The evolving LIES of evolution

MartinM · Sep 7, 2005

Carico said:
And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation? Which science do you believe? Today's science or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?

From Isaac Asimov's essay 'The Relativity of Wrong'

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

Caphi · Sep 7, 2005

Okay, I'll join.

Carico said:
And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation? Which science do you believe? Today's science or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?

Well, the others beat me to the RoW cite, but I do have this to say, Carico - what would be a better way to operate? Stubbornly clinging to archaic beliefs, shunning new information and new wonder?

rmwilliamsll · Sep 7, 2005

Carico said:
And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation? Which science do you believe? Today's science or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?

and you compare this to a religious world where everyone agrees and nothing has changed in gnerations?
where is this place?
all i can see is thousands of Christian denominations that say everyone else is wrong.
which is more unified?
science or religion?
which has a public knowledge base which everyone has access to?
which has a private knowledge that can not be confirmed by anyone else?
which is self corrective and which divides rather than corrects errors?

o silly me.

Grengor · Sep 7, 2005

Silly Rabbi, personal revelations are for priests!

dlamberth · Sep 7, 2005

Carico said:
And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation?

From the very same science that created the computers we all are using to access this forum of which science developed the technology to make all of this possible.

In another generation, science will have "evolved" so much that much newer and better ways to access this forum will have been birthed. Some will see this evolution of science as growth and accumulation of knowledge and embrace that change growth begets. Others will use growth as arguments against science as being unreliable because it had that audacity to grow and change with growth. Either way, it will be science which births the new technology we will use in the future.

.

Kripost · Sep 8, 2005

Carico said:
And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation? Which science do you believe? Today's science or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?

Medicine works the same way. For instance, why do doctors change their opinions just about every decade (e.g. using leeches and maggots in certain situations), and would you use today's medicine or tomorrow's medicine?

Personally, I prefer a modern cellphone to the bulky contraption back in the 80's.

BananaSlug · Sep 8, 2005

And how do you know these things? From scientists who keep changing their minds every generation? Which science do you believe? Today's science or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?

Click to expand...

That's what is great about science. As we learn more, our perceptions and knowledge of the world CHANGES! There is nothing wrong about change, when we discover something new, we forget about the old. It's called LEARNING and I suggest you try it sometime. Creationists on the other hand, use the same outdated, refuted tactics and misinformation over and over and over and over (see my point?) Le der.

BTW, theologians cannot make up their minds about the meaning of certain passages of scripture, who wrote them, etc. Does this mean the Bible is suspect because Christians themselves can't agree on it?

Jet Black · Sep 8, 2005

Kripost said:
Personally, I prefer a modern cellphone to the bulky contraption back in the 80's.

Don't be silly. Because a cellphone released today is slightly smaller than a cellphone released yesterday, Yesterday's cellphone is identical in size to cellphones produced in the 1980s.

LittleNipper · Sep 8, 2005

BananaSlug said:
That's what is great about science. As we learn more, our perceptions and knowledge of the world CHANGES! There is nothing wrong about change, when we discover something new, we forget about the old. It's called LEARNING and I suggest you try it sometime. Creationists on the other hand, use the same outdated, refuted tactics and misinformation over and over and over and over (see my point?) Le der.

BTW, theologians cannot make up their minds about the meaning of certain passages of scripture, who wrote them, etc. Does this mean the Bible is suspect because Christians themselves can't agree on it?

Theologians are not all Christian and there is the possibility that some who claim to be will not be found anywhere in heaven when that time comes. Human logic is ALWAYS suspect; however, those that suspect the Bible are even to be suspected... The reality is that the Bible has remained unchanged for 2000 years, and any earlier additions only brought into focus what had previously been revealed. Scientists on the otherhand are slowly rediscovering what had already been revealed. It is just taking them time to realize that they've been traveling down the wrong path or barking up the wrong tree...

USincognito · Sep 8, 2005

Kripost said:
Personally, I prefer a modern cellphone to the bulky contraption back in the 80's.

That's crazy talk.. well, mostly crazy talk.

I don't currently own a cell phone currently, but I appreciate my 5 lb. Cellstar (with fashinable purse-like carrying cast - perfect for a he-man like me) was a technological marvel religated to the museums with ENIAC. On the other hand, most of the people at my workplace have Blackberry earpieces and I want to smack them in the head. I also found a lost cell in the restroom last night and it was barely twice the size of a Zippo lighter.

Now I'm all in favor of progress, and I realize that the less wire and plastic the manufacurer has to use the cheaper consumer electronics are, but at what point to I clip on ear and lip ring and call it a cell phone? For me, personally, the Nokia models of the early 90s were about the right size. You could have the earphone on your ear, the microphone near your mouth, it weighed enough to where you'd notice if you'd misplaced it, but you didn't look like a drag queen toting it around with you.

BananaSlug · Sep 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Theologians are not all Christian and there is the possibility that some who claim to be will not be found anywhere in heaven when that time comes. Human logic is ALWAYS suspect; however, those that suspect the Bible are even to be suspected... The reality is that the Bible has remained unchanged for 2000 years, and any earlier additions only brought into focus what had previously been revealed. Scientists on the otherhand are slowly rediscovering what had already been revealed. It is just taking them time to realize that they've been traveling down the wrong path or barking up the wrong tree...

The reality is that many books that were popular during Jesus's time were not included in the canon. How can you say the Bible has remain unchanged when obviously it has not? What if Pauls letters were just letters to specific churches and not meant to be canonized? Secondly, the NT (Gospels) were not written until around 50 years after Jesus's death. Before then they traveled largely by word of mouth. Thirdly, Theologians study many aspects of the Bible and want to be as accurate as possible. Fourthly, you have to right to make a claim on ANYONE'S salvation because that is God's domain. When you purport to know someone's heart you are placing yourself in God's position.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH190.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html

Deamiter · Sep 8, 2005

closed for a split.

Deamiter · Sep 8, 2005

Split the relatively separate topic started by jadecougar. I may have missed a post or two, but the gist should be right.

This is a new member who actually wants to debate details rather than condemn generalities. Lets try to keep this thread cleaner!

Deamiter · Sep 8, 2005

Split to here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2078991

nvxplorer · Sep 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Theologians are not all Christian and there is the possibility that some who claim to be will not be found anywhere in heaven when that time comes. Human logic is ALWAYS suspect...

Do you not use logic for your belief in the Bible? Is it logical to want to go to heaven? Is such logic suspect as well? Why should I trust your reasoning over that of others or my own?

The evolving LIES of evolution

GondolierAce

Well-Known Member

avid reader

GrenAce

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

Life is an experiment, experience it!

I just follow Christ.

I just follow Christ.

I just follow Christ.

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency