07-08-2013 11:52 PM
230 ... 78910
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't think anyone has implied/stated that everything was designed perfectly by a perfect creator. What was brought out was that there had to be intelligence in the design.

    There is a spectrum of ID theories, ranging from deism, created the laws of the universe and let it happen to created every little thing, every bird, every rock etc. Creationists tend to believe ID means that humans were made out of clay, mud, dough or something to that effect in a relatively consistent form to what they are now, rather than making the proteins that eventually turned into the rest of life.
    07-08-2013 09:17 PM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    There is a spectrum of ID theories, ranging from deism, created the laws of the universe and let it happen to created every little thing, every bird, every rock etc. Creationists tend to believe ID means that humans were made out of clay, mud, dough or something to that effect in a relatively consistent form to what they are now, rather than making the proteins that eventually turned into the rest of life.
    I never heard of the theory of us deriving from clay, mud or dough, lol. That's news to me.

    Aquila likes this.
    07-08-2013 09:21 PM
  3. AngelArs's Avatar
    But discovering a creation of what is clearly the result of intelligence doesn't discredit the creator.
    There is NO proof that intelligence had ANYTHING to do with it. That's just an assumption.
    07-08-2013 09:23 PM
  4. badbrad17's Avatar
    Famous last words.


    Of what? I would think it would be common sense of what Stephen Hawking already said. Have you ever squished a bug? Same difference, only this time we'd be the bug. Ouch.
    I honestly don't even have any context for this reply. Help!

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 09:24 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Here's the thing... if there is no Bible, if you don't try to use that as science... then there is no agenda to the need to prove something one way or another... there's just discovery. Being open minded is about either being willing to adjust your own paradigm and to discard things that are illogical in favor of things that make sense. Why is it harder to just let facts unfold themselves without attempting to contort them into a mold constructed by bronze age mysticism? This is the same thing as trying to scientifically discover the real location of Avalon based on the tales of King Arthur.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-08-2013 09:26 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    From Firefly:

    Book: What are we up to, sweetheart?
    River Tam: Fixing your Bible.
    Book: I, um...
    [alarmed]
    Book: What?
    River Tam: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense.
    [she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages and torn out pages]
    Book: No, no. You-you-you can't...
    River Tam: So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem.
    Book: Really?
    River Tam: We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.
    [rips out page]

    Book: River, you don't fix the Bible.
    River: It's broken. It doesn't make sense.
    Book: It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you.

    Point being... it's not about facts, it's about something personal. The confusion is when people try to reconcile the two logically. If you don't need faith, faith doesn't make sense. If you do need faith, it shouldn't ever be used as science. It's just not real and it's not meant to describe the real world. Metaphysics is exactly the same amount of science as astrology and transmorphagenic alchemy. We don't teach the last two in schools, why try to teach the first? It's something for you to console yourself with when logic isn't clicking.
    07-08-2013 09:32 PM
  7. badbrad17's Avatar
    This is a good example of why we need to vastly increase scientific literacy. With good science teachers, a 7 year old should know that is false and a 10 year old should be able to explain why. Instead, with kid gloves to religion, they want to explain both positions as if they were equal theories. As an adult if you want to abandon facts and put your eggs in the religion basket, that's your choice and one to be respected by a freedom loving society. But we're failing our kids by pushing this on them before they're too young to decide for themselves if they want a paradigm formed around magic or physics.
    I couldn't agree more. We have to learn together without prejudice. But this is easier said than done because theory is subjective and can be sold off as fact. I do it, you do it, we all do it. In some ways it's part of the process. I had mentioned in an earlier post that I went to this class about evolution. The professor used scientific journals to show what was originally stated as facts then 6 months later showed a new article that proved the original article was untrue.

    Someone asked why this professor would care about discrediting the scientific process. The answer was simple. He also showed us around 4 or 5 chapters in science text books that were still teaching these things as accepted forms of evolution when they were 100 false.

