Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[TomVexille]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

John didn't trash any people he simply stated that he has another opinion.

.

In my opinion I beg to differ:

... The arrogance of modern science thinking all their theories are right ...

.... Evolution is given way too much credit. ....

.... What arrogant human scientists don't quite understand ....

Calling all scientists, and anyone who believes in reason and logic, arrogant multiple times, as well as denouncing the work of these people is doing exactly that

 

[whatmeworry]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

This amazing thing called DNA is the blueprint for life, and contains all the instructions to build all of the species that exist and have existed.

I like that episode of Star Trek Next Gen where the crew starts devolving into their genetic ancestors.

 

[drron]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Sorry, the one being arrogant here is you. The arrogance that your unfounded belief trumps hundreds of years of the scientific process.

Now,now don't overplay your hand.Lanarck was only just over 200 years ago and Darwin a little over 150 years ago so probably not 100s of years of the science of evolution.
And John has always worn his faith openly so to him his theories are not unfounded but have a basis in the bible.

All this calling names is not going to change his beliefs,indeed probably will reinforce them.
So I am going to have a glass of port and chill.Let's all partake of our favourite beverage and relax.

 

[TomVexille]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Now,now don't overplay your hand.Lanarck was only just over 200 years ago and Darwin a little over 150 years ago so probably not 100s of years of the science of evolution.

Science, even modern science has been around for hundreds of years, even if only a couple hundred.

And John has always worn his faith openly so to him his theories are not unfounded but have a basis in the bible.

I had left religion out of this, but since you insist, a basis in a book of fiction instead of scientific evidence

All this calling names is not going to change his beliefs,indeed probably will reinforce them.

I am under no impression that I'll ever change his opinion on anything. But when people start spewing silly ideas as fact, and start calling scientists arrogant and stupid, which actually becomes personal as there are many scientists who are members of this site and read this, I do feel inclined to call people on their bull.

So I am going to have a glass of port and chill.Let's all partake of our favourite beverage and relax.

What a sensible idea

 

[TheRealTMA]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

And John has always worn his faith openly so to him his theories are not unfounded but have a basis in the bible.

....

No not at all. Your defence is unsustainable. He has said publicly that he is not religious but he believes in a creator. Very unsound unscientific and strange views which are fine for private comment but not for a public forum on AFF.

But we can agree on the port.

 

[straitman]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

In my opinion I beg to differ:

Calling all scientists, and anyone who believes in reason and logic, arrogant multiple times, as well as denouncing the work of these people is doing exactly that

Really. Did JohnK do that or are words being taken out of context?

1. Science is constantly disproving itself. (Ref posts #14 and #23)
2. JohnK's opinion to which he is entitled
3. JohnK did not call ALL scientists arrogant. There are many scientists who do understand but the arrogant ones do not. What's wrong with that statement? (The problem is each side believes they are right and many are intolerant of the other opinion)

It's time to agree to disagree maybe.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

As an earth scientist, with a couple of degrees and over 30 years in earth science professionally, I am personally affronted and insulted by every 'creationist' comment, But if they are sincerely held I can tolerate them.

However repeated wrong representations of the science from a Creationist I can't cop.

JohnK I don't believe you are 'stirring' with your repeated misrepresentation about the scientific arguments, so I can believe they are just ignorance. Put your case by all means, but please stop misrepresenting the science.

If you are unwilling to learn more about the science side, good luck to you. But don't keep misrepresenting them,please.

I still would like to know how old you think the Earth and Universe is.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Really. Did JohnK do that or are words being taken out of context?

1. Science is constantly disproving itself. (Ref posts #14 and #23)
2. JohnK's opinion to which he is entitled
3. JohnK did not call ALL scientists arrogant. There are many scientists who do understand but the arrogant ones do not. What's wrong with that statement? (The problem is each side believes they are right and many are intolerant of the other opinion)

It's time to agree to disagree maybe.

We are clearly disagreeing. I look forward to JohnK's own comments on what he said and what others have replied to him.

Oersonally I think I am being very restrained in the face if someone whose assertions imply that my entire academic and professional life is based on bull dust.

I have read the Bible, twice over if I recall correctly. I've studied many religions since, visited the sites etc. I don't go around publicly decrying and denying those beliefs etc. So forgive me when I get annoyed when others come on here and misrepresent my science etc.

 

[straitman]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Science, even modern science has been around for hundreds of years, even if only a couple hundred.

What's a few hundred years when we are talking millions?

I had left religion out of this, but since you insist, a basis in a book of fiction instead of scientific evidence

In your opinion. Many could easily be offended by that comment.

I am under no impression that I'll ever change his opinion on anything. But when people start spewing silly ideas as fact, and start calling scientists arrogant and stupid, which actually becomes personal as there are many scientists who are members of this site and read this, I do feel inclined to call people on their bull.

We are all entitled to our opinions. It is only personal when people make it personal. Remember that as science constantly disproves itself many of those who you are, at the time, held on the pedestal are later proven to be (your words) arrogant and stupid.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

<snip> Remember that as science constantly disproves itself many of those who you are, at the time, held on the pedestal are later proven to be (your words) arrogant and stupid.

Sorry, science does not 'disprove itself'. Science is a methodology and a discipline which allows ideas to be put forward, tested, confirmed and very regularly, disproved or not confirmed. That's it's strength and truth lovers embrace it. There is nothing 'stupid' about scientists whose theories and ideas are disproved / not supported and I find your remark unfortunate and many could be offended by it.

 

[TomVexille]

Really. Did JohnK do that or are words being taken out of context?

