bollox springs to mind.
This is a worthy thread good comments on all sides
I don't dispute that evolution occurs but i do dispute the unproven claim that it is the only progessive force in the universe. Show me the tests that prove evolution is the prime originator of all things. All evolutional theory proves is that within the scope we are able to observe evolutionary processes occur. From that we choose to extrapolate or project "assumptions". Assumptions are the 'faith" of scientists.
Definitions-
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
perty darn close ain't they???
Both Evolution and Creation have the same core belief; "because we are here now, something came before. Who or What?"
I don't dispute that evolution occurs but i do dispute the unproven claim that it is the only progessive force in the universe. Show me the tests that prove evolution is the prime originator of all things. All evolutional theory proves is that within the scope we are able to observe evolutionary processes occur. From that we choose to extrapolate or project "assumptions". Assumptions are the 'faith" of scientists.
Definitions-
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
perty darn close ain't they???
Both Evolution and Creation have the same core belief; "because we are here now, something came before. Who or What?"
Ken, i dont know what all the chemicals on early earth were. But the scientists in that experiment picked the chemicals according to what would make life, not what was on earth. I didnt just say "the conditions werent right", i gave you a link with a good scientific explanation.
Judge, your only giving proof of microevolution.
Judge, your only giving proof of microevolution.
This is not to anyone in particular . . . it is just that the same thing keeps happening over and over and over and over . . .
So are we having an almost epiphany yet. . . ? ? ?
Don’t confuse two or three or more conceptions/ideas together. . . and that you’ve your making the appropriate associations between them, you haven’t; you aren’t.
Evolution is a FACT. . . but that fact has nothing to do with the source of being for all things. . . that over the ages has been referred to as:
God
The mystery of being
The ground of being (I like this terminology the best)
The void of nothing (which is actually something, just not reality as you/me/we know it)
The sea of Chaos (out of which order arises, as the ground of being)
Even the source of consciousness (and this term is actually undefined, forget anything in the dictionary it’s a bogus definition)
Etc . . .
Making the association that Evolution does not provide a means for determining the mystery of being (the source of our being and/or the ground of being) does not equate to another association that Evolution is an assumption or belief in itself - it isn’t.
The mystery of being has nothing to do with Evolution as a FACT; as it has been documented to happen, has happened, is happening - nor does the massive explanatory power of the theory (Evolutionary Theory, as opposed to it as documented FACT); and its ability to tie together proper associations between: random behavior, chemical behavior, biology, eco-systems, isolation of breeding populations, dynamic biological change, brain structure, vestigial appendages, the fossil record, the relation of star-formed matter to earth-bound matter, chaos-like systems and the resulting order, etc, etc, etc; this explanatory power has nothing to with the ground of our being and its mystery.
Just as snowflakes (FACT!) are not individually designed by God (the elements and their physical properties are all that are necessary) - so it is the same with the many permutations of life. They are not individually designed no matter what tiny part we are talking about. They are the same respectively and as analogy - all that is necessary is the elemental and the physical-chemical inevitability (& physical properties) of that potential contained therein.
Every individual life-form & mutation/permutation is an order resulting from a another form and a law (and laws). . . random change does mean all is random. . . it is merely a mechanism by which stasis is halted and the dynamic form of life as we know it has come to be. But random chemical behavior is a NOT - and protons, electrons, neutrons are not random either; another NOT.
Nor does the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics imply causality as a physical-property does not exists at the sub-atomic level. All is not random, it is merely uncertain for we humans as scientists. To look at energy we must use energy and this alters the quantum energy state resulting in an uncertainty for we humans - as scientists. Causality is not removed from the Universe, simply because I cannot determine it beyond a specific boundary or horizon.
Evolution is NOT a system of belief, unless of course you don’t know anything about it, or the underlying sciences behind it, then YES of course - in a state of ignorance - you only have belief de facto. But nonetheless disregarding the individual Evolution is a Theory and a FACT.
The refinement of the Copernican system by the Newtonian system and its refinement/partial redefinition by Einstein indicates something different than what you’re thinking. Science theory is not wholly abandoned (unless it’s a belief system; then again it wasn’t science then in the first place) but rather it is merely refined and partially redefined as time marches forward. Just as it is possible to use Newtonian physics to calculate nearly all earth bound activities, proving the value of it: as a measure of predictability and explanation - so it is with Evolution. Refinement of evolutionary theory has been happening for 100 years - and it is not in jeopardy of being abandoned, rejected or falsified (as this is the measure of science: the falsifiable situation; explanatory power; and its use as a measure of predictability).
Evolution is a FACT
Evolution is a TRUE scientific theory
And none of this - this simple explanatory ability - should be confused with the mystery of all-being. The two are not related; and Evolution does not explain:
What consciousness is?
What is the relation of reality to void (the unity of/in opposites)?
What is the ultimate ground of being?
If God is - then what is God?
Science only offers the topical and detailed: “how does this portion of the real work?” It does not attempt to address that which is mere conjecture - the nature of god - or the ground of being.
And this is further separated: the ground of being and/or God is separated conceptually from the mythical; the mythology; the undocumented supposed history; and ideas that found origin in the mind of men of antiquity who possessed a very limited knowledge-base. Any mythology or parochial tradition is not related to the “designer-creator” concept either. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Zeus-Amon - Pantheism, etc - is not related logically to the concept of “creation” (even if some God-type thing did create something). That is still a matter of belief - a belief inherited based upon a good-faith transmission of that faith/belief system. It is NOT logical to assume your mythology is supported in any way - even IF a God-thing-being exists. There is no logical correlation between the God-concept (or ground of being) and ANY particular mythological tradition.
Opps forgot:
As a theory - Creatonism is NOT one.
Nor is ID-theory.
Both spring forth from traditional-mythical belief traditions and neither are a science. One is potentially like philosophy and the other mere myth.
ID is a political-movement. It is a belief system wedge. It is not falsifiable, because the conjecture of god cannot be falsified. It is therefore neither explanatory; nor is it falsifiable; it is therefore beyond un-scientific in every way.
So are we having an almost epiphany yet. . . ? ? ?
Don’t confuse two or three or more conceptions/ideas together. . . and that you’ve your making the appropriate associations between them, you haven’t; you aren’t.
Evolution is a FACT. . . but that fact has nothing to do with the source of being for all things. . . that over the ages has been referred to as:
God
The mystery of being
The ground of being (I like this terminology the best)
The void of nothing (which is actually something, just not reality as you/me/we know it)
The sea of Chaos (out of which order arises, as the ground of being)
Even the source of consciousness (and this term is actually undefined, forget anything in the dictionary it’s a bogus definition)
Etc . . .
Making the association that Evolution does not provide a means for determining the mystery of being (the source of our being and/or the ground of being) does not equate to another association that Evolution is an assumption or belief in itself - it isn’t.
The mystery of being has nothing to do with Evolution as a FACT; as it has been documented to happen, has happened, is happening - nor does the massive explanatory power of the theory (Evolutionary Theory, as opposed to it as documented FACT); and its ability to tie together proper associations between: random behavior, chemical behavior, biology, eco-systems, isolation of breeding populations, dynamic biological change, brain structure, vestigial appendages, the fossil record, the relation of star-formed matter to earth-bound matter, chaos-like systems and the resulting order, etc, etc, etc; this explanatory power has nothing to with the ground of our being and its mystery.
Just as snowflakes (FACT!) are not individually designed by God (the elements and their physical properties are all that are necessary) - so it is the same with the many permutations of life. They are not individually designed no matter what tiny part we are talking about. They are the same respectively and as analogy - all that is necessary is the elemental and the physical-chemical inevitability (& physical properties) of that potential contained therein.
Every individual life-form & mutation/permutation is an order resulting from a another form and a law (and laws). . . random change does mean all is random. . . it is merely a mechanism by which stasis is halted and the dynamic form of life as we know it has come to be. But random chemical behavior is a NOT - and protons, electrons, neutrons are not random either; another NOT.
