someone forgot their pills today.

nO NOT tHAT i'M AWARE OF. hAVE YOU EVER HAD LEAD POIsONING? :3_eyes:

wow, i haven't popped into this thread in awhile. looks like i wasn't missing much... just mediocre trolling.

Yeah, it's pretty much been trashed.

Actually, it might be a useful case study for the thread. Did that evolve, or was it created by too much meth?

That is the most intellegent comment I have heard on this post!!!!!!!

Are you sure?

I may be wrong, but I thought this was a philosophy site. If this discussion is not based on philosophical thought, why not move it to a better suited scientific site. However, living in the 21st century, we cannot prove DNA 100% accurate, so why the argument on such a subjective subject?

You or I can say what we like about the reason for life. Evolution, being science, can not. It can only describe the mechanism, not the reason.

Again, I did not think this was a scienctific site. However I guess a creationist would say the origin of life was to make a man in god's image. Maybe he was bored I don't know.... Evolution on the other hand, which has been argued now on over 360 post is a scientific theory. Creationist believe in the fundamentalism of the christian doctrine, where evolutionst believe in many different theories of the origin of life. Who cares???? When something is proven without a doubt concerning this topic, I will assure my undivided attention. Until then, let the sun shine in........

This is a discussion site. All topics are valid.

Religion is only a science that became so introverted as to not advance itself. And that is the overall philosophy.

Did I miss any important buzz words?

Pretty strong words. "When a speculative philosopher believes he has comprehended the world once and for all in his system, he is deceiving himself, he has merely comprehended himself and then naively projected that view upon the world." C.G. Jung
I can't believe that statement about religion being so intoverted as to not advance itself. I am neither religious nor atheisis. I consider myself agnostic.
However, the argument you presented is of shallow thought in my opinion.
Let me get this straight. religion is science and because of the introversion it is now philosophy..... Is that your qoute? I hope not. One of the problems with religion as I see it is the extroversion. Trying to get others to believe because you do...... You didn't miss any "buzz" words, I could reconize. However, I am still reeling over your statement......

Religion was the equivalent of science - an attempt to make an orderly description of the operation of the world - before science was invented.

If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views...... ;)

Conversation I had today:

"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."

"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."

"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"

"No that's a hypothesis."

"what? No that's a theory."

"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."

"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."

"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."

"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!

People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.

I agree. With science we should be in the same book. However, in my opinion no one will ever be on the same page. I still do not think you can equate philosophy with science. Over the ages, philiosopy has been an opposite of science. The closest philosophy comes to science is when talking about the mathmatical equations of logic, which in my opinion is subjective. If you look carefully, I think you will find scientific minds will differ quite often on what some would say is a objective scientific fact. I do not believe that makes most scientific platitudes as non-factual. However, in most situations, I believe you wil find both deductive as well as inductive arguments; in most every statement made concerning science as it relates to philosophy......l

Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.

Science is necessay. No doubt. I'ts been around just as long as other areas of thought. I have no doubt exploration will continue, but I'm sure there will never be a definitive answer; that society as a whole will agree upon........

As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.

I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.

This was the thread I was looking for when I posted the "Something from the SAB" thread....couldn't find it, though, so I started a new one. Sorry if it caused a repeat-thread inconvenience.

While I agree that there will always be a debate over the most basic questions, I don't think that philosophy will be able to "answer" those questions, due to it's basic nature, which is argumentative and subjective.


Science, on the other hand, is objective, and MAY be able to answer some of those basic questions, eventually, or at least put forth logical theories.

For instance, anthropology used to be an area of philosophy (Poor Jean-Jacques!); the philosophical arguments concerning anthropology (like Rousseau's "Noble Savage") turned out to be way off the mark.

Ideas of good and evil are subjective and change over time, so there will probably never be a consensus on it.

So I'd have to say that I'd tend to agree with TS in that I believe that philosophical questions will become more focused as science discovers more and more.

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

If there's a way for UT to delete the post I made: "Something from the SAB," I would ask that he do so, since this really belongs here. Thanks

Sidhe


Does the bible teach evolution?
It appears that way...


And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

(1:11-13) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly.

Gen.1:20-21
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."



God lets "the earth (and waters) bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong.



But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."


We should take parts of the bible that attempt to explain scientific concepts allegorically because these people were trying to explain scientific concepts in and to a scientifically ignorant world. Plato used allegory in his cave story, and he wasn't talking about allegorical things.--Sidhe


Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."


