Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Semmelweis reflex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In order to make your argument, then, you must somehow show evolution came prior to religious theory on creationism.
    Evolution is the generally accepted belief today and children who attend public schools are taught that it is true. What people believed in the past is irrelevant.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Semmelweis reflex

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Evolution is the generally accepted belief today and children who attend public schools are taught that it is true. What people believed in the past is irrelevant.
    No. That is not true. Your premise is that evolution was the pre-existing paradigm. In fact creationism was the pre-existing paradigm which has very recently been replaced by evolution. Your analogy is on its head. You cannot simply draw imaginary lines to invent an argument. Evolution is the generally accepted belief today but had to overcome the traditional Christian creationist viewpoint. That is a huge distinction that your argument fails to recognize. Your premise is simply untrue.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Semmelweis reflex

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'm not disputing that heat and pressure over millions of years can bend and fold sandstone. I'm stating the answersingenesis claim that it would turn to quartzite, for which I've never seen a compelling refutation. The fact that folded and unfractured sandstone layers exist, without having turned to quartzite during the process, seems odd to me.
    As I pointed out, not all sandstone becomes Quartzite. For starters there are many types of sandstone and only some can become quartzite. Secondly the pressure and temperature required for the transformation is significantly higher than what is required simply to deform the sandstone which is in turn higher than the pressure required to simply make the sandstone. It is much like water requires X condition to become liquid and Y condition to become steam. both involve heating and/or depressurizing the substance but there are different effects at different gradients of pressure and temperature.

    For AIG to say that if you can bend it it must be quartzite is like saying if you can melt an ice cube it must become steam. It doesn't work like that.

    So any scientific theory about origins of the universe or age of the earth, etc, should be understood to have a qualifier in front of it: "Absent a Creator, ...". The point of the op, I think, is that science and scientists refuse to do that, with unfortunate consequences. Current generations are brainwashed by public schools and the popular media into believing that they should only believe what science tells them, and not even consider the possibility of a Creator.
    Science generally speaking doesn't presume there is or is not a creator. It doesn't speak to that nor is it supposed to. Where education has let you down is not making it clear to you that science is agnostic about religion. It does not seek to make any religious claims and scientists have no business mentioning the pretense or absence of a creator in any actual science paper or lesson.

    It is those arguing for or against theism or a particular religion that try to use science for something it is not intended for. It's not just Christians, atheists do it too, but ultimately god or no god has nothing to do with science because the supernatural is beyond the reach of science to examine one way or another.

    No scientist invented evolution to try and disprove god. They invented it to explain what they were seeing in the natural world. It was after that the implications of this theory were used by those considering religion to support or reject it. That is not science, its philosophy/theology. Same goes for the age of the earth. Sceintists are not out to disprove god, just explain what they observe as best they can.

    Its religious people that insist that science must be wrong because it doesn't line up with their expectations and dogma. But again, the bible actually says nothing definitive about the age of the earth. No one was present during god's creation to give us some detailed first hand account. It is legend and tradition. That doesn't mean there is no god but it does mean that trying to take it as some literal description is a bit madness.

    A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Evidence exists, yes. But science and evidence can and have been wrong before. Many times. And because science and scientists won't consider the possibility that God created the earth essentially as it is now, with an appearance of being much older, you and others ridicule the idea, without any logic to back the ridicule.
    They will consider it. They do consider it. Many scientists are Christians and believe in god and that he is the creator of the universe. What they don't do is limit their examination of the world by the literal text of the bible. They honestly look at creation and try through experimentation and observation to understand it. Sceince has been wrong, its still going to be wrong, but there are degrees. The law of gravity is not the same as the theory of evolution which is not the same as string theory, or the same as the mechanics of gravity. The first is found to be entirely consistent, the second has massive evidence but is not directly fully testable, the next is theoretical but supported by mathematical models and the last is entirely a mystery at which people mostly guess.

    Science cannot say whether there is or is not a god, they can only observe the world and make their best conclusions. Based on a great deal of evidence the feel that the world is about 4.5 billion years old. Some Christians who believe on faith that the words of the bible are both literal and specific object to these conclusions and they distort science and write misleading articles to try and sound like they have any support beyond simply the words of an ancient religious text as their support.

    Again, science may make mistakes, but it also landed men on the moon and feeds billions and enables us to communicate instantly across the planet. Religion argues, makes people feel good, builds neat buildings, raises money for charity sometimes, sometimes motivates people to kill each other, but generally hasn't achieved anything resembling a human advance in most of recorded history. I know which way of examining the world I have more trust in.

    I think it is more than a little practical to acknowledge that there is, or at least may be, a Creator or generic God. It allows one to consider questions about the meaning or purpose of our lives as created beings, which can't be seriously considered if one doesn't acknowledge the possibility of a Creator.
    And what in life have you achieved that I have not?

    I'm happy, healthy, married for 13 years, have many good friends, a steady well paying occupation, inner peace, and general contentment. I can consider the meaning of my life quite clearly with no fear or confusion. What has your belief given you that my lack has not?

    What advances has reading of scripture made in the practice of the natural world? None that I am aware of. All the advances of religion are in the area of social cohesion and personal motivation, aka purely psychological.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Semmelweis reflex

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    As I pointed out, not all sandstone becomes Quartzite. For starters there are many types of sandstone and only some can become quartzite. Secondly the pressure and temperature required for the transformation is significantly higher than what is required simply to deform the sandstone which is in turn higher than the pressure required to simply make the sandstone. It is much like water requires X condition to become liquid and Y condition to become steam. both involve heating and/or depressurizing the substance but there are different effects at different gradients of pressure and temperature.
    Can you give me some links to supporting information?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Science generally speaking doesn't presume there is or is not a creator. It doesn't speak to that nor is it supposed to. Where education has let you down is not making it clear to you that science is agnostic about religion. It does not seek to make any religious claims and scientists have no business mentioning the pretense or absence of a creator in any actual science paper or lesson.

    It is those arguing for or against theism or a particular religion that try to use science for something it is not intended for. It's not just Christians, atheists do it too, but ultimately god or no god has nothing to do with science because the supernatural is beyond the reach of science to examine one way or another.
    I don't think I gave an opinion to the contrary. What I said, or meant to say, was that some atheists then claim the science as proof God doesn't exist, and the schools are prohibited from teaching that the scientific theories about creation may be wrong and that god may have been responsible for creation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But again, the bible actually says nothing definitive about the age of the earth. No one was present during god's creation to give us some detailed first hand account. It is legend and tradition. That doesn't mean there is no god but it does mean that trying to take it as some literal description is a bit madness.
    The Bible does appear to state that man was created about 6k year ago, using the genealogies presented. That's more specific than what science suggests. And if one believes that Biblical writings are inspired by God, then it is more than tradition and far from madness. That you don't believe it, or that science doesn't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm happy, healthy, married for 13 years, have many good friends, a steady well paying occupation, inner peace, and general contentment.
    That's great. I'm sincerely happy for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I can consider the meaning of my life quite clearly with no fear or confusion.
    Please share your thoughts. I'd like to hear more on what atheists think is the meaning or purpose of their lives. I assume the meaning or purpose comes from within you, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the origin of life's purpose, especially if my assumption is wrong.

    I'd also like to hear your thoughts on where human rights originate. If not from a Creator, don't they just come from a consensus of opinion among those with power to write and enforce laws? And doesn't that mean they are really privileges rather than rights?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •