You're welcome.

Re: You're welcome.

I appreciate it! I realize it's en vogue to bash Christians these days, but maybe we can keep it off Soundforums.net?

And no, not everyone who is a creationist or even dares to doubt Evolution is a wackjob.

Thanks tons,

TJ Cornish
Christian/Alleged Wackjob
 
Re: You're welcome.

I find it interesting that a physician can sublimate the scientific process to his spiritual beliefs.

Perhaps it's an Arkansas thing; there was an article yesterday about a Arky saying that capitol punishment was suitable for childhood waywardness.
 
Re: You're welcome.

TJ Cornish said:
I appreciate it! I realize it's en vogue to bash Christians these days, but maybe we can keep it off Soundforums.net?

And no, not everyone who is a creationist or even dares to doubt Evolution is a wackjob.

Thanks tons,

TJ Cornish
Christian/Alleged Wackjob
Click to expand...

Well, it used to fashionable to throw them to the lions....

I don't have a problem with most people of faith, regardless of what that faith is. This doctor is a whack job not because of his faith, but because he believes the deceptions of man regarding his faith and resultingly does a disservice to both faith and science.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Tim McCulloch said:
I find it interesting that a physician can sublimate the scientific process to his spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...
Contrary to certain popular beliefs, the Bible is not anti-science, and you don't have to check your brain at the door to believe in God. Certain sectors of the "scientific" community are every bit as religious about their theories as religious folks are about their religion. I suppose that's human nature to want to discount an opposing viewpoint by saying "Anyone who doesn't believe XYZ is obviously an idiot" rather than having a reasonable discussion based on evidence. I'm sure there is a lifetime of reading on both sides of this debate on forums more appropriate than soundforums.net.
Tim McCulloch said:
Perhaps it's an Arkansas thing; there was an article yesterday about a Arky saying that capitol punishment was suitable for childhood waywardness.
Click to expand...
In a world of 7 billion people, it's possible to find someone who believes pretty much anything. Whether that has any relevance to the broader beliefs of those less on the fringe is another question.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Divide and conquer.

Religion can not be debated with facts, since is based on belief systems. It is not productive to argue with people about beliefs, and worse yet to kill them because of it. Ask the Coptic Christians living in Egypt how they like their new government?

If you think that politician is amusing, come visit my neighborhood (Hickory, MS). To address certain constituencies, you must talk the talk. While maybe not exactly that talk (I didn't read it beyond the headline).

Our founders in their wisdom protected our right to believe whatever we want. Of course there is something else going on with elected politicians. They are hoping to resonate with a majority of voters (or wasting their time too). Since the constitution keeps church and state separate, it seems even more pointless to campaign based on a religious belief system. While we have seen more than enough negative campaigning from both sides, trying to exclude a candidate because of religious belief.

With a couple $B to spend (both sides combined), they will leave no mud, unslung. If they can't find real mud, they will make something up. Perhaps we need to keep our earplugs in for the next month.

JR
 
Re: You're welcome.

Tim McCulloch said:
Well, it used to fashionable to throw them to the lions....
Click to expand...
That's still happening in many parts of the world.

Tim McCulloch said:
I don't have a problem with most people of faith, regardless of what that faith is. This doctor is a whack job not because of his faith, but because he believes the deceptions of man regarding his faith and resultingly does a disservice to both faith and science.
Click to expand...
And there is another point of debate - which side the "deceptions of man" fall on.
 
Re: You're welcome.

TJ Cornish said:
Contrary to certain popular beliefs, the Bible is not anti-science, and you don't have to check your brain at the door to believe in God. Certain sectors of the "scientific" community are every bit as religious about their theories as religious folks are about their religion. I suppose that's human nature to want to discount an opposing viewpoint by saying "Anyone who doesn't believe XYZ is obviously an idiot" rather than having a reasonable discussion based on evidence.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I can't just believe anything I want... at least not without looking foolish. For instance, I cannot believe that the sky is puce colored or made out of faucets. I can believe that highway speed limits are intentionally low to create revenue and that drivers are generally good at self selecting their comfort and talent level. There's two different levels of discourse there.

My fiancé has a PhD in Biology and is a researcher at Harvard Medical School. She works on yeast genetics and her thesis was on fruit fly genetics. The concept of evolution is very broad and full of interesting nuance, but to believe it doesn't exist is fruitless and does mark you as an idiot. It is fundamental to all genetic science, if it didn't exist and happen every day 75% of biological scientists would be out of a job. It is as fundamental and obvious as your fingers and toes, and directly observable to boot.

The Catholic church looks ridiculous today for their treatment of Galileo and other scientific pioneers, their actions were a disservice both to the human race and to the church. Nobody today would be willing to suggest that the universe revolves around the earth, and I'm sure it will take even less time for the same to be true about evolution.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Bennett Prescott said:
Sure, but I can't just believe anything I want... at least not without looking foolish. For instance, I cannot believe that the sky is puce colored or made out of faucets. I can believe that highway speed limits are intentionally low to create revenue and that drivers are generally good at self selecting their comfort and talent level. There's two different levels of discourse there.

My fiancé has a PhD in Biology and is a researcher at Harvard Medical School. She works on yeast genetics and her thesis was on fruit fly genetics. The concept of evolution is very broad and full of interesting nuance, but to believe it doesn't exist is fruitless and does mark you as an idiot. It is fundamental to all genetic science, if it didn't exist and happen every day 75% of biological scientists would be out of a job. It is as fundamental and obvious as your fingers and toes, and directly observable to boot.

The Catholic church looks ridiculous today for their treatment of Galileo and other scientific pioneers, their actions were a disservice both to the human race and to the church. Nobody today would be willing to suggest that the universe revolves around the earth, and I'm sure it will take even less time for the same to be true about evolution.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, smaller "evolutionary" changes or adaptations are not disputed. I am unaware of macro evolution being directly observed. It is extrapolated from micro evolution, and may even be a logical followon, but the proof of this is the crux of the issue. Smarter people than I am have done the work on both sides of this debate - I will defer the apologetics to those more qualified.

The Catholic church got in trouble by expanding on what the Bible said (or didn't say). The fact that they were disproven doesn't discredit the Bible - which never claimed a flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe), but rather that particular group's interpretation of it. There have been other individuals and groups who have made similar errors in more recent times, I'm sure. An interesting verse: Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." It took science a few years after that was written to figure out that the earth is suspended on nothing, but yet retains its place in the solar system.

In my personal life, I have found the Bible to be trustworthy, and archaeology continues to prove many details out. Science has yet to provide that piece of evidence to prove Christianity, the Bible, God, etc. false once and for all. It's possible that may happen, but I would argue the opposite is going on. If people think I'm an idiot for believing this, I can live with that. I was hoping that if people think I'm an idiot on SFN, it would be because of some sound-related issue.
 
Re: You're welcome.

On this subject several years ago, I wrote a letter to the local newspaper (which I have since stopped reading) in response to another reader's letter to the editor complaining about the teaching of evolution in local schools, and blaming that teaching for moral decay and a decline in student discipline?

i wrote a defense of teaching evolution, because as Bennet offers it is quite apparent to anyone paying a modicum of attention to the world around us. The anti-biotic resistant germs, are just a glaring example of the very real process in action. Not teaching it would be a huge disservice to students, and ultimately all of us.

After my letter published I received a phone call at my home, from a troubled soul, who was torn by the cognitive dissonance between what he was taught, and what I wrote. Since i didn't want to be involved in all his future decision making, I advised him to ignore me.

Smart philosophers have opined about the place for religion in the world. I prefer to stick to matters of fact that have some chance of physical proof, while economics, one of my pet pursuits, often ends up a little too close to a being a belief system as practiced by so many. Well controlled experiments can not easily be performed in macro-economics, so much judgement is involved in analyzing history with honest differences of opinion resulting.

Life is too short to debate everything, and I can live with neighbors who do not mirror all my understandings about the world around us. I do wish more voters did, but that's life, in a representative republic.

JR
 
Re: You're welcome.

Evolution had to start somewhere and develop in a more or less coherent pattern. What you choose to attribute to the beginning of the process is up to you........

For those who choose to ascribe the universe to an omnipotent, omnipresent and ominscient presence (or being), even evolution must fall under His/Her/Its purview.
 
Re: You're welcome.

It is human nature to defend one's personal belief system, and arguing about competing belief systems is generally a waste of time, best reserved for after we have resolved all the other more important issues.

Of course don't listen to me. I believe I'll have another beer... (later of course, not beer o'clock yet).

JR
 
Re: You're welcome.

John Roberts said:
It is human nature to defend one's personal belief system, and arguing about competing belief systems is generally a waste of time, best reserved for after we have resolved all the other more important issues.

Of course don't listen to me. I believe I'll have another beer... (later of course, not beer o'clock yet).

JR
Click to expand...

A good head on your shoulders and a good head on your beer. Can't beat that.
 
Re: You're welcome.

TJ Cornish said:
In my personal life, I have found the Bible to be trustworthy, and archaeology continues to prove many details out. Science has yet to provide that piece of evidence to prove Christianity, the Bible, God, etc. false once and for all. It's possible that may happen, but I would argue the opposite is going on. If people think I'm an idiot for believing this, I can live with that. I was hoping that if people think I'm an idiot on SFN, it would be because of some sound-related issue.
Click to expand...

TJ, I don't think it's science's job to prove whether the Bible is accurate and God exists. Certainly I have never met any scientist who espouses that belief. Science simply seeks to find out what makes the universe tick and prove it conclusively. If God makes the universe tick, science will find Him eventually.

For now, Science has found how organisms at all levels better themselves over time. These changes happen at the DNA level, which is where most work is done, but propagate to the organism wide level... I have seen it myself in a single generation of Drosophila Melanogaster (fruit flies). Suggesting there is no connection between the two scales is like replacing your car's gasoline with water and claiming the changes to that molecular structure can't be what's keeping the engine from turning over. One is fundamental to the other, DNA is what defines what and who we are, at least physically.

Worrying that this scientific discovery or that somehow overturns God is missing the point, and devalues your opinion of Him, IMHO. When this debate is old and tired, what will the Bible disprove next that has been shown by Science to be true? There is no arms race here but in the insecurity of theists, who have created it in order to somehow have the Bible be a lot like Science, which is it not and should not be.
 
Re: You're welcome.

There is a major difference between the teachings of the bible and the teachings from science.

I've never meet someone or read a book that could present a single proof supporting the teachings of the bible. Or any other holy scripture from any other religion for that matter.
I've meet several people and read several books that presented proofs supporting various scientific teachings.

To me it's the end-all argument; if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Period.

That is my view on all questionable matters that people want me to believe in, audio myths, alternative medicine, religion, science or whatever.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Bennett Prescott said:
TJ, I don't think it's science's job to prove whether the Bible is accurate and God exists. Certainly I have never met any scientist who espouses that belief. Science simply seeks to find out what makes the universe tick and prove it conclusively. If God makes the universe tick, science will find Him eventually.

For now, Science has found how organisms at all levels better themselves over time. These changes happen at the DNA level, which is where most work is done, but propagate to the organism wide level... I have seen it myself in a single generation of Drosophila Melanogaster (fruit flies). Suggesting there is no connection between the two scales is like replacing your car's gasoline with water and claiming the changes to that molecular structure can't be what's keeping the engine from turning over. One is fundamental to the other, DNA is what defines what and who we are, at least physically.

Worrying that this scientific discovery or that somehow overturns God is missing the point, and devalues your opinion of Him, IMHO. When this debate is old and tired, what will the Bible disprove next that has been shown by Science to be true? There is no arms race here but in the insecurity of theists, who have created it in order to somehow have the Bible be a lot like Science, which is it not and should not be.
Click to expand...
I return to my original point that objective science is not incompatible with a literal Biblical worldview. My main contention is the default assumption that "theists" are biased and "science" is not.

IMO a religion that must be based solely on belief and cannot be supported by any evidence is a joke, and provides neither knowledge, hope, nor truth to anyone. I don't think searching for corroboration or disproof of Biblical (or scientific, for that matter) tenets indicates weakness or insecurity, particularly when support is found for Biblical claims.

This debate is already old. The Bible has been written. Though it can always be reinterpreted (at great peril), it will be science that changes, not what the Bible says.

I'll let it rest here.
 
Re: You're welcome.

TJ, I think the biggest difference is the human involvement: you can most likely convince scientists they are wrong if conclusions are based on an experiment or observations that can be conducted by others who achieve a differing result; faith cannot be dis-proven to a believer because, for whatever reason, his/her mind is made up about the validity of that faith. It's kind of like trying to prove a negative.

Note that I don't attack beliefs or civilized belief systems. Most, at their foundation, are based in altruism, honesty, and a desire for goodness. Mucking it all up are those for whom the beliefs become all-consuming and the influence of those people on others.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Bennett Prescott said:
TJ, I don't think it's science's job to prove whether the Bible is accurate and God exists. Certainly I have never met any scientist who espouses that belief. Science simply seeks to find out what makes the universe tick and prove it conclusively. If God makes the universe tick, science will find Him eventually.


Worrying that this scientific discovery or that somehow overturns God is missing the point, and devalues your opinion of Him, IMHO. When this debate is old and tired, what will the Bible disprove next that has been shown by Science to be true? There is no arms race here but in the insecurity of theists, who have created it in order to somehow have the Bible be a lot like Science, which is it not and should not be.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Bennett.

And with Broun and fellow science committee member Todd Akin on the Science committee, this becomes an anti-science committee, which is just the way these adherents of the church of our perpetual pit viper want it.
Science is too threatening, too out of the (superstition) box, to even be considered anything but dangerous, heretical black magic. Which is an unexceptional viewpoint. But this "Earth is 9000 years old" mentality stops being merely ironically amusing, to those of us who believe in the scientific method, when the science loathing people who hold political power - which is REAL power, not just point of view - are in charge of vetting and promulgating the scientific projects to be funded in the US.
 
Top Bottom