Diversity remains a one way street

[Winky]

Leave them sleeping dogs lie!

 

[catocom]

Didn't the Pope himself say that macro-evolution (not micro-evolution like SnP describes) probably happened and that it does NOT contradict the Bible? He went on to say that evolution is the mechanism used by God to create the world and that science in general does not disprove God, it only makes one appreciate the magnifigance of His creation even more.

But then again the Pope was against the war in Iraq, too, so from what I have learned on OTC he is an idiot to be dismissed at all times.

When reading the books of the Bible, you have to remember that an author has to write to his/her audience. First, consider that Moses or some similar character was talking to a burning bush. Now think about being told about the Big Bang or DNA or radiation...by a burning bush. Even if Moses understood and bought into what this shrub is saying, you think he would have many followers back in the village? He would have been burnt alive by ATF agents. God is no dummy, he knew that he needed to make the story believable to the given audience. I guarantee if God were to re-write the Bible today it would be pretty different.

I don't know about the pope part, but that is pretty much the way
I've come to believe for some years now.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Your belief in the 'facts', which change whenever somebody comes up with a better idea, is no more different than my belief in a higher being. Both are beliefs. Just because yours are mostly wrong, it doesn't detract from the only truth out there...there are no facts, only theories and hypothesis...

Im amused you had to alter what I said to try to make your point. On what evidence do you declare what I said above to be "mostly wrong"? Oh and how exactly is the constant refinement of scientific reality by slow painstaking observation and discovery and testing equal to your belief in a god because its written in an ancient book? Present your evidence for such and we can study it k? I would be THRILLED to see scientific evidence for creationism. That would be amazing. Imagine the remifications on science and on society in general. But until you can do that then you can just put back the words "allegory and myth" thanks.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Im amused you had to alter what I said to try to make your point. On what evidence do you declare what I said above to be "mostly wrong"? Oh and how exactly is the constant refinement of scientific reality by slow painstaking observation and discovery and testing equal to your belief in a god because its written in an ancient book? Present your evidence for such and we can study it k? I would be THRILLED to see scientific evidence for creationism. That would be amazing. Imagine the remifications on science and on society in general. But until you can do that then you can just put back the words "allegory and myth" thanks.

Facts are not facts. They don't exist. What most people call facts are nothing but a persons interpretation of something they observed and catalogued. If you understand probability at all, you'll agree that facts, as based in science, have a built-in 'fudge factor', meaning that they could be wrong. You have a belief in those 'facts' because you believe that those observing those facts are reasonable, intelligent, people. Now, can you agree with everything I've written here...I don't want to get too far ahead, and get taken out of context...

 

[chcr]

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Gould

I don't interpret it the same way Gato does, but scientific "facts" can be and sometimes are overturned. OTOH, the evidence for evolution is manifold and the evidence for creation is, in fact, singular.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I don't interpret it the same way Gato does, but scientific "facts" can be and sometimes are overturned. OTOH, the evidence for evolution is manifold and the evidence for creation is, in fact, singular.

Point missed...try again.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

First, consider that Moses or some similar character was talking to a burning bush. Now think about being told about the Big Bang or DNA or radiation...by a burning bush. Even if Moses understood and bought into what this shrub is saying, you think he would have many followers back in the village? He would have been burnt alive by ATF agents. God is no dummy, he knew that he needed to make the story believable to the given audience. I guarantee if God were to re-write the Bible today it would be pretty different.

I guarantee you are dead wrong about that last sentence.

The word of God is unchanging and unchangeable, no matter how much the modern times might prefer it to be otherwise.

I stand by every statement in it, and every statement I have made. Laugh all you like.

And no, Moses was not talking to a burning bush. If you read the passage you know very well who he was speaking with.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I guarantee you are dead wrong about that last sentence.

The word of God is unchanging and unchangeable, no matter how much the modern times might prefer it to be otherwise.

I stand by every statement in it, and every statement I have made. Laugh all you like.

And no, Moses was not talking to a burning bush. If you read the passage you know very well who he was speaking with.

Not to add enlightenment to this whole thread, but belief in a fact requires just that...belief. Why is that so hard for these folks to understand that belief is belief, whether it's based on 'scientific' observation, or a higher power? Just as an addendum to all this, I have a statement...

Science cannot create anything. Only manipulate what is already there.

 

[chcr]

Point missed...try again.

I got the point Gato, I just disagree with it. I was pointing out that it's obvious where this misconception arises from.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I got the point Gato, I just disagree with it. I was pointing out that it's obvious where this misconception arises from.

It's not a misconception. Science is based solely on observable trends. Those observations require interpretation. Ergo, my statement is 100% true. The interpretation is listed, and catalogued, and, if the observed activity occurs on a regular basis, it is deemed to be a fact. There-in lies the belief factor. If that observation is proven to be incorrect, in more than one occurance, then it is declared false, and loses it's definition of fact. It happens all the time. My belief system is steady, while you belief system is full of jumps, fits, starts, and false ends. You wish for me to justify my beliefs using your system, and when I refuse, I am misguided?

 

[rrfield]

I guarantee you are dead wrong about that last sentence.

The word of God is unchanging and unchangeable, no matter how much the modern times might prefer it to be otherwise.

The message can remain the same while telling the story with updated language. Don't protestants read a variety of translations? I think they read the King James and NIV translations? Doesn't the NIV use more up to date language? I know we Catholics have the Douay-Rheims Bible (translated from the Latin Vulgate) and New American Bible (released in 1970). Do you think all 4 versions are the same? Do all 4 versions project the same message?

I stand by every statement in it, and every statement I have made. Laugh all you like.

And no, Moses was not talking to a burning bush. If you read the passage you know very well who he was speaking with.

Moses was talking to God the Father, played by a burning bush.

 

[chcr]

Science is based solely on observable trends

That's an incredible oversimplification, but I know it's what you believe.

Science must be able to reproduce the same observations over and over to become accepted as fact. Certainly misinterpretations happen, but significantly more often with theory. Accepted facts are overturned very rarely. This is the difference. I don't care if you think your beliefs are justified and mine are not, they're your's and mine. As I have pointed out before, you use things constantly which have their sole basis in science. By your reasoning, IMO, a refrigerator keeps things cold simply because we believe it will. I do find this misguided, but believe whatever makes you happy.

 

[Gato_Solo]

That's an incredible oversimplification, but I know it's what you believe.

Science must be able to reproduce the same observations over and over to become accepted as fact. This is the difference. I don't care if you think your beliefs are justified and mine are not, there your's and mine. As I have pointed out before, you use things constantly which have their sole basis in science. By your reasoning, IMO, a refrigerator keeps things cold simply because we believe it will. I do find this misguided, but believe whatever makes you happy.

Which is exactly what I said. You choose to ignore the truth that science is a belief based system. You'd like to make me look ignorant by using your refrigerator example, and ignore the glaring error of what a belief is...so be it. You try to justify what you believe by observation and study. Go for it. It still boils down to belief. You exercise faith every day and refuse to acknowledge that, but I don't bring that up... I find this prejudicial, but believe whatever makes you happy...

 

[chcr]

To me, it's the difference between believing something because you can see the results and understand the process by which the results are arrived at vs. believing it because someone else said it was so. So yes, I do believe that faith in science is more valid than faith in the supernatural. I'm not trying to convince you, just trying to illuminate my position. I understand how you arrive at yours but of course I think mine is more valid. Re. the refrigerator example, it was not put forth to make you seem ignorant in any way. I don't seriously believe you are. It was simply an example of why I find your reasoning invalid. I seriously don't understand how anyone can equate the two. It seems the sheerest folly to me. I understand that people believe it, I just don't understand why. I never did.

 

[Gato_Solo]

To me, it's the difference between believing something because you can see the results and understand the process by which the results are arrived at vs. believing it because someone else said it was so. So yes, I do believe that faith in science is more valid than faith in the supernatural. I'm not trying to convince you, just trying to illuminate my position. I understand how you arrive at yours but of course I think mine is more valid. Re. the refrigerator example, it was not put forth to make you seem ignorant in any way. I don't seriously believe you are. It was simply an example of why I find your reasoning invalid. I seriously don't understand how anyone can equate the two. It seems the sheerest folly to me. I understand that people believe it, I just don't understand why. I never did.

So...how much understanding do you have on the process of discovery in the string theory. How much of the math do you really understand, and how much do you rely on others to tell you? How about The theory of relativity. Perhaps you understand physics, so how about this. You have no full understanding of the sciences you cling to as truth. Nobody really does. Not even Stephen Hawking. All science can do is observe. Science cannot create. That's the flaw I keep pointing out, and you keep avoiding.

 

[chcr]

Well, string theory is a theory, not an accepted fact. In fact there are many problems with it And it has a long way to go before it is even a mainstream theory (whatever the media would have you believe) let alone accepted fact. I actually understand it fairly well (for a layperson without enough math). The theory of relativity, also a theory (albeit a mainstream one) is fairly easily understood. No I do not have a full understanding, as you say, no one does. I do not however, "cling to science as truth." "Truth" is a philosophical construct. Science is not the search for truth, it's the search for explanation. Fine, my "faith" in science is exactly the same as "faith" in god. I don't believe that and it isn't true, but you can if you want to. It always comes back to creation, and science, while it does not create, does explain creation without the need for supernatural intervention. What you see as a "flaw" I see as a strength.

Edit: It really boils down to a belief in the validity of science vs. a belief in the validity of the supernatural. IMO, Science will always be more valid. I do "believe" in science in that aspect, I simply say that such a belief is significantly more supportable, and therefore not equatable to religious "faith." It's a semantics argument, and I disagree with your interpretation.

 

[abooja]

 

[freako104]

Science is based solely on observable trends

like Chic said this is an oversimplification. I will agree to a point but I thnk science has more to it. Observable trends yes, also applying the Scientific Method and experiments can help get answers. they can and do explain some questions. It does not answer all and like anything else it does have its fallings.

 

[Gato_Solo]

like Chic said this is an oversimplification. I will agree to a point but I thnk science has more to it. Observable trends yes, also applying the Scientific Method and experiments can help get answers. they can and do explain some questions. It does not answer all and like anything else it does have its fallings.

Nope. It's just a way to try and explain the universe. There is no more. You, and chcr are making it more complex than it is. At this point, you have to, because you need to place your belief in science in a position above my belief in God. Why this is such a difficult concept to get across, I'll never know.

 

[Winky]

Is that the same as saying
"I believe in ghosts, not explainable facts"?