Re: Tiny Dot

On May 8, 10:34 pm, Primary Al <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 8, 9:32 pm, jdbartlett <cont...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 8, 7:52 pm, Primary Al <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 8:20 pm, jdbartlett <cont...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 2:57 pm, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Christians don't get it.

Evolution? It's unfair to make that sort of generalization. Some of
them do seem to get it (Ken Miller, Francis Collins), some of them
don't (Ken Ham, Eric Hovind).

Science says;"If A then B, If B then C,
therefore If A then C."

Science is an activity--it doesn't say things.

I believe you are trying to suggest that some scientists commit what
could be a certain type of logical fallacy. Perhaps Affirming the
Consequent?

I get it: If an ant has an exoskeleton and a 747 has an exoskeleton
then all people who choose to honor Jesus' teachings, live in a third
world consciousness.

Coincidence of language aside, ants and airplanes have very little in
common, and neither is featured prominently in the New Testament.

I have met no scientist and read no textbook or popular science
publication that has has ever suggested anything even remotely similar
to the frankly lunatic beliefs you claim to "get."

If those who believe in the notion of pure zero
bias- randomness

"Randomness" is covered by CB940:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html

(snip word salad)

Whooa Nelly! The comment about Christians not getting basic algebra -
if a=b and b=c

What you said was, ""If A then B, If B then C..." This does not mean
the same thing as "If A=B and B=C...", hence my confusion. Thanks for
the clarification. I believe what you intended in your original post
was:

"If A=B and B=C then A=C."

was intended to be a shot at the black and white
rational of those who cruse this site and summarily dump anyone
expressing beliefs other than nihilism

Would any nihilists in the room please raise their hands.

into a Ken (It's Ken not Eric)
Hovind dumper.

You're thinking of Kent Hovind. Eric Hovind is his son.

(snip ad homs)
The argument is NOT against honest scientists. Duh.
It is against the shallow hope of every rude angry atheist who hangs
his hat on the term random and mutation and meaninglessness and
purposelessness which define his life philosophy.

Noble as you may think it to construct an argument against "hope,"
however shallow, it is completely unnecessary in this case: straw men
have no hope, and no hat to hang. I disagree with you about your
argument being "against... meaninglessness," though; its
meaninglessness is quite substantial.

Why, ... do we see legal forces in public education proclaiming
that intelligent design has no place for consideration in the science
classroom?

The science classroom is for the discussion of science, which is the
study of the natural world. "Intelligent Design" is another term for
creationism, which is the position that life as we know it is the
handiwork of a supernatural intelligent designer. "Supernatural" means
that something is beyond scientific understanding, and therefore
outside the reach of scientific study. Because science has not
discovered and cannot study supernatural phenomenon, Intelligent
Design does not belong in the science classroom.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but rather its
diversity. Evolution is not incompatible with the concept of a
creator, so long as one does not presuppose anything about the
diversity of life at the time of its creation. Some scientists study
how life could have arisen through natural means, without the direct
intervention of a creator, from inanimate matter. We call this study
"abiogenesis" to distinguish it from evolution. Abiogenesis is not
incompatible with the concept of a creator, so long as one does not
presuppose that life was created directly (rather being than being
allowed to arise naturally in a universe that was created with
conditions suited for it.) Scientific explanations for the origin of
the universe are not incompatible with the concept of a creator, so
long as one does not presuppose that the universe was created without
having expanded from an extremely dense and hot state. The study of
the initial conditions of the universe is covered by cosmology.

The term for the study of a creator and therefore creationism is
"theology". Theologians have not yet united behind a single unified
creation theory, though many creation models have been proposed. One
popular model in creation theory is the "Judeo-Christian" model of
creationism, which is a monotheistic (which means one creator entity)
model in which the creator not only created life, but also created it
for a specific purpose: the glorification of said creator entity.

It seems to me that you are very concerned that scientific
explanations for the origin and diversity of life lend credibility to
atheism--a disbelief in any of the supernatural creators proposed by
theologians. This is a concern to you because you believe life has no
meaning or purpose for atheists, and such purposelessness would be
unhealthy. However, for atheists, purpose arrived in this universe
with life. Very early on, life was infused with its own simple
purpose: its propagation. Life has diversified a great deal since
then, and a great many more purposes have arrived. The ecosystem is
wonderfully diverse with purpose; the world is thick with it. As
humans, we began to develop ideals and other sentiments that add even
more complexity and emotional intensity and purpose to our experience
of life. We all feel this purpose and meaning in our lives whether or
not we believe in a creator. It is what causes us to protect what we
hold dear, including our ideals. I don't know why you think atheists
feel less purpose to their lives than anyone else.

I'm baffled by your claim that the terms "adaptation" and "selection"
have been "taken out of mainstream classroom studies". Adaptation is
one of the basic phenomena of Biology, and Natural Selection is the
key mechanism of evolution. It is not possible to teach Biology
properly in the English language without using those terms. If you
have been taught science as part of a public secondary education, you
have heard those terms used many times in the classroom.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tiny Dot
    ... purposelessness which define his life philosophy. ... Creationism, creationism, creationism, who the f is talking about god ... intervention of a creator, from inanimate matter. ... for a specific purpose: the glorification of said creator entity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Purpose of Life
    ... The Purpose of Life ... Allah mentions to us in the Holy Quran, ... in the creation of the heavens and the earth ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Christs and the Madhis
    ... my extant life so far. ... whole of manifestation, ie God or YHWH. ... it's continued manifestations in the manner chosen by the Creator, ... and it's place in creation. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Try to repair it!!!
    ... What Is The Purpose Of Life? ... This feeling of doubt and confusion about the presence of a Creator ... What if you find a Watch in the Sand? ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • "What is the purpose of life?"
    ... to be able to find people to take a moment to think about life ... real purpose of our lives. ... Allah mentions to us in the Holy Quran, ... in the creation of the heavens and the earth ...
    (sci.math)
Loading