PDA

View Full Version : Science versus Faith



S0Noma
01-09-2008, 11:15 AM
http://i19.tinypic.com/854jkfp.jpg

LWW
01-09-2008, 11:22 AM
I have faith that science has blocked you from posting a copyrighted piece.

Post a link.

I'd like to see it.

LWW

moblsv
01-09-2008, 11:28 AM
http://www.boardutah.com/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg

S0Noma
01-09-2008, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> I have faith that science has blocked you from posting a copyrighted piece.

Post a link.

I'd like to see it.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Sure, here you go.

web page (http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/)

llotter
01-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Of course, there is ZERO evidence to support Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' after 150 years of searching and it is considered sheer heresy to question this 'long established fact'. Once you become slaves of the Left ideology, you must toe the line or be made to suffer at the hands of the brownshirters everywhere that are watching...sheer Stalinism at work in our schools.

Quote Dan Rather, 'Oh, but the so-called 'theory' is of course true, don't be concerned, the evidence will show up eventually...trust me on that'

sack316
01-09-2008, 01:14 PM
Science damn you... science damn you all!

Eh, it'll never have the same ring to it.

Sack

eg8r
01-09-2008, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote unknown:</font><hr> "LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ah! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From... God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
No answer.
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
No answer.
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
No answer.
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
No answer.
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"Yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer.
"Sit down, please." The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.
The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than the minus 458 degrees - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just, the absence of it."
Silence. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom. "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death, as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. "Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ah! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED?" the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
01-09-2008, 02:03 PM
I don't know about this, Ed. I think there was sufficient evidence that the Prof. had a brain.

I always liked that line in All The President's Men, where Redford said to Hoffman, "If you wake up in the morning and there's snow on the ground, you can say that it snowed last night, even though you didn't see it snowing, right?"

You do believe in fossils, right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gayle in MD
01-09-2008, 02:05 PM
LMAO, good one, Moblvs! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
01-09-2008, 02:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> http://www.boardutah.com/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg <hr /></blockquote>
So, you agree then that the Goremons are a religion based an unproveable idea?

LWW

wolfdancer
01-09-2008, 02:32 PM
a question....is a reply like that considered highly intellectual, over on AZB?
I look at it, knowing that you have coined the word, that it has no literal meaning, and even if it had....there's no way to connect the dots .....
But, it's all part of your new "olive branch" postings?

eg8r
01-09-2008, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about this, Ed. I think there was sufficient evidence that the Prof. had a brain. <hr /></blockquote> The student was simply using the logic of the professor in the same way the professor did. I thought it was funny so I posted it.

eg8r

SKennedy
01-09-2008, 02:59 PM
I consider myself a "person" of science and certainly of faith. Is that a contradiction? No. Are they mutually exclusive? No. Do many think so? Yes, including scientists and also those of faith. Do I think it outrageous that organized religion has persecuted men of science? Of course. Do I believe in fossils? Yes....I'm not so sure about our ability to date some of them, and I don't have all the answers. But then again, science doesn't either and never will. I believe in science in a tangible way...things I can see, measure, or attempt to understand. Faith requires a belief in those things I can't see, measure, or even comprehend. You can have both. I know many medical doctors here in the Tyler, Texas area that are strong christians. Do they believe in medicine and all the great things modern medicine has to offer? Certainly. But they still have faith.
My faith has never been shaken or been at odds with science or vice versa.

wolfdancer
01-09-2008, 03:09 PM
Doctors? they have Doctors in Tyler, Tx????
This science thing is always evolving....just when I was about to write the Pope about Galileo and tell him that the Hubble telescope proved we rotated around the Sun, and not vice versa....and that maybe we owe him an apology.....
I found this site which proves both Copernicus and Darwin wrong:
web page (http://www.fixedearth.com/)

SKennedy
01-09-2008, 03:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Doctors? they have Doctors in Tyler, Tx????
<hr /></blockquote>

Only 2, and they run for the hills during duck hunting season....quack quack!
Actually, Tyler has 2 of the best hopsitals anywhere. We are in an area reknown for its health care professionals and facilities and as a consequence have many retirees coming into this area. As a matter of fact, we are being invaded by them foreigners from California. Sure hope SONoma doesn't get any ideas....I'd sure hate to take his lunch money at the pool table.

hondo
01-09-2008, 04:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> Science damn you... science damn you all!

Eh, it'll never have the same ring to it.

Sack <hr /></blockquote>

When I'm really ready to blaspheme I just say
"Albert F**king Einstein!"
Or "I hope you all rot in the laboratory!"

hondo
01-09-2008, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> I consider myself a "person" of science and certainly of faith. Is that a contradiction? No. Are they mutually exclusive? No. Do many think so? Yes, including scientists and also those of faith. Do I think it outrageous that organized religion has persecuted men of science? Of course. Do I believe in fossils? Yes....I'm not so sure about our ability to date some of them, and I don't have all the answers. But then again, science doesn't either and never will. I believe in science in a tangible way...things I can see, measure, or attempt to understand. Faith requires a belief in those things I can't see, measure, or even comprehend. You can have both. I know many medical doctors here in the Tyler, Texas area that are strong christians. Do they believe in medicine and all the great things modern medicine has to offer? Certainly. But they still have faith.
My faith has never been shaken or been at odds with science or vice versa.

<hr /></blockquote>

Excellent post, Kennedy. I take back all the bad things I said about you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
01-09-2008, 04:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I don't know about this, Ed. I think there was sufficient evidence that the Prof. had a brain. <hr /></blockquote> The student was simply using the logic of the professor in the same way the professor did. I thought it was funny so I posted it.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I liked it too, Eg.
Holy s**t, Batman! Am I the only leftie on here who believes in intelligent design?
I'm starting to feel really cold. Some conservative hug me!

SKennedy
01-09-2008, 04:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I'm starting to feel really cold. Some conservative hug me! <hr /></blockquote>

OK guys? Who is man enough to hug Hondo? I'll give you a hug brother!

hondo
01-09-2008, 04:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I'm starting to feel really cold. Some conservative hug me! <hr /></blockquote>

OK guys? Who is man enough to hug Hondo? I'll give you a hug brother! <hr /></blockquote>

You da man, Kennedy. You da man! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

S0Noma
01-09-2008, 07:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> Of course, there is ZERO evidence to support Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' after 150 years of searching

<font color="blue">On the contrary, there is a veritable mountain of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Where have you been hiding? It's available to the public. </font color>
and it is considered sheer heresy to question this 'long established fact'.

<font color="blue">The theory of evolution is not a 'fact' it's much more than that. Scientific theories are constructs that require hundreds of thousands of facts to support them. The Theory of Evolution has had to withstand rigorous scientific testing for quite some time in order to retain it's credibility. It continues to undergo rigorous testing and our understanding of the nature of evolution is becoming more complete as time goes by.

As with most scientific theories that's the nature of the beast.

Most recently with major breakthroughs in the understanding of DNA and the human genome. If anything could have dispelled the theory of evolution the structure of DNA would have been it. Instead? Everything about the deepening understanding of the structure of DNA confirms the theory of evolution. </font color>

Once you become slaves of the Left ideology, you must toe the line or be made to suffer at the hands of the brownshirters everywhere that are watching...sheer Stalinism at work in our schools.

<font color="blue">FWIW: If you're going to use the term 'brownshirts' which has its origins in the Nazi movement it might be wise not to use it with Stalinism - aside from an early accord with the Nazi's Stalin and the Stalinists were arch enemies of the Nazi's. With all due respect you're beginning to sound more than a little extremist and unbalanced in the expression of your viewpoint.

Religious elements have long fought the teaching of evolution in our schools and in many cases we owe the sad state of our science curriculum to their success at keeping it out of the classroom. While this may have once been acceptable to continue in the face of international scientific competition would be foolish. It would be the height of stupidity to fetter our school kids with religious dogma and forgo teaching them true science with worldwide competitive markets vying to out do the United States in that arena.

Chinese scientists and Indian scientists etc. are not handicapped by well meaning but misguided Christians trying to substitute Creationism in the classroom in lieu of scientific fact. </font color>

Quote Dan Rather, 'Oh, but the so-called 'theory' is of course true, don't be concerned, the evidence will show up eventually...trust me on that'

<font color="blue">I have no idea where you got this quote, if it's accurate or even if it pertains to the theory of evolution - but I kind of doubt it. In any case, Dan Rather is a television news reporter and not a scientist. He hardly represents an expert resource in terms of the validation or invalidation of evolutionary theory. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Drop1
01-09-2008, 08:15 PM
Nor should it ever be. Who is to say God did not create evolution. My point of view,as an atheist,is God is not relevant,to existence. As you are aware,not everyone shares that view,and I say more power to them.

LWW
01-10-2008, 05:05 AM
SONoma, the science which you believe disputes the existence of a Creator is to me the most convincing evidence of the Creator's existence.

Read a little physics and astronomy and I think you'll get it.

LWW

Qtec
01-10-2008, 06:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> SONoma, the science which you believe disputes the existence of a Creator


LWW <hr /></blockquote>

No it doesn't. Also science has no problem with Jesus as eg8r's article claims.

Evolution, watch the video.

web page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk)

Q

LWW
01-10-2008, 06:09 AM
Now you claim to be psychic?

What pompousity!

PUH -LEEZE!

Join us in the light Q.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-10-2008, 06:16 AM
Excellent post!

Science isn't angry at organized religion. Scientists don't lock people up, or burn them at the stake, for believing in God. Science doesn't demand that all agree with its theories. Science is not the enemy of religion, it seems to be the opposite, to me, both historically, and currently. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

People seem often to miss the central point of things.

For example, the point regarding Bush, censoring scientists who write reports on global warming, and those from the right who make fun of those scientist, and the spokespersons who are presently trying to bring the issue before the public, miss the central point entirely, which to me, atleast, is about the president, who just happens to be connected to big oil concerns, using censorship, and intimidation, to suppress scientific studies for which we, the taxpayers, finance.

How can anyone support such abuse of presidential power?

Organized religion, of any kind, has no place in government, or the public school system. The teaching of intelligent design, also, has no place in the public class room. It is not a science, and therefore, does not belong in science class.

If those who claim their faith to be strong and abiding, really felt that way, they would not have the need to seek agreement from others, or to impose their subjective feelings about it, upon all others.

The flaw is not in science, which is always open to testing and experimentation, and upon which it in fact, relies.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
01-10-2008, 09:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Now you claim to be psychic?

What pompousity!

PUH -LEEZE!

Join us in the light Q.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

What are you talking about?

When I went to school, I never once heard a physics or chemistry teacher mention God or Jesus or faith.

Q

LWW
01-10-2008, 09:37 AM
You claim to know what I believe?

LWW

LWW
01-10-2008, 09:38 AM
Out of curiousity Q, how do you believe the universe came to be?

Big bang?

Two mice?

A divine elephant?

LWW

Qtec
01-10-2008, 10:24 AM
The big bang seems most likely to me.

Science neither confirms or denies a Creator because a Creator has nothing to do with science.

Faith is the opposite of science.

Q

llotter
01-10-2008, 10:41 AM
You can talk about the 'mountians of evidence' till the cows come home but what evidence we can actually see, contradicts evolution, the way I see it. There is no fossil record of one species evolving into another. In fact the record seems to show just the opposite, the sudden appearence of a lot of life like dinosaurs and their sudden dissappearence with no sign of slow change over time. Then a new set of species appeared in short order, in geologic terms. This is not to deny changes within a species as opposed to changing from one species to another. How is this explained?

That DNA somehow supports evolutionary theory, I think just the opposite. The more complex a system is discovered to be, the less likely it is to come about through the random mutations that the 'theory' posits.

I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned 'brownshirts' and 'Stalin' in the same sentence but I presume the meaning was clear. You are in danger if you question the accepted 'truths' of the day. Global Warming 'theory' is working it way into the same sort of 'consensus' PC status that dares not be questioned. Both are highly questionable but thought police enforce some pretty strict conformity.

The reference to Rather was only using his statements about the guilt of GW even without evidence in his dealings with the National Guard.

LWW
01-10-2008, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The big bang seems most likely to me.

Science neither confirms or denies a Creator because a Creator has nothing to do with science.

Faith is the opposite of science.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
I believe in the BB as well.

Now:

-What banged? The BB calls for all matter to have sprang from the nothingness of a singularity into everything that ever was, is, or ever will be.

-What caused it to bang? According to the BB absolutely nothing within the physical universe caused it baecause the physical universe did not exist.

-When did it bang? A very interesting issue since the BB claims that before the BB neither time notr space existed.

-Where did it bang from? The BB claims that none of the dimensions of existence were there prior to the BB.

-Why did it bang if nothing physical existed to bang it and no space existed for it to bang from and no time existed for it to bang within.

To quote Brian Greene, a really good read with things like "THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE", what occured/existed/happened prior to the BB is not only unknown but by definition is forever unknowable.

Now, science is left with a definition that requires several unexplained and unexplainable miracles.

Please, don't try to argue otherwise unless you have the explanations.

I believe that something as elegant and precise and perfect as the universe we live in happened because it was made to happen.

LWW

eg8r
01-10-2008, 11:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The big bang seems most likely to me.
<hr /></blockquote> If you believe in the big bang, what do you believe created the intial matter or gases that blew up?

eg8r

S0Noma
01-10-2008, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> You can talk about the 'mountians of evidence' till the cows come home but what evidence we can actually see, contradicts evolution, the way I see it. There is no fossil record of one species evolving into another.

<font color="blue">That's not true. In fact there are many examples. Here's one of many well written articles on the subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html

Here's another:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html </font color>


In fact the record seems to show just the opposite, the sudden appearence of a lot of life like dinosaurs and their sudden dissappearence with no sign of slow change over time.

<font color="blue">Actually the fossil record doesn't support your opinion here. For example your use of the word 'sudden'. Yes, there are many examples of dinosaurs 'appearing and disappearing' but the time span for the appearance covers many millions of years and provides ample time for (again well documented) evolutionary change.

As to 'sudden disappearing'? There are geologic explanations like the cataclysms caused by massive volcanic eruptions or the fallout from the impact of a major meteorite. Even then we're probably not talking about the blink of an eye.

I'm not a geologist so I can't really give you too many particulars here but it is my understanding that over the billions of years since the earth was formed there has been ample time for climate changes and continental drift and meteorite impacts to effect life on this planet. </font color>

Then a new set of species appeared in short order, in geologic terms. This is not to deny changes within a species as opposed to changing from one species to another. How is this explained?

<font color="blue">I took the liberty of bolding the portion of your comment that I found most cogent because it highlights the ongoing conflict between scientific discoveries and religious interpretation.

Starting with well before Copernicus and moving forward, each time a new and testable scientific observation arises that appears to directly conflict with religious dogma we first find the dogmatists staunchly resisting and as time passes when confronted with accumulating irrefutable evidence, working hard to shoehorn the results of the discovery into their belief system in a way that makes it compatible with their beliefs.

Hence we have the acknowledgment from believers that there are changes within species (undeniable) combined with the adamant insistence that there are no transitional species. Why the adamant insistence? Because to acknowledge that there are indeed transitional species would mean recognizing that evolution is a fact and for some fundamentalist believers (Creationists?) evolution and religious dogma are in direct conflict with one another.
</font color>

That DNA somehow supports evolutionary theory, I think just the opposite. The more complex a system is discovered to be, the less likely it is to come about through the random mutations that the 'theory' posits.


<font color="blue">Once again the evidence doesn't support your assertion. DNA patterns across the board show similarities between all species. Here's a good source for you to take a look at when you have the time: </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="green">"Darwin was convinced that species evolve over time, through natural selection acting on inherited traits. But he had no idea how those traits arose or how they were passed from generation to generation.

When 20th century scientists discovered the role DNA plays in heredity, they founded a new science, called "genetics," that put Darwin's theory to the test.

Virtually every cell in every living thing contains chromosomes, which are made of densely packed strands of DNA that function as a blueprint of the individual organism's characteristics. During reproduction, chromosomes from each parent replicate and shuffle their parts to produce new chromosomes. Then, each parent passes chromosomes to offspring. But the process is imperfect. Along the way, DNA is subject to random mutations, or mistakes, giving each offspring its own unique blueprint. Sometimes this produces characteristics in offspring that are benign. Other times it produces harmful characteristics, like a misshapen wing. But occasionally, the process gives rise to a beneficial trait. For example, a butterfly whose coloration mimics another species of butterfly that tastes bad to birds.

About a hundred years after Darwin proposed that natural selection acts on new traits appearing in a population, genetics revealed the biological mechanism that gives rise to those traits in the first place.

And therefore you could say that when modern genetics came into being, everything in Darwin's theory was at risk, could have been overturned if it turned out to contradict the essential elements of evolutionary theory, but it didn't contradict them, it confirmed them in great detail."

(an example of this can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html)

</font color>

I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned 'brownshirts' and 'Stalin' in the same sentence but I presume the meaning was clear. You are in danger if you question the accepted 'truths' of the day. Global Warming 'theory' is working it way into the same sort of 'consensus' PC status that dares not be questioned. Both are highly questionable but thought police enforce some pretty strict conformity.

<font color="blue">Global warming, is another issue entirely. It has become politicized and my guess is that it's now being attacked largely from those on the right. Personally? I think it falls into a category much like gun control - people may recognize it as a problem and want to do something about it - but there may not be any simple solutions available to address their concerns. My bottom line is that IF it is happening AND we could be doing something to stop it or slow it down and we aren't? We are being irresponsible. If it turns out that there's nothing to be done yet we gave it our best shot? At least we didn't ignore it by pretending that it's not happening, hoping that it would go away. </font color>

The reference to Rather was only using his statements about the guilt of GW even without evidence in his dealings with the National Guard.

<font color="blue">Poor analogy actually - the evidence for evolution is vast, it continues to accumulate and as time passes it will only serve to fill out our understanding of how it works. Having said that, the difference between science and dogma is that (as in the above example of the challenge that the burgeoning field of genetics and DNA research represented to evolutionary theory) if something comes along that refutes evolution and convinces scientists otherwise? They will address it and change accordingly. Unlike religious dogma, when it comes to new discoveries, science is flexible - in fact that's the nature of the beast. </font color>

wolfdancer
01-10-2008, 01:42 PM
Sonoma, two well written replies to the usual "brownshirt Stalinists" charges, used to refute anything that goes against the "regime"(although I'd have rather you hadn't pointed out that you can't be both)
If Darwinism cannot be "proved" as is claimed....then it should be easy to disprove?

LWW
01-10-2008, 02:41 PM
Stalin was neither a brownshirt nor a conservative.

He was a big state socialist.

History. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

LWW

llotter
01-11-2008, 11:27 AM
What I am asking about the fossel record is, why isn't the fossil record just full of the transistion species? It would seem there should be at least as many transistion species if not many more. Instead, we have many examples of currently existing species that existed pretty much unchanged, like the cockroach that has remained unchanged for 100 million years or more. I think the shark falls into that catagory as well. Why aren't these species continuing to evolve. Have they reach some ideal form or what?

LWW
01-11-2008, 11:43 AM
I suspect it was trhe fault of the evil Bush.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 12:08 PM
actually, you might be the proof of evolution.....the missing link, so to speak...half man, half ass

Drop1
01-11-2008, 12:30 PM
Or could it be the other way around /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifhalf ass,half man?

llotter
01-11-2008, 08:15 PM
Quote:
Having said that, the difference between science and dogma is that (as in the above example of the challenge that the burgeoning field of genetics and DNA research represented to evolutionary theory) if something comes along that refutes evolution and convinces scientists otherwise? They will address it and change accordingly. Unlike religious dogma, when it comes to new discoveries, science is flexible - in fact that's the nature of the beast.

You talk as if 'science' is detached from the influence human weakness. I think civilization has more to fear from the notoriously amoral thinking of your esoteric scientist than anything Christian 'dogma' contributes. Global warming presents a good example; while there are hundreds of credible critics, there is apparently too much at stake to leave open the debate and therefore there is a high probability of spending trillions of dollars that may essentially be counter-productive. Another example is AIDS; there are hundreds of credible voices that say the HIV is not the cause of AIDS but tens of billions are being spent possibly pursuing the wrong solutions and costing millions on lives. Scientists are not immune from the same human falibilities as everyone else but they, however, want to lay claim to a certain purity, as you describe, that is beyong question.

Qtec
01-11-2008, 10:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The big bang seems most likely to me.
<hr /></blockquote> If you believe in the big bang, what do you believe created the intial matter or gases that blew up?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Nobody knows. What I do know is that the earth, compared to the universe is but a speck of dust.

