The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Evolution
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-25-2008, 04:38 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

I think there's room for all schools of thought. All I have ever said is be respectful of other peopole's veiws, because they hold theirs as strongly as you hold yours.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
  #22  
Old 04-25-2008, 05:30 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright Eyes View Post
I'm sorry, but this comment reflects a foundational misunderstanding of science. The facts don't say anything other than what the results are, and mean nothing without an interpretation. (In this discussion I am leaving aside that not all facts published stand up to scrutiny. Often Bible-denying 'facts' are loudly proclaimed in newspapers, only to be very quietly retracted a few months later as being faulty. I am only speaking about verifiable, reliable facts.)

When a scientist publishes, s/he produces both facts and an interpretation of the facts. However, we live in a world were most scientists have an a priori pre-commitment to materialistic, humanistic evolution and therefore interpret the facts according to their beliefs. A creation scientist (and there are many) will take the same facts and interpret them according to his beliefs. For example, an evolutionist might look at the Grand Canyon and say, "A little water and a long time caused this to happen", while a creationist would look at it and say, "A lot of water and a little time caused this to happen."

This leads to an obvious conclusion that both creationists and evolutionists are proceeding from a belief system, which is true. The difference is that Creationists freely admit to this being the case, while humanistic evolutionists maintain a myth that they have no agenda and that an honest investigation into the facts has caused them to arrive at naturalistic evolution. However, the reality is that there is no verifiable fact in science that contradicts the biblical account of existence, and a creationist feels no obligation to jump on the humanist's bandwagon and say that the Bible is untrue.

Creationists are not seeking to have evolution banned from being taught in schools; they want the teaching that evolution has been proved as a fact and that it is the only scientific way of interpreting the facts, to be replaced with the truth that evolution hasn't been proved as a fact and that there are other ways of interpreting scientific facts.

Therefore a person wanting to believe the Bible has no need to compromise his/her beliefs to accommodate the humanistic evolutionary agenda. Articles can be read at http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65 .

I know what you mean about the ''foundational misunderstanding of science."
Sciences society has spun an expectation that has been directed in the schools. Frankly it's as bad or worse than religion in the class room. Give the kids a real choice. What ever happened to being objective. It's so hard to get a scientist to say..."I don't know" in refrence to evolution. Instead you're told:
"theres no reason to believe we're wrong"
"This is proven"
"Evolution is a fact"


Quote:
The facts don't say anything other than what the results are, and mean nothing without an interpretation.


That is exactly right...You said it better than I could. The facts are determined but what they mean is anything but. There must be speculation less we forget we are dealing a theory whose ultimate reveal would require several million years to bear out.


But on the Creationist side there is alot of blind trust involved. Many things the typical Christian has not investigated and that may short them on cruicial information. Even taking metaphors to be litteral. Tradition can be dangerous. Trusting based on repetition can lead to a false reality.

For example the two major issues presented by Science against the Creationist:

The Creation Account:
The Creationist typically believes in 6 days of creation from universe to man. Science has a problem with this obviously. Yet investigating the bible reveals several scriptures that bring out the possible extended nature of the 6 days as being figurative.

The Biblical Flood:
Another big problem in the science department. Many people remember this flood as 40 days and 40 nights of constant rain. Science say there is not enought water in the atmosphere. However investigation reveals that the Flood was not merely a issue of rain.

A Christian Note:
In Noah's account of the Food it rained 40 days and 40 nights. However...
The waters continued to rise for 150 days before the water began drain away.

__________________

  #23  
Old 04-25-2008, 05:40 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

My big sticking point: the earth is not 8000 years old. (Unless all geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists are part of a vast conspiracy...)

Don't forget the Bible has been translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to the Vulgar languages to modern English. At every step, things were added or changed to fit the political climate of the time (ie The King James Bible... where does a King get off changing the supposed word of God?). Why do we think the ancient texts were so precise in their measure of time?

I don't care if people think the earth is balanced on a gigantic turtle, or if we all sprang from Zeus' forehead... just as long as they keep it in their churches and out of our government and public-funded schools.
__________________
  #24  
Old 04-25-2008, 05:41 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Also, the ancient Hebrews used "40" as a number to signify "a long time." (IE Jesus in the desert for 40 days, the 40 days of rain for the flood).
__________________
  #25  
Old 04-25-2008, 06:07 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
My big sticking point: the earth is not 8000 years old. (Unless all geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists are part of a vast conspiracy...)

Don't forget the Bible has been translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to the Vulgar languages to modern English. At every step, things were added or changed to fit the political climate of the time (ie The King James Bible... where does a King get off changing the supposed word of God?). Why do we think the ancient texts were so precise in their measure of time?

I don't care if people think the earth is balanced on a gigantic turtle, or if we all sprang from Zeus' forehead... just as long as they keep it in their churches and out of our government and public-funded schools.

All very true jan!

But I feel all religons are allowed (under freedom of speach, religon, and expression) to rally in public places(IE parks, town square, ect), as long as there is no civil disobeience.

