Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 211

Thread: Genesis and science agree

  1. #1 Genesis and science agree 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist which purports to show harmony between science and the Genesis account of creation.

    The author, Don Stoner (whose name probably should not be taken literally), is (was?) a physicist and computer software engineer and, I assume, a Christian. His basic premise is that if the Bible and the Universe are both creations of God, they must be totally compatible and without any disagreement wherein they interrelate.

    He points out that both scientists and theologians are seeking truth. He suggests that wherein there appear to be conflicts between the Bible and science, it is because either the theologians have misunderstood the scriptures or science has misunderstood the universe or, in some cases, both have misunderstood their area of focus. For example, both science and the Church were involved in repudiating Galileo, not just the Church as many atheists try to contend.

    I think this will be particularly helpful for those of you who object to creationism on the basis of young earth advocates because Stoner debunks young-earth theory. It will give you much ammunition to combat young earth advocates.

    http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Top

    If you feel comfortable with what Stoner has to say on that matter, you might also enjoy his chastisement of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.

    http://answers.org/newlook/behe2.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Genesis and science agree 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist
    what! a christian what! lol.
    No such thing, the two are mutually exclusive. whether it ten years, fifty years or a million years it would all be complete bollocks written by a person who lol, thinks christian and science go together.
    dayton: you are funny.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    Apparently, Geezer is so blinded and closed minded by his non-belief that he has not even taken time to read the article read the article, but offering rants instead of comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Apparently, Geezer is so blinded and closed minded by his non-belief that he has not even taken time to read the article read the article, but offering rants instead of comment.
    oh I looked lol but a christian What lol

    "It would be nice to be able to show scientists who are atheists the error of their ways and to lead them to Christ. It would also be nice to be able to remove some untrue "scientific" teachings from our public schools' curriculum. But before we correct others, we must apply Jesus' admonition (quoted above) and remove errors from our own position."
    http://www.answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR1.HTM#Top

    once you've done that get back to us ok.
    See you in a billion years lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist which purports to show harmony between science and the Genesis account of creation.
    Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    Obviously says:
    Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant. (emphasis mine.)
    The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.

    There are people who are Christians and there are people who are scientists. Some people are Christians and scientists (about two-thirds of the scientists in the U.S.); some people are Christians, but not scientists; some people are scientists but not Christians; some people are neither. I have a feeling that most of the people who post here are in that final group, people who know nothing of God and not all that much about science.

    I sometimes wonder if the atheists who post on this forum have spent their life in a vacuum. Out here in the rest of the world, there is considerable interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, some folks ignore this or are just ignorant of it.

    Obviously, in saying “science is science regardless of what a person . . . believes” is merely an echo of the concept that truth is truth no matter what a person may believe. Many of us in the Christian community believe that God has expressed himself to us in both the Bible and the Universe. Some people seek only half the story – some through theology and some through science. Some of us want to see Him from both perspectives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    daytonturner wrote:
    The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant.
    In the same way that fact makes lie irrelevant, but never that lie makes fact irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Explain why an omniscient and omnipotent god had the need to create our species by trial-and-error ("Gradually improving a mousetrap")? Were he omniscient, he would already know the exact genetic code for any proposed species.

    Trial-and-error states outright that knowledge existed, which god did not possess. He could not have been omniscient. Were he omnipotent, he could have created man directly, with no need for the tedious route of evolution.

    You could argue that god chose to use evolution as his means of creation. An omniscient being would know that man would eventually figure out evolution and genetic engineering, and, were he to create man directly, there would be no need for faith (as there would be no other explanation for man, other than god).

    Either way, god is an unnecessary complication. If we can demonstrate how something could occur naturally, why is there any reason to believe that a supernatural being was involved? The author of that article himself states that:

    Perhaps, historically, men have been too willing to attribute to God anything they did not understand.
    There are, of course, other means by which we could test the existence of an omniscient being.

    The bible itself is not the story of the redemption of man, but the story of the redemption of god. In the old testament, god is a vengeful force. He teaches the message of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and "do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother" (To quote Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"). He then sends his only begotten son to earth.

    Through his son, he learns understanding of man. He learns the psychology of the being which he has created. With this new understanding, he then changes and becomes the loving, forgiving god of the new testament. His message changes from one of vengeance to one of understanding the flawed nature of man. The message of Christ is the following:

    You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
    Were there an omniscient, omnipotent being, this being would already have understood man perfectly. He would not have changed his mind. His initial message would be the message of ultimate truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.

    There are people who are Christians and there are people who are scientists. Some people are Christians and scientists (about two-thirds of the scientists in the U.S.); some people are Christians, but not scientists; some people are scientists but not Christians; some people are neither. I have a feeling that most of the people who post here are in that final group, people who know nothing of God and not all that much about science.

    I sometimes wonder if the atheists who post on this forum have spent their life in a vacuum. Out here in the rest of the world, there is considerable interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, some folks ignore this or are just ignorant of it.

    Obviously, in saying “science is science regardless of what a person . . . believes” is merely an echo of the concept that truth is truth no matter what a person may believe. Many of us in the Christian community believe that God has expressed himself to us in both the Bible and the Universe. Some people seek only half the story – some through theology and some through science. Some of us want to see Him from both perspectives.
    Perhaps this might help you:

    Science

    Scientific Method

    Philosophy of Science

    Learn the difference:

    Psuedoscience

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki - Psuedoscience
    In the mid-20th Century Karl Popper suggested the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science.[14] Statements such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but they are not falsifiable, so they are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of science. Popper subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other—though without providing clear criteria for the differences.[15] He gave astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience, and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. More recently, Paul Thagard (1978) proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and the selective and or lack of attempts by proponents to solve problems with the theory.[16] Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience.[17]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    TvEye observes:

    Explain why an omniscient and omnipotent god had the need to create our species by trial-and-error ("Gradually improving a mousetrap")?
    Who said God created anything by trial and error? Certainly not in the Bible, and certainly not in the Strong “New Look” article. The mouse trap example was in Strong’s criticism of Behe’s book. Behe used the mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system. Strong devises a scenario in which a simple box trap is slowly converted by minute increments into a modern mouse trap.

    This, actually answers another of TvEye’s questions:

    If we can demonstrate how something could occur naturally, why is there any reason to believe that a supernatural being was involved?
    Just because we can come up with a speculative demonstration of how something could possible occur, does not prove that is how it happened. In the mouse trap demonstration Stoner came up with a step-by-step way that a box trap could have been improved upon in incremental steps to produce today’s spring loaded mouse trap. But that is not how the modern mousetrap was actually developed.

    The rest of TvEye’s post is one of the typical atheist/agnostic rants – “God has not done things the way I think He should have done them and that should prove to the whole world He does not exist.” Sorry, it doesn't.

    I am not sure I figured out obviously’s point. He seems to have presented a set of definitions which nobody argues with. Soooooooooo?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Genesis and science agree 
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,461
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    what! a christian what! lol.
    No such thing, the two are mutually exclusive. .
    Tell that to Newton or Galileo or (while he was formulating his theory of evolution) Darwin, or Le Maitre, or a host of other scientists who just happen to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish.
    What does appear to be exclusive is a post from yourself on the subject of religion that is not cranium deep in dogmatic nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Obviously says:
    Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant. (emphasis mine.)
    The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
    Coming it a bit too strong aren't we?

