BakerStreet, Thanks for the response, well said as always Unfortunately, I do have to agree that we have created a class of people who will believe anything just because someone tells them to (whether scientific or religious, etc.). Virtually all of the systems we use to educate have been distilled down to merely a parade of facts or directives, often with little behind them to gi
BakerStreet, I agree that it is wrong to call someone stupid (or imply it) because they place faith in the bible. Nor am I arguing any such position in my defenses of science and evolution (not sure if I would be included in the class of people to which you allude, but I'll respond anyway ). As I've stated before, I believe in God as well, and that is clearly a matter of faith, and as a result, I hav
By all reputable accounts, SCO has no real case (although there may be some valid issues in their contract dispute with IBM (however unlikely, since IBM can show documentation that they own all derivative works)). First, if there were actually stolen SCO code in the Linux kernel, SCO has legal issues that they have failed to conform to. First, they can only seek relief from the party that placed that code in the kernel, and not against the users. Second, the courts usually hold that th
paxx, I'm an orc The concept of proof is different on a practical or scientific level and on a philosophical level. There may be a valid philosophical point about the categorical existence of proof as an absolute quality, but that isn't necessary to establish a reasonable level of effective proof. While one can make the argument that if I have not duplicated the entire
TheRatedPG, Your link was interesting. I personally have a problem with the idea that we are made to suffer as punishment for the sin of Adam. A just God isn't going to blame (or punish) the son for the sins of the father. Here's another religious perspective on that concept: http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm
Actually, I have my own thoughts about those questions, and I think that there's a greater purpose than the simple accounting of numbers. I truly believe that those kind of events are necessary for our overall growth as intelligent beings. My point was that even if God came to earth, waved at us, and said 'Here I am!', and then left, those questions would still remain. Merely proving the existence of God (assuming it's even possible to do so), wouldn't necessarily solve everyth
I guess to some degree that I could be categorized as a rationalist. I'm certainly not an atheist. I do have a tendency to believe that anything that truly exists can be demonstrated empirically, and it can be argued that God does indeed fall in the category of being ultimately provable. Even so, I don't think that even if we could prove His existence, that it would answer all that many questions. Even if we had clear, concrete proof of God, there would still remain many of the
TheRatedPG, (I seem to be responding to you quite a bit Plenty of good points). It seems that you're of the viewpoint that the creation of the universe and evolution are mutually exclusive concepts. I have no trouble with a God that can create the universe to form from a big bang, following processes based on physical laws built into the system, and producing life that forms and g
this one is getting that way. Way out of hand There have been a few points where that's true, but, by and large, this has been much more civil overall than other threads of this type that I have seen. I think, that to a large degree, everyone on this site seems to have a basic level of respect for each other that isn't always evidenced o
TheRatedPG, You are, of course, correct, at least as far as the commonality of evidence and the degree of some presupposition in the particular positions. However, that does not negate the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is a religious tenet. Evolution exists within the body of the scientific method and mechanisms, whether the theory itself is right or wrong, it *is* a scientific theory. And Kona's argument notwithstan
Kona, An abortion thread? Man, if you think this one is contentious
bangkokboy, If you believe 'just in case' or as a matter of hedging your odds, what honor do you give God by such a position? I agree about faith, as my own belief is a matter of faith. My faith does not stem from what I fear God will do if I don't have that faith, it comes from an honest awareness of His existence and love. TheRatedPG, Evolution IS a scientific theory. It meets the requirements of such by all standards. It may not be fully correct, but it i
TheRatedPG, You might have gleaned from my previous posts that I *do* believe in God. I do not engage in a dogmatic acceptance of any fundamentalist orthodoxy, however. In an attempt to avoid writing the next great novel on this board ( ), I won't respond to the details of your long post, except to say that being a scientist and engineer myself, I disagree with the conclusions of Dr Werne
Ingui, I saw that article and had the exact same thought Even if it isn't exactly applicable to humans, it is certainly food for thought.
Kona, I don't believe in 'ecoulotion' either My question to you is: why is it that you seem to be afraid to question (or at least critically examine) the basis of your faith? Is the basis for your faith so weak and unfounded that you cannot even examine it, and so you must only take the word of some other person as to what it is you should believe? The argument that the 'devil' is
Kona, What work of God created the computer you're using to post your view? The same understanding of the physical sciences that make computers, etc., possible also apply to the investigations of the age of the earth. God did not give us our ability to reason and understand the world around us just so that we would ignore those abilities and pretend they don't exist. Additionally, which of the body of information you claim is correct was communicated directly
Baker, Something very significant happened 30,000 or so years ago, though, and it calls into question evolutions's *sole* role in ushering us to where we are today. I don't think it's necessary to postulate any event outside of a human context. Evolution (in and of itself) had little to do with the explosion of human ability in
Kona, It's not a matter of science being SO good, or anything like that. Science is not (nor does it claim to be) the answer to all things. Science is the process we use to understand the things around us. We observe things, try to figure out why they happen, see if we can predict other things from our level of understanding. And we constantly adjust that knowledge as we get more and better information. We may not fully be able to create a 100% accurate model of the w
That should be truly cool! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
My response to those who clamor for the 'fairness' of equal representation in the classroom is that if they want to teach creationism alongside evolution, then creationism should be subject to exactly the same degree of scientific rigor that evolution is subject to. Even apart from all the framework of theorems, hypotheses, and observational evidence, one of the primary tenets of scientific rigor is the concept of disprovability. Without getting into the boring parts, what disp
Actually, IPlural, The scroll described in Stigmata was the Gospel of St Thomas, a gnostic document found in Nag Hamadi in the early part of this century. Unlike the four books of the apostles in the New Testament, the Gospels of Thomas are not written in verses, but in more of a question and answer format (with the answers being Jesus's). My favorite verses from this document are: "Split a piece of wood -- I am there; lift the stone and you will find me
I've seen people convert from Christianity to Muslim (etc.) as well. I think at some point, if someone has doubts in their faith, some will strengthen it in their current religion, some will change religions, and so on. I know of a preacher who left the church (and Christianity) after some 20 years in the faith, because he could no longer convince himself that it was the right path. My belief is like the quote from 'The Prophet', there is but one Spirit (God), and the path you
Kona, You'd have faith in the others, if you were born into them. Doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but you have to bear in mind that religious correctness is in the eye of the beholder.
cosmo, The available evidence demonstrates that evolution did indeed take place. As for species evolving into a new one, you have to remember that what we call a species is merely an arbitrary distinction for the most part. Its primary purpose is to provide a criteria for cataloging. The basic, fundamental characteristics of all life on earth indicates a profound interrelationship, and there is an essentially linear time->complexity relationship in the examined history
I.R.
WinCustomize Forums