Science and faith.

[CyniQ]

I watched a Boston Legal rerun last night. The subject was the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in school. It got me thinking. I'm more than a little sick and tired of being abused and labeled as some archaic, backwoods dolt for believing that it is more reasonable to conclude that the earth and living things on it had a creator rather than just popped up out of nothing.

I would like to urge Grizz and the rest of you evolutionists to acknowledge the truth. YOU are religious. Science and evolutionism are religions in themselves. You have faith in science the same way that creationists have faith in God. I say that God created Adam and Eve. You say that a living organism developed out of ooze by virtue of the allpowerful "Chance". OOooh. Sounds like Oog to me. Neither of us have any "real" proof. Yet we both profess to believe... get this... [i]without[?I] proof. You know what we call that don't you?

So why do you insist that it is more scientific, intelligent, rational, yada, yada to have FAITH in Chance and the primordial soup than it is to believe in a creator? [we've already beaten the evolution/creation horse to death. I want to debate the difference in philosophies more than the difference in doctrine. ]

[Beefy]

I concur. Everybody believes in something, it's an undeniable characteristic of humanity: faith.

Good job inciting the masses with your political savy, bro.

[goldstone_77]

I’ll be your huckleberry! What do you mean when you say science is a religion? I guess if I want to call my belief that 1 +1 = 2. Then I would have to say I believe in it fanatically. Science or logic has probably brought you everything you see around you. Including the mass productions of books selling the various religions. Look at these definitions of science.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Looks a lot like how religions started. Man trying to explain the world around him. We know that people first started trying to explain the world using nature and spirits. As society and technology advanced, so did religion. Man created many gods to explain many different phenomena he didn’t understand and gave these gods human like qualities. Greeks and Romans did this well. Polytheism. He what do you know people started saying one god is better than another. Monotheism was born. Then that argument continues on, who’s one God is better than the other. If you believe in God devoutly, I know your answer will be your own God! I like the bible for the many stories I have grown to love in it. But to believe that a man walked the earth, and was the son of God. Is just hokey to begin with. I use to believe in Santa Claus. Religion in my opinion just started out as a form of science. As science would say, you are the product of your environment. No doubt taught since birth to be Christian, or any other faith for that matter. Hey If God came over the loud speaker and said,” Hey this is who I am, and this is how I want you to believe!” I would be the first one on my knees! Again, I ask you, take away all religious books, and would you have ever known god exists if someone didn’t tell you? Ask yourself is that question really stupid?

[Neodavid]

If you haven't seen 'what the bleep do we know', you might enjoy it. Blockbuster rents it.

Originally Posted by goldstone_77

I’ll be your huckleberry! What do you mean when you say science is a religion? I guess if I want to call my belief that 1 +1 = 2. Then I would have to say I believe in it fanatically. Science or logic has probably brought you everything you see around you. Including the mass productions of books selling the various religions. Look at these definitions of science.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Looks a lot like how religions started. Man trying to explain the world around him. We know that people first started trying to explain the world using nature and spirits. As society and technology advanced, so did religion. Man created many gods to explain many different phenomena he didn’t understand and gave these gods human like qualities. Greeks and Romans did this well. Polytheism. He what do you know people started saying one god is better than another. Monotheism was born. Then that argument continues on, who’s one God is better than the other. If you believe in God devoutly, I know your answer will be your own God! I like the bible for the many stories I have grown to love in it. But to believe that a man walked the earth, and was the son of God. Is just hokey to begin with. I use to believe in Santa Claus. Religion in my opinion just started out as a form of science. As science would say, you are the product of your environment. No doubt taught since birth to be Christian, or any other faith for that matter. Hey If God came over the loud speaker and said,” Hey this is who I am, and this is how I want you to believe!” I would be the first one on my knees! Again, I ask you, take away all religious books, and would you have ever known god exists if someone didn’t tell you? Ask yourself is that question really stupid?

[goldstone_77]

Hi new david! What the "BLEEP" are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Neodavid

If you haven't seen 'what the bleep do we know', you might enjoy it. Blockbuster rents it.