    I believe that there should be a separate section in schools for philosophy in order to separate real proven science from theories posing as truth. I include religious teaching in this as well.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 09:35 PM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    Point being... it's not about facts, it's about something personal. The confusion is when people try to reconcile the two logically. If you don't need faith, faith doesn't make sense. If you do need faith, it shouldn't ever be used as science. It's just not real and it's not meant to describe the real world. Metaphysics is exactly the same amount of science as astrology and transmorphagenic alchemy. We don't teach the last two in schools, why try to teach the first? It's something for you to console yourself with when logic isn't clicking.
    Beer works better.

    Aquila and badbrad17 like this.
    07-08-2013 09:36 PM
  9. AngelArs's Avatar
    Yes. Believing in God makes you unreasonable. Just as believing that you know how the world started makes you unreasonable. You can have a good time and feel warm and cozy thinking up all the magical theories you want but you still don't know that God exists. You just believe that he does.

    I never said I believe that "a big ball of gas exploded" and that's how the world started. I have no idea how the world started. The fact that I don't know how the world started does not make the existence of God a reality. The difference is that I haven't swallowed any of the unprovable fairy tales told to me.
    Very well stated. Wish they had a thumbs up icon....
    07-08-2013 09:40 PM
  10. AngelArs's Avatar
    This is the very reason for this thread. No need to snap, let's just explain what we believe so we can have a good discussion.
    I don't see where they did anything wrong, and I certainly don't see any 'snap'. Crackle and pop maybe, but certainly no snap
    badbrad17 and Oofa like this.
    07-08-2013 09:53 PM
  11. AngelArs's Avatar
    I believe that man and dinosaurs existed together.
    Seriously?
    Aquila likes this.
    07-08-2013 10:01 PM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Just thought I would throw in my opinion. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible.

    http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    badbrad17 likes this.
    07-08-2013 10:41 PM
  13. badbrad17's Avatar
    Intelligent design either requires qualification into a deistic principle of master physicist who is then hands off, or it fails with one question.... if everything is designed perfectly by a perfect creator, why does it evolve at all? Why are 99% of the species that have roamed even our one tiny planet already extinct? Were those mistakes?
    I don't know about percentages but the extinction is part of death that was introduced when sin came into the world. As for evolving... a species can change based on its own kind. Wolves and dogs etc could breed to make a new type of dog. This is different than a cow becoming a whale because it stood by the ocean long enough. This is part of Darwins theory and very unscientific.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 10:53 PM
  14. badbrad17's Avatar
    Yes. Absolutely. The problem with your post is that there is tremendous amounts of assumption on fossil records and dating which has been disproven over and over again. Some scientists throw this stuff around like it is so true when it is 100 BS. There have been blind tests where scientists have taken the same samples of bones and soils to 4 different labs for dating. All the labs dated it incorrectly and they had a spread of time that was different by billions of years. Does this sound like reliable science? Fossils come from massive burial that occurs quickly and usually from flooding. Not millions of years of slow progression. Entire herds of animals have been found in different layers. How does this make sense? It doesn't. Scientists don't want to validate a global flood because it would require answers to other questions. My questions are answered constantly.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    Aquila and Serial Fordicator like this.
    07-08-2013 10:54 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    This is different than a cow becoming a whale because it stood by the ocean long enough.
    Yeah I had a problem with that too for awhile. Turns out I was thinking about it wrong.That's part of the genes versus organisms piece. Like I said though, I think if you really get to know the science in how things work, etc. then it'll both help evolve and reconcile the philosophies of other areas. I'm not a biologist by any means, but I think it's interesting to think and read about.
    07-08-2013 11:01 PM
  16. badbrad17's Avatar
    Yeah I had a problem with that too for awhile. Turns out I was thinking about it wrong.That's part of the genes versus organisms piece. Like I said though, I think if you really get to know the science in how things work, etc. then it'll both help evolve and reconcile the philosophies of other areas. I'm not a biologist by any means, but I think it's interesting to think and read about.
    It's just differentiating theories that both require faith.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 11:09 PM
  17. badbrad17's Avatar
    Here is real science. Viewable traceable and measurable. Something that geologists have analyzed for years and believed would take millions of years only took a matter of days. It's science people. Look at it and know that this is real.
    You don't have to believe in God because of it, just believe that lots of the teaching out there is junk science. Speculative theory with no truth or provable science in it at all.


    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 11:13 PM
  18. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

    There are thousands of articles about the 1977 "plesiosaur", which scientists almost universally agree was likely a shark. Sea-Monster or Shark: An Alleged Plesiosaur Carcass The most important part is the conclusion:

    Conclusions


    Several lines of evidence strongly indicate that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a large shark, and most likely a basking shark, rather than a plesiosaur. Those giving the opposite impression have done so by telling only part of the story, or mischaracterizing portions of the evidence. To help set the record straight, such authors should correct any misleading statements of the past on this issue, and refrain from any further suggestions that the carcass was a likely plesiosaur.

    I've read that article a long time ago and that doesn't look like a shark to me. It might be. It might not. As fas as science education, I have yet to hear anyone explain why dinosaur footprints were made after a humans. Just because you don't like what something points to doesnt mean you should discount it.
    Sorry, but I don't agree with everything a scientist says. Look at evolution. Me personally, I believe in evolution, but I don't think an animal evolves out of its own species.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    07-08-2013 11:16 PM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I am now at the point where i have to wonder; How can anyone believe everything happened by accident? For example: Think of all the various survival mechanisms there are in the animal kingdom. EVERY single species has something unique about it to help it survive. Lizards too. Birds too. Even insects.
    Each have something very unique and ingenious to help it live.

    How about the solar systems? Is there anything more guaranteed than the sun rising tomorrow morning? The sun setting tomorrow evening? Do you think you can count on it? Of course you could! Do you think all this happened accidently? When was an accident ever so perfect?
    Well, it's not TOTALLY perfect. Someday it will explode and go supernova. That being said, I don't think everything is totally accidental either. It is a paradox either way you look at. One that mankind quite possibly cannot even understand. If everything popped out of nothing, well, how did that happen? How does existence come out of nothing? On the other hand, if there was a supreme creator, well, where did HE come from and what existed before the universe??? There had to be a start to all this somewhere, right? But then how did ANY thing start? Or how can it have no start and just be there forever. Or do things loop over on themselves from a time standpoint? UGH!!! It's mind boggling so I tend not to think about it too much as it hurts my head. LOL

    Trying to get a christian to buy into the alien theory is no different than the christian approaching you with the God theory. I have never seen God. I have never seen an alien. We know that there are other planets and stars. There are churches all over the face of the planet. By this theory if other planets suggests aliens exist then churches suggest God exists. Just my opinion.
    No, they only suggest that much of mankind has a BELIEF in God. Nothing more. There's a saying that goes something to the effect of "if God didn't exist, man would invent him" and I believe that to be true. We are always looking for ways to explain things. And to explain our place in the universe.

    I don't know about percentages but the extinction is part of death that was introduced when sin came into the world.
    Because those animals have to pay for the sins of mankind, why, exactly? It makes about as much sense to me as the aliens we discussed earlier. Only the animals can be seen and touched.
    07-08-2013 11:17 PM
  20. badbrad17's Avatar
    There is NO proof that intelligence had ANYTHING to do with it. That's just an assumption.
    Lol right and my stove will randomly make me soup every 10,000 times I use it. We are intelligent beings we can rationalize what is fluke and what requires thought. In fact randomness is actually mathematically impossible. So are you saying math doesn't require intelligence? Because chance and randomness doesn't factor into it.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 11:20 PM
  21. AngelArs's Avatar
    The professor used scientific journals to show what was originally stated as facts then 6 months later showed a new article that proved the original article was untrue.
    Progress... not perfection.

    I include religious teaching in this as well.
    How so? Religion is the lack of evidence and fact.
    07-08-2013 11:22 PM
  22. avianz's Avatar
    Here is real science. Viewable traceable and measurable. Something that geologists have analyzed for years and believed would take millions of years only took a matter of days. It's science people. Look at it and know that this is real.
    You don't have to believe in God because of it, just believe that lots of the teaching out there is junk science. Speculative theory with no truth or provable science in it at all.


    Sent from my Nexus 4
    For every one crackpot theory this guy comes up with there are tens of thousands of real scientists that can disprove what he's saying with actual scientific methods. It's laughable that he's calling simple sedimentary layers a pyroclastic event. Nothing in that video is science, and it's really sad that you're so brainwashed that you can't see that.

    Note how he uses words like 'dozens of eyewitness accounts' meaning he never measured anything. He just took what he thought were plausible eruption dates and marked photos with what layers he thought they should belong to. No age dating, no fossil records, no actual measurements of any kind. Has he been back to check if he's right? Probably not because NOTHING has changed in that area since this video, go look yourself. According to him it should be hundreds of feet taller by now. Strange how that creek is flowing through the middle, forming the canyon. That must have happened over a course of days!

    Lets all trust the scientist from the Institute for Creation Research!
    07-08-2013 11:22 PM
  23. badbrad17's Avatar
    Yeah I had a problem with that too for awhile. Turns out I was thinking about it wrong.That's part of the genes versus organisms piece. Like I said though, I think if you really get to know the science in how things work, etc. then it'll both help evolve and reconcile the philosophies of other areas. I'm not a biologist by any means, but I think it's interesting to think and read about.
    This entire concept was created only because the fossil record didn't prove it to be possible. It is no different than punctuated equilibrium. It was created because they couldn't explain why the science didn't fit the theory. This is scientific failure imo.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-08-2013 11:23 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    This entire concept was created only because the fossil record didn't prove it to be possible. It is no different than punctuated equilibrium. It was created because they couldn't explain why the science didn't fit the theory. This is scientific failure imo.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    The assumptions there are based on the production of legs in early development in whales, sharks (some have been born with legs) and the conclusion that they have the genes still for producing those appendages (obviously correct). I'm not going to pretend to understand it all in that specific case, but they're not really saying cow --> whale, they're saying cows and whales have a common ancestor. Just like they don't say monkey ---> human or dinosaur ---> bird, but rather they came from the same origination point in the distant past. There is a guy named Jerry Coyne who is a master of comprehending biology, but his books and seminars all seem to be very defensive about religion. His points about evolution are dead on, but he can't do it without being snarky, so I don't throw many viewers his way. You don't have to destroy the "opposition" in order to make your point.
    badbrad17 likes this.
    07-08-2013 11:32 PM
  25. badbrad17's Avatar
    Here's the thing... if there is no Bible, if you don't try to use that as science... then there is no agenda to the need to prove something one way or another... there's just discovery. Being open minded is about either being willing to adjust your own paradigm and to discard things that are illogical in favor of things that make sense. Why is it harder to just let facts unfold themselves without attempting to contort them into a mold constructed by bronze age mysticism? This is the same thing as trying to scientifically discover the real location of Avalon based on the tales of King Arthur.
    The reason this doesn't work for me is because the Bible actually gets validated as more research and discoveries are made. Unlike evolution where the theory becomes less viable. Why would I want to abandon a book that actually gives credence to the science?

    Many people here are willing to discuss aliens and all manner of things that have no measurable credence or accountability. The Bible puts it's information on the line all the time and is debated amongst scholars, theologians and scientists all the time. Why would I want to ignore something this powerful? Why would I want to ignore something this amazing? Only so I could blindly go looking for the wrong answer somewhere else? It's like throwing out all the food in my fridge so I can go hunting for my dinner.

    As I've stated before. I was not taught my religious beliefs from my parents. I had no preconceived notions of what was right or wrong scientifically. You asked why I don't just look for my answers and allow discovery to be exposed... Well that's what I did and guess what? I found answers that make sense. Philosophically and scientifically.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    07-08-2013 11:37 PM
230 ... 78910

Similar Threads

  1. List of all prepaid plans and providers
    By petergoogle in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 09:34 AM
  2. Neptoon's Net [All Ages] The Oceanic Cleanup Adventure!!
    By Neptoons Net in forum Android Games
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 12:41 PM
  3. Happy 4th of July
    By nickgalaxys4 in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 11:20 PM
  4. Wi-Fi connected banner at bottom of screen
    By Jfazyankees13 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 10:25 PM
  5. White background instead of black (solved)
    By Con Georgiadis in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 02:06 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD