehow made a person like Carl Sagan
:devil: He was in love with the word billions, as it related to years, stars, life forms and death.
To me evolution makes me want to :cry:
You don't have to pretend that someone died on the cross so that you might have an afterlife. Jesus already did. In fact you are pretending that you don't need Him. I found that He is the only way to the afterlife that we both crave! He has set eternity in your heart and in mine, on this, we have the same mindset.

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

To me though your warm fuzzy feeling you have about God etc.. are based on a misconception.

I love my family and friends in spite of the fact that final death will overcome us all.

I understand if you believed because of PROOF (whatever you think proof might be).. but I don’t understand when you say…

You would believe even if it you thought it seemed like hogwash because it makes you feel better to believe…

That sorta sounds like me thinking I am superman .. because it makes me feel good.. that would leave me one step from the looney bin !

I guess in a way it confirms what I have often thought.. religious people live in a sort of “Matrix” world (not that they necessarily think they do).. where reality (in terms of life after death) is what they “want” it to be not what it really is.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Dimo
Please don't feel bad that you know next to nothing about science.

Oh, I know quite a bit about science, so I have no reason to feel bad.

At least you still have that warm fuzzy fealing from your belief system founded on ignoring the implications of empirical evidence.

Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring empirical evidence. You must have me confused with someone else, or perhaps you don't know what empirical evidence is. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Jukia]

Jeremiah: You are right in that evolution/natural selection is an uncaring random process. That is the way it is. You can still understand that and be a Christian. I, for one, will be really upset if there is nothing, absolutely nothing after I die. But I will not know for sure until then, so until then I will live in the hope that the basics fo Chrstianity is correct. However, that does not preclude me from trying to sort out the truth of the world around me.

The overwhelming weight of empirical evidence, Jack notwithstanding, points to the natural selection and evolution of living things.

And Jack, sorry if I misspelled anything (he yelled at me once for that) but it is hard to type w a cat on your shoulders. Go figure that evolutionary conneciton by the way. Dogs are easy--they can help and protect us, we can feed them. Cats---we feed them and they learn to use a litter box, other than that they could care less. This cat on my shoulders would most likely be just as happy sitting next to the fireplace. I think cats perhaps fill more of an emotional spot in our lives than we do in theirs. Just a morning thought.

[servent101]

One eyed Jack
Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring empirical evidence. You must have me confused with someone else, or perhaps you don't know what empirical evidence is. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about.

I agree with you here Jack... and those people who think they are scientific (?) well they have a lot to learn. The good ship science has apparently committed mutiny at the highschool level, and is sailing off into the unknown world of dogma and superstition.

Keep up the good fight Jack - on this one I am with you.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

And the crowd cheers him on.

Servent101 agrees with you, so you must be right.

[Stratnerd]

agree with you here Jack... and those people who think they are scientific (?) well they have a lot to learn. The good ship science has apparently committed mutiny at the highschool level, and is sailing off into the unknown world of dogma and superstition.

typical creationist: strong opinion with zero justification

[Jukia]

I must disagree w sevant 101. I do not believe there has been any mutiny in the good ship science. I was once a science teacher, my wife is a social studies teacher and I know current science teachers. My 4 kids went through (horrors) public schools. One is now an MD, one is a PhD candidate in genetics and one has an undergraduate degree in neuroscience. Their training in the basic sciences has been excellent at every educational level. They studied science, not the Bible, in science classes.

Jack loves to go on and on about empirical evidence. I remain unaware of any empirical evidence for a young earth, for a world wide flool. "Eyewitness" accounts in the Bible do not count as empirical evidence.

[Aussie Thinker]

Servent101 writes

I agree with you here Jack... and those people who think they are scientific (?) well they have a lot to learn. The good ship science has apparently committed mutiny at the highschool level, and is sailing off into the unknown world of dogma and superstition.

IRONY ALERT !

As opposed to the more scientific and logical approach of accepting the text from a bronze age religious book as the scientific explanation for how we got here.

Bwahahahaha… lol.. did you really think that through ??

Do you understand what DOGMA and SUPERSTITION are ???

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia
Jack loves to go on and on about empirical evidence. I remain unaware of any empirical evidence for a young earth, for a world wide flool. "Eyewitness" accounts in the Bible do not count as empirical evidence.

Evolution has never been verified by observation or experiment. There's no empirical evidence for it either.

[Stratnerd]

Evolution has never been verified by observation or experiment. There's no empirical evidence for it either.

everytime we discover a fossil where and "when" it should be it is another observational verification of evolution.

do you not understand the concept of congruence and consistency?

the history hypothesis of evolution posits that certain creatures lived at certain times and had certain features. there can easily be fossils that are contrary to these scenarios. if enough inconsistencies are found then evolution itself would be overturned. instead what we find is more and more observations and fossils that confirm evolution.

[Aussie Thinker]

Jack

I just recently watched a 2 hour special about Dinosaur hunting in Morroco.

These guys were trying to find the ancestors of the Nth American Large Brachiosaurus type Dinos.

Nth America and Africa used to be connected and the Mountains in Morroco were created when the Europe Plate hit the US and Africa Plate and the US plate split off and drifted West.

The Mountains have been split and have exposed the very layers the scientist were wanting to examine.

The EXPECTED fossils, smaller brachiosaurus type dinosaurs with more primitive development WERE found EXACTLY were evolutionary theory predicted they would be.

These guys used geology and evolutionary theory to find these things and they were there..

What are the implications for you in this ??? Doesn’t it confirm how well the theory works and how scientist keep finding the expected intermediates in the expected progressive layers ??

What DO you need for evidence ?

[One Eyed Jack]

You'll need to tell me a little bit more about this expedition -- when it took place, who it involved, what particular strata they were investigating, etc. What was the name of the dinosaur? It sounds like you're talking about Atlasaurus imelakei, but without more information, I can't be sure. I do know that at least one of these was found in that area a few years back.

[Aussie Thinker]

Nice pick up Jack.. see I knew you were clever

It was in the Atlas Mountains and it was the antecedents of the Atlasaurus.

It was French led expedition and the series is continuing.

I’ll have to take down more detail after the next episode and get back to you.

But you already seem to know a bit about it.. don’t you think it confirms evolution yet AGAIN ?

[Stratnerd]

You'll need to tell me a little bit more about this expedition -- when it took place, who it involved, what particular strata they were investigating, etc. What was the name of the dinosaur? It sounds like you're talking about Atlasaurus imelakei, but without more information, I can't be sure. I do know that at least one of these was found in that area a few years back.

this isn't an isolated case... it happens quite often and the best seminal case I can think of is Archaeopteryx. Huxley suggested that birds had a reptilian ancestry and a few years later a feathers bird with teeth, gastralia, claws (in the adult), bony tail, flat sternum, etc was found.

the interesting thing is why aren't finding those potentially damning fossils: fish with feathers, furry turtles, Cambrian whales, etc etc.?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Nice pick up Jack.. see I knew you were clever

It was in the Atlas Mountains and it was the antecedents of the Atlasaurus.

It was French led expedition and the series is continuing.

I’ll have to take down more detail after the next episode and get back to you.

But you already seem to know a bit about it.. don’t you think it confirms evolution yet AGAIN ?

No. They've found quite a few sauropods in Morocco. It doesn't surprise me that they'd find any more. Although you might find this interesting...

The relative completeness of the skeleton suggests that the animal was borne away and drowned in a flood, then caught on an oxbow or meander and rapidly covered by fluvial sediments mixed with vegetation.

Must have been a pretty big flood...

Source (http://www.elsevier.fr/html/news/monbaron/monbaron.html) -- see geological and stratigraphical context.

[Stratnerd]

Must have been a pretty big flood... What a flood where there's a meander and ox bow lake? That must never happen. Good Lord.

The age of the ‘Couches rouges’ has long been discussed. Based on a multitude of criteria from tectonic, stratigraphic, palaeontological and radiochronological evidence, what it wasn't dated from the fossil? I thought dating had to be circular?

[servent101]

jukia


Post #114 of 123

I must disagree w sevant 101. I do not believe there has been any mutiny in the good ship science. I was once a science teacher, my wife is a social studies teacher and I know current science teachers. My 4 kids went through (horrors) public schools. One is now an MD, one is a PhD candidate in genetics and one has an undergraduate degree in neuroscience. Their training in the basic sciences has been excellent at every educational level. They studied science, not the Bible, in science classes.

Jack loves to go on and on about empirical evidence. I remain unaware of any empirical evidence for a young earth, for a world wide flool. "Eyewitness" accounts in the Bible do not count as empirical evidence.

If you are a scientist you know your reasoning here is faulty - How does your children’s ability at school justify your stand on evolution? How does your lack of evidence for a world wide flood add to the correctness of evolution?

I have not stated what I think of the matter of evolution - but for science - it is meant to deal with the observation of the physical world, and has turned it's "way" of observing the physical and is making it the "Way" of logical deduction for everything, throwing out common sense and integrity - employing as much hocus pocus and voodoo as a stone age witch doctor casting spells on people. If you can't see that science is in no way able to deduce correctly that which is in the metaphysical realm of reality, and only accept the empirical means of ascertaining information for your understanding of what is about you - well I feel sorry for you. YOU have been trapped by dogma, and Science is your God for you accept no information unless it can float, sink, be weighed, cut, measured or some other form of test to your senses.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Jukia]

My comment about my kids was not meant as a statement about evolution but merely a response to someone's (yours) whining about pubic school education.
As to the rest of your post, it does not seem to me that you really have any idea what science might be about.

[PureX]

I think Servent101 has a valid argument, up to a point.

Science is a fairly simple process of observation, speculation, and experimentation, designed to help us to understand how the world around us works. On another thread I gave this over-simplified example: I observe that when I turn the wheel inside my car clockwise, that the wheels on the front of the car turn to the right. I observe that when I turn the wheel on the inside of the car counter-clockwise, the wheels on the front of the car turn to the left. I speculate that something must be connecting the wheel on the inside of the car, to the wheels on the front of the car. So I devise an experiment to test this speculation: I decide to open up the hood and look inside while having someone else rotate the wheel inside the car, hoping that by doing so I will be able to see if there are some parts connecting the wheel on the inside to the wheels on the front.

Having performed this experiment several times, and observing that some of the parts under the hood do appear to be connecting these wheels to each other, I can begin to speculate how this connection works, and to devise further experiments to find out more about this connection.

This is the scientific process, and it's not designed to help us discover anything about God, the meaning of life, or about the metaphysical realm. It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, it's not an art. It's just a simple process we can use to investige how the world around us works.

In recent years, however, the speculative aspect of the scientific process has caught the public's imagination, and the sales of books written about such speculations have been brisk. As a result, a lot of scientists have been allowing themselves a lot more freedom to do such speculating than they otherwise would; they've been doing it in print because people pay money for it, and they've been doing it somewhat irresponsably in that they are letting their speculations far outstrip any reasonable observation. And I think this has angered some people in other fields, particularly in the area of religion, who feel that science has not only trespassed into their area of thought, but that they've done so touting an anti-religious message. And in some instances, I think this is true.

I don't think that many scientists themselves have actually trespassed into the area of religion, but I do believe that a lot of the highly speculative books being published by scientists lately have had this effect on some of their readers, who are not so clear about exactly what science is, how speculation fits into the scientific process, and what it's limits are.

However, even though scientific speculation may have been made into far too much in the last ten years or so, this should not be confused with the very real, and very well tested ligitimate scientific speculations of the past. And I am referring to the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity. These were very ligitimate scientific speculations, based on and presented with plenty of observable evidence, and that have since been proven to function in many, many ways. To dismiss these ligitimate scientific theories as part of the more recent sensational and unprovable theories is simply wrong. I think Servent101 is trying to do this, and has already done so in his own mind. But in this he is simply wrong to do so.

[servent101]

PureX
To dismiss these ligitimate scientific theories as part of the more recent sensational and unprovable theories is simply wrong. I think Servent101 is trying to do this, and has already done so in his own mind. But in this he is simply wrong to do so.

I have not accepted the theory of evolution as fact, and I lean towards a young earth theory. The jury is still out though; I have not concluded anything as fact yet - except that it is possible for God to Create Life - from the authority of His Being. When school children, even my own, start to tell me that the only way to know something is through the empirical method of deduction, and think that evolution is based on this principle, I start to get upset - granted, but it is not with the theory of evolution - it is with the way that people who say they are scientists are simply ignoring contradictory evidence, and railroading the concept as fact - when it is simply a hypothesis. Evidence is not being looked at in a way that would allow the understanding of any metaphysical insights, and when evidence is presented, if it does not fit the theory, it is simply ignored and abandoned and not taught in the school system to our children. It is a one sided debate, with the blatant disregard for the process of science to gather the facts, then come to some hypothesis. Before the facts are gathered the school system has already instilled the "mindset" that science is based on empirical evidence - then the school children are already prejudiced into not even trying to understand what an explanation is unless it can be deduced by repeating the process in the laboratory. Science is only capable of finding out what is here, but this theory of evolution is equipping our children with the “mindset” that anything that is knowable is based on the study of the physical through empirical methods of deduction, robbing them of their higher thinking skills, their ability to deduce logically that which is beyond the physical.

There seems to be two mindsets available from our institutions. A mindset based on the processes of empirical science, or an orthodox mindset. Where is the Person left in both of these institutions? I am somewhat afraid that the person is left without their sense of reason intact in both mindsets and the person is a persecuted being in our institutions of so called learning, both the scientific community and the religious community do not foster the capacity to deduce things on a supersensible level.

Thank God, though that people do not that often get completely trapped in the “mindsets” though at the administrative level, the people seem to be completely blind to their “mindsets” and what they are producing as far as prodigies.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101, I think that you should thank God that your children are being educated by other people. Judging from your last post you are not equipped to educate others.

