 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5909
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| eleven wrote: | | But where did LIFE come from in order to develop these things? Once it is established, yes, then it can evolve and change, but what was the original "proper setup"? That's my question. |
There are a variety of explanations with potential. Would you like to do some reading?
| eleven wrote: | | You guys??? What guys?? |
Evolution deniers.
| eleven wrote: | | Nobody (well at least I'll speak for myself here) is trying to destroy anything. |
"Dismiss," not destroy. Rejecting evolution outright because it doesn't fit your standards.
| eleven wrote: | | There's no need to, because ultimately truth will reveal itself. |
In regards to science, only if more research is done. And evolution deniers would have the research stop.
| eleven wrote: | | The difference is looking at an attractive naked woman entails dealing with something tangible. Spirituality is not biological, yet show up biologically in the brain. |
Would you argue that the act of praying is not biological?
| eleven wrote: | | No argument there, but I don't understand your point. Consider the enormity of individuality. |
What?
| eleven wrote: | | But even that is a best guess deal. There is not enough correlation to date accurately. |
For certain specific events, there certainly is.
| eleven wrote: | | Now you just got done telling me that we guys have a problem because we don't look at both sides and we try to destroy evolution theory. |
What? No I didn't. The problem is when you focus on the lesser-developed portions of the theory and ignore the well-developed portions. I'm not asking at you to look at both sides, I'm asking you to be rational.
| eleven wrote: | | I bow to a mind greater than Einstein.......... |
Well, oops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
eleven
Lion King
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1396
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT wrote:
| Quote: |
There are a variety of explanations with potential. |
Yes, and creation would be one of those.
eleven wrote:
You guys??? What guys??
| Quote: |
Evolution deniers. |
eleven wrote:
Nobody (well at least I'll speak for myself here) is trying to destroy anything.
| Quote: |
"Dismiss," not destroy. Rejecting evolution outright because it doesn't fit your standards. |
Speaking of reading things, did you take the time to read what I wrote? (and BTW, I loved the italics in your above comment). I was the one that started this discussion by saying, you can't have one without the other (creation and evolution). You keep insisting that I am dismissing what you are saying. Ok, let's go back and quote YOU again.
eleven wrote:
I think Einstein said it best:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Good! So apparently you, me and Einstein are in agreement.
| Quote: |
FFT
Well, no, I think science without religion is perfectly fine. |
So tell me. who is dismissing whom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5909
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | | Yes, and creation would be one of those. |
Creation isn't an explanation, it's the lack of an explanation. "Creation" just brings more things into question; who or what did the creating? Why? On what grounds do we test whether this happened? What reasons do we have for accepting this idea? Where are they from? Is any of this scientific?
| eleven wrote: | | Nobody (well at least I'll speak for myself here) is trying to destroy anything. |
You may not be (or at least I'll accept that you don't believe you are) but I assure you, that's the end goal here. Stop scientific progress in areas that religion isn't comfortable with.
It's the reason Islamic nations aren't way ahead of us. When Christian regions were going through the Dark Ages, Islamic regions went through their Golden Age. They'd kept copies of all the now-Ancient Greek philosophers' works and improved upon them. But then their pre-scientists starting messing around with what religious leaders thought was inappropriate and instead of an enlightenment it just all got stamped out.
And that's what's going to happen if creationists get their way. No, perhaps not all of it, but biology at the very least.
| eleven wrote: | | Speaking of reading things, did you take the time to read what I wrote? |
Well, yes.
| eleven wrote: | | I was the one that started this discussion by saying, you can't have one without the other (creation and evolution). |
Which, current science seems to demonstrate, is incorrect except for exceedingly broad definitions of "creation."
| eleven wrote: | | You keep insisting that I am dismissing what you are saying. |
Hey, whenever you want to discuss the actual evidence for evolution instead of glaring at the underdeveloped portions of the theory, I'll take it back.
| eleven wrote: | | So tell me. who is dismissing whom? |
Science without religion is perfectly fine. Religion and science only cooperate when neither is treading on what the other considers its territory. When you get scientific arguments about how certain happenings in the Bible are impossible or scientific explanations of origins which directly contradict religious explanations, there is a problem. When the religious try to claim things like "anything can happen if you pray for it" science steps in and goes "okay, let's put it to a test. You guys pray for these guys, and these others won't have anyone praying for them. Oh look, not only does it not look like praying had any positive effect but it actually appeared to have a negative effect!"
And Einstein wasn't religious in the sense you probably mean. Religion, to Einstein, was more a wonderment at the universe and not at all about a personal God.
Let's actually look at Einstein's statement in context, shall we?
| Albert Einstein wrote: | | Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. |
Einstein is basically claiming not that science and religion depend on each other, but that the only way for a person (scientist) to have a scientific drive is through religion, which is conclusively false. A startling majority of scientists today are atheists (as of 1998, approximately 94.5% of the biologists in the NAS), and there is a positive correlation between education and atheism. I'm even a personal example, I have an extreme inquisitive streak, and it's more because I am an atheist than anything. When I believed, I was content to stop thinking about things if I got an answer. Now, a simple answer is hardly ever enough.
Still think I'm just dismissing what you say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
 ...einstein called fft a poser...
| al wrote: | | I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5909
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."
Well I mean I guess I sort of have faith in this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
Lion King
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1396
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FFT wrote:
| Quote: |
When the religious try to claim things like "anything can happen if you pray for it" science steps in and goes "okay, let's put it to a test. You guys pray for these guys, and these others won't have anyone praying for them. Oh look, not only does it not look like praying had any positive effect but it actually appeared to have a negative effect!" |
I love this agrument, I truly do!
I don't understand why this concept is so foreign to scientists. When are you going to learn that God will never allow you to put Him in a test tube!!! Do you understand that YOU cannot create your Creator???
You cannot define God scientifically because you are using the WRONG format. Just like it would be ridiculous to attempt to measure time with a ruler.
Look, if "creation" and "evolution" are based in two different fields (spiritual and scientific) why is it any surprise that you cannot define one using the formula from another?
| Quote: |
And Einstein wasn't religious in the sense you probably mean. Religion, to Einstein, was more a wonderment at the universe and not at all about a personal God. |
Not a problem. But then again, where did religion come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | "To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."
Well I mean I guess I sort of have faith in this. |
i think you are a fine teacher friend....and i enjoy reading your comments...i learn much from them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5909
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | | I don't understand why this concept is so foreign to scientists. When are you going to learn that God will never allow you to put Him in a test tube!!! |
I don't understand why this concept is so foreign to the religious. When are you going to learn that God doesn't exist?
I understand this idea of not testing God, but didn't someone somewhere along the line say that if you asked for something in his name, God would do it? And if you asked for something in God's name, he would do it?
| eleven wrote: | | You cannot define God scientifically because you are using the WRONG format. |
Science is the only format with verifiable results. If God can't be defined scientifically, that's a failing on God's part, not science's.
| eleven wrote: | | Look, if "creation" and "evolution" are based in two different fields (spiritual and scientific) why is it any surprise that you cannot define one using the formula from another? |
The "spiritual field" is completely unverifiable. The "scientific field" is verifiable. Creationists leap at the chance to use quote mines from scientists and scientific papers when it suits them. So why wouldn't we check something as world-overturning as a young Earth with a method that's verifiable? Just because the result isn't what creationists want?
| eleven wrote: | | Not a problem. But then again, where did religion come from? |
Spirituality seems natural to humans, we tend to personify things. Religion likely came about because someone intentionally or unintentionally took advantage of this tendency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
