Looks like some creationists are still smarting from that Pennsylvania ruling that threw out creationism being taught as science in their public school system --- a ruling by a Christian judge who was appointed by Bush, by the way.
Sounds like the Scientist in your post are full of themselves....
here is a quote, By Albert Einstein..I dug it out of a old thread of mine.
quote by Albert as follows
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical.(inquisitive)
It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I dont agree with every quote!!sure is interesting material.
Sounds like the Scientist in your post are full of themselves....
Speaking of being full of themselves, how 'bout them religious leaders/organizations who resist scientific findings and theories & endeavor to browbeat (and persecute, if possible; remember the time over 200+ years ago, or even as recent as the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial. Who was full of themselves then?) those scientists, for nothing more than that those findings and theories dare contradict scriptures and orthodox doctrines, hmmm?
Besides, I'd like to see (y'know, as in proof?) where the scientific community, as a whole, are saying that they "don't need god anymore" because of said findings and theories. ... Or perhaps it's Yet Another Straw Man Argument used to oversimplify, to the extent of flawed reasoning, and dismiss that science that dares to come up with conclusions that differs from the Holy Writ.
Like I said, proof please, cuz I'm not one who will take it by faith. ;)
P.S., notice that never has Einstein referred to a god or gods in his statement about 'sensation of the mystical'. Here is another statement he made to clear up any supposed belief in god(s) that many people tried to attribute to him:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
P.S. Garth, not worth your time-- you won't believe it anyway :) (Not trying to be a smart alec here, and I don't plan on debating their thoughts with you, but other readers here may like the site)
This from the Answers in Genesis site, which alone illustrates why creationism should NOT be treated as an 'alternative science':
"Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse"
When that kind of standard is set, and that no findings shall question/cross it, whatsoever, contrary or otherwise, all objectivity and honest scrutiny and analysis is lost. ... Flushed down the tubes, no matter what kind of trappings of professionalism and academics surrounds it.
Nuff said! <_<
P.S., Hhmmmm, (after looking through more of the site) Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) qualifies him as an expert in the bilogical/evolutionary field compared to those who have far more training/experience, as well as an increasing truckload of evidence backing up evolution? :unsure: Couple that with his undying loyalty to defend the book of Genesis as THE authoritive source in these fields?
Just a few things to keep in mind as you folks peruse that site. I mean, we want to keep thinking for ourselves after learning our lesson as regards to TWI, don't we?
P.P.S., I wonder if he knows Kevin Hovind personally?
Science is essentially the recording of observations. If something hasn't been observed, then it's just a theory or hypothesis. Since no one has ever OBSERVED evolution or creation, then they are both theories. Science can't possibly prove or disprove either one.
The theory, I suppose, is that an orchid or downtown Manhattan is just what you'd expect if a large cloud of hydrogen gas was left unattended for a few trillion years.
Anyway, neither side can be proven scientifically.
So Garth...you say at the end of each and every one of your posts "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations".
Why do you accept that creation didn't happen as recorded in Genesis as "rational logic", when all you have is "blind faith" to support your view?
Ron, every sentence of your post is wrong. You'd do well to learn what science is and what theories and hypotheses are from actual scientists, rather than from religious people with a religious mission.
What LG said. When you can realize that, you'll have a better grasp as to what scientific hypothesis/theory _genuinely_ entails, rather than the near desperate attempt by certain creationists/fundamentalists to 'dumb down' those terms for their purposes.
You'd do well to learn what science is and what theories and hypotheses are from actual scientists, rather than from religious people with a religious mission.
Seems to me, they are *cut from the same cloth*. ;)
Nonsense. If you want to learn about something, you go to folks who know and will honestly give out the information. Ron apparently didn't. It's fine that you say "Just my IMO," which, btw, means "just my in my opinion," but if your opinion is not an informed opinion, I don't see how it does you or anyone else any good.
How is what I said wrong? I have no dog in this hunt and I certainly don't follow fundamentalist theology. All I'm saying is that neither side can speak with "absolute authority" without a heaping amount of faith and faith is all either side has to go on unless they actually witnessed the events involved.
One isolated crab incident doesn't prove OR disprove anything.
Garth, I think it takes a great deal of blind faith on your part to talk down to people the way you do, presuming anyone who doesn't share YOUR narrow view to be unlearned or ignorant.
My take is that the joke has a great punch line. Science offers nothing I know of about creation. They start with the big bang, (which I'm not sure is more than theory ... has that been "proven"?) so they really offer no challenge to "In the beginning God created". All science starts with already having the dirt (or at least the stuff that went bang).
Science also starts with life ... I don't know of any theory that explains how life started, except for lightning striking primordial soup. I've heard otherwise sane scientific minded people discuss human awareness as only a computer like series of electrical responses.
Sci fi seems to like to claim computers become alive when they become complex enough and programmed with emotion. But that is mostly silly sci fi, like "number 5 is alive". "The Terminator" seems to treat the computers (or the machines) as more inanimate and the humans as the living good guys. HAL in "2001" decided to protect his own existence ... then there was the big white room?
Science also starts with forces existing, no rhyme or reason as to why these forces exist. These are the things science measures, along with weights and lengths. So from those measurements it does seem there is evolution and no flood covering the earth 6000 years ago. But that is why seperating God as a creator of the dirt makes sense to me in the joke. (though I don't think man will ever make life even if he starts with dirt)
But if you didn't just laugh when you read "Get your own dirt", then there may be no hope for you.
I don’t want to pull this joke thread any further off course, Ron, but I’ll comment on three of your statements.
“Science is essentially the recording of observations.”
It’s much, much more than that.
“If something hasn't been observed, then it's just a theory or hypothesis.”
That’s horribly misleading. A theory does not indicate that something has not been observed. A theory is an explanation of things we observe (directly or indirectly) in nature.
“Since no one has ever OBSERVED evolution or creation, then they are both theories. Science can't possibly prove or disprove either one.”
Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. That’s just a fact. The theory is the explanation for the changes. The theory originally proposed by Darwin, as modified through the years, offers an excellent explanation, is the basis for reliable predictions, and is supported by voluminous evidence.
Last year I took a couple home lecture science courses from The Teaching Company. (Great place...for lifelong learners. They search US universities/colleges for professors that are PASSIONATE about their subjects. Not expensive either...if you buy their stuff on sale.)
My mind changed regarding the word "theory" and is as LG defines....its is not JUST a theory.
In watching one of these series (biology) I was trying to understand evoluntionist's reasons for believing in cross species evolution(correct me if I am wrong on that). I followed much of the logic/experiments that have been performed; they were fascinating and my kids and I had interesting discussions. The breakdown for me came with the jump that because a bird's wing is similar in shape to a man's arm structure (as well as other living creatures' structures), that that "proves" we all evolved into different species. At that point the theory crashed...for my logic. God can use the same structure for different stuff because it works well.
I also remember that the theory incorporated two theories for evolution. Again I don't recall the names of these theories (and am too lazy to look it up). One theory was that evolution can happen slowly over a long time and the other is that a jolt (so to speak) can cause evolution.
Another thought I had some 10 years ago when reading on this subject.....folks can have all the cross-species evolution they want in the first heaven and earth. We know nothing about it and in the last 6000 years, ain't no species crossed over. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
11
4
5
Popular Days
Aug 22
21
Aug 23
13
Aug 21
12
Aug 24
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Psalm 71 one 5 posts
GarthP2000 11 posts
Oakspear 4 posts
WhiteDove 5 posts
Popular Days
Aug 22 2006
21 posts
Aug 23 2006
13 posts
Aug 21 2006
12 posts
Aug 24 2006
4 posts
bliss
love it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
<_<
Looks like some creationists are still smarting from that Pennsylvania ruling that threw out creationism being taught as science in their public school system --- a ruling by a Christian judge who was appointed by Bush, by the way.
"Get your own science."
Yeah! ... I really do love it!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Sounds like the Scientist in your post are full of themselves....
here is a quote, By Albert Einstein..I dug it out of a old thread of mine.
quote by Albert as follows
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical.(inquisitive)
It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I dont agree with every quote!!sure is interesting material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I used to tell that joke.
I still think there are several funny parts to it.
"Get your own dirt" isn't one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
When man can *create* his own *dirt* --
I'll allow him/ her/ them/ bragging rights!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Besides, I'd like to see (y'know, as in proof?) where the scientific community, as a whole, are saying that they "don't need god anymore" because of said findings and theories. ... Or perhaps it's Yet Another Straw Man Argument used to oversimplify, to the extent of flawed reasoning, and dismiss that science that dares to come up with conclusions that differs from the Holy Writ.
Like I said, proof please, cuz I'm not one who will take it by faith. ;)
P.S., notice that never has Einstein referred to a god or gods in his statement about 'sensation of the mystical'. Here is another statement he made to clear up any supposed belief in god(s) that many people tried to attribute to him:
Oops! ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psalm 71 one
Have any of you ever been to Answers in Genesis? or heard any of Ken Ham's lectures? WHOA!!!
Check it out:
HERE
P.S. Garth, not worth your time-- you won't believe it anyway :) (Not trying to be a smart alec here, and I don't plan on debating their thoughts with you, but other readers here may like the site)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This from the Answers in Genesis site, which alone illustrates why creationism should NOT be treated as an 'alternative science':
"Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse"
When that kind of standard is set, and that no findings shall question/cross it, whatsoever, contrary or otherwise, all objectivity and honest scrutiny and analysis is lost. ... Flushed down the tubes, no matter what kind of trappings of professionalism and academics surrounds it.
Nuff said! <_<
P.S., Hhmmmm, (after looking through more of the site) Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) qualifies him as an expert in the bilogical/evolutionary field compared to those who have far more training/experience, as well as an increasing truckload of evidence backing up evolution? :unsure: Couple that with his undying loyalty to defend the book of Genesis as THE authoritive source in these fields?
Just a few things to keep in mind as you folks peruse that site. I mean, we want to keep thinking for ourselves after learning our lesson as regards to TWI, don't we?
P.P.S., I wonder if he knows Kevin Hovind personally?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Science vs. God. Nice concept. Reminds me of Bambi meets Godzilla. Great flick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Science is essentially the recording of observations. If something hasn't been observed, then it's just a theory or hypothesis. Since no one has ever OBSERVED evolution or creation, then they are both theories. Science can't possibly prove or disprove either one.
The theory, I suppose, is that an orchid or downtown Manhattan is just what you'd expect if a large cloud of hydrogen gas was left unattended for a few trillion years.
Anyway, neither side can be proven scientifically.
So Garth...you say at the end of each and every one of your posts "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations".
Why do you accept that creation didn't happen as recorded in Genesis as "rational logic", when all you have is "blind faith" to support your view?
Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Ron, every sentence of your post is wrong. You'd do well to learn what science is and what theories and hypotheses are from actual scientists, rather than from religious people with a religious mission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ron,
What LG said. When you can realize that, you'll have a better grasp as to what scientific hypothesis/theory _genuinely_ entails, rather than the near desperate attempt by certain creationists/fundamentalists to 'dumb down' those terms for their purposes.
'Blind faith', my assets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Seems to me, they are *cut from the same cloth*. ;)
(Just my IMO).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Who or what do you think are "cut from the same cloth?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Two folks,
two *agendas*,
two *spiels*,
one cloth. :)
again -- my imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Nonsense. If you want to learn about something, you go to folks who know and will honestly give out the information. Ron apparently didn't. It's fine that you say "Just my IMO," which, btw, means "just my in my opinion," but if your opinion is not an informed opinion, I don't see how it does you or anyone else any good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Funny story Ca Dreaming. Too bad other's can't just take it that way instead of being a$$holes about it.
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I beg to differ. Would this HERE, qualify?
(Hope I'm not being an a hole, Rick......
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sushi,
Nope! That's called "He shoots. ... He scores!"
Good article!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Garth was who I was speaking of mainly, since he was the one who felt it necessary to turn the thread the direction it went.
This is why I don't post much anymore. Too many jerks.
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
LG and Garth,
How is what I said wrong? I have no dog in this hunt and I certainly don't follow fundamentalist theology. All I'm saying is that neither side can speak with "absolute authority" without a heaping amount of faith and faith is all either side has to go on unless they actually witnessed the events involved.
One isolated crab incident doesn't prove OR disprove anything.
Garth, I think it takes a great deal of blind faith on your part to talk down to people the way you do, presuming anyone who doesn't share YOUR narrow view to be unlearned or ignorant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
My take is that the joke has a great punch line. Science offers nothing I know of about creation. They start with the big bang, (which I'm not sure is more than theory ... has that been "proven"?) so they really offer no challenge to "In the beginning God created". All science starts with already having the dirt (or at least the stuff that went bang).
Science also starts with life ... I don't know of any theory that explains how life started, except for lightning striking primordial soup. I've heard otherwise sane scientific minded people discuss human awareness as only a computer like series of electrical responses.
Sci fi seems to like to claim computers become alive when they become complex enough and programmed with emotion. But that is mostly silly sci fi, like "number 5 is alive". "The Terminator" seems to treat the computers (or the machines) as more inanimate and the humans as the living good guys. HAL in "2001" decided to protect his own existence ... then there was the big white room?
Science also starts with forces existing, no rhyme or reason as to why these forces exist. These are the things science measures, along with weights and lengths. So from those measurements it does seem there is evolution and no flood covering the earth 6000 years ago. But that is why seperating God as a creator of the dirt makes sense to me in the joke. (though I don't think man will ever make life even if he starts with dirt)
But if you didn't just laugh when you read "Get your own dirt", then there may be no hope for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don’t want to pull this joke thread any further off course, Ron, but I’ll comment on three of your statements.
“Science is essentially the recording of observations.”
It’s much, much more than that.
“If something hasn't been observed, then it's just a theory or hypothesis.”
That’s horribly misleading. A theory does not indicate that something has not been observed. A theory is an explanation of things we observe (directly or indirectly) in nature.
“Since no one has ever OBSERVED evolution or creation, then they are both theories. Science can't possibly prove or disprove either one.”
Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. That’s just a fact. The theory is the explanation for the changes. The theory originally proposed by Darwin, as modified through the years, offers an excellent explanation, is the basis for reliable predictions, and is supported by voluminous evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
I Love Bagpipes
I'm not a scientist, just a science dabbler.
Last year I took a couple home lecture science courses from The Teaching Company. (Great place...for lifelong learners. They search US universities/colleges for professors that are PASSIONATE about their subjects. Not expensive either...if you buy their stuff on sale.)
My mind changed regarding the word "theory" and is as LG defines....its is not JUST a theory.
In watching one of these series (biology) I was trying to understand evoluntionist's reasons for believing in cross species evolution(correct me if I am wrong on that). I followed much of the logic/experiments that have been performed; they were fascinating and my kids and I had interesting discussions. The breakdown for me came with the jump that because a bird's wing is similar in shape to a man's arm structure (as well as other living creatures' structures), that that "proves" we all evolved into different species. At that point the theory crashed...for my logic. God can use the same structure for different stuff because it works well.
I also remember that the theory incorporated two theories for evolution. Again I don't recall the names of these theories (and am too lazy to look it up). One theory was that evolution can happen slowly over a long time and the other is that a jolt (so to speak) can cause evolution.
Another thought I had some 10 years ago when reading on this subject.....folks can have all the cross-species evolution they want in the first heaven and earth. We know nothing about it and in the last 6000 years, ain't no species crossed over. :)
BTW:
Love the joke. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.