[Stratnerd]

Before the facts are gathered the school system has already instilled the "mindset" that science is based on empirical evidence - but that is the nature of science... what else should it be based on?

i can see explanations being a mix of science and religion but science, by its very nature seeks materialistic explanations for phenomena.

theory of evolution is equipping our children with the “mindset” that anything that is knowable is based on the study of the physical through empirical methods of deductionone of my beef's with modern education is that epistemology isn't taught alongside theory; a good education would include other methods of knowing. however, reliable knowledge about the natural world is best gained through methods of induction/deduction

throbbing them of their higher thinking skills, their ability to deduce logically that which is beyond the physical. but evolution is the best explanation.. should I teach things that I think are bunk? there's enough controversy in the world, even in evolution, that teaching the bunk isn't necessary to keep kids thinking.

[Dimo]

Stratnerd posted:

but that is the nature of science... what else should it be based on?

Dimo:

Don't you know? It should be based on servent101's YEC model of the world.

[Stratnerd]

I would just suggest that a parent include themselves in their child's education. Then there's no excuse and we know who to blame.

School is simply the intermediate step in education after and before the home.

[servent101]

Stratnerd

I am no expert on the school system, but from what I have gathered and heard the school system is geared to make our children employable in the work force, not to actually improve their morality or help them to gain thinking skills. They are left to gobble up materialism in which they are lead to believe that they have to work sixty hours a week to earn enough money to have all the things they are told that will make them happy, and when the system collapses,,, well the person with the most toys wins.

Statistically forty percent of the actual teachers in public schools have their children enrolled outside of the public school system.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Stratnerd]

I am no expert on the school system, but from what I have gathered and heard the school system is geared to make our children employable in the work force, not to actually improve their morality or help them to gain thinking skills. Having worked some in secondary ed and college (most) developing thinking skills is the primary purpose of education. This is why they are taught things like math, biology, physics, sociology and not telephone installation, computer repair, sales, marketing, etc (although I wish I had been taught some of these things)

They are left to gobble up materialism in which they are lead to believe that they have to work sixty hours a week to earn enough money to have all the things they are told that will make them happy, and when the system collapses,,, well the person with the most toys wins. when I speak of materialism I am refering to explaining natural phenomena not the value, purpose, and goals of life. These are for you to teach your child.

Statistically forty percent of the actual teachers in public schools have their children enrolled outside of the public school system. In most cases I bet that stems from a teacher parent wanting to get their student out of the public schools where behavior is a problem not the subject matter.

[PureX]

servant101,

You keep implying that science has become a philosophy or a religion. But it's not, and it hasn't. If some people have chosen to treat it as such that is their mistake. If your own children are making that mistake, you should teach them the difference between these human endeavors so that they will understand that science is not philosophy or religion.

But first, YOU will need to be clear in your own mind about what the differences are, and how human beings can have these different intellectal endeavors available to them without their having to declare one or another "right" or "wrong". Science is not at odds with religion any more than religion is at odds with philosophy, or philosophy with art, or art with science. Each of the intellectual and spiritual endeavors offers us a different set of conceptual tools with which we can explore the mechanics, the function, the meaning, and the value of our own existence. They are no more "right" or "wrong" than a hammer is more "right" than a screwdriver. One endeavor works better for exploring one set of questions, while another endeavor works better for exploring another set of questions. That's all.

When you read or discuss science, remember that it IS science. If you don't mix it in your mind with religious issues, then it won't bother you when it seems to contradict religious precepts. They are different ways of looking at the world, so of course they will come up with different views of the world they're looking at.

I agree with you that your kids should understand that there are other ways of experiencing life, and of obtaining knowledge, besides science.

[Dimo]

servant101 posted:

I am no expert on the school system, but from what I have gathered and heard the school system is geared to make our children employable in the work force,

Dimo:

That is the goal of schools or courses that specialize in teaching a trade. A liberal arts education is often used to facilitate one's ability at critical analyses. Although the success of such a program is determined by the student as much as, if not more than, by the educator. Be aware that such an education might lead your children to be quite skeptical of your specific set of beliefs.

servant101 posted:

not to actually improve their morality or help them to gain thinking skills.

Dimo:

I took several classes dealing with ethics in college. It is a shame these were not required when I was in high school.

servent101 posted:

They are left to gobble up materialism in which they are lead to believe that they have to work sixty hours a week to earn enough money to have all the things they are told that will make them happy, and when the system collapses,,, well the person with the most toys wins.

Dimo:

The materialism involved with the material sciences is different than the "materialism" involved with greed or the desire to obtain material technologies. I hope I don't have to explain this difference to you.

servant101 posted:

Statistically forty percent of the actual teachers in public schools have their children enrolled outside of the public school system.

Dimo:

That's because most teachers are quite aware of the limitations of the public school system. IOW, most public schools do not cover subjects as comprehensively as private institutions. Part of the problem stems from funding. As well as from trying to educate so many different types of students with standardized methods designed for "average" students.

[Dimo]

Purex posted:

You keep implying that science has become a philosophy or a religion. But it's not, and it hasn't.

Dimo:

Historically, the material sciences have been developed from the branch of knowledge once referred to as "natural philosophy". This is not to say that "natural philosophy" is a religion. Religion and philosophy are not the same. Certainly there meaning can overlap at least in some peoples minds. Indeed there is a philosophy for every kind of belief system, field of study, or methodology. Can this also be said of religion?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Dimo
Purex posted:

You keep implying that science has become a philosophy or a religion. But it's not, and it hasn't.

Dimo:

Historically, the material sciences have been developed from the branch of knowledge once referred to as "natural philosophy". This is not to say that "natural philosophy" is a religion. Religion and philosophy are not the same. Certainly there meaning can overlap at least in some peoples minds. Indeed there is a philosophy for every kind of belief system, field of study, or methodology. Can this also be said of religion? We are the common denominator, of course. Philosophy has a specific set of "rules" that it demands we follow before we can claim that the intellectual investigative process we are employing is "philosophy". And there are a different set of "rules" that science demands that we adhere to before we can claim that what we are then doing is "science". The same goes for religion, medicine, art, etc.,. As individuals we are acquainted with some of these methods and their rules and we employ them on a regular basis in just living our lives and thinking our thoughts and expressing our ideas. In this sense aspects of these different endeavors certainly do overlap and blend. But strictly speaking, in those instances we are not actually practicing those specific endeavors, but are only employing aspects of the different endeavors simaltaneously.

Also, of course these conceptual endeavors have come from the human mind, and so naturally will reunite there again should we decide to look at them that way. Again, we are the common denominator. The human condition is where the roads of art, religion, philosophy, science, medicine, politics, etc., all conjoin.

[Dimo]

Well put Purex.

[servent101]

PureX

When you read or discuss science, remember that it IS science. If you don't mix it in your mind with religious issues, then it won't bother you when it seems to contradict religious precepts. They are different ways of looking at the world, so of course they will come up with different views of the world they're looking at.

I agree with you that your kids should understand that there are other ways of experiencing life, and of obtaining knowledge, besides science.

I as a scientist have problems with the theory of evolution, not as a person who is a Christian. When my children are taught the non-certitude of observations that are not based on the physical empirical method of observation – this is an outright flagrant attack on the principles of metaphysics and hinders my children’s ability to function as sane human beings in our society. The principles that govern the categorization of the physical world is being used as a religion in the classroom. The theory of evolution is a religion, as potentially dangerous as the crusades were or the witch hunts in Europe a few hundred years ago. The way evolution is being taught and accepted and the stigma attached to people who do not accept evolution as our origin is gaining the same mindset as the people who planned the crusades. It has nothing to do with religion … it is a religion; it is an affront to science!

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[PureX]

Originally posted by servent101
PureX
I as a scientist have problems with the theory of evolution, not as a person who is a Christian. When my children are taught the non-certitude of observations that are not based on the physical empirical method of observation – this is an outright flagrant attack on the principles of metaphysics and hinders my children’s ability to function as sane human beings in our society. What exactly would be the "principles of metaphysics"? I am unaware that there are any methodological rules by which we can explore the metaphysical realm, except for a complete immersion in some religion.
Originally posted by servent101 The principles that govern the categorization of the physical world is being used as a religion in the classroom. The theory of evolution is a religion, as potentially dangerous as the crusades were or the witch hunts in Europe a few hundred years ago. The way evolution is being taught and accepted and the stigma attached to people who do not accept evolution as our origin is gaining the same mindset as the people who planned the crusades. It has nothing to do with religion … it is a religion; it is an affront to science!Well, I think you're patently wrong about this. The theory of evolution is not a religious theory. It's not taught as a religious theory, and claiming that it is is simply wrong. I'm sorry that when we apply the scientific method to questions of biological origins, we come up with answers that some religionists don't like, but that's not the fault of science. I think they should grow up and quit trying to blame the messenger for the message.

Science is just a process of applying basic logic to the physical world to help us understand how it works. I agree with you that logic is not and should not be the only tool we use to understand the nature, value, and purpose of our existence but the fact is that it is a useful tool and schools certainly should be teaching it. I also think schools should be teaching the other tools as well, through art and religious studies, and I agree with you that they are not doing enough in those areas. But none of this makes science a religion. None of this makes science an art, and none of this makes science philosophy. It may make us rely too heavily on science and logic, and too little on spirituality and intuition, but again, this is not the fault or flaw of science itself. It's the fault of those who make too much of it, and ignore the other ways we can experience and understand our own existence.

[Dimo]

servant101 posted:

I as a scientist have problems with the theory of evolution, not as a person who is a Christian.

Dimo:

What is your area of expertise in science?

As a scientist what scientific problems do you have with evolution?

Servant101 posted:

When my children are taught the non-certitude of observations that are not based on the physical empirical method of observation – this is an outright flagrant attack on the principles of metaphysics and hinders my children’s ability to function as sane human beings in our society.

Dimo:

The certitude of observations that are not based on the physical empirical method cannot be corroborated with physical evidence. This is a basic cause and effect relationship that does not have to be taught it can be discovered by one's own intellectual investigations.

servant101 posted:

The principles that govern the categorization of the physical world is being used as a religion in the classroom. The theory of evolution is a religion, as potentially dangerous as the crusades were or the witch hunts in Europe a few hundred years ago. The way evolution is being taught and accepted and the stigma attached to people who do not accept evolution as our origin is gaining the same mindset as the people who planned the crusades. It has nothing to do with religion … it is a religion; it is an affront to science!

Dimo:

Research, study and categorizations of physical phenomenon may or may not be religious. It all depends on how one utilizes the concepts. It is up to your children and you to not adopt any other persons methodology of discerning truth. It may be necessary that you develop your own protocol for discerning your own truth. Please stop blaming this on the "system".

Have you ever heard the Japanese saying "Never let a book do your thinking for you"?

Apply this logic to what others say as well.

[servent101]

PureX

What exactly would be the "principles of metaphysics"? I am unaware that there are any methodological rules by which we can explore the metaphysical realm, except for a complete immersion in some religion.

your answer can be found here

http://websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm.


But the way in which evolution seems sensible is not based on any well thought out axioms or metaphysics. It is an affront to science – they have re-written the textbook to suit the theory. It is more of a case of a patriarchal styled conceptual trap, that needs a sociology thesis to describe it – but it is not science – it is as dogmatic as religion in the past concerning it’s procedure, introspection and honest doubt is completely absent and the conformity of thought is completely belligerent to any prospect of finding the truth of our origin. Evolution may well be true, but the way in which it is approached is nothing more than dogmatic – an affront to learning thinking skills. From the start the hook line and sinker is swallowed – that being only the empirical method of deduction will be used to deduce fact from and base theory on. Then they make fact of hypothesis and then try to fit the “observation” to fill the theory – leaving no room for honest evaluation of the observations and not regard to the truth – just the promotion of empirical deduction as the only means to deduce the truth of our origin and slander the process of anything that does not base it’s deduction on empirical reasoning. Obviously they have committed mutiny in the grade schools concerning cognitive reasoning process and have severed their own ability to recognize what they are doing. I may of articulated poorly their actions as a religion, but it has the prospect of taking that place of understanding in our morals and ethics. It is definitely a conceptual trap because once engulfed in the process one is left with no other thinking skills or reasoning that has been developed to understand reality, or search our selves for higher purpose. These faculties are not only not taught to deduce such things, but are discouraged as unreliable. So what is the student left with – evolution to answer the questions of the meaning of life – evolution as a religion.

I'm sorry that when we apply the scientific method to questions of biological origins, we come up with answers that some religionists don't like, but that's not the fault of science. I think they should grow up and quit trying to blame the messenger for the message.

Science is just a process of applying basic logic to the physical world to help us understand how it works. I agree with you that logic is not and should not be the only tool we use to understand the nature, value, and purpose of our existence but the fact is that it is a useful tool and schools certainly should be teaching it. I also think schools should be teaching the other tools as well, through art and religious studies, and I agree with you that they are not doing enough in those areas. But none of this makes science a religion. None of this makes science an art, and none of this makes science philosophy. It may make us rely too heavily on science and logic, and too little on spirituality and intuition, but again, this is not the fault or flaw of science itself. It's the fault of those who make too much of it, and ignore the other ways we can experience and understand our own existence.

Again… I am not speaking as a person who is afflicted with a religious perspective – I am speaking as a scientist who sees the system limiting the search for our origin to evidence that is only deducible to empirical science as we know it today, and the system is also propagating the non-trustworthiness of our higher foundations of our reasoning processes – which is the basis of science in the first place. We have grown six feet tall and are now cutting ourselves off at the knees. The search for truth has been stifled by the theory of evolution’s proponents who have in my view anyways given up on the search for truth for the promotion of empirical methods of deduction.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servant101, thanks for your opinion. Do you have a better explanation for the evidence? If so please share it with us.

What methods do you propose we adopt to eliminate this "promotion of empirical methods of deduction"?

In my mind the type of deduction used in the material sciences is an abstract exercise performed on empirical evidence.

Are you proposing that we use other types of evidence in the material sciences?

Or are you saying that we should entertain explanations that are not based on the empirical evidenc?

Please explain how your methodology is superior to the one now being used in the material sciences?

BTW, your link did not work.

Since you did not answer before, In what area of science is your expertise?

[Stratnerd]

but it is not science – it is as dogmatic as religion in the past concerning it’s procedure, introspection and honest doubt is completely absent and the conformity of thought is completely belligerent to any prospect of finding the truth of our origin. what the heck are you talking about? do you read Science, Nature, Evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc??? If you did you will constantly see current paradigms (natural selection, rates of evolution [slow and steady vs. jerky]) doubted.

You will not see evolution doubted... at least not now because there is too much evidence to consider the alternatives. Should we teach our children religious dogma that has absolutely no body of evidence to support it?

Evolution may well be true, but the way in which it is approached is nothing more than dogmatic – an affront to learning thinking skills. Bull!!! as I pointed out in a previous post there are many facets of evolution that are controversial to give students thought - the beginning of life, for example. But there are enough controversial subject in school to get students thinking. Why should students be taught something that has no support?

that being only the empirical method of deduction will be used to deduce fact from and base theory on. Then they make fact of hypothesis and then try to fit the “observation” to fill the theory – for example?

slander the process of anything that does not base it’s deduction on empirical reasoning. like what? this is science... please offer an alternative method to get reliable knowledge and how do you go about testing it.

or search our selves for higher purpose. These faculties are not only not taught to deduce such things, but are discouraged as unreliable. So what is the student left with – evolution to answer the questions of the meaning of life – evolution as a religion. more bull. The questions of life - purposes and morlatity cannot be inferred from the natural world. Why do you insist that this is what is being taught? Have you ANY evidence for this?

the search for our origin to evidence that is only deducible to empirical science as we know it today, is this not a question of science... again what system would you like to replace it with?

[servent101]

Stratnerd

You will not see evolution doubted... at least not now because there is too much evidence to consider the alternatives.

This is typical of the thinking of most people involved in evolution. To base the subject under the guise of "empirical science" and to only have "religious dogma" as an alternative in your repertory of ability to find alternative solution clearly shows you as a prodigy of your own making. I cannot spoon feed you, or spell things out for you. Learn how to deduce from reason some sort of “solution”. But for me to spell out a solution to problem that you have left yourself unable to understand or articulate –I already recognize as foolishness. I am simply throwing rocks at you in the hopes of something clicking to wake you up to the reality that exists outside of the probes of empirical science; for it is not presentable from empirical methods of deduction, and you show no aptitude of understanding anything than from what your empirical methods can deduce, not strength of character to deduce things on your own personal experience - but what is the problem? Before I start to give you a “better way” can you even tell me what the problem is and prove it is possible to explain through “empirical science”; If not the problem is useless to discuss with you, and I will simply hope that a “stone” I throw may wake you out of your guise of a so called scientist, and wake you up to what is in the real world. A school system making drones for the work force, consumers for out products, voters for the American way. What is moral decay – and can it be deduced by empirical science? Can our responsibility to our planet be deduced from empirical science? Can empirical science give us any reasons to work towards the common good? So if you are so prone to empirical science as your “savoir” do you have any tools to rethink your suppositions? Or have you been blinded?

With Christ’s love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

The principles that govern the categorization of the physical world is being used as a religion in the classroom.

Dimo:

Which principles should we us to govern the categorization of the physical world?

servent101 posted:

The theory of evolution is a religion, as potentially dangerous as the crusades were or the witch hunts in Europe a few hundred years ago.

Dimo:

So you are having premonitions of empiricists burning spiritualists and dualists at the stake for conspiring with Satan and his minions?

What an astute assessment of the possibilities.

"How do you know she's a witch?"
"Well she turned me into a newt."

The gathering crowd looks at a man wh appears normal
Man says;

"I got better"

servent101posted:

The way evolution is being taught and accepted and the stigma attached to people who do not accept evolution as our origin is gaining the same mindset as the people who planned the crusades.

Dimo:

Yes, material scientists can now be called Teutonic Knights of empiricism.

servent101 posted:

It has nothing to do with religion … it is a religion; it is an affront to science!

Dimo:

Irony alert!


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shal never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[Stratnerd]

Servent,

Instead of dancing around and throwing darts - how about a real conversation?

First listen - this will be the third time I will say this and others have also repeated it: science has a method including induction and deduction and as such has limits to the types of questions we can answer. It cannot answer questions of morality and purpose.

Second offer an alternative- how else do we gain reliable knowledge about the natural world?

When it comes to questions about HOW - not WHY we are here and share this planet we can answer this question along a gradient of purely religious and pure naturalist means. The religious explanation, in this case YEC, has certain predictions that we would expect to see if true. And this isn't the case.

Now, if you are questioning the use of this method then what do you suggest we do? Blindly believe in literature that is purportedly divine revelation despite our logic and senses? And you talk about being sane?

[PureX]

Servant101,

"I observe that when I turn the wheel inside my car clockwise, that the wheels on the front of the car turn to the right. I observe that when I turn the wheel on the inside of the car counter-clockwise, the wheels on the front of the car turn to the left. I speculate that something must be connecting the wheel on the inside of the car, to the wheels on the front of the car. So I devise an experiment to test this speculation: I decide to open up the hood and look inside while having someone else rotate the wheel inside the car, hoping that by doing so I will be able to see if there are some parts connecting the wheel on the inside to the wheels on the front.

Having performed this experiment several times, and observing that some of the parts under the hood do appear to be connecting these wheels to each other, I can begin to speculate how this connection works, and to devise further experiments to find out more about this connection. And I can share my speculations, experiments, and conclusions with others, so they can test them for themselves."

So where in this process did it become a religious dogma?

[servent101]

Strathnerd

Now, if you are questioning the use of this method then what do you suggest we do? Blindly believe in literature that is purportedly divine revelation despite our logic and senses? And you talk about being sane?

I am definitely questioning the use of “this method” and what is the method I am questioning? A method that leaves the individual in no way capable of deducing observation other than by empirical means, nor able to compute or formulate variances based on their own creative energies – finding solutions to problems, from the constructive use of the imagination, functioning as “being” functioning as “complete” and as sane rational human beings. Empirical science is not able to charge out on it’s own, basing it’s idea of the origin of the human species on empirical evidence. Your concern should be is what has happened to me – for you have shown no imagination, no prospect of finding a solution to the problem, or even understanding that there is a problem. Before you even try to understand what I am saying, your only program of thought tells you that I am suggesting Blindly believe in literature that is purportedly divine revelation despite our logic and senses? Are you not in the least bit worried that you have lost your ability to formulate a creative thinking structure outside of the “empirical mode”? Has the thought that it is necessary to develop some sort of metaphysical understanding of our nature, a concept of being, is necessary for our natural development to sane coherent individuals?

I do listen and am moved to try to answer you r questions
First listen - this will be the third time I will say this and others have also repeated it: science has a method including induction and deduction and as such has limits to the types of questions we can answer. It cannot answer questions of morality and purpose.

Second offer an alternative- how else do we gain reliable knowledge about the natural world?

but my hands are tied –firstly you present your case that only through empirical evidence do we have any assurance of “quality information” and then to present you any other evidence you have not trained yourself in what is supersensible, what is worthy of your trust, you simply have prejudiced yourself, and in the process you do not know what you are doing, nor do you have the ability to turn yourself around, or understand your predicament. You have already decided that if it is not based on the empirical sciences it is unreliable – and this is what is being taught to our children.

But as for your request – to gain reliable knowledge about the natural world – have you ever sat under the stars for a few hours on a clear night – try it. It might expand your consciousness a little.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101, would you please answer my previous questions now?

Do you have any suggestions other than sitting outside on a starry night?

I am genuinely interested in your "non-empirical" criteria and methodologies involved with your search for knowledge.

[Jukia]

Try sitting under the stars on a clear night with some good stuff. Boy, that really expands your consciousness a lot!
I thought this thread should have had a basis in fact, in evidence. The whole idea behind science is to look at the "sensible", not the "supersensible" that servent speaks of.
Looks to me like we are talking about apples and oranges here, not on the same track

[servent101]

PureX

[quote]So where in this process did it become a religious dogma?[quote]

The example of the car and evolution are a little bit like apples and oranges. But if you were to negate the fact that there is a process of engineering that can adequately explain exactly the tolerances of the steering wheel. If you can’t understand the engineering, the math or physics and say that it is simply by trial and error that the car company made the thing work, and in your ignorance maintained that your can only theorize on the gismo in front of you, that would be the foundation of dogma – but it is all hypothetical.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[servent101]

Dimo


Sit outside on a clear night and look at the stars - then post on the subject in the morning. Experience is a good teacher... try it, it will do no harm...To do no harmfamous words...from where?

With Christ's love

Servent101

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
By "creationist (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html)" I mean someone who believes... that humans are not descended from a common ancestor along with other primates or DNA-based life.

I don't believe most humans are, but ones like you...? :think:

[Dimo]

I think what servent101 is talking about is divine revelation, which I do not discount.

Am I correct servent101?

[Stratnerd]

– finding solutions to problems, from the constructive use of the imagination, functioning as “being” functioning as “complete” and as sane rational human beings. OK, use origins as an example... how would you go about answering how and getting a reliable answer? By reliable I mean an answer which can produce predictions that can be confirmed or rejected but end up confirming.

Your concern should be is what has happened to me – for you have shown no imagination, no prospect of finding a solution to the problem, or even understanding that there is a problem. Before you even try to understand what I am saying, your only program of thought tells you that I am suggesting either you should be more specific, use examples, or articulate something which I can grasp because I have no idea what you're talking about. My concern should be what happened to you? In what way?

Are you not in the least bit worried that you have lost your ability to formulate a creative thinking structure outside of the “empirical mode”? I stick to science to answer natural question, especially when I find that other modes, such as religion FAILS.

what is worthy of your trust, let me make that into a question? YES I do insist that explanations give me reliable answers. Wouldn't you want this for yourself? I suspect not.

You have already decided that if it is not based on the empirical sciences it is unreliable – and this is what is being taught to our children. OK for the fourth time let me explain. Evolution gives us a reliable answer to how we are here in an immediate sense not in a "cosmic sense" of why. No where have I seen this offered as the cosmic sense of why. It ain't for science to answer and I've never heard of a teacher suggesting this either.

But as for your request – to gain reliable knowledge about the natural world – have you ever sat under the stars for a few hours on a clear night – try it. It might expand your consciousness a little. I doubt you will find anyone who has thought more about hows and whys than me. It's part of what I do for a living.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

Sit outside on a clear night and look at the stars - then post on the subject in the morning. Experience is a good teacher... try it, it will do no harm...

Dimo:

I have done this many times. My results seem to be quite different than yours. Perhaps I am mistaken. What is it that you gained from this nocturnal outdoor soul searching?

[Stratnerd]

What is it that you gained from this nocturnal outdoor soul searching?

I always think of the Galaxy Song by Monty Python...


http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/galaxyso.htm

[Dimo]

wholearmour, your not soliciting for multi-level marketing schemes here are you?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
wholearmour, your not soliciting for multi-level marketing schemes here are you?

Schemes...no. Business...yes. A PM would have been more appropriate for your question, however.

[Dimo]

Stratnerd, I get the same sort of feelings and revelations as when I sit by the ocean mezmerized by the rythm of the waves and the tides. I feel that my single independant existence is very small part and the byproduct of a much bigger plan. I then get this almost eerie sense that the universe is listening to me and my attitudes, despite the knowledge that I am a miniscule part of the whole.

I'm still curious about what servent101 experiences. But I guess he is not going to answer until I have completed his homework assignment.

[Dimo]

wholearmour posted:

Schemes...no. Business...yes. A PM would have been more appropriate for your question, however.

Dimo:

Pyramid marketing, multilevel marketing... they refer to the same form of marketing hierarchy. I'v got some Melalueca products for you if your interested.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
wholearmour posted:

Schemes...no. Business...yes. A PM would have been more appropriate for your question, however.

Dimo:

Pyramid marketing, multilevel marketing... they refer to the same form of marketing hierarchy. I'v got some Melalueca products for you if your interested.

Being in Watkins, I wouldn't be interested in Melaleuca products, but next time you get the chance, check out your company's organizational structure. Hmmmm......resembles a pyramid doesn't it...and you'll never make any more money than the person at the top.

Instead of continuing to hijack this thread, you could reply with your disagreements concerning MLM in a new thread. That would be the right thing to do, don't you think?

[Dimo]

wholearmour posted:

Instead of continuing to hijack this thread, you could reply with your disagreements concerning MLM in a new thread. That would be the right thing to do, don't you think?

Dimo:

Yes, I am certainly not as qualified as you in deciding the right thing to do.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
wholearmour posted:

Instead of continuing to hijack this thread, you could reply with your disagreements concerning MLM in a new thread. That would be the right thing to do, don't you think?

Dimo:

Yes, I am certainly not as qualified as you in deciding the right thing to do.

Not in this case, anyway. However, you seem to be more qualifed than me in becoming easily offended by someone you don't even know.

[Dimo]

Who said I was offended. I'm not easily offended by people I respect nevermind people I don't know or respect. Why would I be offended by you?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
Who said I was offended. I'm not easily offended by people I respect nevermind people I don't know or respect. Why would I be offended by you?

Dimo:
Yes, I am certainly not as qualified as you in deciding the right thing to do.

WA:
My point exactly...why would you be offended by me? But, I believe a reasonable person would read your facetious statement and discern that you were somewhat offended.

[Dimo]

WA, let's get back on subject here. Have you ever sat outside on a clear night and looked at the stars?

[wholearmor]

Yes. I tried it on a cloudy night but I couldn't see the stars.

[Dimo]

WA posted:

Yes. I tried it on a cloudy night but I couldn't see the stars.

Dimo:

What did you learn from these/this experience(s)?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
WA posted:

Yes. I tried it on a cloudy night but I couldn't see the stars.

Dimo:

What did you learn from these/this experience(s)?

That there are more stars than anyone can count.

[Dimo]

WA posted:

That there are more stars than anyone can count.

Dimo:

How perceptive of you.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
WA posted:

That there are more stars than anyone can count.

Dimo:

How perceptive of you.

I'm a fart smeller...I'm sorry...a smart feller.

[servent101]

To all - I will try to clairify a little.

"Empirical scientific method" is not adequate to deduce our origin, nor to shed light on or to answer the questions that arise from "living" our lives. In empirical sciences present state of existence in the elementary grades it has pronounced that our origin is only deducible by "empirical scientific method". If you swallow this, which is apparent what you have done - what can I say? What do you observe? Even your own reasoning skills seem to employing justifying the empirical method as sane and rational because it is not based on religious dogma. True scientific reasoning and logic is not based on this reasoning process that it is a better alternative to a lesser logic. True scientific logic takes into account observation, and does not limit the observation of the "person" individual and collective cognition to be based on the process of deducing the physical environment. If you so choose to do so your cognition skills will not be developed enough to find reasonable solution to the observations around you - you will in fact have not observed your environment in any other way than what would be deducible to empirical methods of observation. So until necessity intervenes, weather it be in the form of total collapse of your personal life, chaos in the social evolution of the human psyche, or whatever will wake you out of your choosing to ignore your "being". There is a possibility of what I am communicating to you having some effect, though I am not holding my breath. Hopefully though, some day you will look around you, and learn from history. This popularity of evolution as a science is something new, but it is really only something that is "dogma" in a new disguise - limit the intellect of the human being to a set standard - weather it be religious dogma, a patriarchal modeled thinking fraternity, or empirical scientific method - they really are the same dog just playing different tricks - enforce the limits of reasoning, create a moral ethic that provides a higharchial leadership - rape pillage and destroy. Possibly in the twentieth century we will turn the corner and find sane solutions to our propensity on a mass level to destroy ourselves. Science can contribute a lot, but this "empirical method" of deducing our origin is simply an old dog playing new tricks. There is still the science of the study of God - found deep in the individual soul. There is the science of sociology, political science, and metaphysics that are needed to understand our propensity to do what we do, and to understand our human condition. The solution to the problems of our "nature" can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and hope for our cure for the "condition" of our natural tendency to do evil are also found in the person of The Lord... Who is still able to be found by those who seek Him with all their heart. True Christianity is not dogmatic - though there is a lot of false dogmatic Christianity out there.

Hope you find what you are looking for - but your dependency on empirical science for our origin is only leading to the same dogma you are trying to avoid in the first place. Empirical science as the means to deduce our origin or as a replacement for cognitive observation of our environment is a farce built on the same principles as the dogma that has hindered our development as human beings by the church in the past. Evolution is becoming a dogmatic religion, void of even trying to find the truth - it is simply a politically advocated position that allows it's followers to pursue the building of a fraternity, and keep people who think for themselves out.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

Dimo

I'm still curious about what servent101 experiences. But I guess he is not going to answer until I have completed his homework assignment.

Sorry for the delay, sometimes I am busy – thank you for being polite, I will try to correspond in like manner.

At the store, when the clerk asks me if that is “everything” I say no, not according to Hawkins – the theory of everything, then go on to tell the clerk that we live on a planet that is one of nine planets that go around the sun, and the sun is one of a hundred thousand other suns in our galaxy, and that there is a hundred thousand other galaxies, most of which are larger than this one, and the whole kit and caboodle of them are hurtling across space at just slightly under the speed of light – the distance they travel is infinity, the time they travel is eternity and to make friends with the Creator is to step through the threshold of immortality – that that is everything – at least according to Hawkins – and if they seem to still have a little room left to contemplate some more I also add that that is everything in this physical manifestation of material energy – that I had not touched on the Spiritual world – which transcends our notions of space and time, and as well I have not touched on the world of subtle energy. So far no one has agreed to go out for coffee with me after I give them this speel – but hopefully one day I will meet a nice woman who will be able to communicate with me on these subjects and we will live happily ever after – possibly as soul mates exploring this “creation” as friends of God. (Ha, Ha)

Anyways – the point is that if there is a Creator, He or She is big enough that the minute details in our lives are observable and understandable – this is the route I take, that God is so Big that He can be involved in our lives, not that God is so big that He or She does not count us as important – to the contrary we are very much on the mind of God – especially to become His Children – growing in the attributes that God Himself/Herself possesses. How? Well I will have to let you rack your brains out for a while on that one – it is part of the process that God seems to put us through.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Stratnerd]

"Empirical scientific method" is not adequate to deduce our origin, Why not?

elementary grades it has pronounced that our origin is only deducible by "empirical scientific method". it is the only method by which we do get reliable knowledge. I mean, so far; we'll see if revelation proves sometime in future to be superior.

I'll ask again for the third time though, do you have any data (e.g., survey data) that shows that what is taught is that scientific method is the ONLY way to answer questions.

True scientific logic takes into account observation, no kidding! BUt what you are advocating, and correct if I'm wrong, is totally subjective interpretation of what we see VOID of all prior research and VOID of all future consideration of if it true (i.e., don't test it). I can't imagine a WORSE method of learning things. Maybe you're satisfied with loosey-goosey entirely subjective learning, I am not. I want something that will stand up to scrutiny not something that just makes me feel good and basically gets the answer that I want (without even asking).

You claim to be a scientist, yes? How do you go about your business? Why should questions about the origins of us and the universe be any different?

Again, you haven't outlined the alternative in any explicit terms.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

"Empirical scientific method" is not adequate to deduce our origin,

Dimo:

It is the only means we have to determine the physical phenomenon involved with our incarnation.

servent101 posted:

nor to shed light on or to answer the questions that arise from "living" our lives.

Dimo:

With this I agree 100 percent. I would be highly suspiscious of anyone who claimed that empiricism can answer all of the "questions" that arise from "living" our lives.

Servent101 posted:

In empirical sciences present state of existence in the elementary grades it has pronounced that our origin is only deducible by "empirical scientific method".

Dimo:

Refer to my previous statments.

servent101 posted:

If you swallow this, which is apparent what you have done - what can I say?

Dimo:

Who has swallowed this?

Servent101:

What do you observe?

Dimo:

What do you observe?

servent101 posted:

Even your own reasoning skills seem to employing justifying the empirical method as sane and rational because it is not based on religious dogma. True scientific reasoning and logic is not based on this reasoning process that it is a better alternative to a lesser logic.

Dimo:

What?

servent101 posted:

True scientific logic takes into account observation, and does not limit the observation of the "person" individual and collective cognition to be based on the process of deducing the physical environment.

Dimo:

Again, on what other environment should we base the processes of deduction and inferrence?

servent101 posted:

If you so choose to do so your cognition skills will not be developed enough to find reasonable solution to the observations around you - you will in fact have not observed your environment in any other way than what would be deducible to empirical methods of observation.

Dimo:

Could you please help us on our path to enlightenment by giving some specific examples?

servent101 posted:

So until necessity intervenes, weather it be in the form of total collapse of your personal life, chaos in the social evolution of the human psyche, or whatever will wake you out of your choosing to ignore your "being".

Dimo:

I do not ignore my being. What makes you think that I ignore my being?

servent101 posted:

There is a possibility of what I am communicating to you having some effect, though I am not holding my breath.

Dimo:

That's good. Because your attempt to clarify has only muddied up the water. I am more confused about what you are saying now than before this post.

servent101 posted:

Hopefully though, some day you will look around you, and learn from history.

Dimo:

I have learned a great deal from history. Have you learned anything about highschool level english. Because judging from this post you either learned very little or forgot quite a bit.

servent101 posted:

This popularity of evolution as a science is something new,

Dimo:

Well I guess that is true. If you consider sonething over 150 years old as new.

servent101 posted:

but it is really only something that is "dogma" in a new disguise -

Dimo:

So you say. However, your argument is not compelling.

servent101 posted:

limit the intellect of the human being to a set standard - weather it be religious dogma, a patriarchal modeled thinking fraternity, or empirical scientific method - they really are the same dog just playing different tricks - enforce the limits of reasoning, create a moral ethic that provides a higharchial leadership - rape pillage and destroy.

Dimo:

What are you talking about? The material sciences are only one area of intellectual investigation. They are not religious dogma. They do not lead people to rape pillage and destroy. Those human behaviors are cause by fear, greed, ignorance....

servent101 posted:

Possibly in the twentieth century we will turn the corner and find sane solutions to our propensity on a mass level to destroy ourselves.

Dimo:

Those solutions will increase with our compassion and understanding

servent101 posted:

Science can contribute a lot, but this "empirical method" of deducing our origin is simply an old dog playing new tricks.
There is still the science of the study of God - found deep in the individual soul.

Dimo:

That is called theology. I have had many courses pertaining to theology. There is a considerable difference between the methodologies employed in the material sciences and those of theology. Are you suggesting that we adopt the same methodology for the material sciences that we use for the study of God?

servent101 posted:

There is the science of sociology, political science, and metaphysics that are needed to understand our propensity to do what we do, and to understand our human condition.

Dimo:

I agree 100% with this.

servent101 posted:

The solution to the problems of our "nature" can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and hope for our cure for the "condition" of our natural tendency to do evil are also found in the person of The Lord... Who is still able to be found by those who seek Him with all their heart. True Christianity is not dogmatic - though there is a lot of false dogmatic Christianity out there.

Dimo:

Again I am inclined to agree with this last part. Except the part about "our natural tendency to do evil". Malice and hate as a response to environmental stresses and or percieved competition from other groups are learned behaviors. This notion is supported by evidence in the areas of child psychology, and anthropology.

servent101 posted:

Hope you find what you are looking for - but your dependency on empirical science for our origin is only leading to the same dogma you are trying to avoid in the first place. Empirical science as the means to deduce our origin or as a replacement for cognitive observation of our environment is a farce built on the same principles as the dogma that has hindered our development as human beings by the church in the past. Evolution is becoming a dogmatic religion, void of even trying to find the truth - it is simply a politically advocated position that allows it's followers to pursue the building of a fraternity, and keep people who think for themselves out.

Dimo:

With this I do not agree. Could you please give some evidence for your claims. Noone is suggesting that we eliminate cognitive observation or replace it with empirical science. Indeed a large part of the inferrence process involves cognitive observation. By cognitive observation I trust you are referring to abstract thought processes. Much of the deduction applied to the empirical evidence is done with abstract thought. The two methodologies are employed in many human endeavors, including but not limited to math, music, sociology, potical science, material science, architecture.....

[Stratnerd]

OK, this is the sixth time I'll say it (and Dimo said it again too): the scientific method cannot be applied to questions of morality and purpose, etc.

[Guy Incognito]

In forensic science the most compelling piece of evidence is an eyewitness account, in that respect the scientific method can be applied to any question including those of faith, morality and purpose.

Furthermore to answer the origional question: A time machine!!

[Stratnerd]

Aren't those eyewitnesses usually present in court? Moreover, under cross examination of these supposed eye witness statements, I'd say that the supposed eyewitness account is unreliable and inadmissible.

[Dimo]

GI posted:

In forensic science the most compelling piece of evidence is an eyewitness account, in that respect the scientific method can be applied to any question including those of faith, morality and purpose.

Dimo:

Actually the physical evidence is the most compelling. When given a situation where the eyewitness account contradicts the physical evidence, the investigators go with the physical evidence. They realize that the memory and/or the perception of many witnesses is often not as realiable as logical deduction and/or inferrence based on the physical evidence.

[servent101]

Strathnerd Dino

Thank you for your comments - the true sciences are alive and well, and you are evident of this - though what is taught in high school "empiracle scinece" leads me to observe the likelyhood of the future of the less trained person to go out and evaluate morality and ethics from a base of "the science of evolution". Children saying to me - that one cannot know that because it is not based on empiracle observation and principles of science - this is what the people who are learning science are thinking - that "life", "being", "morality", are nothing more than concepts that are not worthy of our contemplation because they cannot be understood by empiracle science. From my very small world of observation - this is the example I can only aford you - one of personal observation.

But again - I still stand on the theory of science concerning our origins not being possibly built on the employment of practices of "empiracle methods".
The logic is faulty - I understnad that you have taken to assert as truth that it is the only means by which reliable information can be assertained, but I still say it is simply a conceptual trap - one that is quite possibly as dangerous as dogma, and is in fact has the same structure of dogma. If one were to try to employ reasoning - trustworthy reasoning and even evidence of the supernatural to your satisfaction - how would you present this evidence to your "empiracle scientific peers" and what would be the result? Same old, Same Old. But if you look at the process - a child learns how to walk, use the bathroom properly then is told the only way to understand our origin is by imperical method - it is an instituiton not built on the basis of any real thought - it is simply dogma that is being ramed down out throats. I understand you want me to give some better way of understanding our origin - I am trying through dialogue to get you - to see the doors you have left shut - to your own personal being. If I were talking to a comitee on developing learning skills for high school students I would make different commet - I would spend many hours of work, stating my concerns and obsevations and ideas of how to correct the problem in the school - but I am talking to you, and I am trying to get you to realize if you only accept empiracle means for your understanding our origin, you are not likely going to find any other means of observation - to the revalation of Spirit, or people who have attuned their intelligence You simply ignore and ask for empiracle evidence... so you do not seek, you do not knock, you do not find... your mind is closed, case shut.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Stratnerd]

leads me to observe the likelyhood of the future of the less trained person to go out and evaluate morality and ethics from a base of "the science of evolution". do you enjoy making me crazy? this is now the seventh time I'm saying this. Science cannot answer questions about morality and ethics. As far as I know, in my universe, it isn't taught either.

so you do not seek, you do not knock, you do not find... your mind is closed, case shut. absurd and insulting.. how dare you.. the arrogance - you don't know me AT ALL. I think about it all the time my mind is opened and I have considered these things BUT THEY FAIL.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

I understand you want me to give some better way of understanding our origin

Dimo:

No. You made the claim that your methodology for scientific inquiry was superior to standard methods. We are asking you to clearly define your methodology, and explain why your conclusions are superior.

I am quite satisfied with my own understanding of origins. Part of that understanding comes from knowledge of the empirical evidence. The other part comes from investigating the spiritual nature of my consciousness. I cannot demonstrate the latter part to you. However I have faith that God will demonstrate that which I cannot. The part of my understanding based on empirical evidence can be demonstrated.

Again If you feel that my understanding is lacking, I would appreciate some specific suggestions so that I may reach your level of enlightenment.

servent101 posted:

- I am trying through dialogue to get you - to see the doors you have left shut - to your own personal being.

Dimo:

Which doors have I left shut? Could you please be more specific?

I am open and willing to all forms of insight and inspiration, whether they originate in my own personal being, another being, the inanimate workings of the universe, or the spiritual nature of God in the universe. Please share with us something more significant than your vague ideas of abstract thought.

servent101 posted:

If I were talking to a comitee on developing learning skills for high school students I would make different commet - I would spend many hours of work, stating my concerns and obsevations and ideas of how to correct the problem in the school - but I am talking to you,

Dimo:

Well thanks for the half-hearted effort. And this is supposed to give me confidence in your ideas?

servent101 posted:

and I am trying to get you to realize if you only accept empiracle means for your understanding our origin, you are not likely going to find any other means of observation -

Dimo:

Again, that is not the only means I use for understanding my origins. Why do you continue to insist that it is? Or why do assume that my spiritual investigations are inferior to yours?

servent 101 posted:

to the revalation of Spirit, or people who have attuned their intelligence You simply ignore and ask for empiracle evidence

Dimo:

You are quite confused. I am open to the revelation of spirit. I have also asked you to share your spiritual experiences so that I might become more enlightened. I did not ask for empiracle evidence.

I have pointed out how the material sciences are not capable of defining many aspects of our spiritual consciousness. However, your muddied up prose style writing and your unwillingness to share have left me wanting.

servent101 posted

... so you do not seek, you do not knock, you do not find... your mind is closed, case shut.

Dimo:

If you say so. I guess you had the last word on that.

[servent101]

To be fair - The main view of this post is how evolution appears to effect the psychies or our students in North America. As a concerned person from my observation evolution is not being understood by the masses very well and deduction skills at observing life, and what supersensible reasoning skills are, are being left out the equasion of our education system at the grade school level. Our development as sane ratioinal human beings at the high school level to me is left somewhat lacking. At the unuversity level for those who specialise in the scineces there is good sound logic, it appears, but for those who choose careers in corporations, military, and other fraternities - their understanding of science, and thier ability to deduce adequatly what constitutes an explination concerns me somewhat.

I personally am undecided on the topic of evolution - we could possibly of evolved from primitive proteins that were formed when lighting and water mixed when our earth was cooling down after being somehow hurled into existence so many billions or trillions of years ago - but there is evidence against that, and there is coresponding arguments against the evidence against the evidence and further arguments against those arguments or evidence. I am simply undecided on the exact process that is the exact origin of what is here today. The account of Creation in Genesis is a beautyful, insightful and meaningful account of Creation, and is truely God Breathed for the people at the time to whom Creation was explained. In the Vedas there is another account of creation - one that takes into account milliions if not billions of years. If it was a big bang - if you want to call it that, the Vedas also will tell you what that sound sounded like - Ta tum - and who spoke that sound and to whom, and what happened and how this material manifestation of material energy evolved and how it us upheld.

Evolution as a science at the grade school level is what concerns me. I am not afraid of science or empiracle methods of deduction. Science can only find out what is here. But is Evolution a science? Was there ever a meeting of the minds to set the parameters for deduction in the quest to find insight into our origin? When I look at the proponents of the empiracle method of deuction -only - to deduce our origin - it seems to be a closed case of either basing our understanding of what they consider as dogma - or basing our understanding on empiracle evidence. This this or that is not science! From my personal limited experience of Evolution - listening to the arguments for and against I find that it is more of a three ring circus than a scientific endeavor. The truth is is that I don't pay that much attention to the theories - for the first thing they want me to swallow is this "empiracle scienctific method" "ONLY" garbage. Then they insist that all other forms of verifying information are either caused by some sort of psychosis, or are simply a pipe dream for people who cannot face reality. Evolutionists seem to be in a boat all by themselves claiming they have the only true knowledge of our origin, and the only way to know the facts. - seems more like a dogmatic religion, or a conceptual trap, than science.

For "evolutionists" it seems nothing exists outside of the "empiracle deducable realm" and anything or any insight that does not meet the verification methods of "empiriclal science" is an aborition or a psychosis of the human mind. The question though arises if there is evidence that can be presented from the human psychie that is not found by empiracle science procedures or verification. From what I have gathered from the little information I have is that evolution was never scientifically evalurated it's procedure for "supersensiblenmess" rather Darwinianism has simply evolved into a quasi science as an alternative to what some people considered dogma.

For myself I am not that smart, and not qalified as any kind of guru. I am though flying under the banner of - We will muddle through this together - there are those, though, who, if one tries to find with the intent of listening too, trying to understand, who are able to teach and write books on the metaphysical, those who are involved in the psychic scineces, those who are saints, even those who are devil worshipers, who can add some information as to what is here now, for our observation, and if nothing else people who contend that "religion is only dogma" would have a chance to see what we have evolved too - as what we are today - To a true scientist the atributes some people posess in the supernatual realm is very important in our quest to understand our past. Evolution seems to have made it's prognosis that there is no miraculous or supernatural aptitude available to the human psychie, and discounts human beings having eternal souls. Nothing exists outside of their domain - the empiracly detectable and proveable, and as such is not a science because it does not observe what is here honestly. For the most part evolution as taught at the high school level is ammasing it's followers in the various functions of socity, corporatley, militarialy, and socially creating a group of people that are seemingly evolving at the present time into a group who want to surround themselves with themselves in their own ignorence and live in their own limitations apart from God. I am concerned for thier welfare and safety, but these Godless mindless barbarians are to be pittied, not feared.

There is hope that within the practionioners of evolution as a scinece that they will come to grips with the gripes that I have presented here - there seems to be that introspective ability developing in the higher levels of the process of evaluating evolution as a science - and what constitutes an explination. I wish them the best, and hope the very young Darwinians will continue on their endevor sucessfully - and find out from the records - that their is a God. Though, I suspect some people involved in evolution have taken to the persuit of evolution so that they can prove that there is not a God and if not a great many of suposid scientists, a few quacks in the young movement of determining our origin cannot validate what determins an explination any more and have taken leave of their senses in the quest of proving athiesm as a religion under the banner of science.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is one that is worth considering. As individuals, we at some point in time realize that the mind does have a tendency to make mistakes. So what can we do to improve our own personal and collective ability to come to the right conclusions of what our origin is. (we will apply this to evolution - just so that it does not become too abstract) I understand that the people involved in the process of evolution have at some point decided to limit the observation of the "field of knowledge" from which we can deduce our origin to the empirical sciences - sciences that are based on physical concrete evidence. O.K. they can do that, no problem, but the question still remains of one's ability, one's cognitive deduction skills to evaluate the evidence in a scientific manner - and by a scientific manner I mean one that evaluates the evidence without bias, and is sensible. Remember , though, that we still have not explored the question of one's cognition, both collectively, or individually, to set the parameters of our observation, in a sensible manner. As it stands today as the Young Darwinians are explaining their procedure - or so it appears to me anyways, you either have dogma or empirical science. This or that - so choose one. For myself I question the wisdom of this "way" of determining and coming to conclude that the observations that will be used will only be taken from fossil records and processed in a way that has already excluded the possibility of any Divine input - because Divine input is not verifiable by empirical Science. How evolution has been presented to me is not scientific - it does not take into account the observations that are not based on empirical evidence, justifies that it can not, and then makes theory and conjecture on our origin that rejects the idea of Divine Input because Devne intervention is not part of the empirical Sciences domains. So back to the original question - The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is one that is worth considering. As individuals in school, as young adults learning "science" there is a definite shift in the vocabulary and the definitions of what disciplines are considered sciences. The name science seems to only be granted to the empirical method of deduction and in so doing all other aspects of acquirering knowledge are subordinate to empirical deduction - so much so if something does not float, boil, freeze or otherwise "categorized" it simply is not worthy of consideration in the reality of our time - it meets the criterion of an aborition of the mind, and to disagree with the "empirical" as the only true scientific method brings up questions of one's sanity. People are being subtly forced to recant any concept they hold as truth as an aborition of the mind - "religious nonsense". Granted this is not the intent of the empirical sciences - and they redly admit that this is not their domain, but if you look at their prodigies at the high school drop out level, and those who peruse careers after graduating, their take on the subject of - The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is being answers by there is only one way to deduce anything under the sun - empirical science. Granted this is not the case for every high school student or adult - but this idea is in the minds of a lot of people and it causes a lot of problems. The problem is not evolution as a science - but how "empirical science is being perceived at the high school level. How many students believe there is no God because life evolved over millions of years? What process of cognitive thinking is used to counter this wrongly based assumption? - for this is what the grade school level of thinking is producing in a lot of students - life evolved, this is proof there is no God. How are the good folks at the Department going to come to understand the problem and correct it? How many of them too have concluded that life evolved, therefore there is no God. Where are the thinking skills - they are subordinate to empirical science and not taught except as "religious nonsense". I know I am exaggerating a little, but I am trying to make a point that there is a crisis in the schools in North America - and the evidence of that crisis - suicide, bullying, drug use, guns, violent crime, high school drop out rates. The cause- a lot of things, one of which is the decay of our cognitive ability to even consider that which is sensible because the school system went with trying to deduce reality from this, instead of that, and did not realize they were both dogma in different pajamas. Where is the development of cognitive thinking skills in society today?

The second question still remains unanswered that question being - So what can we do to improve our own personal and collective ability to come to the right conclusions of what our origin is. And the first question still has not been addressed from other than what not to do - and that question being - The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is one that is worth considering. Firstly the problems of evolution, empirical science, that being people taking it for what it is not, need to be presented to the students at the high school level. Possibly it is already, hopefully so, but I still meet people who claim to be the prodigy of "science" who show no capacity for cognitive skill. It appears that their trust in "empirical science" prevents their cognitive thinking skills from being developed. Secondly is it possible for scientists who are involved in the empirical sciences to consider that there are reasonably accepted facts of observation of the supernatural - simply on the fact that they exist, can "empirical science" at the university level escape it's own dogma? - and see what is here in reality and include those observations in understanding our origin. What type of metaphysical reasoning skills can be taught to students at the high school level? "Empirical Science" ONLY as a means of deducing our origin to me anyways seems a hindrance to cognitive development at the high school level, and on into adult life - the assuming we cannot deduce knowledge outside of "empirical realms".

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

There is hope that within the practionioners of evolution as a scinece that they will come to grips with the gripes that I have presented here

Dimo:

What makes you think they have not already consider the ideas that you refer to as "gripes"?


servent101 posted:

- there seems to be that introspective ability developing in the higher levels of the process of evaluating evolution as a science - and what constitutes an explination.

Dimo:

Could you rephrase this? Your meaning is not clear.


servent101 posted:

I wish them the best, and hope the very young Darwinians will continue on their endevor sucessfully

Dimo:

How gracious of you.


servent101 posted:

- and find out from the records - that their is a God.

Dimo:

What records did you use to determine that there is a God?


Servent101 posted:

Though, I suspect some people involved in evolution have taken to the persuit of evolution so that they can prove that there is not a God and if not a great many of suposid scientists, a few quacks in the young movement of determining our origin cannot validate what determins an explination any more and have taken leave of their senses in the quest of proving athiesm as a religion under the banner of science.

Dimo:

Do you feel better now that you got that of your chest?

Perhaps you could dispose of the grammatical run-ons next time, and use your verbal senses to be more clear and concise in your communication style.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is one that is worth considering.

Dimo:

Your postings might be more effective if you worked on your tendency to use words redundantly. Just a suggestions. Perhaps your English teacher(s) in high skipped this lesson.

How do you determine what is "deducible"?

servent101 posted:

As individuals, we at some point in time realize that the mind does have a tendency to make mistakes.

Dimo:

Really?

servent101 posted:

So what can we do to improve our own personal and collective ability to come to the right conclusions of what our origin is. (we will apply this to evolution - just so that it does not become too abstract) I understand that the people involved in the process of evolution have at some point decided to limit the observation of the "field of knowledge" from which we can deduce our origin to the empirical sciences - sciences that are based on physical concrete evidence. O.K. they can do that, no problem,

Dimo:

Well thank you. How magnanimous.

servent101 posted:

but the question still remains of one's ability, one's cognitive deduction skills to evaluate the evidence in a scientific manner - and by a scientific manner I mean one that evaluates the evidence without bias, and is sensible.

Dimo:

Sometimes having a bias is sensible. It all depends on what kind of bias and how you are using it. Do you examine every chair that you sit in, to make sure that it will support your weight? That would not be very sensible.

servent101 posted:

Remember , though, that we still have not explored the question of one's cognition, both collectively, or individually, to set the parameters of our observation, in a sensible manner.

