EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Namesake said:
That isn’t correct. Science is hard, cold, objective reality. Once upon a time it was philosophy but no longer. People who want to live by faith alone would do well to avoid science because it is so hard, cold, and objective. Science is emotionless.

Once one learns to view the world objectively through science faith must occupy a different compartment. Living entirely by faith necessitates a relative rejection of objective science. But, accepting rational views of the world does tend to shut out some ideas contained within religion, like a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis as one example.

Neither is good or bad. It just is.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. Empirical science is neutral. It experiments, repeats and projects.

The cold hard part is when the conclusions are philosophical. A materialist philosophy is cold hard and distant. A Catholic philosophy holds creation in wondrous awe. Quite different. The worldview that we embrace is very important to how we live our lives.
 
buffalo said:
I don’t agree. Empirical science is neutral. It experiments, repeats and projects.

The cold hard part is when the conclusions are philosophical. A materialist philosophy is cold hard and distant. A Catholic philosophy holds creation in wondrous awe. Quite different. The worldview that we embrace is very important to how we live our lives.
Click to expand...
Science can’t afford emotion. The Barbarian refers to Darwin’s last sentence in The Origin of Species. I think that is appropriate, and a beautiful concept of the natural world, but science can’t move according to such emotionalism. Not that it’s wrong, it just doesn’t answer any questions. Science is all about answering questions in an objective way. Facts are just what they are and there is beauty in those facts. But the facts, not the beauty, is what is most important within science. Has to do with heuristic value.
 
A big problem with science is that a lot of it is based on in accurate things. The biggest Carbon Dating and the whole fossil level thing and layers of the earth’s crust. Scientist will take one rock and test it and Supposedly get a reading on the carbon dating, and then assume the whole layer is the same when that is completely wrong and inaccurate. Carbon Dating in itself is so completely inaccurate that it cant be trusted on a scientific level.
 
Dchsknight said:
A big problem with science is that a lot of it is based on in accurate things. The biggest Carbon Dating and the whole fossil level thing and layers of the earth’s crust. Scientist will take one rock and test it and Supposedly get a reading on the carbon dating, and then assume the whole layer is the same when that is completely wrong and inaccurate. Carbon Dating in itself is so completely inaccurate that it cant be trusted on a scientific level.
Click to expand...
Yep, carbon dating of rocks cannot be trusted and should be avoided.😉

Peace

Tim
 
Namesake said:
Science can’t afford emotion. The Barbarian refers to Darwin’s last sentence in The Origin of Species. I think that is appropriate, and a beautiful concept of the natural world, but science can’t move according to such emotionalism. Not that it’s wrong, it just doesn’t answer any questions. Science is all about answering questions in an objective way. Facts are just what they are and there is beauty in those facts. But the facts, not the beauty, is what is most important within science. Has to do with heuristic value.
Click to expand...
That is its essential weakness. It cannot move outside its limited confines. It cannot rise to the fullness of creation.
 
Dchsknight said:
Carbon Dating in itself is so completely inaccurate that it cant be trusted on a scientific level.
Click to expand...
That’s why scientists often use several dating methods when identifying the ages of rocks. If more than one dating method returns similar results, you can be fairly sure the rock is the age indicated.

–Mike
 
Dchsknight said:
A big problem with science is that a lot of it is based on in accurate things. The biggest Carbon Dating and the whole fossil level thing and layers of the earth’s crust. Scientist will take one rock and test it and Supposedly get a reading on the carbon dating, and then assume the whole layer is the same when that is completely wrong and inaccurate. Carbon Dating in itself is so completely inaccurate that it cant be trusted on a scientific level.
Click to expand...
Do you REALLY think rocks are carbon dated? You have an astonishing level of misunderstanding.

Who lied to you by telling you that carbon dating is inaccurate?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Pour over this website and throughly read and check it. This man Ken Ham is a scientist and darn good one at that. He will show just how inaccurate a lot of our science is answersingenesis.org/
 
Dchsknight said:
Pour over this website and throughly read and check it. This man Ken Ham is a scientist and darn good one at that. He will show just how inaccurate a lot of our science is answersingenesis.org/
Click to expand...
The Answers in Genesis website and movement is a farce and Ken Ham is not and has never been a working scientist.

So, it’s AiG who duped you into thinking carbon dating is inaccurate and is used to date rocks? You’re by no means the first and you won’t be the last to be taken in by their silliness.

My recommendation to you is that you learn some science from actual scientists rather than trying to do so from religious fundamentalists.Start here:

talkorigins.org/

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Namesake said:
Science can’t afford emotion. The Barbarian refers to Darwin’s last sentence in The Origin of Species. I think that is appropriate, and a beautiful concept of the natural world, but science can’t move according to such emotionalism. Not that it’s wrong, it just doesn’t answer any questions. Science is all about answering questions in an objective way. Facts are just what they are and there is beauty in those facts. But the facts, not the beauty, is what is most important within science. Has to do with heuristic value.
Click to expand...
This type of response seems typical of those Stephen J. Gouldian types who claim that science and religion are incompatible, and must therefore be compartmentalized.