    There are innumerable examples of religious people claiming that science is irrelevant, is wrong, is not a patch on the holy book (whichever one they happen to be using) and so on.

    Currently the US is beset by Creationists (now a/k/a Intelligent Designists) who are determined to make people ignore what is uncontroversial science viz evolution by natural selection and turn it into a political and social battle for religion.

    Whether or not 'god' has or has delivered truths, what we (yes, nasty atheistic scientistic crochety old buggers like me) would like to know is: what value of truth are you using here?

    I haven't yet met a person of religion who uses the same value for the word truth as scientists use (albeit in a qualified way) for the truths of science. If there are two different meanings to this then it's not the scientists or atheists who are trying to make them part of the same argument; we're simply pointing out that in most cases the word 'truth', as used by a person of religion speaking of religious 'truths', refers to unreproducible, intangible, subjective and personal comments which, if objected to, redound upon us because our objections are allegedly 'offensive'.

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Genesis and science agree 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Tell that to Newton or Galileo or (while he was formulating his theory of evolution) Darwin, or Le Maitre, or a host of other scientists who just happen to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish.
    What does appear to be exclusive is a post from yourself on the subject of religion that is not cranium deep in dogmatic nonsense.
    I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science. I am of the opinion that this is why there's nothing called a christian or atheist scientists, there are only scientists. If personal opinions/belief interferes with science, then it turns into psuedoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Genesis and science agree 
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science.
    Nor did they let their science interfere with their religion. Science and religion use two viable, yet different approaches to understanding the Universe. Practioners of both can be guilty of using blind dogma: in that case they become pseudoscientists or cultists. In neither case should we use their examples and existence to condemn science or religion, rather we should recognise their personal failure and clearly separate it from the systems and paradigms they have corrupted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    obviously opines:

    I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science. I am of the opinion that this is why there's nothing called a christian or atheist scientists, there are only scientists. If personal opinions/belief interferes with science, then it turns into psuedoscience.
    Let us remember that Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Now let us realize that the scientismists claim to rely on "only what they know." Where does imagination fit into "only what you know?" There is no imagination in what we already know.

    I would agree that scientists who happen to also be religious do not let religion interfere with science. Rather, they allow the two to work together to expand their imagination.

    I would agree that scientists don't usually go around wearing their religious beliefs on their sleeves nor do most people bother to differentiate or categorize scientists on that basis. But sometimes it comes up and it becomes time for a reality check which shows us that most scientists believe the universe and life could not have happened by accident any more than the automobiles we drive happened by accident.

    I do not understand how anyone can look at an automobile and realize that its complexity requires it to have been designed and built while looking at the far more complex and fine tuned universe and believing that it occurred through a sequence of accidents and happenstance.

    It is our human nature to make observations and gather data and attempt to determine what they mean. All of us ask what do these observations and facts tell us about the world. Others of us also ask what do these facts tell us about God. And we are accused of limiting our investigation. It is we who have the expanded investigation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Genesis and science agree 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Science and religion use two viable, yet different approaches to understanding the Universe.
    What is your criteria for considering something to be a "viable" approach? Is the mere fact that an approach offers answers enough for you to consider it viable, even if the answers can't be demonstrated to be true? Science has a proven track record of uncovering empirically verifiable facts about the universe, and it is great at making predictions about how the universe behaves. Religion, so far as I know, has never made any claims about the universe that can be empirically verified as true.

    Of course, religions also make plenty of claims that can't be empirically verified. But is there any reason to suspect that these claims are correct? Especially since religions can't seem to agree on virtually anything. Some religions claim that we should be kind to everyone, others claim that we should kill non-believers. Which claim is correct? There's no way to tell. You can always just pick whichever one appeals to you the most (which is what most people do), but you still don't have any actual reason to believe that you picked the factually correct one. So again, I'm really curious what you mean by "viable".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,461
    I anticipated someone - quite rightly - would raise this point. The difficulty in responding is twofold:
    1) When you say/read/think religion I suspect you lean to a formal, often doctrinaire, even fundamentalist view of it. I am not speaking of it in this resticted manner, but using it to describe the response (formal or informal) to spiritual aspects of life. And if you have stood in awe of the Grand Canyon, wept at the birth of a child, or marvelled at a sunset, then you have experienced the spiritual.
    2) You speak about what science has done that religion has not done, yet this glibly ignores the fact that the two address different issues: they are not seeking to answer the same questions.

    One aspect of the viability of religion lies in its success at bringing meaning and direction and structure to millions of lifes. Sometimes, too the questions can be more important than the answers. Religion provides a framework within which these can be asked. Yes, there is bad religion - a lot of it. There is also a lot of rather bad science. Again, lets condemn the faulty practioners, not the basic paradigms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Here's my cruddy 2 cents worth...
    In relation to the universe having to be designed due to it's complexity I don't think that this is true. I believe that the whole idea of there being a reason for life or meaning of life is just a way of satisfying the conscience and preventing insanity and believing that there is no purpose to life and therefore it is not worth loving. Maybe even this is a survival instinct and our minds are creating a certain reason or hope to keep living because we will just die out if there is none at all.
    I believe that the truth is rather bleak and boring and that it probably was just an accident. Reference to gods is not very worthwhile because there is no strict definition to a god.
    Consider being an alien on a totally different planet with totally different physiology, would you be thinking the same thing and that there is a god? Maybe...

    Barry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,087
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Currently the US is beset by Creationists (now a/k/a Intelligent Designists)
    "Beset" is a little too strong a word, I think. They are a fringe group which has had little if any success influencing any public school curriculum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Currently the US is beset by Creationists (now a/k/a Intelligent Designists)
    "Beset" is a little too strong a word, I think. They are a fringe group which has had little if any success influencing any public school curriculum.
    I think they've influenced the public enough to be dangerous. The general public is not particularly knowledgable about evolution and there's a hell of a lot more doubt than there should be. "Teach the debate" and the idea that there's 2 sides to the issue has given that crap far more credibility than it should have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Currently the US is beset by Creationists (now a/k/a Intelligent Designists)
    "Beset" is a little too strong a word, I think. They are a fringe group which has had little if any success influencing any public school curriculum.
    And here I thought that, ever since the Snopes trial, it was a long hard grind for scientists and educationists to get basic biological science on the curriculum.

    So Texas might not have an issue?

    And Arizona

    What about Alaska?

    I suppose I'm pulling out old, or small, stories. But it does seem to be as though academia in the States is constantly subject to these interferences. It can't be healthy, surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think they've influenced the public enough to be dangerous.
    Dangerous really? In what way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think they've influenced the public enough to be dangerous.
    Dangerous really? In what way?
    Perhaps this might give you an idea:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWTUllxbw04
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,087
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    And here I thought that, ever since the Snopes trial, it was a long hard grind for scientists and educationists to get basic biological science on the curriculum.
    I think you mean the Scopes trial. Actually, thats a moot point nowadays. This is from Wikipedia article on the Scopes trial:
    In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious.[4] Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act the previous year.
    So, basically it is illegal in the USA to ban the teaching of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Let us remember that Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Now let us realize that the scientismists claim to rely on "only what they know." Where does imagination fit into "only what you know?" There is no imagination in what we already know.
    Imagination can be gained without dogma. Science and religion are separate for a reason.

