DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Big Bang and creation of the universe
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 810, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/07/2005 01:13:38 PM · #101
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Your consistent treatment of christians as utter imbiciles who conveniently 'forget' things and don't know original language of scripture is insulting...


Hmm... I didn't see that at all. He merely pointed out that the Word of God is actually a translation of a transcription of yet another party's account of the Word of God. It's a fair question to wonder how many people know the original language of the Bible when a good chunk of Americans couldn't name their own Secretary of State. That doesn't make anyone an imbecile, just ill-informed.
04/07/2005 01:15:47 PM · #102
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Your consistent treatment of christians as utter imbiciles who conveniently 'forget' things and don't know original language of scripture is insulting...


Hmm... I didn't see that at all. He merely pointed out that the Word of God is actually a translation of a transcription of yet another party's account of the Word of God. It's a fair question to wonder how many people know the original language of the Bible when a good chunk of Americans couldn't name their own Secretary of State. That doesn't make anyone an imbecile, just ill-informed.


Fair enough...I might have misevaluated...that's why I try and stay out of these things!

Forgive me, GeneralE, if I'm mistaken...
04/07/2005 01:18:43 PM · #103
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

GeneralE, I always value your input but it never fails that in threads involving religion you let your emotions take over...don't get me wrong, I often do as well but that's why I try not to get involved.

Your consistent treatment of christians as utter imbiciles who conveniently 'forget' things and don't know original language of scripture is insulting and seems so contrary to your nature as I see it in other threads.

I really don't mean it that way, but it's what I observe. We've had a devout Christian proclaim in this very thread that he didn't believe in the Torah.

Perhaps my cynicism sometimes begets sarcasm ... but I do try to be careful about it.

Message edited by author 2005-04-07 13:40:18.
04/07/2005 02:41:06 PM · #104
Originally posted by bear_music:

Whales are mammals, and began as land creatures who returned to the seas. Birds derive from reptiles. I'd expect that birds predated whales for this reason, particularly if you accept Pterodactyls as birds LOL.


You’re right about the timing of the whales, of course. However, I think that current evidence suggests that modern birds evolved from some species of smaller dinosaur (theropods?) rather than reptiles, unless, of course, you're in agreement with Dr. Alan Feduccia, who holds that birds evolved from reptiles. It’s my(admittedly limited) understanding that his ideas are not currently supported by current mainstream evolutionary biology.

Like you, I don’t accept the Pterodactyls as birds for the same reason I don’t accept bats as birds.
04/07/2005 02:54:13 PM · #105
Theropods were reptiles, too. (Let's see if General beats me to it...)
04/07/2005 03:08:36 PM · #106
Originally posted by scalvert:

Theropods were reptiles, too. (Let's see if General beats me to it...)


U. of CA - Berkley has them listed as dinosaurs. Of course, I’m willing to have my misconceptions corrected and gain some new knowledge in the exchange.
04/07/2005 03:16:29 PM · #107
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Theropods were reptiles, too. (Let's see if General beats me to it...)


U. of CA - Berkley has them listed as dinosaurs.


The Reptilia classification includes Dinosauria (i.e. dinosaurs ARE reptiles).
04/07/2005 03:27:08 PM · #108
Originally posted by scalvert:

The Reptilia classification includes Dinosauria (i.e. dinosaurs ARE reptiles).


OK. I could buy that. I was thinking more in terms of modern reptiles which would be my mistake.
04/07/2005 03:33:38 PM · #109
I understand the confusion. Kinda' hard for ancient birds to evolve from modern reptiles, though. ;-)
04/07/2005 03:34:29 PM · #110
Originally posted by scalvert:

I understand the confusion. Kinda' hard for ancient birds to evolve from modern reptiles, though. ;-)


You know what I mean... lol
04/07/2005 06:14:01 PM · #111
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cpurser:

Why not allow a sticker in a textbook stating that Evolution is a theory, not fact? Why not ask students to think about the evidence and challenge the theories?

It's called the Theory of Evolution ... how much more of a disclaimer do you need? Perhaps we should be concentrating on upgrading English instruction and find out who's teaching that "theory" and "fact" are the same thing. So far, it only seems to be the groups opposing the teaching of Evolution at all who seem to suffer this confusion on a regular basis.

Personally, while I have trouble getting my mind around the Big Bang theory as much as any "normal" person, current models of cosmic (and local) evolution seem more likely to me than that there's some conscious, non-material entity "out there" who one week decides to create Earth, complete with a several-billion year fossil history in place.


Very well said General, as usual.

Also I suggest people do a little reading on Evolution.

As the Pope put it:

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position, recognizing that Evolution is "more than a hypothesis" -

"In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines."
04/07/2005 07:54:05 PM · #112
An interesting Wikipedia article on Creation-evolution controversy
04/07/2005 08:28:25 PM · #113
Found a really good page on Theory of Evolution and all things related.

This is a really really great resource on this entire topic from either side. There are huge sub pages of information on Creationism, Intelligent Design, Sociobiology, Scientific and Political controversies and more.

I highly suggest people spend some time on this information. From the looks of this thread, many could use a "refresher".

Message edited by author 2005-04-07 20:36:02.
04/07/2005 09:34:10 PM · #114
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Found a really good page on Theory of Evolution and all things related.


Wow... I was wondering why such a resource hadn't already been posted.
04/07/2005 10:04:36 PM · #115
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Found a really good page on Theory of Evolution and all things related.


Wow... I was wondering why such a resource hadn't already been posted.


The real question is, will anyone research any of it?
They call this time in history the information age, not the wisdom and knowledge age, unfortunately.

It's all out there, just a matter of wanting to spend your time learning it.
04/08/2005 05:01:42 AM · #116
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cpurser:

Why not allow a sticker in a textbook stating that Evolution is a theory, not fact? Why not ask students to think about the evidence and challenge the theories?


And the quid pro quo would be that every religous book would have to have a sticker in it saying that the existence of one or more gods is a hypothesis, not fact.

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 05:02:26.
04/08/2005 08:39:24 AM · #117
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

...every religous book would have to have a sticker in it saying that the existence of one or more gods is a hypothesis, not fact.


The crowd roars- RAHHHH! Gotta treat both sides equally, right? LOL
04/08/2005 09:37:14 AM · #118
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cpurser:

Why not allow a sticker in a textbook stating that Evolution is a theory, not fact? Why not ask students to think about the evidence and challenge the theories?


And the quid pro quo would be that every religous book would have to have a sticker in it saying that the existence of one or more gods is a hypothesis, not fact.

NOT. The big difference is that the religious books are not "required reading" in government schools. The may be required in private, religious schools, but those schools are only attended by those who have opted to pay extra monies in addition to the taxes they paid to support government education.

04/08/2005 10:24:36 AM · #119
Originally posted by RonB:

The big difference is that the religious books are not "required reading" in government schools.


Fair enough, but in the areas where religious fervor is highest, the separation of Church and State may be the only reason that Bibles AREN'T studied in public schools. There is no separation of Science and State, and no rational grounds for preventing our children from learning known, observable science. The whole point of science is that hypotheses are tested repeatedly by independent researchers using different approaches to see if the observed results agree with the model. Scientists are constantly challenging theories- that's their job. A scientist would love nothing more than to be the person who proved Einstein's theory of relativity wrong.

Evolution IS a theory, but a scientific theory is NOT an unproven guess as religious zealots define it (you'd think that people who put so much faith in a book could read a dictionary). It would be just as silly to put a disclaimer on math as unproven idea. I have no problem with the concept of a devine being, but children in 2005 shouldn't be so ignorant of proven fact to believe that the sun revolves around the earth or that trilobite fossils are only 6000 years old.

Hey, anybody know if the zipper on a flameproof suit is supposed to be on the front or the back?

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 10:25:02.
04/08/2005 10:44:59 AM · #120
Originally posted by scalvert:

I have no problem with the concept of a devine being, but children in 2005 shouldn't be so ignorant of proven fact to believe that the sun revolves around the earth


The Bible is comprised of several books, all of which were written for adults. Some of it is literal, some of it is figurative, some of it is symbolism. Choosing to use a sentence out of context in order to strengthen your point may work, but if you're speaking to someone who reads the Bible, they will know you don't know what you are talking about.

The Bible speaks of the sun coming up and the sun going down. We do the same thing now (even though it doesn't really "come up"). I have searched and found no place where the Bible states that the sun revolves around the earth. If you've found that place, please let me know.

The Bible does state that God once froze the sun in one place for an entire day, then released it to continue on it's way. If you'd like to poke fun at the Bible, use that ... at least what you are saying will be accurate.

(no offense taken or intended, i just don't think that example is accurate)

:)
04/08/2005 10:51:33 AM · #121
Originally posted by hopper:

Some of it is literal, some of it is figurative, some of it is symbolism.


Don't forget the sentence "some of it is mythical."
04/08/2005 10:53:02 AM · #122
:)

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by hopper:

Some of it is literal, some of it is figurative, some of it is symbolism.


Don't forget the sentence "some of it is mythical."
04/08/2005 10:54:17 AM · #123
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

The big difference is that the religious books are not "required reading" in government schools.


Fair enough, but in the areas where religious fervor is highest, the separation of Church and State may be the only reason that Bibles AREN'T studied in public schools. There is no separation of Science and State, and no rational grounds for preventing our children from learning known, observable science.

Very true, so far. But macro-evolution is NOT "known, observable science". That's the point.
Originally posted by scalvert:

The whole point of science is that hypotheses are tested repeatedly by independent researchers using different approaches to see if the observed results agree with the model. Scientists are constantly challenging theories- that's their job.

But with macro-evolution, the "observable results" cannot be applied to the "model" without making some "assumptions". Assumptions such as 'the age of the sedimentary layer in which an object was found" - and that age being based on the assumption of the accuracy of "radio-carbon dating" of other samples found in it ( circular logic ). There is ALWAYS some assumption upon which macro-evolutionary theory is based. And the "model" is founded upon such assumptions.
Originally posted by scalvert:

A scientist would love nothing more than to be the person who proved Einstein's theory of relativity wrong.

Why? Primarily because the extension of Einstein's theories was the "unified field theory", and to the Christian, the "unified field" is God.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Evolution IS a theory, but a scientific theory is NOT an unproven guess...

In the case of macro-evolution, yes it is. It is an "unproven guess" because it is based on assumptions, and supported by more assumptions, NOT observable fact.
Originally posted by scalvert:

...as religious zealots define it (you'd think that people who put so much faith in a book could read a dictionary). It would be just as silly to put a disclaimer on math as unproven idea. I have no problem with the concept of a devine being, but children in 2005 shouldn't be so ignorant of proven fact...


Again, you are right. Observable, repeatable science SHOULD be taught. And THEORIES should be taught as well, but with the understanding that they are theories. Only where there is no strongly divided opinion in the scientific community should science be presented as "factual".
The "big bang" is one such theory. Macro-evolution is another. Even Newtonian physics, for example, should be taught with the comment that for class purposes, it shoud be ASSUMED to be 100% true, BUT, that it is, in fact, NOT 100% true in the presence of extreme gravitational forces.

Originally posted by scalvert:

...to believe that the sun revolves around the earth or that trilobite fossils are only 6000 years old.

It's not just the SUN that revolves around the earth, it's the entire Universe. Try to prove otherwise.
And how can scientists prove that trilobite fossils are MORE than 6000 years old without basing their determination of age on an assumption of one kind or another?
04/08/2005 11:53:12 AM · #124
I'm waiting for someone to prove the existence of God through observable results by repeatable scientific means without making any "assumptions."

Message edited by author 2005-04-08 11:53:52.
04/08/2005 11:56:22 AM · #125
While we wait for you to disprove it by a similar means?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm waiting for someone to prove the existence of God through observable results by repeatable scientific means without making any "assumptions."
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:56:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:56:11 PM EDT.