Evidence for God from Science

Your condescending quote above is absolutely true. I will let them know immediately. I guess I assumed that abiogenesis was an extension of the theory of evolution, considering most evolution books I've read and most of the 'introduction to evolution' classes begin with the experiments of Stanley Miller as a starting point for the origin of life and species, and then a microevolution of that basic life to a more complex scale as shown in the geologic records (planted by Satan according to vvart), followed by an extremely gradual change to macroscopic lifeforms (as seen in Satan's geologic record), which then led into the evolution of species (which can be seen in the geologic record and was speculated by Darwin based on his observances of absolute truths)--and that final step, which was guided by the same forces as the preceding steps (not Satan...that was a joke)--is the version of evolution I believe you are referring to.

" "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 "

Your assumption was wrong.

Skoobie,

Let me run a scenario past you:
<blockquote>Your white workmate is helping an African-American workmate to unravel a problem in the computer database. You overhear the white worker in his frustration call the African American a dumb n*****. She looks up with hurt on her face. You denounce the white worker for being prejudiced and for hurting her feelings. </blockquote>Given you actually did witness this event take place. Would you feel comfortable denouncing, or making any sort of judgement in such a case?

Kurieuo.

I was referring to Christian extremists. In that quote, it says "extremists." The definition of 'extreme' is, in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997): "Very severe or radical." Also, "going to great lengths or beyond normal limits." I suppose that when I put the two words together, I assumed it wouldn't be equated to Christians in general, but to Christian extremists. For example, I consider myself pretty liberal, but I am just as disgusted by liberal extremists as I am by right-wing extremists or Christian extremists or Muslim extremists...my point was not to bash Christians, but to express my frustration with any kind of extremism. I was equating extremism--in its general sense--to the 9-11 attacks, not Christianity, and it was supposed to be in response to this quote from vvart:

OK.

Can you define extremists from your point of view here? How do you know the defintion in the dictionary is absolutely true? One person's extremist is another man's hero, relatively speaking. For example, Hitler was not regarded as an extremist by the majority of the German people. So in this case you seem to hold that there is some truth, and relativism does not count?

Do you care to give a few examples of Christian extremists?

Kurieuo wrote:Contradictions abound, and the world essentially becomes something within which there is no external reality, but the world becomes one of philosophical idealism. Statements loose all meaning.

We're agreeing more and more lately Kurieuo. (It might be time to revive an OSAS debate )

Anyways, just wanted to say that I feel the same way. If we can't say that they is an absolute right and wrong, then our actions, beliefs, and even our entire existance looses all meaning. I could never live that like.

skoobie,

a cool article on big bang, atheists, and scientists. there are more. i'll keep looking if you like. i don't know if you're still on this topic or not?

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BigBang.shtml

Felgar wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Contradictions abound, and the world essentially becomes something within which there is no external reality, but the world becomes one of philosophical idealism. Statements loose all meaning.

We're agreeing more and more lately Kurieuo. (It might be time to revive an OSAS debate )

I actually went to reply straight away to Jac, to defend what appears to have become my position, and then respond against his own view... but then after finishing realised a main part of my response was based on a faulty understanding of Jac's view. So I scratched it, and thought I'd just post after I get the chance to examine collectively what Jac has written.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo:

Given you actually did witness this event take place. Would you feel comfortable denouncing, or making any sort of judgement in such a case?

I would have to make a judgment as well as denouncing. As a supervisor, it is my duty to ensure all people are treated respectfully--especially when it comes to race, religon, or anything that is commonly bashed by the ignorant.

" "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 "
Your assumption was wrong.

Okay. Whatever you wish. I must commend you for using an actual science text as opposed to un-cleverly disguised pseudoscience. HOWEVER, my point was that the theory of evolution (not a dictionary definition) contains all of the stuff I said it contains...I was not making stuff up. If you choose to look into it or to investigate it, feel free. If not, I think it's going to be a childish argument to continue discussing what evolution means and what it entails.
Back to K:

Actually you saying "I believe" means you have an absolute belief about something, doesn't it? It is either true or false that you believe.

I guess I'm not really understanding absolute versus relativistic. I think what it means is, and correct me if I am wrong because I'm seriously unclear, this:
Absolute: something is true for all people regardless of whether or not it is believed. (If this is your definition, then yes, I do believe in absolutes, but only in a purely physical sense. I do not think there are any philosophical or religious absolutes, but that is my relativist view.)
Relativistic: Something that is seen as truth to one person might not be seen as truth to another person. (Is this the definition you are using, or is it my own personal relativistic assumption?)

It is impossible for someone to carry out any form of rational enquiry whatsoever if they truely believe everything is relative, because anything that is stated as truth, is also false. The person who gets hit by a car, does for some, and doesn't for others. Contradictions abound, and the world essentially becomes something within which there is no external reality, but the world becomes one of philosophical idealism

That's why I strictly believe absolute truth in the physical sense of it. I'm still confused about all of it, but it's a fun exercise in thinking.

Actually you saying "I believe" means you have an absolute belief about something, doesn't it? It is either true or false that you believe.

I would think anything I think is relative to me. Assume I believe fat cows are not to be slaughtered for their meat, but only skinny cows. For me, I believe it and while it may seem absolutely true to me, I should also consider the ways of other people and realize that they may not feel that way, so I should not tell them that they are wrong in their belief that any cow can be slaughtered for its meat...it seems relative to me. In my head, I may feel completely correct, but I need to recognize there are other people who have different views...perhaps the realization of relativite as opposed to absolute led to the invention of empathy.

Vvart--

...implying that i have the mind of a child won't make me laugh.

I tried to imply that I have the mind of a child. I take great pride in that, though. I am ignorant of many things, and I am also fascinated by many things. I think, in my relativistic viewpoint , that there is nothing greater than having the mind of a child. Case and point--whenever I hang out with my friends, I spend more time talking with their children and listening to their fascinating imaginations as opposed to the gossip of the adults...life is more fun to me with the mind of a child.

August

Can you define extremists from your point of view here? How do you know the defintion in the dictionary is absolutely true? One person's extremist is another man's hero, relatively speaking. For example, Hitler was not regarded as an extremist by the majority of the German people. So in this case you seem to hold that there is some truth, and relativism does not count?

Wow! You got me on that one! I suppose I'd have to figure out what you and K's definitions of absolute and relative are because I'm getting confused.
MY ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF EXTREMISM: I don't believe there is one because I know my beliefs are a personal philosophy and don't apply to everyone else, therefore I will use my Relative definition.
MY RELATIVE DEFINITION OF EXTREMISM: Anyone of any type of religion or dogma who intentionally allows the use of violence, hatred, or deception to change the political, philosophical, or religious values or beliefs of a different culture. (I do realize that few of those words hold any absolute true definition to them. Perhaps it is a problem with language in general as opposed to a problem with the people using them. Whew! I feel better now.)
Cool:

a cool article on big bang, atheists, and scientists. there are more. i'll keep looking if you like. i don't know if you're still on this topic or not?

I read the article, but it was coming from a blatantly anti-scientific viewpoint...therefore, I took the arguments coming out of it to be purposefully skewed, such as anything that says atheists created the Big Bang theory in an attempt to disprove God...that's hogwash. Try this site, if you'd like to learn about the theory as opposed to hearing propaganda: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/un ... _bang.html It's a very short article and doesn't get so far into the science that it becomes entirely boring, but nowhere in there does it say that the theory was created to disprove God, or anything like that.

oh well, there are more. i will find you some better ones.

but not really propaganda. besides, you didn't want to know about the theory (and neither did i). you asked for articles that mentioned scientist/atheists turning away from big bang because it supports creationism.

p.s. the article doesn't say that the big bang was created to bash creationism. it says that the theory was offered as a refutation (after it was created); this is different from created as a refutation.

colors,

Just read the first line of the page you linked to: "The Big Bang theory, in its modern embodiment as popularly taught in the schools, is offered as a refutation of Divine Creation." I'd have to say such a statement striked me as beyond silly.

Something that I'd encourage you to read is an article called A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing. Let me know what you think.

Kurieuo.

PS. Just saw your previous words: "there are many scientists turning away from the big bang because it supports creationism." So I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue for&#151;the big bangs existence or not?

here's another one: http://www.eylerz.net/works/creation_bb.html

skoobieschnax wrote:Kurieuo:

Given you actually did witness this event take place. Would you feel comfortable denouncing, or making any sort of judgement in such a case?

I would have to make a judgment as well as denouncing. As a supervisor, it is my duty to ensure all people are treated respectfully--especially when it comes to race, religon, or anything that is commonly bashed by the ignorant.

Does that mean if you were only a co-worker equal in position, that you would have kept quiet? I think I'd say something regardless, that such was wrong and uncalled for, and I'd perhaps try to weed out later where the remark may have come from...

Kurieuo.

Skoobie, if we are going to have a scientifc discussion, we need to know what defines what we are talking about. Setting the boundaries and a common framework is not 'a childish' argument, or 'whatever you wish', it's the only way we can sensibly discuss things.

You also assume a whole lot about me, like I have never investigated this 'stuff'. Why don't you quote your source of the definition of the theory evolution, instead of throwing out thinly-disguised insults?

I notice you did not yet answer my question about naming some extremist Christians.

K,

Really? What was so horribly silly about it?

I'm not really arguing for or against the Big Bang (although I find it credible). I was merely reacting to skoobie's comment on Creationism ignoring evidence for the Big Bang, when really, it seems the Big Bang supports Creationism.

skoobie--

Also, the word knowledge is left open to interpretation...Creationism (skewed to appear perfect and unchallengeable while ignoring scientific evidence of the Big Bang...)

k,

just read the article you suggested i read on the big bang: a sheep in wolf's clothing. it was fine.

i guess i'm still confused on why you thought the article i posted a link to was so silly? maybe you misunderstood it?

colors wrote:i guess i'm still confused on why you thought the article i posted a link to was so silly? maybe you misunderstood it?

Well, that statement was in relation to the first sentence at http://www.jefflindsay.com/BigBang.shtml, which plainly goes against your belief that the big bang is evidence for creation. It also seems set the tone for the rest of the writing. In one instant the author is describing the "big bang" as refuting divine origins, in another he's saying the "big bang" leaves Atheists in a sticky position as it points to divine origins, then again he begins acting as though the big bang is something tragic to divine origins, and even calls the theory dead without any real reason. The author seems really mixed up and all over the place in my opinion.

Kurieuo.