    I do not understand how anyone can look at an automobile and realize that its complexity requires it to have been designed and built while looking at the far more complex and fine tuned universe and believing that it occurred through a sequence of accidents and happenstance
    Everything can be explained naturally. If a clock was a living thing...:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think they've influenced the public enough to be dangerous.
    Dangerous really? In what way?
    Dangerous in that it's possible these backwater movements to get evolution out, and creationism in to science classes are not impossible to achieve. If you don't think the erosion of science education is dangerous, then we disagree. Even without the formal change to curriculum to that effect there are teachers who will believe it and it will influence what and how they teach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    One of the links obviously supplies to that bastion of truth, pure science and intellectual authority, You Tube, explains why you can’t smash a clock and expect it to be put back together by putting the pieces in a box and shaking them.

    The reason, simply stated, is because the clock is an inanimate object. (While I have no objection to this explanation, I would say anyone who is going to turn to YouTube for reliable information is surely heading for intellectual famine.)

    So, am I to conclude from this explanation that the universe exists in such precision and worksmanship because it is a living object in and of itself? The clock, an inanimate object, had to be created by a living, thinking being. The same must be true of the inanimate universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    2) You speak about what science has done that religion has not done, yet this glibly ignores the fact that the two address different issues: they are not seeking to answer the same questions.
    My point is that religion, so far as I know, has never provided anyone with any verifiably correct understanding about anything. You say that religion is a viable way to "understand the universe." To me, that sounds like you are saying that religion can provide us with objectively correct facts about the universe, and I'm not aware of religion ever having done that. Yes, it can provide answers to questions that science does not address - but is there any reason to believe that these answers are correct? Especially since the answers are so often contradictory.
    One aspect of the viability of religion lies in its success at bringing meaning and direction and structure to millions of lifes.
    Okay, so it gives people direction - but do they actually understand anything about the universe? If their "meaning" and "direction" are based on premises that are factually incorrect, then I would argue that these people are not increasing their understand the universe.
    Sometimes, too the questions can be more important than the answers. Religion provides a framework within which these can be asked. Yes, there is bad religion - a lot of it. There is also a lot of rather bad science. Again, lets condemn the faulty practioners, not the basic paradigms.
    Yes, there is plenty of bad science - but science corrects itself and makes progress. We can say with confidence that we know more about the universe than we did 100 years ago thanks to science. Can we say the same about religion? Is religious thought more “advanced” now that it was in 1908? I would argue that such advancement can’t be demonstrated; it appears that religious “progress” is really just different thought-trends that go in and out of style.

    And in any case, how are you defining a “bad” religion? Science is bad if it isn’t factually correct. Since you can’t demonstrate the factual correctness of the answers that any religion provides, I’m not sure who you could label one as “good” and another “bad” with respect to its usefulness in helping people understand the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think they've influenced the public enough to be dangerous.
    Dangerous really? In what way?
    Dangerous in that it's possible these backwater movements to get evolution out, and creationism in to science classes are not impossible to achieve. If you don't think the erosion of science education is dangerous, then we disagree. Even without the formal change to curriculum to that effect there are teachers who will believe it and it will influence what and how they teach.
    I wonder if you think the kooks who post on this web site are dangerous and should be banned because somebody, somewhere, might believe them. I don't. I think the debate is healthy, and if it's good on a science forum, what's so terrible if it's in the classroom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    scifor said:

    Yes, there is plenty of bad science - but science corrects itself and makes progress. We can say with confidence that we know more about the universe than we did 100 years ago thanks to science. Can we say the same about religion? Is religious thought more “advanced” now that it was in 1908? I would argue that such advancement can’t be demonstrated; it appears that religious “progress” is really just different thought-trends that go in and out of style.
    It does depend on what religion you are talking about. I think the way you judge the "advancement" of a religion is by the lives of the people who have lived under its influence.

    It does not appear to me that the majority of the people of Islam have "advanced" in the last 1500 years let alone since 1908. The people who have spent the last 1500 years under the influence of Islam pretty much live as they did in the days of Mohammed, in spite of the fact that oil should have provided them the means to join modern society. Their societies remain characterized by extreme wealth for a few and extreme poverty for the masses.

    In contrast, the people of Western Civilization, which has been heavily influenced by Christianity, has advanced in just about any way you want to measure advancement -- technology, government, civility, freedom of thought.

    As to the other two major eastern religions, Hindu and Buddhism, it does not appear that left to their own devices, people living under those influences have advanced that much. Wherein China and India and Japan have advance, it has been stimulated by the influence of emulation Western culture.

    As Ophiolite pointed out earlier, virtually all of the most important scientific advancements have from the hands of the religious.

    edited because I accidentally hit submit rather than preview
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    daytonturner wrote:
    So, am I to conclude from this explanation that the universe exists in such precision and worksmanship because it is a living object in and of itself? The clock, an inanimate object, had to be created by a living, thinking being. The same must be true of the inanimate universe.
    This is old argument: If a complex thing like clock has to be created by a living, thinking being (i.e. a designer) then a human being, which is much more complex, surely must have a creator! We now know that it is not so, thanks to Darwin.
    What about the universe? Is it more precise and showing 'workmanship' than a human being? Can It not be explainable by a few basic laws of physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    Geeze.

    OK. Let's see if I have this straight. Living things could not have been created because they are living. The Universe could not be the result of creation because it is not as complex as a living thing.

    prasit said:
    This is old argument: If a complex thing like clock has to be created by a living, thinking being (i.e. a designer) then a human being, which is much more complex, surely must have a creator! We now know that it is not so, thanks to Darwin.
    Charles Darwin said:
    "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"
    I think Darwin is saying here that in spite of being able to consider a process by which it could have happened, he does not believe the eye evolved. So if the father of evolution did not believe it, why do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    darwins ideas, at the time was radical, and he added a few things to soften up the shock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    daytonturner wrote:
    I think Darwin is saying here that in spite of being able to consider a process by which it could have happened, he does not believe the eye evolved. So if the father of evolution did not believe it, why do you?
    Why do you stress on the first sentence, and discard the second? Darwin actually means that even though it seemed absurd at first glance, it is still explainable by evolution theory. He said

    Yet reason tells me, that if........, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"

    I believe he is right not because he is the father of evolution but because his reasoning is valid and the subsequence evidence support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,461
    Yes, Dayton, I was greatly troubled by your post that prasit has responded to. I was about to make the self same clarification as prasit. What troubles me is that you could so completely misread Darwin's words. Granted, the sentence is somewhat complex, but the meaning is absolutely clear. I am surprised that someone with your apparent intellect could make such a fundamental mistake and I am dismayed that it may reflect an inherent bias on your part that makes it impossible for you to see the obvious when it is in conflict with your beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Here we go again, atheist vs theist. We never address the post topics, we always fight each others beliefs more than opinions on the topic. Ophiolite do you agree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    One of the links obviously supplies to that bastion of truth, pure science and intellectual authority, You Tube, explains why you can’t smash a clock and expect it to be put back together by putting the pieces in a box and shaking them.

    The reason, simply stated, is because the clock is an inanimate object. (While I have no objection to this explanation, I would say anyone who is going to turn to YouTube for reliable information is surely heading for intellectual famine.)
    The one who made the video has:

    High School Diploma
    Associates Degree Chemistry
    Associates Degree Physics (Astro-physics)
    Bachelors Degree Botany
    Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience

    Or so he claims. At least I have no reason to doubt his claims as I've asked him a question before and got an elaborate and great answer back.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So, am I to conclude from this explanation that the universe exists in such precision and worksmanship because it is a living object in and of itself? The clock, an inanimate object, had to be created by a living, thinking being. The same must be true of the inanimate universe.
    The universe is made random and in chaos. There's no reason to believe someone created it. Besides, you conclude it's finely tuned because of the laws of physics that this universe currently possess. There's no way we can be certain life couldn't come to be if the laws where different, all we can conclude is that it would be different. Surely the laws of physics where created by cause and effect (I hope I'm not completely wrong)? And also, a creator would also need a creator, right? In that sense, we'll have an infinite loop of more and more complex creators. The paradox evidently shows the flaw in the concept of a creator.

