Tinkywinky
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 00:19 |
 
|
| Delta wrote: |
Everyone needs faith (ie something to believe in) at some point in their life.
Whether it's faith in knowing there is religion (whichever they follow), or faith that there isn't, and in knowing science works around us. |
Faith that there is religion, now that would be funny. "I don't believe you actually believe that hogwash no matter what you say!" |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 08:34 |
|
| El_Jairo wrote: | @monboesen: It does solve some important problems: like the lack of moral in science and the lack of logic in religion. As I see it, it is necessary to put both together to save humanity from itself.
|
the problem is religion cannot exist within the frame work of logic (it relies on faith, that's the point). The lack of morality in science has more to do with the lack of morality in scientists (and people in general), religion will not fix this (amoral "religious" people exist, therefore religion does not equal moral beings)
On a tangental note, it is possible to reject evolution (as it is postulated) and not be forced to embrace the, how shall I put this, ludicrous views of the average creationist.
And on a completely unrelated note: "all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in all his infinite noodly goodness" |
|
|
lord_real
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 08:52 |
|
A hardcore Darwinist should be able to use "But its called BLOOD bowl" as an argument.
A hardcore Creationist should be able to use "The randomness in the client is not random enough" as an argument.
I like pie! |
|
|
xlars
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 09:55 |
|
Imo the question is not which theory / believe is right. But as the intelligent design is a christian thing it should be taught somewhere other than in the science class, eg. Sunday school, (calling it intelligent design instead of creationism doesn't change a thing). The theory of evolution on the other hand is a science thing and should be taught in science classes.
-XL |
_________________
Smurf team in Stunty leeg! |
|
arv9673
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 09:57 |
|
ALL hail the luck meter!!! Some day it will go to 100% and we will be SAVED!!! |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 12:06 |
|
| Buur wrote: | @ Fama ....and that is why you cant argue with creationists.......
they are fundamentalists its all made by God and the world i 6000 years old....
I'm a biology student and we had a fair deal of evolution vs creationism debate and it all stranded in you cant argue with creationist, because it not science what they put forward so its a miss match of debating styles which cant talk wit each other....
and as a scientist its futile to try to talk to a creationist and trying to prove things the scientific way course they believe it to be how they know it is!
-Buur |
What about the Christians who believe the world wasnt made in 7 days, I think its an unfair generalisation you make there! I believe the world is old, and I accept macroevolution etc etc etc, I did Biology for a year in Uni and kind of got scared off by how "in to it" the students were!  , I dont claim to know all the ins and outs of genetics, nor am I a strong a Christian as I would like, so you guys would likely leave me dead in the water in an arguement such as this |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 12:14 |
|
anyway, im 100% happy with my own faith, and dont feel the need to argue or convert someone in an arguement... I mean, who am I to try to convert someone! I have enough trouble keeping myself on the straight and narrow!  What does sadden me is when (havent seen it in this thread) folks try to shatter my beliefs through science etc, and for what? To leave me devastated?  I respect atheistic and agnostic views, but sometimes my own dont!
Note this isnt aimed at anyone at all, just saying it as this topic of discussion can end up like this! |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 12:28 |
|
Hear hear!
Faith does not rest on world views or how we understand the earth and all life in it.
It's not THE question we Christians should focus ourselves on. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 12:47 |
|
My stance:
(1) Believe what you want, just don't call ID a theory or science. As soon as you start that, you are the one who mixes science and religion/faith - attacking science, and i will respond in kind - usually attacking your faith/scripture. |
|
|
Brad
Joined: May 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 13:19 |
|
| Gatts wrote: | | It's insulting to me as a scientist to have to answer the old, well what do you think about creationism questions evrytime someone wants to discuss life and evolution. Evolution makes attempts to explain, creationism does not. |
You find it insulting as a scientist, and yet worldwide over 60% of scientists (as of pre 2000 statistics - PM me if you want me to go raid my university textbooks - dont have time to this time of night), believe in a higher being of some desciprion. Now I'm not saying that they all believe in the Judeo/Christian God, nor that they all believe in Creationism, but if you find it insulting, then it is you that is alienating yourself from your fellow scientists - not the creationists. |
_________________
He who dies with the most toys.... Is still dead |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 13:23 |
|
@brovnrob i don't mention Christians.... i said creationist are fundamentalist.... and that faith and science don't speak same language, and there for have very little sense to tell each other....
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 13:37 |
|
Yeah, that article's got problems. I'm practically already what he wants people to become: a scientific, rational, psudeobuddhist who practices meditation. Yet, I can see his problems, like lots of people said already, he's basically saying, "Oh, follow my faith, because it's infinitely superior to ours." I just don't buy that.
Now, if anyone wants to argue evolution vs. creationism/Intelligent Design, I'm your man. I've been published in the Chicago Tribune on the subject 
One other major problem the guy has is that he says science is based on faith. But science is based on our observations of our world. If we can't trust what appears to us to be absolutely true, than there is nothing we can trust. Getting into philosophy, that's where human existance becomes meaningless/contradictory.
And by the way, didn't Terry Pratchett already explain the existence of the Duck-Billed Platypus? |
|
|
Brad
Joined: May 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 13:41 |
|
I actually find it interesting, not in the for or against, but in the argument itself. Nearly all fields of science postulate a theory, test the theory, show alternate proofs for why it <b>must</b> be so, and then using maths (the only purely objective language) and logic quantify why the results are valid. This then stands and must defend itself against attack, new insights, new ideas, and the mis or uninformed so that it can educate. In no other field of science are theories postulated and accepted due to lack of alternate hypothesis.
The theory of evolution stands apart from this, in that it cannot be mathematically quantified (and any attempts fall far short), and there are massive holes in the theory - that "we don't know all the answers yet" (Sounds very familiar to the charge leveled against Christians / Creationists). Yet the Theory of evolution still stands as Science's champion - not because of its infallability - as its not, nor its concrete proof - for there is none - but because of lack of acceptable alternative. For in accepting the alternative, creationism, one must accept a creator.
Another way of looking at this, is by noting the interest in the area. Nobody cares that there are 100+ proofs of Pythagoras' rule. Nobody cares that leading quantum scientists are still arguing over dark/grey/black/missing matter. Nobody ever starts massive debates upon the reliability of Hypercavitation as a weapon delivery platform, or wether unified field physics will lead to shield technology - because none of those things matter to the normal person. But creationism / evolution continues every generation - and we all have an opinion one way or another. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, we know that there is something slightly more important than our grade on our next science exam - that this may touch on a question that be dont really want an answer for.
Just my two cents. |
_________________
He who dies with the most toys.... Is still dead |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 13:43 |
|
| Brad wrote: | | Gatts wrote: | | It's insulting to me as a scientist to have to answer the old, well what do you think about creationism questions evrytime someone wants to discuss life and evolution. Evolution makes attempts to explain, creationism does not. |
You find it insulting as a scientist, and yet worldwide over 60% of scientists (as of pre 2000 statistics - PM me if you want me to go raid my university textbooks - dont have time to this time of night), believe in a higher being of some desciprion. Now I'm not saying that they all believe in the Judeo/Christian God, nor that they all believe in Creationism, but if you find it insulting, then it is you that is alienating yourself from your fellow scientists - not the creationists. |
That's two different things you are addressing, and they don't have to conflict.
1. Gatts is insulted by having to treat creationism as a valid theory every time someone wants to discuss life and evolution.
2. A lot of his peers believe in a higher being of some sort.
A belief in a higher being of some sort does not imply holding creationist views. I would dare say that creationists aren't all scientists, and most scientists aren't creationists. If you want to discuss life and evolution, but not talk about creationism (which is accepted by most scientists to be flawed), then that's perfectly normal. I don't see how that would somehow alienate other scientists. Rejecting creationism as a valid theory does not somehow condemn a fellow for being a practising buddhist, christian, jew, or muslim, does it?
It is the pretense of creationists to infringe on a field which biologists have worked really hard on, and the claim for equal status for a flawed theory time and again after it has been shown it's not worthy of further scientific enquiry, and the willful ignorance of creationists to scientific research, that is insulting to scientists; not just biologists but others, including me.
You only have to watch this show to see what I mean. These people are obviously very influential in their community, and I am concerned his attitude towards science might spread. |
|
|
Curro
Joined: Jun 07, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:06 |
|
I have faith in the Evolution. Not in what Darwin said, but real evolution, including genes and bla, bla, bla... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
