All this arguing brings me to my secondary point: Of what real value is all this arguing about evolution? What grand good is going to be accomplished if creationists begin to believe in evolution? WTF is gonna change the world for the better if creationists became converted to believe in a politicized "science" that has not been proven conclusively to have occurred, or to be in the process of occurring?
Well, the value is that it prevents bad science from getting into the school system and justifies the proper conclusions.
Note to AG: politicized science IS bad science! The bad science in the classroom stops with evolution ceasing to be taught as a fact! Teach it as what it is, a near-retarded theory. (Sorry for insulting your religion.)
we do teach it as a theory and not as fact. sorry but it's true...
I would love for that to be true, but I've heard too many leading experts on evolution literally cry out that "Evolution is a fact". Carl Sagan went as far as to declare: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It DID HAPPEN." (Boldface representing his inflections.)
That kind of statement is unmistakeable in what it's attempting to claim. And he's not the only one saying this -- I hear it everywhere I go! C'mon, you can't fool me on this.
It is a fact. The THEORY portion is Natural Selection. Here is the video where Carl Sagan explains it (He understands it, how can't you?) :
Because it doesn't make sense.
Why do you believe in something that doesn't make sense?
And, again, why with such emotion??? Could it be that you somehow need it to be true, for some personal reasons?
I mean, you sure sound like it's damn important that both you and everyone else believe this rather effectless theory. _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
I would love for that to be true, but I've heard too many leading experts on evolution literally cry out that "Evolution is a fact". Carl Sagan went as far as to declare: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It DID HAPPEN." (Boldface representing his inflections.)
That kind of statement is unmistakeable in what it's attempting to claim. And he's not the only one saying this -- I hear it everywhere I go! C'mon, you can't fool me on this.
Why do you not believe evolution has occurred?
Give me a reason to believe it first!(What the hell? I might as well ask you why you don't believe the Earth rests on unlimited tortoises' backs! This is what you sound like: "Well, WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THAT?! HUH? Why can't you see that the Earth is obviously resting on tortoises' backs?! It's SCIENCE!") It's just the repeated insisting of a random premise, followed by the demanding interrogation of why I don't believe it. _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Joined: May 20, 2006 Posts: 453 Location: In Cognito
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:50 am Post subject:
Ragtime wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Here is the video where Carl Sagan explains it (He understands it, how can't you?) :
Because it doesn't make sense.
Why do you believe in something that doesn't make sense?
And, again, why with such emotion??? Could it be that you somehow need it to be true, for some personal reasons?
If you didn't want to provoke exactly that emotion, you wouldn't evade every point of substance, as you did right here. You have nothing to say on why you think Sagan's explanation makes no sense. You merely assert this, and make a personal attack that serves no purpose other than to annoy.
That's the general pattern. You make sweeping claims, you evade any requests to back them up, you add some personal insults. You carry on until you annoy someone, then you tell them evolution turned them into bad people, but as a good Christian you try to love them anyway. It's so consistent, it's reasonable to suspect that's the purpose of the whole exercise for you.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Orwell wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
biologists publicly assent to evolution even while many privately doubt it
Substantiate this claim or recant it.
It's just common sense.
But where's your stake? Aren't you supposed to burn me at it after you said "Recant" and I didn't?
wow....
I'm telling you, there's a whole ton of closet-case Ptolemaics in the astronomy profession too. Not to mention all the Aristotelians in the engineering world who KNOW in their hearts that really F≠ma and inertia is a lie of the devil!
My belief in God is very scientific. He is in a higher dimension to us, which technically necessitates His omni-presence in, omniscience of, and omnipotence over, us and everything else in this lower dimension. It also technically necessitates Him being invisible to us, even when He's right next to us -- since we cannot see into higher dimensions, but higher dimensions include ours, and can therefore easily see into ours. This concept is roughly equivalent to a two-way mirror.
All of that is regular physics.
So, I believe that the "supernatural" and the "spiritual" are merely the super-dimensional.
1.) God, if He were in a higher dimension, would automatically "occupy" every point in our dimension simultaneously.
2.) Also, every action He took in the third dimension would be automatically inviolate -- by virtue of His relative dimensional position. The dimensional hierarchy is such that things in lower dimensions cannot physically effect things in higher dimensions, but things in higher dimensions omnipotently effect things in lower dimensions. The ant on the table is at your mercy, because, for all intents and purposes, his domain is only two dimensions. Therefore, he is well within reach of you, and whatever you want to do to him, but you are entirely out of reach of him while he remains on the table.
3.) As are the previous two mentioned biblical traits of God, the omniscience of a being in a higher dimension is obvious from a physics standpoint alone. For, our three-dimension universe is like the head of pin to a being in a higher dimension.
So, like most Aspies, I logically and scientifically think out my beliefs. It's a mistake to assume that I don't. _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 12, 2008 11:05 am; edited 3 times in total
1.) God, if He were in a higher dimension, would automatically "occupy" every point in our dimension simultaneously.
Invalid.
Oh dear, I suggest you rethink your science.
But, to put it perhaps better, every point in our universe would automatically be instantly accessable to Him.
He would be "next to" every point in our universe, all the time.
(And, of course, He would also exist out of time's limits if He were in a higher dimension,
which in itself provides instant accessability.
All these attributes of God I've mentioned in this and my previous post are quite biblical, aren't they?) _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
I suggest you think through yours in the fist place. Such a claim requires more than just a statement of its veracity to constitute a decent argument.
I'm not constituting an argument, I'm stating a basic principle of dimensional physics.
Heck, even the dimensional principles in simple math back it up!
Therefore, it's your "Invalid" denial that requires explanation. _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Joined: Dec 18, 2005 Posts: 4748 Location: United States
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Quote:
Hey, times change. Of course we're not there yet, but things are moving toward that day.
The religious establishment burned people at the stake because they were in great, great power.
Ever hear of the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
If evolution's brand of, shall we say, "scientific zealotry" reaches a high peak of power, the scientific community will do similar things to the powerless non-believers.
Um.... yeah, of course. That is what evolution is all about, power, oppression, and demeaning people by saying they are like monkeys. Look, seriously, that is hardly an argument but an appeal conspiracy that is mainly supported by your disapproval of evolutionary findings. Like I said, I have seen people do this before to other ideas, and I study a field where people dismiss it based upon calls of conspiracy and bias all of the time.
Ragtime wrote:
Therefore, I ask you again: Why is impressing that theory upon people like me worth generating all this violent anger inside you?
Answer: It's not. So drop it.
Says you. Really, the issue is that the rejection of the theory takes on a level of insult, as legally our theory is accepted, by the scientific community it is accepted, and according to logic it seems that our theory is correct as well. It is like you casting aspersions on whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 and blaming a math community for this conclusion.
Why do you believe in something that doesn't make sense?
Because it does make sense.
Quote:
And, again, why with such emotion??? Could it be that you somehow need it to be true, for some personal reasons?
No, it is because we are right, you are wrong, and there are few situations more obvious than this one.
Quote:
I mean, you sure sound like it's damn important that both you and everyone else believe this rather effectless theory.
Well, people dedicate their lives to this theory, and it is easily proven a valid theory. Like I would say, it is like saying 2 + 2 = 4, if you kept on asserting 5, it would be rather frustrating.
Ragtime wrote:
Give me a reason to believe it first!(What the hell? I might as well ask you why you don't believe the Earth rests on unlimited tortoises' backs! This is what you sound like: "Well, WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THAT?! HUH? Why can't you see that the Earth is obviously resting on tortoises' backs?! It's SCIENCE!") It's just the repeated insisting of a random premise, followed by the demanding interrogation of why I don't believe it.
There is no evidence for that theory, there are no predictions made by that theory. Frankly, I think we have done a better job with evidence than you do. Heck, your proof of God is saying that "PROOF is all AROUND YOU!!!", and our proof of evolution could so easily be exactly the same, but we have bothered going through the theory. Frankly, the issue is not accepting that evolution is correct, but accepting that it is a valid scientific theory. If you said, "I believe that evolution is the best scientific theory mankind has for explaining diversity in life, but I believe, for personal reasons, that macroevolution has not occurred" then I don't think that people would mind so much. A few of the ardent atheists might care, but the bulk of the matter is an issue of science.
Ragtime wrote:
My belief in God is very scientific. He is in a higher dimension to us, which technically necessitates His omni-presence in, omniscience of, and omnipotence over, us and everything else in this lower dimension. It also technically necessitates Him being invisible to us, even when He's right next to us -- since we cannot see into higher dimensions, but higher dimensions include ours, and can therefore easily see into ours.
Umm.... no. Your belief in God does not show much science to it at all. You may throw science terms onto it, but beyond that it seems just like an assertion, and a pseudo-scientific one at that.
Ragtime wrote:
I'm not constituting an argument, I'm stating a basic principle of dimensional physics.
Heck, even the dimensional principles in simple math back it up!
Therefore, it's your "Invalid" denial that requires explanation.
No, you really aren't. Does an apple exist everywhere on a 2 dimensional plane? No, it does not, it exists on a small portion of it. What about if we imagine a being who has time, in a timeless universe? Does he necessarily exist in all parts of that timeless universe? Not likely. So, really, you will need to back it up.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Hey, times change. Of course we're not there yet, but things are moving toward that day.
The religious establishment burned people at the stake because they were in great, great power.
Ever hear of the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
If evolution's brand of, shall we say, "scientific zealotry" reaches a high peak of power, the scientific community will do similar things to the powerless non-believers.
That is what evolution is all about, power, oppression, and demeaning people by saying they are like monkeys.
Nowadays, that's largely true.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Like I said, I have seen people do this before to other ideas, and I study a field where people dismiss it based upon calls of conspiracy and bias all of the time.
Not all calls of "conspiracy" are false alarms. Remember, the boy who cried "Wolf!", though ignored for his misleading repetition, was eventually eaten by a wolf.
To clarify a point of that analogy, I am not one of the misleading repeaters, but a final caller:
Evolution has become a conspiracy to silence opposing views in the name of science, while it's actual scientific validity remains in high doubt. It's more a consensus among a certain society than it is supported by evidence. (There is no stark evidence of evolution -- just pieces which the highly-dedicated can force and mangle into a sort-of puzzle.) _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 12, 2008 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
I suggest you think through yours in the fist place. Such a claim requires more than just a statement of its veracity to constitute a decent argument.
I'm not constituting an argument, I'm stating a basic principle of dimensional physics.
Heck, even the dimensional principles in simple math back it up!
Therefore, it's your "Invalid" denial that requires explanation.
Oh nos! I guess I've been infected by atheist higher math!
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
And, again, why with such emotion??? Could it be that you somehow need it to be true, for some personal reasons?
No, it is because we are right, you are wrong, and there are few situations more obvious than this one.
How fascistic can you sound? _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
No, you really aren't. Does an apple exist everywhere on a 2 dimensional plane? No, it does not, it exists on a small portion of it. What about if we imagine a being who has time, in a timeless universe? Does he necessarily exist in all parts of that timeless universe? Not likely. So, really, you will need to back it up.
You aren't actually having a hard time imagining what I'm saying, are you?
I don't assume God to be merely one dimension above us.
I thought your imagination was greater than that.
I assume God to be several dimensions higher, in the highest dimension of all. (Last I checked, scientists had theorized 11; others say 10.)
He in fact may be that dimension -- not in the sense of true identity, but in the sense of filling it entirely.
Therefore, He would be supreme in every possible physical sense of the word. _________________ Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Joined: Dec 18, 2005 Posts: 4748 Location: United States
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Ragtime wrote:
Not all calls of "conspiracy" are false alarms. Remember, the boy who cried "Wolf!", though ignored for his misleading repetition, was eventually eaten by a wolf.
To clarify a point of that analogy, I am not one of the misleading repeaters, but a final caller:
Evolution has become a conspiracy to silence opposing views in the name of science, while it's actual scientific validity remains in high doubt. It's more a consensus among a certain society than it is supported by evidence. (There is no stark evidence of evolution -- just pieces which the highly-dedicated can force and mangle into a sort-of puzzle.)
Um.... many calls of conspiracy are false alarms, and heck, I would say that most calls of conspiracy are false alarms.
Evolution has no opposing views and it's scientific validity is not under any large amount of doubt at all. A few of the posters studying biology stated that at certain points, the room for doubt of the theory becomes rather small. Not only that, but, stark evidence? What the heck would you accept as stark evidence? Frankly, the entire IDEA of a theory is to put pieces together in a puzzle, and the fact that evolutionary theory works with those pieces for that puzzle in an effective manner proves it's scientific validity.
Quote:
How fascistic can you sound?
Nowhere as much as you can sound idiotic I am afraid.
Joined: Dec 18, 2005 Posts: 4748 Location: United States
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"
Ragtime wrote:
You aren't actually having a hard time imagining what I'm saying, are you?
I don't assume God to be merely one dimension above us.
I thought your imagination was greater than that.
I assume God to be several dimensions higher, in the highest dimension of all. (Last I checked, scientists had theorized 11; others say 10.)
He in fact may be that dimension -- not in the sense of true identity, but in the sense of filling it entirely.
Therefore, He would be supreme in every possible physical sense of the word.
Um... no, you are having a part time explaining what you are saying.
Wow, because I did not infer your precise idea from your pithy statement?
Not only that, but still, you have an issue of a 4 dimensional object found throughout all of a 1 dimensional plane.
Wow, God is a dimension. And where exactly did that come from with your scientific mind? Or should I simply say pseudo-scientific and end it at that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I suggest you think through yours in the fist place. Such a claim requires more than just a statement of its veracity to constitute a decent argument.