    There's no reason why Genesis and science should agree, unless you try and twist things and slight indications into different meanings and so trying to fit it into science. Pathetic really...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,461
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Here we go again, atheist vs theist. We never address the post topics, we always fight each others beliefs more than opinions on the topic. Ophiolite do you agree?
    I'm not exactly clear in what way our beliefs are different from our opinions on the topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    High School Diploma
    Associates Degree Chemistry
    Associates Degree Physics (Astro-physics)
    Bachelors Degree Botany
    Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience
    But does he have a flag?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    The quote from Darwin is so gramatically and syntactically complex, it is difficult to parse out. You hardly ever see it quoted with the second sentence because it is capable of the misunderstanding prasit gives it.

    The first sentence is rather plain in that Darwin flat out says he does not believe that evolution provides an accurate account of eyesight.

    His second sentence is a “however” in which he sets forth conditions that would undermine his non-belief.

    First he sets forth three conditions:

    1. if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist;
    2. if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and
    3. if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life,

    He then explains how those three conditions would impact is non-belief.

    This is complicated by the use of a sort of a double negative set up by a negative of “difficulty of belief” in the subject and the “hardly” adverb to modify the verb. What he says is that if all three conditions are met, then his disbelief is flimsy.

    If we transfer this into positives, the simplified sentence would read “if the conditions are met, belief … can be real.”

    The second half of the quote does not negate the first half, it merely establishes conditions which Darwin would require to change his mind concerning his disbelief.

    Darwin was unable to show all three conditions although he does seem to think condition two is obvious. Nor have the other two conditions subsequently been shown to be anything more than unverifiable prerequisites.

    If Darwin were living today, he would say the exact same – “Show me the money!” Wait, that is Jerry McGuire. But the principle is the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,894
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It does depend on what religion you are talking about. I think the way you judge the "advancement" of a religion is by the lives of the people who have lived under its influence.
    Daytonturner, I totally agree that some religions are better than others - but I meant "advancement" in the sense that it helps you understand more about the universe. Yes, obviously a religion that teaches people to be generous and kind to each other is going to produce a more pleasant society than one that teaches hatred and violence; but I don't think it can be demonstrated that the followers of either one have a better understanding of the universe.
    It does not appear to me that the majority of the people of Islam have "advanced" in the last 1500 years let alone since 1908. The people who have spent the last 1500 years under the influence of Islam pretty much live as they did in the days of Mohammed, in spite of the fact that oil should have provided them the means to join modern society. Their societies remain characterized by extreme wealth for a few and extreme poverty for the masses.
    Like I said, trends come and go. There was a roughly 500 year period from about the 8th to the 13th century when Islamic culture lead th world in the arts, industry, science, and technology. They built great libraries, established public univerities, hospitals, and government-funded research institutes. Technology and scholarly ideas flowed from the Middle East into Europe. There was nothing comparable going on in Europe at the time. Then around the 14th century the Taqlid school of islamic thought became popular and they began turning anti-intelectual. A bit later Europe was emerging from its own dark age just as the Islamic world was sinking into its own.

    So while it’s certainly true that today the Islamic world is way behind the western world, it’s a lot more complicated than simply blaming it on them having Islam while the West had Christianity. There was a long stretch where the Muslims were way, way ahead.

    As to the other two major eastern religions, Hindu and Buddhism, it does not appear that left to their own devices, people living under those influences have advanced that much. Wherein China and India and Japan have advance, it has been stimulated by the influence of emulation Western culture.
    Again, this is only true over the last 500 years or so. There were looooong periods in which China and India made huge advances under their native religions. Read some books about what was going on in India and China from around the 5th to the 13th century while the west was "enjoying" Christianity.
    ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    I do not think I would disagree with most of what scifor has said in his last post.

    He says that he looks for advancement from religion "in the sense that it helps you understand more about the universe."

    I do not see that religion has as its purpose to reveal the nuts and bolts of the universe. Rather, the nuts and bolts of the universe should help us understand God more. Part of the conflict between religion and science comes from people who attempt to use religion to explain the nuts and bolts of the universe. The Bible is not a text book on any branch of science.

    I can only say that Religion, at least in so far as Christianity is concerned, is not designed to reveal the truths of the various branches of physics or chemistry. I do not look to the Bible for any of that kind of information.

    Religion is designed to reveal God in a spirtual sense, but this does not preclude religious people from seeing how God has also revealed Himself in His creation.

    From a strictly religious viewpoint, we would suggest that science attempts (with or without acknowledging it) to show what God did in the framework of how He did it. Religion attempts to show what God did in the framwork of why He did it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,148
    From a strictly religious viewpoint, we would suggest that science attempts (with or without acknowledging it) to show what God did in the framework of how He did it. Religion attempts to show what God did in the framwork of why He did it.
    Except for the creation story in Genesis that is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    I want to step back a little from my interpretation of the quote from Darwin.

    First of all, I have been unable to locate the context of the quote. If this is something he said in the time frame of when he wrote, "On the Origin. . .", I would concede that my interpretation is highly unlikely if not just pure bullsh-tski.

    If, on the other hand, it comes from late in his years, as I was lead to believe it was written, this interpretation becomes plausible. Late in his life, Darwin had some qualms about some of his earlier beliefs. Just as his study in evolution eroded his faith in God, so did his closer scrutiny of his interpretations of his findings begin to erode his conviction on them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    KALSTER wrote:

    Except for the creation story in Genesis that is?
    KALSTER obviously missed the opening post on this thread. Just as a review, the thread was originally based on the writing of physicist Don Stoner showing how the Genesis account does not contradict science. He does not change science in his approach, but says the scienc is sound, it is the interpretation of Genesis which is in question.

    Again, it can be found at http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Contents

    It is actually an online book and will take some time to get through should one be interested
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,148
    KALSTER obviously missed the opening post on this thread.
    I did get the point. Are you then changing your view of the creation story in light of Stoner's analysis, assuming you held that view in the first place? If not, then your statement includes religion as a whole, unless I'm mistaken, in which case my original question stands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time than pressing each others beliefs that you are correct one in this discussion? Throwing hard worked articles and research around as weapons on a battlefield.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I wanted to respond to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism teaches us?

    To be complete arseholes.
    Arrogant fools, is that how you look at us? Being an arsehole has no benefit at all, we are only honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time than pressing each others beliefs that you are correct one in this discussion? Throwing hard worked articles and research around as weapons on a battlefield.
    I don't recall ever having a belief. Besides, this topic says science and Genesis agree, I don't think science ever agreed that some supernatural being (which is apperently unexplainable) created everything. There's nothing to verify this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I wanted to respond to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism teaches us?

