|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
 |
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Maybe from your perspective, but from mine sin separates evolutionists from believers. A Christian who believes that sin brought death into the world, cannot believe in an evolutionary model where evolution took place through death. Do you see my point? Before sin, there wasn't death. After sin, then there was death. Therefore, if you believe that sin caused death then you can't believe that we came from insects. |
Who thinks we come from insects? Sheesh. Way to be willfully ignorant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
fiveeagles wrote
| Quote: |
Both are guided by faith and why we have the debate. You can't have faith without science and you can't have science without faith. They are interwoven. |
Science is not guided by faith it is guided by evidence. Faith cannot exist in the presence of concrete evidence. Absolute faith is believing where there is no evidence. The stronger the evidence the weaker the faith and vice versa.
| Quote: |
| Faith and science are interwined and the sooner we accept that then the quicker we can absolve our differences. |
Faith and Science are not intertwined. They are mutually exclusive! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:33 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
fiveeagles wrote
| Quote: |
Both are guided by faith and why we have the debate. You can't have faith without science and you can't have science without faith. They are interwoven. |
Science is not guided by faith it is guided by evidence. Faith cannot exist in the presence of concrete evidence. Absolute faith is believing where there is no evidence. The stronger the evidence the weaker the faith and vice versa.
| Quote: |
| Faith and science are interwined and the sooner we accept that then the quicker we can absolve our differences. |
Faith and Science are not intertwined. They are mutually exclusive! |
Arguing with Rteacher can be fun at times, and sometimes he makes a witty joke. Arguing with the absolute blackhole of logic that is FiveEagles will just cause an early stroke and is not worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Faith and Science are not intertwined. They are mutually exclusive! |
most of the early, and i think therefore greatest, scientists were heavily into mysticism... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's certainly true... And even in relatively modern times, A.R. Wallace, co-founder (along with Charles Darwin) of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection abandoned materialism:
For him, human beings were distinguished form brute nature through being spiritual beings, and in his later years Wallace turned to mysticism.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/evolution/malthus/cmpt_ethics.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Blix wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Faith and Science are not intertwined. They are mutually exclusive! |
most of the early, and i think therefore greatest, scientists were heavily into mysticism... |
So what? They could also have been into ballet or knitting.
Maybe Darwin liked to dress up in a tutu and leap pas des deux in his library while he formulated his theories.
Perhaps Newton like to run up tea cosies while he waited for inspiration to strike. That still wouldn't mean that Science was dependant on knitting and ballet and vice versa.
Besides we're discussing Faith not Mysticism. They're not the same thing.
Last edited by Grimalkin on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Rteacher"]
For him, human beings were distinguished form brute nature through being spiritual beings, and in his later years Wallace turned to mysticism.
...and produced what great laws or theories of mysticism as a result? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Blix wrote: |
| Quote: |
| anyone who has even studied basic logic wouldn't state such a moronic fallacy of proving a negative. |
some swans aren't white?
or did you mean proving a universal negative? which is just as difficult as proving a universal postive, at least in physical science. in math it's possible to prove negatives, and i think math has some connection with basic logic. |
There are egg laying bats.
Prove there are not. The universal disproof is impossible. Unless you look everywhere simultaneously. The universal proof of this is possible. Produce one.
You didn't bother to quote the REST of my post which expanded upon that fallacy's domain. If you could manage the challenging task of reading two sentences in a row, your question would be answered.
Logic does not just cover formal logic. Informal logic is another branch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Though the church has made silly errors, they did so in their ignorance of what the scripture says. If they were more inline with scripture, they would have known that the bible pointed towards a universe that wasn't earth orientated. |
And how do you know that you aren't making the same silly errors? Even, for the sake of argument, accepting God and the story of creation, there's a whole host of issues involved here. The role of God in writing the Bible, literal versus figurative, allegory, metaphors, ad nauseum. Not to mention copying and translation issues. To flatly assert that God created the universe in 6 days some 6000 years ago takes a ridiculous leap of assumptions that are not in any way, shape or form, vital components of Christianity.
In the end, religion, including Christianity, shouldn't be about where we came from, but rather where we are and where we are going. To invest the credibility of the church in things like an Earth-centered universe, the Shroud of Turin, crying Madonnas, water sprouting trees, and evolution is doing more to destroy you than any athiest ever could.
Just my opinion, but I'm trying to provide some objective constructive criticism as opposed to the normal outright Christianity bashing that goes on here.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And Noah's Ark?? The only evidence I've seen supporting the 6000 year old Earth is that eveything can be explained by "God's hand." |
www.answersingenesis.com |
Off topic, but it looks like it was written by a high school student, or at best, a high school science teacher. So much conjecture and so many holes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Noah's Ark?? The only evidence I've seen supporting the 6000 year old Earth is that eveything can be explained by "God's hand." |
www.answersingenesis.com
|
| Quote: |
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
|
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Okay so what about new world animals like armadillos? What old world genus did they evolve from now?
| Quote: |
| Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. |
Even if we go back to the armadillo's order (Xenarthra), we're still looking at a new world order. Before that we hit, like, the mammal class.
And I'm sorry there is zero chance you can pack only two of each kind and expect each to have a stable genetic breeding population.
You're a little beyond the basics? Not a chance. You better go back to some basics, St. Peter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. |
Even if we go back to the armadillo's order (Xenarthra), we're still looking at a new world order. Before that we hit, like, the mammal class. |
Not to mention that this would mean that every species (not to mention every race of man and every language) existing today has evolved from these 8,000 genera and 8 people. In about 5,000 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus didn't present a detailed, sophisticated scientific or philosophical presentation because there apparently were few intellectuals among the relatively simple people he was preaching to.
I also think that Christians would do well to focus on Jesus' teachings and example as a perfect son of God and have faith that God the father posesses inconceivable, unlimited potencies ... Challenging scientists on the basis of the Bible beyond the basic issue of God's being the supreme eternal being and ultimate cause of everything would necessarily involve a lot of speculation, and "Young Earth" proponents especially, would seem to be on shaky ground (though they've offered some sophisticated arguments...)
On the other hand, it's good that they attack scientists who evangelize atheistic beliefs and philosophies. The more heat put on them from all sides, the better, IMO... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
On the other hand, it's good that they attack scientists who evangelize atheistic beliefs and philosophies. The more heat put on them from all sides, the better, IMO... [/color][/b] |
You keep talking about these scientists that evangelize atheistic beliefs and yet you never actually mention who they actually are.
Now certainly there are a lot of scientists who don't believe in god, as there are lawyers and english teachers who don't believe in god. But why are you picking on the poor scientists? Are these scientists claiming their scientific work establishes/compels a belief in no god? If so, who are they and what are their specific claims? Or do you just not like some scientists have established complex theories supported by multiple lines of evidence that are at wide variance with a literal interpretation of your upanitikatika and the revealed wisdom of Baghwan Kash? And this to you is tantamount to evangelizing atheism? Although it clearly is not to anyone who has not devoted a life to hanging out in NASA parking lots trying to get spare change out of vacationers.
It just seems another in a long line of you just pulling stuff out of your ass because it fits your world view and you don't actually do the hard research. Typical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Second, anyone who has even studied basic logic wouldn't state such a moronic fallacy of proving a negative. Those who make the claim of the existence of some creature or phenomenon have the burden of proving its existence. Scientists know that. We know that. You don't.
|
for the moment, ok, but you really should say 'physical' phenomenon. careful writing makes for efficient debates.
| Quote: |
| First, no scientist would make a claim that's even testable. |
allow me the single sentence quote. can you elaborate on this? scientists make untestable claims? i'm confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Blix wrote: |
| Quote: |
Second, anyone who has even studied basic logic wouldn't state such a moronic fallacy of proving a negative. Those who make the claim of the existence of some creature or phenomenon have the burden of proving its existence. Scientists know that. We know that. You don't.
|
for the moment, ok, but you really should say 'physical' phenomenon. careful writing makes for efficient debates.
|
so does logic
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| First, no scientist would make a claim that's even testable. |
allow me the single sentence quote. can you elaborate on this? scientists make untestable claims? i'm confused. |
He was responding to this..
| Quote: |
Rteacher wrote:
[b][color=darkred]The underlying assumption made by some scientists that "there is no God" can not be tested experimentally.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. First, no scientist would make a claim that's even testable. |
No scientist would make a claim that "there is no God" is even testable. Pretty easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