Nor does the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics imply causality as a physical-property does not exists at the sub-atomic level. All is not random, it is merely uncertain for we humans as scientists. To look at energy we must use energy and this alters the quantum energy state resulting in an uncertainty for we humans - as scientists. Causality is not removed from the Universe, simply because I cannot determine it beyond a specific boundary or horizon.
Evolution is NOT a system of belief, unless of course you don’t know anything about it, or the underlying sciences behind it, then YES of course - in a state of ignorance - you only have belief de facto. But nonetheless disregarding the individual Evolution is a Theory and a FACT.
The refinement of the Copernican system by the Newtonian system and its refinement/partial redefinition by Einstein indicates something different than what you’re thinking. Science theory is not wholly abandoned (unless it’s a belief system; then again it wasn’t science then in the first place) but rather it is merely refined and partially redefined as time marches forward. Just as it is possible to use Newtonian physics to calculate nearly all earth bound activities, proving the value of it: as a measure of predictability and explanation - so it is with Evolution. Refinement of evolutionary theory has been happening for 100 years - and it is not in jeopardy of being abandoned, rejected or falsified (as this is the measure of science: the falsifiable situation; explanatory power; and its use as a measure of predictability).
Evolution is a FACT
Evolution is a TRUE scientific theory
And none of this - this simple explanatory ability - should be confused with the mystery of all-being. The two are not related; and Evolution does not explain:
What consciousness is?
What is the relation of reality to void (the unity of/in opposites)?
What is the ultimate ground of being?
If God is - then what is God?
Science only offers the topical and detailed: “how does this portion of the real work?” It does not attempt to address that which is mere conjecture - the nature of god - or the ground of being.
And this is further separated: the ground of being and/or God is separated conceptually from the mythical; the mythology; the undocumented supposed history; and ideas that found origin in the mind of men of antiquity who possessed a very limited knowledge-base. Any mythology or parochial tradition is not related to the “designer-creator” concept either. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Zeus-Amon - Pantheism, etc - is not related logically to the concept of “creation” (even if some God-type thing did create something). That is still a matter of belief - a belief inherited based upon a good-faith transmission of that faith/belief system. It is NOT logical to assume your mythology is supported in any way - even IF a God-thing-being exists. There is no logical correlation between the God-concept (or ground of being) and ANY particular mythological tradition.
Opps forgot:
As a theory - Creatonism is NOT one.
Nor is ID-theory.
Both spring forth from traditional-mythical belief traditions and neither are a science. One is potentially like philosophy and the other mere myth.
ID is a political-movement. It is a belief system wedge. It is not falsifiable, because the conjecture of god cannot be falsified. It is therefore neither explanatory; nor is it falsifiable; it is therefore beyond un-scientific in every way.
Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-01 15:39:47)
Topal, the op is should it be taught in schools.
I think the problem is people are trying to use evolution (a proven process of progression in biological organisms) with literal fundimentalist creationism. Apple and oranges. In the arguments in the courts the evolutionists do in fact say the evolutional evidence disproves the existence of creation and should therefore block creationist "theory" or whatever pop words of the day (the words have changed much over the past 80 yrs of this argument). That is where the confusion is. It is likely that most people who believe evolution also believe "Big Bang". It is when evolutionists connect evolution to Big Bang that Creationists raise the red flag. And when Creationists try to remake context and read biblical accounts literally with a modern mind/education the evolutionists get there dander up.
The correct apples and apples argument is Big Bang vs Creationism and based on this comparison both should be taught along with other theories/beliefs that have some dimension substance. If God chose to use DNA and drastic environmental changes to tweak life into what it is today who am I to doubt it?
...on the first day there was NOT 24 hours (unless the first day of spiritual existence happened after physical construction).
I think the problem is people are trying to use evolution (a proven process of progression in biological organisms) with literal fundimentalist creationism. Apple and oranges. In the arguments in the courts the evolutionists do in fact say the evolutional evidence disproves the existence of creation and should therefore block creationist "theory" or whatever pop words of the day (the words have changed much over the past 80 yrs of this argument). That is where the confusion is. It is likely that most people who believe evolution also believe "Big Bang". It is when evolutionists connect evolution to Big Bang that Creationists raise the red flag. And when Creationists try to remake context and read biblical accounts literally with a modern mind/education the evolutionists get there dander up.
The correct apples and apples argument is Big Bang vs Creationism and based on this comparison both should be taught along with other theories/beliefs that have some dimension substance. If God chose to use DNA and drastic environmental changes to tweak life into what it is today who am I to doubt it?
...on the first day there was NOT 24 hours (unless the first day of spiritual existence happened after physical construction).
OK look creationism is SYMBOLIC it was used by the ancient jews to TRY to explain how the earth was createdJohnnyBlanco wrote:
Well, done anyone out there beleive in it and if so do you think it should be tought in schools?. Personally i think its down right dangerous to teach that to a kid, but is it a parents/schools choice?
just like many of the bibles storys they are symbolic because it doesn't matter how we got here all that matters is that we are here.
My last post i quoted the wrong guy i meant to quote the orginal questionbigp66 wrote:
OK look creationism is SYMBOLIC it was used by the ancient jews to TRY to explain how the earth was createdJohnnyBlanco wrote:
Well, done anyone out there beleive in it and if so do you think it should be tought in schools?. Personally i think its down right dangerous to teach that to a kid, but is it a parents/schools choice?
just like many of the bibles storys they are symbolic because it doesn't matter how we got here all that matters is that we are here.
Here we go again...
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The moment anyone here argues that evolution is a theory and not fact, they make themselves look like fools.
I think you should explain what you mean by evolution in this instance. It is a fact that mutations can cause variations within species. It is a fact that natural selection occurs. But Darwinin evolution is far from fact, or FACT. No amount of caps-lock will cause it to become fact.topal63 wrote:
Evolution is a FACT
To answer the question in the subject - in a word - bollox.
I went to Bryan Station in Lexington, Kentucky. Creation was not on the official schedule but the teacher did teach it. He felt that both should be taught, he also did this so that the students did not feel that he was trying to force them to believe in either theory. Before his class I was a person who only believed in Creationism, but after his class I relized that Darwin's theory of Survial of the Fittest is true.topal63 wrote:
What school do you go to? Just curious. . .dubbs wrote:
Not trying to argue with you, but software can be programmed to "react" in anyway that you want it to.Marconius wrote:
I beg to differ with you on the ability to Test evolution. Tests have already been carried out using bacteria as test cases for evolution. The lifespan and reproduction of bacteria is extremely fast, and therefore can be observed a lot easier than a more complex organism, such as a human. Observed genetic mutations, such as bacteria and virii gaining drug resistance via positive mutation and universal adaptation to pressure are direct indicators of an evolutionary process. Bacterial resistance = direct evolution. Read about it here.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
As I stated before, there is an actual experiment, think that the experiment is called Planet Earth or something like that, that only produced one celled organisms. I agree that Creation should be taught in other classes, but I also agree that Evolution should not be taught in Science classes as fact. There are certain parts of Evolution that have not been proven, so it should not be taught as a fact. In my science class, at a public school, we were taught both. Granted, Creation only took about an hour, but it was still taught.
Also @ the person who stated that Darwin's theory (also known as Natural Selection) is not a fact, Darwin did not say that everything came from one creature, he stated that things adapt to their surroundings. As for proving Natural Selection, that is very easy. People from the Artic Circle would find it hard to live near the Equator and vise versa, but if they live at either location for a long time they adapt to the weather and are not phased by it as much.
Last edited by dubbs (2006-06-01 20:34:22)
This argument can be solved very quickly by saying God didn't invent man, man invented God.
This is true and anyone who disputes it is being stupid. Man must have invented the concept of God because animals don't belive in God do they? And don't say "how do you know" because you know you are being just stupid......
This is simple, you can say that every aspect of the evolution of the Earth hasn't been discovered yet so can't be fully trusted but if you believe in Creationism then you are saying the Earth is only 5000 years old and there is tonnes and tonnes of evidence that suggest it's closer to 4 billion which is why it shouldn't be taught in school (Dinosaurs being the obvious example!).
A theory has to be based on facts with unknowns and it becomes a falsehood once you start adding proven bollox into it. Thus creationism is not a theory because it clearly lies about the age of the Earth.
