Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

....you keeping bringing up that "London underground" mosquito too often.....and it's going to bite you and give you malaria!

Because it destroys myths of creation. What is pregnancy of DONKEY again?

 

[One Brow]

....so what business do you have believing the hogwash, then?

What hogwash is that?

 

[babe]

What hogwash is that?

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

 

[Tarkanian]

PearlWatson on a lecture-spree!
Well done!

 

[One Brow]

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

I don't think that is what carolinajazz meant by "hogwash".

Life has passed down to us through a process that is brutish, unforgiving, and willing to engage in wholesale slaughter. I don't look to the process of evolution as a guide to proper morality, and the few people who seem to do that are hideous people. Going all the way back to Darwin himself, most biologists wants humans to do better than evolution in the treatment of individuals.

I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I accept tomorrows sunrise as the inevitable result of the facts regarding the earths rotation, and evolution as the inevitable result of the facts of biology.

As for whether the knowledge of past eras was superior morally, it's just as wrong to say they had better morality as to say they had worse morality.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

 

[MVP]

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

 

[babe]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

hogwash.

you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.

I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.

Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.

I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.

In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.

OB is interesting to me because, while I do think he is thoroughly committed to a progressive agenda, he is at least willing to "walk the line" as to what is or is not "science". Perhaps some others don't want to give him that credit, but I look for it, and am willing to credit him to that extent.

Pearl, to her credit, is getting more educated about the science and has been able to raise some valid points in the discussion, as well.

For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.

Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.

The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.

 

[babe]

I don't think that is what carolinajazz meant by "hogwash".

Life has passed down to us through a process that is brutish, unforgiving, and willing to engage in wholesale slaughter. I don't look to the process of evolution as a guide to proper morality, and the few people who seem to do that are hideous people. Going all the way back to Darwin himself, most biologists wants humans to do better than evolution in the treatment of individuals.

I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I accept tomorrows sunrise as the inevitable result of the facts regarding the earths rotation, and evolution as the inevitable result of the facts of biology.

As for whether the knowledge of past eras was superior morally, it's just as wrong to say they had better morality as to say they had worse morality.

well, I do think that's his general view, but I will concede the point that he is a biblical literalist. . . . if that's the right term. . . .that he considers the biblical account sacred and maybe even "infallible", and that his arguments run to the point that somehow it can still be defended technically as precise truth which a "true" science could or would validate. I differ from him as I don't think it's prudent to hold God responsible for human ideals to that extent.

I think of Science as a discipline or process for evaluating the world within our "reach" so to speak, considering our various tools as extensions of our "reach". I entertain notions about some limits on its usefulness or meaning, particularly when it is used to invoke sweeping conclusions about the past, the future, or things well outside our experience and knowledge. Extrapolations as well as interpolations sometimes fail, but it is often tempting for us to push the limits and sometimes, especially if it satisfies our demands for "validation" of some sort. That is where it can be called hogwash.

 

[carolinajazz]

What hogwash is that?

...well, that birds came from reptiles! The closest living relatives to modern birds, say evolutionists, are the crocodiles! There could be no more shocking statement of hogwash than to say the closest living relatives to men are houseflies, or that the butterfly evolved from a rhinoceros!

Hogwash | Define Hogwash at Dictionary.com

"meaningless nonsense; bunk. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech!"

 

[LogGrad98]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

Um....your post isn't about science or creationism either.

Aaahhh...neither is mine!

Gah!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

hogwash.

you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.

Fact to dispel myth. Seems pretty straightforward. When the arguments for one side is philosophical nonsense, then in a scientific argument, I would imagine the side that's ACTUALLY about science would find the other side pretty ridiculous. But go ahead, keep your rhetoric up. Let's talk about the center of the earth doing a massive invisible group hug as an argument for gravity, too.

I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.

Personal values aren't relegated to solely religious communities, so irrelevant. Are you also saying progressive people equal unhinged people? The implication is that "science" people have unequivocal, and, likely, lesser morals, which would be one of the stupidest things said on a board with Archie and Beantown, which would be saying something.

Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.

Given your previous paragraph, it's warranted. How people act is irrelevant to the debate of something scientific and something unscientific being taught in science class.

I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.

That's why there's peer review, and updating, and replacing. When an interpretation is deemed to be incorrect (as a lot of Darwin's have been in this particular argument), it is replaced. As a mode of comparison, how long did it take the scientific community to toss the Ptolemaic model? How long did it take organized religion?

In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.

How did the "traditional values" get to be in the first place? Easy answer, by replacing what were considered traditional values. Social value of "black man is a lesser individual than white man based on irrational belief" was replaced. Replacing "value system based on irrationality" seems pretty likely to me. The funny thing is that the moral fiber of many religious societies is based on an environment that no longer exists. I mean, look at the ninth/tenth commandment. Flies RIGHT in the face of capitalism and consumerism. Commandment was made when YOUR very survival relied on the success of those around you. Now, not so much.

For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.

Religion is absolutely 100% NOT required for one's moral fabric nor does it hold exclusivity on ANY of its parts of its moral code and still has no part in a science class. Science is about learning, not feeling, and the most philosophical waxing in the world will never change that.

Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.

The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.

And this philosophical irrelevancy and spinning in place is why I think you're trolling all the time.