Not Just A Theory

[BeerBastard]

http://books.google.com/books?id=yd61229NHUgC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=flagellum+and+protons&source=bl&ots=zBPDEuM9ln&sig=qL4r_pbbTsExQZKJbXUb_vie9k4&hl=en&ei=O6u6SujXMonssQOMqcyPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=flagellum%20and%20protons&f=false

This is the most common idea, and what I learned in Micro biology.(it was stressed we think and are testing this more) Although I am not sure where this is on the hypothesis -> proven theory scale. I don't personally know the evidence and experiments done to test this idea.

[your face]

how did a woodpecker evolve

[mooseberry]

how did a woodpecker evolve

Well maybe if you spent more time actually learning about the subject and not just trying to come up with arguments you might learn something.

My guess is you won't bother to actually read all the evidence there, but trust me, it makes more sense. And until I see creationists actually coming up with real evidince themselves instead of thinking of ways evolution doesn't make sense, I believe in evolution, not intelligent design. (It just makes sense.)

[BeerBastard]

But NO!

If I can't understand it, it must be supernatural! It looks intelligently designed and I am the smart enough to decide what is too complex to be natural.


/end sarcasm

Seriously, I felt I had to do the /end sarcasm or creationists would think im on their side.

We are evolved animals, therefore we can't decide what "too intelligent to be natural is" sense we ourselves are natural.

If you think science is a conspiracy and doesn't have every ones best interest at heart, let me remind you where you go when you are sick.

[KamikOzzy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxo38DIR74k
 

[Silver]

But NO!

If I can't understand it, it must be supernatural! It looks intelligently designed and I am the smart enough to decide what is too complex to be natural.


/end sarcasm

Seriously, I felt I had to do the /end sarcasm or creationists would think im on their side.

We are evolved animals, therefore we can't decide what "too intelligent to be natural is" sensesince we ourselves are natural.

If you think science is a conspiracy and doesn't have every ones best interest at heart, let me remind you where you go when you are sick.

See, you can't even use the proper words in your sentence.  So therefore god must be true and you are wrong. 

[beerbitch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxo38DIR74k
 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=marjoe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I'm still waiting to see amputees get their limbs healed by a preacher.

[your face]

[beerbitch]

..PIC..

Classic !

[Rocinante]

Or along similar lines...


Only bit of "on topic" I can add is Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments on ID: "Who would put a sewage treatment plant next to a playground?  That doesn't seem very intelligent..."

[KamikOzzy]

"Who would put a sewage treatment plant next to a playground?  That doesn't seem very intelligent..."

bahahahaha

[Baconizer]

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive.

I am Catholic.

I believe God used Intelligent Design to create the organisms we see around us. How did he do this? I don't know.

But why couldn't he have used evolution?

[A Spork]

Sorta-kinda-ish On Topic: (I Know y'all are gonna be all "EVOLUTION != BIG BANG THEORY!!1!!!', but lets be honest, if you believe in Creation, you aren't likely to Say god Created the Earth, but then everything Evolved.) To All those saying "EVOLUTION MAKES MORE SENSE!!!!", And Since I'm putting Evolution and Big Bang theory in the same boat, I have this to say:

Does that really make any sense to you?

[KamikOzzy]

To be honest, spork, no not really, but I'm much more comfortable saying "idk wtf happened" than I am saying "Musta been God."

[mooseberry]

Big bang stuff.

Now, I'm not going to bother responding to this silly post as much as I could, but I will say these things:

First off, the big bang was not nothing, if you actually bothered to learn something about the idea of the big bang (instead of just trying to play up the confusing aspect of it, ((yes it is confusing)) you might see how it worked.) To you I present Wikipedia's article on the big bang which while not commonly accepted as a certifiable resource, can certainly give you a general understanding of the topic.

You may also want to note the url of the great picture you posted, most noteably: demotivational and  funny.jpg.

The thing that disapoints me about ID design arguments is I have yet to really see much in the way of anyone presenting decent proof of how this could be. Most everyone seems to try to make arguments (usually unfounded and ignorant) on aspects of evolution that they do not understand, that is if they don't just loudly show everyone how they misunderstand the scientific definition of 'theory.' Note the typical "how did a woodpecker evolve " (Your Face 5) and the "demotivational" picture posted by Spork, who clearly would rather say that because something that does not make sense to him, it must be wrong, rather than doing research himself. This is obvious because if he had attempted to learn about the subject of the big bang, he would not have used those words.

Also @KamikOzzy, that was my first reaction to, but you realize you are taking science on faith about this the same as you would God's creation. 

[KamikOzzy]

That may be, but I don't see many people fighting wars or banning books or changing their lives out of faith in science. I do view the big bang as more of a simple "theory" in contrast to the way I view evolution as a fact, though. The origins of this universe are just out of reach of explanation at this time, but I couldn't say "we cant tell how it started, so we know God did it, and he wants us to do this and that."

[player1]

Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?

[Rocinante]

Also @KamikOzzy, that was my first reaction to, but you realize you are taking science on faith about this the same as you would God's creation. 