[Neodavid]

What blew my mind a few years ago, was the evolutionary chart I was taught in grade school, was entirely falsified. Not one, not piltdown man, nebraska man, etc., could hold up to true dispassionate observation and testing.

There are so many facts the evolution theories must ignore, it's astounding.

Most men believe what they want to, and look for facts to back them up, then change their theories to match anything that keeps getting thrown in their face. It's difficult to avoid prejudice in every walk of life, religious or otherwise.

I'll say this, from where I sit it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. Evolution flies in the face of the most basic principle in the universe, ie., entropy. Things go to a lower form, to lesser distribution of energy, to less complex (here someone will bring up the open and closed system principle, etc., but been there done that, not caring to argue, just voicing a pure opinion).

The only thing which seems to deny this, is life.

The fact that life exists, allow men to start with it's existence as a foundation fact. Then because they cannot 'see' God, measure him, or observe him directly, they living in this physical world without spiritual interest, assume their own intellect to be all there is, and make themselves the single superior being in existence. Evolution is nothing more than the original lie of Satan, 'ye shall be as gods'.

By definition evolution is not a viable scientific principle, as it does not fit the requirements of being observable, and experimentally repeatable and measured.

The fact that some people call evolution a scientific fact, only demonstrates it truly IS a religion to them, as they cannot even be dispassionate enough to admit a simple truth.

Quite honestly, who really should CARE what is true? Why argue it so much?

I don't mind if it were true, it would be fine by me. It's just that it makes no sense to me, and also because I feel God and have a relationship with him, so I know he exists. How he created things matters not one bit to me, but so far I find the creationist model and the biblical record fit the current evidence and knowledge. I would have to have much more faith to plug the holes evolution leaves behind. It just doesn't fit the facts.

Lastly, I think the most dishonest thing an evolutionist can do, is not admit that they are entirely ignoring that creation of necessity would require 'apparent age'. If Adam and trees, etc., were created, if the world were to suddenly have to 'work' all at once (biosphere, etc.), then they would 'appear' to have been there for a long time.

Example, Adam may appear to be 30 when he was in fact 1 second old. Plants, animals, etc., would have to have life cycles in various stages, 'already'. The light from the stars would have to be created 'en route', lest man miss out on the sheer magnitude of God's glorious creation.

I believe that's why God said, "let there be light", he didn't say, 'let there be a sun'.

David

Originally Posted by CyniQ

I watched a Boston Legal rerun last night. The subject was the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in school. It got me thinking. I'm more than a little sick and tired of being abused and labeled as some archaic, backwoods dolt for believing that it is more reasonable to conclude that the earth and living things on it had a creator rather than just popped up out of nothing.

I would like to urge Grizz and the rest of you evolutionists to acknowledge the truth. YOU are religious. Science and evolutionism are religions in themselves. You have faith in science the same way that creationists have faith in God. I say that God created Adam and Eve. You say that a living organism developed out of ooze by virtue of the allpowerful "Chance". OOooh. Sounds like Oog to me. Neither of us have any "real" proof. Yet we both profess to believe... get this... [i]without[?I] proof. You know what we call that don't you?

So why do you insist that it is more scientific, intelligent, rational, yada, yada to have FAITH in Chance and the primordial soup than it is to believe in a creator? [we've already beaten the evolution/creation horse to death. I want to debate the difference in philosophies more than the difference in doctrine. ]

[Neodavid]

It's a DVD you can rent at blockbuster. It's pretty good, except the boring wedding part, but if you can get through their analogy, it's quite spellbinding. They talk to some of the greatest physicists and philosophers, and you get a really nice picture of everything from quantum mechanics to the macrocosmic.

I think it's one of those things everyone should watch.

The title is 'what the bleep do we know'. It's in the new section.

Originally Posted by goldstone_77

Hi new david! What the "BLEEP" are you trying to say?

[CyniQ]

Thanks for participating Neodavid. Excellent points. Where the hell have you been anyway? I don't remember you. But I'd like to see you around more often.

goldstone: Yeah. It's a stupid question. I'll tell you why. You said the following: "Man created many gods to explain many different phenomena he didn’t understand".

Then you asked: "Again, I ask you, take away all religious books, and would you have ever known god exists if someone didn’t tell you?"

It doesn't get much stoopider than that.

[Bob Smith]

Excellent post, Neo. As you said, evolution is just as much faith and religion as Christianity or Hinduism. Neither side can PROVE their side is right and neither side can PROVE the other side is wrong. Evolution does have some enormous holes, gaps in timeline and all sorts of major issues that people completely gloss over.

IMO, one of the most glaring problems with evolution is the question of "Name one example where an addition of genetic material/code has ever caused a more complex, sophisticated, and viable organism."

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by CyniQ

Thanks for participating Neodavid. Excellent points. Where the hell have you been anyway? I don't remember you. But I'd like to see you around more often.

You say that now....

[Kayz]

Originally Posted by Bob Smith

IMO, one of the most glaring problems with evolution is the question of "Name one example where an addition of genetic material/code has ever caused a more comple, sophisticated, and viable organism."

During the industrial revolution in Europe, there was a species of moths that were white in color. These moths knew that in order to increase their chances of survival, they needed to blend in with their surroundings, which was evident by the fact that they always seemed to land on white surfaces so as to "hide" themselves from their predators. Well, as the industrial revolution went on, the soot and charcoal that was burned in the factories and was released into the air began to discolor the white surrounding surfaces that the moths usually landed on. Thus, the "hiding" places of the moths was removed and they were left vulnerable to predation.

Over the next several years, these white moths "evolved" into a species that was able to change it's colors to match the new grey and black surroundings, thus increasing their rate of survival once agains.

As the industrial revolution came to an end and the air quality was cleaned up, the moths "evolved" back to a state similar to their original one....and they became white again.

All 3 of these moths have been saved and analyzed. All 3 moths are of the same genus species (i.e.: the same exact moth), and all 3 have different genetic make ups. Their genetic sequences are on file.

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by Kayz

Over the next several years, these white moths "evolved" into a species

They didnt evolve, they adapted. Huge difference. But its a common arguement that evolutionists use to try to compell you towards their position. Its completely unrelated to the actual process of evolution and doesnt involve additional genetic material/information. What you described is speciation, not evolution. I believe that speciation occurs.

Ill have to do some reading on these moths. I know that evolutionists for a long time (and some still) make claims about a certain type of moth. The problem is that the entire thing is a complete and known fraud. Im not sure if its the same thing that you are describing. Either way, your moth story isnt evolution.

[Bob Smith]

As I suspected, that story is the fraud that I mentioned. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/i3/moths.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

[goldstone_77]

Neo
2.
a. New and abnormal: neoplasm.

Originally Posted by Neodavid

If you haven't seen 'what the bleep do we know', you might enjoy it. Blockbuster rents it.

[Kayz]

Originally Posted by Bob Smith

They didnt evolve, they adapted. Huge difference. But its a common arguement that evolutionists use to try to compell you towards their position. Its completely unrelated to the actual process of evolution and doesnt involve additional genetic material/information. What you described is speciation, not evolution. I believe that speciation occurs.

Ill have to do some reading on these moths. I know that evolutionists for a long time (and some still) make claims about a certain type of moth. The problem is that the entire thing is a complete and known fraud. Im not sure if its the same thing that you are describing. Either way, your moth story isnt evolution.

speciation is the process in which a species is formed. This was not a new species being created, it was the same species changing it's genetic makeup (be it only a few codons) in order to better blend in to its surroundings. Maybe it's adaptation, maybe it's evolution. Notice I put evolution in quotation marks to signify that that is what many scientists want you to believe...I'm in no way arguing for or against evolution or creation.

Now a more appropriate discussion may be what is the fundamental difference between evolution and adaptation? In theory, we do not need an appendix or a pinky toe, so in time humans will probably be altered (lets us that as a universal word signifying change) so not to be born with those things. However, will that take a genetic change in order to accomplish? The answer is probably "yes", because it is the genetic code and the billions of nucleotides and the millions of codons that are responsible for every single aspect of your physical existence. Since a genetic change is required to bring about a biological change, should this alteration be described as an adaptation or evolution?????