Home School Dads

Line


Spacespace
Message Boards
Stripes

space
Home School Dads
A Website for Fathers who Home School
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Harvard to study the orgins of life
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
guest
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich,

The cheap shot was the attempt to suggest that science somehow proves your god's work........and no, in all my blaspheming ways I have never felt a jolt.

As to my death, yes, it would be nice to chase down angel babes.....two at a time in a magical forever land, however, I suspect that the carbon and water that makes up much of my body will be utilized by other life forms to sustain them in their struggles to survive. In that way alone, my essence can live on.
Back to top
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guest wrote:
Rich,

The cheap shot was the attempt to suggest that science somehow proves your god's work........and no, in all my blaspheming ways I have never felt a jolt.

As to my death, yes, it would be nice to chase down angel babes.....two at a time in a magical forever land, however, I suspect that the carbon and water that makes up much of my body will be utilized by other life forms to sustain them in their struggles to survive. In that way alone, my essence can live on.


No, the cheap shot was to suggest that something was wrong with me for believing in a higher power and, I'm sure, primitive life forms will indeed benefit from your carbon and water atoms, mine too. Your idea of chasing down angel babes is an interesting proposition and I'm sure they would be willing to let you do that, but maybe they have more important things to do. I'm sure too, that the hereafter would to use your terms, appear magical as well. Regarding God's call, if you're expecting a bearded and robed figure to descend from the clouds, you might be disappointed. It's possible but I really think that passage might've been the writer's poetic license. You seem to know enough about what's written in the Bible to poke fun at it. I agree that much of what is written is fantastic. In my belief tradition, we seek God's inspiration and then make liberal use of reason. The Bible is first a history of people and next a record of what they observed and experienced. We do not view the Book, especially the chronology, as inerrant.
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:48 pm    Post subject: An experiment Reply with quote

Dear Guest,

I have a challenge for you. Please do not reply to this but do visit the website. You have nothing to lose and nobody will know if you do it or not. Please set aside your need to analyze, have no expectations or preconceived notions and open yourself up to the possibility that you may just experience something worthwhile. Thanks.

Rich


http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/presentation.html
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
guest
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich'

I will check out your web site if you check out one that I suggest to you.

As to Christian use of reason? I would think it appropriate to apply it to the doctrine and dogma of the faith. The facade then crumbles.
Back to top
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guest wrote:
Rich'

I will check out your web site if you check out one that I suggest to you.

As to Christian use of reason? I would think it appropriate to apply it to the doctrine and dogma of the faith. The facade then crumbles.


Hi guest,

I suppose when defining my terms for you, I must first place a disclaimer. When accepting the teachings of Christ as truthful, one has a comparison standard by which to judge faith oriented matters; scripture, religious doctrine, and so on. This gives rise to what I call Christian reason which would indeed cause many religious facades to crumble. You may be surprised to learn that through much study and prayer (meditation may be a more acceptable term) I, like you, have come to believe that much of the Bible has nothing to do with faith in Christ as savior or, even God. This puts me in opposition to many pseudoChristian practices and ironically, more aligns me with many other faith traditions, which some would call pagan. How's that for clarification!? I would be happy to check out your website, but you didn't give me a link. I look foreward to hearing back.

BTW, have you thought about those Usborne encyclopedias?

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:36 pm    Post subject: Hi Reply with quote

Hi folks,

It's been awhile and I wanted to check in. Guest, do you have any thoughts of late on our discussions? If you would like to share your impressions about "Interview With God," or any other aspect of our discussions to date, I am interested in hearing. Should you like to respond privately, my email addres is available in my profile. Let's keep in touch.

