Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There is a difference between observational science and historical science.
What is "historical science?" Is this another religious term?
quote:
Regardless, both sides have been quite barbaric.
Um, when have scientists persecuted and killed theists?
quote:
I agree to an extent, but to condemn someone for pushing religion (being offensive rather than defensive) would be to condemn the same sort of tactic you seem to be promoting when it comes to your side.
Condemn? Could you please quit using so many religious buzzwords?
Scientists have had to form defenses against attacks for the religious right all the way into the 21st century. Of all the religions of the world, only Buddhism embraces scientific advancement and adapts accordingly. Christianity is one of the most hostile to change, matching Islam in its barbarism.
quote:
It was not.
Yes it was.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
quote:
It is rather easy to understand. I understand what evolution teaches (no, I don't believe the theory says we came from monkeys). What I don't think is observable are the changes from one kind to another. What is observable are the small changes within a kind of organism, but a dog will still be a dog and a monkey will still be a monkey. It's merely assumed that those small changes lead to the big changes.
You can't possibly understand evolution if you think there is "micro evolution" and "macro evolution." I'm trying to use religious right lingo here!
There is only evolution, and it is easily observable.
quote:
That's right, but that doesn't mean that people within society should ignore their faith and beliefs when trying to decide which constraints should be placed on science or anything else.
The "good of the people" should outweigh personal beliefs in a democratic republic. For example, many religious people who have public businesses want to exclude their services from gay people based on their beliefs against them. That's just wrong.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:00 am to NATidefan
quote:Not sure what the Bible's versions of science is, since the Bible isn't a science book. But I suppose your point is that I pick and choose what I want to believe out of the things that we can't observe, and you'd be correct. I believe the Bible to be a first-hand account of what happened in history (assuming the human authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, thus, it being God who is essentially telling us what happened). It's a difference of beliefs as I've said.
You don't believe in science you can't observe, but you believe in the Bible versions of science which you also can't observe... you also believe in a deity you can't observe, a heaven and hell you can't observe... But you can't believe in a volcano that erupted over 1 million years ago eventhough I can dig up and show you the ash.
The volcano thing I'm not sure I understand. Ash is ash. What I might not buy is how old it is.
quote:Sure, if you assume that how the universe works today is how it has always worked (uniformitarianism).
How about light from stars, you can observe that, and using some simple mathematics figure out how far away that star is... also using some simple math and the study of the speed of light, you can figure out how old that light you are observing is.
Yet, even though you can observe this, you can't believe that light is that old, cause the universe isn't that old because of a book you read written by men 2000 years ago
Actually, I'll stop there. I'm really not interested in debating the various evidences, as I said earlier, and I've already wasted too much time on that front. I could talk about the star light problem or the timing around millions of years and such, but that would all be pointless since we're coming from different worldviews. I'd rather talk about that first, otherwise we'll continue to talk past each other.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:01 am to Ross
quote:
I don't think these guys realize that they aren't just fighting the field of Biology. They are fighting almost every single field of study there is.
Tell us how "every single field of study" has shown you how you came to exist. That has to be your biggest problem with those fields right?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:02 am to dawgfan24348
quote:
Wouldnt that be mutation not evolution
Evolution occurs because of mutation, but yeah I guess it would be mutation...
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 12:04 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:04 am to NATidefan
quote:Changes in species isn't really up for debate here. I already said that the changes from one species to another is observable and common. The example of the fish is not an issue for me at all and the inability of one species of fish to breed with another isn't necessarily an issue for me, either. In the end, they are still fish.
Here's a better representation of how evolution works than a dog and a wolf producing a cat...
Let's say you have a species of fish, a thousand of them... and they are fairly adaptable... you take half that thousand and put them in the artic and the other half in the gulf of mexico... Pretty different climates... and they pretty much stay put... since you believe in micro evolution as it's liked to be called you could see how these two groups over a million years could develop different traits that help them survive. Now would it be completely unbelievable that if you brought these to back together maybe they changed so much they couldn't breed together anymore? If you can believe it, then you believe in macro evolution. species..
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:05 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Sure, if you assume that how the universe works today is how it has always worked (uniformitarianism).
We should just give up physics... God's just gonna come along and change it all one day.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:06 am to NATidefan
quote:
Now that I think about it, isn't the flu and other viruses basically proof of evolution. Ever year there's a new strain... God created all animals and man at one time, but not viruses... he decided to pop those out on an annual basis.
Yes, most definitely. Studying viruses and bacteria is the easiest way to understand evolution.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 12:10 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:07 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The example of the fish is not an issue for me at all and the inability of one species of fish to breed with another isn't necessarily an issue for me, either. In the end, they are still fish.
Really? Because Monkey's and Human's are still mammals.. or are we no longer mammals?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:11 am to GeorgiaFan
quote:I'm simply stating that it is an assumption that all those little changes add up to big changes that we see from an Elephant to a penguin.
We haven't evolved so much that we aren't comparable to our primate family.
Like a dog turning into a cat would.
I'm very confused on what you were going for here
I believe that God created different kinds of animals and that they further diversified through mutations that occurred after the fall (and subsequently after the flood). Lots of variation does not mean that all life came from a single source.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:14 am to GeorgiaFan
quote:I don't know how old the world and I don't think that can be definitively proved one way or the other from the Bible (through the genealogies). What I do believe is that God created the earth and all life at one point in time and He created humans separately from the animals. Death came in to the world through sin, therefore I don't believe the evolutionary paradigm.