Man invented the 24-hour day, and the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. (1:3-5, 14-19) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?. Also, didn't God say that a day to Him was as a thousand years--or something to that effect? And new species appear all the time....Then, according to info in the Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe, the Universe is much older than Creationists claim it to be. --Sidhe


Then, of course, we have Gen.1:1 - 2:3. According to the SAB:

The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

Not to mention different parts of Genesis that have man being created BEFORE plants and animals, conflicting with parts of Genesis that have man being created AFTER plants and animals (Animals--Gen.1:25-27 v. Gen.2:18-19; plants--Gen.1:11-13, 27-31 v. Gen.2:4-7)

Neither of those is actually implied. Science can find it's soul if it actually exists and philosophy is about defining or refining reason.

Maybe it just means that they each found their niche.

Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective. Trying to explain scientific phenomena using philosophy isn't really workable. Likewise, science doesn't really have a place in debating subjective realities and changing beliefs in morality and such.

Some might say that philosophy has divested itself of reason--but that's assuming that an individual's subjective take on reality and the argument they put forth is based on reason to begin with, if, by reason, you mean logic rather than emotion or faith. Emotion and faith really don't have much of a place in science, since they would tend to get in the way of necessary objectivity.

The statement - that religion does not advance itself - is based on upon extensive reasoning AND is well based upon current examples. Concepts were posted earlier, in this and in following discussions. With many examples, religion is what happens when the status quo and dictatorial commandments only from learned people thousands of years ago have credibility. All good philosophies and science never stop advancing. Religion does just the opposite. Religion is based upon a concept that demands only prophets thousands of years ago had sufficient knowledge. Religion is ripe to be perverted by those whose 'charisma' becomes god's laws. Charisma as even Hitler used to blame the Jews. Charisma: propaganda to pervert those who don't use their brain and therefore blindly follow.
From Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism
Posted 22 Dec 2004 in the Philosophy section:If you assume that posted paragraph was based upon shallow thinking, then you have well over "three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words" of reading to do.

I stand by my premise with vigor. Concepts based upon too many examples in history, current events, and logical thinking. Current religions are just another version of pagan religions promoted by the Greeks and Romans - with all the same philosophies based in human wants and desires. Any god that has human traits is nothing more than a human's own self serving creation - much like an invisible friend or the Oracle of Delphi. Religion not based upon the realities of our universe and what a real and powerful god must be. Religion is a classic example of what is created when mankind stops advancing - when man stops innovating - when people blindly worship some flawed text books. When the prophets decree everything only from what they knew at that time.

It cannot be said strong enough because religious extremism is a threat to the advancement of mankind. Religious extremism is about worshipping your fears (an emotion) rather than thinking logically (an essential factor in mankind's advancement).

Posted here is the respect that religion deserves.

You have demonstrated why people waste good money on Listerene. Simple principles were taught in junior high school science. To have a fact, both underlying concepts AND experimental evidence are required. Without both, then one only has, at best, a theory. Without both concepts, then they have wild speculation, urban myth, or political rhetoric. To have both science concepts and experimental confirmation, then proven principles of science and the *numbers* are required.

Blind worshippers *feel* Listerene working in their mouth AND therefore *know* it must be doing something. If Listerene does anything effective, then a quarter teaspoon of Vodka does as much.

Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion - deny the facts - that 70% of us believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is when those with numbers and experience were ignored as they reported contrarian facts - ie no uranium from Niger. Mythical weapons that just made no sense once we applied numbers to wild speculation.

One factor consistent among those who believe - facts be damned - is they avoid all numbers. Same applies to religious extremists, 'Harry Potter' witchcraft, teachings of the KKK, or "Psychic friends".

Rather surprising how many 20 year olds cannot read a map, believe the first thing they are told, AND still don't understand basic science concepts. It does not end with Listerene or worshipers of the Pond's Institute for 'age defying cream'. It is how Joseph Goebels could so easily promote Hitler's agenda. Get them to assume emotionally rather than think logically.

Paleobabe has simply posted another example of those who even deny what was demonstrated in junior high school science. These are people most easily recruited for tasks such as suicide bombers or cannon fodder for the military's front line.

TW what do you think about this?
 

"Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion."

I come from the deep south and have wandered SP almost over the world. I was raised baptist. Yuk. Your words would almost start a coffee shop fight in the south.
I talked to a man whom I thought to be above average, was a reporter and a nice smart man. No bs about him. He died a while back at 79. Anyway I asked him once did he think that the muslims were hell bound. He said"yes" because they didn't know the lord. To me that's bull Shit. So I never brought it up again.
I might be hell bound, if such a place exist. But
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW... What a ride!!"

I'm pretty bummed that the Vatican hasn't slapped down the Cardinal who played the intelligent design card recently. The Church had pretty well pulled herself out of the middle ages but now... who knows?

If they slap him down it becomes a media issue and they have to take an overt stance on it.

If they ignore it, it fades into the background noise and they don't have to take an official stance on it.

Which is easier as well as more effective?

(warning wandering mind)

Fine, if it works but there is a growing right wing nut movement in the Church that will only pull back if the Vatican says they are in error. If the Vatican remains silent, they forge ahead with an anti-modernist agenda that while not up to radical islam's standards isn't too enlightened. Some folks think we should harness the nuts for our east-west culture clash but I think the agendas are too similar, anti-science, anti-woman, anti-individualist, while not the last bastion of that kind of thinking (the left has their cluster as well) its really not a product of Western Civilization as I conceive it..

"That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books."


That's a rather good way of putting it.

It's also a way to have shock troops you can distance yourself from when they screw up.

All they have to do is compare themselves to the ultra radicals and say "look how extreme they were, we're ever so much more tolerant."

If using a condom, one is condemned to sin - according to church doctrine. Medical people in Catholic hospitals cannot even tell a husband how to use a condom to protect himself from his wife who has AIDs. Condoms and their use violate all church doctrine. So when did the Catholic Church - an institution that protected pedophiles and banned "Voice of the Faithful" - ever really pull itself out of the middle ages?

If you donate a kidney to your ailing twin brother, you have committed original sin. Another church decree from the 1950s when this kidney transplant was first performed. Was the doctor's name Dr Galileo?

When Pope John XXIII was my pope, we were told something previously unheard of in the Catholic Church. We should no longer condemn living Jews for what their ancestors did the Jesus. Is that called pulling itself out of the Middle Ages?

Even if your husband beats you, it would be an original sin - for some reason sins get categorized - for you to divorce him. However if you pay the local diocese enough money, then somehow the sacrament of marriage - a sacrament only provided by some Holy Ghost creature - somehow that sacrament can now be annulled by a now wealthier Bishop.

Could the Holy Ghost also provide me with the answers to tests in school - if I offered him enough money? No. Only sacraments can be bought and sold with money.

What day has the Pope scheduled to end the Middle Ages? Still waiting to be excommunicated. And I want it on a big fancy document that I can frame. Even Galileo couldn't get one of those.

If born into an institution you cannot leave, isn't that called slavery? At least a slave could buy his freedom. I can't even get a documented excommunication.

Not to be picky, but I will be anyway ... I think the terms you're looking for are mortal and venial sin.

Isn't there only one original one?

This explains everything. tw was brought up Catholic! No wonder he's so messed up! Welcome to the club, tw. I never took Catholicism seriously and I'm just fine. I think Els and wolf are recovering Catholics, too. They seem ok. You'll eventually get over it.

tw has been unclear about his religous upbringing. We don't really know if he hates Catholics from the inside or hates them from outside. All we know is the hate.

After a 3hour bike ride I think I was a little hard on tw here. I compare his rhetoric with radars. Both have core values that can be respected but neither communicates his positive values without going negative on other peoples respectable core values.

Did I post negative. Or did I post positive? You did not cite specific paragraphs for good reason. You were taking a personal perspective which means reading into the post some emotional aspect. Such emotion requires a personal bias.

Is there anything in my post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for implied emotion in posts - especially mine.

The only way you can make a claim that I hate people: quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions.

If I look only for the negative, then post specific examples. Without citing support facts and examples, the statement is no different from speculation. IOW I have a problem with Griff's last post because it does what I accuse Rush Limbaugh types of doing.

Well, he said it. What a maroon.

numerous google hits :(

This isn't original with me -- but isn't a Creation that goes entirely of itself a pretty intelligent way to design it? Saves a lot of bother over busting a miracle for each and every species, doesn't it?

If you are a Creator with literally all the time in the universe, to Whom a thousand ages in Thy sight are as an evening gone, do you have any reason whatsoever not to take your time and do it right? The right way seems to be the one of fullest freedom. No constraints on the forms of life.

Indeed. And that's why Intelligent Design as the motive force behind evolution is the most reasonable of the religious Creation stories. The problems only arise when people try to put religious Creation stories into a science class.

There is no proof for the the existence of God. That's why they call it faith. Science deals with facts or theories for which there is evidence. Saying that there might be a creator based on the unsubstantiated beliefs of individuals has no place in a science class.

I heard the end of a very bad debate on O'Reilly. They picked some poor Phd with no debating skills who by comparison made Nixon's performance in the Kennedy debate look like a screaming success. I swear that they picked the guy because O'Reilly could roll right over him.

Well put, gentlemen.

This is exactly my single greatest complaint about this administration in particular. It is the bald, brass, naked abuse of power expressed by choosing an idea and then calling it something else. Compassionate Conservatism. The Clean Skies Act. The Global War On Terror.

