Jump to content


Photo

How Can God Use A Cause If Evolution Is A Cause?


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:56 AM

"What if", thank you for the Ayala quote... However, there was no explanation as to how that became a scandal (or if there was, I didn't understand how it was scandalous.)

Yes, I've noticed that "What if" often brings up the Koonin name, but it's said in such a way (in passing) that I really don't know what the importance of Koonin is, or what it has to do with the conversation.

#62 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:42 PM

"What if", thank you for the Ayala quote... However, there was no explanation as to how that became a scandal (or if there was, I didn't understand how it was scandalous.)

it isn't the quote, it's the alleged retraction.
i contend this "retraction" is bogus and have presented evidence to support my assertions.
the biggest piece of evidence are the letters written to science concerning this article.
not a single letter mentioned ayala and his quote.
judging from goulds stand on evolution, the letters, and the use of this quote by a natural history historian 25 years later, i am convinced ayala uttered the words attributed to him by lewin.

Yes, I've noticed that "What if" often brings up the Koonin name, but it's said in such a way (in passing) that I really don't know what the importance of Koonin is, or what it has to do with the conversation.

as far as i know, koonin does not have any connection to this discussion about ayala.

#63 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:02 PM

A pretty famous Star Trek quote, I thought most people would recognise given they offed Spock in that film. Goku would have probably got it, as he seems up to speed given he isn't a dinosaur yet you like you guys. :rotfl3:

 

The original Star Trek series is a few decades before my time. I watched the original series for the first time on Netflix earlier this decade. Surprisingly I found the original series entertaining and thought provoking, which is not what I expected from a 60's TV show. Apart from the special effects it is amazing how well the original series would stack up against modern shows. Amazingly I even found the Animated Series amusing; never once did I think I would hear the term "brownian" to describe the motion of an object in a cartoon.
 



#64 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:59 PM

The original Star Trek series is a few decades before my time. I watched the original series for the first time on Netflix earlier this decade. Surprisingly I found the original series entertaining and thought provoking, which is not what I expected from a 60's TV show. Apart from the special effects it is amazing how well the original series would stack up against modern shows. Amazingly I even found the Animated Series amusing; never once did I think I would hear the term "brownian" to describe the motion of an object in a cartoon.

star trek TOS (the original series) aired the first interracial kiss between kirk and uhuru.
later in the seasons documentary, nichelle (uhuru) said they must have done 60 takes of that kiss.
shatner said it was no big deal, he always wanted to kiss nichelle anyway.

a number of guest stars have commented on how good the writing on the series was.

TOS spawned 4 spinoffs, the next generation, voyager, deep space 9, and enterprise.

yeah, star trek was a cut above the standard 60s fare of science fiction TV where lost in space or buster crabb was the norm.

#65 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

Yeah those original series were good, Goku. And amusing too, the old fashion stuff can be very cornball and dated which is entertaining. 

 

I liked the 80s movies the most, I think the characters are interesting and the themes in some films, though considered b movies perhaps, are lighthearted and feel-good, there is a camaraderie and I like the sounds of those 80s soundtracks which all seem to be, a lot of the time, even better than the movies. I think of some 80s movies that although weren't that good, their soundtracks were masterpieces.  

 

I thought this was an amusing scene, the acting is pretty good, Spock's dead-pan supercilious roboticism versus Kirk's wit.  

 

(background: Kirk has lost all the members of his crew to a feel-good spore which makes people act like they're on happy pills, and the only way to break the spore's power is to make them angry. LOL! So simple these ideas, but brilliant anyway.)

 

 



#66 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

Boy am I old (my physical body). I remember watching Star Trek (the orignal TV show) in the mid 60's. We didn't have a color TV so we watched it in black and white. LOL



#67 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:28 AM

Never mind Mike. I still watch the black and white Sherlock Holmes with Basil Rathbone. Isn't tv a bizarre thing, how it can catapult you backwards in time to see young faces which are long gone, it's always a strange feeling for me, to enjoy a show with the knowledge that all of the people in it, that are entertaining me, are no longer on earth.



#68 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:39 AM

Driewerf said:
 
Baaaloney! All we disguss on this site is philosophy.

Nope. I have also seen discussions about religion, politics and mainly science. Mostly I discuss science. I don't discuss philosphy because i know I'm poorly equipped for this.
 

If it comes out of your mind it is philosophy (ideas). "I am not saying what I am saying!" LOL

ideas =/= philosophy. 


 

 

2) Who has ever claimed atheism "a scientific fact"? Certainly not me, not Fjuri and not Goku. Where that nonsense comes from I have no idea.

You had to reason (practice science) to make the statement there is no God.

Reasoning is much broader than "practice science". Philosophy, remember. So the one writing baloney is you.

 

 

I agree your conclusion is nonsense.

 

LOL, you mean the claim I 've never made (see quote above)? I literally write that I 've never claimed atheism to be a scientific fact. I literally write that and yet you continue to answer me as if that's what I claim. LOL 

 

Evo is a philosophical concept also. Since the word represents a philsophy (a point of view--it is the result of human reason). "It" is not a concience entity and does not have the power to effect anyone's existence.

 

Nope. It's a scientific theory. It's a scientific theory with philosophical implications, but is first a scientific theory. Oh, and it's a fact too.



 



#69 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:35 PM

Driewerf said:

Baaaloney! All we disguss on this site is philosophy.
Nope. I have also seen discussions about religion, politics and mainly science. Mostly I discuss science. I don't discuss philosphy because i know I'm poorly equipped for this.

Those are the names of the particular sub philosopies we discuss on the site.
Yeah. I Guess you don't understand much about philosophy. Philosophy is the output of the human mind in terms of concepts and ideas--the result of the management of information.
 

If it comes out of your mind it is philosophy (ideas). "I am not saying what I am saying!" LOL
ideas =/= philosophy.


 

driewerf, on 16 Mar 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

2) Who has ever claimed atheism "a scientific fact"? Certainly not me, not Fjuri and not Goku. Where that nonsense comes from I have no idea.
You had to reason (practice science) to make the statement there is no God.

Reasoning is much broader than "practice science". Philosophy, remember. So the one writing baloney is you.

We have to reason to to output any information ( philosophical concepts) from our mind. Practicing science is a glorified version of reasoning.

"There is no God" is a result of thinking, reasoning and drawing a conclusion from that reasoning. A concluision is considered an hypothesis because the reasoning cannot be verified by the person drawing the conclusion.
 
 

I agree your conclusion is nonsense.
 
LOL, you mean the claim I 've never made (see quote above)? I literally write that I 've never claimed atheism to be a scientific fact. I literally write that and yet you continue to answer me as if that's what I claim. LOL

"And now thru the magic of saying the magic words, "it's scientific!" what I think becomes a fact!"

Thinking or practicing science does not make something a fact. Simply put, you can make anything a fact by telling yourself it is a fact. I suggest that's what you have done. Realizing this is what makes what you said funny. It's the reason I said, "I'm not saying what I'm saying." It is probably not a good idea to believe your own PR. lol
 

Evo is a philosophical concept also. Since the word represents a philsophy (a point of view--it is the result of human reason). "It" is not a concience entity and does not have the power to effect anyone's existence.
 
Nope. It's a scientific theory. It's a scientific theory with philosophical implications, but is first a scientific theory. Oh, and it's a fact too.

You don't think you you have to think to draw a conclusion? Wow! What planet do you live on? I thought you didn't believe there was a god but now you act as if you are one. Are you speaking from the chair? "Hear ye! Hear ye! Thus sayeth Driewef! The great and wonderful "Driewef" has spoken! So let it be written! So let it be done!" You are certainly welcome to believe your delusions of grandeur! LOL

Placing the word "no" (A) in front of the word God means you have decided to make the decree that there is no God. What part of "no" God don't you think people understand? It would be more accurate to say, "I don't want there to be a God." LOL You don't really have any say in the matter. Guess what? Just about all people exist without your permission. LOL "...Without you ttwirling it the earth can spin. Without your pulling them the clouds roll by..."



#70 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 March 2017 - 04:50 PM

Nope. I have also seen discussions about religion, politics and mainly science. Mostly I discuss science. I don't discuss philosphy because i know I'm poorly equipped for this.
 

ideas =/= philosophy. 
 

Reasoning is much broader than "practice science". Philosophy, remember. So the one writing baloney is you.
 
 

LOL, you mean the claim I 've never made (see quote above)? I literally write that I 've never claimed atheism to be a scientific fact. I literally write that and yet you continue to answer me as if that's what I claim. LOL 
 

Nope. It's a scientific theory. It's a scientific theory with philosophical implications, but is first a scientific theory. Oh, and it's a fact too.



Actually, Your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is not even a theory in a true scientific sense.. No less than one of Greatest Philosophers of Science who has ever lived, Karl Popper stated that "Evolution" is nothing more than a Metaphysical Research Programme...

I am usually more generous and give it more of the benefit of the doubt than Popper did and simply call it a Hypothetical Hypothesis of Agbiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna..

But you can go right ahead and call it a Fact if you like..
We know why you do so, And we know it has ZERO to do with Science
but merely a philosophical worldview that you have a desperate emotional attachment to it somehow being true against all odds..

Darwin Made it Possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist

R Dawkins
  • Mike Summers likes this

#71 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 March 2017 - 05:22 PM

LOLHilarrious Blitz Hilarious!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users