Lines of Evidence

[Doveaman]

But, when you have some who have more fundamentalist beliefs, that are extremely important for them to protect, they will indeed do what is necessary to protect those beliefs. We see that behavior on these boards each and every day.

I know what you mean.

Some of us fundamentally believe in God-energy, while others fundamentally believe in dark-energy and dark-matter.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I know what you mean.

Some of us fundamentally believe in God-energy, while others fundamentally believe in dark-energy and dark-matter.

Then you believe it is God-energy that is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up?

 

[Doveaman]

That's actually quite true. However, the best way to understand physical reality is via science.

There is more to reality than the physical. You need to get out more.

You reject man's combined knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy, linguistics, paleontology and anthropology in favor of your religious dogma.

No, I reject them in favor of theology and the sciences that are consistent with the theology.

 

[Doveaman]

I've always noticed that it is religion that has altered its viewpoint to come into line with what science has said rather than science altering its viewpoint to better fit with what religion discovers.

I've always noticed that it is what science has said that has altered reality to come into line with its viewpoint rather than science altering its viewpoint to better fit with reality.

 

[Doveaman]

Does going from a Christian of 40 years to an atheist towards the Christian God count as changing my way of thinking?

Yes, it's going backwards into a primitive way of thinking. More like an animal than human.

Oh wait....humans are animals! I forgot.

 

[Split Rock]

I've learned a lot too. That's why I reject bad science.

Translation: "I haven't learned anything, and still reject science that conflicts with my religious dogma."

There is more to reality than the physical. You need to get out more.

I specifically referred to physical reality. This includes where humans come from.

No, I reject them in favor of theology and the sciences that are consistent with the theology.

There is no science consistent with theology. They are like apples and oranges. If you guys just kept to your theology, we wouldn't have these silly arguments on the internet.

 

[[serious]]

I guess in your imagination you are one of the world's greatest original thinkers.

That doesn't follow.

 

[[serious]]

Nope.

It's true because God inspired it.
The Bible is a record of that truth.
Those who are inspired by God know the Bible is true.

So God inspired you to really think the bible is true? I feel like there is a shade of meaning you are insisting on, but I'm not seeing what it is.

If there is no external reference to back up your conviction, you are ultimately relying on the infallibility of your own judgement. Whether that judgement is in your ability to recognize The One True Scripture, your ability to choose those with that ability (Nicaea!), or your ability to distinguish divine revelation from any of the other things which cause people to think they have received divine Revelation. We are all prone to feeling undue certainty that some thing will occur or some fact is true, but the wise man does not rest solely on his own discretion. The bar I have set for myself is whether the external facts could convince another.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, it's going backwards into a primitive way of thinking. More like an animal than human.

Oh wait....humans are animals! I forgot.

I understand why you need to think that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've always noticed that it is what science has said that has altered reality to come into line with its viewpoint rather than science altering its viewpoint to better fit with reality.

You think science has the power to alter reality?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Does going from a Christian of 40 years to an atheist towards the Christian God count as changing my way of thinking?

As my first reply to you was deleted for goading and flaming you ( I'm still getting used to the ultra-warm and fuzzy vibe here ) , I shall re-do my reply observing the Site-wide Rules and Moderation Protocol:

I cannot imagine how anyone could last that long and then give up. My first assumptions about you are correct. Don't mistake religion for God, it seems you are bound to repeat that mistake.

 

[MissRowy]

Guys can we keep it friendly? Just so you know I used to be an atheist but I found God and His love for me has grown stronger as my love for Him has also grown. I hope His love reaches all people because it is warm and it is wonderful. (sorry I had to get up on the soapbox, couldnt help myself)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Guys can we keep it friendly? Just so you know I used to be an atheist but I found God and His love for me has grown stronger as my love for Him has also grown. I hope His love reaches all people because it is warm and it is wonderful. (sorry I had to get up on the soapbox, couldnt help myself)

You're welcome. I notice my SCIENCE thread is turning into a Holy Rollers soapbox testimonial conference. No harm, I'm confident (ever the optimist) that it will eventually get back on track: LINES OF EVIDENCE which relate to EVOLUTION.

While we're about it: I have had I8 yrs of ignorance and unbelief, 20 yeas of [spiritual] stubbornness and stupidity, 10 years of uncertainty and unbelief, followed by nearly a decade of 'light.'* (*I refer to my earlier interactions with bhmste -- for those who give a hoot.)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

DOVEAMAN,
Please read the following, and then respond to my question (below)

--------------

Post 592 ( lewiscalledhimmaster) :

Dove a man's statement: 'There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. ....'

I suspect he meant to say 'There is no reality in science, ....'

'....According to the founding father of the history of science,George Sarton (1884–1956), the “main purpose” of science, pursued by disinterested scholars, was “the discovery of truth.” Convinced that science was the only human activity that “is obviously and undoubtedly cumulative and progressive,” he described the history of science as “the story of a protracted struggle, which will never end, against the inertia of superstition and ignorance, against the liars and hypocrites, and the deceivers and the self-deceived, against all the forces of darkness and nonsense.” [George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism] ....' excerpt from the introduction to Dr. Dennis Alexander's book entitled Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins

IMO, I tend to think, Doveman is stating; he doesn't care for the realities that scientific evidence leads to.

