Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Not sure if Calvin is learning or ever will, but I am!
I do find it odd - we all (and certainly you the most) have given him evidence and links, yet, he refuses to accept it and I fear even look at it.
The odd part is this: He ignores your information which is based on real scientific research, yet, he posts opinions of pseudo scientists with only their faith at stake-THEN-we are supposed to think that negates libraries full of data supporting evolution?????
I have noticed the more intelligent creationists at least pause to consider the data. As for the others, well let's just say they refuse to be confused by the facts.
I know I have said it a hundred times before but comprehension is a big factor. Some people just do not have the ability to understand the upper level sciences and I do not fault them for that...but, should they really be arguing against something they do not understand?
Your posts are very professional and very informative, even if Calvin cannot or is not able to accept/understand, there will be some creationists who will pause to study the information (like MySavior did) and for this reason I think it is important. Calvin is going to believe falsified science because he has tied his faith to it and that is quite sad. No matter how much data or how many picture he is going to say, "NOPE."
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
My goodness Calvin, I do not think I have ever seen a more blatant display of plagiarism or unoriginal thought. I am still reeling over, "Mitochondrial DNA is my favorite subject." Typically, people are at least somewhat familiar with their favorite subject.
It became your favorite subject after finding inf. on the web. Just heads up Calvin: We have access to the SAME www. as you do! You act as if you have this secret stash of inf., come back and paste it, then declare victory. The thing is, you do not understand that information, because if you did you would not have posted the particular articles you have. Your choices would have been MUCH better. You are not going to replace 10 years of education with an hour on the web or try to pass it off as your own expertise/ knowledge. If you are going to cut and paste at least have the decency to do it from legitimate science sources. LOL.
So you never did answer: Why is Mitochondrial DNA not evidence of evolution? You never did say. You insisted on our own words-We obliged, so....now in your OWN words let's hear your run down on Mitochondrial DNA and why it is not valid as evidence of evolution. You don't know do you? You do not have a clue. You have to hear what some pseudo scientist with his faith on the line has to say about it and then regurgitate his thoughts. Or when you come up dry you feign amusement and false mockery. Look up HUBRIS in your dictionary, Calvin.
We see you have mastered cutting and pasting on the computer, now let's discuss science, shall we?
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
Hmmm.... Perhaps you might be right. The trouble is, finding God through scientific study is somewhat incongruous with Christian theology.
Right. For three reasons I can see. One is that God is found thru revelation, as you point out. The second is that, right now, God can get into science only by the back door. That is, you propose a mechanism by which God works (Flood, recent creation, 144 hour creation, etc.) and then look for the mechanism. However, all science can do is test the mechanism. Even if you find it, you aren't sure God really caused the mechanism! Third, most "scientific study" of God proposes a god-of-the-gaps and Christian theology states that God did not create a universe with any gaps.
Of course personal revelations are very valid. And I believe they can actually be shared experiences as well. However, if they were predictable and repeatable, then the question of faith would be moot by now. Which is why I am doubtful about the prospects of science moving away from its agnostic position.
Apples and oranges. Personal revelations are very convincing and valid (as are all personal experiences) to the person having them. But since not all people have had revelation those not having them can hardly be blamed for not believing.
Since not all people have revelation, revelation is not intersubjective. Which is why science doesn't consider them. The reason science is agnostic, however, is different. It's methodological materialism. Let me try to illustrate.
You want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, water, soil, air.
This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol of having a control where you KNOW the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you KNOW the entity is present.
Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has NO supernatural in it?" I can't. Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.
Now you know why science is limited to the material. And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.
Yes. However, its worth pointing out that these two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
The two hypotheses I stated are mutually exclusive. One (theisti) is that every cause has two components: a material and a supernatural. The supernatural is just as necessary as the material. The other hypothesis -- the atheistic one -- is that the material causes are the only causes and there isn't a supernatural component.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
My goodness Calvin, I do not think I have ever seen a more blatant display of plagiarism or unoriginal thought. I am still reeling over, "Mitochondrial DNA is my favorite subject." Typically, people are at least somewhat familiar with their favorite subject.
I missed that post. In the interest of completeness, I feel I should also debunk that one. Where is it, please?
Calvin is going to believe falsified science because he has tied his faith to it and that is quite sad. No matter how much data or how many picture he is going to say, "NOPE."
Yep, that's it, all right. Calvin is one of those who has made the tragic mistake of tying the existence of God with a particular how of creation. Show the how to be wrong -- creationism to be wrong -- and Calvin mistakenly thinks that God has been disproved. He can't accept that God can use evolution to create.
However, for the sake of all those like MySavior, we still have to show that Calvin's sources are wrong about science. Perhaps we can still reach them that evolution is not atheism.
But you are correct to constantly point that out. No matter how much we concentrate on purely scientific claims, or how much creationists such as Calvin say they are doing only science, we must always be aware that we are always dealing with a religious dimension. Always lurking in the background is that fallacy: evolution is atheism and denies God. We have to bring the fallacy to the front even if it is only hinted at by the creationist. Only if and when we can convince them that accepting evolution means you still keep God is the creationist going to listen to the science.
So keep up the good work of pointing out the logical mistake of creationism.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Right. For three reasons I can see. One is that God is found thru revelation, as you point out. The second is that, right now, God can get into science only by the back door. That is, you propose a mechanism by which God works (Flood, recent creation, 144 hour creation, etc.) and then look for the mechanism. However, all science can do is test the mechanism. Even if you find it, you aren't sure God really caused the mechanism! Third, most "scientific study" of God proposes a god-of-the-gaps and Christian theology states that God did not create a universe with any gaps.
And there are a couple of others: No one comes to God through works. In addition, faith is a free choice...otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Scientific proof of God would mess with both of these principles.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Now you know why science is limited to the material. And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.
I appreciate the examples...but this is precisely what I have been trying to say right from the start. I'm glad you are finnally seeing things my way lucaspa. All kidding aside, I suppose I have not been allotted the gift of clarity in the same measure as you have. But I'm glad we understand each other.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
The two hypotheses I stated are mutually exclusive. One (theisti) is that every cause has two components: a material and a supernatural.
Every cause? Can you explain this one a little more?
Must be wonderful to be a creationist. Find one example of a scientific fraud or hoax, and every last thing you don't happen to like in the sciences can be dismissed out of hand. Find one example of a Christian committing a fraud or hoax, and he wasn't a True Christian to start with so it doesn't count. What a wonderful example of a double standard run absolutely mad.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
I missed that post. In the interest of completeness, I feel I should also debunk that one. Where is it, please?
Lucaspa-sure, no problem in post#(this thread)
420-Calvin BEGS for ANYONE to show him "even one proof of evolution"
430-After many links are supplied by many people, he admonishes us that i must be in "your own words", ironically after HE HAS PASTED directly from a creationist web site.
437-He scolds me and says the links mean nothing and he needs to hear something in my own words. I told him I would give him one word and an acronym Mitochondrial DNA. (Within 10 minutes of that post he leaves the thread)
450-Philosoft have been surfing creationist webs sites and busts Calvin for Plagarism (Good work Philosoft!). -LOL and my favorite: He returns the next day in post #
458-To tell me that he was glad Mitochondrial DNA was mentioned because Mitochondrial DNA is HIS FAVORITE SUBJECT. He then graciously tells us a little background he says, "For any that may not be familiar with it..." (holding side laughing)
So keep up the good work of pointing out the logical mistake of creationism.
Originally Posted by Lucaspa
Why thank you, I am honored-I will.
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
Plato, Symposium 203E-204A
Last edited by LorentzHA; 30th November 2003 at 10:04 PM.
No, it must be a terrible burden. They have dug out their own grave by saying that if science is right about the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, the global flood, etc, then Christianity is wrong. Today we have more than enough data to falsify the creationist literal take on scriptures. They cannot accept it. To accept it is to bury their faith in the grave they have dug out for it...and that is a price that is too high for them to pay. This leaves them with little choice but to attack the character of scientists and science in general. Its easy to say 'man is fallible...when we get it right, it will agree with a literal reading of Genesis'. So lets show everyone that science and scientists are fallible. And setting out to do so puts them on the verge of breaking important Christian principles about loving thy neighbor, and refraining from judgment.
They are actually twice deceived:
1. Because (as I have said) they believe that if science is right, God is wrong.
2. They believe that by trying to discredit good science and put forth agenda based 'science' in its place, they have picked up their cross and are doing God's work.
The truth of the matter is, whenever they try to convince people of either #1 or #2, they are doing little more than spreading stumbling blocks in front of those who otherwise might enter into faith. And this is anything but God's work.
No, it must be a terrible burden. They have dug out their own grave by saying that if science is right about the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, the global flood, etc, then Christianity is wrong.
Trouble is, they're making up the rules as they go along. As evidenced by that idiotic extrapolation from a couple of episodes of fraud perpetrated on (not by) scientists to the assertion that evolution itself is one great big fraud. In creationist space, it's everybody else who is always wrong, regardless of anything. Not that they're persuading many outsiders (if any), but it's so secure in that hermetically sealed little world where logic and thought are not permitted.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Every cause? Can you explain this one a little more?
Now I was imprecise. Every material cause discovered by science. It's methodological materialism as outlined in the plants and the idea I was trying to convey to Lovingmother: theists believe that all the material causes discovered are part of the entire explanation. The entire explanation has two components: the material cause discovered by science and a supernatural cause. IOW, God has to be present for the material to work.
This was well understood in the 1700s and 1800s. Somewhere in the 1900s Christians lost sight of their own theology. God was only supposed to be present when there was no material cause. IOW, Christianity reverted to god-of-the-gaps.
"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed.Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.
Now, that is a belief. But it's a belief that creationists have discarded.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
(holding side laughing)
Linear Mode
