1 edit
why do i feel like the fly when it was approached by the spider, 'come in and have a cup of tea, my dear!
noobster, you and ol Hawkins state that he is an outright creationist, i am not so sure, for to him there are two entities at work, natural and intelligent, and at the Dover trial, which is well documented, when asked, what he thought the source of this intelligence was, he did not say! what a woosie, why not just come right out and say it, 'it was God your honour!, what's the deal'? therefore you should understand that there are differing degrees of creationist thought.
are we agreed that science cannot prove anything, at least in terms of spirituality, all it can do, is lend its force to the weight of belief?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…are we agreed that science cannot prove anything, at LEAST in terms of spirituality,
why do i feel like the fly when it was approached by the spider, 'come in and have a cup of tea, my dear!
noobster, you and ol Hawkins state that he is an outright creationist, i am not so sure, for to him there are two entities at work, natural and intelligent, and at the Dover trial, which is well documented, when asked, what he thought the s ...[text shortened]... at least in terms of spirituality, all it can do, is lend its force to the weight of belief?
… (my emphasis)
What do you mean by “at LEAST in terms of spirituality”?
Science can obviously prove many hypothesis that have nothing to do with ‘spirituality’ -right?
Example; science has proven that what we generally perceive as white light is made out of several colours -do you deny this?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonall that can be drawn for an examination of the physical world are inferences, thus, science becomes an expedient for belief.
[b]…you cannot deny that he must know something about evolution to have attained that position, can you?
…
Judging from the fact that evolutionary biologists have debunked his most central claims, he apparently doesn’t know nearly as much about evolution as they do.
So why trust his say-so over others that obviously know a lot more about e ...[text shortened]... dvance if I have misunderstood your meaning here -if I have misunderstood then what do you mean?[/b]
we read, 'God is a god of order', we examine the physical world, do we see order? God is an intelligent being, we examine the physical world, can we draw inferences to substantiate this theory, is their 'signs' of intelligence, we read 'God is abundant in dynamic energy', we examine the physical universe, can we discern that there is evidence of 'dynamic energy', yes for all matter is composed of energy etc etc etc, thus this is the very limits that science can take the theologian, it, in itself proves nothing, all that can be drawn are inferences, i really thought that this was understood.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonsee above.
[b]…are we agreed that science cannot prove anything, at LEAST in terms of spirituality,
… (my emphasis)
What do you mean by “at LEAST in terms of spirituality”?
Science can obviously prove many hypothesis that have nothing to do with ‘spirituality’ -right?
Example; science has proven that what we generally perceive as white light is made out of several colours -do you deny this?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know what noobster is, I can't find it my dictionary.
why do i feel like the fly when it was approached by the spider, 'come in and have a cup of tea, my dear!
noobster, you and ol Hawkins state that he is an outright creationist, i am not so sure, for to him there are two entities at work, natural and intelligent, and at the Dover trial, which is well documented, when asked, what he thought the s ...[text shortened]... at least in terms of spirituality, all it can do, is lend its force to the weight of belief?
The only creationists I dislike, is those who use their pet enemy 'MrScience' to prove they are right. When Science proves against them, then it is their enemy again. (1) use science, in full scale, or (2) don't use science, ever. Do not use Science when it suits them, and deny science otherwise. It's like eating the sherry of the cace first, leaving the rest to the dogs.
So if someone anti-scientific person calls himself Scientist just to pick up some authority, then he is a fraud. Like me sayng that Evolution is the correct theory, god told me so. Can you say anything against that? What if he really told me that, would you belive me? No, of course not. Does it then matter if I call myself a Scientist or a Cardinal? No of course not. The truth is out there independently of what we call ourselves.
Perhaps it is god who created it all, who knows. But when someone says it is 'scientifically proven' I tend to be upset. Like you would be if Hitler would say God give me the right to kill Jews in the oven.
Creationists is quite harmless, please go on believing in some fancy designer, dosn't bother me a bit, but when you call upon MrScience, then I mind.
Originally posted by FabianFnasLol, noobster is that dude above you, with the baldy head, its a simple play on words from his name.
I don't know what noobster is, I can't find it my dictionary.
The only creationists I dislike, is those who use their pet enemy 'MrScience' to prove they are right. When Science proves against them, then it is their enemy again. (1) use science, in full scale, or (2) don't use science, ever. Do not use Science when it suits them, and deny science other ...[text shortened]... fancy designer, dosn't bother me a bit, but when you call upon MrScience, then I mind.
what is of interest to me, and it is evidently clear, is that, when i was dating my Swedish flautist friend, Christina, she also had a similar, no nonsense approach, for i would try to get her to rig her flute up to a cry baby wah wah pedal, but she would have none of it, i tried to get her to improvise, but she was classically trained and could not let go, now it has got me to wondering if its a national characteristic, this no nonsense approach.
2 edits
i suggest a chess game, if we the creationists win, then you must attribute our success to divine intervention (naturally we could not win on our own efforts, being too stupid as to embrace such fallacious ideology)' embrace theocracy and make a public recantation of all of Hawkins works, burning them below an effigy of his image, and if you the scientists win, 'we shall renounce all pretensions that life shows evidence of intelligent design, Behe was a misguided fool and knew nothing of evolution, and should be locked up for the sake of science and the greater humanity', what say you?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…ALL that can be drawn for an examination of the physical world are inferences,
all that can be drawn for an examination of the physical world are inferences, thus, science becomes an expedient for belief.
we read, 'God is a god of order', we examine the physical world, do we see order? God is an intelligent being, we examine the physical world, can we draw inferences to substantiate this theory, is their 'signs' of intelli othing, all that can be drawn are inferences, i really thought that this was understood.
… (my emphasis)
Correct -although it seems inappropriate to me to use the word “ALL” above as it makes you sound as if you are trying to imply that inferences are in some sense ’insignificant’ -they can be used to prove hypothesises thus find certain facts about the world.
…thus, science becomes an expedient for belief.
..…
Specifically for RATIONAL belief yes -and not to be confused with blind faith.
Not sure what your point is here,
…. we read, 'God is a god of order', we examine the physical world, do we see order?
…
Why would a “God“ or any other kind of intelligence be necessary for there to be order?
For example, the geometry of a snowflake has order and yet that order is known to occur as a result of natural processes -no intelligence necessary! The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get that point.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can't see why it is problematic that there is disagreement about the exact lineage of human evolution. The idea that we are able to trace a single lineage from australopithecus to homo sapiens sapiens has been popular, but as far as I know, the mainstream idea now is that the fossil evidence doesn't show a clear single path to modern humans, but a complicated 'bush' of various lineages where it's difficult to identify exact evolutionary lines.
what has my belief got to do with anything, its simply me evaluation, and is completely irrelevant to anyone but me, i think it would be better to try to be objective and examine the 'evidence', or lack of it, for even now, it is a matter of controversy, at least in my mind. that's all i can say at this point ol noobster my friend, for there have be ...[text shortened]... and it just so happens to coincide with my religious beliefs also, who would have thought? 🙂
But that doesn't mean there aren't clear signs of human evolution. Also, I don't see how your conclusion "apes are apes and humans are humans" is justified from what you say higher in your message.
1 edit
Originally posted by DdVso are you saying that there is clear evidence for human evolution, its just not in the fossil record? or that it has not been discovered yet.
I can't see why it is problematic that there is disagreement about the exact lineage of human evolution. The idea that we are able to trace a single lineage from australopithecus to homo sapiens sapiens has been popular, but as far as I know, the mainstream idea now is that the fossil evidence doesn't show a clear single path to modern humans, but a complicated are apes and humans are humans" is justified from what you say higher in your message.