Dimo:

Who hasn't examined thier own cognition? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself?

servent101 posted:

As it stands today as the Young Darwinians are explaining their procedure - or so it appears to me anyways, you either have dogma or empirical science. This or that - so choose one.

Dimo:

Who are these "Young Darwinians"? Are you sure about this? Or is this just your "cognitive" perception of the issue?

I did a search on empirical science and material science, neither combination of words appear together in the dictionary.

The definitions of dogma that I found:

1. religion religious belief: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion holds to be true

2. group belief: a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true


Here are the definitions for science:

1. study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment ( often used before a noun )

2. branch of science: a branch of science of a particular area of study
ex. the life sciences

3. knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of
ex. the physical world

4. systematic body of knowledge: any systematically organized body of knowledge about a specific subject
the social sciences

5. something studied or performed methodically: any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
treated me to a lecture on the science of dressing for success



servent101 posted:

For myself I question the wisdom of this "way" of determining and coming to conclude that the observations that will be used will only be taken from fossil records and processed in a way that has already excluded the possibility of any Divine input - because Divine input is not verifiable by empirical Science.

Dimo:

When is the last time you witnessed a "supernatural" miracle?

When is the last time you witnessed natural processes such as erosion, and sedimentary buildup?

So you are saying that in the material sciences we should entertain the assumption that "supernatural" miracles are responsible for the fossil record instead of natural process?

servent101 posted:

How evolution has been presented to me is not scientific - it does not take into account the observations that are not based on empirical evidence, justifies that it can not, and then makes theory and conjecture on our origin that rejects the idea of Divine Input because Devne intervention is not part of the empirical Sciences domains. So back to the original question

Dimo:

Which observations that are not based on empirical evidence should we consider? All of them or just the ones you decide are relevant?

servent101 posted:

- The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is one that is worth considering.

Dimo:

All of us must use cognition to do anything that takes thought. You keep using the word cognition, let's see the definition(s):

1. ability to acquire knowledge: the mental faculty or process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition or perception

2. knowledge acquired: knowledge that is acquired through processes such as reasoning, intuition or perception

The word cognition is not limited to "non-empirical" areas of study.


servent101 posted:

As individuals in school, as young adults learning "science" there is a definite shift in the vocabulary and the definitions of what disciplines are considered sciences. The name science seems to only be granted to the empirical method of deduction and in so doing all other aspects of acquirering knowledge are subordinate to empirical deduction

Dimo:

Not all sciences or areas of study started off as investigations into the physical world (social sciences, political sciences, psychology...). As time has passed many things that were once thought to not have a natural explanation have been found to have a natural explanation. This is not the fault of those defining the knowledge gained from the sciences. Rather it is the result of humans thoroughly and rigorously investigating and analysing thier physical and psychological environments.

servent101 posted:

- so much so if something does not float, boil, freeze or otherwise "categorized" it simply is not worthy of consideration in the reality of our time - it meets the criterion of an aborition of the mind, and to disagree with the "empirical" as the only true scientific method brings up questions of one's sanity.

Dimo:

I do not agree. I consider many things that are difficult to categorize both physical and non-physical. There are many definitons of sanity, here are two;

1. state of good mental balance: the condition of being mentally healthy and able to make rational decisions

2. good sense: common sense, reasonableness, and predictability
to restore a little sanity to the situation

There is also the legal definition; "being incapable of deciding for oneself the difference between right and wrong."

Where exactly do these say anything about the exclusive use of empiricism for knowledge?

servent101 posted:

People are being subtly forced to recant any concept they hold as truth as an aborition of the mind - "religious nonsense".

Dimo:

Where do you live. Where I live religious people enjoy favoritism from the police, the legal system and may other of the perks that come from belonging to a favorable sub-culture.

I would say that atheists, and perhaps some "non-Protestant" religions are persecuted more than religious people in most parts of the U.S.

servent101 posted:

Granted this is not the intent of the empirical sciences - and they redly admit that this is not their domain, but if you look at their prodigies at the high school drop out level, and those who peruse careers after graduating, their take on the subject of - The question of one's own cognition to deduce that which is deducible is being answers by there is only one way to deduce anything under the sun - empirical science.

Dimo:

Again your meaning is not very clear, but if my suspicsions of what you are saying are correct, I do not agree. However, recent developments in almost every area of human investigation have not been favorable for the idea that "supernatural" forces are at work on this planet.

servent101 posted:

Granted this is not the case for every high school student or adult - but this idea is in the minds of a lot of people and it causes a lot of problems. The problem is not evolution as a science - but how "empirical science is being perceived at the high school level.

Dimo:

I agree. There should be a greater effort by educators to teach students and for students to learn to think for themselves. Rather than let other people dictate to them how they should think about an issue. I don't believe that methodological naturalism is the cause of this problem. I believe the cause of this problem is apathy.

servent101 posted:

How many students believe there is no God because life evolved over millions of years?

Dimo:

Don't know. Why don't you tell us.

servent101 posted:

What process of cognitive thinking is used to counter this wrongly based assumption?

Dimo:

A feeling of self-worth and the desire to progress in life.

servent101

- for this is what the grade school level of thinking is producing in a lot of students - life evolved, this is proof there is no God. How are the good folks at the Department going to come to understand the problem and correct it? How many of them too have concluded that life evolved, therefore there is no God. Where are the thinking skills - they are subordinate to empirical science and not taught except as "religious nonsense". I know I am exaggerating a little, but I am trying to make a point that there is a crisis in the schools in North America - and the evidence of that crisis - suicide, bullying, drug use, guns, violent crime, high school drop out rates. The cause- a lot of things, one of which is the decay of our cognitive ability to even consider that which is sensible because the school system went with trying to deduce reality from this, instead of that, and did not realize they were both dogma in different pajamas. Where is the development of cognitive thinking skills in society today?

Dimo:

Impressive rant. However, I do not agree. I am a recovering heroin addict and can honestly say that it is people like you who are more to blame for the problem of drugs and violence, than any area of study in school. Do you think most of the people I delt with when using had a very good understanding of the sciences, the arts, or any other human endeavor. Their area of expertise was "street smarts". They chose that avenue because attitudes such as yours tend to alienate people from wanting to be useful memebers of the human race.

I will address the rest of your unsupported ideas tommorrow.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Dimo
Dimo:

Impressive rant. However, I do not agree. I am a recovering heroin addict and can honestly say that it is people like you who are more to blame for the problem of drugs and violence, than any area of study in school. Do you think most of the people I delt with when using had a very good understanding of the sciences, the arts, or any other human endeavor. Their area of expertise was "street smarts". They chose that avenue because attitudes such as yours tend to alienate people from wanting to be useful memebers of the human race.


:yawn: Ho hum...another "It's someone else's fault" victim. And just what does "recovering" mean? Have you stopped or haven't you?

[Poly]

Originally posted by wholearmor
:yawn: Ho hum...another "It's someone else's fault" victim.
It get's old, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[servent101]

imo:

servent101 posted:

What process of cognitive thinking is used to counter this wrongly based assumption?

Dimo:

A feeling of self-worth and the desire to progress in life.

I agree that that would help, and this needs to be more included in the school curriculum – How? Possibly through teaching ethics in the classroom.

Dimo

There should be a greater effort by educators to teach students and for students to learn to think for themselves. Rather than let other people dictate to them how they should think about an issue. I don't believe that methodological naturalism is the cause of this problem. I believe the cause of this problem is apathy.

Here I will agree to disagree – their needs to be included in the grade school level of the teaching of science to safeguard against such notions that we as a human race evolved – therefore this is proof there is no God. This is a commonly held assumption by people who confuse evolution as a fact of atheism. Many adults who I have met in what would be considered positions of public trust hold on to this idea. Possibly since you believe in evolution as a science – they are not as apt to tell you that we evolved, therefore there is the proof that there is no God… but it is what the sciences are producing as far as theology at the high school level, and a lot of the teachers believe that atheism is supported by the science of evolution. A scientist would see if there is a supporting evidence – which I will admit I do not have the resources to provide – this has been my personal observation.

servent101 posted:

How many students believe there is no God because life evolved over millions of years?

Dimo:

Don't know. Why don't you tell us.

And here is some supporting evidence to your theory I believe the cause of this problem is apathy.

You say you do not know how many people believe there is no God because life evolved over millions of years? But you are sure the problem is apathy, not the way teachers and students and a great number of people understand the process and limits of empirical science. This seems to simply be a case of apathy on your behalf.

I know the problems are there, and as a person who is an individual, I am grateful for the freedom to express my concerns, to articulate the problem, and in so doing be eventually understandable and who knows be able to help to find solutions to the problem. Your statement here Impressive rant. However, I do not agree. I am a recovering heroin addict and can honestly say that it is people like you who are more to blame for the problem of drugs and violence, than any area of study in school. Do you think most of the people I delt with when using had a very good understanding of the sciences, the arts, or any other human endeavor. Their area of expertise was "street smarts". They chose that avenue because attitudes such as yours tend to alienate people from wanting to be useful memebers of the human race.

Hardly qualifies for anything other than an unimpressive rant yourself – but it is common – as soon as someone tries to find a solution to a problem – they are accused of every dirty deed under the sun, by people who in their apathy would rather just fade off into the sunset and not face the work of improving their own lives, or creating a sustainable future for the planet, or accept responsibility for themselves – their problems are caused by the other person – anyone except themselves.

I am glad for you that you are in recovery – I know so many people who are more here than I am (I know you probably don’t think that is such a great compliment) that have done a lot of abusive things to their bodies/minds, and there are a lot of people I know who I consider simply cognitively void of any higher thought who have done no abusive things to their minds. The mind does recover, and is a great instrument, and is capable of the miraculous that you seem to discount – but only if one is able to through sound reason, logic, instruction, grace find the gateways that are there that allow what some people call miracles to happen. So sad to see you give up on your own ability because the world around you is so apathetic. You will find to be true what you believe can happen, and trying to explain something to someone who has already discounted the possibility is an offence to sound logic, reason and the self.

There are some good points to your post – you do well in your thinking, a lot better than some people I have met. Looking forward to your comments.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

WA posted:

Ho hum...another "It's someone else's fault" victim. And just what does "recovering" mean? Have you stopped or haven't you?

Dimo:

I've been clean for over 10 years.

I did'nt mean to make it sound like my substance abuse was anyone elses fault. I take full responsibilty for all of my actions. Whether or not there were extenuating circumstances. My addiction was my own problem.

In servent101's post he blamed drug use and some other social problems on the naturalistic methodology used in the material sciences. I was simply pointing out that it always easy to blame someone or something else for our own lack of sound judgement.

It is strange that you and perfect poly jumped all over me because you assumed I was blaming others for my own problems. However, when servent101 blamed the education system for similar problems you had no comment.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

Hardly qualifies for anything other than an unimpressive rant yourself – but it is common – as soon as someone tries to find a solution to a problem – they are accused of every dirty deed under the sun, by people who in their apathy would rather just fade off into the sunset and not face the work of improving their own lives, or creating a sustainable future for the planet, or accept responsibility for themselves – their problems are caused by the other person – anyone except themselves.

Dimo:

It is strange that you accuse me of blaming others for problems, however, you do not see your own attitudes as blaming others. You find it OK to blame the educational system for the proliferation of atheism, take no responsibility for that yourself, and yet when I use the same reasoning on you, you say that I am blaming others. Please go back and read my post again with an open mind, perhaps you can find it in your heart to see where you might be wrong.

servent101 posted:

I am glad for you that you are in recovery – I know so many people who are more here than I am (I know you probably don’t think that is such a great compliment) that have done a lot of abusive things to their bodies/minds, and there are a lot of people I know who I consider simply cognitively void of any higher thought who have done no abusive things to their minds. The mind does recover, and is a great instrument, and is capable of the miraculous that you seem to discount – but only if one is able to through sound reason, logic, instruction, grace find the gateways that are there that allow what some people call miracles to happen. So sad to see you give up on your own ability because the world around you is so apathetic. You will find to be true what you believe can happen, and trying to explain something to someone who has already discounted the possibility is an offence to sound logic, reason and the self.

Dimo:

Again you seem a bit confused. I have not given up on my own ability. I do believe the mind is miraculous and can recover from formidable obstacles. I am living proof of that. I have already found what I believed to be true. I have not discounted anything. I simply do not agree that the social problems we experience arise from the naturalistic methodology used in the material sciences. My first hand experience has shown that your opinions are not accurate.

servent101 posted:

There are some good points to your post – you do well in your thinking, a lot better than some people I have met. Looking forward to your comments.

Dimo:

I'm glad you like some of my points. I suspect that you have not yet considered the possibility that you might be wrong in regard to your "gripes".

[satans rabbi]

If you are dyslexic and agnostic and suffer from sleeplessness, would you stay up late at night and wonder if DOG really exists?

[servent101]

Dimo:

Again you seem a bit confused. I have not given up on my own ability. I do believe the mind is miraculous and can recover from formidable obstacles. I am living proof of that. I have already found what I believed to be true. I have not discounted anything. I simply do not agree that the social problems we experience arise from the naturalistic methodology used in the material sciences. My first hand experience has shown that your opinions are not accurate.

I'm glad you like some of my points. I suspect that you have not yet considered the possibility that you might be wrong in regard to your "gripes".

