Printable View
If you ask me Choice is an even grayer area that's why I use the better word nonrandom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
The word "beautiful" has a chemical reaction equivalent, but nobody knows what it is exactly. A painting is "beautiful" only because you have eyes.
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Do you think? Do you reason before reaching a conclusion on something? When making a decision - to you take ownership of that decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Or do you just react to the environmental stimulus?
If the randomness of something was dependent on the randomness of the parts then you would see the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The random vibrations of molecules (heat) would make all mechanical mechanisms act randomly. As an analog watch can tell time that is not the case.
The random nature of quantum mechanics should then have an effect on higher order items. As a quartz digital watch does not tell time randomly, it to proves that is not the case.
The reverse is true as well, a perfect die rolls are not dependent on its temperature...well unless it has melted.
Quite often within the hierachy of things something lower down is far more random then then thing it creates. Randomness is not a parent-child relationship, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the randomness of a whole item and the randomness of its components.
What in hell does randomness in mutation have to do with whether god created evolution? Again in a slot machine theres a random number generator. Now because this is there does that prove a man didnt invent it? How about cards? Plenty of randomness there yet we invented them and all the games that go with them. Did it ever occur to you that thats how God may have designed it? Or maybe evolution is god still messing around ~D
Well if there is a God we would rate pretty much as a screen saver on the scale of things... maybe a fun demo game... I don't think on the Universe scale of a Game of God we rate as much as even :cry: the TW AI...
Titled : "Scientific Evidence for Creation", [or justifying weak ideas or how to ignore facts and twist evidence to meet the criteria of creationism]
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This is a real place, go to the home page and browse about - worth a giggle or two. j/k
http://www.bible.ca
From the above site:
Wow.Quote:
The Religion of Evolution:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/i-magic-wand.gifHumanism: The Atheist's Religion!!!
Official name of the Evolutionist's Religion...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHumanism
The Evolutionist's Prophet...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifDarwin
The Evolutionist's Infallible Book (Bible)...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gif"Origin of the Species"
The Evolutionist's Statement of faith....
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifTheory of Evolution
The Evolutionist's Church, Temple...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifPublic Schools
The Evolutionist's Priests...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHigh School Biology teachers (university professors are arch-bishops)
The Evolutionist's Evangelistic Medium...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHigh school textbooks, TV, Radio
The Evolutionist's "Church Treasury"...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifYour public Tax Dollars
The Evolutionist's Divine being...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifHimself
The Evolutionist's view of where we came from:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifRandom chance processes
The Evolutionist's purpose of life and where we are going
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/moving-checkmark.gifNone, nowhere
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion. Seems like just an attempt to put the "competition" in the same silly category of beliefs as Christianity.
Havent I been saying science is a religion unto itself all along?Quote:
I like how they try to define the adherance to evolution theory as a religion.
Science is no more a religion then a ruler, pad of paper and a pen are.
Wow...And how is that? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided. Science does not possess many aspects that needs to create a religion. It doesn't have divinity; it doesn't have creation myth, only theories that can always be negated by a better theory; it doesn't need organizations (like organized religion) to "be." Religions fade without worshippers. Science is a collection of facts, theories, datas, etc that, without those who maintain the knowledge, won't die off. Speaking from an entirely pragmatic point of view: we didn't invent science, but we invent religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I really don't know why one who presumes of faith needs evidence. Science requires evidence, religion not. I'm totally with Redleg, tough he believes, and i'll not question him, but the point is that believe for the sake of believing, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
You are very close to how I view Religion. It seems that some can not function within two philisophies. The Spirtual and the Physical. Religion is in the spirtual relm of believe - I for instance dont believe that God is pushing me down because some satire states it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Nor do I buy into the arguement that Religion is bad because it clouds your ability to rationalize thought in the Physical World.
For instance the discussion with Quietus he is continually trying to link both theories as being based upon the same thing, By linking them to Religion and God. He claims that if one believes in the Genesis Chapter of the Bible - ie Creation - then one by default must believe in the "Intelligence Falling" Satire. He completely misses the reasoning behind why as a Christian I can determine that the Intelligent Falling Theory is a false teaching - because he is determine to believe that since one believes in one theory based upon religion one must believe all theories based upon religion. That is a fallacy - a non sequitur one at that. Using the defination of
He attempts to recongize it in my arguement about evolution and creation - which does indeed have some non sequitur arguements - but he refuses to see it in his arguement about linking those who believe in the Intelligent Design Theory must also believe in the Intelligent Falling Theory. His conclusion does not follow the premise, he is basing the conclusion solely on the point that if one believes this way then he must also believe this way. That is always a fallacy.Quote:
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
Look at the discussion around evolution - one can play with the words used. Natural Selection, Mutation, Evolution, Artifical Selection, and Selective Breeding. All are mentioned in Darwains theory in one way or another. Two of the terms are what are the basis for Darwain proving his theory of Natural Selection. Go figure. However by dismissing the terms - which is what Quietus has done - well it shows the non sequitur of his evolution arguement since he is dismissing the links established by Darwain and other evolution researchers
One can link Selective Breeding - artifical selection - mutation - natural selection - evolution.
However one can not link Intelligent Design - Genesis to Intelligent Falling - Job and Mark. When Job discusses Human failings and sin, and Mark 15 teaches the errors of false teachings. The two are not linked - any attempts to linking them through religious teachings is a fallacy.
Howabout linking Mark 15 < - > Teaching Intelligent Design in Science. ~:cheers:
By that I mean it has m,any similarities. The big difference between the two as Redleg pomitrd out is that religion tries to explain the spiritual world where as science tries to explain the physical world. Science is based on the idea that we know certain facts. Anything beyond that is a leap of faith in mans ability. As someone pointed out we could be no more than some really advanced version of Sim City for all we know. I have faith in both god and science. Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even points it out when he says give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto god that which is gods. I take that as pointing out that there are two worlds and two masters we all serve. How many of you deny there is a spirituality to man?Quote:
How could it be so? Anyone who believes in science as a religion of facts is misguided.
Science and religion are not diametric opposites... they are more like separate axis... they cross only at the point of the human mind.
Mark does not link to Intelligent Design - the only Chapter that links to Intelligent Design is Genesis in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Its a religous science ~DQuote:
Putting Intelligent Design forward as a science would be a false teaching IMDHO.
Again the two should be kept seperate but they should both be respected.
Only if its done in the public school systems. I would support those who oppose teaching religious based theories or instruction in a public school system. If I want my child taught religous teaching I will send him to a private school or teach him it myself. Don't confuse my views on religion with being for organized churches - I find most churches have lost the meaning of what the Bible says for their own purpose. You ought to hear what I got to say about the Bapist Church, the Catholic Church, and several other big churches - they have lost the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
However in a religous context - as a religous teaching Intelligent Design is in line with what Genesis says - ie God created the Heaven and Earth and the creatures upon it.
Teaching Intelligent Design as a religious principle is fine and good.
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter). Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth. What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
yes indeed what I have been saying all alongQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Notice why I said its a religous based theory best left to being taught by religous people in a religious setting - not in public schools.Quote:
Teaching Intelligent Design as a validated sciencitific concept is dishonest and contemptable.
Yes it does it say that - it also says something else.Quote:
Nor is Intelligent Design in line with Genesis. Genesis states that God created nature (hence worshipping nature is not correct, you should worship the Creator of it like one enjoys a painting but admires the painter).
Quote:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Your committing a fallacy here - A does not necessary lead to B. Intelligent Design is not worshipping nature as you allude to above. Nor does it lead to the conclusion your stating here.Quote:
Genesis does not say that His design methodology was shake 'n' bake (evolution) or paint by numbers (intelligent design).
I had to break this sentence off from your other two. Genesis also accounts for all forms of life on earth. Science shows that life on earth has changed certain species, and that life might have evolved from some primivel (SP) spource and that man himself has also changed certain species. Intelligent Design does not discount science it only discounts the how life evolved from premivel sorce by saying that God created life. It adds science to Genesis to help explain why creatures has evolved in a religious context. And again this is why is should not be taugh in a public school to children or people who do not want to believe the teaching.Quote:
Science on the other hand shows that paint by numbers was not required. And that evolution can account for all the forms of life on earth.
Yes indeed - Religion explains it very well. All one has to do is read Genesis 1:1.Quote:
What evolution does not explain (nor has it have any theoritical bearing on) is the Big Bang. The Big Bang may explain the earliest formation of the Universe.
But the why of The Big Bang? Well that is as accurately explained with religion as science.
I think you are accidentally misreading what I said. Genesis talks about the order of things created. It does not give specifics on how they are created. Did God just stir and bake like a cake. OR did God make the cake by sticking all the atoms together one at a time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
That is possible - the misreading of what you said. However lets try this way of explanation instead of direct challenge method. Genesis does indeed only spefically state the order of things - if one takes a literal (SP) interpation of Genesis - one must accept that the earth is only around 7,000 years old. Well in my mind - that just is not acceptable. So the creation of the earth was not 6 human days as man understand time - but 6 Days of how God views time. Since Genesis is written as it relates to God creating the earth - the logic in a regilious sense follows - or at least in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So to answer the question posed by you - I would say God created life by assembling life as he saw fit. Then allowed it to grow and develop.
