User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 48

  1. #31
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    Jesus christ, I agree with something Victor said.
    The important thing is we agree on how we will disagree.

  2. #32
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That which we call science did not spring from the christian religion, however. It sprang from antiquity. When you enter a house, illuminate it for a moment and then leave again, the house is not giving birth to you.


    Science began to become successful again when people started to part from the christian religion and embrace the real world again. Science took root in Europe because it was born in Europe, not because christianity sullied it for a thousand years.
    All this sounds like some sort of delightfully perverted appropriation of the immaculate conception myth. Anyway, my attention span on these sort of arguments is short, and I've hit my limit.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    The birth metaphors have been used on both sides; and given the meaning of 'Renaissance', they also seem appropriate.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Lily flower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    2
    Posts
    931

    Default

    It's called "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. I always thought that microevolution and macroevolution were the same, also.

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Science began to become successful again when people started to part from the christian religion and embrace the real world again.


    Yeah, take your pick, the natural or the supernatural?

  6. #36
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    it frustrates me that creationists have taken the respectable idea of there being something divine about the way nature inherently works, slapped thinly-veiled label on it, and retooled it as a way of getting their very specific religious beliefs reconsidered. back in my day it was called "deism" and/or "pantheism" and it didn't come with a KJV bible in tow. >:/

    @ lily flower - i do not think it was your intention, but your post came off as rather artificial circular reasoning, if you will... it just makes it hard to trust... start at one premise, decide to stray, and based off one experience return to your initial premise... it just does not seem very... well, scientific?

    i think my general problem with discarding evolution is this:

    even the specifics of gravitation itself are still being debated within the scientific community, as are the details of relativity... there are still unsolved questions regarding the overlap of the four fundamental interactive forces as well as regarding general relativity and quantum mechanics, and yet those are two theories that most people accept unquestioningly. if you choose to reject evolution on the grounds of it not totally being worked out yet, that's fair - i am no expert myself - but then it also only seems logical to question the nature of other scientific principles that are not fully explained as well... might as well start refraining from using most technology, etc...

    and then my problem with ID being this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris
    Intelligent Design makes some interesting philosophical points, but speculative philosophy has no place in a Science classroom. [...] in practice ID has focused on tearing down theories of evolution (thus belying its creationist motives, since ID as such is perfectly compatible with evolution)
    to all accounts i am really a believer in "intelligent design" if we are defining it simply as nature driven by a greater force, but i would never self-identify with Intelligent Design. it's really quite blatantly creationist, just a foot in the door.

  7. #37
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    it frustrates me that creationists have taken the respectable idea of there being something divine about the way nature inherently works, slapped thinly-veiled label on it, and retooled it as a way of getting their very specific religious beliefs reconsidered. back in my day it was called "deism" and/or "pantheism" and it didn't come with a KJV bible in tow. >:/

    @ lily flower - i do not think it was your intention, but your post came off as rather artificial circular reasoning, if you will... it just makes it hard to trust... start at one premise, decide to stray, and based off one experience return to your initial premise... it just does not seem very... well, scientific?

    i think my general problem with discarding evolution is this:

    even the specifics of gravitation itself are still being debated within the scientific community, as are the details of relativity... there are still unsolved questions regarding the overlap of the four fundamental interactive forces as well as regarding general relativity and quantum mechanics, and yet those are two theories that most people accept unquestioningly. if you choose to reject evolution on the grounds of it not totally being worked out yet, that's fair - i am no expert myself - but then it also only seems logical to question the nature of other scientific principles that are not fully explained as well... might as well start refraining from using most technology, etc...

    and then my problem with ID being this:



    to all accounts i am really a believer in "intelligent design" if we are defining it simply as nature driven by a greater force, but i would never self-identify with Intelligent Design. it's really quite blatantly creationist, just a foot in the door.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #38
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    sweet, they're as old as i am.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found that there were clones in this population that could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition.
    that's really cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservapedia
    Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists

    See also: Atheism and obesity and Atheism and Mental and Physical Health and Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese
    A 2009 picture of a significantly overweight PZ Myers can be found HERE. A 2010 picture taken in Australia shows PZ Myers drinking ale/beer and he had excess weight in his abdominal area.[295] In 2010, PZ Myers had health problems related to his heart.[296] In addition, medical science research indicates that excess weight impairs brain function.[297][298] Given PZ Myers' biological training and the wide dissemination of the harmful health effects of being overweight in terms of cardiovascular health and brain function, it is unfortunate that preventative medicine was not used in greater measure in terms of his health.[299][300][301] PZ Myers' inattention to diligently implementing the recommendations of medical science is not entirely surprising given his vehement advocacy of evolutionary pseudoscience. There have been a number of notable evolutionists who have been overweight (see also: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality).
    Also, as noted earlier, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[302] For a list of overweight and/or obese notable atheists please see: Atheism and obesity
    ok so maybe that's not related but conservapedia apparently thinks it is, and it cracks me up.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Lily flower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    2
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Yeah, take your pick, the natural or the supernatural?[/FONT]
    Actually, if you read teh biographies of the original scientists, a majority of them were Christians who wanted to understand God through His creation. A lot of their faith stories have been removed from the public school curriculum, so you would not know about it unless you read their biographies outside of school textbooks.

    Science and faith are not in any way incompatible, in my opinion.

    It's really only since Darwin that there has been a chasm between some scientists (usually in evolutionary biology) and some Christians. If you look at microbiology and astrophysics, you find a lot of believers, simply because of the amazing nature of the things that they study.

    If you are interested in a great faith & science book, try reading The Creator and the Cosmos.

  10. #40
    Reptilian Snuggletron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    10
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily flower View Post
    Science and faith are not in any way incompatible, in my opinion.
    ...But they are complete opposites in the way they function and produce a result.

Similar Threads

  1. 41. The structure of DNA appears to be intelligently designed, what are the implicati
    By lightsun in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-11-2017, 08:15 PM
  2. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  3. The Evolution of Human Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, Supervenience
    By ferunandesu in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 09:46 AM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO