Evolution is a theory of genetic change in populations of organisms so it isn’t something that someone “lives” consistent with teaching it.
Regarding your comment about honesty, I think I am honest in my posts (unless levity has crept in). I work on the basis that others are honest too (even though I may disagree with their opinion
).s.
S
Silas
Guest
Evolution is a theory of genetic change in populations of organisms so it isn’t something that someone “lives” consistent with teaching it.
Regarding your comment about honesty, I think I am honest in my posts (unless levity has crept in). I work on the basis that others are honest too (even though I may disagree with their opinion
s.
You're right, evolution is only a theory. Why then do people teach it as fact? Science base evolution on macro levels, never mirco levels and yet many people buy into this stuff. Author Keith said it best when he said:
"Evolution is a theory that is neither proven or provable."
By the way, I wasnt kiddin about what I said.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
I think it's terrible when someone comes up with a model of the way things really are and then tries to disprove all other ideas in order to propagate their view. Is that what really bothers you Silas?
Theory does not always mean unproven. The math you use is based on theories as the plane you fly in, as is the internet and most of what goes on in day to day life. One may not subscribe to gravitational theory...but check out the scale or toss a ball in the air...
the·o·ry 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Now if you were to investigate your belief system with that microscope....we'd have some discussion.
S
Silas
Guest
Thats true will. Gotta go work now guys, have a good day!
Hi,
I was rather thinking you meant it. Is expecting everyone else to be either agreeing with you or else be dishonest not a sign of "youthful arrogance"?
s.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-relation-of-atheism-to-6109.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/knowledge-of-good-and-evil-4895.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/is-atheism-a-religion-5092.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/which-is-more-important-4506.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-advantage-of-being-an-5967.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/greatest-proof-of-a-lack-598.html
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/juantoo3s-comments-in-proofs-for-3481.html
C
cyberpi
Guest
So is math and science terrible then? Was Jesus a terrible guy too?
I once had a high school music teacher who tried to explain an important difference between a vocalist and a person who plays a musical instrument. She said that one involved mastering something inside of the body and the other involved mastering something outside of the body, and this made a difference. What she meant was, that there are vocalists who take their voice far more personally... and seemingly a person can't trade in a voice for a better one. I considered the model wrong; however, it is not whether the model was right or wrong that mattered. What mattered was that it was the model that the vocalists seemed to possess whom she tried to help.
I find that a person speaks a truth with every word... even if and when they purposely tell a lie or a tall tale... or speak a model that is 'logically' wrong.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Hey Cyberpi
I think you missed my point by a light year. I was addressing Silas, and a concern he might have with evolution. Your reply would be quite correct had the context been different. Within the context you describe however, I would agree completely with your point of view.
C
cyberpi
Guest
If within a year Silas were to see the point that I added, then I would be impressed. Otherwise I suggest that I missed it by far more than just one light year.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Of which neighbor? Silas has asked people to be honest. On the model of an absolute truth, a hidden understanding that a person is to be honest with, God's law or justice, etc... I disagree with Silas and it would take a long time to find a common understanding, but I submit the more important bridge is between an individual and God.That doesn't seem very neighborly.
On the model of a non-deterministic, anti-evolution, and all applied 'what if' logic, I view that Silas' approach is not only valid here but is fruitfull in science, religion, and in other things like law, economics, psychology, political science, etc... I have seen that the train of thought is one way to realize that God is very real and present, or that a person is more than the body. For me, the lines between science and religion have evaporated, but I have a fair degree of science, math, and engineering under the belt. I agree mostly with what Silas says of the theory of evolution and 'chance'... that evolution is simply NOT what many claim it to be. I would love to delve into a combination of science, control theory, information theory, and thermodynamics to put some of the comments on 'evolution' to shame, but I would be missing most every neighbor.
Instead I was thinking of bringing up game theory like the prisoner's dilemma as an avenue in the divide between the soul, the validity of 'what if' logic, and measured science. Everyone familiar with this? Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
I believe I was being honest in what I said in post #55 about working just as hard regardless of whether God existed. I believe I was truthful when I said that there would be no difference in my moral choices regardless of my belief/unbelief in God.
I think the reason is because there is something else driving us: Death. The impending event of death is the single most horrible thing to have to face or anticipate in one's lifetime. In the meantime we are given a chance to enjoy life or miss out on the fun that everybody else is having.
It is not fear of judgment or punishment that ultimately drives our choices (moral or otherwise), but fear of death. The fact that there is a time limit forces us to start making choices now. It forces us to think about making the right choices because there is probably no second chance at life. Nobody knows what will happen in the next life, so people work hard at getting things right in this life so they don't have to feel guilty about not having lived fulfilled lives or missing out on something good.
So now there is another thing driving us: guilt. As human beings we all have the personal need for dignity. We don't want to die without dignity. After all, we have been given a chance to live. That opportunity began the moment we entered this world. So the reason why we try to do the right thing is because we don't want to think we wasted this life. Bad behaviour can have bad consequences. It gives you a bad reputation and may ruin your chances of getting married, staying married, having or not having a job. Moreover, I do not want people to start looking up my journals, diaries or financial records to see what I've been up to after I've died. That would be embarrassing.
We don't know how or why we got here. But hey -- we're here. So what do we do with ourselves?
Remember that we're not immortal. We don't live forever. Extravagant and wasteful lives are the privilege of immortal people, but that luxury doesn't exist for people whose days are numbered.
While one may argue that we are a result of an evolutionary process and/or because it says in Ecclesiastes that life is pointless, we get used to the fact that we exist and have been given a chance to enjoy life. The irony is that even if life was pointless, people would still want to live life to the full. That's because there's nothing better to do.
We all live, to a certain extent, in a sea of apathy. We may talk about Evolution and God, but in a sense, we really don't care about Evolution or God's existence. We may engage in debates about Evolution and God's existence, but the arguments are really of no consequence.
Consider what it says in Ecclesiastes. If life really is pointless and we are chasing the wind, the intellectual and philosophical arguments about Evolution or God's existence mean nothing. The debate is "pointless" because we are mortals. We are not invincible. We aren't master of our own destiny. Man is too small and too powerless to decide and prove once and for all whether or not Evolution theory or God's existence are true or false. The debates about Evolution and Creationism are generally used to impress people with propaganda and sensationalism. We are celebrating our own hopelessness. We are so hopeless at deciding either way!!!! We are so agnostic!!!!
Saying "I believe in Evolution Theory" or "I believe in the existence of God" means nothing because either way, Man is too small and powerless to guarantee that it is true. We all know that. It can be just as phony and political as boasting about what football team you support. A person may proclaim their beliefs, but they know deep inside that they have no way of knowing that it's true. That's why there's often no difference in moral choices made by atheists and theists. The belief or disbelief in God is actually the least important aspect of their lives. Believing or disbelieving was not enough to change their overall attitude to life or their behaviour.
So life goes on without the question being answered. Meanwhile, we try our hardest to live life to the full, to achieve our full potential, as if in our efforts the question will be answered.
I understand what you're saying. It appears I have judged you hastily.
Please forgive me.
Best Regards,
Mark
P.S. Was not familiar with the prisoner thing. Interesting...
C
cyberpi
Guest
I appreciate the rebukes and thank you for them. Please don't feel ashamed to rebuke me at any time for any reason. My comment was narrowly and poorly made and deserved something.
By the way I personally find game theory revolting, full of iniquity, but fruitful to learn, consider, and understand why. Several Nobel prizes have been awarded over it. I bring it up because perhaps without realizing it, it is what was being discussed here. It is in the chasm of 'what if' logic between models of science and souls, biological evolution and God.
(Game theory economists: Nobel prize 2005)
Game theory economists win Nobel prize - Stocks & Economy - MSNBC.com
Same reason with the Theory of Gravity. It's a scientific model tested by scientific processes.
It doesn't parade as Truth, but something to be tested and verified and improved from.