U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,739,325 times
Reputation: 12223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Liberal View Post
Yes and "it just found a way" is logical? I still love how human DNA just happened
No science says that human DNA just happened, but never mind that, why don't you attempt to demonstrate the logic of creation?

This thread is about evolution and natural selection, not abiogenesis, nice try though.

 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:35 PM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,466,211 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
No science says that human DNA just happened, but never mind that, why don't you attempt to demonstrate the logic of creation?

This thread is about evolution and natural selection, not abiogenesis, nice try though.
micro-evolution- ALL THE SAME! It found a way, no rhyme or reason, it just did. You are the one calling creationism illogical, I am merely stating, evolution should be the one to talk.
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,739,325 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Liberal View Post
micro-evolution- ALL THE SAME! It found a way, no rhyme or reason, it just did. You are the one calling creationism illogical, I am merely stating, evolution should be the one to talk.
So prove me wrong then. Show me the logic of creation. Abiogenesis is not micro evolution.
 
Old 10-14-2008, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,085,828 times
Reputation: 3717
Default Logic et al.

Fancofu, Sanspeur, Mozart721 and NIKK: you guys are a great combined read and possibly these threads should be transcribed and presented in a college logic course. I love it, and kudos to the first three for persistence in the face of NIKK’s spirited rebuttals, no matter how “creatively” obstinant they are. You are one resourceful guy, NIKK! A virtual bottomless pit of comebacks! I admire the way that your particular mental biochemistry has evolved! Too bad that, in my minor opinion, it’s wasted here when you could do so much in the advancement of science…. Sigh.

As with pounding a square peg into a round hole, the logic-challenged can and will always fit observed results into a “sort-of” fit with their pre-determined beliefs. That’s been the common philosophy of organized religion since it’s beginnings. Of course those who felt “a bit odd and uncomfortable” about the obvious shaving off of a few little facts or observations through this blind process were, if they opened their yaps , typically burned or stoned in the public square. Great comeback in the forum of a democratic and informed populace! Fear-mongering 101: keep independent thought to an absolute minimum .

That is of course what is truly scary about the idea of an emergence of, fundamentalist Islamic or Christian politicians / vice-presidents / leaders / Imams in our modern world. Given half a chance, local schoolboards in the bible belt have lobbied endlessly (and will continue to do so at every opportunity) to have science chucked out. Big bad science has to be kept in a dark closet (in which case we’d promptly start investigating the theories of darkness or whatever else we could lay our inquisitive hands on… Can’t keep a good mind down).

The defining princeps of science are that we, unlike fundy-Christians, simply take a set of observations and postulate a theory that best fits it. Subsequent repeated tests either confirm, refine or debunk the hypothesis. We really do, yup, admit it when we’re wrong, a concept that is totally lost on fundy-Christians. Don’t try, as Reformed Liberal persists in, to muddy the waters by claiming science’s intent to over-reach it’s observations and conclusions. Neither I, nor any of my fellow ethical scientists, EVER claims that evolution explains the origins of life. (That doesn't mean we have to therefore default to mindless pseudo-theories about another mystical god-figure that defied any true logic and just blew on some dust one afternoon and created a nice upstanding white Anglo-Saxon guy and his scantily clad girlfriend. Yikes!) Drop that one, RL; you’re just demonstrating your narrow and pre-determined views. Stick to the topic, and if you’re logically defeated, have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Doesn’t the fact that fundamentalists will NEVER admit to being even a little bit off-base, make you even a tad bit unsure? Doesn’t it make us scientists the better for having the humility to admit we may not have all the answers? But that we are trying for better ones?

As I suggested a few days ago, we need a debate thread on principles of logic. Given a few pages, I feel I (and many others) could and would put forth irrefutable, undeniable arguments for a straightforward logic that would convince all rational, humble observers that if A=2 and B=3, then A+B, ergo, = 5. To come to some other conclusion just to fit the results to a pre-determined answer, i.e: “This book says A+B MUST = 12!” is to move into another dimension of consciousness (or un-consciousness…).

In truth, and in fact, what we scientists call and define as LOGIC is not the same as the dogmatist's LOGIC. Maybe we oughta label 'em LOGIC I versus LOGIC II? True logic (LOGIC I I'll call it) as a step-wise question answering system, is well defined and developed, and will quickly resolve most issues where so much evidence is plopped down right in front of our noses. If we choose to ignore the outcome, we're no longer using LOGIC I, but instead have, on purpose, chosen to move on to LOGIC II for the sole purpose of satiating our own egos or preserving our mythical comfort zones. So be it!

PS: I got no takers on the challenge to a debate on logic, for obvious reasons. The fundamentalist mindset will always avoid or deflect from a challenge with so obvious an outcome. When boxed into such a corner, they defer to the endlessly boring and LOGIC I- illogical answer that “The Bible says that’s how it happened, and is therefore that’s The Truth”. or, better, "Science argues with itself so how can we trust them?" (The answer to that is too simple: we never ever claim to have all the answers as irrefutable permanent truths. Only the truly arrogant, less-intelligent, or blindly dogmatic, will stand up and loudly proclaim such a statement.)

How CAN you argue with such so called logic, really?

At best, it’s entertaining, at worst it drags you down. Or clearly indicates that we, as a species, have some more intellectual evolvin' ta do here! But as long as we all continue to be entertained by the process, lead on, McDuff! Next laugh please.
 
Old 10-14-2008, 04:53 PM
 
428 posts, read 1,489,199 times
Reputation: 282
Thanks, Rifleman! Good post.
 
Old 10-15-2008, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,576,792 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Well I would rather put my faith in science. At least when they discover that a hypothesis is wrong they admit it, then try to discover why it is wrong. Something creationists have never done.
I think you are over generalizing here. Do you mean "Something bible literalists have never done"?
 
Old 10-15-2008, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,056,157 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Liberal View Post
Yes and "it just found a way" is logical? I still love how human DNA just happened
I always find it interesting how the very quip and remark to a lot of anti-evolution sentiments are that things "just happened". As if with some sort of whirlwind of gas and smoke, DNA just popped up one day, or an ape-like creature just happened to give birth to a homo-sapien. And yet, I often find that the very argument itself seems to be laden with the byproduct of the very thing that Creationists tend to believe. That things 'just happened' albeit at the hands of magic man.

Although evolution in quite strict terms is referring to the gradual change of a species over time through the process of natural selection, there are more than one applicable facets and avenues we can use the word "evolution" with as well as the processes behind it.

Although evolution, in the Darwinian sense, does not really cover the "just so happening" of abiogenesis or what many refer to as the spontaneity of first life, the same principles can be applied from what we know about evolution to what we are trying to learn about DNA and RNA especially in light of their fascinating replicating powers.

In case you're not following me, what I am getting at is that I don't think that many people really do suggest that anything "just happened" whether we are talking about the slow, gradual change of species or if we are talking about the first machinations of DNA arising or to take on an even more abstract notion - solar system formations. I think the most commonplace, obvious answer lies in the fact that there are indeed certain chemical compounds that tend to replicate in nature and also tend to build upon one another. Typically, and interestingly enough, those compounds are often derived from the basic essentials that we as human beings as well as all other things share in that of "CHON" (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen). In light of this fact, it seems to make much more sense that the earliest notions of what we might call "primitive DNA" -but more than likely, RNA - was a good replicator due to the chemical consistencies of its particular molecular structure. Henceforth, while there may have been other "primitive DNAs" only the one we know as "DNA" was the fittest of its kind.

Looking at it that way, it makes inherently more sense that different molecular compounds and structures could have veered in any path to produce things that only my imagination could run wild with. Perhaps, given the right conditions, we might have GNA or UNA or ZNA. But, we don't. We have DNA because, as I suspect, we are talking about a replicating organic chemical that was best suited for its environment and took on the characteristics necessary (although not consciously) to better adapt to its environment.

Therefore, whenever I hear someone arguing against evolution with the terms "just happened" it makes me first and foremost wonder about their actual knowledge of the topic at hand. Furthermore, I find it amusing that the very argument "just happened" is meant to imply a certain amount of absurdity behind it and yet that is what so many people believe - that God "just happened" the Earth, the Universe, and everything in it.

Last edited by GCSTroop; 10-15-2008 at 01:43 AM..
 
Old 10-15-2008, 02:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,739,325 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
I think you are over generalizing here. Do you mean "Something bible literalists have never done"?
Actually no, I don't think I am...Can you show me a creationist that admits anything they believe may be wrong? I haven't seen it. Perhaps you think something is not right with the creation hypothesis. If so what would that be?

Aren't bible literalists and creationists one and the same? If not how do they differ?
 
Old 10-15-2008, 05:57 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,576,792 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Actually no, I don't think I am...Can you show me a creationist that admits anything they believe may be wrong? I haven't seen it. Perhaps you think something is not right with the creation hypothesis. If so what would that be?

Aren't bible literalists and creationists one and the same? If not how do they differ?
OK, that's what I thought

Let me introduce you to a larger spiritual universe.

There are many many of us out here who do not believe the truth of God can be contained in a book or set of creeds. There is absolutely no threat to us from science since we understand that all physical reality was created by a supreme spiritual being and all true science only reveals the wonder of creation in a deeper way and causes our knowledge of God to increase.

Possibly we are less visible because we are not trying to save the world from an eternal hell or any such nonsense so, again, there is no threat to our spiritual reality from those who do not see it. We do not condemn those who do not have spiritual insight even though we desire for all to have the joy and peace which comes from being connected (consciously) with the living God who is the source of all life and breath and all things - so some of us are "evangelical" (which literally means "bearer of good news") in the sense that we share a lot (I sometimes go door to door).

I have stated many times that I can sometimes see more of the image of God imprinted upon the consciences of atheists than in the libraries of religious seminaries.

A true seeker of divine wisdom should know that he/she does not understand everything about the universe, it's origin or it's progression but we have in common the understanding that there is absolute eternal truth which we believe one day will be known and understood by all.

I understand atheism because I was an atheist for years. I wanted physical PROOF of God, but instead I got spiritual proof which is more real than anything we can physically see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

This is why I say you are over generalizing.
 
Old 10-15-2008, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,739,325 times
Reputation: 12223
So, then do you believe that all the things that conflict with evolution like Adam and Eve's creation, the flood story etc. are incorrect? Is that what you are saying here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top