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Basilosaurus is back to clear the cobwebs off this web site. It appears that there is a major struggle going on here just to get people to post...............in our exciting new century. Rich, an interview with god? I would ask that you convey a question to him on my behalf. Just why is it that he needs to use our planet as his own personal latrine........day after day.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich



Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 173
Location: Coastal New England

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

basilosaurus wrote:
Basilosaurus is back to clear the cobwebs off this web site. It appears that there is a major struggle going on here just to get people to post...............in our exciting new century. Rich, an interview with god? I would ask that you convey a question to him on my behalf. Just why is it that he needs to use our planet as his own personal latrine........day after day.?


Ah Basilosaurus,

Good always to receive your educated insight on all matters religious. As to your offer to communicate with God on your behalf, I'd be happy to but better yet, why don't you speak for yourself? From the tone of your reply, I'm certain that you didn't bother to read the entire context of the discussion I had with "Guest" If you did, you would've found yourself mentioned as it really felt like I was debating with you all over again. To address your retort about "Interview with God", I posted the link for Guest because at one point, I really sensed he was seeking a spiritual experience. He said he would check out my website if I checked one out that he would post. I wonder if he might have eventually had such an experience because he never posted again, not even with the site he referred to. A true athiest would have scoffed and made some disparaging remark. Maybe he will come back too, just like you did.

Funny you should mention latrine. In my opinion, the largest volume of latrine content comes from greedy, power hungry, immoral, unrestrained, egocentric, hedonistic folk who when they momentarily stop exploiting people and things, loudly proclaim that there is no God.

So, you come back to blow the cobwebs off. What intriguing bit of scholarship do you bring?

Rich
_________________
homeschooling since '97: daughter, 18- away at college, son, 16 and daughter 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Rich,

No intriguing bit of scholarship in any discipline would ever suggest that a god exists......that is unless you include the quite farcical nonsense of theology as a discipline.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: An experiment Reply with quote

Rich wrote:
Dear Guest,

I have a challenge for you. Please do not reply to this but do visit the website. You have nothing to lose and nobody will know if you do it or not. Please set aside your need to analyze, have no expectations or preconceived notions and open yourself up to the possibility that you may just experience something worthwhile. Thanks.
http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/presentation.html


Here's the one I find credible:
http://www.jhuger.com/interview_with_god

And this one:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
basilosaurus



Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich,

I saw the web site, and I was moved..the images were beautiful. All the thoughts and ideas in the clip have their provenance within the minds of men. The pictures are taken by men, and the beauty of the scenes displayed can all be explained by science. The god guy? I don't know that that is all about........maybe that movement that I mentioned above was just my bowels acting up. Frank's interview was preferable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether we move the discussion about science and faith from the Bible section or not, I'll go ahead and post a site here that some people might find interesting:

http://www.answersincreation.org/

These folks are conservative Christians and they (mostly) accept the science behind evolution. They speak of themselves as Old-Earth Creationists. They have lots of refutations, both scientific and Biblical, of the faulty/non-science of AnswersInGenesis (and YEC in general) from a Christian perspective. Give it a look, if you're at all interested.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Frank



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The beginning of this thread is fairly confrontational. Actually, most of it is. More heat than light, ya know. Rather than perpetuate it as-is, I'm gonna reset to the beginning with my own comments ab initio. I hope there's more light than heat in this post but this is a fiercely-held area for belief. I don't wanna insult anybody and I apologize in advance if I do; but if I'm gonna tell it, I gotta tell it like it is.

From what I read, there are a number of misunderstandings and misuses of words and phrases being perpetuated here. Unlike Bob the veterinarian, I'm not gonna try to trap you into a semantic argument by asking you to define stuff, then zap you with a linguistic GOTCHA! I'm gonna start with some definitions which are pretty widely used. If you disagree with any of them, please specify your disagreement first thing so we can come to an accommodation. Or maybe, at least, an agreement to disagree – amicably, I hope.

Some definitions.

Faith:
Dictionary definition: Belief in an idea that does not rest on proof or evidence. Wikipedia sez it's largely reserved for concepts of religion, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality. Martin Luther said that it's a living, bold trust in God's grace. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that there are two orders of "knowledge" and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith. The object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

I like the way that last one differentiates knowledge from faith. Knowledge is attained by natural reason and faith provides the ability to believe in mysteries. I'll revisit this distinction later.

Science:
Dictionary definition: Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.

What's that? Well, lemme put it this way. The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use the deductions thereof to make useful predictions. This is essentially the definition of what constitutes a scientific theory (talked about a coupla paragraphs down).

Scientific constant:
A quantity both universal in nature and consistent over time. Examples: G (Universal Gravitational Constant), c (speed of light), h (Planck's constant), e (electrical charge of a proton), fine structure constant, mass ratio of elementary particles - m(sub)p/m(sub)e, Avogadro's number, etc.

Scientific law:
Simple, true, universal, and absolute, an incontrovertible fact. Examples: Gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's laws of motion, the four laws of thermodynamics, conservation laws per Noether's theorem, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc.

Scientific theory:
Starts with an hypothesis based on observations of the natural universe. The hypothesis is then subjected to testing. Then it's published for peer review and verification or falsification testing. It must make nontrivial predictions which are also testable. The end result of hashing the idea around and hammering on it by lots of different folks is a *scientific* theory. Actual scientific theories must be falsifiable. There's obviously a spectrum of scientific theories. Some are new or shaky. Some are so rigorous that they're essentially laws. Examples: At the rigorous end, there's the germ theory of disease. Technically, this is still just a scientific theory. In practical terms, it's pretty close to being as rigorous as a law. At the shaky end we have string theory. Still very new. Still has several variants, which maybe go together. It is possibly the long-sought theory of everything (TOE). However, it may be so generic as to be unfalsifiable. Also, there are many things which support it but it may be like the phlogistion theory, close but ultimately inaccurate.

So, anyway, now with those established, I'm gonna start making comments from the beginning of the thread. Bart postulates that Creationism (along with ID) and the scientific theory of evolution are both belief systems. This is incorrect. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory as defined above. Creationism and ID are belief systems based on faith. Big difference.

ID attempts to plaster a veneer of "science" onto itself but it is, at root, a belief system and does not meet the threshold required to be a scientific theory. Most of its "science" is a conglomeration of snippets taken from honest science and put together out of context or in inappropriate ways. Some of its "science" is flat-out erroneous. Therefore, by definition, evolution is a scientific theory which has been derived from observed facts, tested widely, and which has made and verified nontrivial predictions, whereas ID starts with a belief from faith then searches for trivia and factoids to stitch together into a deceptive cloak resembling science but which is, in actuality, merely pseudoscience and nonsense.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is both tautological and syllogistic. It commits the logical fallacy of circular reasoning wherein the proposition to be proven is "proved" by the initiating axiom. Thus: The Bible says that there is a God who created (intelligently designed) the universe. The Bible is inerrant. Therefore, Intelligent Design is true. Therefore, if the scientific theory of evolution contradicts ID, then evolution is false. Belief (faith) in something which is incorrect does not trump that which is correct.

Wolfgang Pauli once famously commented about an (un)scientific proposition, "This isn't right. It's not even wrong!" The phrase "not even wrong" insultingly decries that the proposition is so far out in left field that it's based on assumptions which are known to be incorrect or theories which cannot be falsified or used to predict anything. It would have to improve an infinite amount to qualify as being merely wrong. ID is "not even wrong."

Creationism has a much broader spectrum of possibilities than ID and I don't want to tar all of Creationism with the same brush I use to discredit ID. I'd lay out the Creationism spectrum this way:

At one end of the spectrum are the folks who accept all the realities of science and identify God as the Divine Architect Who started the Big Bang and Who set the criteria established during the Planck epoch right after the BB for how our universe would develop. As I understand it, this is sometimes called Theistic Evolution. I have no argument with this position. I have no need of a supernatural master of the universe; but if you do, this one at least lets you accept the reality of science. That's pretty cool.

At the other end of the spectrum of Creationism is the YEC position. It requires a literal interpretation of the Bible which specifies a six-day Divine creation, in a certain order, with absolutely no possibility of evolution, on an earth which is less than ten thousand years old and probably more like six thousand, based on Archbishop Ussher's calculations. This position is a triumph of faith over knowledge. It requires the believer to reject objective, observable facts in favor of an unsupported belief. It is precisely equivalent to believing that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese. James Brown can sing "If a man can dream, he can defy… G R A V I T Y" as often as he wants at the top of his lungs but if he steps out of a plane without a parachute… (Finishing this thought is left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: g=9.8meters/second^2)

Between these two ends of the spectrum lies an entire range of possibilities. You can probably guess my response to any given point on the spectrum of Creationism positions by interpolating from my opinions concerning the opposite ends of it.

The faith of the person who believes in a Divine Architect is something I have no comment on. I obviously don't share it; but I have no argument against it. The faith of the YECer is something I abhor as much as Basil does. I absolutely can NOT understand how a person can choose belief over fact and reality.

Which brings me back to one of Rich's core musings and Bart's misunderstanding of the meanings of several terms mapped against the distinctions I set out at the beginning of this post.

IMO, faith and science are, generally speaking, mutually exclusive, by definition, but not necessarily in conflict. Faith is belief without proof, usually in the realm of the supernatural. Science is observation of the natural universe and deduction of a system of knowledge based on evidence and testing. They typically address different and nonintersecting aspects of the human condition. It's possible that the two can coexist simultaneously. As I said, I have no argument with the Divine Architect God. He covers the supernatural stuff and science covers the natural stuff. Fine. I personally don't need or want Him but if it floats your boat, enjoy the cruise. However, when they do intersect and an article of faith contradicts a demonstrated reality, like YEC, I gotta go with reality and say that such faith is misplaced or just plain incorrect.

Actually, I think that points up a paradigm difference which is at the root of many religious peoples' problem with science. Science is not absolute. It's always looking for new variants on what is theorized about what is known. When a scientist looks at an established body of knowledge and says, "That's not accurate. It should be like this instead." everybody is actually happy. That's how the scientific method works. However, if you’re coming from a paradigm of faith, you're used to a universe of absolutes. Absolute Truth which was true, is true, and will always be true. If someone were to present a negative example for one of those truths… well, oh dear! Logic says that all it takes is one negative example to TOTALLY DISPROVE a theorem.

I can see how that would be a really scary possibility for someone coming from an absolutist philosophical system; but in science it's a desirable thing. Not scary. Anticipated. Isaac Asimov once said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's interesting…'"

I find the universe a completely interesting place.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Frank



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Per our last coupla posts in the Bible section, ignore my last post here. (grin)

However, you may enjoy visiting http://www.answersincreation.org/

and you might be interested in reading Miller's Finding Darwin's God - http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211436322&sr=1-1

Peace out, homies!

Frank

P.S. In case you didn't notice, I added an avatar (my photo) and the link to my personal blog (the www button). Warning: this is my personal space. It's the stuff that churns up from my subconscious or someplace even scarier. Full of foul language and frequent irreligious commentary. Nonetheless, please come visit, if the mood strikes you. I'd be happy to hear from you there. Really!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mississippi



Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 3
Location: Mississippi

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm    Post subject: The Creation-Evolution Literature Database (CELD) Reply with quote

The Creation-Evolution Literature Database (CELD) is a powerful tool for locating references articles pertaining to the creation/evolution debate. Think of it as a kind of Google Scholar just for creationism. CELD contains summaries (abstracts) of thousands of published articles from the nineteenth century to today. For many of these articles, links to the full text of the articles are included.

http://www.coresci.org/celd/
_________________
There shall come in the last days scoffers saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? - all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." They willingly are ignorant, that by the word of God the heavens were of old" 2Peter3:3-5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home School Dads Forum Index -> Science All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Space

Space
Space
space