Do you believe the world is only 6000 years old?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:14 am to NATidefan
Aren't mutations just random while evolution is based on environments and such
Sorry I haven't taken biology since my freshman year
Sorry I haven't taken biology since my freshman year
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:16 am to NATidefan
quote:
Evolution occurs because of mutation, but yeah I guess it would be mutation...
Well, evolution includes beneficial mutations but the classic definition of evolution is adaptability to the environment.
Sorry to be a noodge. I'm just particular about evolution.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:16 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Death came in to the world through sin
So everyone used to be immortal until we started committing sins? Or did I misinterpret that?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:20 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Lots of variation does not mean that all life came from a single source.
But DNA study shows that every bit of life came from one source. There is no variation in the basics of DNA for all organisms. Only additions.
ETA: Signing off, folks. I'll rejoin this wonderful,discussion tomorrow.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 12:24 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:22 am to Kentucker
quote:
Well, evolution includes beneficial mutations but the classic definition of evolution is adaptability to the environment.
Sorry to be a noodge. I'm just particular about evolution.
na, it's cool, you know more about it than I do... preach on brother.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:25 am to dawgfan24348
quote:
Aren't mutations just random while evolution is based on environments and such
Kentucker may know more... but yeah mutations are random... whether or not those mutations are handy can depend on the environment... which then leads them to being passed on genetically or not, which leads to evolution...
For example, a animal that mutates to have hair might survive a winter better, have sex the next spring, and pass on the hair gene, allowing more to have hair and evolving into something that survives better in cold weather.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 12:26 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:37 am to Kentucker
quote:Possibly. I'm not sure. I like to make the distinction because one is based on observations in the here and now and the other is taking the here and now and applying it to the past. Historical science is based on many assumptions rather than being observed and testable (like observational science, as the distinction goes).
What is "historical science?" Is this another religious term?
quote:Persecution can exist in many forms but I'm not familiar with any particular effort of any group of scientists trying to kill Christians as a whole. Barbarism does not necessitate mindless slaughter.
Um, when have scientists persecuted and killed theists?
quote:Condemn or condemnation is not a religious buzzword. It's quite common in the English language in many contexts.
Condemn? Could you please quit using so many religious buzzwords?
Scientists have had to form defenses against attacks for the religious right all the way into the 21st century. Of all the religions of the world, only Buddhism embraces scientific advancement and adapts accordingly. Christianity is one of the most hostile to change, matching Islam in its barbarism.
You seem to love your generalizations. "Christianity" is not barbaric (in terms of killing scientists) at all. Christianity is a religion based on the teachings of Christ, and no where did Jesus teach us to murder scientists.
Whether Christians are typically against evolution-based scientific theory or not is irrelevant when you get into the weeds of what "scientific advancement" encompasses. I'd wager you would find that most Christians are quite supportive of advances in science and technology that benefit humanity in one way or another. Evolution is not the cornerstone of science.
quote:We could do this all day, but "no it wasn't".
Yes it was.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 1st Amendment protects several basic human rights. One of those is the right to exercise freely one's religious beliefs. To protect this right, the founders outlawed the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. It did not outlaw all mention of religion, however.
quote:The reason many split "evolution" into "micro-" and "macro-" is based on what is and is not observable, much like observational and historical science. We observe small changes within a species, but we don't see the assumed leaps from one type of organism to another. Again, it is simply assumed that the little changes and variations within a species add up to the theory that all life "evolved" from a single source.
You can't possibly understand evolution if you think there is "micro evolution" and "macro evolution." I'm trying to use religious right lingo here!
There is only evolution, and it is easily observable.
quote:So much to discuss here..
The "good of the people" should outweigh personal beliefs in a democratic republic. For example, many religious people who have public businesses want to exclude their services from gay people based on their beliefs against them. That's just wrong.
First, what is your view of "good" in the phrase "good of the people"? You'll probably find that your definition is vastly different than someone else's.
Secondly, what basis do you have to judge such a belief (excluding gays from services in a privately-owned business) as "wrong"? Where do you get your moral standard and why is yours better than mine or anyone else's?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:39 am to NATidefan
quote:Not sure why we need to give up physics. The world operates pretty reliably at this time so I don't know why we should assume it will change any time soon (if ever). That doesn't mean we should assume it has always operated as it does today if there is reason to believe differently (such as an eye-witness account from the creator). You can choose not to believe it if you wish, but I wouldn't advocate giving up physics.
We should just give up physics... God's just gonna come along and change it all one day.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:39 am to NATidefan
quote:
The example of the fish is not an issue for me at all and the inability of one species of fish to breed with another isn't necessarily an issue for me, either. In the end, they are still fish.
Really? Because Monkey's and Human's are still mammals.. or are we no longer mammals?
I'm still waiting on this one, because fish currently fall into three classes, while mammals are only one class.... Now, the two fish I described would be closer than chimps and humans obviously...
But to say it's believable because they are still fish, but to say it's not believable eventhough they are still mammals is pretty strange.
Page 19 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News