User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 48 of 48

  1. #41
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snuggletron View Post
    ...But they are complete opposites in the way they function and produce a result.
    Nah, religion has a way of producing real results with people. Everybody seems to be trying to use both of them for what they're not for.

  2. #42
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily flower View Post
    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.
    I think it's extremely important to separate "religion" from "creationist" and yet again from "creationism should be taught in science class in public schools".

    I don't think you'll find many scientists who think creationism should be taught in schools....even among the few who believe in it personally.
    -end of thread-

  3. #43
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Yeah, take your pick, the natural or the supernatural?
    If you must use this awful font, at least confine its application to your words only.

  4. #44
    Reptilian Snuggletron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    10
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlippoth View Post
    Nah, religion has a way of producing real results with people. Everybody seems to be trying to use both of them for what they're not for.
    I'm talking about methods, not mental effects. They come from complete opposite ends of reasoning. Creationism and faith-based assertions use reason it in a way that isn't compatible with science.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default



    There is a grand design but I know not who or what the grand designer is and why he or it would allow so much affliction upon life. Some people call life the great miracle. I call life the great disaster!

  6. #46
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    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.
    But you're defining it based on your perception of nature, and that's not necessarily how nature really is beyond those perceptions.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #47
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    But you're defining it based on your perception of nature, and that's not necessarily how nature really is beyond those perceptions.
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

  8. #48
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snuggletron View Post
    I'm talking about methods, not mental effects. They come from complete opposite ends of reasoning. Creationism and faith-based assertions use reason it in a way that isn't compatible with science.
    Well yes -- any involvement of "faith" means you start with an answer and then use reason to support it, although there can be reason iteration loops to "test" the faith construct if one is at least somewhat honest. But basically there's a "leap of faith" required at some point, to get from what can be observed and tested to reach the inexplicable.

    Science is supposed to look at data and then determine the conclusion (it's kind of the backwards process of faith). Scientists get hunches or have ideas sometimes about what the truth might be, but at that point it's also supposed to be subject to iterative testing, to see if the idea can be broken or not.

    ID just basically says, "The world is too complex to develop on its own, it needed to be created," and then looks for examples of complexity to justify that position. The scientific response has been to discover natural processes that can develop complexity so that the assumption that "God" is necessary to the process can be shown as faulty.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

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