Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 01:07am PT
|
BTW - you're selectively quoting again. you left out "as obtained and tested through scientific method" in your definition.
EDIT: Just to answer Jody below (Dave, you are wrong. Get a copy of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language and look at definition number 1. I quoted every word. The other definitions deal with systematic gathering of knowledge.) and avoid further polluting this thread.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2004 - 01:35am PT
|
I think Darwin did believe in "the Creator", but was not a Christian, the two things are not mutually exclusive. I quoted Darwin from the first edition of "Origin" above... in two places.
There are many religious people for whom evolution is totally compatable with their beliefs. Theistic evolution...
There are many biologists and scientists who accept evolution as the explanation of life on earth who do not find it at odds with their religious beliefs.
The position that evolution is incompatable with Christianity is specific to only a few sects of the Christian thought. It is a matter of personal choice which of the many sects provide a particular individual with what they need from their beliefs. Many Christians do not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible...
But all this talk is about religious belief. One can take the point of view that the Bible is the literal truth and that anything which contradicts it must be incorrect. I suppose that taken literally, the biblical story of genesis would contradict evolution. But then the arguement would be one of faith, not science, which has the greater authority? Are the two compatable? No, science recognizes the authority of nature alone. The Bible cannot be proved or disproved, no one alive today observed the scenes described in the Bible, so one has their faith alone to guide them in choosing what to believe.
I have no problem with people being straight and stating their beliefs. I respect one's freedom to choose to practice any religion. I firmly believe that state should be separated from church, it is an important founding idea of our country.
I take deep offense at some one enforcing a particular dogma and defining it as science. Biologist who accept evolution and use it to help them achieve deeper insight in biology have not choosen to do that as some insidious plot to dupe the general public. They study biology because of their profound curiousity of how life on earth works, which is intimately tied up with life's origins and evolution. They are scientists first and foremost. Science is not an easy occupation, I have great respect for those who do it well. I do not know a single scientist who is a creationist or a believer in intelligent design (I did look through the list Jody provide elsewhere but found no one I know there), and I know a lot of scientists.
Simply put, science does not support the literal interpretation of the Bible. If you interpret this as a test of faith that's your business. You can reject science as an objective world view and relegate it to a religion, then choose not to believe it's precepts, fine by me. But to claim creationism, or intelligent design as science is ridiculous on the face of it. To misunderstand and misuse the scientific method and misrepresent the body of fact which can systematically explain biology for the purpose of proving a religious point of view, rather then learning about nature with an open mind, that is self deception. To promulgate that view and willfully ignore any evidence which would support a contrary conclusion is religious zealotry.
For me to engage in this discussion on a web forum at SuperTopo is gross stupidity (on my part). Anachronism was wise in the second post, I bow to his good judgment.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 01:33pm PT
|
nice conclusions ed.
arguments against evolution from a creationist standpoint would be so much more interesting if they were at least honest. not unlike jody on these threads, all the creationists i have encountered tend to cherrypick their attacks and then crack jokes about sludge...
the fact is that "creationism" would not conflict w/ "evolution" if the bible's own creation myths didn't conflict w/ what people are able to observe. the only question is the level of conflict, and that depends upon the level of literal interpretation by an individual (unless i am missing something, if so i beg that you enlighten me!).
"how can *RANDOM MUTATIONS* lead to intelligent life & opposable thumbs? in the end, they say it all comes down to the vast improbability of it all, and it cannot be random, because then it would not have been predetermined by a higher power."
what is missing from that point of view, in my opinion, is the vastness of opportunity over time. it also seems improbable that zion formed as portions of a pleistocene lake bed were forced upward, and the virgin river cut through it like hot a knife through butter, but there it is, clear as mud, see for yourself.
to those of you who are tired of the discussion, i feel your pain, there has been no dicussion. i will make a last ditch effort to remedy that, if it fails (and i expect it to), then i to will let it go.
jody-
where your arguments (and i use that term loosely in this case) annoy me most is this unwillingness to define your own frame of reference.
i will stop making fun of you and try not to be a dickhead or challenge your manhood if you will honestly respond to valid questions and engage in a discussion.
so far you have failed to respond to some pretty major inconsistencies.
i expect that to continue.
prove me wrong.
where does the age of the earth fit into your objections?
if speciation itself cannot happen, does that mean it has never happened?
ever?
so did the creator specially create every variation that exists, or has divergence occurred, just not to the level of speciation?
and by what biological process does "mico-evolution" occur?
and over what time frame do you accept that process as having occurred?
what would you accept as a definition for "speciation"?
(i.e. specifically, what is it that does NOT happen?)
what other scientific theories do you reject in tandem w/ evolution?
you say you enjoyed plate tectonics, sohave you read the "geology is fun" thread?
were south america and africa once connected?
do you think the dinosaurs died in a mass extinction?
were there mammals back when there were dinosaurs?
were there dinosaurs?
do you believe the cambrian explosion is a fallacy?
were mammals and flowering plants always present, from the time of "creation"?
(because they are clearly distinct, and some would even say "more advanced" from other more "primitive", less complex forms of life that "scientists" say lived on earth "earlier", and so they either 1)were always present, 2)they were created at a later point, or 3)they evolved into an available niche... which is it?)
how about astronomy-
do black holes exist?
the light that we see from stars that are described as "...light years away", does that in fact indicate that those stars, and therefore the universe, are at least that old?
could the big bang have really been the start of the whole show? maybe that was the point of creation? (but be careful, we might have to begin to agree on something!)
|
|
Satan
Social climber
South Central LA ( HELL )
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 01:42pm PT
|
"how can *RANDOM MUTATIONS* lead to intelligent life" -
This is a question many of us have been asking ourselves ever since Al Gore raised his ugly head!
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 03:58pm PT
|
"BTW - you're selectively quoting again. you left out "as obtained and tested through scientific method" in your definition."
Dave, you are wrong. Get a copy of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language and look at definition number 1. I quoted every word. The other definitions deal with systematic gathering of knowledge. There is nothing systematic about evolution...it is random choice, remember?
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 04:18pm PT
|
"Biologist who accept evolution and use it to help them achieve deeper insight in biology have not choosen to do that as some insidious plot to dupe the general public."
Ed, shouldn't they be willing to accept what the actual evidence shows? They should not believe in an end and then go about searching for a means.
As far as "theistic" evolution goes...why would God design and create the universe with obvious purpose, and then leave it to its own devices by having it randomly evolve and choose its own path? I can't help it if some Christians are misguided. Theistic evolution is encouraged by evolutionists because it enables them to bring more people into their fold by virtue of not requiring them to disavow God altogether.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 05:03pm PT
|
you dig more holes than you fill...
"Ed, shouldn't they be willing to accept what the actual evidence shows? They should not believe in an end and then go about searching for a means."
what is so very funny about that quote is that you are not talking about creationists when you say that...
"As far as "theistic" evolution goes...why would God design and create the universe with obvious purpose, and then leave it to its own devices by having it randomly evolve and choose its own path?"
the purpose is "OBVIOUS"?
and you are so familiar w/ god that you understand her ways?
i thought they were supposed to be mysterious n-stuff...
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 05:09pm PT
|
"random choice"? isn't that something of a paradox?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 25, 2004 - 05:36pm PT
|
Jody,
Your use the same logic as those you criticize.
You quote and state just above, “BIOLOGIST WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND USE IT TO HELP THEM ACHIEVE DEEPER INSIGHT IN BIOLOGY HAVE NOT CHOOSEN [SIC] TO DO THAT AS SOME INSIDIOUS PLOT TO DUPE THE GENERAL PUBLIC."
ED, SHOULDN'T THEY BE WILLING TO ACCEPT WHAT THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE SHOWS? THEY SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN AN END AND THEN GO ABOUT SEARCHING FOR A MEANS.”
You rightfully demand evidence for the foundation upon which evolutionists/scientists base their evidence. Perhaps
However, the religious do the same in accepting certain tenets without evidence. You continue to use the same faulty logic that you criticize when you question: “…WHY WOULD GOD DESIGN AND CREATE THE UNIVERSE WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE, AND THEN LEAVE IT TO ITS OWN DEVICES BY HAVING IT RANDOMLY EVOLVE AND CHOOSE ITS OWN PATH?”
Since the existence of God is the basis and foundation to your argument, your question is based on the assumption that there is a God. Show and cite for us the incontrovertible concrete and incontestable evidence that God exists. Prove to us that God exists. You have asked for such detail from the evolutionist proponents, you should provide the same quality and quantity of evidence that you yourself demand.
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2004 - 08:29pm PT
|
"Theistic evolution is encouraged by evolutionists because it enables them to bring more people into their fold by virtue of not requiring them to disavow God altogether."
Bingo. Evolution is an alternative sect that draws warm bodies out of the churches where they should be paying tithes. Ka-ching!
I'm rather interested in this thread. And I respect what Jody believes even if I don't agree personally. What annoys me is that I sense a little nutshell game going on; the scientists are landing solid arguments which either sit unanswered or are misunderstood.
Dave has called Jody an idiot a couple times but in an impersonal, clinical way. It's not intended as insult, just an assessment of a confused, overwhelmed individual who doesn't even see he's being whupped.
There's got to be somebody out there who agrees with Jody. Chime in! The evil evolutionists are dominating.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004 - 12:13am PT
|
Well Yo
I agree with Jody. He's getting creamed at the plate by all these beanballs thrown at him. I know God exists. I know he is the ultimate creater of the Universe. I don't have any fancy words or fancy scientific stuff to give you except what I learned from the Vedas. You'll have to study them and make up your own conclusion. You can throw beanballs at me too....it won't change anything.
Werner
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004 - 01:22am PT
|
Werner, I have a deep respect for you and your beliefs. I do of Jody's beliefs also. But unlike Jody, you are not the one posting that your beliefs are "science", while what is currently known as "science" is a fraud.
Why must we interpret a bible story as absolute fact, then bend all that we know to try to justify that story as scientificly provable. Isn't it enough to have faith, to believe, and to find an inner truth? I have read the bible, the vedas, the tao, and other eastern and western philosophy. I consider this as a gift, the gift to have a "conversation" with wise people, over the time span of written history. There is not much that is mystical that I consider to be literal truth, but there is often great wisdom in the telling of the tales. I have been in the mountains where few people have ever been and taken in the wonderment. I have sailed on the ocean in a small boat far from land, vast and hostile. I have experienced very spirtual feelings while in nature, I have been scared out of my wits and feeling small in an infinite universe... wondering what it all means and if I would get out alive. These are personal things to me, I don't need to force you to believe me, I don't need to convert you to my way of thinking or insist that it is the one and only true way. I will tell you if you're f*#king up on the mountain if we are together... I will tell you if you're f*#king up intellectually, at least as far as I believe my experience can help. You don't have to take my advice in either case, I'm not out to prove anything, I'm just trying to help out with a reality check.
I am hoping to throw strikes over the plate, maybe Jody can ride one out of the park.... but I'm not throwing bean balls. I have no problem with Jody's beliefs, but his arguements are disingenuous. There is no need to force scientific agreement with the literal interpretation of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is literally true what more do you need?
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004 - 01:28am PT
|
I respect that, too. Very much. I'm undecided on it. I've had some weird incidents in my life that I can't explain, but watching all the suffering out there makes me wonder if we aren't alone.
But this is the point. According to Jody, if I choose to believe in a creator, evolution must be a fallacy. Which is dumb. There's not even a contradiction.
Things evolve, and no amount of brainwashing's gonna make it otherwise.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004 - 02:00am PT
|
Jody,
"Ed, shouldn't they be willing to accept what the actual evidence shows? They should not believe in an end and then go about searching for a means. "
They do, and by the way, I am one of the "they"s... I am a scientist, and I have no problem with evolution, it is scientific truth. If anything, your instance that the only "true" scientific fact is one that contradicts evolution or supports creationism is exactly what you seem to be objecting to in your statement above.
"As far as "theistic" evolution goes...why would God design and create the universe with obvious purpose, and then leave it to its own devices by having it randomly evolve and choose its own path? I can't help it if some Christians are misguided. Theistic evolution is encouraged by evolutionists because it enables them to bring more people into their fold by virtue of not requiring them to disavow God altogether."
I don't have the slightest idea why "God" would do anything... and I wouldn't presume to interpret the imperfect evidence of "God's intent" as to what purpose this all has. Religion is about interpreting our experience in the context of a supernatural presence, the Creator, the Designer, God. As I stated before, I am just a scientist, a physicist, and I concern myself with what is natural, not supernatural. In my understanding of the universe, there is no need to invoke the supernatural... the universe is a wonder, but for me all the more wonderful in the fact that nothing more then the universe is needed. But that is what I believe, you are welcome to your own beliefs, as are we all, at least as long as the Constitution is upheld.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004 - 02:02am PT
|
Ed, you are a very wise man. I'm not joking either. Yo, yes I agree things evolve either up or down. I do hope Jody gets something positive out of all this.
Werner
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 26, 2004 - 09:51pm PT
|
"He's getting creamed at the plate by all these beanballs thrown at him. I know God exists. I know he is the ultimate creater of the Universe. I don't have any fancy words or fancy scientific stuff to give you except what I learned from the Vedas. You'll have to study them and make up your own conclusion. You can throw beanballs at me too....it won't change anything."
Very wise Werner, I just disagree that I am getting creamed. I have brought forth a lot of questions that aren't being answered either. I am only getting "creamed" because I am outnumbered.
I haven't even started yet!LOL! BTW, The fact that the evolutionists can't see how absolutely ridiculous them trusting in a theory whose foundatin rests on "Given enough time, anything can evolve" is just frustrating.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 26, 2004 - 09:55pm PT
|
I think this answers my last question, even when faced with overwhelming odds against their theory having taken place, they STILL choose not to believe in Creation because they don't want to.
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God...there is no other possibility.
Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
George Wald, "Origin, Life, and Evolution,"
Scientific American(1978),
Professor emeritus of Biology at Harvard and the
Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Bumped, so all the RC.com folks can have the pleasure of ruminating/regurgitating over this.
I am a sick, sick puppy.
|
|
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
FFS, dirtbag.....ugh
"I think this answers my last question, even when faced with overwhelming odds against their theory having taken place, they STILL choose not to believe in Creation because they don't want to"
You really want us to cope with this kind of asymetrical logic again?
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
I believe the basic gist is "the theory of evolution keeps getting changed in small ways and some people 30 years ago pointed out these flaws in it, therefore it can't be true; And furthermore that proves that creation must be the answer."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!