|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 96 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-07-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<YouRang>>>> I don't think it's fair to hold scientists accountable for anything that people might do with their discoveries. People tend to be prideful and selfish, and this results in acts of evil. Perhaps this is where religion ought to be focusing its attention. :-)> I think it's fair. Weapons are designed to kill. The scientists who design them do so with the intention of making it easier for us to kill each other. Scientists are not enlightened masters. They have their egos just like the rest of us ;) |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | kormier: <i think most scientis are well intended>, propably(i know <most of those who uses their inovations(inventions<creations>) are also well intended, like i said mostly, depending on their knowledge or degree of safety(defence protection) they themself got to deal with.,.....tks |
|
Mar-08-10
 | | OhioChessFan: The problem with weaponry design for scientists is the thought that if you don't pursue it, the other side's scientists will. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <But I don't think they have a preconceived idea that there was "no act of creation". > I do. I think most would rather parade around naked on Times Square than admit the possibility of Creation as recorded in the Bible.> But that's the point: Why *should* scientists admit the possibility of Creation as recorded in the Bible *unless* that idea were presented as a preconceived notion? For scientists to admit the Biblical view, they would need to arrive at that conclusion using *only* scientific methods -- and preferably without being biased by foreknowledge of the Biblical account (or any other religious account) of creation. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | playground player: <Ohio Chess Fan> Sir Anthony Flew, for many years the world's leading atheist, made big news a few years ago. He renounced atheism and proclaimed himself a believer in God. Not a Biblical believer--not yet--but a believer nevertheless. So there's one back-tracker for you. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | YouRang: <The Chess Express> I am certainly not arguing that scientists are incorruptable. Yes, they have egos and are capable of doing evil things. I am just saying that science as a whole, is about the pursuit of truth, and their methods work largely because it recognizes the faultiness of ego. Scientists routinely submit their work for peer review, and if a peer points out a flaw, it is received with appreciation. Are there exceptions? Sure. Is it perfect? No. But the practice of science, IMO, is at least as noble and successful as any other pursuit of humanity. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | YouRang: <playground player: <Ohio Chess Fan> Sir Anthony Flew, for many years the world's leading atheist, made big news a few years ago. He renounced atheism and proclaimed himself a believer in God. Not a Biblical believer--not yet--but a believer nevertheless. So there's one back-tracker for you.> Hello <playground player>. Actually, the notion of "back-tracking" we were discussing here was about a shift in prevailing views. My claim is that the prevailing view of religion has at times been dropped to accept the prevailing view of science. However, I don't know of any case where a prevailing view of science has been dropped in favor of a prevailing religious view. The case of Sir Antony Flew is just one individual changing his mind -- and the subject on which he changed his mind isn't even a scientific issue. Science takes no position concerning the existence of God. There are many scientists who believe in a God of some sort, and many are Christians. It is certainly a mistake to equate science with atheism. In short, I don't see this as an example of "back-tracking"; at least not in the sense that we've been discussing. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | kormier: there should be <more jobs in the care and more course on prevention of injuries> too, it would <let more specialists to perform(produce their talents) more appropriately> and <more working with the needy peoples>, this <would give efficiency in practice and also a decent earning for the caring person> and also better available healty workers.....tks |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | kormier: <YouRang>>, yourang some thruths...it seems. Science without love is = 0; Science with love is = 1 -> infinity.....tks |
|
Mar-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <For scientists to admit the Biblical view, they would need to arrive at that conclusion using *only* scientific methods -- and preferably without being biased by foreknowledge of the Biblical account (or any other religious account) of creation.> I think they reject the Biblical view and run their observations through an Anti-Bible Filter. Of course not all, but I might go so far as to say most. |
|
Mar-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <playground: Sir Anthony Flew, for many years the world's leading atheist, made big news a few years ago. He renounced atheism and proclaimed himself a believer in God. Not a Biblical believer--not yet--but a believer nevertheless. So there's one back-tracker for you. > He was more of a philosophical atheist, though he does reference some science issues in his decision to convert to whatever type of believer he is. |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | kormier: <after> all the <nations(world)> no exception <will> have <been made pure by the fire of transformation of all hearts, then the everlasting day...renewed creation....nite, nite.....tks> |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><I think they reject the Biblical view and run their observations through an Anti-Bible Filter. Of course not all, but I might go so far as to say most.> Well, <OhioChessFan>, you seem to be making this claim: ~~~
"If scientists were completely ignorant of the Biblical account of creation, then they would have objectively used scientific methods to develop theories that the universe was created during a 6 day period at some point within that last 10,000 years. But because they *are* aware of the Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false." ~~~
If that's your claim, I just find it hard to believe. :-( But allow me to put the shoe on the other foot:
You seem quite convinced that the Biblical account of creation is true. However, suppose for a moment that Genesis didn't include the account of creation, but instead it began with "Once there was a couple named Adam and Eve...", and went on from there. In that case, would you still be accusing scientists of being liars if they proposed theories like the big bang or evolution? |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | kormier: one day can be egual to one thousand years to the "Eternel", 365 years can be egual to one 365 thousand years to the "Eternel", (from, with, in) His Love are all good things .....by, thanks |
|
Mar-09-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Well, <OhioChessFan>, you seem to be making this claim: ~~~
"If scientists were completely ignorant of the Biblical account of creation, then they would have objectively used scientific methods to develop theories that the universe was created during a 6 day period at some point within that last 10,000 years. > I don't know on that one.
<But because they *are* aware of the Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false."If that's your claim, I just find it hard to believe. > That's my claim.
<But allow me to put the shoe on the other foot: You seem quite convinced that the Biblical account of creation is true. However, suppose for a moment that Genesis didn't include the account of creation, but instead it began with "Once there was a couple named Adam and Eve...", and went on from there. In that case, would you still be accusing scientists of being liars if they proposed theories like the big bang or evolution?> I can't change history like that, so I will suggest there would be far fewer evolutionist scientists. I have no problem with proposing hypotheses, but I think the subsequent filtering process is obvious. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | kormier: tks <,OCF>> your understanding of english is way better than mine...spoken like a true prince at heart.....which you are, have a good day! |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | YouRang: <I don't know on that one. > Ah, but that's the implication of your position, isn't it? Earlier you said: <I think they reject the Biblical view and run their observations through an Anti-Bible Filter>. But if scientists are deliberately "filtering out" evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation, then that implies that such evidence exists, that scientists know it exists, that they recognize it as Biblical, and that they therefore deliberately conceal or discount it even though they know it to be true. To put it another way, if they weren't filtering it (due to ignorance of the Bible), then they would freely base their theories on that evidence -- theories that support Biblical creation. I think scientists are (in the main) being perfectly honest in their observations. They are neither trying to seek the preconceived conclusion of Biblical creation, nor are they trying to avoid it. It is safe to say that scientists *disregard* the Biblical account of creation, simply because to not disregard it is unscientific and biased. But that's not the same as "filtering". The scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation just isn't there. <That's my claim. >
Well, that's a pretty severe accusation you are making then. I know a lot of Christians join you in that accusation, but I wonder if they have all taken into consideration that they stand guilty of bearing false witness if they are wrong? <I can't change history like that, so I will suggest there would be far fewer evolutionist scientists. > Well, I don't see why. I'm pretty sure there would be far fewer creationist scientists. BTW, <Ohio>, I want to add here that I appreciate your willingness to discuss controversial topics in a civil manner. I know you're a good guy, and I respect you for that despite our different points of view. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | The Chess Express: This discussion has gotten me re-interested in our human origins theories. I found this compelling short video on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=6Tw... I'd be interested to hear what those who accept the scientific explanation of our origins have to say about it. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | whatthefat: <TCE>
It's a great question, and there's no clear answer to how life began. But I will say that that guy's argument is totally specious. The theory of evolution suggests that life developed from even simpler forms than we see it in today, i.e., subcellular forms. To simply throw the raw ingredients into a test tube and expect them to evolve into a cell is about as ludicrous as dumping a collection of organs and dismembered body parts into a pool and expecting them to coalesce into a human. When it boils down to it, life it just any entity that is able to self-propagate. That could be something as simple as a molecule or collection of molecules, and molecular arrangements that are more likely to self-propagate are the ones most likely to be observed. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | The Chess Express: <whatthefat> Thanks for your response. <The theory of evolution suggests that life developed from even simpler forms than we see it in today, i.e., subcellular forms.> It's interesting that scientists have based their theories on what they cannot see nor test. Is this not in many ways what creationists have done? For example do you know of an experiment where they have produced a living cell or other life form by mixing together atoms and subatomic particles? <To simply throw the raw ingredients into a test tube and expect them to evolve into a cell is about as ludicrous as dumping a collection of organs and dismembered body parts into a pool and expecting them to coalesce into a human.> I agree that it is ludicrous, but wouldn't all the materials, subcellular or otherwise, be there? If they coalesced into a life form once before should they not do it again? |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | The Chess Express: In other words isn't it true that according to the theory of evolution if we take your swimming pool example and we give it enough time then eventually it will produce other living creatures that may one day evolve back into humans? |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | playground player: <OhioChessFan>, <You Rang>: I would like to add that I believe in the Creation account given in the Bible; but I do not insist that the moment of Creation must have occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. That's not what the Book of Genesis actually says. God was not concerned to tell us exactly when He created the universe, nor exactly how He did it. We'd never understand His equations, anyway. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | kormier: the Creator first create, then we are rejoicing of his doing;....the Word(sweet Sound)--> origin of mater.....tks |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | whatthefat: <It's interesting that scientists have based their theories on what they cannot see nor test. Is this not in many ways what creationists have done?> The theory of evolution isn't based on these ideas, rather it is a prediction of the theory. The theory is based on observations of single and multicellular organisms. Although, these days one can see the very same phenomenon at work in computer simulations, e.g., selection of the fittest algorithm to solve a problem. <If they coalesced into a life form once before should they not do it again?> Well, not necessarily. The raw materials may not actually all be there. As evolution progressed, some elements of the system may have been thrown out, or totally changed in molecular structure. This is certainly true of higher order traits, which can hang around as vestigial features for a while but eventually are filtered out, e.g., gills were useful to life in an aquatic environment, but lungs are more efficient once on land. Until an experiment demonstrates generation of life on a simple level, we really don't know. I suspect part of the problem is we're looking in the wrong places. Just because life is composed of amino acids today, doesn't mean that was its original structure - it may be necessary to pass through a simpler intermediate state before reaching such complexity. Alternatively, the generation of life may be an extremely low probability event. As I say, at present we just don't know. |
|
| Mar-09-10 | | The Chess Express: <whatthefat> I see. So basically we can't be sure about what substances existed way back when life was first created, and in fact those substances may no longer exist today. We formulated the theory of our origins based on the behavior of what we do see today and the possibility that a long time ago something existed that could have produced life from non-life. Is this correct? <Until an experiment demonstrates generation of life on a simple level, we really don't know.> I agree, and I wish that more people on both sides of the debate would take this attitude. Thanks for the information. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 96 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...