Originally posted by KellyJayAs twhitehead said above it's about the validity of science. Your beliefs, and let's be honest about this, they're your religious beliefs, contradict pretty much most of science. Evolutionary theory and all that encompasses, which we have been discussing, being one of them.
On this topic exactly what do my beliefs about the age of the universe or
earth mater? Nothing I have said helps or hurts supporting my beliefs on
the topic.
On what others think, I have no idea why they believe what they believe,
as I don't think you grasp why those that disagree with you believe what
they do, in the very same circles you seem to want to believe are all on
your side of the discussion.
I'm just curious as to how you can believe that the scientific process can be so spectacularly wrong, and has been wrong for a very, very long time. Yet living in the 21st century you can witness and see with your own eyes how the same scientific process has been correct. How does someone, who claims to know how the peer review process works, rationalise that dichotomy?
I know why you disagree with what I believe. You're a Christian fundamentalist who adheres to a literal reading of Genesis.
Originally posted by Proper KnobHardly the case, if I don't happen to agree with you the validity of science
As twhitehead said above it's about the validity of science. Your beliefs, and let's be honest about this, they're your religious beliefs, contradict pretty much most of science. Evolutionary theory and all that encompasses, which we have been discussing, being one of them.
I'm just curious as to how you can believe that the scientific process can be ...[text shortened]... h what I believe. You're a Christian fundamentalist who adheres to a literal reading of Genesis.
is at stake? You are that important? No, science will be just fine no matter
what is true about evolution, if there really is a common ancestor or not. It
isn't that we have to accept the latest greatest thing that people believe in,
it is the process of correcting when it is shown it is wrong that makes it a
good thing.
Originally posted by RJHindsTo know the percentage we must know
Do you think scientists know more the one tenth of one percent of what could be known? If so, what is your estimate of their knowledge?
i) how much we know now (difficult but possible)
ii) then divide by how much we don't know (how the F* do we know that?)
iii) multiply by 100
How do we know how much we do not know?
Originally posted by KellyJayThe validity of science is at stake? I'm important? Where have I said anything of the sort? You're making it up Kelly.
Hardly the case, if I don't happen to agree with you the validity of science
is at stake? You are that important? No, science will be just fine no matter
what is true about evolution, if there really is a common ancestor or not. It
isn't that we have to accept the latest greatest thing that people believe in,
it is the process of correcting when it is shown it is wrong that makes it a
good thing.
If you can't explain the dichotomy in your position, just say so.
Originally posted by Proper KnobScience is not at stake no matter who is right, science is a self correcting
The validity of science is at stake? I'm important? Where have I said anything of the sort? You're making it up Kelly.
If you can't explain the dichotomy in your position, just say so.
process it will go on, no matter who is right.
Originally posted by RJHindsI wouldn't hazard a guess. But we are not talking about what could be known, we are talking about the accuracy of what they think they already know.
Do you think scientists know more the one tenth of one percent of what could be known? If so, what is your estimate of their knowledge?
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is not what he is saying at all. Are you deliberately avoiding the question or do you genuinely not understand what you are being asked?
Hardly the case, if I don't happen to agree with you the validity of science
is at stake?
Here is the question:
1. You, Kelly, believe that a large proportion of the findings in many major fields of science are outright wrong. (this is, I believe, an agreed fact, or are you disputing this?).
2. You, Kelly, accept that scientists have got quite a lot of things right, when it comes to products you use and rely on every day.
( again, this is an agreed fact, or are you disputing it?).
3. How do you explain the fact that scientists have done so remarkably well when it comes to products you rely on, but get it so wrong when it comes to all the findings you don't accept?
-Removed-You might be using DNA as evidence of creation but the statement that DNA is hard wired is anything BUT the truth. The truth is DNA can be modified by many outside forces such as climate change, temperature change, stresses of bacteria and so forth. That is called epigenetics.
You only WISH DNA to be hard wired so you think you can support your creationist stance.
Originally posted by C HessI totally agree with you. It is like one of my pet peaves (sp) in the Christian world with the concepts of creation.
My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.
I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creato ...[text shortened]... eeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.
I can't remember who stated it in the bible, but we've all heard the argument a million times. "One day to God is like a thousand years. " .
The author was only making an analogy of the eternity of God.
Yet there are Christians out there who will die defending the notion that indeed - one day Is a thousand years to God. They don't look at the facts, they won't use any reason in their logic.
In the belief in God, I have no doubt that we were created to be intelligent, to have reason, to learn to understand the beauty of this universe and the beauty of each other.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI've not brought up the scripture in any of my arguments about evolution
As twhitehead said above it's about the validity of science. Your beliefs, and let's be honest about this, they're your religious beliefs, contradict pretty much most of science. Evolutionary theory and all that encompasses, which we have been discussing, being one of them.
I'm just curious as to how you can believe that the scientific process can be ...[text shortened]... h what I believe. You're a Christian fundamentalist who adheres to a literal reading of Genesis.
mainly because they don't matter to why I think it is bogus having life
start from non-life and every life form sharing a common ancestor.
It is amazing still to me that you keep bringing it up, when it does not
apply! My complaints are with people's beliefs, they believe life will just
upgrade itself without direction in the most haphazard means possible,
using nothing but a filter that will kill off anything that cannot live in it
current envinroment. If something is a live then they are justified, which
is very circular in my opinion.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat does the DNA prove?
You might be using DNA as evidence of creation but the statement that DNA is hard wired is anything BUT the truth. The truth is DNA can be modified by many outside forces such as climate change, temperature change, stresses of bacteria and so forth. That is called epigenetics.
You only WISH DNA to be hard wired so you think you can support your creationist stance.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is amazing is to what lengths you will go to avoid answering the question.
It is amazing still to me that you keep bringing it up, when it does not
apply! My complaints are with people's beliefs, they believe life will just
upgrade itself without direction in the most haphazard means possible,
using nothing but a filter that will kill off anything that cannot live in it
current envinroment. If something is a live then they are justified, which
is very circular in my opinion.
It is true that the existence of life and evidence for evolution having taken place is a big plus in our favor - and not a circular argument at all. However, the concept that more complex life can arise via the process of evolution is provable mathematically and does not require evidence. The evidence is useful in demonstrating that life did in fact meet the minimum requirements for evolution and has in fact evolved.
The 'claim of evolution' in this thread is in two parts:
1. That life can evolve more complex parts over time. That this is possible via the process of evolution.
2. That life did evolve more complex parts over time and that all known life has a common ancestor. (this requires evidence as it is not guaranteed to be the case by theory.).
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you going to answer my question Kelly? You seem intent on avoiding it.
I've not brought up the scripture in any of my arguments about evolution
mainly because they don't matter to why I think it is bogus having life
start from non-life and every life form sharing a common ancestor.
It is amazing still to me that you keep bringing it up, when it does not
apply! My complaints are with people's beliefs, they believe life wi ...[text shortened]... inroment. If something is a live then they are justified, which
is very circular in my opinion.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhich question you've said quite a bit?
Are you going to answer my question Kelly? You seem intent on avoiding it.
If it is why I believe those in science can be wrong across the board it is
because there are people involved. I've said that quite clearly, if it is some
other question ask again.