    To be complete arseholes.
    Arrogant fools, is that how you look at us? Being an arsehole has no benefit at all, we are only honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time than pressing each others beliefs that you are correct one in this discussion? Throwing hard worked articles and research around as weapons on a battlefield.
    I don't recall ever having a belief.
    Obviously .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Obviously .
    Ah... how come so many people have missused my nick lately? Not that I didn't expect it, but still
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,148
    Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time than pressing each others beliefs that you are correct one in this discussion? Throwing hard worked articles and research around as weapons on a battlefield.
    We are discussing the research and I wanted to find out what daytonturner's view is. I want to know if his statement regarding science and religions roles concerning understanding the world is from a personal view or if it applies to religious and religion in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism teaches us?
    There is no Church of Atheism. Atheism does not have prophets or messiahs to teach anything. There are individuals and the personal philosophies they subscribe to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism teaches us?
    There is no Church of Atheism. Atheism does not have prophets or messiahs to teach anything. There are individuals and the personal philosophies they subscribe to.
    In that case, since you are avoiding.

    Guess what atheism makes us look like? Arseholes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism makes us look like? Arseholes.
    Atheists make theists look like arseholes, you say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Guess what atheism makes us look like? Arseholes.
    Atheists makes theists look like arseholes, you say?
    No us, as in atheists. People who are atheist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    No us, as in atheists. People who are atheist.
    "Us"? I thought you were a theist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Stop flaming allready... What's with you svwillmer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    No us, as in atheists. People who are atheist.
    "Us"? I thought you were a theist?
    Something happened ro me quite recently, and I'm just quite angry at the moment. I don't really want to go into details. Sorry if I'm being offensive.

    By arseholes I mean does our ignorance to theism and understanding them (if possible) make us in perception arseholes? In that same respect of being an arsehole we are just as much as arsehole to them as irrational to us they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,148
    So you do not believe in god anymore SV?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So you do not believe in god anymore SV?
    I don't know, I just feel wierd and well, I don't really want to talk about it yet. Sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    KALSTER asks:
    We are discussing the research and I wanted to find out what daytonturner's view is. I want to know if his statement regarding science and religions roles concerning understanding the world is from a personal view or if it applies to religious and religion in general.
    A fair and probing question which has a couple of aspects in reply.

    First of all, I cannot speak to what all others believe or as to how they view this topic. I speak only from a Christian perspective and cannot claim to represent what someone from some other religion might believe.

    I am not a young earth advocate, nor do I know what percentage of Christianity aligns with young earth or with old earth views. No do I know what other religions believe about the origin of the Universe

    To that extent, I would have to say that my view of religion's role is definitely a personal one, but one with which, at least some, others probably agree.

    This thread was actually precipitated by presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's answer to a question on evolution which I forwarded to my pastor who, in turn, objected to Huckabee's ambivolence on a literal six 24-hour day creation. My pastor, it appears, is a young earth advocate and responded in kind.

    In my response to his initial reply I told him that the young earth view is in direct conflict with the Theories of Relativity and that, in view of the atomic bomb, that young earth view seems to be in direct conflict with established scientific knowledge. (Relativity is not yet scientific law, but pretty darn close.)

    It was as I searched for support for my view that I ran across the Stoner article, which says exactly the same thing.

    Is this the predominant view in Christianity? I don't know. What I can do is express a feeling that young earth view is not growing in acceptance but is slowly (and rightfully, imho) being eroded away.

    I absolutely agree with Stoner's basic premise: If God has revealed himself in the universe (and the Bible says he has) and also in the Bible, then the two must perfectly agree wherein they cover the same material.

    If we have an area in which there appears to be some incompatibility there are three potential causes: the religious misunderstand the scriptures; or science misundertands the unverse; or they both misundestand what they are looking at.

    The other aspect of KALSTER's question relates to the different roles of science and religion. I do not believe that I am alone in this approach as it would seem this is Stoner's position also. Even if we are the only two who suggest this idea, I remain convinced that Bible and Universe are two compatible revelations of God's glory, love, truth, character, intelligence and power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    TvEye said:

    There is no Church of Atheism. Atheism does not have prophets or messiahs to teach anything. There are individuals and the personal philosophies they subscribe to.
    But to the extent you discuss them and publish them, you teach them and promote them just as religion teaches and promotes what it believes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Jeez...take a perfectly good thread and trash it.

    I'm not sure I want to respond to the OP's question now, what with the way this thread seems to have decayed into sludge... :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    TvEye said:

    There is no Church of Atheism. Atheism does not have prophets or messiahs to teach anything. There are individuals and the personal philosophies they subscribe to.
    But to the extent you discuss them and publish them, you teach them and promote them just as religion teaches and promotes what it believes.
    We don't promote belief nor dis-belief. We are not christians. We will NOT tell people if they do not stop believing in god, they will go to hell..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Jeez...take a perfectly good thread and trash it.

    I'm not sure I want to respond to the OP's question now, what with the way this thread seems to have decayed into sludge... :?
    The only similarities I see between Genesis and evolution is that they can both be viewed as theories, each is said to account for what exists today. Each use their own language to explain their point of view and neither seems willing or able to speak the language of the other. Now back to the theories neither can actually be proven or disproven they are just theories, and I for one hope the real truth is neither! maybe we just condensed out of space as it cooled down... :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I've many times asked anti-evolution people why they believe evolution can't exist.

    The primary response I get is "Because it says GOD created all living creatures in the Bible!"

    Well, baring from making any comments about there not being any living creatures in the pages of my Bible...cept maybe some dust mites...those people may want to take a look at that phrase with their brains turned on.

    It says (roughly) that "God created all living creatures."

    It doesn't say HOW he did that, does it? My wrote-for-wrote on religious texts isn't 100%, but I'm willing to say it probably doesn't.

    So why do these people automatically assume that evolution wasn't the way God created all living creatures?

    Couldn't God have created "all living creatures" using some form of method?

    That line of thought is one I've had before on this forum, in a thread titled "God Clicked START." If you were God and were going to create living creatures, how would you do it? Would you create each and every single species? Or would you create some kind of rule or method by which life developed on its own?

    Personally, I find the idea of God creating evolution to be far more appealing and beautiful than God creating everything piece by piece.

    Just look at the huge variety of creatures on this planet. If God created evolution, and this is the result, what an incredible and marvelous tool!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Guest
    Even if god created all living things why oh why should he give humans intelligence? he could have made humans stronger than a bear, taller than a giraffe, faster than a cheetah etc. Want to know who is superior place a hungry naked man in a cage with a hungry naked polar bear.....

    And if he had created humans like that hw would not have had to do it all over again, at any rate on his second attempt he should have squashed intelligence, some gods never learn..

    Man is (to my mind) definitely NOT superior to other animals just different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Even if god created all living things why oh why should he give humans intelligence?
    you know, it's probably one of those things where you say afterwards "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Even if god created all living things why oh why should he give humans intelligence?
    you know, it's probably one of those things where you say afterwards "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
    I am in fits of laughter with that quip!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    The book of nonsense written by Stoner makes the following assumptions:

    God exists.
    God created the universe.
    The Bible contains facts.
    The Bible is Gods word.
    The scientific method is faulty.

    The book does not acknowledge other assumptions:

    Other gods purported to exist.
    Scriptures from other religions.
    Science ignores the supernatural.

    Clearly, Stoner has an intellectually dishonest agenda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
    It is not only their perogative to ignore the things that you or others may call the "truths of God", but to be quite frank about it, because they are coming from you to them rather than from God to them, then these are not technically the "truths of God" but the "truths of men". If they do not know of or belief in anything real that is God that can provide such truths then they can hardly be said to ignore what isn't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Perhaps this might help you:

    Science

    Scientific Method

    Philosophy of Science

    Learn the difference:

    Psuedoscience
    Good links, good quotes. You should read them. For example,
    Pseudoscience is any alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific but does not adhere to the scientific method.[2][3][4][5] The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science"
    In other words, everything that is not science is not therefore pseudoscience. What is an example of pseudoscience is some atheist trying to pass off his own personal philosophy and anti-religious sentiments as science. The pseudoscience is primarily in the "passing off as science" not simply in the not being science. Don Stoner's book is not science, but it is not pseudoscience unless it purports to be science. ID and "Creation science" is a good example of pseudoscience, but Popper's example of astrology falls far short of this. Astrology most certainly is not science but that does not make it pseudoscience. Actually I think it is a very good personality game and serves a valuable role in helping people explore questions about what kind person they are. It is only pseudoscience if people confuse it with such or try to sell it as such.

    In sales, pseudoscience is certainly rampant for sales people generally make all sorts of ridiculous scientific claims about what they sell, but sales the goal is not the truth but money. Maybe it is this capitalist environment which has given birth to a majority that cannot tell the difference between science and rhetoric.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I've many times asked anti-evolution people why they believe evolution can't exist.

    The primary response I get is "Because it says GOD created all living creatures in the Bible!"
    I am going to be attending a course called "The Truth Project", by the "focus on the family" group and I am afraid they are going to say that evolution is one of the lies told by the world to undermine the Christian worldview. I am going to have to tell them that this is wrong. The real lie is, "science says that God did not create living things" or "science says that God does not exist". These are lies because science says no such thing. In fact, it is guaranteed that any sentence beginning with, "science says that God ..." is a lie because science (in the modern sense defined by the scientific method) not only does not talk about God but it is impossible for God to have any part in a valid scientific statement.

    But it is possible that many religious people hearing a statement about the scientific theory of evolution hear something like these sentences above even when this is not what was said. This would certainly explain why you get the response that you do. Not only is science is not for everyone, because it requires a certain type of thinking that most people are not very good at, but science is bursting at the seams will all sorts of things which are meaningless to lots of people, and that includes most scientists. I love evolutionary science, quantum physics, special and general relativity, but not everyone finds these as helpful to them as they are to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Yer best bet is to just avoid that topic with those types of people...but if you must, you should only point out that they don't actually have any sort of written or physical proof that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. If they start thumping "the Bible says" you ask them (calmly...never get hot-headed in an argument) to point out where it says HOW. Then, when they can't answer that (they can't, it's not written anywhere in the Bible) you ask them why evolution can't be that method, or part of the method, by which God creates "all living creatures."

    If they really press it, you can start talking fossils and new-species.

    IF God individually created every single detail of every single species, top to bottom, why have all these millions and millions of years of creatures evolving and adapting to their environment? Why are new species being created even today? Why not just create everything as-is, and have none of that other "waste?"

    If they don't want to go with that, you could drop that if the fossil record isn't showing adaptation and evolution...then it's showing God making a lot of mistakes and changes over time. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Yer best bet is to just avoid that topic with those types of people...but if you must, you should only point out that they don't actually have any sort of written or physical proof that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. If they start thumping "the Bible says" you ask them (calmly...never get hot-headed in an argument) to point out where it says HOW. Then, when they can't answer that (they can't, it's not written anywhere in the Bible) you ask them why evolution can't be that method, or part of the method, by which God creates "all living creatures."
    I don't intend on speaking to them about evolution as mission to get them to see the TRUTH, but will only mention it as a take or leave it kind of thing. It is a theory that you either find useful or not. After all that is really how theories function in science - by how they can be used to find new and unexpected things about the world. That is of course the problem with ID and "creation science" they have no use except in rhetoric, for an unknowable God just doesn't open up any useful lines of the kind of inquiry that scientists are interested in. If they wanted to do theology they would have been theologians.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    If they really press it, you can start talking fossils and new-species.

    IF God individually created every single detail of every single species, top to bottom, why have all these millions and millions of years of creatures evolving and adapting to their environment? Why are new species being created even today? Why not just create everything as-is, and have none of that other "waste?"

    If they don't want to go with that, you could drop that if the fossil record isn't showing adaptation and evolution...then it's showing God making a lot of mistakes and changes over time. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of that.
    Actually I might make a lot more progress by speaking as a Christian in terms that they are more likely to understand, by asking if they really believe that God only created Adam and Eve and not the rest of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
    It is not only their perogative to ignore the things that you or others may call the "truths of God", but to be quite frank about it, because they are coming from you to them rather than from God to them, then these are not technically the "truths of God" but the "truths of men". If they do not know of or belief in anything real that is God that can provide such truths then they can hardly be said to ignore what isn't there.
    When you pull that out of the context of the paragraph it was in and isolate it, it does sound out of place and indefensible. However, it is set in contrast to the first half of the sentence which talks about the religion not ignoring the truths of science. Mitchell has, then, basically repeated what was my intent. Also note I use the pajoritive term "scientism crowd." I would hardly expect them to even consider that there are any truths of God. I merely took a short cut to saying what you took a whole paragraph to say. The sponsor of this forum has to pay for that bandwidth, Mitchell. :wink:

    But nice to see Mitchell posting here again.




    [
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    There are no truths in god.
    In order for something to be true, they must exist in the confines of my reallity. I do not hear imaginary voices. I do not hear people speak to me that do not exist. In order for something to exist, they must work within the actual confines of a certain conformity of rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Perhaps this might help you:

    Science

    Scientific Method

    Philosophy of Science

    Learn the difference:

    Psuedoscience
    Good links, good quotes. You should read them. For example,
    Pseudoscience is any alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific but does not adhere to the scientific method.[2][3][4][5] The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science"
    In other words, everything that is not science is not therefore pseudoscience. What is an example of pseudoscience is some atheist trying to pass off his own personal philosophy and anti-religious sentiments as science. ...blablabla... Actually I think it is a very good personality game and serves a valuable role in helping people explore questions about what kind person they are. It is only pseudoscience if people confuse it with such or try to sell it as such.
    What's always funny is when people ask you to read something you've allready read and then miss something. When did I claim that my opinions on Gods existence etc were scientific?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    There are no truths in god.
    Heh heh...

    If I state a property of God, and you can't prove it false, what will you give me?

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    In order for something to be true, they must exist in the confines of my reallity.
    Who says?

    Be that as it may, your bar for truth is entirely an internal subjective and thus has absolutely no weight in this realm of discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I do not hear imaginary voices.
    Neither do the believers...

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I do not hear people speak to me that do not exist.
    Neither do the believers...

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    In order for something to exist, they must work within the actual confines of a certain conformity of rules.
    What makes you think your rules mean anything to a supernatural being? What makes you think you even know what the rules are? What makes you think that the so called "rules" you live by, apply universally? Yer awfully full of yerself, aren't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If you can convince me that ogres, trolls, elves, and fairies do not exist. Then I will have your proof that god does not exist.

    It's impossible to prove that something does NOT exist... you realise this right? You can prove that something DOES exist, but you can NOT prove that it is not a possibility.
    The cloverfield monster is the size of a sky scraper. Can I prove that something like that in the universe does not exist? No, I cannot. Why? Because I am not omnipotent.