I try to stay away fro makijng judgements of who you are, and what you are applying to your personal life from the teaching of evolution in high school - my worries are based on the people I have met - and there are a lot of them who I have found who believe that the science of evolution discounts God's existence - so I have met one that does not believe that scinece is leading people to this conclusion - I have met others too - but most are open to the possibility the people involved in evolution are out on a limb-trying to missinterpret the information so that they can fit the time frame of evolution to somehting that discounts God. For example if the earth were ten millinon years old - as some evidence suggfests, that really is not long enough for life to evolve without some "real help"

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Jukia]

The evidence is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 10 milllion years old. I am not sure that evolution as such makes any claim re God. It does however, raise substantial issues about a literal interpretation of Genesis and special creation

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Jukia
The evidence is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 10 milllion years old. I am not sure that evolution as such makes any claim re God.It doesn't, not no way, not no how.

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

I try to stay away fro makijng judgements of who you are, and what you are applying to your personal life from the teaching of evolution in high school - my worries are based on the people I have met - and there are a lot of them who I have found who believe that the science of evolution discounts God's existence - so I have met one that does not believe that scinece is leading people to this conclusion -

Dimo:

My experiences are very different than yours. Most people I meet, who accept the scientific validity of common descent, do not view the evidence as discounting God. Perhaps that is because they have not become psychologically fixated on a literal interpretation of Genesis. I can see a problem for those people who need physical proof that God exists, and therefore cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis, including the implied "supernatural" forces that follow logically from such a proposition. The non-flexible nature of such peoples belief system is not the fault of the educators that teach about natural philosophy. Has my exercise in the blame game not illuminated the fallacy of your claim?

servent101 posted:

I have met others too - but most are open to the possibility the people involved in evolution are out on a limb-trying to missinterpret the information so that they can fit the time frame of evolution to somehting that discounts God.

Dimo:

I am open to this possibility however, that is because I do not let other people do my thinking (cognitive perception) for me. I have a book about evolution by Daniel C. Dennett where he makes value judgements regarding certain types of careers. He tries to slide in that the only professionals are those involved in the material sciences. IOW he claims that musicians, entertainers, the clergy... are all amateurs. I do not agree with him. His view of what is relavant in life is different than mine. His views do not cause me to go out treat others with malice or use drugs.

servent101 posted:

For example if the earth were ten millinon years old - as some evidence suggfests, that really is not long enough for life to evolve without some "real help"

Dimo:

Please define "real help", and explain using logic and reason how you arrive this conclusion.

[Karn Evil #9]

My uncle Boris actually picking up a check at dinner.

[servent101]

Dimo - I will get back to you - thank you for the correspondence - Seems I will have to look up what I have heard over the past few years on the Young Earth Evolution Theory - I have to find the information for Strathnerd too, so I will do a good job of finding the various articles, arguments etc (God Willing).

But the question of what do I mean by "real help" - There would be a Creator who would make or create a whole living organism in an ecosystem by the power of His/Her Word - to Speak life into existence.

If you are open to the human potential, open to what is here now - you would do well to see what we are right now - not provable by science - or empirical science¡¦s current methods, but is evident by observation. Hopefully you are somewhat aware of the potential of the human mind - the mind does have some God - like qualities. Not the same potency, quality or quantity of God - but there are some individuals who can do some amazing things. To discount these in our origin - what we or some people are today is a little non-scientific.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101 posted:

If you are open to the human potential, open to what is here now

Dimo:

I am.

servent101 posted:

- you would do well to see what we are right now - not provable by science - or empirical science¡¦s current methods, but is evident by observation.

Dimo:

The conclusions of empirical science are determined through observation. The abilities of our mind, although they cannot be directly observed, can be indirectly observed by their effects in the physical world as well as their effects in the less tangible world of our emotions. The effects in the physical world can be demonstrated so that any one can view their influence. The effects in our emotional psyche are are not so easily demonstrated, and often take much longer to become obvious to an external party (another person).

servent101 posted:

Hopefully you are somewhat aware of the potential of the human mind - the mind does have some God - like qualities.

Dimo:

Yes, we were created in the image of God.

servent101:

Not the same potency, quality or quantity of God -

Dimo:

Yes because we all fall short of the glory of God.

servent101 posted:

but there are some individuals who can do some amazing things.

Dimo:

Yes faith in God and persistence in achieving our goals can produce amazing results. Results that can be directly observed.

servent101 posted:

To discount these in our origin - what we or some people are today is a little non-scientific.

Dimo:

Like I said before what some people discount does not weaken my faith, neither does the methodology used in the material sciences.

"We must work like their is no God to save us"
But pray like their is"

Lucy Brown

[servent101]

Dimo

The conclusions of empirical science are determined through observation. The abilities of our mind, although they cannot be directly observed, can be indirectly observed by their effects in the physical world as well as their effects in the less tangible world of our emotions. The effects in the physical world can be demonstrated so that any one can view their influence. The effects in our emotional psyche are not so easily demonstrated, and often take much longer to become obvious to an external party (another person).

If the abilities of the human mind were verified to people at a young age in school - I believe this would help them to see what they could be, what the human could do with themselves and give them some hope, and reason to achieve - again though, from what I have seen of empirical science in the school it belittles the human potential. This is also true of what I see of religious dogma.

I did enjoy your post though, and thought it belittled no one.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Dimo]

servent101, another person or group of people can only belittle you or make you feel bad if you let them. I learned this at a very early age. However, it did not become part of my heart until after adolescence.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by elected4ever
The real answer is the answer to this question. This is your beginning point weather atheist or creationist. Can something come from nothing? The lie and the trap that both creationelist and evolutionest fall into is to answere that question with a yes.

Perhaps you should check on what Hegel wrote about Being and Nothing (look here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm)), it might give you an idea how to proceed in such matters.

Worthwhile is also Remark 4. "Incomprehensibility of the Beginning" which is referenced on the page.

Hegel sees Being and Nothing in their dialectical-unity, which is Becoming. The false presupposition of the absolute seperatedness of Being and Non-being is to be called not dialectic, but sophistry.

[elected4ever]

heusdens,sense you are a being and therefore nothing,your response is no more than my imagination. Sense you didn't really respond then I am just answering my own delusion.

Sense I am a being an therefore nothing I am not really responding to you this is just a figment of your imagination so just disregard this post. :freak: :help: :hammer: :dead: :darwinsm:

[heusdens]

The answer e4e to that question is of course no, there can not be any something that came from nothing. And the reason for that is that the being of something and the non-being of that same something, can not be seperated. Being and Nothing must be seen in their dialectical unity, which is becoming.

note:
But to my mind, also theists would respond to that question with no, since that is why they invented God, since without that divine being, they would indeed suppose there would not be any something.
The better answer however is provided with dialectics.

[elected4ever]

heusdensBut to my mind, also theists would respond to that question with no, since that is why they invented God,

e4e ------ The real sophism is the argument against there being a creator. Dialectics proves nothing other than you and I have an opinion. The best any debate can produce is a consensus. A debate never produces truth. Truth exist regardless of our opinion of what that truth is. Truth stands on its own merit.

[heusdens]

e4e:
Real sophism is to thin that the world itself is in need of such a creator. And I will show you the reasons for that.
The idea of a creator starts out with the outlook on the world that all that is known to exist now, would have come into existence in one moment of creation.
In other words, this idea starts out from the thought that the world itself does not contain it's own cause.
What it comes up with is the idea of a creator, that would have caused the world to come into existence.
But that in itself does not bring us one step further, since now we are left with the need for an explenation for the existence of god.
In that respect the position of the existence of the world, and that of god, are exactly alike. Both need sufficient grounds for their existence.
To resolve that, the idea of god comes with the idea that god is eternal, and therefore contains it's own cause.
This idea however is just a moment of consideration in our thinking about the world.
To explain the existence of the world or of anything, needs in last instance something, that contains it's own cause.
The postulation of the existence of a god, is just an intermediate step.
Finally then we can make the step in applying this idea to the world itself, and conclude that the existence of the world needs to contain it's own cause.
This step just negates the previous, intermediate step, and is a result of a double negation. What turns up is the world again, but now fully equipped with it's own cause, without the need for any higher cause.

The postulation of God is in this thought process nothing more as a step, in order to produce the true vision on the existence of the world on which we arrive after negating the existence of the world, and is not an entity on it's own, since it gets also negated.
A mental step, a thought step, even if that step is a very fundamental and necessary step, is nothing else then a thought step.

The method with which we arrive at this conclusion is the method of dialectics (thesis; anti-thesis; synthesis).

[elected4ever]

heusdensReal sophism is to thin that the world itself is in need of such a creator. And I will show you the reasons for that.

e4e ---The real sophism is the need for the denial of God.

[Jukia]

heusdens lost me, I cannot follow this at all.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jukia
heusdens lost me, I cannot follow this at all. "heusdens" is an inexperienced philosophy student. If s/he were experienced s/he would know:
1. Don't post philosophy on general discussion boards because almost no one will understand what you are trying to say.

2. Don't post philosophy on theology boards because most people will not understand what you are trying to say.

3. Translate philosophical jargon in to common English if you wish to communicate with "regular" folks.

Some people post to give themselves an opportunity to sound intelligent; unfortunately, they merely come across as unitelligble. :think:

[elected4ever]

heusdens is saying that God is a made up reason for people who can't understand that the world has its own reason for existing. In other words creation is a contrived notion with no basis in fact and the truth can only be ascertained through debate. I believe that both arguments that heusdens presents are fallacious.

[Dimo]

heusdens posted:

This step just negates the previous, intermediate step, and is a result of a double negation. What turns up is the world again, but now fully equipped with it's own cause, without the need for any higher cause.

Dimo:

My need for a higher cause is not intellectual but emotional. As I went from the feelings of immortality in my youth to the feelings of emptiness in my late twenties, I was left virtually without purpose. Or at least I could not find or understand my purpose. I found that faith in a higher power, purpose, or cause, could get me through those periods where I felt emotionally bankrupt. It gave me hope that my own purpose could help fulfill a purpose outside of myself (a higher power).

[servent101]

This is a little off the topic - I wrote this for another thread... but it may shed some light as to why people choose their mindset over observation ... even some devout Hindus are forced to believe the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun is - that the moon is a heavenly planet... and if they don't believe this they can't be a Hindu in some sects.

I read your post, and as all of your understanding so far you simply show no support for your claims, no awareness of what it is you are saying, nor any insight into how you came to understand what you are saying and doing. But what are you saying, and asking people who are firstly attracted to Jesus to do? - You take a verse in the Old Testament, and a verse in the New Testament, both out of context and instill in people an "orthodox mindset". This orthodox mindset is then used to stop people from seeing the ludicrousness in the orthodox doctrine of hell - and as well prevents them from understanding the "way" they have been taught to view scripture - and you yourself don't show any awareness that you are captivated by an "orthodox mindset" and after reading through a few out of context verses any common sense/intelligence or the Spirit's leading is viewed as leaning on your own understanding and not a noble pursuit.

Truthfully the people to whom Jesus was speaking to did not have this orthodox mindset, they were free to experience the Words Jesus Spoke the same way most Christians do - Most Christians take a non literalist stand on the doctrine of hell and the only way for one to accept the "orthodox hell" is to firstly have an orthodox mindset instilled. And you will probably refuse to see that it is the "orthodox mindset" that you hold as supreme - not the Words of Christ. For if you held the Words of Christ and/or Christ in regard you would view them through the eyes of the people who heard them - and understood them, not through your orthodox mindset. - What can I say? I am writing to someone who only tries to understand the Written Word and nothing else - even to use one's own sense is not allowed - This is the orthodox understanding of the verse that tells them not to use their understanding - and for the orthodox - this might be a good idea. Besides not using their understanding and not realizing their god of the hell of the eternal flaming tormenting searing eternal flesh eating fire and brimstone, (etc.) there is the god they think tells them to negate their common sense in understanding the Written Word. To explain what it is they are doing -How ? Their understanding of God's Word is to not use their understanding when trying to obey the Word. Whatever the Word literally says - no matter how insane (this orthodox hell doctrine for example) they think the closed canon of Christian Scripture tells them to not use their understanding - how insane of a concept is that? As far as the truth - they are so far behind in the understanding of the Written Word that they are sharing nothing more than an obscenity compared with true faith and life in the Lord through the help of the Holy Spirit. How do I get through? I tried for a year with no success. But there are a few days left in the year, before I give up, so I will try a little more.

The orthodox have accepted that no matter what is said in the closed canon of Christian Scripture no matter how stupid or out of touch with reality - if it says so in the Bible, no matter how insane of a doctrine that comes out of the process of literal interpretation, they already decided not to try to lean on their own understanding and have effectively turned off their intelligence. This is their way of understanding - and it is insane. It is like they have already decided by means of their understanding not to think about what it is they are preaching and the way they have decided to follow the Bible, because from their understanding this is what they are instructed to do. Also in following their literalist point of view - which also culminates in the belief that their "orthodox mindset" is the key to understand the scriptures and gain salvation. Without orthodox apologetics there is no faith. - this is their understanding - which they also claim that they do not use their understanding to make up any of their doctrine - the orthodox are a three ring circus.

I meet the young converts often, just converted for a year or two, sometimes five or six. They believe everything in the Bible is true,(they don't have a clue what is there, but they are bound and determined not to lean on their own understanding and believe that whatever is there is true.) So they throw out all their sensibility and just take the word for word literal understanding of what is there. Somehow the institute teaching them have convinced them to negate any common sense whatsoever, and no matter what - if it says so in the Bible it is the Truth - You don't even have to think, - except to realize that one does not lean on their own understanding - they don't think they are using their own understanding to come to the concept of hell, orthodox apologetics or in not trying to understand what is in the closed canon of Christian Scriptures - somehow all introspection is lost to their prognosis.

What do they come up with? - Well at the end of it, besides this doctrine of hell - if you do not take the Bible and only the Bible and nothing but the Bible - you are going to hell too. If you try to understand what it is the Bible says - well that too is taboo - lean not on your own understanding. They are captured by their own devises and have given up on their God given intelligence. They have substituted the Lord of Life for some sort of eight grade remedial English rendition of the closed canon of Christian Scripture. They are not preaching and teaching of Jesus - they are teaching grade eight remedial English - using the Bible as a textbook. Their so called faith ends up as a neurosis - where they can't think - for the outcome of the people close to them - their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, friends, relatives - anyone who has not substituted the grade eight remedial English rendition of the word for a Spirit filled walk are to them are condemned to hell for an eternity - this is what they believe the Bible teaches, and the orthodox Christian has been taught not to think - just read and have faith, and if they did think - what would they think of? The plight of their close friends and families, and how to balance this with the person of Jesus Christ - whom they can't understand in the first place because of the narrow confines of the strict orthodox interpretation of the Word- What will pull these people out of their woes? -their woes being their inability to use sound logic and reasonableness to understand the Words of The Lord and to understand the writings of the closed canon of Christian Scripture without the lunacy of the hell doctrine and the lunacy of adherence to their orthodox mindset and without their notion that they can't use their understanding to understand Scripture. Even after all my effort to explain to them what they are doing they still don't understand what it is to be afflicted with an orthodox mindset - or how they were cursed with one in the first place - Lord have mercy on their souls.

For those not afflicted with an orthodox mindset one may do well to notice how one receives their orthodox mindset. From the time you meet an orthodox Christian who unknowingly or unknowingly instills the orthodox mindset - nothing is truth, unless a verse from the closed canon of Christian Scripture is quoted - and if you say anything - you have to have a verse in the Bible to back up your understanding. Anything you think of that is in objection to the literal interpretation is met with a barrage of lean not on your own understanding, the Lord's ways are higher than our ways, the closed canon of Scripture is the Word of God, rely on the Spirit to reveal the Word to you. Eventually the orthodox minded person does not think of anything unless he or she has a scripture verse to back it up, and does not hear anything unless it is from the same mindless energy feed that they have developed in understanding life, through the technique of not understanding what is said in the closed canon of Christian Scripture. The "orthodox mindset" religion is simply an attempt to find favor with God by adhering to whatever is written in the closed canon of Christian Scriptures without using one's common sense or God given intelligence or one's intuition. The more one has to believe what is utter nonsense the more they pat themselves on the back. The orthodox don't even realize they have by the use of their own understanding signed on to the death to the defense of the orthodox understanding of hell, the orthodox mindset, and the Bible Only and they believe anyone who does not have the same apologetics, literal interpretations and doctrines is going to hell - but they did not use their understanding - what they think they believe - it says so right there in the Bible, as long as you don't lean on your understanding. They have been completely engulfed by their mindset, and leaning on their own understanding is how they got there but now they can't use their understanding to see the insanity of their position and anyone who does use their understanding is going to hell according to them.

One may well ask after all that - what is all the fuss about? The fuss is the mindset that new Christians are afflicted with after entering most organized Christian Chruches for a few months. It completely removes their intelligence from them, and they will believe anything - this doctrine of hell - the literalist hell, according to the orthodox is a prime example of insanity, that the converts and members of churches who instill the "orthodox mindset" are afflicted with. The resulting neurosis - balancing the Person of Jesus with the understanding of Scripture from an "orthodox perspective" and having to deal with their understanding of reality - that everyone who does not have this "orthodox mindset" will go to the concept that the orthodox hold as hell -(previously described) and throw in a few more out of touch verses and you have a misinformed, undernourished soul out there trying to be a Christian with all their heart - trying to make converts over to their faith - no - trying to teach grade eight remedial English lessons using the Bible as a textbook - yes -. It is a hideous crime and affront to the Ministry of the Lord. This must be corrected.

You don't have to be that smart to see the problem - many people just walk away and say nothing to the "orthodox religion". I tried for a year, and in a few days I give up too. . I'm sure there are others who try to get through to this type of Christian. May God bless them. - This will most likely be my final post on the matter.

I am not condemning the orthodox, nor saying they will escape without punishment - just wishing they would come to their senses. Their doctrine on hell is lunacy - and the orthodox refuse to see the Words of The Lord in any other light than through their mindset - which they understand to be the literal understanding, and not to use any logic beyond the grade eight remedial English rendition of the Word. Again this mindset was not there when Jesus spoke His Words - which at the time were Words of Eternal Life to all who had ears to hear. There has been something that is captivating many - and not according to Christ - and that is the "orthodox mindset" and for those trapped in it, may God have mercy on their souls - for they do a severe injustice to the Lord's Life and Ministry and the Apostles teachings. Possibly anyone who could believe this orthodox doctrine of hell is beyond any hope of reasoning with - but I do not condemn him or her, and I pray for those who have wrongly understood and have lost their ability to deduce what is sensible from the Word.


With Christ's Love

Servent101

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Dimo
Dimo:

My need for a higher cause is not intellectual but emotional. As I went from the feelings of immortality in my youth to the feelings of emptiness in my late twenties, I was left virtually without purpose. Or at least I could not find or understand my purpose. I found that faith in a higher power, purpose, or cause, could get me through those periods where I felt emotionally bankrupt. It gave me hope that my own purpose could help fulfill a purpose outside of myself (a higher power).

Yes.

I have no comments on this.

If the belief in a higher power helps you, I could just stimulate you to follow your beliefs.

And as far as my intelectual debate might show, you can even base that belief in a higher power on a materialistic basis and on reason.

[Dimo]

heusdens posted:

And as far as my intelectual debate might show, you can even base that belief in a higher power on a materialistic basis and on reason.

Dimo:

You are preaching to the choir.

[heusdens]

Dimo:

Preaching?

Just try to be reasonable, and show that what is called "supernatural" is just part of the natural and that "higher being" is just part of being.
We can make an artificial distinction bewteen them, based on what is and can be empirically known, which has some merit, but we do not need to put in doubt that behind, outside or before that what we know to exist, there is also existence.

[Dimo]

heusdens, it was a figure of speech. It means I understand, follow and agree with your logic and/or reasoning .

[Voter]

Now, I'm asking what evidence would convince a creationist to become an evolutionist?
A concensus model would be helpful, followed by a lot of scientific evidence - like fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions. Stories that fit new observations into evolution models after-the-fact don't do much for me.

[Jefferson]

Voter:

Welcome to TOL. :up:

[Jukia]

There is not a consensus model? DNA, mutations, natural selection, environmental changes, long time periods; I am sure I left something out. Maybe the problem is that it is not simple and new aspects keep appearing and being understood.

[Voter]

Originally posted by Jukia

There is not a consensus model? DNA, mutations, natural selection, environmental changes, long time periods; I am sure I left something out. Maybe the problem is that it is not simple and new aspects keep appearing and being understood.
There's much in common among the different schools of thought, but IMO no, there's not a concensus model.

No one's jumping in with any evidence. :(

[Jukia]

Evidence of what?

[Voter]

Evidence that would convince me to become an evolutionist. "A lot of scientific evidence - like fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions."

Evolutionists tend to claim that there's 'mountains' of scientific evidence for evolution. Then, when asked for some, they're silent, or they post a link to a talkorigins page that they've never really read thoroughly or analyzed skeptically.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Voter
Evolutionists tend to claim that there's 'mountains' of scientific evidence for evolution. Then, when asked for some, they're silent, or they post a link to a talkorigins page that they've never really read thoroughly or analyzed skeptically. And you have analyzed the referenced pages?

We have so little info in our proflies, perhaps you could share what your background in the subject area is?

Additionally could you provide several examples that you have found lacking and explain your evaluation criteria?

[Jukia]

Voter: Although you say there seems "to be much in common among the different schools of thought" you do not believe there is a consensus model? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

[Voter]

Originally posted by Jukia

Voter: Although you say there seems "to be much in common among the different schools of thought" you do not believe there is a consensus model? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
The amount of agreement necessary to have a consensus is subjective. I don't think it's there regarding evolution. If you do, that's fine. Now could you show me a lot of scientific evidence supporting it?

[Voter]

Originally posted by Zakath

And you have analyzed the referenced pages?

We have so little info in our proflies, perhaps you could share what your background in the subject area is?

Additionally could you provide several examples that you have found lacking and explain your evaluation criteria?
We analyzed them as presented, and they came up lacking.

My background is unimportant.

The first few pages of TO's 29 Evidences page, by their own criteria.

[Stratnerd]

V-

"A lot of scientific evidence - like fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions." have you found any predictions that have been falsified? What aspect of evolution are you doubting - the historical or the mechanistic?

[Jukia]

Voter: I would suggest you direct your questions to Stratnerd. He is a graduate student with a much better handle on the evidence than I have. My graduate student days are long past.

Who is the "we" in your last post, and your background may in fact be important if you wish people to listen to what you have to say.

[Voter]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

V-

have you found any predictions that have been falsified? What aspect of evolution are you doubting - the historical or the mechanistic?
Yes, although that's usually not the problem. More often, evolutionists take facts that are already known, and pretend that evolution "predicts" it. Or, they make predictions which aren't reasonably falsifiable.

[Voter]

Originally posted by Jukia

Voter: I would suggest you direct your questions to Stratnerd. He is a graduate student with a much better handle on the evidence than I have. My graduate student days are long past.

Who is the "we" in your last post, and your background may in fact be important if you wish people to listen to what you have to say.
"We" refers to myself and some evolutionists at another board.

Does this site value credentials over arguments?

[Stratnerd]

Yes, although that's usually not the problem. More often, evolutionists take facts that are already known, and pretend that evolution "predicts" it. Or, they make predictions which aren't reasonably falsifiable. I'd say that falsified predictions are a problem. How about some examples? What explanation of origins are you supporting?

[Jukia]

Voter: What other board? What other evolutionists? Guess I am a bit confused, are you supporting some other evolutionary scheme? Is there a group of evolutionists who have major issues with what I understand to be the general scientific consensus? Thanks

[Voter]

I'm just getting more and more questions. How about some evidence?:confused:

[Stratnerd]

What do you want evidence of - the historical aspects of evolution (e.g., that organism x evolved from organism y) or the mechanistic aspects of evolution (e.g., natural selection and drift) or evidence that evolution occurs at all?

[Jukia]

It is amazing, some of us look at the evidence for evolution--fossils, age of the earth, DNA, realtionships between organisms etc and say "Yep, works for me" and others say "Not enough, not consisent with Genesis".

[Voter]

Originally posted by Jukia

It is amazing, some of us look at the evidence for evolution--fossils, age of the earth, DNA, realtionships between organisms etc and say "Yep, works for me" and others say "Not enough, not consisent with Genesis". The question was waht evidence would convince me. I asked for fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions. So far, you haven't given me any.

Was my request for such evidence unreasonable? If so, why??

[Jukia]

My suggestion again is to ask Stratnerd, respond to his last response to you, might be able to narrow the issues that way. Or are you setting this up to ask for an experiment that provides actual evolutionary change?

[Voter]

He can start anywhere he'd like. I don't think it's either/or. I'd like evidence for all aspects in order to accept common descent.

[Stratnerd]

There are examples of phylogenetic data that are congruent with biogeographic evidence.

That is, the hypothetical species histories (the pattern of relations) matches the histories of the places where they live.

Drosophila on Hawaiian islands and Anolis lizards in the Caribbean/West Indies comes to mind.

But what level are you talking about?

[Voter]

There are examples of phylogenetic data that are congruent with biogeographic evidence."Congruent with" doesn't do much for me, as I said in my first post. Fitting known facts to an existing model is easy. Let's see some real, falsifiable predictions.

[Stratnerd]

"Congruent with" doesn't do much for me, works for the rest of the world of science!

as I said in my first post. Fitting known facts to an existing model is easy. Let's see some real, falsifiable predictions. those are... maybe you can point out why you wouldn't expect species histories to match biogeographic histories. or why those papers were not actually testing that particular hypothesis?

[Voter]

quote:
"Congruent with" doesn't do much for me,

works for the rest of the world of science!
I disagree. From Talkorigins, "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions—the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions."

There's no risky prediction in fitting known facts to a theory.
those are... maybe you can point out why you wouldn't expect species histories to match biogeographic histories. or why those papers were not actually testing that particular hypothesis?Let's see it, and see if they really make a risky, falsifiable prediction.

[Dimo]

Voter posted:

quote:
as I said in my first post. Fitting known facts to an existing model is easy. Let's see some real, falsifiable predictions.

Dimo:

Then you must not accept ID, YEC, OEC, as valid scientific theories.

Actually there is a way to falsify the current paradigm of naturalism. The model which is seen to be most accurate today could be rejected if we were to find a fossilized bunny in precambrian rock.

I don't think that naturalism as a philosophy can ever be falsified. But then again neither can "supernaturalism". It all boils down to our experiences. I have experienced natural phenomenon, I have not experienced "supernatural" phenomenon. I think I'll stick with my own set of experiences, rather than the ones you believe I should adopt.

[Stratnerd]

I disagree. From Talkorigins, "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions—the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions." are you saying the authors of the papers knew a priori what the DNA sequences would be before they set extracting DNA? Plus corroboration means that your prediction was consistent with the data.

[Voter]

Voter posted:

quote:
as I said in my first post. Fitting known facts to an existing model is easy. Let's see some real, falsifiable predictions.

Dimo:

Then you must not accept ID, YEC, OEC, as valid scientific theories.
Correct, I don't. I haven't seen any theory on origins that rises to my view of 'scientific.'
Actually there is a way to falsify the current paradigm of naturalism. The model which is seen to be most accurate today could be rejected if we were to find a fossilized bunny in precambrian rock.
Could you generalize this? Say, if we find any fossil outside its expected date range?

[Voter]

are you saying the authors of the papers knew a priori what the DNA sequences would be before they set extracting DNA?
No, I'm saying let's take a look at it and see.

[Stratnerd]

The question is how could they?

[Voter]

I doubt they could, but that's not the point. Did they predict exact DNA sequences before they started?