1. Science is constantly disproving itself. (Ref posts #14 and #23)
2. JohnK's opinion to which he is entitled
3. JohnK did not call ALL scientists arrogant. There are many scientists who do understand but the arrogant ones do not. What's wrong with that statement? (The problem is each side believes they are right and many are intolerant of the other opinion)

It's time to agree to disagree maybe.

Read it again:

... The arrogance of modern science thinking all their theories are right ...

ALL modern science. As in ALL modern scientists.

But as you say, we're ALL entitled to our opinion

What's a few hundred years when we are talking millions?

In your opinion. Many could easily be offended by that comment.


We are all entitled to our opinions. It is only personal when people make it personal. Remember that as science constantly disproves itself many of those who you are, at the time, held on the pedestal are later proven to be (your words) arrogant and stupid.

Yup, millions of years, billions even. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, my opinion. Thank you.

Yes, even Einstein, Newton and Darwin have had theories proven wrong, but their contributions will forever be taught as part of understanding our world. So I will disagree with your opinion.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

People can believe what ever they like but a lot of science is fact....

Not all science is fact. The big bang theory is just that. A theory.

I've left religion out of the argument. Believing in a Creator does not make the statement religious.

Evolution is conveniently used by scientists to belittle religion. But that's ok. Evolution explains mutation in a species. Evolution does not create a species from scratch.

As I said in another post. I wonder if robots will have this discussion in a thousand years.

 

[RooFlyer]

So no recanting the misrepresentations, then?

 

[TomVexille]

Not all science is fact. The big bang theory is just that. A theory.

So is gravity. I'm guessing that you don't believe in gravity either?

I've left religion out of the argument. Believing in a Creator does not make the statement religious.

Actually I think most here have done a good job of leaving religion out of the argument

Evolution is conveniently used by scientists to belittle religion. But that's ok. Evolution explains mutation in a species. Evolution does not create a species from scratch.

I see you still don't understand how evolution works

As I said in another post. I wonder if robots will have this discussion in a thousand years.

AI is already thinking for itself and learning.

So no recanting the misrepresentations, then?

Obviously not

 

[blackcat20]

As an earth scientist, with a couple of degrees and over 30 years in earth science professionally, I am personally affronted and insulted by every 'creationist' comment, But if they are sincerely held I can tolerate them.

However repeated wrong representations of the science from a Creationist I can't cop.

JohnK I don't believe you are 'stirring' with your repeated misrepresentation about the scientific arguments, so I can believe they are just ignorance. Put your case by all means, but please stop misrepresenting the science.

If you are unwilling to learn more about the science side, good luck to you. But don't keep misrepresenting them,please.

I still would like to know how old you think the Earth and Universe is.

As a geneticist with a PhD in the subject I'm also pretty offended. DNA is real, we know what it does, there's nothing to debate about it. Same with evolution, fitness, species. It is fact.

 

[JohnK]

Robots will evolve. That I have no doubt. But they have been created. We are the creators.

A very simple concept missed by many.

Evolution is not fact. It is speculation.

 

[GladstoneTim]

As this is a discussion on religious topics and not just a pick on JohnK thread, people might be interested in this forthcoming film...It is called "The Case for Christ" and is screening at Event Cinemas. I expect it will give some insight into why people have a faith and the facts behind it. I do know much of what is contained in the Bible has been scientifically and historically proven.
[h=1]The Case for Christ

[COLOR=black !important]PG[/COLOR]​

[/h]Mild themes and occasional coarse language
A hard-driving journalist, Lee Strobel was exactly where he expected to be at work: on top. His award-winning investigative reporting recently earned him a promotion to legal editor at the Chicago Tribune. But things weren’t going nearly as well at home where his wife Leslie’s newfound faith in Christ went against everything Lee believed—or didn’t believe—as an avowed atheist.

 

[burmans]

Evolution is not fact. It is speculation.

So a bit like religion, then?

 

[ermen]

Sorry to interrupt this conversation. But:

Just because one holds a PHD in whatever does not make one right.

I was trained in the "economic sciences" and took a first. But looking at academia, what I found was people with PHDs who had dedicated their life work to support a certain theory, were often the last to back down in the face of contrary evidence (remember most of "rational expectations" crowd). Its basic, human professional "pride". Those days in the faculty are long gone.

As an aside, I felt that most of the stuff I learnt in undergraduate is garbage, especially after the GFC. Especially the point that the consensus is always right. Consensus doesn't mean a thing, and often just represents group think.

Now you may say the economic sciences are not a sciences. Whatever. But at the end of the day, all scientific theories out there meant to be falsified (Karl Popper), and will probably be falsified. So I don't treat the scientific consensus as being gospel. Even within science, there exists a divergence of views, so when one thinks about "science", it is often just the "consensus", which I believe does not mean a thing, because someone part of the anti-consensus can be right (just not proven).

And on the "creationism versus I don't know what the alternative is (non-creationism? evolution?)". I will only take a contrary view seriously if someone can give me a coherent explanation on the origins of life (not the origins of cough sapiens.... but life). How did in-organic matter become organic? Even by logical induction going backwards, a creation be definition needs a creator.

And on the creationiism vs non-creationism debate (or even moving broadly to God versus atheis debate), it's been debated by smart people (both scientists and non-scientists) for the past I don't know how many years. Will there be a definite conclusion via the debats? No. So I don't bother wasting time on those. The conclusion will be certain after you die.

 

[blackcat20]

Evolution is pretty solid based on a number of things including:
'The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.'

A PhD doesn't make me 'right' about everything but it gives me pretty solid backing in the things I've studied, including DNA and evolution of certain species.