The Jews

[DaJudge]

This will make some people angry -- and make other people think. Either
way, it's impressive writing.


**************************************************
The Jews

Robert Green Ingersoll

(Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll (August 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_11), 1833 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1833) ? July 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_21), 1899 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899)) was a
Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) veteran, American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) political leader, and orator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator) during the Golden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Freethought)
Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of
agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).)

WHEN I was a child, I was taught that the Jews were an exceedingly hard-
hearted and cruel people, and that they were so destitute of the finer
feelings that they had a little while before that time crucified the only
perfect man who had appeared upon the earth; that this perfect man was
also perfect God, and that the Jews had really stained their hands with the
blood of the Infinite.

When I got somewhat older, I found that nearly all people had been guilty
of substantially the same crime -- that is, that they had destroyed the
progressive and the thoughtful; that religionists had in all ages been cruel;
that the chief priests of all people had incited the mob, to the end that
heretics -- that is to say, philosophers -- that is to say, men who knew
that the chief priests were hypocrites -- might be destroyed.

I also found that Christians had committed more of these crimes than all
other religionists put together.

I also became acquainted with a large number of Jewish people, and I found
them like other people, except that, as a rule, they were more industrious,
more temperate, had fewer vagrants among them, no beggars, very few
criminals; and in addition to all this, I found that they were intelligent, kind
to their wives and children, and that, as a rule, they kept their contracts
and paid their debts.

The prejudice was created almost entirely by religious, or rather irreligious,
instruction. All children in Christian countries are taught that all the Jews
are to be eternally damned who die in the faith of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, that it is not enough to believe in the inspiration of the Old
Testament -- not enough to obey the Ten Commandments -- not enough
to believe the miracles performed in the days of the prophets, but that
every Jew must accept the New Testament and must be a believer in
Christianity -- that is to say, he must be regenerated -- or he will simply be
eternal kindling wood.

The church has taught, and still teaches, that every Jew is an outcast;
that he is to-day busily fulfilling prophecy; that he is a wandering witness in
favor of "the glad tidings of great joy;" that Jehovah is seeing to it that the
Jews shall not exist as a nation -- that they shall have no abiding place,
but that they shall remain scattered, to the end that the inspiration of the
Bible may be substantiated.

Dr. John Hall of this city, a few years ago, when the Jewish people were
being persecuted in Russia, took the ground that it was all fulfillment of
prophecy, and that whenever a Jewish maiden was stabbed to death, God
put a tongue in every wound for the purpose of declaring the truth of the
Old Testament.

Just as long as Christians take these positions, of course they will do what
they can to assist in the fulfillment of what they call prophecy, and they
will do their utmost to keep the Jewish people in a state of exile, and then
point to that fact as one of the corner-stones of Christianity.

My opinion is that in the early days of Christianity all sensible Jews were
witnesses against the faith, and in this way excited the hostility of the
orthodox. Every sensible Jew knew that no miracles had been performed in
Jerusalem. They all knew that the sun had not been darkened, that the
graves had not given up their dead, that the veil of the temple had not
been rent in twain -- and they told what they knew. They were then
denounced as the most infamous of human beings, and this hatred has
pursued them from that day to this.

There is no other chapter in history so infamous, so bloody, so cruel, so
relentless, as the chapter in which is told the manner in which Christians --
those who love their enemies -- have treated the Jewish people. This story
is enough to bring the blush of shame to the cheek, and the words of
indignation to the lips of every honest man.

Nothing can be more unjust than to generalize about nationalities, and to
speak of a race as worthless or vicious, simply because you have met an
individual who treated you unjustly. There are good people and bad people
in all races, and the individual is not responsible for the crimes of the
nation, or the nation responsible for the actions of the few. Good men and
honest men are found in every faith, and they are not honest or dishonest
because they are Jews or Gentiles, but for entirely different reasons.

Some of the best people I have ever known are Jews, and some of the
worst people I have known are Christians. The Christians were not bad
simply because they were Christians, neither were the Jews good because
they were Jews. A man is far above these badges of faith and race. Good
Jews are precisely the same as good Christians, and bad Christians are
wonderfully like bad Jews.

Personally, I have either no prejudices about religion, or I have equal
prejudice against all religions. The consequence is that I judge of people
not by their creeds, not by their rites, not by their mummeries, but by their
actions.

In the first place, at the bottom of this prejudice lies the coiled serpent of
superstition. In other words, it is a religious question. It seems impossible
for the people of one religion to like the people believing in another religion.
They have different gods, different heavens, and a great variety of hells.
For the followers of one god to treat the followers of another god decently
is a kind of treason. In order to be really true to his god, each follower must
not only hate all other gods, but the followers of all other gods.

The Jewish people should outgrow their own superstitions. It is time for
them to throw away the idea of inspiration. The intelligent Jew of to-day
knows that the Old Testament was written by barbarians, and he knows
that the rites and ceremonies are simply absurd. He knows that no
intelligent man should care anything about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three
dead barbarians. In other words, the Jewish people should leave their
superstition and rely on science and philosophy.

The Christian should do the same. He, by this time, should know that his
religion is a mistake, that his creed has no foundation in the eternal verities.
The Christian certainly should give up the hopeless task of converting the
Jewish people, and the Jews should give up the useless task of converting
the Christians. There is no propriety in swapping superstitions -- neither
party can afford to give any boot.

When the Christian throws away his cruel and heartless superstitions, and
when the Jew throws away his, then they can meet as man to man.

In the meantime, the world will go on in its blundering way, and I shall know
and feel that everybody does as he must, and that the Christian, to the
extent that he is prejudiced, is prejudiced by reason of his ignorance, and
that consequently the great lever with which to raise all mankind into the
sunshine of philosophy, is intelligence.

[vb]

id be interested to hear what about his writing impresses you.

he seems to want to have all ingage in phylosophy. he mentions inteligence.

there have been many men that have thought this way. lenin, marx, the iluminante......

its obvious that he does not understand christianity. i think that he does understand what he sees that folks have done under the name of christianity. but he does not understand christianity.

he also uses the term "sensible Jews", and he must, because of course saul/paul, peter, john, james, etc mary, martha,...... all of the early believers were of course , jews! so was Jesus for that matter! the fact of Jesus' effect on the world has never been in question. too many witnesses. who he was is contested, mainly by those that dont want to submit to a higher authority then themselves.


he wants the reader to believe that he has some respect for the jews and yet its painfully obvious that he looks so far down on the jews as to label their beliefs and their history as "superstitions". while many scientist go to the history of the jews as referance material.


ive got more but this atta get the ball rolling.

thanks for the post al,

i cant see much other then the guys own hypocrisy, and ignorance.