But yes, the lines bewteen church and state blurr in American society(Yes, and I KNOW people are going to tell me that the country was founded by Judo/Christians) but the documents we all live (In America) but specifcally, the sepration of church and state.

Why? Beacuse in times past the Church of England ruled England, with the King as a figurehead, so the founding fathers did not want a repeat of that when they wrote these documents.

Govermental rule by religous edict will never work. Why? Just look at this discussion and others on this forum alone. There is no way to even please soem of the people that way.

But what we should have is acceptance of veiws, and the right to agree to disagree without hurt feelings, or the need to pin our faith on soemone else.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
  #26  
Old 04-25-2008, 07:33 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
My big sticking point: the earth is not 8000 years old. (Unless all geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists are part of a vast conspiracy...)

Don't forget the Bible has been translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to the Vulgar languages to modern English. At every step, things were added or changed to fit the political climate of the time (ie The King James Bible... where does a King get off changing the supposed word of God?). Why do we think the ancient texts were so precise in their measure of time?

I don't care if people think the earth is balanced on a gigantic turtle, or if we all sprang from Zeus' forehead... just as long as they keep it in their churches and out of our government and public-funded schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
Also, the ancient Hebrews used "40" as a number to signify "a long time." (IE Jesus in the desert for 40 days, the 40 days of rain for the flood).
I think the claim is...6,000 years but I guess you're adding a few for written history? Welll that would actually add up to 12,000 years old with the written history.


Well don't forget either that there are text predating most Gentile attempts to alter the writings. The Hewbrews themselves were incredible fastidious about precision with the copying of the scrolls other wise we wouldn't have so many in the first place to compare between all the errors that have been attempted on the writtings. Kiing James is certainly one of the most notable. One Catholic translation even attempted to add trinity in the scripts....so you're right that there was no lack of attempts.
__________________

  #27  
Old 04-25-2008, 07:45 AM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

What most people call 'science' today, isn't; though not referred to as such, it's really a religion, with supposed scientists as the new 'high priests'.

Science is a process, and a very straight-forward one at that. Personally, I am a great fan of, and believe in, 'hard' science. It's this 'faux science' that bothers me, especially since it's become nearly globally accepted as 'real' science...

Evolution is a theory. Whether or not you wish to argue that it is a correct theory or not, it is certainly an accepted theory - nevertheless, under the most basic principles of the scientific method, it has been and still remains JUST a theory. As such, if you'll forgive the pun, it continues to evolve...

Even in the past half-century, parts of the original theory have been changed or discarded, and new parts grafted on. This is because slowly gained observable data has contradicted what existed before. This is all well and good, and right in line with the way science is supposed to work. What most people fail to realize, however, is just how little data there actually is, and so how much hypothesis is in play at any given time to fill in the monumental blanks in the equation. The presumed age of the earth has changed, continually upwards, in an attempt to explain things - and that, itself, is a form of cheating. The greater the time scale, the less accurate any theory is, as we (with our limited sense of time effects based on the length of recorded scientific history) simply don't KNOW... but while it thus makes it nearly impossible to prove anything (unless we wait X-billion of years for verification), it thus becomes equally impossible to 'DISPROVE'. (More correctly, to prove otherwise...)

Anybody who tells you that evolution is a 'fact' is lying to you; scientists who extend their research based on the 'fact' of evolution are lying to themselves. At the present moment in time, evolution may prove to be as real and valuable an insight as X-rays; or as laughable to future generations as N-rays.

The REAL scientific answer as to world history and the ways and means for humanity and life itself is simple and, to our arrogant presumptions, uncomfortably humbling:

'We don't know'...
  #28  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:03 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,226
Default

We don't know... but there are findings that support the theory of evolution. Nothing supports other theories. No facts at all.
A simple question, for example: Why do whales have lungs, not gills?
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

  #29  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:18 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
We don't know... but there are findings that support the theory of evolution. Nothing supports other theories. No facts at all.
A simple question, for example: Why do whales have lungs, not gills?
Good point NCC!

But, what's to say there's maybe not a bit of truth in all of them?

But I think what's important is that, and I'll say it again, is that everyone's veiws are valid for them.

We should make sure that people are free in America (can assume Germany is much the same way) are free to belive what they wish without persicution, or hatred.

I belive we should allways live by the credo, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll help defend your right to say it!"

In any Evolution/Creation discussion we will never come to a consensus, it's the nature of the beast. It rasies emotonial flags on all fronts of the discussion.

But, let's keep in mind that we should respect others as we wish to be respected, and keep things civil. Togeter, as a forum, we can do it!
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
  #30  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:29 AM
Ditroi's Avatar
Ditroi Ditroi is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,035
Default

Quote:
I belive we should allways live by the credo, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll help defend your right to say it!"
That's a great line. The only time I can't uphold it is when beliefs are used as an excuse to oppress the people around you... women...children... girls, anyone you can shove into a corner and label as "the others".
__________________
All artists are obssesive compulsive... its what keeps us going!
The science inspires the dream, the dream creates the art...the art fuels the dream and continues to inspire the science!


http://www.dianahuang.com
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.