R
- Status
M
mchale
Guest
Oh I agree, I am not trying to indicate that I am a creationist. Philosophically and theologically, I firmly believe that God was behind it all, but I also believe that science explains the naturalistic processes that God uses. Therefore I have no problem with accepting some variation on evolutionary theory as the most likely explanation for the diversity of life.
I just hate it when people use terms inappropriately. Science only remains science when it recognizes that there is nothing about our current understandings of the world that cannot be tossed out if new evidence comes to light that force us to revise those understandings.
–
Bill
S
Sideline
Guest
Sorry, I wasn’t really clear about my reason for responding.
In an earlier post I said that the prof. was right, that evolution is a fact. When I read your post I realized that you were right, and that I can not say for certain it is a fact. But I wanted to be clear that saying “evolution can’t be known for certain to be a fact” is not the same as saying “evolution isn’t fact”. Not knowing for certain doesn’t make something any less likely to be true.I also wanted to be clear that saying evolution can’t be known to be a fact doesn’t make it any less valid than the theory of gravity, which also can’t be called a fact.
So if it sounded like I was critiquing your post, I wasn’t trying to. I was trying to show that I agreed without it seeming like I was contradicting my previous post. I sometimes find on this forum that anytime someone says something at all inaccurate, that the opposition uses that to try and discredit the entire argument.
B
buffalo
Guest
When God speaks/acts does he do so naturally and separately supernaturally.
Or when He speaks does He speak completely?
When He speaks/acts completely science can only detect the natural. So, when science defines or states something it is limited. So much is missing from this picture it is unbelievable we can give so much credence to so little.
D
DustinM
Guest
Either you were hoping that posting a link would look good even if people didn’t read it…
or…
You actually think that University newspapers count as science literature.
(I had the “or” condition already.)
The first one is a form of dishonesty, and the second one is so ridiculous that it’s worse than the first one.
And did you actually think I ment bet with money? Are you literal in all aspects of life, not just with the Bible? “I bet you…” is an expression used more often than not when people are not actually making wagers.
Ok, so you cut off part of what I said when you quoted me…which was important because it verified the thing you did leave in.
Then you say I’m reading propaganda that apparently hundreds of thousands of biologists are in on, and so is Judge Jones (whose decision you can read online). This is a very big claim, and you now need to prove that these scientists are in on a propaganda scheme of some kind. (Good luck.)
Then you post something that is written by the very person that is a laughing stock; who has lost credibility in his own field for his stance that science should be stretched to include astrology. The article you posted is from LeHigh University which has said they do not endorse Behe’s stance on Intelligent Design. Source.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s ok – you lost the bet either way (although I would like you to pay me $50,000 for losing).
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong again. It was from Protein Science Journal, 13, 2004 edition (a peer-reviewed science publication).
Your profile says that you are a Catholic. Do you believe that God is the “Creator of heaven and earth” as the Apostles Creed teaches?
S
Sideline
Guest
I don’t know if this is your first foray with Reggie M, but I have to warn you that there is really, absolutely no point in engaging him on evolution. He never responds to all the points a person has made, but the points he does respond to are the most trivial and meaningless points.
He is also a master of quote mining. He frequently finds articles in the popular press that deal with findings in scientific journals, then take one quote from the article and interpret it as being representative of the journal article.
So an article re-examining the evolution of beetles and finding that they are older than once thought gets translated as “this proves evolution was wrong”.
Just for the record though, Behe’s article is valid as far as it goes. When one discounts factors other than point mutation in a population of 10^8 it does take 10^9 generations to form a new trait. If you are thinking that this seems like an article supporting the theory of evolution, and has nothing to do with ID, you’d be right.
Thus showing that when Behe writes about science, and not religion, he gets published in scientific journals.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thus proving that the notion that he is a “laughing stock” in the scientific community is false.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Deal with it. It’s just school. I had to learn that the hard way.
Just know that when you’re taking a class that is in no way based on your faith, it is almost expected that you throw your beliefs out the window (metaphorically) just to get through the class. Otherwise, you can debate it outside the class with your peers if anyone wants to.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Just know that when you’re taking a class that is in no way based on your faith, it is almost expected that you throw your beliefs out the window (metaphorically) just to get through the class. Otherwise, you can debate it outside the class with your peers if anyone wants to.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
S
Sideline
Guest
No, he’s still a laughing stock. He submitted a paper that contradicts the point his was trying to make. That in itself is laughable.
He’s a highly trained, highly intelligent scientist who is ruining his career by chasing after unicorns. Just because he decided to do some research along the way doesn’t mean that he’s right about the unicorns.
B
buffalo
Guest
No scientist worth a darn ever made a mistake or reversed himself? Laughable. That is the problem - the scientific establishment.
R
reggieM
Guest
Eventually, the public will run out of cash for unproductive scientific speculations (like evolutionary theorizing). The current US administration wants in increase funding for the scientific establishment but it will be for “practical” thinks like abortion and stem cell research. Evolutionary story-telling will not survive government cuts or cuts in university budgets either.
S
Sideline
Guest
No, scientists make mistakes all the time. What is laughable is to prove a point that is contrary to the point you are trying to make without realizing that you are doing it.
For instance, when people on this board criticize the scientific establishment for the closed minded and circular thinking that they themselves employ.
D
DustinM
Guest
Standard creationist nonsense then.
I have seen a few of his posts here or there, none of them really against what you’re saying here.
Good to know.
Good to know.
I am already aware of real scientists who do similar types of things, though usually it’s a physicist who rights excellent work on physics only to turn around and not employ the scientific method in regards to biology.
Behe is an interesting character at least.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am dizzy!
Things I know:
Science has been, and is going to be wrong. Since it’s human it can be and will be.
God is not wrong. Since He is absolute truth He cannot be.
Now it follows if God cannot be wrong His Revelation cannot be wrong. And if His Revelation cannot be wrong He will not let His people get it wrong.
S
Sideline
Guest
So… why did he let the Jews reject Christ? Sounds like he let people get his divine revelation wrong. If he let them get it wrong about salvation, why wouldn’t he let them get it wrong about whether the sun could stop in the sky, whether bats are birds, and about being made out of clay?I am dizzy!
Things I know:
Science has been, and is going to be wrong. Since it’s human it can be and will be.
God is not wrong. Since He is absolute truth He cannot be.
Now it follows if God cannot be wrong His Revelation cannot be wrong. And if His Revelation cannot be wrong He will not let His people get it wrong.
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s good to know that scientific journals publish peer-reviewed papers by scientists that they consider to be “laughing stocks”.
That says quite a lot about the science establishment and the meaning of “peer review”.
By the way – what are your scientific credentials?
S
Sideline
Guest
I find it’s always nice to know if you are dealing with someone who doesn’t understand a theory, or doesn’t want to understand a theory.
No doubt about that. He definitely marches to the beat of a distant kazoo player.
C
chewchoo
Guest
the awakengeneration website has a number of articles on evolution
here are a few, you might be able to find some more
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/148
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/190
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/151
here are a few, you might be able to find some more
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/148
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/190
awakengeneration.com/thoughts/befueled/151
B
buffalo
Guest
Free will - we can still choose to deny the truth. The Jews choose to deny Christ. They do not deny all Revelation. They just deny parts, as we do now too.
We can deny Genesis. The question is, should we?
Scientism says lets conform our constant Catholic understanding and teaching to our current limited scientific understanding.
I say we need to more fully understand the truths of Revelation not dismiss them as StA states. I say Revelation needs to be our canon.
- Status