[Trango]

Kudos to whomever cooked that idea up in one of his two kitchens. ;)

[vb]

"I do not deny. I do not know -- but I do not 'believe.' I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man."
"I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces them all -- that there is no interference, no chance; that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects." "Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural, upon an imaginary Father in the skies. He must protect himself by finding the facts in Nature, by developing his brain, to the end that he may overcome the obstructions and take advantage of the forces of Nature."


the man does have his "religion". his hypocrisy is to claim to have none.

for those that dont know, he was raised by a dad that was a minister and he is "claimed" to have a wealth of knowledge of the bible. a sizable portion of his life was dedicated to him speaking "his" truth, while telling others that "their" "truth", was not. further hypocrisy?

[Colo.TJ]

Here is what I took away from this; Man should treat each other with respect and dignity regardless of personal religious belief. Your personal religious belief does neither make you a good person or bad person. Your actions determine how you should be judged.
Religion was created by "barbarians" to explain what they did not yet understand. They needed an explaination and God was that explaination regardless of religion. Man has begun now to understand why things are and that knowledge infact replaces God as the explaination to what was once not understood. Infact God was created or invented and that an intelligent man would understand this and no longer need God to understand the world around him.

[Jake_Blues]

the man does have his "religion". his hypocrisy is to claim to have none.

for those that dont know, he was raised by a dad that was a minister and he is "claimed" to have a wealth of knowledge of the bible. a sizable portion of his life was dedicated to him speaking "his" truth, while telling others that "their" "truth", was not. further hypocrisy?

I don't see any hypocrisy in his statements. To say that the natural world is supreme and that there is no God manipulating things behind the scenes does not constitute a religion.

And if going out and speaking your truth while denouncing someone else's beliefs is hypocrisy, then Christianity is hypocrisy incarnate.


he wants the reader to believe that he has some respect for the jews and yet its painfully obvious that he looks so far down on the jews as to label their beliefs and their history as "superstitions". while many scientist go to the history of the jews as referance material.


He looks down on all religious people for clinging to superstition on the face of scientific fact. He does not look down on their history, but he does point out that early Jews (like early Christians, early Pagans, and early everybody else) were barbarians, creating mythological stories to salve their fears of the unknown, especially death.

Historians recognize that a large part of the Jewish history is true, but scientists don't use their creation myth when studying the origins of the universe. Truth in one area doesn't make the entire thing true.

-E

[jredmond]

I don?t know what churches this guy went to but he sounds a little out there. The hate stuff this guy was taught as a child sounds like the teachings of Hitler or Neo-Nazi propiganda.

Growing up I went to many Christian churches and none of them had anything bad to say about Jews. Instead all of the Christian churches that I have been to embraced the Jewish culture. The first half of the Bible is the Jewish religion and that is why I was always taught about all Jewish holidays and tradition. Even the crusades were about fighting the Muslims not the Jews.

The only part that I can say sounds intelligent is that there are both good Christians and good Jews but this is the same with every religion. I have worked with good Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, but the wacko's are the ones that everyone remembers.

[Trango]

What, no love on the two kitchens joke? That was more kashrut than kosher.

[Trango]

I don't know if you guys caught the date on the piece, but it's presumably circa 1880.

[Gags]

For me the take away is simple. A concept that reasonable rational people would prescribe to which is 'intolerance, racism, bigotry are for stupid people who don't have a grasp on history or anthropology.' We should judge people by their actions but action of course comes from the inside first then manifests physically. It seems like a call to throw off the hate mongers that preach from a position of power and use religion to inspire contempt.

"money controls the world and that's it...Once you got it then you can talk sh!t." Ice T

[Gags]

I don't know if you guys caught the date on the piece, but it's presumably circa 1880.

Damn, I didn't notice that right away. It's relevant now. The Germans and Eastern Europeans obviously didn't get this memo.

[TwoDogs]

What, no love on the two kitchens joke? That was more kashrut than kosher.

Oy Vey :shrug: This man is mashugge! :flipoff2:

How's that Bob?

[Trango]

Thanks for meeting the ante with "meshugge". :)

The lateral thinker in me sees the comination of two (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/) elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-T) of this thread, with the Blood of Abraham's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_of_Abraham)"Dangerous Diseases (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocg6wDxjYzo)".

Click click!

[DaJudge]

What, no love on the two kitchens joke? That was more kashrut than kosher.
This was a 'meaty' topic so only the fleishik kitchen and utinsels were used. :flipoff2:

[Trango]

Fascinating - Fleischik..... yiddish, of course, yes, a German word with suffix. Is there Milchik? Googling says yes.

Man I must be WAY overdue for another Pynchon book.

To speak to the original treatise, from this pragmatic humanist, I'd say there's some good in it.

[DaJudge]

Fascinating - Fleischik..... yiddish, of course, yes, a German word with suffix. Is there Milchik? Googling says yes.

Man I must be WAY overdue for another Pynchon book.

To speak to the original treatise, from this pragmatic humanist, I'd say there's some good in it.

Kosher 101 (http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm)
Separation of Meat and Dairy


On three separate occasions, the Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/torah.htm) tells us not to "boil a kid in its
mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/oral.htm) explains
that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/rabbi.htm)
extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In
addition, the Talmud (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm) prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving
them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is,
however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common
(lox and cream cheese, for example). It is also permissible to eat dairy and
eggs together.

This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils,
pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from
which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are
cleaned, and the towels on which they are dried. A kosher household will
have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for
dairy. See Utensils (http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Utensils) below for more details.

One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy.
Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours. This is because fatty
residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat,
however, one need only rinse one's mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread,
unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in
the mouth.

The Yiddish (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/yiddish.htm) words fleishik (meat), milchik (dairy) and pareve (neutral) are
commonly used to describe food or utensils that fall into one of those
categories.

***************************************************

Keeping this on topic, these rules are barbarian superstitions:

"The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/torah.htm)
says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a
Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason.
Some have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of
"chukkim," laws for which there is no reason. We show our obedience to G-d (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/g-d.htm)
by following these laws even though we do not know the reason. Others,
however, have tried to ascertain G-d's reason for imposing these laws."

[Mr. Mojo]

In the beginning man created god in the likeness of himself ....

-Aqualung

[Willy36]

I fail to see how this article makes the guy crazy, ignorant, or hypocritical. I do see how it could very easily piss off some Christians or Jews invoking a reaction of name-calling. Honestly, the guy's preaching what atheists and humanists have been saying for centuries. This is no news. Although circa 1880, I wouldn't expect it to be.

[vb]

I don't see any hypocrisy in his statements. To say that the natural world is supreme and that there is no God manipulating things behind the scenes does not constitute a religion. it becomes religion when he treats it the same way anyone else carries their religion. the religion of worshiping nature is a very old one. he spent much of his life "preaching" his message.

And if going out and speaking your truth while denouncing someone else's beliefs is hypocrisy, then Christianity is hypocrisy incarnate. the hypocrisy was his puting down christians for doing the exact same thing that he was doing. you missed it just a tadd



He looks down on all religious people for clinging to superstition on the face of scientific fact. what fact do you speak of? if its evolution, then you are mistaken. evolution is a theory not a fact. in fact, there is no scientific answer to this question which is why it is such a hot topic. scientist would love to be able to point to a scientific answer, but all they have is theory He does not look down on their history, but he does point out that early Jews (like early Christians, early Pagans, and early everybody else) were barbarians, creating mythological stories to salve their fears of the unknown, especially death.except that in your next paragraph you acknowledge that the jews history is not myth.

Historians recognize that a large part of the Jewish history is true, but scientists don't use their creation myth when studying the origins of the universe. agh, actually, they do, thats the BIG discussion: 8 to 10k years old versus millions and billions? you will find noted scientist standing on both sides of this.Truth in one area doesn't make the entire thing true.

-E

trango,

i knew the date. thats spicifically why i mentioned others from that era-Ish. it seems to me that that point in history had much of this line of thinking

[vb]

I fail to see how this article makes the guy crazy, ignorant, or hypocritical. I do see how it could very easily piss off some Christians or Jews invoking a reaction of name-calling. Honestly, the guy's preaching what atheists and humanists have been saying for centuries. This is no news. Although circa 1880, I wouldn't expect it to be.

even during the time of Jesus and before. saul/paul addressed this as well.



1Cor.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5072048) Verses 17 to 30


[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
[19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
[20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
[21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
[22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
[23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
[24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
[25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
[27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
[28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
[29] That no flesh should glory in his presence.seems to cover the issue well


but we are sliding off the topic. id like to understand why dajudge thinks that the writing is impressive. is it the style? the content? the point of view? the life of the man?

[TheCopperCowboy]

but we are sliding off the topic. id like to understand why dajudge thinks that the writing is impressive. is it the style? the content? the point of view? the life of the man?

I can't speak for dajudge, but this paragraph shows me that observations made over 100 years still remain true and unchanged today. Clever of the author, sad for us as a society. :(

"The prejudice was created almost entirely by religious, or rather irreligious,
instruction. All children in Christian countries are taught that all the Jews
are to be eternally damned who die in the faith of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, that it is not enough to believe in the inspiration of the Old
Testament -- not enough to obey the Ten Commandments -- not enough
to believe the miracles performed in the days of the prophets, but that
every Jew must accept the New Testament and must be a believer in
Christianity -- that is to say, he must be regenerated -- or he will simply be
eternal kindling wood."

[Jake_Blues]

it becomes religion when he treats it the same way anyone else carries their religion. the religion of worshiping nature is a very old one. he spent much of his life "preaching" his message.

He doesn't "worship" nature in the sense that an Animist or Pagan would. He is advocating a naturalist view of the world. For a good description of the naturalist view of the world, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

"Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy))

the hypocrisy was his puting down christians for doing the exact same thing that he was doing. you missed it just a tadd

I suppose you could infer this from his stance on superstitions, but as far as I can tell he doesn't insult religious groups because they proselytize, he insults them because they proselytize hate, and I think that is an important distinction.

what fact do you speak of? if its evolution, then you are mistaken. evolution is a theory not a fact. in fact, there is no scientific answer to this question which is why it is such a hot topic.

I won't argue evolution vs. creationism with you, because it's a stupid argument. Stupid because it is one that neither side can win. However, I lose respect for anyone who trots out the "evolution is just a theory" horse. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the same way that gravity is both a theory and a fact.

You can go out and drop a ball off a roof and watch it fall and see that gravity is a fact of life. There is also the scientific theory of gravity, that attempts to explain through mathematics how gravity behaves and why. The current theory of gravity is pretty good, but even if it was totally disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't hurt any less when you fall down.

In the same way, evolution is a fact, you can go out and see it happening the same way that Charles Darwin did. The current theory of evolution attempts to describe why and how this fact exists, and it is currently considered the best description of how things work. But again, even if the theory were proven wrong tomorrow, evolution would still be happening, we would just be changing our views on why and how.

scientist would love to be able to point to a scientific answer, but all they have is theory

Saying that something is "just a theory" shows a willful ignorance of what a scientific theory really is. The theory IS the answer scientists have come up with to explain something they have observed.

except that in your next paragraph you acknowledge that the jews history is not myth.

Jewish history is not a myth. The Jewish religion is a myth. The fact that much of their history is contained in religious documents is irrelevant.

agh, actually, they do, thats the BIG discussion: 8 to 10k years old versus millions and billions? you will find noted scientist standing on both sides of this.

There are respected people who believe the young earth theory. However, the young earth theory is not accepted as the best and most likely explanation of the facts; most experts in the field acknowledge that the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old. Both the young earth and old earth theories are just that, theories. But the old earth theory fits the observable facts much, much better.

-E

[potter]

I don't see how anyone can argue what you just posted jake. But I'm sure by the time I return to this thread someone will have.

[vb]

He doesn't "worship" nature in the sense that an Animist or Pagan would. He is advocating a naturalist view of the world. For a good description of the naturalist view of the world, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

"Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy))
but, you can not test the theory and create a new earth. the theory is not duplicatable, so, it is not fact, its still theory. and even without diety, naturalism is a religion just as any other.


I suppose you could infer this from his stance on superstitions, but as far as I can tell he doesn't insult religious groups because they proselytize, he insults them because they proselytize hate, and I think that is an important distinction. this is the point that i made when i said that he does not have a correct understanding of the person of God or Jesus. religion and relationship are two different things.



I won't argue evolution vs. creationism with you, because it's a stupid argument. Stupid because it is one that neither side can win. However, I lose respect for anyone who trots out the "evolution is just a theory" horse. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the same way that gravity is both a theory and a fact. this does become a long discussion and you are correct: neither of us will convince the other. darwin has a theory and it has never been proven. the fossil record does not support the theory in that there simply should be a huge abundance of the different stages of developement of every species. there is not. science still has yet to show any group of fossils that show all the steps from ameba to human. there are distinct species. but then, we could do this for a long time

You can go out and drop a ball off a roof and watch it fall and see that gravity is a fact of life. There is also the scientific theory of gravity, that attempts to explain through mathematics how gravity behaves and why. The current theory of gravity is pretty good, but even if it was totally disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't hurt any less when you fall down.

In the same way, evolution is a fact, you can go out and see it happening the same way that Charles Darwin did. no, you can not, if you could, the debate would be over. there are many people in this world that word love to be able to do this. it would end the discussion once and for allThe current theory of evolution attempts to describe why and how this fact exists, your use of the word "attempts" proves my point. and it is currently considered the best description of how things work. But again, even if the theory were proven wrong tomorrow, evolution would still be happening, we would just be changing our views on why and how.



Saying that something is "just a theory" shows a willful ignorance of what a scientific theory really is. what it shows is that a person does not blindly except something that is so far feched, and can not be duplicated.The theory IS the answer scientists have come up with to explain something they have observed.



Jewish history is not a myth. The Jewish religion is a myth. The fact that much of their history is contained in religious documents is irrelevant.only becuase it serves your purpose. it is very relevent to the jewish/hebrew people. its like a jurnal. a look at the levitical laws is pretty impressive. food prep and cleanliness for example. at a time when no other culture was practicing anything similer, the hebrews very easily could have recorded in their history that joe blow and his companions came up with this list. they did not, they gave credit where it was due. why would they not have said "we are so smart that we figured this out on our own" after all thats human nature. their history is about what happened and why. the reason that there were prophets in hebrew history is to show without a doubt that there is an all knowing God involved in their lives. the rule of prophets is that one mistake gets you killed. it weeds out all the false ones. the hebrews kept record of things said and oddly years and years later, those things promised, happend. thats what kinks the scientist. the records/history are varifiably from different eras. and this one can go on and on as well



There are respected people who believe the young earth theory. However, the young earth theory is not accepted as the best and most likely explanation of the facts; most experts in the field acknowledge that the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old. Both the young earth and old earth theories are just that, theories. But the old earth theory fits the observable facts much, much better.i see more and more folks headed toward young earth because there are problems with the old earth theory. i also see folks jungle and refine the theory because the fact dont support the old earth theory at all. which gets us back to the fact that evolution is not a fact. it is an evolving theory at best and more to the point: it an effort to explain an un-explainable creation. at mans best, he is no match for the intellengence of God, and many men do not wont to bow down to something that requires obedience and faith.

surely man can explain away God!

-E

:D

it is said that ingersoll was a good orator. i think that a good one is always impressive, even if i dont agree with him. i see him just carrying on the age of inlightenment stuff

[vb]

I don't see how anyone can argue what you just posted jake. But I'm sure by the time I return to this thread someone will have.


certainly, he claiming "fact" when there is none

[vb]

the largest problem with the theory of evolution is the radom espect, in an earth that is very well odered (take gravity as your example).


there are some scientist that do not want to go as for as a God, but they do now lean toward intelligent design simply because the model of the theory of darwin has too many holes.

[potter]

and even without diety, naturalism is a religion just as any other.

naturalism is not a religion.

religion is;
re?li?gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

naturalism is;
nat?u?ral?ism (năch'ər-ə-lĭz'əm, năch'rə-) pronunciation
n.

1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
1. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
2. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
2.
1. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
2. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
3. Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
4. Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

which is a point of view or philosophy;
phi?los?o?phy (fĭ-lŏs'ə-fē) pronunciation
n., pl. -phies.

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


more on naturalism (http://www.answers.com/naturalism)

In philosophy, the theory that affirms that all beings and events in the universe are natural and therefore can be fully known by the methods of scientific investigation. Though naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all compatible with it. Naturalism was most influential in the 1930s and '40s, chiefly in the U.S. among philosophers such as F.J.E. Woodbridge (1867 ? 1940), Morris R. Cohen (1880 ? 1947), John Dewey, Ernest Nagel (1901 ? 85), Sidney Hook (1902 ? 89), and W.V.O. Quine.

Most generally, a sympathy with the view that ultimately nothing resists explanation by the methods characteristic of the natural sciences. A naturalist will be opposed, for example, to mind-body dualism, since it leaves the mental side of things outside the explanatory grasp of biology or physics; opposed to acceptance of numbers or concepts as real but non-physical denizens of the world; and opposed to accepting real moral duties and rights as absolute and self-standing facets of the natural order. The central problem for naturalism is to define what counts as a satisfactory accommodation between the preferred sciences and the elements that on the face of it have no place in them. Alternatives include instrumentalism, reductionism, and eliminativism, as well as a variety of other antirealist suggestions (see realism/anti-realism). The term naturalism is sometimes used for specific versions of these approaches in particular areas: Moore, for example, defined naturalism in ethics as the doctrine that moral predicates actually express the same thing as predicates from some natural or empirical science. This suggestion is probably untenable, but as other accommodations between ethics and the view of human beings as just parts of nature recommend themselves, these then gain the title of naturalistic approaches to ethics. See also nature.

Naturalism, a literary mode developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, characterizedby detailed description, scientific and sociological themes, an objective, documentary quality, and a deterministic philosophy. The term "naturalism" is especially, but not exclusively, applied to novels. French writers such as the Goncourt brothers and ?mile Zola pioneered naturalism in the late 1860s and 1870s. In the following three decades, naturalism appeared in Germany (the plays of Gerhart Hauptmann) and England (the novels of George Gissing and Arnold Bennett).

naturalism, in philosophy, a position that attempts to explain all phenomena and account for all values by means of strictly natural (as opposed to supernatural) categories. The particular meaning of naturalism varies with what is opposed to it. It is usually considered the opposite of idealism, is sometimes equated with empiricism or materialism, and is not easily distinguished from positivism. Naturalism limits itself to a search for causes and takes little account of reasons. Naturalism in the broad sense has been maintained in diverse forms by Aristotle, the Cynics, the Stoics, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, Auguste Comte, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, William James, John Dewey, and Alfred North Whitehead, philosophers who differ widely on specific questions. Some, like Comte and Nietzsche, were professed atheists, while others accepted a god in pantheistic terms. Aristotle, James, and Dewey all attempted to explain phenomena in terms of biological processes of perception; Spinoza and the idealists tended to emphasize metaphysics; later thinkers of all schools have placed emphasis on unifying the scientific viewpoint with an all-encompassing reality. This amalgamation of science and an overall explanation of the universe in naturalistic terms is the source of much of contemporary philosophic thought.

[Willy36]

Trying to argue with a creationist is pointless. They are disgusted at the idea of being evolved from monkeys, but accept that they were made from dirt instead. They refuse to accept evolution because they've never seen a species change fully into another species in their lifetime, yet accept that God created them because a non-scientific book tells them so. Of course, by that logic, none of you on this board exist and all your posts are made by computers programmed to give me something to do all day, because, hell, I've never seen any of you! :flipoff2:

[Yucca-Man]

Trying to argue with a creationist is pointless. They are disgusted at the idea of being evolved from monkeys, but accept that they were made from dirt instead. They refuse to accept evolution because they've never seen a species change fully into another species in their lifetime, yet accept that God created them because a non-scientific book tells them so. Of course, by that logic, none of you on this board exist and all your posts are made by computers programmed to give me something to do all day, because, hell, I've never seen any of you! :flipoff2:Quote o'the Day!

[vb]

Trying to argue with a creationist is pointless. They are disgusted at the idea of being evolved from monkeys,actually i have no disqust but accept that they were made from dirt instead uh, ever studied the composition of the human body? compare that to minerals found in the earth(dirt)? what happens when bodies decompose? dirt and ca. whats drywall? made of/ where does that come from? earth/dirt. They refuse to accept evolution because they've never seen a species change fully into another species in their lifetime, see belowyet accept that God created them because a non-scientific book tells them so. Of course, by that logic,logic? is evolution constant? does it continue today? if the answer to these is yes, then we should see living examples of all of the progressives steps in developement. what we see is completly distinct species.none of you on this board exist and all your posts are made by computers programmed to give me something to do all day, because, hell, I've never seen any of you! :flipoff2:

:D

[vb]

naturalism is not a religion.naturalist like to claim that it is not

religion is;
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. this is my line of thought for why natralism is no difirent then any other religion. and particularly in the case of this man

naturalism is;


which is a point of view or philosophy;

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.all of which are subjectives terms
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. this is the claim of philosophy.
yet from logic, i dont see how its possible to claim a "principle of reality" for somthing that is subjective, and call that "correct thinking" any better then a jew or christian. yet philosophers claim it religiously. my understanding of the definition of hypocricy


more on naturalism (http://www.answers.com/naturalism)
:D and again, theres plenty more that i could continue with, but i dont see any point to it. we still stray from the topic and dajudge aint comin back to tell us his thoughts. i wonder if the hijack made him avoid us;)

[Jake_Blues]

Saying that something is "just a theory" shows a willful ignorance of what a scientific theory really is.

what it shows is that a person does not blindly except something that is so far feched, and can not be duplicated.

Again, I'm not arguing religion or creation with you, but you really should understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a logical, testable explanation of observed events, nothing more or less. Whenever you find yourself saying "It's just a theory, so it's not true" what you are really saying is "It's just an explanation, so it's not true", which of course makes no sense.

This is often confused by the layman's usage of a theory to mean a guess or a hunch. This is not the scientific meaning of the word. So you are either intentionally confusing the meaning of the word to mislead your audience and further your argument (also known as lying), or you're genuinely ignorant of the scientific meaning of the word. Please, PLEASE argue the facts and not the semantics.

-E

[SUPERGILDO43]

Trying to argue with a creationist is pointless. They are disgusted at the idea of being evolved from monkeys, but accept that they were made from dirt instead. They refuse to accept evolution because they've never seen a species change fully into another species in their lifetime, yet accept that God created them because a non-scientific book tells them so. Of course, by that logic, none of you on this board exist and all your posts are made by computers programmed to give me something to do all day, because, hell, I've never seen any of you! :flipoff2:

yup this is damn good post :thumbsup:

[Trango]

FYI without throwing my personal hat in the ring, the National Academy of Science finds this an important enough topic of discussion that, on their main page, they have placed a link their unequivocating views on this subject:

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_Main

To be sure, a person is either debating for science or for creationism, as there is no real debate in the former that the latter has scientific creedence.

So, once that is clear (as it should be), the debate really then comes down to a matter of faith....which, really, is undebateable. :beer:

[Sound_Man]

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/289000/289324rWyv_w.jpg

That is all

[Trango]

Fsm Ftw!

[DaJudge]

Fsm Ftw!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Jake_Blues]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

http://www.venganza.org/

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

FSM FTW!

-E

[DaJudge]

http://www.venganza.org/

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

FSM FTW!

-E
Ah, so!

[vb]

Again, I'm not arguing religion or creation with you, but you really should understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a logical, testable explanation of observed events, nothing more or less. Whenever you find yourself saying "It's just a theory, so it's not true" what you are really saying is "It's just an explanation, so it's not true", which of course makes no sense.

This is often confused by the layman's usage of a theory to mean a guess or a hunch. This is not the scientific meaning of the word. So you are either intentionally confusing the meaning of the word to mislead your audience and further your argument (also known as lying), or you're genuinely ignorant of the scientific meaning of the word. Please, PLEASE argue the facts and not the semantics.

-E


when a theory has been proved it becomes a ? (what)

i accept that there is a law of gravity. its duplicatable etc...
i accept the 1st two laws of thermal dynamics. (which some argue: that those two by themselvs make evolution imposable)

ive not seen any legit scientist that would claim the theory of evolution to be provable to a level of ecceptence as a law.

and thats my point when i remind anyone that evolution is a theory.

[Jake_Blues]

when a theory has been proved it becomes a ? (what)


No theory is ever "proved". A theory does not become anything, it is always a theory. In the past, scientists called their theories "laws" when they were thought to be absolute, but in most cases those "laws" broke down under certain circumstances, so that term has gone out of favor. However, we have a lot of respect for Newton and his ilk, so we keep calling them laws if they were so named.


i accept the 1st two laws of thermal dynamics. (which some argue: that those two by themselvs make evolution imposable)


Anyone who claims that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution less probable doesn't understand it.


ive not seen any legit scientist that would claim the theory of evolution to be provable to a level of ecceptence as a law.

and thats my point when i remind anyone that evolution is a theory.

Scientific laws and theories are the same thing, just two different terms (one older, one newer). Both do the same thing, and both are subject to correction or qualification as needed.

-E

[Yota]

when a theory has been proved it becomes a ? (what)

i accept that there is a law of gravity. its duplicatable etc...
i accept the 1st two laws of thermal dynamics. (which some argue: that those two by themselvs make evolution imposable)

ive not seen any legit scientist that would claim the theory of evolution to be provable to a level of ecceptence as a law.

and thats my point when i remind anyone that evolution is a theory.

There is a hell of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for creation. The thrust of the creation "science" that I've heard is very circumstancial and weak and mostly focuses on raising questions about evolution, not answering those questions.

[Yota]

I happen to believe that if there is a god of any flavor then creation and evolution will eventually be shown to be consistent with one another.

So I think we should go on following the scientific method because it is really the only tool we have to understand our world.

[vb]

I happen to believe that if there is a god of any flavor then creation and evolution will eventually be shown to be consistent with one another.




i know several that share that same view

[vb]

No theory is ever "proved". A theory does not become anything, it is always a theory. In the past, scientists called their theories "laws" when they were thought to be absolute, but in most cases those "laws" broke down under certain circumstances, so that term has gone out of favor. However, we have a lot of respect for Newton and his ilk, so we keep calling them laws if they were so named.

and thats the school i learned at! in fact, it was once thought that science was clear cut with no gray area. so at that time, if an exception to a law was found the law was no longer excepted. it seems that you have bought into the idea that noting is certain and all is radom and accidental. how can science possably explain any thing in such a uncertain world



Anyone who claims that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution less probable doesn't understand it.id be happy to have you explain this to me, if you dont mind



Scientific laws and theories are the same thing, just two different terms (one older, one newer). Both do the same thing, and both are subject to correction or qualification as needed.i can see the need for this. from two points of view.
1. the change is in keeping with the new theory that there are no absolutes
2. in order to have evolution be anything, it must have plenty of qualifacation and correction, because evolution does not stand up to simple scrutiny

-E
:D

[vb]

There is a hell of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for creation. The thrust of the creation "science" that I've heard is very circumstancial and weak and mostly focuses on raising questions about evolution, not answering those questions.

i just happen to see it differently. i do agree that neither are able to answer all the questions and that is the very reason that we get to have these conversations. as trango said.

" the debate really then comes down to a matter of faith....which, really, is undebateable. :beer:"

[summersja]

Trying to argue with an evolutionist is pointless. They are disgusted at the idea of being evolved from dirt, but accept that they were made from monkeys instead. Of course, by that logic, none of you on this board exist and all your posts are made by computers programmed to give me something to do all day, because, hell, I've never seen any of you! :flipoff2:

Fixed it for ya! :D

This debate will go on forever, and rarely does one side convince the other.

I have studied both, and for me, I choose to believe God's word, the Bible. It takes faith to believe in the Bible and what it says. It also takes faith to believe in evolution as neither belief can be proved without a shadow of doubt.

So the debate continues...

[Jake_Blues]

it seems that you have bought into the idea that noting is certain and all is radom and accidental. how can science possably explain any thing in such a uncertain world


It seems you've bought into the idea that all is planned and there is a point to all this! Some things are random, other things are not. Gravity is not random, the distance from New York to LA isn't random. They are testable, repeatable facts. If they change, there is a perfectly good explanation why, and it's not because the big invisible magician in the sky did it. A roll of the dice is random (but subject to probability).


id be happy to have you explain this to me, if you dont mind


The usual creationist argument around the 2nd law of thermodynamics goes something like this: Since the 2nd law states that all systems tend toward entropy (moving from order to disorder), it is impossible for a more complex organism to evolve from a less complex one, because this is creating order from disorder.

There are (at least) two fundamental errors in this line of thinking. The first error is that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. The surface of the Earth is not a closed system, we have energy constantly being added from the Sun, volcanism, etc.

The second error is the fact that only the average entropy of the system increases. Local areas of the system can decrease in entropy as other areas increase. For example, when you freeze water into ice in your freezer, you are pumping heat from the water into the outside air. You're decreasing the entropy of one part of the system at the expense of another part. This happens all the time.

So, no, you cannot disprove evolution using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


2. in order to have evolution be anything, it must have plenty of qualifacation and correction, because evolution does not stand up to simple scrutiny


Evolution is currently the most widely accepted scientific view on how life formed on this planet. It has been scrutinized and tested thousands upon thousands of times. It has been observed to happen in the real world, and has been duplicated in laboratories. To say that it does not stand up to simple scrutiny is absurd.

-E

[vb]

It seems you've bought into the idea that all is planned and there is a point to all this! Some things are random, other things are not. Gravity is not random, the distance from New York to LA isn't random. They are testable, repeatable facts. If they change, there is a perfectly good explanation why, and it's not because the big invisible magician in the sky did it. A roll of the dice is random (but subject to probability).



The usual creationist argument around the 2nd law of thermodynamics goes something like this: Since the 2nd law states that all systems tend toward entropy (moving from order to disorder), it is impossible for a more complex organism to evolve from a less complex one, because this is creating order from disorder.

There are (at least) two fundamental errors in this line of thinking. The first error is that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. The surface of the Earth is not a closed system, we have energy constantly being added from the Sun, volcanism, etc.

The second error is the fact that only the average entropy of the system increases. Local areas of the system can decrease in entropy as other areas increase. For example, when you freeze water into ice in your freezer, you are pumping heat from the water into the outside air. You're decreasing the entropy of one part of the system at the expense of another part. This happens all the time.

So, no, you cannot disprove evolution using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



Evolution is currently the most widely accepted scientific view on how life formed on this planet. It has been scrutinized and tested thousands upon thousands of times. It has been observed to happen in the real world, and has been duplicated in laboratories. To say that it does not stand up to simple scrutiny is absurd.im still waiting to see living examples of all the different steps of progression in all species. or, i might even except it if the lab can take a simple amiba and develope it in steps through ape to man.

-E

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

heres a guy with a dr. in front of his name. seems that he has a much bigger picture for the closed system then you do.

CHAPTER 6: Energy and Matter (e). Laws of Thermodynamics
The field of thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/e.html#energy) flow in natural systems. From this study, a number of physical laws have been established. The laws of thermodynamics describe some of the fundamental truths of thermodynamics observed in our Universe (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/u.html#universe). Understanding these laws is important to students of Physical Geography because many of the processes studied involve the flow of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/e.html#energy) can be transferred from one system (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/s.html#anchor197057) to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/m.html#anchor186202):
E = mc2

In the equation above, energy (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/e.html#energy) (E) is equal to matter (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/m.html#anchor186202) (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/h.html#anchor184017) cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/e.html#entropy) of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/e.html#energy) and matter (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/m.html#anchor186202) in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/u.html#universe) are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/b.html#big_bang) when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Holy thread hijack! :eek:

[vb]

Holy thread hijack! :eek:


ive tried more then once to try to get on track. seems that folks would rather run with the evolution thing.

what do you think about the original post?

[Sound_Man]

Fsm Ftw!

[IronMonkey]

ive tried more then once to try to get on track. seems that folks would rather run with the evolution thing.

what do you think about the original post?

I think Nimoy/Spock sums up the whole thing nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1d83XOORP0

[pineneedle]

My Dear Colleagues,

Since this thread has already taken some interesting twists and turns, I presume no one will begrudge me adding one more zig to the zags. Specifically, I would like to make a couple of points concerning all the talk about facts, proofs, and theories, which, in my judgment is question begging.

Beneath this talk about evolution vs. creationism, about science and proofs, and so on, there is a set of very serious problems that have yet to be broached. For example, consider the oft invoked sacred "fact." What is a fact? A fact must be something that is a per se notum, which means that it has to be self-evident. This is obvious when you simply think a little about it. If one were to say that a fact is something that has been proved, we are left with the open question, with what was this proof constructed? Other facts? If so, and a fact is "something proven," then these facts-used-in-proving facts must themselves be proved. As I am sure you see, this leads to infinite regress. So, back to the point that a fact must be something self-evident, or there are no facts.

The only things which qualify, then , are sense experiences. Hence my visual perception of green, when I am "looking at the forest," is a fact. I cannot deny that I am having this experience without uttering a contraction; so, it is self-evident. However, the question them becomes, "What does this fact, "seen green," mean? (Pardon the poem.) To say it means that there are trees out there that are green, is a huge, unspported leap. How can I know that my experience of green is caused by trees "out there"? Unfortunately, I cannot. If you wish to argue against this conclusion, you will have the whole history of philosophy against you.

Thus, since we cannot "know" in the strict sense what the facts of experience mean, our notions about the objective world cannot be called knowledge in the strict sense. This unconscious leap I make from "seen green" to "the trees in this forest are green." is the conclusion of an inductive inference. For those of you who have studied logic, you may remember how induction works. Over time you have these experiences where green is associated with other colors and textures and sounds and smells in regular patterns, and you conclude that these are properties of the forest that is out there, different from me. As I said, this is an inductive inference in which each of these sense data is a premises leading to the concludion. It is the nature of induction that the best it can produce is a degree of probability. In ordinary language, that translates to: I am confident that there is a forest which exists "out there" independently of me, and the trees are green. This is the sort of common process that all people use unwittingly to arrive at their world view. However, I hope you see that this is at best a tentative hypothesis, namely, that there is an objective world, and that it exists in the same way that I perceive it. Anyone who says he "knows" this is only saying that he has not thought much about the question.

So, take this to the question being debated here: evolution vs. creation ad novum. If we cannot actually be certain that there is even an objective world out there, how can we possibly know whether either of these hypothical accounts of the variety we experiece about us is the case? Of course, we cannot. If someone insists that one or the other can be proved, I point out to him what I have already said, that all proofs lead to infinite regress. This is so because any proof whatsoever for any conclusion whatsoever has to have assumptions with which it begins. These assumptions are either self-evident or proved. Since only sense data (and the Cartesion "Cogito") can possibly be self-evident, any proof must begin with assumptions which are needful of proof themselves, ad infinitum.

To put a fine point on it, before you are all asleep, this argument is really a fool's errand. The best either position can claim is a higher degree of logical consistency, a more congenial fit with the other grand theories of science, and a larger array of "empirical evidence." That is it. As the great Newton himself said about gravity, do not ascribe to me the notion that gravity is a thing. It is an observed mathematical regularity, the cause of which we do not know nor can we ever know. The exact same is true of theories about the flora and fauna of the earth, morphological change, etc. These theories are constructs based upon observed regularities. As such, they are inductive arguments, and can only lead to a degree of probability, never to the "Truth."

Sorry about that. It seems to me that you all have beaten this horse to death. Maybe we should get back to discussing the history of the Jews, an inherently interesting subject in its own right.

Pineneedle, the Handsome, the Hypocrite, the Prickly One

[Jake_Blues]

heres a guy with a dr. in front of his name. seems that he has a much bigger picture for the closed system then you do.


He's correct, the only truely closed system would be the universe at large, but much smaller systems can be viewed as closed, more or less. Doesn't change what I've said one bit. The "evolution isn't true because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument is still totally incorrect, because the Earth isn't a closed system, and because only the average entropy of the system in total is increasing, not all parts of the system.

-E

[Trango]

I cannot believe there is still question about the role of creation in modern science.


The national academies, which serves as the overarching premier organization for all engineers, medicine professionals, and scientists in the USA, has as its membership:

The Institute of medicine:
Membership Statistics as of January 31, 2008:
Membership Type:
Regular - 1530
Foreign Associate - 84
Emeritus - 72
Total - 1,686


NAE Membership Totals (as of February 26, 2008): Active Member 1,986
Member Emeritus 239
Foreign Associate 193
Total 2,418



The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates.

So, There are a combined perhaps 6000 members in this academy, which is a prestigious organization whose members, and we'll just guess here, let's say they have on the order of magnitude (Wild ass guess) of 30 years of experience each. I'm sure this varies incredibly, but that would (rounding up) mean that there is roughly 20,000 man-years of current, highly expert experience in this opinion. And, while scientists are often keen to debunk the standing order of things if they can, and barring that, all scientists are uniformly all hungry for any new discovery regardless of whether or not it jibes with the status quo. However, there hasn't been anything in elite science to show any problem with evolution.

So, let me be completely clear about this - this combined academy of modern science, medicine, and engineering, for which there is no other counterpart or superceding organization, has stated, without reservation or caveat, that 200 years of modern scientific study overwhelmingly supports evolution and the overall traditional scientific model of the world and universe.



This includes every scientific/engineering/medical discovery and practice since the Victorian age.


In summary, nobody knows better than this group if evolution has a place in science. And they say that for evolution, without a scintilla of doubt, it does have a place in science, and that creationism does not.

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Other than that, any of the amateurs here (myself included) are just spinning their wheels on the debate of whether creationism belongs in science. If it's a matter of faith and there are still questions about science, that's great, but the experts, for the whole of science, have answered.

[IronMonkey]

Well put.

That still makes me wonder about whether creationists fill their vehicles with fossil fuels.

Yabba dabba doo!

[1BGDOG]

Well put.

That still makes me wonder about whether creationists fill their vehicles with fossil fuels.

Yabba dabba doo!

Satan put them there in the dirt. To make you questions baby Jesus.

[pineneedle]

My Dear Friends,

Well, it seems as though the faithful wish to continue gnawing on this bone. So, what the hell. As for the opinions of the various national academies, I must point out the oft observed maxim: the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. The opinions of these academies are exactly that, i.e., opinions. As such they amount to inductive arguments (see my previous post, which everyone seems intent on ignoring) in which the various opinions constitute the premises of the arguments. As inductive arguments, these "opinions of the national academies" can only lead to a relative degree of probability, but not to any necessity.

Of course, you are all aware that the overwhelming opinion of the savants in the sixteenth century was against Copernicanism. But, of course, that means nothing really in the matter of determining the "truth." Are we somehow different from them? Do we have a privileged access to the nature of things that they lacked? Of course not. The subsequent centuries of scientific inquiry brought about changes in the prevailing opiniond about the nature of the universe, and we continue to do that. The criterion for scientific revolution has always been, and remains, the explanatory power of a theory. The question is not which theory among competing theories is "true." The question is: which accounts for the most phenomena in the most logically consistent way and remains comportable with the empirical evidence? So, the measure is explanatory power, not truth. I assure you that a hundred years from now, most of the grand scale theories now espoused by science will have been significantly altered or abandoned altogether, just as Einsteinian mechanics has supplanted Newtonian mechanics.

So, as I said earlier, neither of the two views being advocated on this list can lay claim to being true. Instead, the best that eilther can claim is that is is a broader account, a more powerful account, a more logical account, a more consistent account.

This being the case, why argue? The truth is not at stake. No one now alive knows what the truth is and also KNOWS that he KNOWS the truth. End of story.

Pineneedle

[al24]

Never argue politics or religion, you can't win no matter what position you take...Now sex on the other hand....

;)

[Cresso]

Never argue politics or religion, you can't win no matter what position you take...

This is true. If one needs proof of the futility, one need only look at the airplane conveyor thread. Even if one side presents tangible, repeatable evidence, the other side will still choose to see something else. I suppose this could be attributed to pineneedle's post about each person's unique perception of this evidence, but I think it has more to do with a desire to not lose. There's no reason to ever admit defeat if the theory can never be proven.

[vb]

im in agreement. paul/saul said it well when folks tried to go the intellectual route with him. "lets talk about Christ crucified" (my paraphrase). he simply would not get cought up in all of the different tangents and discussions. he went straight to the place where Christ was killed and got up. for him and many others, thats really the crux of the issue of christianity. has nothing to do with religion and practices and buildings and preaching on tv.

and no, im not saying that we should go there. all im saying is that we will never come to an "end" to this discussion. i am glad that weve had the discussion though, its nice to swap ideas and stories with yall

pineneedle, you rock!!!!!

"Maybe we should get back to discussing the history of the Jews, an inherently interesting subject in its own right."

Pineneedle, the Handsome, the Hypocrite, the Prickly One


do you think that this is what the original post was ment to do? id be up for that as well

[Trango]

My Dear Friends,

Well, it seems as though the faithful wish to continue gnawing on this bone. So, what the hell. As for the opinions of the various national academies, I must point out the oft observed maxim: the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. The opinions of these academies are exactly that, i.e., opinions.

Ahh, but here is the rub. My sole contention is that nobody knows science better than those who create it. Believe in the corpus of science if you want, but an absolute fact is that the scientific body has defined what they believe in through their own method. To presume to know their self-defined techniques and beliefs better than them (by erroneously saying that creationism is an apt element of science) is to engage in folly. The corrollary would be to say that Genesis is directly translatable shorthand for what we now know as the scientific theory of evolution.

So, whatever you believe, to posit to know what happens in the house of another is a fool's errand.

Again, although I happen to believe quite strongly in evolution and I would debate for it if I thought the opportunity were of merit and need, I am quite humble in my request here to simply be read correctly. My previous intention is solely to correct apparent misinformation about the current beliefs of science, which I thought would be easily corrected by citing scientists themselves. Certainly my intention was not to tumble yet again the weights on the balance of right and wrong for an undebateable argument.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Bob

[Willy36]

Fixed it for ya! :D

This debate will go on forever, and rarely does one side convince the other.

I have studied both, and for me, I choose to believe God's word, the Bible. It takes faith to believe in the Bible and what it says. It also takes faith to believe in evolution as neither belief can be proved without a shadow of doubt.

So the debate continues...

Actually, I'd be perfectly ok with it if I were made from dirt. I just don't find it logical or plausible. But I have talked to creationists who recoil at the very thought of being closely related to monkeys.

[theirishavenger]

Pineneedle....I don't know who you are, but I have no doubt that you are the most eloquent, well-spoken motherfarker in this whole forum. If you were a painter, you could paint a Picasso out of horse shite.

[pineneedle]

My Dear Trango,

I did not misunderstand you. I certainly agree with you that the preponderating weight of current scientific thinking is adamantly "evolutionist." We are in agreement here.

My point is a niggling one I suppose. I was simply remarking that a mass of opinion, no matter how expert, is still just a mass of opinion, and does not constitute a formal demonstration.

Oh, by the way, I am not a creationist. I will, however, insist on a distinction between the creationist view (that the Genesis account is literally true) and, on the other hand, the view that there is much in the universe to suggest intelligent design. This is not a religious view, nor a recent, come-lately recasting of the creationist position. Since the time of Aristotle, great thinkers have been struck by the evidence of rational order in the universe.

The current problem with this view is that folks who are deeply dedicated to the current biological idea (evolution) want to understand the idea or rational order to be some kind of a thinly-veiled attempt to impose yet another religious paradigm on things. Quite the contrary. What Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Newton, et al meant by this notion is something very different. In their insistance upon a rational structure in the universe, they were holding out for the possibility of understanding it. If the universe is only an utterly random collection of particles, all of which are discrete and unrelated, we have no hope of ever understanding anything in the universe. To understand, in their view, means to recognize the patterns which actually exist, and to abstract these patterns and recreate them in the mind as ideas. Of course, this has implications for questions about the existence and nature of God, but they saw such questions to be derived from the phenomenon of rational order not antecedent to that phenomenon. In other words, their commitment to rational order in the cosmos is, in their view, the fundamental condition for its intelligibility.

Anyway, my dear Trango, I respect both your views and your expression of them. Your posts are both excellent and admirable.

Pineneedle

[starbreaker666]

I'll say it again. Every time Pineneedle posts I feel like like there will be a quiz at the end of the semester... I'd pay good money(well ok, maybe Trango's money) to see him loose it in a thread.

[Dave McDonald]

I'll say it again. Every time Pineneedle posts I feel like like there will be a quiz at the end of the semester... I'd pay good money(well ok, maybe Trango's money) to see him loose it in a thread.

If he did loose it, there's only a handful of regular participants that would be able to comprehend a latin/college level proper english tounge lashing. He would probably never use a term that appeals to the lower end of the bell curve like 'goober' :)

It would no doubt be a thing of beauty.

[potter]

I'll say it again. Every time Pineneedle posts I feel like like there will be a quiz at the end of the semester... I'd pay good money(well ok, maybe Trango's money) to see him loose it in a thread.

I wouldn't be able to handle that. It'd probably take a long time, and alot of posts. And ONE pineneedle post makes my head hurt. I need lots of simple terms and a few four letter words. :beer:

[tbm5690]

Actually, I'd be perfectly ok with it if I were made from dirt. I just don't find it logical or plausible. But I have talked to creationists who recoil at the very thought of being closely related to monkeys.

Willy, the Bible says nothing about being created from dirt, it says we were created in God's image.

[Willy36]

Willy, the Bible says nothing about being created from dirt, it says we were created in God's image.

I am an atheist. You are a Christian. Yet I know the bible better than you.

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html