    So no, I can't really prove god does not exist.. (it's impossible) But can you prove he does? It's possible to prove god's existance... but I don't think its very probable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    What's always funny is when people ask you to read something you've allready read and then miss something.
    Not claiming any kind of infallability, I could very well have missed all sorts of things but it is rather unlikely that I missed the very thing that I was talking about in my post, since my whole point was that something is only pseudoscience if it CLAIMS to be science. LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    When did I claim that my opinions on Gods existence etc were scientific?
    Probably in the same imaginary time that I made a claim that you made such a claim. LOL Hey it was just an example, and it is only you who has decided that someone was trying to fit you up for it. Regardless of whether the very mention of this example offends you or not, the example remains valid. BUT let me set your mind at ease, the thought that you were an instance of such an example did not even enter my mind. (why I hardly even know you)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Ah, I see. So your post was meaningless, just pointing out the point. In that case, my apologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What is an example of pseudoscience is some atheist trying to pass off his own personal philosophy and anti-religious sentiments as science
    I guess I misunderstood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So no, I can't really prove god does not exist.. (it's impossible) But can you prove he does? It's possible to prove god's existance... but I don't think its very probable.
    Thanks to Wolf, we are finally getting somewhere .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    It's also probable for humans to fly, create different temperatures around them, and to create a machine that can see into the past.
    Is it probable for any of those happaning in the next 30 years? Of course not.
    I don't even think its probable for those to happan in the next 3000 years.
    Anything is possible... but I believe the existance of god is 0.000000000001% of a possibility. The fact that NO ONE has EVER SEEN OR HEARD him except when fasting for 21 days (Which has scientifically been proven to cause dillusions) means we have absolutely NO PROOF he exists. I'm a reallist. If you do not have proof or a good concept, idea, theory for his existance. Then I may go along with it. But it is impossible to have a good concept, idea, or theory since ALL creationists say, "He just exists and he is what he is, isn't that proof enough?" ... Thats not proof.. Blind faith is bad.

    Texas is putting creationism and ID in schools now. Bad move since god is NOT science. It can not be proven, watched, or created. It's impossible to figure out gods existance.
    Besides, christianity is a collection of the most popular myths of the time. People thought greek MYTHOLOGY was real for awhile before monothiesm started. They believed in multiple gods. The fact that christian mythology decides to follow one god means that they discount the past without any viable proof. Just one person who came up with the thought that there was only one true god... He was a figment of some guys imagination. Since we can find out that life started via evolution... we don't need god anymore.
    Zeus was around to explain lightning and thunder
    Athena was around to explain fertility
    Aphrodite was around to explain love

    We have scientific explanations for all of those, which means the gods themselves no longer need to be around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Thanks to Wolf, we are finally getting somewhere .
    Funny how that works, isn't it? They come in outright-stating, and then it all starts getting odd...

    I think I'll just let him simmer for a bit...He's pretty spun-up (or out) right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Not really. The fact that ogres trolls and elves do not exist means that they are all fairy tales. Like god, who you have about as much proof that he exists as trolls ogres and elves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    It's also probable for humans to fly, create different temperatures around them, and to create a machine that can see into the past.
    Is it probable for any of those happaning in the next 30 years? Of course not.
    I don't even think its probable for those to happan in the next 3000 years.
    Ey?

    1: Humans can fly using an aeroplane.
    2: Stand inside a fridge or a blast furnace.
    3: Buy a Coddam Camcorder!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    *sigh* I ment without the use of that type of machinery. Think of the show, "Heroes". It's possible for ALL that to happan. Is it probable? no.
    EDIT: And when I said see into the past, I ment real time...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    I trace back to see the latest comments that are relevant to the topic item and found that (Q) made them on Jan 8
    The book of nonsense written by Stoner makes the following assumptions:

    God exists.
    God created the universe.
    The Bible contains facts.
    The Bible is Gods word.
    The scientific method is faulty.

    The book does not acknowledge other assumptions:

    Other gods purported to exist.
    Scriptures from other religions.
    Science ignores the supernatural.

    Clearly, Stoner has an intellectually dishonest agenda.
    Anyone disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    The book of nonsense written by Stoner

    Anyone disagree?
    Yes I do. I haven't read it but I can see enough of what it is about to see that the only nonsense here is your comments on the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    makes the following assumptions:

    God exists.
    God created the universe.
    The Bible contains facts.
    The Bible is Gods word.

    The book does not acknowledge other assumptions:

    Other gods purported to exist.
    Scriptures from other religions.
    Despite your rabid hostility to Christianity, Christians are capable of writing books for other Christians, if you have a problem with that, then I most definitely have a problem with the existence of people like you who seem to feel that they have the right to dictate what books are allowed to be written, and this would mean that you represent a much greater threat to science than any Christian can even imagine to be.



    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    The scientific method is faulty.
    If the book did indeed make such an assumption I would have a very big problem with this. But since this book is arguing against Young Earth Creationism using scientific evidence to refute it, this claim you are making seems absurd on the face of it, and so I must ask what is your reason for making such a claim?



    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    The book does not acknowledge other assumptions:

    Science ignores the supernatural.

    Clearly, Stoner has an intellectually dishonest agenda.
    These comments just seem strange to me and perhaps you should elaborate. What is the supernatural anyway? The great success of science most definitely derives from restricting its consideration to a very narrow class of data about world, particularly that which is ammenible to mathematical analysis and objective (confirmable) observation. So science ignores a great number of things. But so what? One is still left with the plain choice of either accepting the naturalist premise that the scientific method is the only valid source of truth or not.

    What is this intellectually dishonest agenda that you imagine is in Stoner's book. So he wants to convince Christians to take science more seriously and that the YEC view is an unsupportable one. What is it about this agenda that seems so dishonest to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Sorry, I didn't wrote it. I just quote (Q), as stated clearly in the first sentence.

    I have my own opinion about Stoner's book, but would like (Q) to respond to you first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I havn't read the book. But if the jist is based off of ignoring scientific fact and saying that there is more proof in god then in evolution... I have to say bull shit.
    Besides, do you believe EVERYTHING in the bible is true? If you KNOW that half of the bible is false, or even 1/10th of the bible is false, and you are not that familiar with the other stuff in the bible.. then whats causing you to believe in a book that has already proven it has lied to you.
    It's just like my ex girlfriend, she lied to me once... I grew suspicious with everything she said. Found out that there was never ANY truth to what she was saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I havn't read the book. But if the jist is based off of ignoring scientific fact and saying that there is more proof in god then in evolution... I have to say bull shit.
    Besides, do you believe EVERYTHING in the bible is true? If you KNOW that half of the bible is false, or even 1/10th of the bible is false, and you are not that familiar with the other stuff in the bible.. then whats causing you to believe in a book that has already proven it has lied to you.
    It's just like my ex girlfriend, she lied to me once... I grew suspicious with everything she said. Found out that there was never ANY truth to what she was saying.
    Because she was probably growing up where lies are acceptable. Cause and effect. If one evaluates the effect then the cause is never discovered, hence the effect becomes a myth and a paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    And back then, lies were acceptable... as long as it attracted new followers, the church didn't care,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    And back then, lies were acceptable... as long as it attracted new followers, the church didn't care,
    On that I fully agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes I do. I haven't read it but I can see enough of what it is about to see that the only nonsense here is your comments on the book.
    Ok.

