# Get your popcorn ready



## begreen (Jan 2, 2014)

This should be an interesting debate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/


----------



## pen (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm actually sad to see it.

To me, it diminishes Nye for even taking him on.

However, in our media driven world, Nye had best do well for those on the fence of my age who notice this.

In all, I see it as a fight that should never take place....... Science should only debate science.

In all fairness, I'm biased.  I once drained a few ounces off in the urinal next to Mr. Nye.  

pen


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 2, 2014)

Get him Bill!   That guy looks like the proverbial missing link.

Oh right.  Good point Pen.   

In related news, I started teaching evolution in the bible belt today.  It went very well.    They just learned genetics, so it's a logical concept.    Also, I let them know they could still keep their God.   I also reminded them that the same process that brought us understanding of evolution also brought us medicine and the combustible engine.    If they didn't want to believe evolutionary theory they also probably shouldn't drive or go to the doctor.


----------



## dafattkidd (Jan 3, 2014)

Ugh.  I generally hate these kinds of debates.  It always feels so weird to me.

Here's an interesting little factoid: I was first encouraged to believe in Jesus, and read the Bible by a scientist.  He is currently a humble millionaire scientist (still a Christian) living and working in Hong Kong.  

He had an interesting take on evolution.  He said, "It's a good theory, I just don't fully believe it." *For the record: his family growing up had a wood stove in their house.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 3, 2014)

Well evolution (change in a species DNA) over time can be empirically measured in both natural and lab settings, so saying one doesn't believe in it is akin to dropping a ball and saying you don't believe in gravity as it falls .  Or saying talk of gravity makes one uncomfortable.   It's not an opinion.  It's a body of research repeatedly supported by 150 years of solid science. Evolutionary theory is the best supported theory we have.  If you believe in MRSA, or different strains of the flu, or species adapting, then you are talking about evolution.  

What does it have to do with religion?  Don't ask a working scientist.  They are to busy working on the science.  The great debate or divide originates from the pulpit


----------



## webbie (Jan 3, 2014)

Well, we all need.....someone....we can.......

Whatever.......

I believe it all. That's called ignorance is bliss. They are all right......but, yeah, science and engineering are science and engineering and spirt is spirit. There is little relation, IMHO. Eventually, through science and biology (mapping out the brain, etc.) we may know more. But I'll be in heaven then......


----------



## JustWood (Jan 3, 2014)

Popcorn and a bottle of Makers Mark on tap for the show. Jim Dandy


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 3, 2014)

I'm already in heaven.  Snow day.    Wood stove.  Variety of cheeses left over from New Year Party.  The boy is well out of diapers.   

  ~Bliss~


----------



## Jags (Jan 3, 2014)

Makers Mark is a product of evolution.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 3, 2014)

webbie said:


> Well, we all need.....someone....we can.......
> 
> Whatever.......
> 
> I believe it all. That's called ignorance is bliss. They are all right......but, yeah, science and engineering are science and engineering and spirt is spirit. There is little relation, IMHO. Eventually, through science and biology (mapping out the brain, etc.) we may know more. But I'll be in heaven then......




Unless they hand you an accordion instead of a harp.


----------



## webbie (Jan 3, 2014)

Jags said:


> Makers Mark is a product of evolution.



Actually, this stuff is but I can't afford to drink it....well, maybe now I can....


----------



## begreen (Jan 3, 2014)

Hmm, sound good. That stuff could be responsible for my de-evolution.


----------



## firebroad (Jan 3, 2014)

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."


----------



## firefighterjake (Jan 3, 2014)

It may mark me as ignorant . . . but I've always kind of been a believer in both evolution and creationism . . . believing that perhaps a Divine Being (I'll call him God . . . others may call him by another name -- maybe Harold or Bill) created life . . . but did so over time through evolution . . . I guess I kind of think the seven days of creation may not be literally seven days. I guess what I'm saying is I believe life could have been created by a divine being and then some . . . many . . . perhaps all . . . of life has evolved and changed over time . . . perhaps with guidance from this divine being. I also believe that there are many, many things . . . even in science . . . that we do not have all the answers to and that sometimes a bit of faith is needed. Again . . . what do I know . . . I'm just a ignorant Maniac and dumb firefighter.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 3, 2014)

Jake there is no reason why you can't see the hand of God in species changing over time to adapt to ever changing environments.  I applaud your belief system, though it doesn't happen to be mine.  This is actually the stance of the Catholic Church, although that would make the Baptists label it the devils work.  Also, if we are going to get literal,  Timothy speaks of a day being 1000 years.  Additionally,  the sun wasn't created until something like day 4, which completely wonks up the strict definition of a day


----------



## Retired Guy (Jan 3, 2014)

As the nuns were beating religion into me for 9 years I developed a great admiration for the power of faith. Faith can coexist with logic and reality and result in a sense of peace.


----------



## TradEddie (Jan 3, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> New Well evolution (change in a species DNA) over time can be empirically measured in both natural and lab settings, so saying one doesn't believe in it is akin to dropping a ball and saying you don't believe in gravity as it falls . Or saying talk of gravity makes one uncomfortable. It's not an opinion. It's a body of research repeatedly supported by 150 years of solid science. Evolutionary theory is the best supported theory we have. If you believe in MRSA, or different strains of the flu, or species adapting, then you are talking about evolution.





Retired Guy said:


> Faith can coexist with logic and reality and result in a sense of peace.



I know someone who has a PhD in genetics, works in a research laboratory, intentionally generates mutant strains of bacteria to study how they acquire resistance to antibiotics (i.e. she watches them evolve), but doesn't believe in evolution (or at least believes it only started approx. 10,000 years ago). I can never decide whether to be appalled or impressed. 

TE


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 3, 2014)

TradEddie said:


> I know someone who has a PhD in genetics, works in a research laboratory, intentionally generates mutant strains of bacteria to study how they acquire resistance to antibiotics (i.e. she watches them evolve), but doesn't believe in evolution (or at least believes it only started approx. 10,000 years ago). I can never decide whether to be appalled or impressed.
> 
> TE


  Hard to imagine.


----------



## webbie (Jan 5, 2014)

100 million years on this one.....
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news...ssil-reveals-ancient-sex-in-flowering-plants/


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

ahh the god v/s science thing again. what fun, the hyper partisan battle between the heart and the mind, each side not as interested in proving they are right so much as they are trying to prove the other wrong. almost as much fun as watching c-span.

science can no more conclusively prove there is no god than the religious can prove that there is.  impasse, waste of time


----------



## webbie (Jan 5, 2014)

Ain't no use debating what you can't see...or what some people see. Heck, my wife see and hears thousands of things that I don't....even though I may have said them or seen them with my own eyes (or not!).....

I'm sure our primate ancestors kicked each other in the butt and bonked their friends on the head for being stupid too......


----------



## firebroad (Jan 5, 2014)

webbie said:


> Ain't no use debating what you can't see...or what some people see. Heck, my wife see and hears thousands of things that I don't....even though I may have said them or seen them with my own eyes (or not!).....
> 
> I'm sure our primate ancestors kicked each other in the butt and bonked their friends on the head for being stupid too......


...not to mention burning each other at the stake.


----------



## webbie (Jan 5, 2014)

firebroad said:


> ...not to mention burning each other at the stake.



That took care of further debate fairly well.....better than internet banning...


----------



## begreen (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> ahh the god v/s science thing again. what fun, the hyper partisan battle between the heart and the mind, each side not as interested in proving they are right so much as they are trying to prove the other wrong. almost as much fun as watching c-span.
> 
> science can no more conclusively prove there is no god than the religious can prove that there is.  impasse, waste of time


The debate is not at all about proving there's no god, nor is it about partisan beliefs. It is about proving the existence of evolution and disproving the notion that the world is only 6 or 10K years old. It seems almost silly in this day and age for adults to think that men ran around with dinosaurs, but there are attempts to teach this notion in public schools.


----------



## Coog (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> ahh the god v/s science thing again. what fun, the hyper partisan battle between the heart and the mind, each side not as interested in proving they are right so much as they are trying to prove the other wrong. almost as much fun as watching c-span.
> 
> science can no more conclusively prove there is no god than the religious can prove that there is.  impasse, waste of time



......Cspan......are you one of the 12 people w


----------



## Coog (Jan 5, 2014)

Sorry trigger happy on that one.

Who watches CSPAN?  I barely have time to watch my kids.

Personally, I struggle with evolution.  Always have.  There are just too many holes and not enough in the fossil record.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> The debate is not at all about proving there's no god, nor is it about partisan beliefs. It is about proving the existence of evolution and disproving the notion that the world is only 6 or 10K years old. It seems almost silly in this day and age for adults to think that men ran around with dinosaurs, but there are attempts to teach this notion in public schools.


 

like I said, its not about proving anything , rather the debunking of the other side. thanks for proving my point. Merely an attack on the bible using science as the stalking horse in order to debunk the entire premise of Christianity by pointing out discrepancies in dates and the like.

come on BG call a spade a spade, the whole premise behind this is to use science to attack the Christian faith FWIW I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools either, but if you think its just that in the minds of those who bring this about is all there is to it you are a naif


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

Coog said:


> Sorry trigger happy on that one.
> 
> Who watches CSPAN?  I barely have time to watch my kids.
> 
> Personally, I struggle with evolution.  Always have.  There are just too many holes and not enough in the fossil record.