Q

eg8r
01-11-2008, 10:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Nobody knows. <hr /></blockquote> I know and so does your local pastor. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
01-12-2008, 04:58 AM
Wolfie, I knew you couldn't live a non-troll existence.

Let me ask you something?

Did you buy or lease your bridge?

LWW

Drop1
01-12-2008, 01:16 PM
Once again Low Wage Worker,leaves us rolling on the floor,with a Mensa retort.

wolfdancer
01-12-2008, 01:30 PM
amazing, isn't it...for someone to be both uber-intelligent, and extremely witty?
I think he types out these "brilliant" replies,while sitting naked in front of a mirror...given the "self-love" that is so apparent in his posts (imo)

Drop1
01-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Careful,these posts could be seditious,after all,Low Wage Worker is a government unto himself;at least in his own mind.

S0Noma
01-13-2008, 12:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> What I am asking about the fossel record is, why isn't the fossil record just full of the transistion species? It would seem there should be at least as many transistion species if not many more. Instead, we have many examples of currently existing species that existed pretty much unchanged, like the cockroach that has remained unchanged for 100 million years or more. I think the shark falls into that catagory as well. Why aren't these species continuing to evolve. Have they reach some ideal form or what? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Please take a few minutes and read this:


Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html )</font color>

The broken link has been repaired - thanks for the heads up

Gayle in MD
01-13-2008, 01:30 PM
R,ichard,
I clicked on this link and got a 'Webpage Cannot Be Found' message.

Gayle

wolfdancer
01-13-2008, 01:46 PM
That is because you didn't have enough faith that the site would open.
Now scientifically the numbers are all wrong for the url...but that's where the blind faith comes into play

Gayle in MD
01-13-2008, 02:15 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I've always wondered...since they say their are no athiests in foxholes, if those who say that, actually found themselves bleeding to death in a foxhole, just enough strength to muster one good shout, would they call for the chaplain, or call for the medic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

S0Noma
01-13-2008, 03:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> R,ichard,
I clicked on this link and got a 'Webpage Cannot Be Found' message.

Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

fixed

llotter
01-13-2008, 08:48 PM
I read your link, thanks. It did however make me feel like a freshmen listening to the prof's first day lecture. The behaviorist courses always spent some time trying to convince everyone that these really are true sciences but I never quite bought into it. I was a bit more convinced by the rebutal that was linked on that site...did you puruse that? It is true that it is just easier to go along with the crowd but the crowd is often wrong.

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 09:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is true that it is just easier to go along with the crowd but the crowd is often wrong.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's an interesting comment for someone who believes in organized religion to make, since it is based on group think, and peer pressure, rather than the exercise of critical judgement.

Scientists perform actual experiments, and then share their proof. Quite a different process from orgainzed religion, which has not proof at all.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-14-2008, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It is true that it is just easier to go along with the crowd but the crowd is often wrong.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's an interesting comment for someone who believes in organized religion to make, since it is based on group think, and peer pressure, rather than the exercise of critical judgement.

Scientists perform actual experiments, and then share their proof. Quite a different process from orgainzed religion, which has not proof at all.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
So you definitely are in disagreement with Al and the Goremons then?

LWW

SKennedy
01-14-2008, 04:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I've always wondered...since they say their are no athiests in foxholes, if those who say that, actually found themselves bleeding to death in a foxhole, just enough strength to muster one good shout, would they call for the chaplain, or call for the medic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, it depends on how good the medic is. If it's a navy corpsman, then I'd call the corpsman. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

S0Noma
01-14-2008, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I've always wondered...since they say their are no athiests in foxholes, if those who say that, actually found themselves bleeding to death in a foxhole, just enough strength to muster one good shout, would they call for the chaplain, or call for the medic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, it depends on how good the medic is. If it's a navy corpsman, then I'd call the corpsman. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

My favorite BIL was a corpsman in Nam. He ended the war with three Bronze Stars and two Silver Stars and a handful of Purple Hearts - every year he gets a Xmas card from the White House personally signed by the President and First Lady. He's a real war hero and a true veteran - not one of those weekend warriors types you see in forums trying to use the fact that they 'served' as a dubious testament to their manhood.

The downside is that he and his comrades got liberally doused with Agent Orange while he was over there and he's been suffering from stomach cancer now for a few years. He's the sole survivor of his original outfit. All the others have long since died from unusual cases of cancer.

Sometimes you get can get killed by war long after you've finished your tour of duty in the combat zone.

Either way, John was a hell of medic and did more than his fair share of saving lives (as well as taking them) while he was in country. You could do worse in a time of need than to call on a man with his character and skills.

SKennedy
01-14-2008, 05:49 PM
I use to laugh at my stepfather when I was younger as he was a corpsman during the Korean war and could not handle the sight of blood (his or others) very well. I couldn't understand it. I also became a navy corpsman and served 3 years in the early 70's and later while going to college I would work emergency rooms on weekend nights (stabbings, gun shots, etc.). Now, I'm more like my stepfather as I get older. Now, the site of blood bothers me much more than it use too, and I can't believe the things I used to be able to do.
Sorry about your friend. War is an evil thing. It hurts/kills now and later....physically and mentally....to both sides. I was lucky as I did not go to Nam. I spent most of my time at the Philly Naval Hospital and worked on the amputee (leg) ward. That's about as far as one can get from Nam, but the ward was full of casualties from the war. There were many land mines, etc. I knew corpsmen assigned to marine groups and some were the only survivors of the medics assigned. At least someone finally learned to stop making medics wear the red cross helmets. Rules aren't always followed in war.
Please tell John thanks and God bless him.

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 07:49 PM
He sounds like quite a guy. I'm so sorry that he's still paying the price of war, in the service of our country. I, too, had many friends who were Veterans of Vietnam, and most are gone now, and did not live out their lives, due to cancer.

This war will leave us with many soldiers suffering from brain damage, and also many amputees. Such is war, and as with Vietnam, the reasons are often not good enough, in the long run, for so many, to pay so dearly.

Sorry about your friend.

Gayle in Md.

llotter
01-14-2008, 08:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It is true that it is just easier to go along with the crowd but the crowd is often wrong.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's an interesting comment for someone who believes in organized religion to make, since it is based on group think, and peer pressure, rather than the exercise of critical judgement.

Scientists perform actual experiments, and then share their proof. Quite a different process from orgainzed religion, which has not proof at all.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle, you misunderstand yet again but I will help you out. I am not anti-science at all but I am often skeptical of some of their verdicts, especially where they influence public policy. I am quite skeptical of religions influence on public policy but, as I've become more experienced, I've also become more understanding of the role religion (read, Judeo-Christian) plays in maintaining a free society.

It is apples and oranges to compare the function of sceince and that of religion. Religion deals with morality and the roots there go very, very deep and some of their early thinking has evolved over the centries but it is a serious subject to be taken seriously. Their rules of behavior shouldn't be challenged lightly by those who assume their ad hoc understanding is adequate for the greater society.

Gayle in MD
01-14-2008, 09:06 PM
Going along with the croud, is the center of organized religion, and its greatest tool, is the exclusion of all those who do not buy into whatever unproven religious philosophy, is being sold to the congregation, as fact, IOW peer pressure.

Science is a far cry from such tactics. A scientist tries to disprove his studies, as he/she experiments. His theories are then tested against the studies and resulting theories of other Scientists. The goal is not to lead others to any particular philosophy, but to learn.

Morality, is subjective. Morality is determined by the individual, not by organized religion. What is moral for some, is immoral for others, even among various religions.

Time, and location, also weigh into the scenario. What was moral in the fifteenth century, fro example, is not pertinent to the moral judgements of all societies, in all locations, at all times.

Circumstance factors into everything, along with fate. Organized Religion does not consider many of these factors. But, the process of agreement, or group think, is very necessary in order for it to survive. Science, OTOH, does not require group think at all.

LWW
01-15-2008, 05:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Going along with the croud, is the center of organized religion, and its greatest tool, is the exclusion of all those who do not buy into whatever unproven religious philosophy, is being sold to the congregation, as fact, IOW peer pressure.

Science is a far cry from such tactics. A scientist tries to disprove his studies, as he/she experiments. His theories are then tested against the studies and resulting theories of other Scientists. The goal is not to lead others to any particular philosophy, but to learn.<hr /></blockquote>
In spite of your lack of knowledge in the scientific principles, everything you have ever posted points to the idea that the Goremons shouldn't be listened to.

LWW