They choose what they want to do (as they should, to the winners the spoils), but then call it the very opposite sometimes! The manipulative hypocrisy of this style of leadership galls me, infuriates me. Intelligent design is a set of ideas that has it's own merits and flaws. But. It is **NOT** science. Calling it science, demanding in the name of fairness, in the spirit of discovery, that it be considered with equal weight, as though it were scientific, is sooooo wrong I am at a loss to articulate it.

What kind of argument flaw/style is this example: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" One that starts with false premises and restricts the choices to a list where they're mutually exclusive (yes versus no) and all wrong? That's how I feel when lured into a discussion about ID as an alternative scientific theory. It's an invalid question. Why not teach it in math class? Why not teach it in P.E.? It has the same relevance. But those comparisons don't reflect the same authority as "ID is competitve with Evolution."

Aaarrrrgh!

the origin of the universe is very simple. black holes exist in the universe yes? these are things that once you pass the event horizon, space and time reverse and the only future for matter after this point is the singularity in the centre (i wont go into the physics and mathematics but i can if you ask me to). no amount of energy can stop this. for this to exist there needs to be an opposite to a black hole. just like for negative there is positive and for matter there is antimatter, light and dark etc.... so there has to be something called a "white hole". these have not been found. but think about it. for a white hole to exist it would need to be something where the singularity can only exist in the past. starting to sound familiar? what is the only place in the universe where something has had the singularity exist only in the past?

the universe itself.

logic suggests that in order for black holes to exist there needs to be at least one white hole and the only possible outcome of this is to have a singularity at the beginning of time with matter that cannot return to this point. (if youre having trouble thinking of time having a zero point, just think of it like the absolute zero in temperature)

my point is there was no time before this and hence no chance for a god to decide to create the universe. the universe will either continue expanding forever or just come to a stop as it cannot return to the singularity.

Though I am a firm Christian, I would have to agree with you. By teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, we would be endorsing that way of thinking not as merely a choice as part of your religion, or lack thereof, but as a brute undenyable fact. And forcing that upon children is wrong. Faith is a choice and the government should stay the hell out of that choice.

religion should stay the hell out of peoples choice too. it should be a right of passage of everyone that when they turn 16 they choose their own religion and not be thrown into one from just after birth

Sorry, I thought that's what 16-year-olds already did.

Let us also cogitate on "Design" as evidenced: the design of the eye of the Chordata isn't at all the way an engineer would lay it out. The blood supply to the retina is between the light-sensitive cell array and the light it uses?? Developmental defects of the cornea leading to myopia being almost more common than not? The urethra goes through the prostate instead of around it? Sloppy-fit knee joints held together by ligamental straps and nothing much else? And how 'bout that vermiform appendix?

Dr. Pangloss might opine that this is all to cause men to invent better surgery. But then, Pangloss' views on spectacles is too often noted to need repeating here.

And it might help Kagen if he knew it's a rite of passage. Right of passage is more a thing of ships than of men, be they sixteen or older.

Homonym hell is an unnecessary embarrassment, for my money.

it mite help UG if he new th@ the english language can b ripped to shreds and ppl still no what u r talking about.

you know it was the most embarrasing thing in my life to realise i typed "right" instead of "rite", thankyou for going so easy on me though and just pointing it out rather than shooting me down. its so nice to have clever, intelligent people like you around to point out our little grammatical mistakes now and then. i know everyone else appriciates all the good things people like you do in the world. once again, thanks. do you have an address that i can mail you a thankyou card and flowers, maybe some chocolates too? mmm it just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing you'll be there to watch over me providing your free spell-checker service.

sorry, im still pissed off that i burnt my tongue on my coffee this morning.

Homonym hell is still unnecessary.

The best spellchecker is your wetware. I turn mechanical spellcheckers off and keep my English to a near-Buckleyan standard -- WFB is the only general writer of my acquaintance who regularly can send me to the dictionary. In the words of the metaphor, the man's a rifle, with one helluvan ammunition wagon.

I've not yet heard of a spellchecker with the entire wordlist of the OED in it -- has anyone else? The usual 75K-wordlist spellchecker is too cramped for what I do when writing.

my previous statement still stands, spelling is irrelevant if the meaning is understood. if someone doesnt understand what you are saying THEN spelling needs to be checked

Well, then it's not English, is it? And spelling error can thoroughly scramble the meaning of a sentence. Those who insist upon its irrelevance insist upon muddy, substandard, subintellectual thinking.

There are better hills to die on than this one.

And I thought you liked to hang out with Republicans.

Can you spell potatoe?

i know, ive read 1984. man that thing was pretty close considering it was written in 1949. :worried: