How we as humans came to be

[firstpusk 10]

Science is tentative the reliabilty of a theory is based on the same result being repeated by other researchers. The guys insisting on absolutes are on your side.

 

As for me not getting it, put down the rocks Quixote, thats a glass house you are in.

[Rooster7 11]

Science is tentative the reliability of a theory is based on the same result being repeated by other researchers. The guys insisting on absolutes are on your side.

 

OkayFirstpusk's definition of science sucked me back into this thing.

 

Science is tentative. In other words the scientists take it on faith (based on their interpretation of the data) that they know the truth unless or until someone can prove them wrong. Theoretically, this may serve the scientific community in their so-called quest for truth. However, it can hardly be stated that this process is fool proof. If science is not subject to human biases or failings, then it's the only area of life that humanity hasn't tainted. Now, using the scientific method, what is the probability of that being true? My point is, whether we're talking about science or religion, both are prone to corruption by human beings. Whether or not it is willful or not, is irrelevantbut both are subject to misinterpretation.

 

For those who believe in God, evolution may be a controversial and interesting topic, but it's not going to keep us up at night or change our worldview. It does not matter how much evidence is introduced to support or discredit it. In the grand scheme of things, it's a minor and inconsequential issue. God is not going to judge us based on our ability to interpret scientific data. On the other hand, one's relationship with God is worth exploring and contemplating. This truth is very consequential and will affect us for eternity.

 

I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic. If you're right, we'll never know it. If I'm right, you'll know all too well. If you haven't made any real attempt to find God, then you're making a horrible mistake. Try reading his Word and praying in earnest. If God doesn't exist, then he won't answer. That sounds pretty scientific to me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic. If you're right, we'll never know it.

 

Generally true, but not for all atheists; atheists are just people who don't believe in gods. Existence after death does not necessarily depend on gods. There are atheists in India who believe in reincarnation, for example, because that's a common belief there, and it doesn't require a god belief.

 

If I'm right, you'll know all too well.

 

And if the Jews are right, I'm obeying the 7 Noachide Laws (which the Jews consider binding on non-Jews), while Christians are breaking the law against idolatry.

 

And if the Muslims are right, we're both screwed.

 

And if the universalists are right, we're both OK.

 

Etc. etc.

 

If you haven't made any real attempt to find God, then you're making a horrible mistake.

 

I don't see any good reason to assume this, and no reason to conclude this; if Cthulu exists, it's much better not to attract its attention. Again, the outcome depends entirely on your initial assumptions, and there's no reason for me to pick YOUR particular assumptions.

[Quixote 10]

firstpusk,

 

Was not my intent to start throwing rocks - my response was relative to your misrepresenting my statment regarding scientific proof of theories that are eventually either discredited or at least modified to fit new data points.

 

YIS

Quixote

[le Voyageur 72]

For me, the concept of creationalism creates both a paradox, and a danger.

 

As a paradox, the concept requires that Christianity be an absolute truth. And as such, all other religions, and creation storys as an absolute false. Thus, Judism, the foundation of Christianity would be false, and if Judism is a false religion, then Christianity falls like a house of cards.

 

The danger is that this ideal places the human outside of the web of life; to rule and have dominion overall. As faithmongers, humans have a wrecthed history of stewardship not only of the general enviroment, but also over their own kind.

 

Tend to think that after spending the last 2,000 years going down this road, would be nice if we humans could find a better path....

[firstpusk 10]

Quixote,

 

When I refer to rock throwing, I am talking about your "didn't get it" comment. I read pretty well for comprehension and will wear your comment as an ironic badge of honor from now on.

 

Read the link about the flat earth. Even if you were right, a viewpoint that is more than 500 years old I would not call modern science.

 

If you could find me some astronomers around the time claiming the world is flat then your statement might on some level be considered accurate. Otherwise, and I will put this as nicely as I can, you are just shooting from the hip.

 

About Darwin, nearly a century and a half has gone by since the publication of his famous book. The research supports his central thesis more strongly today than ever. If you want to back away from the implication of your remark, that might be wise. But I have to ask, what is the point of making it in the first place?

[firstpusk 10]

"I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic."

 

Rooster7,

 

I take it that you will take back your statements about misrepresentation. I find it ironic that last week you were upset saying you did not question my faith and this week you imply I an atheist. But I suppose you will claim that you were just making a statement and not saying I am an atheist. It must be the easiest for you. Dismiss the argument and the person at the same time by making an assumption about my beliefs. After all, how can someone who accepts the validity of evolution also believe in God? You are pretty good at this kind of mean spirited back handed slap.

[firstpusk 10]

Rooster7,

 

Science is not fool-proof, however, it is self-correcting. In other words, I may publish results or conclusions that do not conform to reality. Other researchers read my paper and are free to use my methods to test both the results and the conclusions. Do some researchers take shortcuts? Yes, but in the long run, the problems with their work will be exposed by others that can not repeat their results.

 

It is just this kind of probing that Darwin's ideas have been exposed to for nearly a century and a half. As new methods of testing these ideas have been discovered, these new tests also conform to the concepts Darwin put down it the Origin of Species.

 

It is not just fossils. Evidence from geology, genetics and a growing number of biological specialties to name a few. The results from all of these areas conform with the theory of evolution. You want to reduce it to the notion that both creationism and evolution require faith, so I can choose what to believe. What ever you choose to believe is fine with me. If you want to talk about evolution, find out what it is about. There are plenty of good sources, even on the web.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

firstpusk,

 

I take it that you will take back your statements about misrepresentation. I find it ironic that last week you were upset saying you did not question my faith and this week you imply I an atheist. But I suppose you will claim that you were just making a statement and not saying I am an atheist.

 

Seenow that's clever. You take my position and discredit it before I can even reply. Well, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then so be it. Regardless, I had Merlyn and a couple of others in mind when I made my statement. If there has been a misrepresentation, it's been your portrayal of my intentions.

 

It must be the easiest for you. Dismiss the argument and the person at the same time by making an assumption about my beliefs. After all, how can someone who accepts the validity of evolution also believe in God? You are pretty good at this kind of mean spirited back handed slap.

 

And yet, somehow I feel like the one who is the victim of a mean spirited backhanded slap. How did that happen? Just consider the possibility that I didn't have you mind. Furthermore, keep reading my old posts over and over againperhaps, eventually you will understand these words -

 

I simply said, I would question the faith of someone who insisted on the validity of evolution, because they felt God's power has limits, and He was incapable of creating the world in seven days.

 

OkayNow, I am truly done. I think this thread has run its course. Neither one of us is going to change his mind. Amen. Peace.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk 10]

Rooster7,

 

I would even grant you that you were talking about someone else if you had not put that statement at the end your post responding to me. You respond to my arguments, add the little piece about atheists posting and now claim that you were not making the statement about me. You complain when I predict the position you will take, take that exact position and then claim you have been misrepresented.

 

Here is a little hint for you next time. You want to address a comment to or about someone else in a post responding to another, take the time to clearly identify who and what you are talking about.

 

You are claiming to be twice wronged, yet I addressed the issue that you originally complained about last week. You came back to address my post and added the little statement at the end. Sorry, I can't buy it. Especially when you add the little dig at me saying perhaps I will "...eventually understand these words.."

 

You don't know much about me and you don't know this subject. You have clearly established both points. On top of that, your complaints about being misrepresented are the tears of a crocodile.

[Rooster7 11]

firstpusk,

 

Your post reminds of a story. There's this very dangerous mountain road in Italy with all sorts of hairpin turns. It's a dirt road, very narrow, and intended for two-way traffic. There's barely enough room for two cars to pass one another. So there's a lot of frustration and anxiety for the drivers coming and going in both directions. As one gentleman approaches a curve nearing the top of the mountain, another gentleman driving downhill comes around the bend swerving to avoid the first. The driver going down the mountain shouts at the driver going up, "PIG! PIG! PIG!" The driver going up the mountain sticks his head out the window to return the insult, but before his words leave his mouth, he rounds the bend, and hits a pig. Obviously, you're convinced that I meant to include you. Unfortunately, sometimes things are not what they appear to be.

 

I am aware from your previous posts that you possess a belief in God. I never questioned your personal faith. My statement was addressed to those self-professed atheists that do post to this board. I didn't want to identify any one individual because it was for all of them. As for my original statement, I did not make a blanket statement that addressed all believers of evolution. I worded my statement so it could be understood that it was meant for those individuals that placed limits on God's capability.

 

Since we are no longer debating the issue, I suggest we end our debate (at least among ourselves). If you want to continue to portray me as you have, there's nothing I can about it. As for my "tears", I'm not that torn up about it. I'm just trying to set the record straight. But as was true for the original debate, this seems to be a futile exercise. My words are my own and there are here for everyone to read. I'll let others decide.

 

[Quixote 10]

Firstpusk,

 

Point taken and my appologies - after some reading it appears that you are correct concerning the "flat earth theory". However, my point is still valid concerning how scientific theories are constantly changing to fit new data points.

 

There are 7 planets, no, 9, no, more like 11 - ok, what's the definition of a planet? The sun revolves around the earth, no, it's the other way - See what i mean?

 

Can you not concede that scientific theories that are accepted as FACT are often times adjusted and in some cases discarded because of additional "discoveries"?

 

Q

[firstpusk 10]

Quixote,

 

Thanks for reading the link. I thought you would agree. I indicated earlier that scientific conclusions are tentative. They should be refined, changed or rejected as our understanding grows. That is the strength of science. As a system, it is self-correcting. If other researchers get different results, the conclusions are not supported and science moves on.

 

I know that this particular field is difficult for certain Christian denominations. This difficulty is far from universal and does not exist at all for those of my tradition.

[twin_wasp 10]

I find this fascinating, but confusing. I am Catholic, and neither me nor my church have any problems with evolution. God created the universe, and evolution appears to be the way the various living creatures developed.

 

The Bible is the inspired word of God, but that does not make it a scientific or historic authority, and does not require a literal interpretation.

 

Creationism (ie creation in six days a few thousand years ago)is a construct designed to defend the doctine that the Bible must be understood literally against overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is much older and that all species evolved from simpler forms.

 

As for the term "theory" - all generally accepted scientific beliefs are called theories. A theory is a model or description of what is going on that does a good job of explaining outcomes across a broad range of circumstances. Theories evolve and are eventually replaced by better theories. An unproven theory is called a hypothesis. "Proof" varies from one field to another, but mostly consists of studies or tests or analysis that attempts to prove that actually try to prove the theory wrong, and most advances in theory are very incremental.

 

Good theories also retain value under limited ranges of circumstances even when they are obsolete, Newtonian mechanics is the bedrock of civil engineering and architecture decades after quantum mechanics, because it offers more explanation of what is going on with the stresses in a bridge than you would ever learn from quantum mechanics.

 

twin_wasp

[littlebillie 10]

Leviticus...

 

..." 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

 

Since today's locusts, katydids, crickets and grasshoppers had 3 prs of legs, what do I conclude? Has evolution taken place? (The addition of legs, unlike a color shift, seems likely to require evolution.)

 

I'll assume that all other winged creatures with 4 legs have somehow become extict - I'm not aware of any today OR in the fossil record - but since it was God's words, there can have been no mistake or mis-speaking. Therefore, maybe we're left with evolution to account for this?

 

God has given us science and the ability to learn and the urge to expand our knowledge - as we learn more, so does He let us see more...