Both good points; though having worked beside some of the people who put the WMAP satellite in orbit and did much of the work on the data it brought back, I feel closer to believing science than religion in this one.  While many have claimed that God spoke to them, rarely was it overheard by someone else at the same time (if ever, but I won't say never because I don't know personally).  Meanwhile I see data on studies of the beginning of the universe all the time, and see it ever changing and our knowledge of it ever growing - that's something which I can more readily believe in.

[MitSugna]

Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?

which religion?

[player1]

Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?

which religion?

any religion, every religion, all religion, Religion with a capital "R"

Any system of belief is useful insofar as it produces a somewhat consistent set of ethics.

I wonder if the guy who said, "Let this be the whole of the Law" would be enthralled at the mental backflips required to believe ancient Canaanite cosmology in the light of current evidence. I think he would be inclined to say "Pharisees, hypocrites, vipers..."

[Demolution]

In the spirit of this topic: a short story.

On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.

[Silver]

In the spirit of this topic: a short story.

On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.

The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses.  I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.)  Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards.  I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.

[Baconizer]

In the spirit of this topic: a short story.

On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.

The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses.  I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.)  Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards.  I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.

I'm glad you are not hateful, but have a clear head, so you can see exactly what's happening.


I'll say this again: science and religion are not at odds with each other. Some scientists say religion is evil, some religious folk say science is evil, but do you judge the entire human race by the people who think turtles shed their shells? No.

I've seen this picture a few times. But Max Planck, Louis Pasteur, and many other great scientists were religious.

I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.

[Demolution]

I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.

Because sometimes your beliefs might come into conflict with your profession, if indeed you are going to be a scientists. That shouldn't stop you from searching for knowledge in either direction. Props to you for breaking the status quo.

[Silver]

In the spirit of this topic: a short story.

On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.

The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses.  I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.)  Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards.  I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.

I'm glad you are not hateful, but have a clear head, so you can see exactly what's happening.


I'll say this again: science and religion are not at odds with each other. Some scientists say religion is evil, some religious folk say science is evil, but do you judge the entire human race by the people who think turtles shed their shells? No.

I've seen this picture a few times. But Max Planck, Louis Pasteur, and many other great scientists were religious.

I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.

I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe, the problem with religion is that they can't just believe it to themselves.  They have to force it on everyone, and judge those who aren't a part of it.  My neighbor thinks his dog is jesus's sister, but he doesn't shove it down anyone's throat, so good for him.  He can think whatever the fuck he wants after he's had way to much vodka, shaved his prisoner wife's head, beat his son to death publically for staying out to late, or whatever else may have you.  It's not like he's strange or dilusional or anything, right?

[mooseberry]

I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.

While indeed, you can be both and never run into any conflict, it's mostly the principles that are the issue here.

For a scientist, you need to be able to prove what you believe, and have good evidence for life around you and your beliefs on them. While in American court, the suspect is "innocent until proven guilty," in science, ideas are often "bullshit until backed up with evidence and case studies." This is good for many reasons, not the least because I don't want someone designing medicine, bridges, or what have you without completely understanding how they all work.

Pretty much all religions on the other hand, need you to take faith in God and his power, and in fact, sometimes questioning God's validity (which is the sort of thing a scientist needs to do everyday ((not just in God but in everything)) can be considered considerable offence, both to God and those who believe in Him. One of the most important characteristics of a Catholic (I was raised one) is faith, in God, in His son, and in the thousands of saints. This sort of belief often runs completely contradictory towards the scientific princibles, thus the reason why many people would say you can not be both.

Now, like I said earlier, you can be both fine, contrary to that picture you posted, Einstein actually did believe in God, however his belief was much different than that of most Jews.

Also, of course, there are many scientists who do not follow the "question everything" method, indeed if you did that to everything your life would most likely be very troubling. There are people on every range of the spectrum, from questioning everything (you'll know what this is if you have read Stranger in a Strange land,) to people who do scientific jobs just following what their bosses tell them.

This is my view on how it can be troubling to be a strong Christian and scientist, but like I said, you can do both and feel fine, but I hope you understand what I said.

[KillerWhale]

I saw this today and think that the explanations on this page and the next page will really help clarify some things in potential debates.

Really, please do read both pages. Both sides of the argument.

[Silver]

I saw this today and think that the explanations on this page and the next page will really help clarify some things in potential debates.

Really, please do read both pages. Both sides of the argument.

Thanks a lot whale.  Now I want a crocoduck!   

[player1]

Just had a moment to point out that science and philosophy may have that reconciliation yet.

Process philosophy enters the field of biology.

Organisms are processes in the state of becoming adapted to their ever-changing, co-evolving environments.

In plant morphology, Rolf Sattler developed a process morphology (dynamic morphology) that overcomes the structure/process (or structure/function) dualism that is commonly taken for granted in biology. According to process morphology, structures such as leaves of plants do not have processes, they are processes.

emphasis mine

from here

[Jedarus]

I knew this thread would just keep on going. (Bet it's going to fill up 10+ pages, it's a wonder that this thread hasn't been derailed yet)