| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Intelligent Designer Identified! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2006, 10:34 AM (712 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Jul 4 2006, 10:14 AM Post #31 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"So? People are introduced to Darwin all the time - one is known to be dead, the other's death is arguable." ???? "...you know my general viewpoint on the strict materialism of popular, modern science...." Remove materialism from science and you have the aupernaturalism and spiritualism of religion--but we already have that, don't we. "Popular" and "modern" are odd adjectives for science. Can you explain what you mean? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jul 4 2006, 10:29 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
I actually mispoke here. By "other's death," I was refereing to Jesus. His death is not what is arguable, but that he remained that way. Yes, the "popular" & "modern" concepulazation of science. Give me the good old days when we did it all with stone knives & bearskins! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jul 4 2006, 10:39 AM Post #33 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
But "stone knives & bearskins" wasn't science, that's what science studies and explains. Nor is Darwin evolution, not a good analogy. Question remains, if religion already exists, why the need to convert science into religion? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jul 4 2006, 10:42 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
And that is the question from your perspective. From my perspective it is, "why is science so narrowly concerned with the material - to the exclusion of all else?" |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jul 4 2006, 10:55 AM Post #35 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
It's not a question from "my" perspective. Science is what it is, and religion what it is, regardless of me, or you. Those are facts, not opinions. "why is science so narrowly concerned with the material - to the exclusion of all else?" Because that is what it is concerned with by definition. The question is absurd. Why is chemistry not Bible study? Why is a horse not a cow? Why is religion so religious? Why do creationists want to turn the world upsidedown? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jul 4 2006, 02:58 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
You believe your viewpoint is more valid based upon the weight of scientific understanding (from my viewpoint it's argumentum ad verecundiam ). Fine. We have clarity at least in that. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jul 4 2006, 03:11 PM Post #37 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"You believe your viewpoint is more valid based upon the weight of scientific understanding..." Nope, not arguing that. Just arguing science is what it is, religion what it is--and that ID is, by definition, religion and not science--unless you've seen something no one else has, ID stated as a scientific, falsifiable hypothesis, that either explains or predicts something in a testable way, or both. Arguing which "viewpoint" (IDers use "worldview") is more valid and valuable is a whole other topic altogether. Trying to conflate these two different arguments is part of the Wedge Movedment. But I'm not buying it. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jul 4 2006, 04:11 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jul 5 2006, 05:10 AM Post #39 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Creationists also try to conflate the two meanings of materialism. Even a simple dictionary like dictionary.com distinguishes: The one that science takes from philosophy is defined as "The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena" The one I think Creationists would have us confused with is, "a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters". Isn't such trickery unbecoming those who call Christ their leader? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Jul 5 2006, 05:34 AM Post #40 |
|
Member
|
Seems that the world can put this whole argument to rest when science can show just where "matter" came from. We know matter when we see it. It's there. We measure various stages of it via the laws of physics and theory; but science still can't prove where matter came from in the beginning. Neither can the creationists. The rest seems to be opinion, one carrying no more matter that the other. |
| Banan | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jul 5 2006, 06:46 AM Post #41 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Thing is, banan, science does not prove anything, but it does have hypotheses and theories that explain and predict matter, the most familiar being Big Bang. You're right, neither can creationists or anyone else prove the cosmological argument without a leap of faith, the biggest one concerning beginnings in the first place. Yes, I agree, for the rest, the philosophical rest, opinion. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jul 5 2006, 07:13 AM Post #42 |
![]()
Member
|
Yes and no about the stone knives and bear skins. They can be both science and technology. Science starts with observation; if there's nothing to observe, it's pretty hard for science to attempt an explanation. The first tools man used were those that came immediately to hand. It took millenia before observation showed a chipped piece of flint made a more efficient tool and more millenia before man learned how to knap flint into useful form. Evolution was "in the air" when Darwin wrote his "Origin." It didn't spring from his observations as something completely new. Early work on the age of the earth by Buffon. William Smith and others provided the time in which Darwin's evolution could act. Early work on comparative anatomy showed the deep relationship between different species. Darwin is not evolution, but the first formulation of how evolution could work. Other formulations have shown up (Gould and Eldredge with Punctuated Equilibium being just one example), but Darwin's idea on reproductive success still hold. It's interesting that no scientific discoveries made since he published in 1859 have shown evolution wrong and they show that evoution is the thread that holds all biological research together. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jul 5 2006, 07:19 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Member
|
That's the silliest thing I've read in a long time! Why isn't religion concerned with orbital dynamics and hgh energy astrophysics? Why is it so narrowly concerned with the immaterial and not making advances in physics and population genetics? Even better, why isn't religion actively involved with proving itself wrong? Science is - in the attempted disproving of every theory - every day of the week. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jul 5 2006, 07:24 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Member
|
Again (and again and again...) science doesn't prove anything. It offers theories that explain why we see what we see within a constant, logical framework. Proof is for the theologians and mathematicians. No, we can't explain, within the confines of a well developed and tested theory, where matter came from. But, if you'd care to learn what some scientists think MIGHT be an answer, put QUANTUM COSMOLOGY into Google and you'll find a lot of information. Does this mean the world can put the whole religious argument to rest because religion can't show just where god came from? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jul 5 2006, 08:53 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Boy, I didn't realize that we had such sinister motives! Thanks for pointing that out - I must now go and repent. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










1:27 PM Jul 11