darwinist/creationist annoy me

[meow mix]

theres so much to consider, so many questions (important ones!)

i find it annoying how...
both creationist and darwinist camps come off with this
"we have all the answers"
superior, all-knowing type attitude..

and both are so deeply convinced - that you cant even explore these numerous remaining questions... at least not objectivly.
both sides declare there is nothing left to be learned. haha

personally, i just think its a lot stranger than either side has bothered to imagine. (and id like to know more)

may i ask some life related things without being labeled? =)

[Maple]

1. I agree

I'm neither a creationist nor a Darwinist.

We don't know enough yet to have any idea why there is life on earth, and I'm always leery of people who insist they have the only true answer.

[LittleApple81]

2. I think creationism belongs in Church. Evolution is a science

that is literally evolving. And Darwinism is a theory. Research and science will continue increasing understanding. Creationism won't.

[vi5]

3. To be fair, Darwinism is a scientific theory....

With supporting evidence to back it up, if not prove it 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt (hence why it is still a theory).

Even the most generous analysis of creationism has no solid evidence to back it up or even put it in the realm of theory.

[Warpy]

8. To be fairer

...evolution has been proven in the laboratory, with fruit flies. Keeping the flies under stress while they reproduce has led to an entirely new genus of fly.

These critters were used because their life cycle is so short.

The problem is getting boneheads to realize that what's good for the fruit fly is good for the great apes.

Yes, the concept is still evolving, as more and more triggers for the alteration of existing species and creation of new ones are discovered. However, the theory itself has been proven.

[On the Road]

4. It's the Result of Polarizing, Partisan Discussion

I believe wholeheartedly in evolution, but I don't think science has completely answered HOW evolution takes place. I think it is something strange that will alter our view of biology. And the dogmatic insistence that the mechanisms are already knows hinders the search by insisting that there's no need for it.

In the poll on googling yourself, I came up with this message I posted a long time ago on Science Online about dealing with creationism:

================================

In college, I was a fundamentalist Christian and read creationist literature. I encountered few people, professors or students, who showed the wisdom or maturity that McCoy recommends for responding to creationists in his dEbate "Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School." To combat creationism, the respect and clarity he shows are essential.

People with creationist sympathies are not necessarily willfully shutting their eyes. They have read arguments that make sense but have not been adequately addressed. They have seen evolution taught repeatedly as fact, but without the proof provided for other scientific phenomena. This is especially true of college students or nonscientists who do not have much biological experience to draw from.

To explain the fossil record, creationist literature is filled with 'theories' that are false but often inventive, and may actually have a ring of plausibility to the layman. It is important to acknowledge that these ideas could be scientific theories, and a discipline could be developed around them, if they proved to be true. However, most do not stand up under examination, and no one would dare investigate or develop them further, because their absurdity would become apparent. The real proof of evolution cannot be quickly passed on -- it is the consistent, overwhelming agreement of the progression and the diversification of life forms in the fossil record.

Ironically, to combat creationism, I think it is important to acknowledge as facts, not flaws, that (a) evolution is not proven in the usual sense, and (b) the current mechanisms are inadequate in explaining the rapid changes in species. We are still learning the details and filling in the blanks. But over the last century and a half, the pieces have fallen into place more and more rapidly.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. Darwinists/Evolutionists...

...(which are not the same thing BTW), will earely tell you they have "all the answers". At best they are going to tell you that we are on the right track to all the answers, but a real scientist will tell you there is a hell of a lot more to learn, than we already know.

Find a creationist that will say the same thing about their "theory".

Do some actual reading into evolutionary science. The real stuff now, not the crap that the religious set keeps repeating which science long ago gave up as flawed and a dead end.

[einniv]

6. I think you have some misconceptions about science.

What do you mean by Darwinist? Do you really mean to say those that "believe" in evolution? Darwinism is only one aspect of modern evolution theory. Nitpicking perhaps. But if somehting is going to annoy you , you should probably at least know what it is.

Evolution is science. It is never a final answer. Only the best model until new information comes along.

Evolution- The change in frequency of alleles in a population over time.

That is what evolution is. (An allele is one particular "flavor" of a gene... like a gene for hair color might have a blonde and a brunette "flavor").

That it occurs is not in question any more than gravity is in question. It has been observed over human history. Of course you can see it even in your lifetime if you breed animals or plants but we have seen new species evolve over the course of human history.

That it happens on an even larger scale over the history of the earth is not really in doubt either. The amount of evidence is staggering. There is fossil record evidence, genetic evidence, laboratory evidence and on and on.

So to sum up. I guess I don't understand what is so annoying about the currently best model to explain the facts we see in regard to life on earth and how it came to be in the state it is today.

You may of course have your ideas and opinions , but they need to conform to the evidence and facts or they are basically worthless. I somehow doubt that whatever your personal theories are , they probably don't conform to the evidence or have any evidence to support them. Now THAT is annoying . If I am wrong you should apply for a grant and show us all the error of ways of the thousands of evolution researchers. :)

Some reading for you:
29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[meow mix]

27. err

"That it occurs is not in question any more than gravity is in question"

i agree.
and certainly gravity occurs too, absolutly!!
but isnt gravity somewhat in question?
i mean...
im still waiting on a consensus as to wether its a push, pull, bend, or squeeze. heh

[blindpig]

35. that's right, no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks n/t

[treepig]

37. egad, a blind pig!?!

well, for your own safety, i advise staying out of the trees . . .

[Gasolinedream]

7. I believe...

that there is some merit to believing in some sort of divine design, however, to teach creationism in schools makes no sense because it is in no way science based. it is all about faith and religion. Darwinism does not answer all questions but it is based in sciences.

[dwckabal]

12. And you hit the nail on the head

when you said Darwinism (and science in general) does not have all the answers; and it doesn't claim to; unlike creationists who claim that ONLY their answer is correct.

[Maple]

9. Everyone is aware

evolution takes place.

Small horses became large ones and so on...we even helped in the process.

It is not the answer to everything however.

To reduce both ideas to their simplest...the idea that one day a jellyfish went for a walk, and started the process for all the kinds of life on planet earth, is as absurd an idea as that of a supernatural being going 'zap'.

It would require billions/trillions of coincidences in both timing and conditions.

[einniv]

10. An absurd idea...

That volumes and volumes of evidence indicate happened.

29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[quaker bill]

38. There is no conflict.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It does not even attempt to. It is a mechanistic model. As such, in the ultimate context that is most often addressed by religion, it does not answer why, it only answers how.

A problem with most critiques of evolution is the notion that the present biota was a desired outcome that evolution 'tried' to produce.

Evolution does not 'try' to produce anything. The theory is nothing more than a logical and mathematical attempt to explain what has in fact happened.

Under this theory, all possible results are subject to the same selective criteria. No final result is valued above another, unless it happens to survive and reproduce. It happened that terrestrial life survived and reproduced. Evolution would not have had 'its feelings hurt' if it hadn't.

Another source of confusion is the notion that evolution is based in a random process. Mutation is random and depends on where the cosmic ray strikes the DNA. Evolution on the other hand is highly non-random. It is an ordered process that is moderately to extremely biased. It has exactly one bias, survival and reproduction. The springbok that happens to be a step slower than the others is lunch for the cheetah.

However, evolution is not and was never directed towards producing bipedal sentient simians. (or any of the other life forms on this planet) It just happened to work out that way. Another asteroid impact along the way and who knows?

[GAspnes]

40. cogently put

clear, concise and complete. Nice work bill.

[Kolesar]

11. skeptics are, by nature, humble

I would not describe scientists as having a "we have all the answers"
superior, all-knowing type attitude..

[treepig]

13. no, but scientists have a process, which given enough time

and effort can find "all the answers"

creationists have nothing but that warm fuzzy feeling that comes from having mr. limbaugh and his ilk tell you what to believe

[Kolesar]

15. Let's be fair

I know some creationists who are nice people who do help and care for others. I just think that their religious leaders have trained them to be fearful of death, pain, loneliness, and eternal damnation if the lose the faith.

[meow mix]

17. lets be fair

and what do scientific leaders tell us?

our future is nothing. our selves are nothing. we are meaningless piles of biological goop, and what awaits us is permanent darkness and oblivion.
the sum of the parts IS EXACTLY equal to that of the whole.(uhuh)

both seem dreary to me.

the naturalist will accept this, due to his objective self-honesty. and kudos for that!
but i think he's giving up, letting himself be swayed far to easily.


sometimes i wonder if thats a setup.. the mechanical looking aspect of things.
the universe then being something like a "Lord of the Flies" type test.

to see who turns "bad" when it doesnt really matter.
or who still maintains a sense of goodness and value in life.

[treepig]

18. could you kindly provide the names of 'scientific leaders' who

tell us that "our future is nothing. our selves are nothing. we are meaningless piles of biological goop, and what awaits us is permanent darkness and oblivion."

i find it quite odd that i've often heard creationists claim that this is what "leading evolutionists" are preaching, but strangely enough i've really never heard the "scientific leaders" themselves put this stuff forward.

if you wish to promote your creationist drivel in a science forum - will you allow me to come to your church and give my spiel about evolution? for example, 15 minutes to describe how humans became uniquely human, as i explain in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=2462

would be nice. sure, it'd bore everyone to tears, but since you said "lets be fair" - indeed let's be fair!

[meow mix]

20. well...

of course they arent going to come right out and say it like that, but i think its quite clear.
if you deny that this view exists (and is prevalent)... then thats just playing games.
lets be real =)

also,
i dont go to chuch, or have any religious beliefs. but if you want to find one ill come and watch hehehe. sounds fun!

the thumpers definetly annoy me a hundred time more than the hardcore misdirected-naturalist.
at least the latter still thinks and considers.
(although in a very skewed and slanted manner)

ill be along shortly, but human origons is skipping a lot of build-up.

after all, if im suppose to accept the standard model as being the end of all models.. having blank-spots at the roots is unacceptable.

and sorry if i made u cranky =)
just trying to offer A perspective. i have one...it exists. no biggie!

and sorry i dared to ask these questions in the *gasp* science board!

well theres crossover in particular these issues.
crossover exists! i guess thats my fault lol.

the hardest part is discussing it when both sides cast disgust and blame at you for it.
owell =(

[Kolesar]

19. I will think about your position for a while

It sounds like you are looking for the "meaning of life". Obviously, you feel strongly about your position. I will not answer now, I will just think about your position.

[meow mix]

23. =)

well that might be.. who doesnt! heh

but i wouldnt say exactly that,
maybe just.. putting things in perspective. allowing ideas to exist and be explored.

science is supposed to be the open-minded camp, but a lot of times that is not the case.

if science would wish to replace religion, or critic it, or be involved with it in any form..

then it needs a better answer than "darwinism"
fuctions of chemistry and biology do not ease my suspicions of having a "purpose" to the universe. infact they enhance it!

in the end i think the two can be reconciled. but not with all the demeaning words being hurled around. that goes nowhere.

[rman]

49. Science simply does not deal with questions about "purpose of life" etc

Nor does any scientist claim to be a leader in that respect.

In that sense there are no "scientific leaders". It's not fair to allege that there are.

[meow mix]

14. genesis mechanics?

i agree.. the physical-observable data shows us very much, no doubt about that!
and science changes yes, in opposition to the non-changing religions.
(note that the changes to the scientific models come with much kicking and screaming type resistance, but it does happen)

but i would argue that Science does have some "religious beliefs" which overstep the boundaries of the physical proof. and its annoying =)

one such belief is that the universe is meaningless. pure mechanics and nothing else.
too me that just seems very narrow-minded, premature, and self-centric
(also too dark and depressing but thats a more personal feeling)

because i have to wonder about things... im curious as hell and a sucker for a mystery.
for example a good place to start - is at the beginning! hehe

here you have a universe poofing into existance, sudden expansion.
things start forming.
out of all the fire and dust, life just rises up. it can talk, think, create..

isnt that a bit suspicious...just in itself? lol
well it certainly seems like a "eureka!sucess!" type event, to me.
whatever it is that causes this to happen..

so.. the questions concerning the beginning...

does life sprout anywhere in the universe it can?
all over the place?
was it an independent one-time event?
or does it happen often?
and what exactly is the Genesis Mechanism responsible for this?

if there is a "built in" mechanism, or multiple ones..which cause life to occur, dont you find that mighty interesting?
even if its something that looks mundane are you prepared to say that its purely chance and coincidence?
that there is "nothing" behind it!

i wonder...

only get to ask because both groups already claimed to have the answer.
remember the Warm Pond? it hold no water... kratons, extremophiles, panspermia.. tell an entirely different story.
(one that gets even more bizzare)

so,
since we have all the answers..
theres no reason to seperate the beginning of life with its current state.
and besides you "official scientific model creators" seek to impose this dark, death-view of the universe based on arguments that are dogmatic and short-sighted.

just my own thoughts though, heehee sorry =)


next stop.. exploring the fossil record.
ie. punk-eek, lack of "transitional species", and the implications therein

[hunter]

47. Every living creature you see is a "transitional species."

I myself am a transitional species, and my kids are a transitional species. My dog is the last transition of her species. She was spayed by the SPCA, and won't be passing along her genes unless we clone her.

I think we get into very serious trouble whenever we allow the words we use to have greater meanings than that which we are actually observing.

Buckaroo Banzai said it best:

Wherever you go, there you are

It's pretty much up to you to explain why you got wherever you are.

[meow mix]

16. and yet they declare

that "God is Dead!"

science killed im, teehee.

"and it doesn't claim to"

oh...
then what is that all about?

im really not religious...

i just think its silly watching people trying to slam the book closed, on there being any possible "purpose" to the universe.

purpose suggests some kind of intelligence, and we certainly cant have that!! lol

and then.. when you call people on this, all of a sudden they change thier tune and claim to be non-dogmatic.
just "truthseekers" a seekin the truth, and completly open to all possibilities.
(haha AS-IF!)

uhhhhh...alrighty then,
thats not the way you just sounded when u proclaimed there is definetly NO purpose to anything that exists.
(other than existing and then decomposing)

isnt that the meaning of "god is dead"? whatever that may be?

[BeFree]

21. A Creation Theory?

In the last few years, scientists have been heading toward Creating new life forms. Some say they already have created a virus or some such microscopic thing.

So let's say we're fifty years from now. 2053. Expanding upon the progress that our present day scientists have begun, who's to say that a scientist in 2053 would not be able to create more, much more, than a virus?

Jump ahead to 3003. Science has really progressed by then, eh? Say some mad scientist, with a gravity powered space vehicle, has developed a whole colony of beings in his lab. This colony has been designed to thrive in the environment found on the distant planet, Arrub 3, and he launches his vehicle with the pioneer colony aboard. The landing goes smoothly and the vehicle safely offloads it's passengers. Arrub 3 then has new life designed to be fruitful and multiply.

Nah, couldn't happen, right?

[meow mix]

22. this scenario..

certainly has intruiging, fractal-type elements to it =)

and mystery still lies in the original source of the material which eventually evolved into the mad-scientist "life creator" himself.

[enki23]

24. spanking the big straw darwinist

short answer:

flat-earthers/round-earthers annoy me. there's so much to consider... sqaures, dodecahedrons, pear shapes, big squooshy blobs... i find it annoying how both camps come off with this "we have all the answers," superior all-knowing attitude. i think things are much stranger than either side has imagined. (cue thoughtful sounding music.)

long answer:

creationist usually refers (in this context) to someone who believes an intelligent being created all the species we know, and that those species have not changed very much from the beginning. darwinist is a label (didn't you say something negative about labels in there somewhere?) which is used mostly by creationists (of various kinds) to describe those who believe evolution of species actually does, as it appears, happen.

first you should notice that the term "darwinist" was coined by people who believe in creation, and reflects their own biases about this particular argument. then you should note that the two terms you use don't really describe two sides of the same issue. if creationist means someone who believes creation happened, does darwinist mean someone who believes darwin happened? obviously not. so what does darwinist actually refer to?

here's a description of your "other side" from a member: i am someone who believes that the species we know have changed, that new species have arisen as others have declined or become extinct at varying rates across billions of years of the earth's lifetime. also, i believe we are able to learn much about how these changes happen, what might cause them, what processes might drive them, etc.

of course, my description of how i think doesn't fit your "thinks we have all the answers" bs, but that's the sort of problem you run into when you make authoritative statements about something you know next to nothing about.

[meow mix]

25. okee

sounds fine to me!
so we are clearly seperating them? and this is a non-issue..
hmm then i wonder why 1 is so often invoked to destroy the other.
thats odd. prolly nothing to it though..

well anyways,
your post says "answers" in it

but um thats just a critique of my weak opinion hehe.
(thanks anyways though)

the questions are actually further down =)
im especially curious to seee... if anyone thinks, it started here on earth or elsewhere or both.

[meow mix]

26. ps

"darwinist is a label (didn't you say something negative about labels in there somewhere?)"

i did ask if i was allowed to have questions, without having one placed on me.. mostly because, neither seems to fit.

was that negative? i cant tell lol.
i guess, if you want...we can just say it is =)

[LSatyl]

28. What the Hell (pun intended)?

both creationist and darwinist camps come off with this
"we have all the answers"
superior, all-knowing type attitude..
Urm yes, but there are slight differences in their approach:

Creationist declare that it's true, because ... (either because it is written, or because they were told so, or even weirder explanations).

Scientists say "Evolution is true" (note, evolution *not* darwinism), because it is the only theory to accurately describe all the observed phenomenon. They will be perfectly willing to drop the theory if you can disprove any one part of the theory. So far however all additional observations have proven to be within the scope of the theory of Evolution.

While we don't have all the answers (and probably never will), Evolution is a proven theory.

and both are so deeply convinced - that you cant even explore these numerous remaining questions... at least not objectivly.
Yet again wrong. All the scientific observations with respect to Evolution can be repeated, yes, even by you. If they couldn't be repeated, it wouldn't be science, it'd be religion.

personally, i just think its a lot stranger than either side has bothered to imagine.
Stranger than, say, have an intelligence that created all we behold in 6 days, some 4000 years ago, including millions of years of fossil records, just so it couldn't be proven to be created (== young earth theory, one of the more absurd creation theories)?

may i ask some life related things without being labeled? =)
Depends on whether you're willing to think and experiment for yourself :evilgrin:

[meow mix]

29. no answers

your just responding to my opinions..

but since no one has wanted to touch my actual questions, im not very convinced heheh.

[treepig]

30. do you really want answers to your questions?

at least from contributors other than yourself - for example i addressed one of your actual questions, specifically "what do scientific leaders tell us?"

and then you accused me of being "cranky" when i pointed out the answer you gave yourself was really quite improper as you ascribed a lot of viewpoints to "leading scientists" that leading scientists actually do not hold at all. but perhaps if you wish to just make stuff up (which is perfectly fine - i would estimate that overall most of the stuff on the du website is just made up out of the blue) a forum other than one with the word "science" in its heading may be more appropriate?

oops, there i go being cranky again, d'oh!

[meow mix]

31. never seen..

so much question avoidance. hehe ok thats fine then..

[treepig]

32. ok, exactly what are your profound questions

that we're all avoiding? here are some i've found in amongst your ramblings . . let me know if i've missed any!


may i ask some life related things without being labeled?

probably not - a little known fact of both darwin's theories and creation dogma is that they both predict an ever increasing amout of labeling:

Darwin's system: Homo sapiens
Creatonist: evil duer


isnt gravity somewhat in question?

it sure is, personally i stopped believing in it back in 1978.

out of all the fire and dust, life just rises up. it can talk, think, create..

isnt that a bit suspicious...just in itself?

nope!

so.. the questions concerning the beginning...

does life sprout anywhere in the universe it can?

sure, even when not wanted, such as a brussels sprout

all over the place?

no, generally only in 95-98% of the place

was it an independent one-time event?

this one confused me - how would a dependent one-time event differ from an independent one-time event - gotta give it some more thought.

or does it happen often?

in the previously-mentioned case of the brussels sprouts, far too often!

and what exactly is the Genesis Mechanism responsible for this?


rna

isnt that the meaning of "god is dead"? whatever that may be?

here, i'll revert to my question avoidance mode.

[meow mix]

33. uhuh just as i thought

ya cant discuss things honestly and then u act dismayed at the rift.
haha

owell.. at least i feel vindicated in my perceptions of your camp.

[treepig]

36. where was i dishonest? what did i say that was untrue?

if you ask questions about god on a science forum - which i suppose you have every right to do so - you nevertheless have to expect to not be taken too serious

in any event, if you really are interested in the origin of life - there's plenty of scientific information out - and basically it boils down to "rna" - but if you thought i was being flippant, please go to the nih's PUBMED website where you can access scientific literature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

and do a search on "rna, origin of life" - you'll get a few hundred scientific papers to peruse on this subject, that should keep you busy for a while.

interestingly, you can also do a search on "god, origin of life" and you'll get four (yup, 4!)papers returned (which are actually quirks of the search engine, not real papers discussing the hand of god in science).

[LSatyl]

34. Off course I'm responding to your opinions

it's called discussing :evilgrin:

but since no one has wanted to touch my actual questions
Which actual questions? Read back your own post. There is just one question mark, after "May I ask some life-related things". To which the answer obviously is "Yes, you may ask any questions you like".

[American liberal]

51. one minor query...

you say: While we don't have all the answers (and probably never will), Evolution is a proven theory.

If evolution's a "proven" theory, why isn't it called a law? isn't that what happens to theories in science once they are proven? e.g., the law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, etc.

not trying to disprove. I believe in evolution. it's just the editor in me that questions semantics at every turn.

Peace!

[treepig]

52. that's because a theory is at a higher level than a law in science

as explained by the national academy of science:

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.


Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

[American liberal]

53. thanks, treepig...

for taking the time to look that up and post. I appreciate the education. And you have just exemplified another big difference between the left and the right: We cite our sources!
Peace!

[quaker bill]

39. The sophomoric nature of these threads annoys me.

Evolutionary theory / Darwinism simply does not address the existence/non-existance of a god. At the very most, it states that the presence and actions of a "god-like" entity is not required to explain the observable biodiversity.

Evolutionary theory does not rule out divine intervention, because it simply can't. It simply states that the math works just fine without need for divine intervention. Anyone who expounds otherwise is simply off the page and delving into a philosophy of science rather than the science itself.

Evolutionary theory does not comment on the meaning of life or lack of meaning therein. The question is simply not relevant to the theory. Anyone who expounds otherwise is simply off the page and delving into a philosophy of science rather than the science itself.

While sophistry can be fun over a few beers, it generally answers no essential questions in this regard.

I would question the faith of anyone whose spiritual convictions are threatened by this theory. The very definiton of faith is that it needs no proof. Seeking proof of God's existence anywhere is futile, the Bible itself says as much.

Enjoying the complexity of biodiversity and it's intricate interactions can be a profoundly spiritual or a profoundly interesting intellectual experience, depending on your point of view. One need not detract from the other.

[BrokenSegue]

41. Well...

I'd like you to find a Scientist who thinks he has all the answers.
But, I'll show you a priest who says you don't need them.

Everyone wants the answers. The answer is, we'll never know the answer.
Everyone thinks their belief is right but they'll work out the deatails later or when your dead.

I agree mindless believers in either camp are fools but an informed mind who refines their view, and their are many on both sides, aren't. I don't think their are enough of the first catergory to warrent annoyance.

The great thing is reading forums where Religous nuts and Scientific nuts go for the throat. Hu...

[JohnLocke]

42. True...

... Neither science nor faith can explain everything, but together they can.

[meow mix]

43. see, annoying =)

heres an interesting site though..
http://goldennumber.net/hand.htm

[struggle4progress]

44. Teach Logic in the Schools

Science is about the measurable and predictable. Scientific theories are "verified" (always temporarily) by unsuccessful efforts to disprove them. If there's no way to disprove a "theory," that "theory" isn't science. "Creation" obviously cannot be disproved. "Evolution" can be disproved; scientists bicker constantly about details; that's what makes science reliable.

Religious philosophy is about ethics and the meaning of life. Confusing religion with science suggests that questions about (i) G*d, (ii) morality, and (iii)why we are here, can be studied by laboratory experiment. No sane scientist believes this, and many religious people find the idea blasphemous.

Personally, I don't see any intellectually defensible "Creationists v. Evolutionists" conflict. I have no problem with the idea that the world was (and is being) created; as far as I can understand the evidence (and there's a lot of it), it all suggests to me that the Creator likes to use evolution. My views have no scientific merit but do indeed give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

The ongoing fake "Creationists v. Evolutionists" debate serves a political agenda with little connection to either science or religion.

[RainDog]

45. Meow mix

you must be young...and youth is a wonderful thing, but sometimes you might not have the experience to actually discuss an issue.

I've read through this thread and fail to find any real questions from you.

Instead, you state opinions that you don't like this or that view, without apparently understanding the view of science, the scientific method vs religious belief, then tell people they confirm your view when they try to honestly discuss the issues behind science/evolution vs religion/creationism.

you then claim attitudes for others which are, again, only your opinion, then dismiss people because of your opinion of them, but in no place do you ever cite any evidence for your claims.

if you think you are asking honest questions...as I say, I take it from your posts that you very young.

I would encourage you to read up on the actual issues. Read Carl Sagan's Cosmos to get a feel for how science invokes awe at the magnificence of life in this universe.

Read Science on Trial to understand the difference between science and religion.

Read Frans De Waal to get an idea about the beauty of our relatedness to all the creatures of this earth.

fwiw, when I was in college, one of my profs was a very religious person who also studied chimps with Jane Goodall. He taught evolutionary biology and had no problem with the truths of science and the truths of spirituality.

Another one of my science (ecology) profs also remarked once in class, after a poorly educated student claimed he simply did not want to believe in evolution, that creationists tended to label scientists as anti-religion, or god, but that more scientists than not, that he knew, believed in god, and that the two ideas were not incompatible...i.e. acceptance of science as a method of explanation and acceptance of the idea of a god...and that honestly studying science can give you an appreciation of the wonder that is nature, the universe, and our part in it.

Fundamentalism is just one way of thinking about god, but it's not the only way, and there are quite a few reasons to question the so-called facts behind that belief system. Read some Elaine Pagels to get an understanding of the history of Christianity, for instance.

And maybe you need to let go of your prejudices and actually read some real science by real scientists before you label an entire group of people according to some apparent misinformation you have received at some point.

Not all science is "the selfish gene" sort of thinking, and scientists debate this issue vs affliative behavior as an equally adaptive strategy.

You might also find Paul Davies an interesting writer because of this attempts to reconcile the ideas of god and science.

Good luck to you. I hope you have the courage to seek out real information and to educate yourself because it is entirely worth the effort.

[meow mix]

46. there are questions! =)

heres one of the main ones i asked..

"so.. the questions concerning the beginning...

does life sprout anywhere in the universe it can?
all over the place?"

via..chemical actions, rna, whatever the "genesis mechanism" is..
just the fact that it happens..
is mighty suspicious in my book thats all hehe.

[RainDog]

48. questions for the chemists and astronomers

as far as life sprouting anywhere...

from what I know of this, life sprouts when the right combination of amino acids is available, combined with the right conditions, such as temperature and atmosphere.

life at its very basic is single-cell organisms, which is what I assume you mean.

just the fact that it happens is mighty suspicious? why?

if my air conditioning duct work gets condensation on it and there is not sufficient ventilation, my ceiling may be affected and start to grow mold.

is that suspicious?

is that the evidence of some intelligence at work?

something really interesting about humans, to me, is our need to both find and recognize patterns. essential for our surivival to recognize our familiar environment, to assess differences to know if some danger was present.

in order to survive, we needed to think about our world and explain it to ourselves...sometimes we did this consciously and sometimes not...we just banked the info.

those things which we could not explain with the available info at hand were mysterious, or suspicious...what could this of that mean...what it a threat?

it seems that for our very survival we developed the means to "tell stories" to ourselves about our world, and then communicate those stories to those we love, to insure their survival as well.

Even as we've moved from the most basic forms of society, as a small group, maybe, foraging for berries in trees, to complex societies, we still retain the need to tell stories to explain the world to each other to try to understand what the threats are to our existence, and what things are safe and good for us.

That's what I see, still, in our attempts to explain God and nature and the universe and our place in it, still.

Hopefullly the stories we tell are good ones, and make sense in light of the available knowledge. Hopefully the stories we tell do not harm us or others by playing to our suspicions of things and people unknown.

This is what I remember whenever I am trying to figure out what's what in this world.

[jmcgowanjm]

54. does life sprout anywhere in the universe it can?

our need to both find and recognize patterns-Raindog

Patterns of Information- the Self Organization
of Systems.

Magic Systems:
1. Minds are "magician systems" residing on graphs
(magicians are entities that act on each other to produce
other magicians; they are a special class of computational "agents")

2. The magicians involved are "pattern/process" magicians
(the way they act on each other is primarily to recognize
patterns)

http://sevilleta.unm.edu/~bmilne/bio576/instr/html/SOS/sos.html

Chaos Theory/Strange Attractors

http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/humsoc/philosophy/ccc/slides/93b.html

Artificial Intelligence

And here's where it gets spooky-Death brings life,
literally.
Principle of Cancellation/Acceleration


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/30/14/005/ja30014l5.html

[jmcgowanjm]

55. ON The Curvature OF Mental Space:

FORM-ENHANCING DISTANCE DISTORTION AS AN UNIFYING PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

(A NOT TOTALLY UNGROUNDED SPECULATION)

Ben Goertzel

Psychology Department

University of Western Australia

If a large number of processes are all close to each other, the distance adjustment process will bring them even closer.

http://www.goertzel.org/papers/curv.html

[jmcgowanjm]

56. Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.93 November 2003

http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

The only way to combine hierarchy and associativity is
to have a "fractal" or recursively modular structure of clusters within clusters within clusters..

Truly wierd shit and it's our Universe. We know it because
a part of the Universe is in each of us.

It's like we've got to understand it and not understand
it at the same time. That's my take on it anyway.

[American liberal]

50. Apologies if this is redundant

Have any of you seen this site? Talk about scary!

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

[treepig]

57. is that a real site?

or a parody along the lines of

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

(it's very difficult to figure out what's real these days - in many cases articles from the onion are more reflective of what's really going on than those from the mainstream media)

[American liberal]

58. although I can't prove it...

I believe the site is legit (in the originators' minds anyhow). I was first introduced to it by a lefty on the organic gardening message board I belong to on the Organicgardening.com website.

jesussaves.org mentions landoverbaptist.org in extremely unflattering terms: blashemous, false, etc. If you poke around a little, you'd be amazed.

Peace!