    Despite your rabid hostility to Christianity, Christians are capable of writing books for other Christians, if you have a problem with that, then I most definitely have a problem with the existence of people like you who seem to feel that they have the right to dictate what books are allowed to be written, and this would mean that you represent a much greater threat to science than any Christian can even imagine to be.
    I certainly have a problem with people who put words in my mouth, so if you please, show me exactly where I said I am dictating what books are allowed to be written?

    I have no problem with books of fiction being written, just as long as they're not being equated with science.

    If the book did indeed make such an assumption I would have a very big problem with this.
    The book does in fact make that claim.

    But since this book is arguing against Young Earth Creationism using scientific evidence to refute it, this claim you are making seems absurd on the face of it, and so I must ask what is your reason for making such a claim?
    The book supports Creationism.

    These comments just seem strange to me and perhaps you should elaborate. What is the supernatural anyway?
    Have you not heard the term 'supernatural' before? Are you asking for a definition?

    The great success of science most definitely derives from restricting its consideration to a very narrow class of data about world, particularly that which is ammenible to mathematical analysis and objective (confirmable) observation. So science ignores a great number of things. But so what? One is still left with the plain choice of either accepting the naturalist premise that the scientific method is the only valid source of truth or not.
    And, is that YOUR choice, or not?

    What is this intellectually dishonest agenda that you imagine is in Stoner's book. So he wants to convince Christians to take science more seriously and that the YEC view is an unsupportable one. What is it about this agenda that seems so dishonest to you?
    He wants to equate Christianity with science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The book does in fact make that claim.
    page? quote? something to show us what you are refering to?



    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The book supports Creationism.
    So? The guy is obviously a Christian who believe that God exists and that this God created the world and all the living things in it. You obviously don't agree. So what?



    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Have you not heard the term 'supernatural' before? Are you asking for a definition?
    I have heard the term but am never sure what people mean by it when they use it.



    The great success of science most definitely derives from restricting its consideration to a very narrow class of data about world, particularly that which is ammenible to mathematical analysis and objective (confirmable) observation. So science ignores a great number of things. But so what? One is still left with the plain choice of either accepting the naturalist premise that the scientific method is the only valid source of truth or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    And, is that YOUR choice, or not?
    No it is not. I may as a physicist be a methodological naturalist and a defender of science against those who would confuse it with rhetoric, but no I do not accept the premise that the scientific method is the ONLY valid source of truth, it is just the best way of discovering new and unexpected things about the natural world.



    What is this intellectually dishonest agenda that you imagine is in Stoner's book. So he wants to convince Christians to take science more seriously and that the YEC view is an unsupportable one. What is it about this agenda that seems so dishonest to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    He wants to equate Christianity with science.
    Well since only a complete moron would do such a thing, I must think it far more likely that you are the one trying to stuff this moronic statement into his mouth, so that you can call him a moron. Again a little substantiation about where you are getting this from would help a great deal. Show me a little of that and I will join you in condemning this book and the author.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
    3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
    4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
    –noun
    5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
    6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
    7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
    8. the supernatural,
    a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
    b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.
    Basically, god, ghosts, goblins, freddy kruger, all supernatural... except for the last one. He's just some guy dressed up in a suit being filmed by a production studio.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,081
    Just to clarify for those who have not taken the time to read Dr. Stoner's treatise, he merely says the Bible and the Universe confirm each other. He does not say one is superior to the other, but that God has revealed Himself in both.

    I can certainly understand that people who do not think God revealed Himself in the Bible would not see Him in the Universe either.

    Stoner provides a verse by verse analysis of Genesis 1 and explains how it agrees with established science. He does not rewrite any science.

    My biggest problem with the treatise was that because of it's age, in one place it relies on Hubbel's studies which have subsequently been, in a strange piece of irony, been shown to be inaccurate by the Hubbel telescope!

    (q)'s rant about Stoner's presuppositions is totally inaccurate. Stoner's presupposition is that if accurately understood, the Bible and the Universe agree. Wherein there appears to be disagreement it is because one or the other or both are being misunderstood. He chastises the religious for failing to admit they could be wrong and also chastises science for assuming it is never wrong.

    But you can read that for yourself if you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Daytonturner wrote:
    Stoner provides a verse by verse analysis of Genesis 1 and explains how it agrees with established science. He does not rewrite any science.
    I also read similar remark about Koran agreeing with established science. Note that it 'agreed' with scientific theory current at the time but never show the new facts (unknown at that time) that are confirmed later by new findings. So it is just a re-interpretation of words to fit the fact.


    He chastises the religious for failing to admit they could be wrong and also chastises science for assuming it is never wrong.
    Do you mean scientists, not science? Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. It cannot assume. Individual scientist may assume his theory is never wrong but scientists as a whole will readily accept the fault in theory if there is new evidence that falsify it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
    Your "restricted sense" is the dominant usage in modern times, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is contrasting it with relgion.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Individual scientist may assume his theory is never wrong but scientists as a whole will readily accept the fault in theory if there is new evidence that falsify it.
    Actually it is not quite that simple. If we set aside the softer sciences (for which evidence is difficult to obtain), especially those that are so soft that they are little more that fashionable beliefs (for example, consider the health "sciences" that had everyone eating margarine instead of butter until just recently), science is constantly accumulating evidence and some theories have such an enormous body of supporting evidence, it is really rather unreasonable to think that it will be abandoned if someone comes up with "new evidence that falsifies it" because there is just no "new evidence" that can instantaneously erase all the supporting evidence that has already been accumulated.

    Furthermore theories are not just answers to questions they represent the very tools by which scientists conducts reasearch into new questions. The result is that you can have all kinds of people shooting all kinds of "falsifying evidence" at a theory and it will make very little difference because the scientists will keep on using the tools he has until better ones are found. In other words, it is insufficient to merely shoot down a theory, a better theory must be discovered before there is any real change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    page? quote? something to show us what you are refering to?[/quote]

    Science and theology are both fallible systems for seeking truth. God's Bible and His universe both supply unerring facts. Our own theories should be built upon the facts from both God's Bible and His creation.

    The way in which theories are constructed will be reviewed here. There are no scientific "scriptures" (other than the universe itself) to guide scientists; so they have worked out their own system which they call the scientific method. It is similar to the methods of interpretation which theologians have worked out to help them understand the Holy Scriptures. There is nothing sacred about the scientific method nor about the methods theologians use.

    No matter how many experiments are performed, scientists can never be absolutely sure about anything.
    So? The guy is obviously a Christian who believe that God exists and that this God created the world and all the living things in it. You obviously don't agree. So what?
    So, the book supports Creationism, which is what I originally posted as a claim made by the book.

    No it is not. I may as a physicist be a methodological naturalist and a defender of science against those who would confuse it with rhetoric, but no I do not accept the premise that the scientific method is the ONLY valid source of truth, it is just the best way of discovering new and unexpected things about the natural world.
    What other valid sources do you support?

    Well since only a complete moron would do such a thing, I must think it far more likely that you are the one trying to stuff this moronic statement into his mouth, so that you can call him a moron. Again a little substantiation about where you are getting this from would help a great deal. Show me a little of that and I will join you in condemning this book and the author.
    What both the theologian and the scientist often fail to realize is that they are usually comparing theological theories about the Bible with scientific theories about the universe.

    Although this book confronts old theories, it will never contradict the facts found in either God's scriptures or His creation.
    It would be in your best interest to go the OP, click the link and start reading chapters from the book. You'll soon find intellectual dishonesty on every page, however subtle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts