Oh, go evolve!

whaleb8 · Post by **whaleb8** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:08 pm

Everytime this comes up in a forum, eyes start to role . . . .
and well . . . .
many think everyone should just shut up.

In Today's paper . . . . Two separate Museums addressing
"Human Origins" were discussed.

One in New York using Science and its Method.

One in Toledo using the Bible and its "Righteousness" .

The sad thing is . . . .many . . .. most . . . . people don't understand
the difference and can't possibly see why its an "issue".

Its an issue mainly for that reason . . . .
Science is "different" from faith and magic . . .
AND
not knowing the difference is dangerous . . .
and Stupid . . . .!
AND NOT A POLITICAL WHIM ! ! !

But then again . . . many . . . . most . . . . people . . . .
"Believe" we have been or are . . .
being visited by ( outerspace) aliens .

Just ask Tom Cruise

http://blunderthink.blogspot.com/

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:01 pm

Both evolution and creationism are belief systems that require FAITH in order to believe in them. Both have significant gaps in what is observable, repeatable, and predictable in a laboratory setting, and those gaps have to be filled with FAITH that our standpoint is true.

Truth is. . . you and I weren't there to watch it happen, so we all have to fill the gaps in with a BELIEF of one sort or another. Through these glasses, we interpret the evidence we're given, through the lenses of our belief system.

Observe. . .watch the next posters on here to defend SCIENCE as superior to faith because it relies on empirical evidence and observation, which in the case of evolution, are lacking in several key areas. You will see in their words that science has been elevated in their minds to the place of a RELIGION beyond the pale of pure logic and reason; but science has not solved all the world's problems, any more than religion has.

Science is a religion that leaves us accountable to no one but ourselves, and justifies our cruelty, selfishness, pride, and arrogance. It is an easy religion to convert to, because there is really no conversion at all. Science must be believed in as a dogma, otherwise, we are all guilty of the most serious of corruptions for which therre is little grace.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:09 pm

I think you're all missing the point.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. It doesn't even need to address origins to be a valid theory. Take a minute and read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and you will quickly understand that evolution is about how new species come into being from existing ones. The primary theory of evolution doesn't give one rat's ass about how life started, merely that it's been changing in response to stimuli since that start.

There, technically, is no Creationism v. Evolution debate because they don't even address the same things.

@ the cat symbol thing: following that line of logic (and this is one I agree with) EVERYTHING is based on faith. We have NO irrefutable evidence to ANYTHING. Math, biology, chemistry, spirituality, faith, religion, time, and even existence itself is ALL speculative and fallible because they are all manmade.

whaleb8 · Post by **whaleb8** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:29 pm

Garr wrote:I think you're all missing the point.

.

I still think the POINT is . . . .
Science and Religion are two different forms of interpreting the
universe, world and its creatures and . . . . are based on entirely
different rationale and . . .
are . . . . or should not be in competition.

When there are gaps in a scientific theory or pursuit . . .
scientists do not immediately assign paranormal answers . . .
from a theology book. . . . to fill them.

Theologists do.

And most people confuse, ignore or don't care to acknowledge . . . .
and ultimately . . . can never utilize . . . the difference.

http://blunderthink.blogspot.com/

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:35 pm

Agreed. I was answering the previous post. Science can often degrade into a irrational religion.

Natural selection = observable, somewhat reproducable phenomina. Just look at the wealth of genetic material in wolves that can create a pug or a chihuahua, for god sakes (in less than 10,000 years).

Nothing is provable, even my own existence? Yeah, that is Syllopsism (sp?) Without which, we couldn't enjoy the MatrixTrilogy!

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:40 pm

whaleb8 wrote:
Garr wrote:I think you're all missing the point.

.

When there are gaps in a scientific theory or pursuit . . .
scientists do not immediately assign paranormal answers . . .
from a theology book. . . . to fill them.

Bzzzt, wrong answer

Fill those gaps they do, often with wild speculation and pure whimsy from somewhere deep within their mind and their own prejudices, from the same places they would claim a person of faith would find their answers - sounds like FAITH to me!

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:57 pm

=^-..-^= wrote: Bzzzt, wrong answer

Fill those gaps they do, often with wild speculation and pure whimsy from somewhere deep within their mind and their own prejudices, from the same places they would claim a person of faith would find their answers - sounds like FAITH to me!

That might be...to some extent. But let's look at the content.

Side A says the Dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet (possibly 2) because of a giant freakin' crater they found with elements rarely found here on earth, and normally associated with a comet.

Side B says there was a global flood and the dinosaurs died. But two of every animal -sans the unicorns and dinosaurs - were on an ark built by a geriatric.

Side A (Darwin) predicted that fossils would be found containing evidence of Natural Selection and Evolution of life on earth. We found them, and keep finding them, and finding them, and finding them, and finding them...with no continuity error, and no rabbits that lived 70 million years ago.

Side B says that "BAM!" it's all here. Those fossils are all fake! Dinosaurs were as small as dogs! God put those fossils here to test our faith!

The list goes on and on...

Forget everything you learned as a child. Remember you also believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and remember why those characters were used in your life as a child. Now think of why you no longer believe in them. Then let your mind go from all the BS that has been ingrained in your head, pick up a Richard Dawkins book and realize that we've all made mistakes and have been wrong in the past...but it's OK to admit that and grow as a human.

whaleb8 · Post by **whaleb8** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:05 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:
Bzzzt, wrong answer

Fill those gaps they do, often with wild speculation and pure whimsy from somewhere deep within their mind and their own prejudices, from the same places they would claim a person of faith would find their answers - sounds like FAITH to me!

Damn . . .
Hope that Atlas guy never steps on a star or stumbles
and drops the earth . . .
It'd be the end of us all

Where's the hair pulling out emoticon ?

I now Believe Anna Nicole's baby was an immaculate conception . . . perhaps by the anti-christ . . . a vastly more pertinent and
fruitful discussion

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:43 pm

Dark matter. The Jesus of Science.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:12 pm

Garr wrote:Dark matter. The Jesus of Science.

***This isn't an attack, just an observation on that idea.

That's true. But...millions of people haven't died in the name of Dark Matter. Anti-Dark Matter folks don't kill Dark matter scientists. Dark Matter is not causing me to waste my time until I die for a better life. Dark matter doesn't get me out of bed on a Sunday morning. Dark Matter isn't dangerous to anyone, and by critiquing it in the first place, we've made practical steps towards understanding whatever phenomenon may lay in that same place.

The point of science - good science that is - is to admit when you're wrong. It's very damn hard for a good scientist to admit when he is wrong. But scientists have been for years. If they hadn't, and all they had was "faith", we would be nowhere in the field.

Read this article by Dawkins on Science and "Faith":

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/art ... wkins.html

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:06 pm

Morph. . .I wasn't really staking a claim one way or the other on that issue. You're not going to get a lot of arguments from me in the arena of being against organized religion. I share the belief with Eddie Izzard that all religions are not religions, but philosophies. . .and that helps me deal with the ridiculous claims they all seem to make.

echosauce1 · Post by **echosauce1** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:39 am

I edited this before I even posted (read erased several paragraphs). This topic brought up one of my BIGGEST soap boxes but I realized after a few brews I could not coherently say what I really wanted to at this time so I'll leave it at this and try to fill it in later.

Science and religion do NOT have to refute each other. Each side could step back a bit, get over their pride, human interpratation and maybe find a common ground.

To quote Mulder, "the truth is out there". Get over your blinded beliefs on both sides and see how things fit together.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:01 am

echosauce1 wrote:I edited this before I even posted (read erased several paragraphs). This topic brought up one of my BIGGEST soap boxes but I realized after a few brews I could not coherently say what I really wanted to at this time so I'll leave it at this and try to fill it in later.

Science and religion do NOT have to refute each other. Each side could step back a bit, get over their pride, human interpratation and maybe find a common ground.

To quote Mulder, "the truth is out there". Get over your blinded beliefs on both sides and see how things fit together.

Well said.

zenmandan · Post by **zenmandan** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:25 pm

"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."
"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description"

Albert Einstein