There are some great example of Creationist having trouble answering questions like these on the "Root Of All Evil" documentarys which can be downloaded from torrentz.com. They guy is a scientist and I urge any hardcore Christian to watch them as he makes the whole idea of creationism look stupid.
This is true and anyone who disputes it is being stupid. Man must have invented the concept of God because animals don't belive in God do they? And don't say "how do you know" because you know you are being just stupid......
This is simple, you can say that every aspect of the evolution of the Earth hasn't been discovered yet so can't be fully trusted but if you believe in Creationism then you are saying the Earth is only 5000 years old and there is tonnes and tonnes of evidence that suggest it's closer to 4 billion which is why it shouldn't be taught in school (Dinosaurs being the obvious example!).
A theory has to be based on facts with unknowns and it becomes a falsehood once you start adding proven bollox into it. Thus creationism is not a theory because it clearly lies about the age of the Earth.
There are some great example of Creationist having trouble answering questions like these on the "Root Of All Evil" documentarys which can be downloaded from torrentz.com. They guy is a scientist and I urge any hardcore Christian to watch them as he makes the whole idea of creationism look stupid.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-06-02 07:12:37)
boomheadshot you win the gold star!=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
This argument can be solved very quickly by saying God didn't invent man, man invented God.
This is true and anyone who disputes it is being stupid. Man must have invented the concept of God because animals don't belive in God do they? And don't say "how do you know" because you know you are being just stupid......
Oh and to those who mentioned how the 10 commandments and other bull has shaped your nation/human nature this is crap.
Extensive Research has been done on Monkeys and it has been proven they have a sense of morality and where did they get that from because as far as I'm aware they can't read!
I know when the air is hot or cold because I sense it, and I know when something is right or wrong for the same reason!!!!
Extensive Research has been done on Monkeys and it has been proven they have a sense of morality and where did they get that from because as far as I'm aware they can't read!
I know when the air is hot or cold because I sense it, and I know when something is right or wrong for the same reason!!!!
It's an american concept so yeah...bollox!
Esteban i could say all animals believe in God so man must not have created him. Thats a stupid argument. And how do monkeys have a sense of morality if they cant read and nobody has told them whats right and wrong?
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-02 08:24:11)
The benefits of evolution out way the benefits of creatism. Evolution ties in all species of animals and plants and has brought around things like DNA testing and has advanced and improved human life. Creatism just says hey we were created by a supreme being and doesn't bring into question why things are.
Questions usually bring answers but do we really want some things answered? There is a peace that is brought to our conscious minds from having a place to go after we're dead, hence it brings peace of mind. But what if the Scientology's are right?
Questions usually bring answers but do we really want some things answered? There is a peace that is brought to our conscious minds from having a place to go after we're dead, hence it brings peace of mind. But what if the Scientology's are right?
The problem here is that the "assumptions" that scientists have undergo rigorous testing prior to being accepted by the rest of the scientific community. They are called hypothesises. They are not just blindly accepted like faith. As a refresher for everyone, THIS is the Scientific Method. Such a method cannot be applied to faith, and therefore anything dealing with faith is automatically a philosophy, NOT a science.OpsChief wrote:
Definitions-
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Both Evolution and Creation have the same core belief; "because we are here now, something came before. Who or What?"
Once again, Evolution is explaining HOW we are here, HOW organisms adapt to environments, and creationism attempts to establish WHY we are here as it is based on the philosophical argument that a higher power has 'created' everything. Even though the core aims are vaguely similar, the methods to answer those goals are insanely different.
Possible Answer 1: Morality is innate, not something you learn.JaMDuDe wrote:
how do monkeys have a sense of morality if they cant read and nobody has told them whats right and wrong?
Possible Answer 2: Monkeys learn morality through observation - if Adult Monkey A slaps Adult Mokey B 'cos Adult Monkey B stole a bannana from Adult Monkey A then Infant Monkey C will learn that stealing is wrong.
I know but according to him monkeys only have a brain so they dont care whats morally right and wrong. Shouldnt it be survival of the fittest rather than morality? I think if it were observation the infant would learn not to steal a banana from monkey B, not that stealing in general is morally wrong.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-02 10:04:18)
From that one instance, yes, (though actually no, 'cos it was monkey A doing the slapping, monkey B did the stealing - but I think you meant A anyway), but over a course of time seeing numerous monkeys stealing bananas and getting slapped by the monkey they stole from, the infant monkey would learn that stealing is wrong.JaMDuDe wrote:
I know but according to him monkeys only have a brain so they dont care whats morally right and wrong. Shouldnt it be survival of the fittest rather than morality? I think if it were observation the infant would learn not to steal a banana from monkey B, not that stealing in general is morally wrong.
Saying animals believe in God is stupid. C'mon man, I mean seriously show me any evidence that animals has done anything that could even be confused with celebrating a religion or a god. Furthermore, I find it strange that you KNOW monkeys can't read and yet you accept the possibility that they believe in god, isn't that being selective with what science tells you?JaMDuDe wrote:
Esteban i could say all animals believe in God so man must not have created him. Thats a stupid argument. And how do monkeys have a sense of morality if they cant read and nobody has told them whats right and wrong?
As for second sentencem, as I said an extensive researching of them took place and it was concluded that they had a sense of morality. Put it this way, a sense humour is an emotion just like a sense of morality but the Bible didn't tell you what to laugh at did it? So where did this sense comes from?
Animals arent smart enough to think about philosophy. You bringing up that argument to show that there is no God is stupid.
Its called a soul. But you dont believe in it so you tell me where morality came from.
Its called a soul. But you dont believe in it so you tell me where morality came from.
No you're flat out wrong - on many levels. . . and given a conversational environment I could prove it to you in no time flat, but this is the internet and people cling to opinion & misinterpretation far to often. . . and it is not fast paced like a real discussion.OpsChief wrote:
Topal, the op is should it be taught in schools.
I think the problem is people are trying to use evolution (a proven process of progression in biological organisms) with literal fundimentalist creationism. Apple and oranges. In the arguments in the courts the evolutionists do in fact say the evolutional evidence disproves the existence of creation and should therefore block creationist "theory" or whatever pop words of the day (the words have changed much over the past 80 yrs of this argument). That is where the confusion is. It is likely that most people who believe evolution also believe "Big Bang". It is when evolutionists connect evolution to Big Bang that Creationists raise the red flag. And when Creationists try to remake context and read biblical accounts literally with a modern mind/education the evolutionists get there dander up.
The correct apples and apples argument is Big Bang vs Creationism and based on this comparison both should be taught along with other theories/beliefs that have some dimension substance. If God chose to use DNA and drastic environmental changes to tweak life into what it is today who am I to doubt it?
...on the first day there was NOT 24 hours (unless the first day of spiritual existence happened after physical construction).
It is not Big Bang vs Creationism. . . it is. . .
Big Bang - period
Evolution - period
And these (sciences) are separated from our sense of this:
Spirituality - period
Both (Big Bang & Evolution) are true scientific theories. Both are FACT and both contain theory. There is NO such thing as believing in Evolution or Big Bang - unless you cannot understand the material or have not been exposed to the material. It is not a matter of belief; unless you are ignorant of the facts & how the theories were formed. I do not believe in Evolution nor do I believe in the Big Bang. Both are well-tested exacting theories, refined and documented by massive amounts of facts and/or experiment(s).
Evolution (micro & macro) of species has happened in the past and is evidenced in the fossil record (FACTS). Evolution of species has happened in my lifetime (on both the micro & macro level); it has been documented (FACT), it will continue to happen. Belief and unbelief is irrelevant - it has been demonstrated countless times in nature itself.
I do not believe the Sun shall rise in the East and set in the West - I know it will happen (barring some cataclysmic event).
I do not believe in God. It either is or isn’t - it is tautological - and no one KNOWS god. They only think they do (i.e. belief, assumption, faith, etc). I do not believe in Evolution - I have seen direct evidence of it - and I have seen indirect evidence of it.
I think people are also having a problem with (understanding) what language is capable of expressing.
There is a difference between reason and non-reason(s). It is rather simple to understand. There is no such thing as perfect certainty. But reasonable and without-reason are worlds apart. It is reasonable for me to say in loose verbal fashion:
I know the Sun will rise in the East.
I know Evolution has happened.
(. . . and if I substitute the word “believe” . . . the semantic & context meaning has not changed)
I believe the Sun will rise in the East.
I believe Evolution has happened.
And this is illogical, an utter error, and is not reasonable as a substitution:
I believe in God. vs. I know God. There is nothing to base this assumed knowing upon. Belief in this context is utterly un-comparable to the previous example. The shades of meaning expressed are so different - it should be obvious.
.
.
.
Big Bang is a loose term describing a horizon-event indicating a beginning to time & dimension (or space-time). But the term does not imply anything else. The event is referred to as a singularity; meaning beyond that event horizon there is nothing we can know. We cannot know what happened before the event-horizon. It is a boundary that theory cannot penetrate. All science breaks down and the calculations yield undefined results: infinities.
Creationism is not comparable, in any way, to the Big Bang theory. One is mere mythical conjecture, assumption, tradition, without a single shred of empirical evidence to support it. The other is a well documented theory backed up by massive amounts of empirical evidence (both direct and indirect); and it points to a singularity (a veil science probably will not pierce).
Belief in God has no place in Science (or math) even for the spiritually minded individual. It does not matter whether a Scientist believes in God or Not. He/she can be a great scientist (mathematician) either way - but integrity demands that such inferences, personal beliefs (whether it be Hindu, Muslim, Atheistic, Christian, etc, that these beliefs) be left out of the actual description of a process (or calculation). It serves no purpose at all to include a spiritual assumption, belief, or feeling in the description of a (scientific) process. The process is topical (without any spiritual depth) and the detail describing the process is all that is necessary.
A process is NOT defined in such a way as this: “And by the will of Vishnu, an electron is shared, causing mutual attraction, and a covalent bond occurs between the two atoms. . .” The personal belief part does not lend any explanatory benefit to the actual process being described. And it does not matter at what level you/we are talking about, it is not a part of science period.
Where science ends is where spirituality begins. Science is topical in a sense. It can help you manipulate the real, predicate it, explain it - but that is all. It does not limit your spiritual existence by merely offering facts. It cannot create a value for life, the Universe, God, etc; nor is it supposed to; that is your own personal meaning, those inferences belong to you.
Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-06 08:49:53)
Topal, it is almost impossible to lose a debate when you change the conext. Go back and realign your comments to the context of the posting. And I think I have avoided regurgitating others opinions. So far am have stayed within my discipline of sociology, formulated my own opiinions based on the science and theology as they apply to the topic and context of this threads challenge to decide whether creationism should be taught in classrooms.
not time to finish now ...but if we are to talk conversationally I would agree we might be able to understand each other better.
not time to finish now ...but if we are to talk conversationally I would agree we might be able to understand each other better.
having worked within parts of the scientific community and with scientists i was always amazed at how they frequently and unapologetically used the words believe when they should have been saying "let verify this..." scientists are humans and make mistakes on every level that anyone else does. Being educated in the Scientific Method doesn't ensure that politics, or theology, or other personal agends will not affect the persons test results. It is good that we have alot of corroborating data on both evolution and creation to now that on their own levels they both "exist" and therefore have effect and affect on us all. Now stick with the topic.Marconius wrote:
The problem here is that the "assumptions" that scientists have undergo rigorous testing prior to being accepted by the rest of the scientific community. They are called hypothesises. They are not just blindly accepted like faith. As a refresher for everyone, THIS is the Scientific Method. Such a method cannot be applied to faith, and therefore anything dealing with faith is automatically a philosophy, NOT a science.OpsChief wrote:
Definitions-
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Both Evolution and Creation have the same core belief; "because we are here now, something came before. Who or What?"
Once again, Evolution is explaining HOW we are here, HOW organisms adapt to environments, and creationism attempts to establish WHY we are here as it is based on the philosophical argument that a higher power has 'created' everything. Even though the core aims are vaguely similar, the methods to answer those goals are insanely different.