Why are you being so hostile?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Why are you being so hostile?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Why are all the questions in this thread answered with questions?
It's starting to look like a game of "Who's Line is it Anyway?"
Seems no one has the answer. Threads like these go on and on. I guess he who has the last word wins ? Trouble is they never end. :matrix:Quote:
Originally Posted by HNSB
That's not hostile in the least. I made a direct reference to something posted, you assumed that it was directed at you (It's funny because there's zero chance it could have been directed at you... literally), and I quipped a reference to Oscar Wilde. That's levity, not hostility. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
I see now. Didn't see the subject of TheMetatron's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
So what is he being misleading about?
What's wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by HNSB
Did I say there was anything wrong with that?
:p
Wow... he wasn't. He accused me of being misleading by mentioning entropy and then "explained" how I didn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, remembering how he cordially invited us to move this discussion to another forum where we would never be attacked personally, I thought it funny that he called my comments a canard (in effect saying that I, or whoever initially referenced it, was intentionally misleading people which I classify as a personal attack)...Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Maybe the lack of reading/listening for comprehension is a problem that both sides have when discussing these types of things... Cheers
Yes I'm definitely having some comprehension problems. I see now. My mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
I doubt he meant that you knowingly thought it was false and said it anyway.
Are you claiming the 2nd law also applies to open systems? I'm sure that's what he was referring too. The 2nd law only applies to closed systems
I'm asking where the border is between a closed and open system. Dr. Ross said that it applied to open systems as well because there were no known violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics irrespective of whether discussing open and closed systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Ah, so testimonies of others are proof? Here's the thing. In the end it all comes down to faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Whether you have faith in the testimonies of others (such as scientists, the witnesses in the bible or your neigbour), or in your own experiences. It all comes down to "what do you believe in". (or who do you believe)
I subject that even evidence comes down to faith. Because a sceptic will not even believe the faith that his own senses tell him. His faith is in something else therefore he'll not take your proof as proof.
What you're subjecting is saying that if enough people testify and truly believe or claim that it's true. Down to claiming to have seen/heard/worked out things. It must be true.
If that's the basis for truth then the creation theory is just as true as any other because there are plenty that have (and will) testify that they've seen/felt/heard truth. The old testament is FILLED with witnesses that claim to have had direct dealings with God. By the law of witnesses that should then be truth.
On the other hand if witnesses can't establish truth....then nothing can be taken for certain and all evidence is dubious at best.
I find it difficult that you equate the scientific advances that have been made in the last 300 years (and effectively sully the credibility of these innovative minds who ultimately excelled and brilliantly advanced us.. most often in defiance of extreme opposition from religious factions) with the unsubstantiated and juvenile (as far as our species as a whole is concerned) wish thinking that is every organised religion on the face of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Science is what it is and to even attempt to put it on the same level as 'faith' smacks of desperation. It is performed under controlled conditions and the hypotheses are tested and re-tested until proven and thus documented.
I welcome the day anybody, whether they be scientist or religious leader, can prove the hypothesis of the existence of any one deity (of the many to choose from) but I dare not hold my breath.
Religion will never, ever find itself in a position to claim such an esteemed position as science, chiefly because it has no way to prove it's ...ahem... hypothesis.
More importantly (to me anyway) it is yet to answer any of the many abhorrent charges that have arisen against it over the years relating to a plethora of crimes against humanity.
These, gentlemen, while easily and readily springing to mind, are too numerous to list. And I am too much of a gentleman to list them.;)
Science easily trumps religion on every level. My two cents.
Regardless, I wish you all great shaves.
Faith has nothing to do with religion. It is a state where you trust in something without actually seeing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MykelDR
I find it sad that you see the words religion and science in one sentence and have an allergic reaction to it.
I didn't say ANYTHING about either being more true, in fact I stayed as neutral as could be trying to think instead with a clear mind. Not with all those premonitions.
I have faith in certain scientists. I have never seen the idea that I have "genes" or a "genetic makeup". Yet I trust the people that have done the research. I have FAITH in their research. That is the definition of faith that I was putting forward.
Your accusations of religion as the major crime causer also leaves a bad taste in my mouth because we both know that argument can swing both ways. (for example, MAO wasn't very religious, or Stalin...how many were murdered again in the name of their "scientific" beliefs?) It is a straw argument and one meant to insult.
You swing words like "juvinile" and "sully the credibility" around as if the fact that they are fancy words covers up the fact that they are intended to insult and demean. You're one of the few to do that in this thread.
Many have brought facts and ideas to the table and have done so well, even when one doesn't agree with someone else doesn't mean they have to go around insulting people.
Welcome to my ignore list.
1. Faith has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Without faith religion would cease to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
2. No allergic reaction to the simultaneous mention of religion and science... merely the equation of the two.
3. I never said religion was a major crime causer. But I insist all religions need to take responsibilty for the crimes committed in their name, for which most of them have yet to do so.
4. My public school vocabulary has not been utilized to insult or demean anybody. I voiced my opinion on religion as a whole. That is all. It is a pity you are insulted. I cannot help that and never intended to do so.
5. Indeed, many have brought facts to the table in this thread. Some very well. I appreciate YOUR contributions. Thoroughly enjoyed all your posts. I LOVED Jimmy's post re 'Numinous' (though I am of the belief that one should be careful as to how the concept should be emotionally utilized). Still, none enough to convince me of the existence of any deity.
I still wish you great shaves:)
That is an interesting opinion but i'm not all sure if i could follow the path it leads. In fact i'm always been little curious about people who claim they have direct dealings with God. Not only Christian God, but Allah and countless other Gods people been worshipping in past and present.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Also taking the Bible, Qaran or Gilgamesh etc blindly by the word will bring some other problems, mostly because those people, who in their time wrote all the words down, lived in a different time with little different moral codes and no such knowledge on world we have today.
Religion, or faith in any higher power, plays on a whole different field than science, which tells about reality, with universal terms. What and why things happen the way they happen. Faith is believing in something even if you had no psychical evidence.
I might be repeating myself but i see it the way that science will never ever be able to prove that there is or is not any higher powers, call them Gods if you want, while religion, or faith in such powers will never ever beat hard science what it comes to scientific matters.
I understand what you mean. However I subject that the idea "faith" means the same thing in both cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
I.E. acting on something that is true yet unseen/unproven. To me personally it hasn't been proven that atoms exist. And that everything is made out of smaller parts. However I have faith in the people that DID prove that to the point that I take their word for it and live as though it's true. So far, me acting on that idea hasn't backfired and I'd say that my faith in science has proven usefull so far.
The problem is however that in general faith is seen as something to do with religion. Yes, you can have faith in a religion. Thus acting as if it's principles are true and living the religion as if it's principles are true.
However, I have faith in my car as well. I believe that when I get in I'll be able to use it again today. I have no proof for this, someone might have tampered with the engine, something might have worn out on the inside. However I exert my faith by getting in and turning the key (living as though what I believe is true).
The funny thing is that this is also the definition given in the bible, only there mostly they speak as faith in God. But this isn't the only thing one can have faith in. I have faith in my wife, leaving my children with her untill I return from my job.
Faith in the Dutch public transportation. (and although they often disappoint I always get there in the end proving my faith to be true.)
We always talk about proof and science.....but how many of us have actually seen this proof firsthand? For most of us it's just based on faith in the scientist presenting it.
And just as with science, in religion we each have to decide what is worthy of our faith (and our acting upon it's basis) and what isn't (leaving it by the side of the road).
Faith isn't a blind thing.....we can often see the results once we start acting on it. And when we see those results...we can decide whether our faith was justified (increasing our faith and confidence in that principle) or whether is isn't. (decreasing or destroying our confidence and faith.)
But I agree that it's nigh impossible to do for every belief and every religion.
And this, I agree on. If it's true...and such a higher power exists and does not want to be proven, then we never will.Quote:
I might be repeating myself but i see it the way that science will never ever be able to prove that there is or is not any higher powers, call them Gods if you want, while religion, or faith in such powers will never ever beat hard science what it comes to scientific matters.
And according to the scientific method it's (if I'm not misstaken but someone may correct me on this) not possible to prove a negative theory
It's certainly fun and informative to read the opinions here. I'm a flat-earther myself. The sun does rise and set, don't you know: I don't see any around whatever spinning going on. And isn't there a big turtle involved with this somewhere? I haven't spoken with God personally, but many TV evangelists do on a regular basis and if you send them enough money will mention you during their next conversation with Himself.
:beer2:
Your submition is patently false, Alex. You have confabulated the literal meaning of 'faith', the belief in something, irrespective of evidence, with the more colloquial useage, something expected because evidence supports it, a theory. I can theorise or 'have faith' in the car because, beyond doubt, I have seen it work. It cannot be denied or disproven. Every attempt fails. Then you argue that because the same word can be used to mean different things, that those things are in fact the same thing, but they're not. Religions claims refuse to be even disproven. Properly speaking, science can never prove anything, only disprove. Since religions claims are not falsifiable there can be no comparison. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what can be shown. In all instances every effort must be made to remove opinion from the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
It is of no consequence to the actual facts what percentage of Americans, or anyone else, believe or opine anything.
Always correcting people eh? Thanks for the correction. Why is subjecting not correct in this case? (honestly don't know and I'd like to know)Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
It's the same thing however. This because past results NEVER fully garantuee future results. Even when something has been done 9999 times and went the same way EVERY TIME that still means something different could happen the next time. We have evidence that it's supposed to go one way and we act based on our faith in that evidence. However any scientist knows that in (pretty much) every experiment at least a number of things will happen differently from expected. We dismiss those because of the small number, but that doesn't make them less true.Quote:
You have confabulated the literal meaning of 'faith', the belief in something, irrespective of evidence, with the more colloquial useage, something expected because evidence supports it, a theory.
I disagree. You have seen the car work yes. But you have no evidence that it will THIS time. Something can be changed. The same way that someone can have faith in a person. Does that mean he believes that the person might not exist? Does it have a religious meaning to have faith in someone? No it does not.Quote:
I can theorise or 'have faith' in the car because, beyond doubt, I have seen it work. It cannot be denied or disproven. Every attempt fails. Then you argue that because the same word can be used to mean different things, that those things are in fact the same thing, but they're not. Religions claims refuse to be even disproven. Properly speaking, science can never prove anything, only disprove. Since religions claims are not falsifiable there can be no comparison. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what can be shown. In all instances every effort must be made to remove opinion from the equation.
It is of no consequence to the actual facts what percentage of Americans, or anyone else, believe or opine anything.
It means that you have have a belief that they will come through and you base your actions on said belief.
My belief is that 99.99% of people in the world misunderstand and use the words belief and faith as synomyms (*spelling?) while in fact they are not. They mean different things.
Faith indicates a willingnes to act on beliefs.
Belief is just that, an opinion of or on something.
So while a lot of religions TEACH a certain belief. Only people can have faith by acting on said belief.
You believe that the car will work, thus and when you step into it and turn the engine, you have faith.
Remember Idiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Faith required him to step out on the ledge. If he'd just believed it'd have been enough to say "I believe this can be crossed" and he could have gone home after that.
He could have believed that he COULD cross the ravine. But he didn't have faith untill the point where he actually stepped out on the ledge. Was there a scientific explanation? Offcourse! There was a cleverly camouflaged bridge. Did that matter? Offcourse not!
There is a beginning and there is an end... We have already had our beginning... So now we have our end to look forward too...
I was always told not to talk religion, politics or football... :argue:
+1, I might add hone preference and honing methods to the list .... :rofl2:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoseWarmer
It means what you thought it does, but it's only rarely used in that sense. Some people may have forgotten, or never knew, that it means that, but there's no reason for a correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Okay, I'll break my own rule here about discussing religion or politics and toss in my 2 cents, fwiw. Like many people, I hold a fuzzy mix of several belief systems (not all of them admittedly compatible with the others); the God (gods?) I believe in is a far greater force than any human can comprehend, and to me is the great life force that drives all creation in a constant state of creation and destruction, life and death. It (creation) is clearly an on-going process that a great deal of math and astrophysical research theorize originated in the Big Bang around 14 billion years ago. (And the dangerously-curious people like me have always wondered, what was there before that? And just what is at the "edge" of the universe? And what exactly does quantum physics do to the whole picture, with its bizarre notions of an infinite number of "multiverses"?) Alas, there are always more questions than answers, and I am okay with that. Over the years, then, I have become a fuzzy mish-mash of a Christian/Buddhist/Pagan/Transcendentalist who often wonders what the fine folks at the Methodist Church I attend (occasionally, anyway) would think if I shared some of these beliefs with them-probably not much here in the heart of the Bible Belt. And the older I get, the more okay I am with that too...
As to the age of the Earth, geologists have a myriad of pretty accurate ways of determining at least approximate ages of geological structures. If I recall my college geology course (and a good deal of study since), analyzing the rate of decay of certain isotopes in (correct me if I am wrong) silica crystals is just one way. The nearly 2-billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of thousands of layers of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon is just one example, as are the oldest mountains on earth at several hundred million years, the Appalachians where I camp and fish. And to discount the overwhelming evidence for evolution (which has been shown in just a few generations in certain insect species in particular (not to mention those pesky, rapidly-evolving viruses and bacteria that adapt to our assaults with antibiotics faster than we can develop new drugs), one must dismiss the very foundations of modern biology.
There is a lot of work being done in the last few decades to try and reconcile science and faith, creation and evolution. It might be interesting to see where that leads, though as others have pointed out, their inherent differences will probably have the two sides squabbling for the foreseeable future.
Anyway, Happy New Year and great shaves, gentlemen, regardless of what you believe! Aaron
I've dabbled with Hindu and Buddhist scriptures as well and briefly taught a bible class at a Baptist church. Bottom line is we won't know until we go to "the other side" and there will either be something there or nothingness. I'd rather believe in something than nothing. :)
Well, based on that data it appears that, on the face of it, the scientific explanation is correct. When the polls reach 6/10 then, and only then, shall I believe, but not quite as strongly as I would believe if it ever got to 8/10. If it ever got to that level, I would take my Prius and tour the world proclaiming this inconvenient truth.
In all seriousness, given the definition of "God", I have no problem with admitting that "God" created the Universe and everything in it. It's the "how" and "when" bits that are sticking points for me.
James.
And THAT's where science steps in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Well, we just don't use the word that way. 'Subjecting' implies force. A 'submition' is an offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
But when something never ever submits itself to empiricism at all, which is religion, it's not playing by the same rules. It's a different thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I think Douglas Adams summed up why we confuse adaptation with design.Quote:
Originally Posted by volleykinginnc
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Could we have been designed to adapt?Quote:
Originally Posted by joscobo
That spelling doesn't appear in my unabridged. Did you mean to spell it "submission"?Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Yes, it's "submission". Also, "subjecting" as Alex used it (again it's rare, but accurate) means "to present for consideration; submit". I wouldn't exactly consider it any more forceful than "submission" which reminds me of MMA holds... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by TheMetatron
Yes, thank-you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetatron
From my Thesaurus;Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
subjection
noun
subjugation, domination, oppression, mastery, repression, suppression.
That's why you don't use a thesaurus to define words :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
subject:
In my thesaurus, "submission" has "subjection" as an option. Subject is listed as well under submit...
- "submit: refer for judgment or consideration; "The lawyers submitted the material to the court"
- rare to present for consideration; submit
Creationism has no evidence credible in the scientific community. Creationism and/or intelligent design are not science and do not belong in any science class.
With the USA's despicably poor levels of public education, this poll is as unsurprising as it is sad.
Evolution as a means of creation is totally unsupported as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by markevens
I'm not saying that evolution does not exist, but there is no evidence of "evolution as a means of creation."
There has never been one documented event of life coming from non-life. To belive that life just somehow began, without any intervention from some form of life is taking "faith" to a new level. To do so is throwing out every observed event of life coming into this world, and assert that while it has never happened before, life just somehow "popped" into existence.
Even Richard Dawkins admits this:
YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
Matt
Matt, while I am on your side on this your post begs the question: Where did God come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.
....AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Evolution addresses how species change over time -- not how the first organisms arose. It certainly explains the "creation" of modern species (e.g. humans), but not the creation of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
In any event, the Gallup poll was mentioned in the OP with regard to the fact that 40% of the respondents believed "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". This is the "Strict Creationism" referenced in the article's title, and it's what is entirely at odds with evolution (and science in general).
The fact that science hasn't this far been able to prove how life was actually started leaves no room for beliefs of any kind. There are only several theories to study and test and maybe science will some day show us how it happened (this is a question of believe of course:). This far science has been always able to do so. It is mostly religions that are so quick to offer the God of their choice as an explanation when there is something we don't really know yet. I do not think that science would try to show that life just popps here and there. Not by itself or snapping of somebodys fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Now science will not include/exclude any divine interventions unless there are facts that such thing exists. This far there hasn't been need to do so. Now believing something we don't physically know is ok of course if it makes life better, but with the contest of the OP teaching something as a truth when there really is no any fact to support such thing is, how to say, not so good idea.
This is a bit confusing as in my language there are different verb for believing something that can be physically explained (my car, public transport or my wife etc) and different for believing something divine or supernatural. In my point of the view this conversation has been very much like that (with all respects not you but in general):)