11 Sep 07
Creationism or Evolution...
Either way you are discussing faith-based systems for explaining our current condition. Why not just admit that Humanity does not have enough knowledge to answer this particular question today and move forward with you own personal evolution?
Debates that go on endlessly typically don't have an answer, just a lot of debaters.
Maybe that is presumptuous of me to assume that everyone can admit that Science is a faith based system, however, the data really points to that.
Lets just debate over Coke vs. Pepsi. Science shows that they're both full of chemicals that will likely cause ill-health and cause cancer. Yet, there's no legislation against marketing targeting ages 3-8 for these clearly harmful products. Yet we debate over whether a mythical santa claus pooped us onto the earth 6000 years ago or whether we climbed out of the muddy banks from some primordial goo... Useful.
11 Sep 07
Lets just debate over Coke vs. Pepsi. Science shows that they're both full of chemicals that will likely cause ill-health and cause cancer. Yet, there's no legislation against marketing targeting ages 3-8 for these clearly harmful products. Yet we debate over whether a mythical santa claus pooped us onto the earth 6000 years ago or whether we climbed out of the muddy banks from some primordial goo... Useful.[/b]That's as good a debate as any other, for me. I rarely drink Coke or Pepsi, i think their sale should be restricted, just like fast food in general. Yet, this thread is about these Santa Claus guys and the muddy banks of the wishkah.
12 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoWhat utter nonsense. Both the Bible and science have an interpreted element as to what truth is. However, they are what they are in terms of the raw data to be interpreted. Also, both are a pursuit of truth. Are you saying that truth within the scientific community is ALWAYS embraced with open arms? What about this scenerio. In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the founders of statistical mechanics, committed suicide. One of the reasons for this tragic event was the intense philosophical opposition to his work from among his peers within the scientific community. However, his work later formed an intergral part of physics. So here we see those within the scientific community assuming they know what truth is based upon their interpretation of the raw data, however, as we see this interpretation was wrong rather than the raw data being wrong. This is what happens when someone proposes something that counters what is then accepted as the current truth. Granted, we see it in terms of the church as well. Examples include the rejection of Galileo's findings that the universe did not revolve around the earth and the current rejection of such things today such as the age of the earth and evolution, but it is no different in this respect. Could it be that the raw data within the Biblical texts have simply been misinterpreted in the past just as the data from Ludwig had been misinterpreted within the scientific community?
[b]They don't have to be exclusive in all aspects. Yet they come to contradiction too many times in non-conciliative ways. Science never tries to impose itself as the truth, mas only as the most plausible theory with the present elements. By definition, it admits fault. Evolution *seems* to be the most plausible theory looking at all data we have today. Nothin ...[text shortened]... n the first place. So, or you question this is an absolute truth, or you say science must be wrong.
12 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by serigadoWith an eternal God that creates, living organisms spring forth from a living being. However, with atheism you must conceed that life came from nonlife. Therefore, what fits the best in terms of known scientific data that life comes from life?
.
I say the same. Name one example , one experiment.. do you expect us to believe life just came by because an all powerful le and that fits. I don't defend evolution blindly. It simply fits better then anything else![/b]
As far as what life is, scientist go around the universe every day looking for life forms outside this little speck of dust. Do you really think they have no idea what life forms really are when they do this? Are scientists that stupid?
12 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by mdhallA better question would be how a human in the ancient world such as Nahmanides have a concept of such an abstract scientific concept such as the Big Bang theory before the advent of modern day science armed only with only the knowledge of Genesis and its known secrets during his lifetime? An overactive imagination perhaps?
[b]Creationism or Evolution...
Either way you are discussing faith-based systems for explaining our current condition. Why not just admit that Humanity does not have enough knowledge to answer this particular question today and move forward with you own personal evolution?
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyBoltzmann was bipolar. Why do you think he committed suicide for that reason? He was quite professionally successful.
What utter nonsense. Both the Bible and science have an interpreted element as to what truth is. However, they are what they are in terms of the raw data to be interpreted. Also, both are a pursuit of truth. Are you saying that truth within the scientific community is ALWAYS embraced with open arms? What about this scenerio. In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann, on ...[text shortened]... the past just as the data from Ludwig had been misinterpreted within the scientific community?
12 Sep 07
Religion always seems to skirt issues of scientific proof, throughout civilization. As life and truth unfolds over time, religion justifies its existance. Religion will never accept that man came from ape, it can't. God made man in his image.
It seems to make sense spending time searching for truth, instead of religious justifications of why something new can't be true because it doesn't fit our man-made spiritual dogma confined set of reality.
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe issue is not the fact that he committed suicide. The issue is that he encountered such resistance from his peers within the scientific community because of their preconceived notion of what the scientific truth was.
Boltzmann was bipolar. Why do you think he committed suicide for that reason? He was quite professionally successful.
12 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gregsflatDo my posts go unread? I think I covered this bit about apes and man and man being made in God's image. Anyhew, as I have pointed out, there have been religious men in the ancient world who seem to have had a good conceptualization about such things as evolutionary progression and even the Big Bang theory by simply studying Genesis in the original Hebrew and having handed down knownledge of the original texts passed down from generation to generation. The question then begs to be asked, how? How is it that they had such scientific insight before the advent of such modern day scientific discovery?
Religion will never accept that man came from ape, it can't. God made man in his image.
It seems to make sense spending time searching for truth, instead of religious justifications of why something new can't be true because it doesn't fit our man-made spiritual dogma confined set of reality.[/b]
As for what mainstream religion accepts or rejects, I suppose they will eventually fall in line with what the truth is just as they did after Galileo's time.
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo. The Bible tried to make an explanation for reality when no one could give something plausible. When science evolved, they came intro contradiction. Earth goes around the sun. Everyone takes this for granted except the most radical christians. Some centuries later and after a lot of people fireburning, the church finally saw its interpretation of the bible was non-conciliative with reality and changed it.
What utter nonsense. Both the Bible and science have an interpreted element as to what truth is. However, they are what they are in terms of the raw data to be interpreted. Also, both are a pursuit of truth. Are you saying that truth within the scientific community is ALWAYS embraced with open arms? What about this scenerio. In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann, on ...[text shortened]... the past just as the data from Ludwig had been misinterpreted within the scientific community?
Now, your critic about scientific comunity (SC) and embracing "truth". SC does not embrace truth, it says it's impossible to know that we reached "truth". Same way it's impossible to deny god or santaclaus. SC always criticizes new theory, especially hard ones to believe... WHY? because it must be proven, or at least it has to make a lot of sense and be better then the previous theory. Boltzmann besides a genious was crazy. It's good to have discussion and to exist some inertia to new theories. It's part of the selection and evolution of theories.
You should pick interpretation of quantum mechanics: scientists haven't arrived at a consensus yet (probably never will). But it's in constant evolution. On average getting close to reality. Sometimes a step away, sometimes 2 step closer.
Now you take the Bible as something at the same level of reality we experience everyday, and that we only have to interpret it right!!! That's incredibly ridiculous. Interpretation comes exclusively from men's mind, so any truth you take from the Bible comes from what men want. The Bible itself is a BOOK. A book! It was written a long time ago. What it says is not the truth. It's not above anything else, unless you want to believe so. It *can* be wrong. What was written ages ago may not be true (it that so hard to believe?). It's a lot more then misinterpretation. Don't compare evolution of the interpretations of the bible with evolution of science.
Going through there, you can just interpret anything as long as you want, distort it so much as to be compatible with what you see everyday. (or what your beliefs are).
Someday the church is going to change it's interpretation of the bible to accept evolution, or whatever makes sense in 500 hundred years. Because the bible was so right, we could just not see it and interpret it. If it's so interpretation dependent, what's it worth for?? We can just do anything, it depends on what men (Vatican) says.
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyBig Bang is not abstract, and probably is wrong. It's one of the most faulty theories in science. There were so many theories during all these millennia, it's more then likely someone made one that has analogies with current times. It makes sense, knowing 0 about science, that universe started from something small and evolved. As good as the turtle and elephant theory, if not supported by evidence from reality (telescopes, redshifting, etc)
A better question would be how a human in the ancient world such as Nahmanides have a concept of such an abstract scientific concept such as the Big Bang theory before the advent of modern day science armed only with only the knowledge of Genesis and its known secrets during his lifetime? An overactive imagination perhaps?
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyWith an eternal God that creates, life explanation is logical and coherent, i must admit. The only problem is admit the existence of that God. Admit God, and BANG, everything works like magic. So easy.
With an eternal God that creates, living organisms spring forth from a living being. However, with atheism you must conceed that life came from nonlife. Therefore, what fits the best in terms of known scientific data that life comes from life?
As far as what life is, scientist go around the universe every day looking for life forms outside this little sp ...[text shortened]... ink they have no idea what life forms really are when they do this? Are scientists that stupid?
Scientific data doesn't say life comes from life. That's reproduction, not the origin of life. Life coming from non-life, only if you talk about ultra-simple organisms coming from ultra-complex molecules. Do you know in detail how single cell organism work? It makes SO much sense it would be this way.
If you talk about multicellular organisms, of course life comes from life, and evolves, mutates, reproduces, is selected, etc.
Scientists have no idea of what they could find out there. It can be anything. There's enough science fiction to speculate on how alien life is like.
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoGive me one example in which science has observed life coming from nonlife or science creating life from nonlife. If not, how can you say that science does not indicate that life comes from other life sources?
With an eternal God that creates, life explanation is logical and coherent, i must admit. The only problem is admit the existence of that God. Admit God, and BANG, everything works like magic. So easy.
Scientific data doesn't say life comes from life. That's reproduction, not the origin of life. Life coming from non-life, only if you talk about ultra-simpl ...[text shortened]... e. It can be anything. There's enough science fiction to speculate on how alien life is like.
13 Sep 07
1 edit
With all this talk of "scientific proof" I find myself asking the question, "What exactly is science trying to prove?" Aren't we all making inferences based on observable phenomena? We can say that evolution is verifiable, but whose paradigm are we corroborating by doing so? Nobody's, really. Every aspect of the universe which we aim our magnifying glass at is easily susceptible to being fodder for our presumptuousness. But really we are catching mere glimpses of an impossible to grasp whole; our minds beggared before the true immensity of what actually is. We'd be wise to be a bit humbler in our assessment of what we ultimately know.
13 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyBut...he didn't. Some opposed him, some supported him. There was no massive suppression from the scientific community.
The issue is not the fact that he committed suicide. The issue is that he encountered such resistance from his peers within the scientific community because of their preconceived notion of what the scientific truth was.