Well in that we differ slightly - calling it science might be a stretch - but the orginial author of the theory based a lot of his theory on the science methods that makes evolution a science. Should it be taught in the classroom as science though - I would have to agree with you - it does not meet the defination of science because it intermixes religion and science - and that by itself disqualfies it in my opinion as a hard science.Quote:
Intelligent Design cannot add science to anything as it is not science in itself.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being a religious theory about Genesis. I still think evolution is a better fit. I don't have an issue with religious classes at public schools. I do have a problem with misnaming something a science when it is not.
Just off what Quietus wrote I would have to say that science is not doing an adequate job of explaining evolution either. (That is most likely to harsh of a statement - but discounting selective breeding and artifical selection as evolution has a tendency to bring out the worse in me. Darwain used both concepts in his validation and proof of natural selection and mutation.) Evolution is a tricky subject for most - since it goes into not only the development of the species - but it brings into question the validity of Religion.
Agreed its a religous theory and should be taught as such.Quote:
I see Intelligent Design as the scientific equivalence of Lola, she walks like a woman but talks like a man. It looks like a science but it ain't if it is examined closely enough.
Isn't just amazing how that worked out in an ancient text.Quote:
And the order of appearance of creatures is in line with evolution too... man is created last.
Plants then water creatures then land creatures then humans.
Pape,Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The human body isn't like a watch where every parts are connected to each other and accounted for. It's more like cross between a watch and a pinball machine, it isn't perfect, hence it is ordered and disordered.
I responded to this comment which is incorrect:
A machine based on chemicals (a virus) is not bound by the randomness of its components.Quote:
If you create a machine based on chemicals then would that machine be bound by the chemical rules?
I was pointing out that the randomness in a part does not make the whole random.
Hence human choice is not neccesarily a random chemical selection. It maybe random as that is the best strategy, it is not random because we have parts that move in Brownian motion.
Then ~:cheers: for you. What i'm saying is why the religious try to look for the evidence of the "existence" of God, when it's all a question of faith. Jesus resurrected that sunday, i asure you not, but it's faith. Like you said you believe it or you don't. But if you claim that you need some science like teology :dizzy2: , and i'm totally against this one, then you're trying to turn blind beliefs into true knowledge, the first belongs to irrationality and for instance religion (this doesn't mean that religion clouds your understandment, this sentance will be a non sequitor), the second belongs to rational tought, logic, science, the one that derives from observation, analisys and scientific method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
I assure you Orkeny that they're muttally exclusive. Where science puts its foot religion fights to stay, but it cannot support it's arguments so it fades away. Again the explanation term as you used it above, is a very technical one. Explanation derives from certain knowledge (at least as certain as our senses can say and our reason analize, because i'm not disposed to live in a world that reaches the kind of absurd where we cannot believe our senses), it has an explanandum and an explanans. The explanans gives a premise "the metal expands", the explanandum gives conditions (high temperature), others deductions and premises that derive from observation. So the explanation tries to give a "why" to some comprobable fenomenum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And to make my point clear i will make you the same question i asked to Redleg but with other degree of difficulty. Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
Again all of you begin for the "fact" that ideas "exist". But that's another discussion, i think that what i give you is enough.
If science gave me all the answers I would know everything and that includes whether or not there is a god so your question is meaningless.Quote:
Let's suppose that science in some point in time gives you the answer to everything, and helps you to avoid death and all the fears that you may've. Would you still believe in God? Or suddenly, because God has no more porpose it will fade away like he never "existed"?
Imagine if scientists had that attitude. If you dont believe dont ask for evidence either.Quote:
If you wanna believe then do it, but don't ask for evidence, it's absurd.
My someones english is suddenly improving.
No it's not meaningless. You don't comprehend my question. You now believe that God exists, blindly, you put it behind natural fenomenums and behind evolution. But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing. My point is demonstrate that you use the idea of God in an utilitarist way, while you have questions and have fears God "exists" but when you don't need it anymore it just banishes. Do you understand my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What attitude are you talking about? Don't manipulate my worlds, i'm talking of that that you call "kingdom of heaven", "spiritual world", i'm not talking about real life. In real life you can do both with out problems, believe and know, in spiritual life you only need belief, because if you want more than that, i'm sorry to dissapoint you, but evidence in religion. :dizzy2:
Yes my english is improving a little after all this post. I wish that you talk to me in my language.