 

yeah I watch C-span doesn't everyone?


----------



## begreen (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> like I said, its not about proving anything , rather the debunking of the other side. thanks for proving my point. Merely an attack on the bible using science as the stalking horse in order to debunk the entire premise of Christianity by pointing out discrepancies in dates and the like.
> 
> come on BG call a spade a spade, the whole premise behind this is to use science to attack the Christian faith FWIW I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools either, but if you think its just that in the minds of those who bring this about is all there is to it you are a naif



I don't think that way at all. It's not an attack on the Bible at all, just the literal interpretation of it. Genesis is an allegory, not literal fact.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> I don't think that way at all. It's not an attack on the Bible at all, just the literal interpretation of it. Genesis is an allegory, not literal fact.


 
correct, also not the point I'm making, do you really think the topic of this debate is going to be about the timeline described in genesis? of course not.


----------



## begreen (Jan 5, 2014)

I am not as skeptical. This is not about denying the hand of God in creation or the order of the universe. It is whether evolution is a proven theory. Attempts to derail the debate toward the question of the existence of God will be disappointing and distracting. I hope the debate does not devolve from the original topic and if it does that the moderator will bring it back.
Topic:
“Is creation a viable model of origins?”


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 5, 2014)

Coog said:


> Sorry trigger happy on that one.
> 
> Who watches CSPAN?  I barely have time to watch my kids.
> 
> Personally, I struggle with evolution.  Always have.  There are just too many holes and not enough in the fossil record.


 
It is the most supported scientific theory we have.    It can be empirically observed in a lab or natural environment.  Given that fossils are hard to make, hard to keep, and hard to find, we have an extraordinary amount of crucial fossils.  Any holes were filled in with modern genetics in the last decade, particularly with our ability to compare genomes and to manipulate Hox genes to determine previous morphology.

I would suggest your struggle does not include any solid research.  I would be happy to provide the cereal box version for you.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> I am not as skeptical. This is not about denying the hand of God in creation or the order of the universe. It is whether evolution is a proven theory. Attempts to derail the debate toward the question of the existence of God will be disappointing and distracting. I hope the debate does not devolve from the original topic and if it does that the moderator will bring it back.
> Topic:
> “Is creation a viable model of origins?”


 

is evolution? ya gotta start somewhere, as for evolution, its obvious existing creatures have evolved from their ancestors, but what was the start? science can theorize but its impossible to actually prove. the whole thing is pointless

as it stands I don't have a dog in this fight, I simply don't care, the argument itself is what annoys me


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> ahh the god v/s science thing again. what fun, the hyper partisan battle between the heart and the mind, each side not as interested in proving they are right so much as they are trying to prove the other wrong. almost as much fun as watching c-span.
> 
> science can no more conclusively prove there is no god than the religious can prove that there is.  impasse, waste of time


 
Scientists don't spend any time on this.  Zero.   They don't really care what others choose to believe.  They are too busy doing the science.  At this point in his career Bill Nye is more of an entertainer and educator.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> science can theorize but its impossible to actually prove.


  Oh I don't know.  We use a lot of evidence to convict criminals, though we cannot actually prove they did it.  The DNA is quite helpful in both cases.    And last I checked we didn't have a whole segment of the population resisting sending people to jail.    Additionally, scientists have proven it in both lab and wild settings.


----------



## Coog (Jan 6, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> It is the most supported scientific theory we have.    It can be empirically observed in a lab or natural environment.  Given that fossils are hard to make, hard to keep, and hard to find, we have an extraordinary amount of crucial fossils.  Any holes were filled in with modern genetics in the last decade, particularly with our ability to compare genomes and to manipulate Hox genes to determine previous morphology.
> 
> I would suggest your struggle does not include any solid research.  I would be happy to provide the cereal box version for you.



Oh I suppose but the more we learn about the complexities of life, the more difficult it is support evolution.  Just add a couple of billion years and you can solve anything.

It is the closest thing we have without including God and it is growing increasingly less relevant.

There are plenty of scientist who struggle with the theory as well.  We will never have enough scientific proof to solve all of the complexities in life so although I think highly on science and progress, we are only humans are are far from figuring it all out.  That is why it is called a theory I think.

Whether we want to admit it or not, this is a religion versus science issue.  Those of faith are threatened by the irrelevance of God and scientists want to be free from the confines of God.  The debate may be annoying but it is what it is.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 6, 2014)

There are relatively few scientific laws. When scientists use the word theory it has a very different meaning than when used in other settings. A scientific theory means there is a very significant amount evidence to support it (hypothesis are elevated to theories).  There are some theories that by there nature will never become scientific law but to say that something is just a theory demonstrates an incorrect understanding of what that means in science..


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 6, 2014)

I disagree on a couple of your points, Coog. First- there really are no big holes in the record. One can always claim there should be a fossil between this one and that. You find that fossil, and someone will claim that there are now 2 holes- between the originals and the one that was found. It is remarkably complete.

Second, few scientists want to be free from the confines of a god any more that Christians worship the way that they do only to deny the truth that is Muhammad, or Rosicrucianism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail) (though surely some may be). Pursuing the process of science and seeking truth can happen in absence of belief, along side of belief, or possibly by someone trying to disprove God. However, as someone that's gots me a couple/few science degrees and has worked as a scientist enough years now- I've never found someone in the latter category. Further, the notion of some mass migration of scientists doubting evolution is a silly one propped up by absolute lying (yes, LYING) websites and groups such as Answersingenesis.

Please also note- a scientific theory is NOT what is colloquially referred to as a "theory". A scientific theory is a very strong concept. What the lay person calls a "theory" is what we call a "hypothesis"- which is sort of a starting point to investigate.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 6, 2014)

jatoxico said:


> There are relatively few scientific laws. When scientists use the word theory it has a very different meaning than when used in other settings. A scientific theory means there is a very significant amount evidence to support it (hypothesis are elevated to theories).  There are some theories that by there nature will never become scientific law but to say that something is just a theory demonstrates an incorrect understanding of what that means in science..


Beat me to it!


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> There are plenty of scientist who struggle with the theory as well.  We will never have enough scientific proof to solve all of the complexities in life so although I think highly on science and progress, we are only humans are are far from figuring it all out.  That is why it is called a theory I think.



There's a huge difference between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory.'

Evolution is a proven scientific theory with a mountain of evidence to support it. Creationism is a weak alternative with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It has no business being taught to the innocent young.

Hitchens' Razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Occam's Razor suggests that we cut out all the assertions (creationism) and begin the conversation about a universe without a creator.


----------



## webbie (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> ......Cspan......are you one of the 12 people w



He's one of 2 Virginians.......who delve into it.


----------



## rideau (Jan 6, 2014)

Hey, Mrs. Krabapple, I think there IS a whole segment of the population that resists sending those who are not a danger to society to jail.  A stupid way to not deal with a problem, but rather create greater problems, at great expense to the public and many innocent family members.  And a much better issue to be debating and trying to resolve.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> Oh I suppose but the more we learn about the complexities of life, the more difficult it is support evolution.
> 
> .


 
Exactly the opposite


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 6, 2014)

rideau said:


> Hey, Mrs. Krabapple, I think there IS a whole segment of the population that resists sending those who are not a danger to society to jail.  A stupid way to not deal with a problem, but rather create greater problems, at great expense to the public and many innocent family members.  And a much better issue to be debating and trying to resolve.


 Yes I am one of those.  I worded the analogy poorly.  I should have said that we use the process to indict people without uproar from your average joe.


----------



## firebroad (Jan 6, 2014)

I have always thought it curious how some folks limit the power of God to how he/she could create a universe.


----------



## Ashful (Jan 6, 2014)

Given a wide-spread acceptance of the notion that a "day" as defined in Genesis may not be a "day" as defined to us mere mortals, I wonder if either side will propose the the possibility that evolution is simply God's mechanism of creation.  So many of these science vs. Christianity debates held thru history (eg. the sun and stars revolve around the earth) have been initially seen as contradictory to the Bible, but time and deeper study often shows that the contradiction is only in our perception of what the Bible is telling us.

Example of perception... tell me, how many wise men visited baby Jesus on the 12th day of Christmas?

... oh, and Happy Epiphany Day!

_(answer:  the Bible never says there were three of them, only that they brought three gifts.  The popular perception has us believe there were three of them, but many scholars believe they were likely a group of more than 10.)_


----------



## Jags (Jan 6, 2014)

Joful said:


> Example of perception... tell me how many wise men visited baby Jesus on the 12th day of Christmas?



3.  Larry, Moe and Curly.


----------



## Ashful (Jan 6, 2014)

Jags said:


> 3.  Larry, Moe and Curly.


Wrong!  Just added the answer above.


----------



## firebroad (Jan 6, 2014)

Jags said:


> 3.  Larry, Moe and Curly.


Oh, the Wise Guy, EH?


----------



## Jags (Jan 6, 2014)

firebroad said:


> Oh, the Wise Guy, EH?


yuk, yuk.


----------



## Retired Guy (Jan 6, 2014)

To me, faith allows a person to believe in the face of contradictory theories and evidence. eg. To a parent, their baby is the most beautiful one in the world.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 6, 2014)

Jags said:


> yuk, yuk.




The accepted interpretation in the field these days is "nyuk, nyuk".  Some scholars however, after extensive and minute stop frame analysis of such classics as ""Three Dumb Clucks" have presented compelling heresay evidinx in favor of "gnyuk, gnyuk".  

Three stars in your crown if you can correctly state the martial arts defense and counter sequence beginning with Moe's two fingered eye poke.


----------



## Coog (Jan 6, 2014)

Well I must have struck a chord.  I believe the thought of creation is very compelling and holds with it significance and validity.  I am not a scientist (although I know the scientific method) or a theologian, just an engineer who likes to burn wood.  So call it the practicality in me but without diving deep into the details of evolutionary theory, which I am not at all equipped to debate, I cannot get there.  I read the origin of species and have heard the theory that God used evolution in creation.  Personally I do not like limiting the power of a being much more powerful than I.

I can tell you that I have personally witnessed the birth of our three children and that, my friend, is a miracle.  I was talking to a Obstetrics doctor the other day, not a Christian by the way, and he was explaining to me that we still do not know how conception happens.  What actually occurs.  

Didn't know that.  Learn something new every day.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> Well I must have struck a chord.  I believe the thought of creation is very compelling and holds with it significance and validity.  I am not a scientist (although I know the scientific method) or a theologian, just an engineer who likes to burn wood.  So call it the practicality in me but without diving deep into the details of evolutionary theory, which I am not at all equipped to debate, I cannot get there.  I read the origin of species and have heard the theory that God used evolution in creation.  Personally I do not like limiting the power of a being much more powerful than I.
> 
> I can tell you that I have personally witnessed the birth of our three children and that, my friend, is a miracle.  I was talking to a Obstetrics doctor the other day, not a Christian by the way, and he was explaining to me that we still do not know how conception happens.  What actually occurs.
> 
> Didn't know that.  Learn something new every day.



If you choose to believe something for which there is no evidence and ignore something for which there is a lot well...

I _can_ understand synthesizing the two because one does not necessarily negate the other even if some feel that they must pick a side in some imaginary struggle.

At one time the earth was thought to be the center of the universe and some people chose, despite all the evidence, to believe otherwise because they believed it conflicted with their faith. They were wrong on both counts.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 6, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Please also note- *a scientific theory is NOT what is colloquially referred to as a "theory". A scientific theory is a very strong concept. What the lay person calls a "theory" is what we call a "hypothesis"*- which is sort of a starting point to investigate.



I was going to add that almost word for word .


----------



## webbie (Jan 6, 2014)

Einsteins theory comes to mind.....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
-------------------------------

The older I get, the more open I am to how wrong I am about various things. But, still, that has nothing to do with accepting anything on faith. I often take a person's word on faith. I have faith that my car is going to stay in the lane if I steer it correctly....

And I know I don't know 1/10,000th of what there is to know.

Still, whatever opinions and conclusions I do come to are often guided by Einsteins words above - that is, if something knocks me in the head too much, I move it or move my head.


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> Well I must have struck a chord.  I believe the thought of creation is very compelling and holds with it significance and validity.  I am not a scientist (although I know the scientific method) or a theologian, just an engineer who likes to burn wood.  So call it the practicality in me but without diving deep into the details of evolutionary theory, which I am not at all equipped to debate, I cannot get there.  I read the origin of species and have heard the theory that God used evolution in creation.  Personally I do not like limiting the power of a being much more powerful than I.
> 
> I can tell you that I have personally witnessed the birth of our three children and that, my friend, is a miracle.  I was talking to a Obstetrics doctor the other day, not a Christian by the way, and he was explaining to me that we still do not know how conception happens.  What actually occurs.
> 
> Didn't know that.  Learn something new every day.



Reading Darwins'  'The Origin of Species' is not really the right book for fully understanding evolutionary theory. It is the foundation, but he revised it many times and there was still mistakes in his thesis.

Evolution is a fascinating subject, filled with beauty and the magic of reality. The real topic here is the danger of religious fundamentalism and teaching creationism, or intelligent design, to our children when it doesn't have a fact to stand on.

Religious Fundamentalism: a threat abroad, and a threat at home.


----------



## Coog (Jan 6, 2014)

I am not religious just a seeker of truth.  Keep in mind, many of the numbskulls, "religious elite", were wrong too; Trying to distort truth/reality for personal benefit.  It is no surprise that relativism is rampant today.  Relativism is also quite prevalent in religious circles.  That does not necessarily represent the whole.  I am sure the same goes in science and academic circles.  Somehow, because it is part of higher learning, it holds more relevance.  This holds true for theological studies as well.  I believe the physician that treated George Washington also killed him thinking he could drain the "bad blood". 

I really wonder if the "opposers" of my position are agnostic, atheist or otherwise.  I believe what I believe based on some very real occurrences in my life.  Beliefs that I once rejected.  I am a skeptic like many of you and understand the need for proof when it comes to convictions.  

I just think, at the end of the day, what you believe is more important than what you know.  We will never know it all.  Otherwise I would have a been a doctor, engineer, actor, musician and President.


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> I am not religious just a seeker of truth.  Keep in mind, many of the numbskulls, "religious elite", were wrong too; Trying to distort truth/reality for personal benefit.  It is no surprise that relativism is rampant today.  Relativism is also quite prevalent in religious circles.  That does not necessarily represent the whole.  I am sure the same goes in science and academic circles.  Somehow, because it is part of higher learning, it holds more relevance.  This holds true for theological studies as well.  I believe the physician that treated George Washington also killed him thinking he could drain the "bad blood".
> 
> I really wonder if the "opposers" of my position are agnostic, atheist or otherwise.  I believe what I believe based on some very real occurrences in my life.  Beliefs that I once rejected.  I am a skeptic like many of you and understand the need for proof when it comes to convictions.
> 
> I just think, at the end of the day, what you believe is more important than what you know.  We will never know it all.  Otherwise I would have a been a doctor, engineer, actor, musician and President.



I'll just start this reply with stating that, putting all this aside, I guarantee that you and I would have no problem sharing a drink and conversation and enjoying each others company in front of a fire, Coog. In the end, that's what really matters. But, the discussion must continue even if it is over and over and over...

Coog, claiming to be a seeker of truth and stacking it together with your previous posts is a perfect recipe for a serious antithesis.

Is it really more important that I believe I can fly when I know I can't?

It's all good, Coog. It's all good...


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> Trying to distort truth/reality for personal benefit.  It is no surprise that relativism is rampant today.  Relativism is also quite prevalent in religious circles.  That does not necessarily represent the whole.  I am sure the same goes in science and academic circles.


 
The process is much different than that in science.  When you want to carry out a study, you research all the work that has been done in the area.  Then you do your research.  Then you crunch your data to see if you have produced statistically significant numbers. 

THEN  you submit your results and conclusions for a peer reviewed process, which is not altogether different from this----


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 6, 2014)

Retired Guy said:


> To me, faith allows a person to believe in the face of contradictory theories and evidence. eg. To a parent, their baby is the most beautiful one in the world.


 
Yes, my baby was the most beautiful, everybody else is acting on faith


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 6, 2014)

Coog said:


> I was talking to a Obstetrics doctor the other day, not a Christian by the way, and he was explaining to me that we still do not know how conception happens.  What actually occurs.
> .


 
Let me give you the cereal box version of that.  First you buy her a beer...


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 6, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Let me give you the cereal box version of that.  First you buy her a beer...



Want a beer?


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 7, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Let me give you the cereal box version of that.  First you buy her a beer...




Or get her to buy you one!


----------



## Coog (Jan 7, 2014)

Not one to back down from a formal debate, if you couldn't tell.  We all come from different vantage points and perspectives but "what is is what is".  Hard to change a grown man's opinion I guess.  A last question I always ask, once an impasse is reached; "what if you are wrong"?  I will leave you with that.

Thanks for the lively discussion.  It is nice to have without unnecessary obscenities and shrewd words.  Can always count on that here.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 7, 2014)

Smoke Stack said:


> Reading Darwins'  'The Origin of Species' is not really the right book for fully understanding evolutionary theory. It is the foundation, but he revised it many times and there was still mistakes in his thesis.
> 
> Evolution is a fascinating subject, filled with beauty and the magic of reality. The real topic here is the danger of religious fundamentalism and teaching creationism, or intelligent design, to our children when it doesn't have a fact to stand on.
> 
> Religious Fundamentalism: a threat abroad, and a threat at home.




I think a broad based survey of belief systems would be great to add to the general curriculum, but not as part of the science program.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

Coog said:


> I am not religious just a seeker of truth.  Keep in mind, many of the numbskulls, "religious elite", were wrong too; Trying to distort truth/reality for personal benefit.  It is no surprise that relativism is rampant today.  Relativism is also quite prevalent in religious circles.  That does not necessarily represent the whole.  I am sure the same goes in science and academic circles.  Somehow, because it is part of higher learning, it holds more relevance.  This holds true for theological studies as well.  I believe the physician that treated George Washington also killed him thinking he could drain the "bad blood".
> 
> I really wonder if the "opposers" of my position are agnostic, atheist or otherwise.  I believe what I believe based on some very real occurrences in my life.  Beliefs that I once rejected.  I am a skeptic like many of you and understand the need for proof when it comes to convictions.
> 
> I just think, at the end of the day, what you believe is more important than what you know.  We will never know it all.  Otherwise I would have a been a doctor, engineer, actor, musician and President.




I've got no problem with a person's FAITH- none at all! When someone says "I believe in creation"- that is absolutely fine- no proof needed. 

When they say "the theory of evolution is wrong because of x, y, and z"- then we are having a discussion about science. Now bring me something real to discuss.

For the record- I am an atheist. My reasons for this are simple- things are normally understandable without the need to invoke magic. I don't "hate" or "reject" God any more than I "hate" or "reject" any other mythical being. It's just my nature to start from a default position of "this has a natural explanation". I will re-evaluate that if something truly miraculous happens


----------



## firefighterjake (Jan 7, 2014)

As always . . . hearth.com members do not disappoint . . . interesting conversations and points of view . . . all stated without any name calling or folks going ballistic on each other just because someone did not share their same viewpoint. Perhaps if the folks in the world operated a bit more like folks here, life would be a bit more civil.


----------



## firefighterjake (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I've got no problem with a person's FAITH- none at all! When someone says "I believe in creation"- that is absolutely fine- no proof needed.
> 
> When they say "the theory of evolution is wrong because of x, y, and z"- then we are having a discussion about science. Now bring me something real to discuss.
> 
> For the record- I am an atheist. My reasons for this are simple- things are normally understandable without the need to invoke magic. I don't "hate" or "reject" God any more than I "hate" or "reject" any other mythical being. It's just my nature to start from a default position of "this has a natural explanation". *I will re-evaluate that if something truly miraculous happens*


 
. . . like seeing an image of Jesus in a burning split in the woodstove?


----------



## firefighterjake (Jan 7, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Let me give you the cereal box version of that.  First you buy her a beer...


 

Hehheh . . . I see I wasn't the only one thinking the same thing. I was about to post something like . . . You see when the Daddy likes the Mommy a lot they . . . but I figured this is a PG-rated site.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

firefighterjake said:


> . . . like seeing an image of Jesus in a burning split in the woodstove?


I saw one that looked just like a goose. Maybe a religion is in order?


----------



## firefighterjake (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I saw one that looked just like a goose. Maybe a religion is in order?


 

Sure . . . I'll even join . . . as long as I don't have to drink any purple Kool-aid.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 7, 2014)

Coog said:


> *I believe the physician that treated George Washington also killed him thinking he could drain the "bad blood". *
> 
> 
> *I just think, at the end of the day, what you believe is more important than what you know.  We will never know it all.*  Otherwise I would have a been a doctor, engineer, actor, musician and President.



As you say in your subsequent post it's nice to discuss w/o the name calling so I'll add one more thing.

One example of many. What if physicians adopted the mind set you advocate (that it is more important to stick to what to you believe as opposed to what you know) rather than accepting and applying new evidence based knowledge?  We would still be draining blood every time someone got sick is what.

Science does not require you accept every new idea, far from it. It demands evidence and the exclusion of all (provable) alternatives before designating a hypothesis a theory. But IMO you have to work with the facts.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I've got no problem with a person's FAITH- none at all! When someone says "I believe in creation"- that is absolutely fine- no proof needed.
> 
> When they say "the theory of evolution is wrong because of x, y, and z"- then we are having a discussion about science. Now bring me something real to discuss.
> 
> For the record- I am an atheist. My reasons for this are simple- things are normally understandable without the need to invoke magic. I don't "hate" or "reject" God any more than I "hate" or "reject" any other mythical being. It's just my nature to start from a default position of "this has a natural explanation". I will re-evaluate that if something truly miraculous happens




Adios, in the spirit of friendly discussion, Can you state your atheism as a positive?  Given the advancements in our understanding of the boundaries (or lack of) to our existence, atheism doesn't make sense to me anymore....it's so '50's!


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> Adios, in the spirit of friendly discussion, Can you state your atheism as a positive?  Given the advancements in our understanding of the boundaries (or lack of) to our existence, atheism doesn't make sense to me anymore....it's so '50's!



I'm not exactly sure that I understand what you are asking.

I start with the assumption that what we see is explainable without resorting to "magic". Magic was the explanation for just about everything at one point- then we looked closer and understood the physics and chemistry. The pile of "it's magic" continues to shrink every day.

Those things that I cannot explain, I just don't relegate to the "magic" pile. My lack of knowledge on any subject doesn't create an assumption of the divine- it creates a curiosity to understand what is really happening.

Humans historically want to have "meaning" and feel that their existence and consciousness somehow give validity to some divine plan and purpose. I don't really feel that need. Not only was Copernicus vindicated, but it turns out that our whole solar system is merely a fly speck in our galaxy, which isn't even a fly speck in the universe. Bringing this back to evolution- it works on probability. Our hypotheses on the origin of life (which is a separate question) would surely rely on that as well. The number of planets that we now calculate exist tell us that there were a lot of tickets bought for that lottery, and I'd guess we're not the only winners.

edit: I have friends of many faiths, and you probably do too. Christians of all stripe, Pagans, Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, etc. It's interesting that the people of faith are usually more shocked or offended that I don't believe in any god, than the idea that I don't believe in THEIR god. I live in NH, however- if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket- then have at it


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 7, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> I think a broad based survey of belief systems would be great to add to the general curriculum, but not as part of the science program.



Ok. I'm listening.

At what grade level should we start implementing a broad based survey of belief systems? How do we overcome the extreme diversities in these belief systems in a civilized manner? Should they be taught along with history, literature, geography? How do we iron out all the discrepancies without "offending?"

I have always been a firm believer in using the bible to teach literature. We should use the King James version for what it is: beautiful literature and an understanding about an ancient culture. This, coming from an Atheist standpoint.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I'm not exactly sure that I understand what you are asking.
> 
> I start with the assumption that what we see is explainable without resorting to "magic". Magic was the explanation for just about everything at one point- then we looked closer and understood the physics and chemistry. The pile of "it's magic" continues to shrink every day.
> 
> ...




Thanks, that's close to my view.  I just wouldn't call it atheism.  Webby mentioned "possiblitarianism" awhile back.  That suits me better.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> Thanks, that's close to my view.  I just wouldn't call it atheism.  Webby mentioned "possiblitarianism" awhile back.  That suits me better.


I hear you. As a science guy- if evidence of a god came to light, then I would consider it. Until then- (not trying to be insulting)- I'll classify it with Cthulhu and Joe Strummer's resurrection- cool to contemplate, but not something I believe in


----------



## Ashful (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I will re-evaluate that if something truly miraculous happens


It did, and at least 27 books were written about it.  You haven't read them?

Too many people discount ancient writing as the hocus pocus of very confused people.  However, if you really study the history of science and philosophy, you will come to realize those in Roman times were really not so different than us.  These people witnessed the things that were accounted by many, and which still cannot be described by science today.

http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB00F.htm


----------



## firebroad (Jan 7, 2014)

The correct term is Agnosticism.
Many people incorrectly label an Agnostic as an Atheist;  While an Atheist disbelieves any existence of a Deity, an Agnostic simply professes to have no knowledge of one.  I.e., I have not sufficient information to form a relative conclusion one way or another.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

firebroad said:


> The correct term is Agnosticism.
> Many people incorrectly label and Agnostic as an Atheist;  While an Atheist disbelieves any existence of a Deity, an Agnostic simply professes to have no knowledge of one.  I.e., I have not sufficient information to form a relative conclusion one way or another.


Depends on your dictionary. I'm an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god. (breaking down the word- "a"- absence of/without) An atheist may actively profess that there is no god, or may simply not believe that there are gods.

Yes, I have the atom symbol on my personal checks.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

Joful said:


> It did, and at least 27 books were written about it.  You haven't read them?
> 
> Too many people discount ancient writing as the hocus pocus of very confused people.  However, if you really study the history of science and philosophy, you will come to realize those in Roman times were really not so different than us.  These people witnessed the things that were accounted by many, and which still cannot be described by science today.
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB00F.htm



We disagree on the veracity of these accounts, and that's OK   I'm sure that you disagree with the veracity of several other texts from before and after those, as well


----------



## firebroad (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Depends on your dictionary. I'm an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god. (breaking down the word- "a"- absence of/without) An atheist may actively profess that there is no god, or may simply not believe that there are gods.
> 
> Yes, I have the atom symbol on my personal checks.


Not disagreeing with you at all.  I personally am an agnostic pagan.  My higher power is Mother Earth, and I have sworn to care for Her as best as I can, in thanks for the life She gives me.  Now, I got people shaking their heads at me from all sides.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 7, 2014)

firebroad said:


> Not disagreeing with you at all.  I personally am an agnostic pagan.  My higher power is Mother Earth, and I have sworn to care for Her as best as I can, in thanks for the life She gives me.  Now, I got people shaking their heads at me from all sides.


It's all good by me. Some of my best friends are really flying their freak flag


----------



## firebroad (Jan 7, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> It's all good by me. Some of my best friends are really flying their freak flag


Normally I do try to keep the flag in the broom closet...


----------



## Jags (Jan 7, 2014)

firebroad said:


> Normally I do try to keep the flag in the broom closet...


Or as most pagans call it...the garage.


----------



## Wooderson (Jan 8, 2014)

As an educated individual with a science background and degree, I have a few points to add. I suppose I should first come clean about a commingling of beliefs discussed earlier.  I have no problem in rectifying a belief in creationism and divine power with an understanding and belief for evidence of evolution.  Now, on to my assertions...

I fully believe that Natural Selection is the driving factor in adaptations of species over time.  I believe that natural selection, or those individuals best suited to the environment will survive and reproduce resulting in physiological changes over time, is sound in theory and is most often what has been cited in this argument as being evidenced in nature and lab settings.  This is the fundamental hypothesis that has led to the creationism/ evolution debate.

I also believe in the assorted collection of historical literature found in the bible chronicling creation and the birth of a savior, Christ.

I do not believe, necessarily, in the broad "Theory of Evolution" best summed up as man is a derivative of primate species.  my understanding of natural selection leads me to believe that the change in species over time would benefit those best-suited to survive, procreate, and pass their genetic characteristics to the next generation.  However, man and ape coexist, in many
 varying environments throughout the evolutionary record.  How can they both be best suited to an environment?  Selective breeding - those with like characteristics breeding and producing organism of the same species with vastly different appearances would be more likely, but that would not necessarily explain the differences in the genetic make up of separate species.

The main hinderance in my acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is the start point.  As Firebroad stated, science does not care to address this.  The closest possible explanation for the start point I suppose is spontaneous generation.

My education cannot overcome my upbringing when choosing to believe in the creation of mankind by a divine power or the random chance of our atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organ systems, etc...happening together and producing organisms capable of the miracle of creating life to have occurred. This is too often overlooked - how does this reproduction of an infinite number of organisms just happen to occur?  Science is great at explaining everything other than creation, and unfortunately this is what it all boils down too.

As Adios said, I have friends with vastly different belief systems.  I choose to not judge theirs, and they are able to overlook mine.  We can have intelligent conversation, but are unable to produce proof that one belief system is inaccurate.  I do not know if one is better than the other, but I have faith that I am correct, even though you may not be Wrong.  Just my .02 in the discussion


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 8, 2014)

Wooderson said:


> As an educated individual with a science background and degree, I have a few points to add. I suppose I should first come clean about a commingling of beliefs discussed earlier.  I have no problem in rectifying a belief in creationism and divine power with an understanding and belief for evidence of evolution.  Now, on to my assertions...
> 
> I fully believe that Natural Selection is the driving factor in adaptations of species over time.  I believe that natural selection, or those individuals best suited to the environment will survive and reproduce resulting in physiological changes over time, is sound in theory and is most often what has been cited in this argument as being evidenced in nature and lab settings.  This is the fundamental hypothesis that has led to the creationism/ evolution debate.
> 
> ...



Wooderson, my friend. How was the creator created?


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Jan 8, 2014)

Wooderson said:


> I do not believe, necessarily, in the broad "Theory of Evolution" best summed up as man is a derivative of primate species.  my understanding of natural selection leads me to believe that the change in species over time would benefit those best-suited to survive, procreate, and pass their genetic characteristics to the next generation.  However, man and ape coexist, in many
> varying environments throughout the evolutionary record.  How can they both be best suited to an environment?  Selective breeding - those with like characteristics breeding and producing organism of the same species with vastly different appearances would be more likely, but that would not necessarily explain the differences in the genetic make up of separate species.



Man *is* a primate species.  In fact, the DNA is so similar that if we were not in charge of the sorting, we would be in the genus _pan_ along with the chimpanzees and bonobos.  
Each species occupies a niche, or "job" that reduces competition.   You can find 6 different species of birds who forage in different areas of one tree.    There's variation in a species provided by random mutations of the DNA.   Genes are constantly in flux among a population.  Any of those variations could provide an advantage to some members of a species.  The ancestor that found success through obligate bipedalism gave rise to humans.  The ancestor that found success power through using upper arm strength gave rise to other ape species.    

To use an analogy---Latin have rise to other languages even while Latin was still useful and functional.  

As for the rest, it's late and I'm tired, but at one time most doctors didn't believe in germ theory of disease and the germs still happily spread and multiplied.


----------



## becasunshine (Jan 8, 2014)

I love this conversation.  I love how civil it is, and how everyone is bringing both their best game _and_ their best manners. 

I can tell you from first hand exposure that there are many, many highly trained medical and science professionals who believe, unquestioning, in a traditional definition of God and creationism with, as many have mentioned, some latitude in defining the term "day" as used in Genesis.

I believe that the popular term that was used when I was exposed to those belief systems was "intelligent design."

Also, there are many who point out that what most of us consider to be "THE Bible" is the King James Version, which is a translation and perhaps largely an interpretation as well.

The Old Testament contains many stories and "historical facts" that bear striking resemblance to similar stories and "historical facts" that were previously and simultaneously handed down in pagan cultures.  Think "Noah and the Ark."  Did this great flood happen?  Are all of the accounts, Biblical and otherwise, basically true?  And each culture, each religion, has their colloquial/oral history of these events, that over the millennia have become our Grimm's Fairy Tales, our Aesop's Fables, our Cautionary Tales.  Perhaps these events did happen in some form or another.  Perhaps these events are part of the oral history of many different cultures and belief systems.  None of these oral histories belong to one religion nor one culture nor the other.  They belong to all of humanity.

I've always found it annoying when those who discount the Bible point out that the Old Testament is a collection of folk stories and parables "stolen" from pagan cultures and appropriated into Christianity as cautionary tales.  Somehow, pointing out that the Bible shares parables and folk tales with the verbal and written chronicles of other religions and secular cultural works is supposed to debunk the Bible as "The Word of God."

I guess I play a little loose and fast with the interpretation of "The Word of God" myself.  I wonder if somehow that concept got mangled in the KJV.  Perhaps the very phrase, "The Word of God," is a mangled translation/interpretation.  Perhaps a more accurate translation is, rather, THIS STUFF REALLY HAPPENED. 

From an anthropological perspective, isn't it possible that those who wrote the Bible incorporated stories of major events in civilization that were handed down, verbally, from generation to generation, as part of its own telling of the known history of mankind? 

Personally, I'm with Mike/stoveguyesw.  Diverse belief systems don't bother me at all- but endless arguments over ideas that ultimately, we as humans are not yet equipped/informed enough to validate or dismiss can get old quickly.

Personally I don't believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time- but be careful about clinging to scientific "facts" that anchor chronology.  Just look at what we are discovering about what we thought we knew about dinosaurs.  My very favorite childhood dinosaur, the Brontosaurus, that gentle giant with the long neck and the tiny head who grazed peacefully on tree tops, has been vaporized.  He simply didn't exist- and I am still in mourning.  SCIENCE KILLED MY BRONTOSAURUS!  But ultimately that's OK- because science invented him as well.  He was an amalgam of findings that were apparently cobbled together erroneously, with dots connected and gaps filled in by extrapolation that now appears to be largely supposition.

It's perfectly fine not to cling to religion, but beware of the tendency to make science your religion instead.  What we humans colloquially refer to as "science" may be nothing more than our flawed interpretation of events, information and the material world- actual things and concepts that we are not yet evolved enough to truly comprehend.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 8, 2014)

firefighterjake said:


> It may mark me as ignorant . . . but I've always kind of been a believer in both evolution and creationism . . . believing that perhaps a Divine Being (I'll call him God . . . others may call him by another name -- maybe Harold or Bill) created life . . . but did so over time through evolution . . . I guess I kind of think the seven days of creation may not be literally seven days. I guess what I'm saying is I believe life could have been created by a divine being and then some . . . many . . . perhaps all . . . of life has evolved and changed over time . . . perhaps with guidance from this divine being. I also believe that there are many, many things . . . even in science . . . that we do not have all the answers to and that sometimes a bit of faith is needed. Again . . . what do I know . . . I'm just a ignorant Maniac and dumb firefighter.


I don't see a thing that's internally inconsistent with those beliefs.  That's actually the tragedy of this whole argument.  Seems to me that evolution is damned miraculous, and there's nothing incompatible in believing in God and in evolution.  Besides, those of us who aren't, thank goodness, theologians, don't have to go deep into this stuff.  There's no reason why an ordinary person can't believe in God and evolution..


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 8, 2014)

Wooderson said:


> As an educated individual
> 
> I do not believe, necessarily, in the broad "Theory of Evolution" best summed up as man is a derivative of primate species.  my understanding of natural selection leads me to believe that the change in species over time would benefit those best-suited to survive, procreate, and pass their genetic characteristics to the next generation.  However, man and ape coexist, in many
> varying environments throughout the evolutionary record.  How can they both be best suited to an environment?  Selective breeding - those with like characteristics breeding and producing organism of the same species with vastly different appearances would be more likely, but that would not necessarily explain the differences in the genetic make up of separate species.
> ...



It's about niches. That's it. You can have several varieties of warblers, or monkeys in the same environment as well.

Note, we do not coexist with direct primate ancestors.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 8, 2014)

becasunshine said:


> I love this conversation.  I love how civil it is, and how everyone is bringing both their best game _and_ their best manners.
> 
> I can tell you from first hand exposure that there are many, many highly trained medical and science professionals who believe, unquestioning, in a traditional definition of God and creationism with, as many have mentioned, some latitude in defining the term "day" as used in Genesis.
> 
> ...


Science is a method of understanding, not just a set of facts. It is supposed to admit when it is wrong, adapt, and progress. That is it's strength! Scientists may cling to a belief and move slowly on occasion, but it has peer review and one job of a scientist is to find flaws in what we understand.

Clearly books from religions contain some historical fact. They may also contain universal myths based on human fear and ignorance. A flood or a fire was the scariest thing that these cultures dealt with- and they were rare. The writer of a tale might call a flood world-wide, but his view of the world was extremely limited.


----------



## Smoke Stack (Jan 8, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Science is a method of understanding, not just a set of facts. It is supposed to admit when it is wrong, adapt, and progress. That is it's strength! Scientists may cling to a belief and move slowly on occasion, but it has peer review and one job of a scientist is to find flaws in what we understand.



Another fascinating thing is that scientists are predicting what they will find in regard to the evolutionary changes in animals as they continue with the fossil record. Absolutely amazing. Granted, there are always going to be bumps along the way that happen to form another 'branch' in the evolutionary tree, but that's what makes it so fascinating.


----------



## bag of hammers (Jan 9, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Depends on your dictionary. I'm an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god. (breaking down the word- "a"- absence of/without) An atheist may actively profess that there is no god, or may simply not believe that there are gods.



_"The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist."

- Charles Baudelaire

 "Transformed into an angel of light, with the entire horde of wicked spirits [evolutionists]* he goes about everywhere and takes possession of the [h]*earth"

http://www.internetgebetskreis.com/en/gebete/the-exorcism-prayer-against-satan-and-the-apostate-angels/_

It appears that AP is the devil. 

* yes these are cheesy embellishments on my part


----------



## Retired Guy (Jan 9, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> Man *is* a primate species.  In fact, the DNA is so similar that if we were not in charge of the sorting, we would be in the genus _pan_ along with the chimpanzees and bonobos.
> Each species occupies a niche, or "job" that reduces competition.   You can find 6 different species of birds who forage in different areas of one tree.    There's variation in a species provided by random mutations of the DNA.   Genes are constantly in flux among a population.  Any of those variations could provide an advantage to some members of a species.  The ancestor that found success through obligate bipedalism gave rise to humans.  The ancestor that found success power through using upper arm strength gave rise to other ape species.
> 
> To use an analogy---Latin have rise to other languages even while Latin was still useful and functional.
> ...




Recently read that humans evolved from a female primate and a pig. Seems like things haven't changed much!


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2014)

Tonight is the debate. It can be watched here:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/evolution-debate-bill-nye-ken-ham

This appears to be one of the more interesting points proving evolution:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Feb 4, 2014)

Yes here I am watching.   The boy is not interested, but both cats and 1 parrot are on the edge of (my) seat.  The cats are avowed evolution-ists, but the parrot has a God complex, and may throw her weight in with Hambone there. 

Hamm is making a bit of a mess, using semantics to disprove science, bringing in teh gays, and suggesting that freeing folks from the idea of God means they cannot understand how to do important work. 

Nye is laying good ground, but is a bit dry for the uninitiated.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 4, 2014)




----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 4, 2014)

I know I will get too frustrated with the semantics of the creation crowd, so I'm watching theBruins, generating a D&D character, and drawing mug design ideas


----------



## fossil (Feb 4, 2014)

I'll just say Nye is Seattle and Ham is Denver and I can turn it off.


----------



## firebroad (Feb 4, 2014)

Not sure I would really want to have a meal of Hamm 'n Nye tonight, even if I could get it on TV.   You can't argue with stupid.


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2014)

I can sum the whole thing up....

Basically, if you can't see something yourself with your own eyes, it's not science. People who saw things before you don't count. Each individual must observe the entire universe and everything in it, or it isn't true!

Does that sound right?


----------



## fossil (Feb 4, 2014)

Things happen around me that I don't understand, so I'll either make up my own explanations for them or listen to somebody who claims to know the answer.  The scientific method is s-o-o-o tedious, I just can't be bothered.


----------



## firebroad (Feb 4, 2014)

webbie said:


> I can sum the whole thing up....
> 
> Basically, if you can't see something yourself with your own eyes, it's not science. People who saw things before you don't count. Each individual must observe the entire universe and everything in it, or it isn't true!
> 
> Does that sound right?


No, you just have to be presented with a reasonable amount of proof as a result of painstaking investigation.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 4, 2014)

webbie said:


> Basically, if you can't see something yourself with your own eyes, it's not science. People who saw things before you don't count. Each individual must observe the entire universe and everything in it, or it isn't true!



Pretty much. Why I had trouble in Geometry. Couldn't just memorize a bunch of theorems and run with'em. Wanted to know where they came from and if they were right. Teacher explained that we didn't have a thousand years to rebuild'em.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Feb 4, 2014)

The debate has boiled down to "Just because the majority of people believe it doesn't make it true."   This is a point


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2014)

I flunked out of algebra. Proof positive my family tree has not yet evolved.

Forest Gump must have not flown when he got in a plane because, of course, he could not have possibly accurately observed the forces at work.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 4, 2014)

I try not to think about this stuff............it gives me a headache.  Pondering questions for which there are no answers?
And by the way,did anyone else see an ad for a 5 gallon whiskey still pop up on the hearth site for like $500 of so. I tried following it but it dead ended.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 4, 2014)

webbie said:


> I flunked out of algebra. Proof positive my family tree has not yet evolved.



Loved Algebra. The week before the final I put my head on the desk and went to sleep. Teacher came and rapped on the desk and told me that I needed to pay attention because the final exam was coming. To which I replied "I could get a zero on the final and still pass.".

She couldn't disagree and stomped away.


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> I replied "I could get a zero on the final and still pass.".
> 
> .



Sounds like you did the math!


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Feb 4, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Loved Algebra. The week before the final I put my head on the desk and went to sleep. Teacher came and rapped on the desk and told me that I needed to pay attention because the final exam was coming. To which I replied "I could get a zero on the final and still pass.".
> 
> She couldn't disagree and stomped away.


 
I struggle considerably with this now that the final exam scores are used determine a teacher's effectiveness.    I've had many kids tell me they didn't study for the exam because their semester grade will float them.  Their semester grade isn't used to score me as a teacher though.


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I try not to think about this stuff............it gives me a headache.  Pondering questions for which there are no answers?
> And by the way,did anyone else see an ad for a 5 gallon whiskey still pop up on the hearth site for like $500 of so. I tried following it but it dead ended.



Always fall back on Clarkes Laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

especially "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I find rockets difficult to understand - what with the telemetry, the gyroscopes and all the various systems which allow them to predict exactly where they are going to go and at what speed. But I know a combination of thousands of great minds thought it out......


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2014)

Nye aced it when he mentioned that everything in the hall - everything the people eat, use, drive in, heat with, etc. - all the product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

He was getting into hearth territory there......talking about how all fuels burn, etc. can be perfectly calculated out.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 4, 2014)

I find creationist mis use of the second law INFURIATING.


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2014)

It's important to note that our tax dollars are funding a thousand schools in 15 states that teach creationism. 
http://www.examiner.com/article/tax...-schools-15-states-that-can-teach-creationism


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 4, 2014)

Mrs. Krabappel said:


> I struggle considerably with this now that the final exam scores are used determine a teacher's effectiveness.    I've had many kids tell me they didn't study for the exam because their semester grade will float them.  Their semester grade isn't used to score me as a teacher though.



They loved me for the standardized test scores. I was born knowing how to take those things. 7th grade math teacher sent my scores home and circled the high score in red on the math part but had to add a note. "Capable of so much but does so little in class.".

Of course three weeks later she shot her husband to death in his sleep.


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> 7th grade math teacher sent my scores home and circled the high score in red on the math part but had to add a note. "Capable of so much but does so little in class.".



Oh man, I got that exact same note in 12th grade physics. Loafed through class all year and aced the state exam with one of the highest regents scores. I considered myself under-challenged and wanted to get beyond theory to doing stuff.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 4, 2014)

Think I was the only student in that high school that figured out how to graduate without taking the required physics class. And am sure I am the only person in the University of Texas system that ever figured out how to graduate with an accounting degree and an MBA without taking the ethics courses required for either degree.


----------



## Smoke Stack (Feb 5, 2014)

So Ham opens up by saying that his view of creationism should be taught to our children so that they keep an open mind. Then, in the audience question session, he states that his mind can never be changed that the Bible is the word of god and he created all things.

So what is it?

And a round and round they go...

Body language says a lot. It looked like Nye, at times, wanted to rip Ham a new one while slowly losing his great capacity for generous indignation.

Ham, was a nervous wreck. Always retired to his chair with his head in his hands.


----------



## firebroad (Feb 5, 2014)

Now I am sorry I missed it.

I think BB and I had the same teacher.  Mine wrote on one of my grade school test papers:  "Your answers are correct, but I could not read your handwriting..."


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 5, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Loved Algebra. The week before the final I put my head on the desk and went to sleep. Teacher came and rapped on the desk and told me that I needed to pay attention because the final exam was coming. To which I replied "I could get a zero on the final and still pass.".
> 
> She couldn't disagree and stomped away.


after God created math, the devil added the alphabet!!


----------



## razerface (Feb 5, 2014)

god created evolution


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 5, 2014)

razerface said:


> god created evolution


  you forgot the "r"


----------



## webbie (Feb 5, 2014)

razerface said:


> god created evolution



Well, as a "reasonable man", I can actually consider that theory. That's completely different than Ham's story....


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 5, 2014)

webbie said:


> Well, as a "reasonable man", I can actually consider that theory. That's completely different than Ham's story....


Hypothesis, not theory. We are discussing science... Or something.


----------



## Jags (Feb 5, 2014)

razerface said:


> god created evolution


"God created man in his own image" kinda deflates that discussion.

(oh no! I entered the fray.  Dang it)


----------



## razerface (Feb 5, 2014)

Jags said:


> "God created man in his own image" kinda deflates that discussion.


not really,,,, what was "his image"    The  jesus pictures are fake you know,,,,,


----------



## Jags (Feb 5, 2014)

Not taking questions at this time.  Ask the book.


----------



## Delta-T (Feb 5, 2014)

"own image"...I wouln't have ever thought of an omnipotent,omnipresent being as having only 2 arms, or 10 fingers for that matter....no less than 4, possibly 6.....drums, bass, and guitar.


----------



## bag of hammers (Feb 5, 2014)

Jags said:


> (oh no! I entered the fray. Dang it)





Jags said:


> Not taking questions at this time. Ask the book.



fray pergatory..?


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 5, 2014)

The earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so, and the entire observable universe past, present, and future must comply.

This debate was settled long ago in public and legal forum.  Reenacting it over and over again is a waste of time and energy for the scientific community.  It's like dragging Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs back out on the court again and again and hoping for a different outcome.  He's dead.  So is creationism.

Hamm won the debate just by showing up and having his absurd ideas taken seriously.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 5, 2014)

razerface said:


> god created evolution


When science appears to contradict my Christian religion, being an educated man of science, I most often assume that the contradiction is created only by our _perception _of either the Word or the science.  Many times throughout history, science has refuted our then-current interpretation of the Bible.  Time and study usually reveal a new interpretation which agrees with the science, or in cases where congruence cannot be found, sometimes scientific theories are later dis-proven.  This is what I was thinking when I responded much earlier in this thread:


Joful said:


> Given a wide-spread acceptance of the notion that a "day" as defined in Genesis may not be a "day" as defined to us mere mortals, I wonder if either side will propose the the possibility that evolution is simply God's mechanism of creation.  So many of these science vs. Christianity debates held thru history (eg. the sun and stars revolve around the earth) have been initially seen as contradictory to the Bible, but time and deeper study often shows that the contradiction is only in our perception of what the Bible is telling us.
> 
> Example of perception... tell me, how many wise men visited baby Jesus on the 12th day of Christmas?
> 
> _(answer:  the Bible never says there were three of them, only that they brought three gifts.  The popular perception has us believe there were three of them, but many scholars believe they were likely a group of more than 10.)_


----------



## Ashful (Feb 5, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> The earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so...


No it does not.  Before you go quoting the Bible, you might want to try reading it.  Again, this is only an indirect interpretation of what is actually written, based on genealogy provided within.  Science may prove that interpretation wrong.  You will not find a book/chapter/verse where the age of the earth is directly called out in the Bible.


----------



## Jags (Feb 5, 2014)

Generalized statement:

You all know where this is going if it turns into a thumper/anti-thumper thread.


----------



## webbie (Feb 5, 2014)

Delta-T said:


> "own image"...I wouln't have ever thought of an omnipotent,omnipresent being as having only 2 arms, or 10 fingers for that matter....no less than 4, possibly 6.....drums, bass, and guitar.



6 Strings, 6 days. - Hendrix and Clapton are G---

I think you are onto something!

I do believe in "whatever gets you through the night" as far as faith, but the subject at hand is actual education in our schools. This is where Nye has a good point. We are effectively going to lose economic (and other) benefits if we dumb down and take anything for granted...

I would love to see a careful study of the results of that debate - that is, interviews with all types of people who saw it and whether their beliefs shifted at all. 

In my more optimistic moments, I think the actual truth is so much more fantastic than the stories....that to believe the stories is to do myself a great disservice.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 5, 2014)

No thumping here, Jags.  I'm not trying to force religion on anyone.  Seems the aggression is all on the side with distaste for it, which I will never understand.  Live and let live.  I just have to set the record straight, when opinion is presented as fact.


----------



## Jags (Feb 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> No thumping here, Jags.


Generalized statement - not pointing at any one post.


----------



## Ashful (Feb 5, 2014)

webbie said:


> .. the subject at hand is actual education in our schools...


I think we'd all benefit from teaching all points of view, in their proper context.  Evolution should be taught in science class.  The views of all popular religions should be taught in humanities classes.  I don't understand the fear that leads to excluding one point of view over another.


----------



## Jags (Feb 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> I don't understand the fear that leads to excluding one point of view over another.


It has nothing to do with "point of view".  It has everything to do with trying to pass "belief" as science...for which there is NO scientific proof.  Thats the rub - keep science in science class.  You wanna discuss humanity or religion or ethics - there are classes for that too.


----------



## webbie (Feb 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> I think we'd all benefit from teaching all points of view, in their proper context.  Evolution should be taught in science class.  The views of all popular religions should be taught in humanities classes.  I don't understand the fear that leads to excluding one point of view over another.



That's not the question at hand. I agree with you 100%.
The question is that they want to teach it in science and biology...

Other than science, biology and math it would seem most other subjects are much more matters of opinion, social science (culture), etc. - that is, in the south they probably teach a slightly different course on the civil war than they do in the north, etc.

Also, when it comes to history it's quite gray. Whose history? As Nye alluded to, when the Europeans came here they patted themselves on the back and said "ain't we special?". I think you'd find other opinions of history among Americans of other descents. 

Distaste? Only in the context of science classes. I don't think anyone here is grabbing picket signs and standing outside the local sunday school, church or synagogue - or mosque or temple for that matter. 

It's important to narrow the conversation to the actual subject of the debate.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> No it does not.  Before you go quoting the Bible, you might want to try reading it.  Again, this is only an indirect interpretation of what is actually written, based on genealogy provided within.  Science may prove that interpretation wrong.  You will not find a book/chapter/verse where the age of the earth is directly called out in the Bible.



No quote there at all.  You ignored the last half of the sentence.  It's a paraphrase of what I think is a basic creationist pronouncement.


----------



## gzecc (Feb 5, 2014)

I for one could never bring myself to teach something to my kids that was so fantastically rediculous. I tried to bring them up in reality. The extreme teachings of religion, that kids are expected to believe is something that I can not support.  On one hand I expect (as a parent) them, to make good decisions based on the information/facts at hand, on the other they are just supposed to believe what words were written in assorted languages and interpreted by a few in order to make it most believeable? Couple that with the violence brought on through religion in the past and the current times.
Hard to believe most people still believe. I guess we really want to, badly!


----------



## razerface (Feb 5, 2014)

gzecc said:


> Hard to believe most people still believe. I guess we really want to, badly!


Backround: southern baptist family.

well, i believe fear has a part in it. I myself experienced this a month ago. My grandson died. I spoke to my son about my feelings in one conversation that went sort of like this: quoting myself from memory,,,,

" I am not sure I believe in god any more, but if I am wrong, it means Caleb is in heaven, because he was too young to know any different, and it says in the bible, that the children who cannot understand, will be welcomed to heaven by god."

During that conversation, I actually had fear in my heart that god did not exist,, and I would not see my grandson ever again, and at that moment I wanted to believe in god, to insure I would see him someday,,, or "just in case".

I think people need to believe or go crazy, or turn into a bad person with no consequences for any future actions.  They fear if they have no belief in something good, everything will go bad,,,and we are witnessing that now in society.

How would you teach this in any classroom without admitting it is a crutch for "self regulation"?  Maybe religion has always been taught as a way to keep higher morals.


----------



## bag of hammers (Feb 5, 2014)

razerface said:


> I think people need to believe or go crazy



I must admit I feel that way myself sometimes.  Some personal experiences (especially when in comes to kids) are pretty hard to rationalize without turning to faith, or going nuts.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2014)

If you didn't catch it, you can view the replay:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/bill-nye-ken-ham-evolution-creationism-refuted
Nye had Ham from the get go. Kind of hard to refute that there are trees living on the planet that are older than Ham's 6000 yr old world. He admitted he is viewing this question from a religious pov and not science. There is no problem having religious faith. But that doesn't mean it's science, never was and shouldn't act like it is. That is so 1600's.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 5, 2014)

bag of hammers said:


> I must admit I feel that way myself sometimes.  Some personal experiences (especially when in comes to kids) are pretty hard to rationalize without turning to faith, or going nuts.




You can believe in God without being a biblical literalist.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 5, 2014)

Theres just no point in debating something that cant be proven or dis-proven. Its why so many collect disability payments for "back pain"


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> If you didn't catch it, you can view the replay:
> http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/bill-nye-ken-ham-evolution-creationism-refuted
> Nye had Ham from the get go. Kind of hard to refute that there are trees living on the planet that are older than Ham's 6000 yr old world. He admitted he is viewing this question from a religious pov and not science. There is no problem having religious faith. But that doesn't mean it's science, never was and shouldn't act like it is. That is so 1600's.




Yeah, from a scientist's point of view it was as bad a rout as the super bowl, but when the camera panned the room those rapt faces glowed with admiration for their victorious champion.  A tie is a win for the underdog.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 5, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Theres just no point in debating something that cant be proven or dis-proven. Its why so many collect disability payments for "back pain"




Right.  That's why scientists shouldn't be drawn into this kind of venue.  It gives cred to Ideas they and the public would normally dismiss.


----------



## bag of hammers (Feb 5, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> You can believe in God without being a biblical literalist.



I hope I can believe in God and also laugh out loud at Delta-T's last post...


----------



## bag of hammers (Feb 5, 2014)

Jags said:


> Generalized statement:
> 
> You all know where this is going if it turns into a thumper/anti-thumper thread.


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Feb 6, 2014)

I had a good laugh from this


----------



## Mrs. Krabappel (Feb 6, 2014)

razerface said:


> I myself experienced this a month ago. My grandson died.
> .



Saddest post ever.  I'm so sorry.


----------



## webbie (Feb 6, 2014)

I think the debate was fine and may even have moved the needle. Heck, when Pat Robertson says:

"There ain't no way that's possible," he said, referring to the belief put forth byBishop James Ussher that the earth is 6,000 years old.

"We have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back 65 million years," Robertson stated. "To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense."
"Let's be real," he said. "Let's not make a joke of ourselves."

There has to be people listening!

As far as "teaching all sides and opinions", one would then have to teach the opinion that the south was correct about black folks and slavery, the maybe WWII didn't have to be fought ( folks like Pat Buchannan, a Prez candidate, believe this), etc.

So, Joful, should we teach "all opinions" in all types of classes? Should be teach about the movement to allow one to die on their own terms? (death with dignity"?......

Or, as we now do, do we pick a subset based not on whatever BS someone can pay for and come up, but based on at least a modicum of reason and logic??

I say the second - public school funds are limited and there is plenty of info and BS on the internet, in the home and among friends for those who want to explore elsewhere.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Feb 7, 2014)

did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?


----------



## Ashful (Feb 7, 2014)

webbie said:


> As far as "teaching all sides and opinions", one would then have to teach the opinion that the south was correct about black folks and slavery, the maybe WWII didn't have to be fought ( folks like Pat Buchannan, a Prez candidate, believe this), etc.
> 
> So, Joful, should we teach "all opinions" in all types of classes? Should be teach about the movement to allow one to die on their own terms? (death with dignity"?......


You're mis-quoting me.  I stated we should teach the science of evolution in science class, and the religious views in social studies / humanities classes.  We already teach the opinions of the south on black slavery, in history class.


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2014)

Joful said:


> You're mis-quoting me.  I stated we should teach the science of evolution in science class, and the religious views in social studies / humanities classes.  We already teach the opinions of the south on black slavery, in history class.



Well then we agree!
The fine points become "what is a side?"....even in social studies. Reality is (or could be) very different from what we call it. Like it or not, we tend to teach social and historical norms - combined with present ones - relating to our own cultures and world views. 

I had a long conversation with a neighbor at a New Years Party - she's a teacher (retired) and was talking about how she is relating to her 12 year old grandson when it comes to addiction (drinking, drugs, etc.). So, she bends my ear for a while about genetic predisposition, etc. etc. etc - and when she gets done, I tell her I have my own theory. She asks and I say (paraphrased) "I think we modern humans are largely based upon the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain - and in that light, the pursuit of good feelings is perfectly normal".

She found the view to be interesting...and seemed to somewhat agree. I think it holds a LOT more truth than many of the common views taught in schools. 

If I had my way, we'd change all the social studies, theology classes and history too! 

The present and the future are very different from the past because it's the first time in human history when survival is not the name of the game - that is, we have harnessed energy to do what used to require all our time. This changes the game so vastly that I think we don't even know what hit us - and it's only been true for the masses for one or two generations (at most).


----------



## becasunshine (Feb 10, 2014)

Meh.  *Yawn*

Here's a vote for "I just don't care." 

Everybody believe what you choose to believe.  We are not, at this stage of our "evolution," equipped to comprehend God or "creation," therefore we argue with each other when not one of us has the definitive answer.

In the end, only kindness matters.

Carry on.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 10, 2014)

becasunshine said:


> Meh.  *Yawn*
> 
> Here's a vote for "I just don't care."
> 
> ...




I disagree with the "not equipped" Idea.  Science and metaphysics must resolve at some point.  "We can't know" may apply to the negative or atheist position, but our ability to increase our knowledge of reality is boundless.  Modern science is tearing down the old brick walls that have hemmed us in for decades let alone centuries.  For example, there is an emerging conjecture in the science community that the wave/particle, duality model of reality is not entirely correct, and that the wave function is fundamental while the particle function is derived, or emergent.  We always struggle with the idea of our reduced importance in the cosmos and while claiming to seek a creator we secretly fight the idea tooth and nail.  

As in the case with magnetism, we perceive magic until we realize the mundane.  Perhaps we are face to face with what we seek but refuse to open our eyes and look.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 10, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> I disagree with the "not equipped" Idea.  Science and metaphysics must resolve at some point.  "We can't know" may apply to the negative or atheist position, but our ability to increase our knowledge of reality is boundless.  Modern science is tearing down the old brick walls that have hemmed us in for decades let alone centuries.  For example, there is an emerging conjecture in the science community that the wave/particle, duality model of reality is not entirely correct, and that the wave function is fundamental while the particle function is derived, or emergent.  We always struggle with the idea of our reduced importance in the cosmos and while claiming to seek a creator we secretly fight the idea tooth and nail.
> 
> As in the case with magnetism, we perceive magic until we realize the mundane.  Perhaps we are face to face with what we seek but refuse to open our eyes and look.


It might have been Neil Degrasse Tyson (I love him so much that I swear if he was 2 dogs, I would gay inter-species polygamous marry him) that said that calling anything we don't understand a miracle is detrimental to religion. As we understand more, the nature of your god becomes merely a shrinking pile of ignorance.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 10, 2014)

All hail NdGT


----------



## Jags (Feb 10, 2014)

That is one dude (I have a few), that I would like to sit on my front porch on a warm summers eve and have a shot and a beer and a nice cigar and have a chat with him.  He is like the king of cool nerdism (and I can respect that).


----------



## becasunshine (Feb 10, 2014)

It's an interesting study to me that the replies to my post seem to come from the Science Camp rather than the God Camp, and also those replies seem to rebut an assumed theology centered position on my part.

Suppose I told you that you are wrong about your assumptions? 

My lack of absolute faith in the explanations from both theology *and* science have not to do with my lack of complete acceptance in either of those concepts.  To me, our hubris in our perceived understanding of the "scientific" is comparable to what might be called a child-like (note, I did not say "childish," there is a difference) and naïve acceptance of religious doctrine as empirical data.

Personally, I don't plop the "God" stamp on everything that I, or as a broader definition "we," don't understand.  I assume that we do not yet understand it.  And yes, the raw material necessary to achieve that understanding may be sitting right in front of our faces, but we are not yet sophisticated enough to even see it.

Do I believe in a "higher power?" In divinity?  In a word, yes, but not in the conventional sense.  I don't have a vision of a patriarchal god floating on clouds, judging us from above.

We are our own heaven, we are our own hell, but I hardly believe that we are gods. 

As far as science goes, everyone likes to point at our most recent progress, and laugh at how backwards and superstitious those who came before us were, that they believed such silly things.  I can't help but see history as a mirror.  What will our antecedents think about our most assured scientific naivete?

The naming of "God" as an "ever-shrinking pile of ignorance" looks like a huge pile of hubris to me.  What we do not yet know, what we cannot yet comprehend, is EPIC.  We only *think* we know it all, or even most of it.  Assuming that those who do not accept the latest and greatest in "science" are somehow literal religious fundamentalists is an assumption that science disciples seem to make as easily as drawing their next breath. 

Suppose one simply doesn't accept the latest "science" as religion?

Science is a work in progress, I will give it that, where as religion, by its very definition, tends to be dogmatic rather than dynamic.  If anything can be accepted as a rational comparison, I can go with that statement.  Declaring one set of beliefs ("science") as "correct" and another set of beliefs ("religion") as "incorrect" can be just as myopic as pitting any one religious doctrine against another.

As I said in an earlier post, beware of elevating "science" into a religion and adopting it as a doctrine of faith.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Feb 10, 2014)

becasunshine said:


> It's an interesting study to me that the replies to my post seem to come from the Science Camp rather than the God Camp, and also those replies seem to rebut an assumed theology centered position on my part.
> 
> Suppose I told you that you are wrong about your assumptions?
> 
> ...


I think that people were commenting more on the debate than on your post.


----------



## becasunshine (Feb 10, 2014)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I think that people were commenting more on the debate than on your post.



I can go with that!  

Carry on.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 10, 2014)

Tyson should debate Ham.


Adios Pantalones said:


> It might have been Neil Degrasse Tyson (I love him so much that I swear if he was 2 dogs, I would gay inter-species polygamous marry him) that said that calling anything we don't understand a miracle is detrimental to religion. As we understand more, the nature of your god becomes merely a shrinking pile of ignorance.




A bifidofurcated bride!  why not trifido and make your honeymoon a three dog night!


----------



## pen (Feb 10, 2014)

Feels like something is stuck in my teeth.  I think it's stale popcorn


----------



## begreen (Feb 10, 2014)

Yep. Time to close. I'll let Neil wrap it up. Thank you all for keeping this a civil discussion.


----------

