Originally posted by Ushgarak
I admit the post is a mess. But the parts inside quote marks are whob's. Excewpt there is a missing " at the end of his comment about satire... which still defies belief.(The comment, not the missing ", which is easy to believe).
Yes it was my mistake - Have you read River out of Eden by Dawkins?
Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Then why are you disagreeing with me?I think you need to reread my posts - Its the idea of absolutism that worries me, Originally when I went to University and I still believe it now, the "chemical soup" not disimilair to the orgaic compounds in hot springs in Iceland led to life on Earth. However since the Mars Rock some very reputable scientists postulate bacteria from Space could have led to life on Earth. I don't know which it was. It could have been God. Can any off us say for certain it was not.
Well, it seems to me that we weren;t actually disagreeing at all, we just misinterpreted each other. Looking at us both having mentioned the same book and the same concepts, I think we are pretty much on the same side of the boat.
Holy ****ing shit.
I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.
Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.
1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?
I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.
And you say others avoid things.....
Originally posted by Lana
Holy ****ing shit.I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.
Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.
1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.
And you say others avoid things.....
This is where people either have faith or do not.
🙂 Bohr, Albert, Issac, Feynman all had it and they were pretty good scientists imo 🙂
Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
This is where people either have faith or do not.🙂 Bohr, Albert, Issac, Feynman all had it and they were pretty good scientists imo 🙂
Yes, but did these scientists think that their religious beliefs should be taught as Science?
That's where the problem is arrising, not from simple religious beliefs.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Where Picador goes dodger follows...😆 The more you guys post..the more you support my initial argument of "Groupthink." I have no idea why you all have so much angst towards those whose beliefs oppose your own. If this forum carries so much importance to yourself PMS, and few other dinks whom support you, then I truly pity you, and perhaps I should tone my arguments a bit..so as I don't offend those who are "tender" hearted.I should start a new thread entitled Picador and Friends. 😆 😆
I have been asked to point out that there is a misquote in this post by whob, which syas that Kharma says something, that in fact PVS did.
Do please be careful with the quote feature to make accurate attribution.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having Faith never made anyone a bd scientist.But treating faith As science is bad science. The two have clear distinctions.
Even scientists without faith have philisophical beliefs, and those should be separated also.
I am afraid that book slipped me by.
Well worth a read Dawkins explains in it how evolution works. He gives a contemporary account of how the almost infinite variety of forms of life on Earth are explained by the powerful elegance of natural selection. He makes the point that never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions - That is the power of Darwins theory it is also ultimately its biggest weakness in the post Chaos world and something like Ian Stewarts "Natures Numbers" which looks at ordered systems and spontaneous organisation might be used to either support it or pick holes in it depending how far around it you have read. Unfortunately Darwins theory is outdated and I could get into Genetic Mosaics etc, but I am not sure if people are familiar with these ideas.
I agree that Dawrin's theory is outdated- it is somethihg I pointed out to whob above when he tried to claim that scientists were being baised by a 'belief' in 'Darwinism'.
Couldn't really be further from the truth, could it? They aren't biased, it's not a belief, and much of the work now goes into saying where he was wrong.
please do get into genetic mosaics I'd love to hear about it.
in gym class you're teaching how to play certain games/ sports and you don't lecture at the kids about evo or ID....but through your attitude and actions you demonstrate the wonders the human body is capable of....Yes, I know that's complicating ush's simple statement....I do understand your point ush....and you are correct, one would not outright teach "it" in a gym class:-)
If you force your beliefs upon others, and pass it off as fact is the same as discriminating against others with different beliefs. Even if you want to teach what you believe, it is not morally right to teach what should be offered as an option. Your beliefs are such that you believe it because you have a degree of faith, not because it has been taught to you as the only option. Schools may not teach intelligent design, but is certainly an option for anyone to know if they care enough to do research.
Ex. The curriculum may not cover matrix algebra, but if you choose to learn it, it is a viable alternative to factoring.
It is not neccessary for everyone to agree on a subject (it is impossible to rob a person of their belief), but if disagreements reach the point where personal attacks become the norm, well, that's where wars start.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I agree that Dawrin's theory is outdated- it is somethihg I pointed out to whob above when he tried to claim that scientists were being baised by a 'belief' in 'Darwinism'.Couldn't really be further from the truth, could it? They aren't biased, it's not a belief, and much of the work now goes into saying where he was wrong.
Yes it does it would have been cool if Mendel a monk and later Abbott ( as I am sure you are aware) had been able to act more freely in his life and his work had been more accepted whilst he was alive. The constraints of Religion - Interestingly Mendel became a monk because it provided for him - although he did believe.
Mendel and Darwin were contemporaries of each other and Darwin was unaware of Mendels work. crazy huh.
Originally posted by Julie
please do get into genetic mosaics I'd love to hear about it.in gym class you're teaching how to play certain games/ sports and you don't lecture at the kids about evo or ID....but through your attitude and actions you demonstrate the wonders the human body is capable of....Yes, I know that's complicating ush's simple statement....I do understand your point ush....and you are correct, one would not outright teach "it" in a gym class:-)
basically in simplest terms mosaics are where more than one gene complex affects how protein synthesis affects expression, it can lead to all sorts of unusual results including mottled skin. Mosaics can not be explained in simple natural selection principles and go beyond the ideas of Mendels work.
Originally posted by crazylozer
If you force your beliefs upon others, and pass it off as fact is the same as discriminating against others with different beliefs. Even if you want to teach what you believe, it is not morally right to teach what should be offered as an option. Your beliefs are such that you believe it because you have a degree of faith, not because it has been taught to you as the only option. Schools may not teach intelligent design, but is certainly an option for anyone to know if they care enough to do research.Ex. The curriculum may not cover matrix algebra, but if you choose to learn it, it is a viable alternative to factoring.
It is not neccessary for everyone to agree on a subject (it is impossible to rob a person of their belief), but if disagreements reach the point where personal attacks become the norm, well, that's where wars start.
I think this is sakting around the point again- no-one is saying ID should not be taight. Only that it should not be taught in science class, because it has no scientific backing.
There are different classes where beliefs can be taught.