The truth is that science can only discover what God has created, and any interpretation of scientific evidence which is incompatible with the Bible is simply the result of rejecting the Bible in favor of other, non-Christian world-views.
 
mpartyka said:
That’s why scientists often use several dating methods when identifying the ages of rocks. If more than one dating method returns similar results, you can be fairly sure the rock is the age indicated.

–Mike
Click to expand...
Really? On what basis do you conclude?
 
hecd2 said:
The Answers in Genesis website and movement is a farce and Ken Ham is not and has never been a working scientist.

So, it’s AiG who duped you into thinking carbon dating is inaccurate and is used to date rocks? You’re by no means the first and you won’t be the last to be taken in by their silliness.

My recommendation to you is that you learn some science from actual scientists rather than trying to do so from religious fundamentalists.Start here:

talkorigins.org/

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
LOL You mean “philosophers” in white lab coats!
 
Wow, the moment some one brings up some who might have good evidence to disprove evolution and how science is ran, and they are a Believer in our lord Jesus Christ, people right away think they are a . People did this same thing, when the world was proven to not be flat, and Earth not being the center of the universe. Evolution is of the devil and denial of God’s word and since the bible says that the word was with God and is God, denial of the word is denial of God and people who deny how God said the world was made, are denying God and will find Jesus denying them in heaven.
 
hecd2 said:
The Answers in Genesis website and movement is a farce and Ken Ham is not and has never been a working scientist.

So, it’s AiG who duped you into thinking carbon dating is inaccurate and is used to date rocks? You’re by no means the first and you won’t be the last to be taken in by their silliness.

My recommendation to you is that you learn some science from actual scientists rather than trying to do so from religious fundamentalists.Start here:

talkorigins.org/

Alec
Click to expand...
Talk origins, now thats not a good website for science, however I’m sure that Richard Dawkins who used to hold the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University would fully support it.

Talk Origins Deception
 
reggieM said:
I think you claimed that God created something. You now claim that God has no significance in the study of creation.
Apparently, in your study of literature you believe that the nature, history, motivations and intentions of the author are entirely insignificant to the work - right?
Click to expand...

Wrong. I don’t think you understand my posts. Quite how to make things clearer, I have no idea 🤷​

 
StAnastasia said:
Intriguing questions. What do you think?
Click to expand...

IMO:​

    1. Probably not
    1. Who knows ?
    1. Does it matter anyway ?
If (2) happened, why did God not see to it that that Hitler did not gas millions of Jews ? These miracle-stories raise too many questions to be credible. What about all the submarines that sank to the bottom with their crews in them ? Such stories cannot alter the stubborn fact that “God” cannot look after his own; the Jews could have done with a miracle - all they got, was Rudolf Hoess, Adolf Eichmann, Joseph Mengele, & similar filth.

What of all those ***not ***saved, all those drowned, cut in half, burned, impaled, vivisected, disembowelled ? Wher was “God” when they were in need ? To mention these supposed miracles is in the worst possible taste, because these miracles mean nothing when so many have been left to the tender mercies of the elements or of their fellow men.
 
buffalo said:
Only if the command is a divine command. Humans do not have authority over creation.
Click to expand...

That is morally ruinous :eek: If “God” can make abortion good because He decides it is good, than He can make a world in which Mother Teresa is one of the great criminals of the 20th century, & in which Adolf Hitler is canonised for his holy zeal against the enemies of God.​

That is a completely amoral position. Genocide is wicked whether God approves of it or not; to feed the hungry is admirable, kind & worthy of imitation, whether God approves of it or not. Hitler was a monster of cruelty, whether the Church approves of him or not. A Church which sanctions & approves & rewards wickedness, is a wicked Church.
 
buffalo said:
You are better than this.

Hello - I didn’t mean babies who couldn’t even walk could commit crimes. Innocence goes a little deeper than that.

If Hitler had children and he was indoctrinating them with hate for everyone non-Aryan then they would be able to inflict severe evil on the world by continuing his policies. The elimination of evil should include the seeds too.
Click to expand...

Abortion is bad, but infanticide is OK ? Are you sure ? How is this different in principle from aborting the unborn because they have undesirable medical conditions ?​

But, you and StA are missing the big one. The flood. Now that is mass murder. All the other stuff pales by comparison.

Some things we don’t know - now God sent His only son to unlock the gates of heaven. This is a significant event for more than one reason. We ask - well what happened to all the people before they were opened? It poses some interesting possibilities. Perhaps God removed souls from this earth that were not capable of experiencing Him fully. Perhaps what we view through our modern lens as brutal and murderous was mercy. We do not know what became of those souls. Perhaps God exhibited love and mercy to them is some way unknown to us.
Click to expand...

So - in ten thousand years’ time, we will be praising St. Adolf Hitler & St. Reinhard Heydrich, because by then we will realise what great Saints they really were ? At present, they seem “brutal & murderous”, but, given time, we will see how merciful they really were - is that it ? Because that is where your moral reasoning leads. 😦​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top