That is immensely frustrating, with so much co-operation being achieved in this regard -- in these very exciting times.
I've learned more over the last ten years, than I've learned in my entire life and a lot of it has to do with opening up to good science.
I like to think that we're doing here in 'Lines of Evidence' (and of course long before I came here) -- is good science. Forgive me for being so optimistic, but it's in my nature to try and focus on positive stuff. Most of the time.

I've learned a lot too. That's why I reject bad science.

Doveman,

Just so we're on the same page here, would you regard the LINES OF EVIDENCE related to EVOLUTION as presented on the Berkeley website good/bad science? (read here: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution )

If your think it's BAD SCIENCE, would you please tell me why you think so -- providing at least one detail presented there, which you find to be bad science?

Thanks in advance,
lewiscalledhimmaster

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

DOVEAMAN,
Please read the following, and then respond to my question (below)

--------------

Post 592 ( lewiscalledhimmaster) :

Dove a man's statement: 'There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. ....'

I suspect he meant to say 'There is no reality in science, ....'

'....According to the founding father of the history of science,George Sarton (1884–1956), the “main purpose” of science, pursued by disinterested scholars, was “the discovery of truth.” Convinced that science was the only human activity that “is obviously and undoubtedly cumulative and progressive,” he described the history of science as “the story of a protracted struggle, which will never end, against the inertia of superstition and ignorance, against the liars and hypocrites, and the deceivers and the self-deceived, against all the forces of darkness and nonsense.” [George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism] ....' excerpt from the introduction to Dr. Dennis Alexander's book entitled Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins

IMO, I tend to think, Doveman is stating; he doesn't care for the realities that scientific evidence leads to.

That is immensely frustrating, with so much co-operation being achieved in this regard -- in these very exciting times.
I've learned more over the last ten years, than I've learned in my entire life and a lot of it has to do with opening up to good science.
I like to think that we're doing here in 'Lines of Evidence' (and of course long before I came here) -- is good science. Forgive me for being so optimistic, but it's in my nature to try and focus on positive stuff. Most of the time.

I've learned a lot too. That's why I reject bad science.

Doveman,

Just so we're on the same page here, would you regard the LINES OF EVIDENCE related to EVOLUTION as presented on the Berkeley website good/bad science? (read here: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution )

If your think it's BAD SCIENCE, would you please tell me why you think so -- providing at least one detail presented there, which you find to be bad science?

Thanks in advance,
lewiscalledhimmaster

 

[bhsmte]

As my first reply to you was deleted for goading and flaming you ( I'm still getting used to the ultra-warm and fuzzy vibe here ) , I shall re-do my reply observing the Site-wide Rules and Moderation Protocol:

I cannot imagine how anyone could last that long and then give up. My first assumptions about you are correct. Don't mistake religion for God, it seems you are bound to repeat that mistake.

I am quite certain by the nature of your posts, that you do indeed struggle to understand how people can disagree with you and then you must label them.

Imagine this; it happens to people all the time and it will continue to, whether you agree with it or can cope with it or not.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I am quite certain by the nature of your posts, that you do indeed struggle to understand how people can disagree with you and then you must label them.

Your dime-store psycho-babble may impress Davian and some of the Moderators, but too most of us it's just what it is psycho-babble.

Imagine this; it happens to people all the time and it will continue to, whether you agree with it or can cope with it or not.

How did I know you'd follow your psycho-babble with a double dose of more psycho-babble.

It's a pity that you've haven't got much more than some old crotchety psycho-babble nothings to present as an argument, but that's just the way your psycho-babble ilk manifest after turning there backs on "religion" <-- thinking it to be God. Nothing new.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doveman,

Just so we're on the same page here, would you regard the LINES OF EVIDENCE related to EVOLUTION as presented on the Berkeley website good/bad science? (read here: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution )

If your think it's BAD SCIENCE, would you please tell me why you think so -- providing at least one detail presented there, which you find to be bad science?

Thanks in advance,
lewiscalledhimmaster
[/SIZE][/FONT]

If I may offer my two cents . . .

The Berkeley website is pretty good. Of course, by simplifying things down for the general public they may not get the details right. That applies to just about every theory.

Another good website with "lines of evidence" is the talkorigins site.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The talkorigins site is a bit more descriptive and in depth, but may not be as approachable as the Berkeley site.

 

[bhsmte]

Your dime-store psycho-babble may impress Davian and some of the Moderators, but too most of us it's just what it is psycho-babble.



How did I know you'd follow your psycho-babble with a double dose of more psycho-babble.

It's a pity that you've haven't got much more than some old crotchety psycho-babble nothings to present as an argument, but that's just the way your psycho-babble ilk manifest after turning there backs on "religion" <-- thinking it to be God. Nothing new.

Another post that speaks for itself.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Another post that speaks for itself.

The endless cup of psycho-babble.