The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Evolution may not be a religion (it's actually just an exaggerated, inflated hypothesis), but science has, unfortunately, become one. There is no longer any impartial objectivity among it's leading members. It has become, disturbingly, all about power, influence, reputation & money. Whoops! Sounds alot like organised religion doesn't it?

Here's a good example of why I am disappointed with the scientific community:

I just finished watching NGC's Explorer on the "Hobbits of Flores". The first 15 minutes or so was very informative; I was interested. Then, out of nowhere, they start talking about homo-erectus walking 6,000 miles from Africa to Indonesia. My brain numbed immediately. I said to myself, "What the #%^$ does this have to do with anything?!". I shouldn't have asked, because it got worse from that point on. By the time they were through, homo-erectus had shrunk to 3.5ft in height, komodo dragons had grown to twice their normal size, and pygmy elephants (which were previously full sized) were dancing around the landscape. They never bothered to mention just exactly why homo-erectus (in considerable numbers) would have undertaken an almost impossible journey to a half-barren volcanic island in the far reaches of nowhere (on rafts of bamboo of which there is no proof that they made), or why a whole herd of elephants decided to relocate to this veritable paradise by swimming across an area of ocean. Nor was it mentioned that geographic changes responsible for the current topography most probably were not in effect at the time of their dating (18,000 years ago), causing the whole swimming/rafting episode to be pointless.

You may refer to many of my previous posts if anyone cares to know why organised religion ticks me off.

Originally posted by Lordling
Evolution may not be a religion (it's actually just an exaggerated, inflated hypothesis),

No, it's a theory (actually a collection of them) because it is supported by material evidence and not just conjecture. A hypothesis becomes theory once it consistently passes at least a single attempt at falsification. The various evolutionary theories have passed numerous such tests.

Originally posted by Lordling
...but science has, unfortunately, become one. There is no longer any impartial objectivity among it's leading members. It has become, disturbingly, all about power, influence, reputation & money. Whoops! Sounds alot like organised religion doesn't it?

Science is not immune from human frailty, but you are grossly over generalizing here. If the leading members (whoever that might be) are partial, they will not remain the leading members. Someone else will come along and prove what bafoons they've been and knock them off their pedestals. It's happened time and again, and I see no reason it can't continue to happen. This fear is part of what motives against complacency.

Originally posted by Lordling
I just finished watching NGC's Explorer on the "Hobbits of Flores". The first 15 minutes or so was very informative; I was interested. Then, out of nowhere, they start talking about homo-erectus walking 6,000 miles from Africa to Indonesia. My brain numbed immediately. I said to myself, "What the #%^$ does this have to do with anything?!".

How do you generalize from a crap infotainment piece toward science or scientists as a whole? TV is all about money. Just because they poorly represent scientific discoveries doesn't mean the scientists are boobs. More likely it means the entertainers haven't done their homework and they know the audience is so uncritical and ill informed that few will notice, or stop watching even if they do notice.

The various evolutionary theories have passed numerous such tests.

uh no. only micro evolution has passed, all others are assumed.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

The various evolutionary theories have passed numerous such tests.

uh no. only micro evolution has passed, all others are assumed.

EC

Since "micro evolution" is a Creationist term and not even part of the evolutionary vocabulary, you score a 0. Why not study up a bit on that which you attack before attacking it?

If you did , you would realize that evolutionary theory is a blanket term that includes numerous theories from various fields. It's much more than just natural selection.

Yet, without even realizing that there's more to it than 'micro' vs 'macro', you authoritatively claim that none of the theories among all the subdisciplines have passed any tests except for 'micro-evolution', which isn't even among such theories.



Perhaps life is too short to waste arguing with creationists.

dude I have been studying this topic for a while now, and I know that there is more than just one meaning to the word evolution than just one. Micro evolution is just a variation of a species within a KIND of animal.

an example would be, the dog the wolf and fox, but big little dogs, straight hair curley hair.
that is an example of micro evolution.

and why you bring natural selection up, I dont know, it doesnt cause evolution. natural selection selects. thats all it does. it does not create anything new.

Cosmic/chemical/stellar/organic/and macro evolution have no evidence to support them. talk about a lot of faith. you have to believe that it happens. even the professors that debated Dr Hovind said that "with enough time, it can happen..." well first of all, they dont know that. they believe that it will happen. and you know what else he said? he said this "fossils dont count for evolution"
I have the debate, the video does not lie. even the evolutionists knows that fossils dont count that that the only kind of evolution that has been observed is micro or divergent evolution. micro evolution is a christian term (I can agree) but divergent evolution is a term not used by creationists. and they both mean the same thing.

and evolution is just a hypothesis, beause almost anyone I have asked will say "if given enough time, such and such will happen. that is a hypothesis.

hypothesis- if blank happens, then blank should happen.

and thats exactly what evolution is, and those who have faith in it, make it their religion.

that is why I say that its a religion. its pushed and pushed and its supported by lies.

LIES such as:

Vestigial structures.
Grand Canyon being formed by the colorado river.
Embryo Gill slits.
chemical soup to a living organism
common ancestars
darwins theory that plants and animals being related to eachother.
how stars form ( know one knows how a star forms)


there are more than what I just mentioned. Time seems to be the god of evolution, because without time, things that the evolutionist assumes to happen, cannot happen without time or a bunch of death.
let me correct myself and re-state that. time and death seem to be the gods
of evolution because without time, things cannot evolve. without millions of years of death, (like darwin said) things cant evolve.

no ill stick to my belief that God made everything 6,000 years ago and that when I die, I will be judged by his word along with everyone else.

see I want to share a little message with those who are non-believers.
Christ didnt just die for the whites of the blacks of the eskimos, or the germans. he died for all of mankind. he died for everyone. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. this is why we dont sacrifice animals anymore.
also the bible says that God doesnt wish that anyone goes to hell, but that they come to repentance. this means that God wants for you to go to heaven but he gave you a choice, God is not controlling, thats why he gave us free will.

anyways, I still hold my belief to be true.

EC

Originally posted by spamandham

Perhaps life is too short to waste arguing with creationists.

Science works through falsification, so it couldn't be hurting. It would be more helpful if a Mod posted Arguments Creationists Should Not Use, and this would cut down upon the conversations that are repetedly brought up.



[edit on 1-8-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by spamandham

Perhaps life is too short to waste arguing with creationists.

Ok, then that just leaves me. I'm not a Creationist.

Oxford English Dictionary
Theory - 1. A scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena. 2. A hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts. 3. A statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

As proposed in The Origin of Species, I can accept:

1. Descent with Modification (hypothesis)
2. Natural Selection (hypothesis as the cause)

These have been strongly supported by acquired knowledge in genetics.

However, in common perception, the composition of the theory (actually a set of hypotheses) has been inflated over time with hundreds (if not thousands) of additional hypotheses which are not necessarily as well supported as these original two.

For example:

Gravity Driven Cosmological Evolution and the Origin of Life

Hypothesis
Driven by reaction to the Big Bang in a fully deterministic process directed at opposing expansion of space/time, gravity generates a logically sequential set of energy/matter transitions leading to and incorporating intelligent life.

Model Predictions of an Origin of Life Hypothesis Based on Sea Spray

Hypothesis
According to geological evidence life arose in the sea no more than a few hundred million years following earth formation and stabilization. Contemporary cells are presumed to be more complicated and mechanistically different from the first cells, termed protocells. A hypothesis of the origin of protocells is described here based on sea spray. A model is developed from this hypothesis which allows calculation of the expected time of appearance of successful protocells based on the production rate of sea spray worldwide. Using a range of values for the parameters in the model, a time of appearance under several hundred million years is obtained. If the sea spray hypothesis is correct for primordial earth, then it will be shown that the time of appearance of life on Mars or Titan could be considerably quicker.

So, who is on the Theory of Evolution Approval Committee? Is there one? Nope. Where is the status of support for all these wondrous hypotheses posted? I can't find it. Who decides when & what gets added to the list? The National Academy of Sciences? Nope. UNESCO? I don't think so. How would you or I know if something did (if it exists)? We wouldn't.

In conclusion, the current Theory of Evolution, appears to be a many splendoured thing, with no concrete overall definition, other than the work done by Darwin and others before (Linnaeus, Buffon, Lamarck) on heredity, adaptation & natural selection. Perhaps this is why there is so much conflict over what it actually means; because noone really knows what has been supported well enough to join the other hypotheses in support of the theory. What the public gets is sensational newsbites that tell them that 'compelling new evidence' has been found in support of "Evolution", without telling them that the definition of Evolution is changing all the time.

p.s. By the way, we seem to be WAY off topic, so if you'd like to continue, let's please take this to Origins. However, the fact that we ended up on this topic shows how closely entertwined all these subjects are.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Lordling]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I have the debate, the video does not lie.

TV lies all the time, it's propably favorite tools of authoritarian propagandist of dictators and other who want to control peoples thoughts and make them worship leaders... with US providing excellent example.

even the evolutionists knows that fossils dont count

And now you're lying so much that airflow can be felt here!

Your "ultimate guide" has really nice CV...
In its endless wisdom it provided good soil for Black death where to spread while even "magicians" of African tribes have succeeded better with Ebola.



"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
-Isaac Asimov

More specifically the absolute power of Christianity, hence the thread title. There are some nice, even informatiive evolution threads already out there like this one:

Evolution, where is the evidence, I see none:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or this one

Creationist Confusion
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 1-8-2005 by saint4God]

TV lies all the time, it's propably favorite tools of authoritarian propagandist of dictators and other who want to control peoples thoughts and make them worship leaders... with US providing excellent example.

dude it was a recording... you would like to think that it was fake or its not true, but you simply dont know, now do you?

and as for fossils not counting, this is why they dont count... you cant prove those bones in the dirt had any kids, any that lived, and any that were different from itself. that is why they dont count.
dont call me a liar. that may be your opinion, but keep that to yourself.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and thats exactly what evolution is, and those who have faith in it, make it their religion.

that is why I say that its a religion. its pushed and pushed and its supported by lies.

Because you prefer to call it a hypothesis than a theory therefor it's a religion?

If you want to call naturalism a religion, you might have a case, but evolution is merely a process. There is evidence of it. We witness mutations (including beneficial ones), we witness speciation, we witness random increases in genetic material, including random increases in the number of chromosomes. These are not hypothesis, they are directly observed, well documented and repeatable. Evolution does happen.

The question is whether or not evolution explains our existence, not whether it happens. Can the combination of the observed random mutations combined with natural selection and observed speciation result in new "kinds" (to use creationist language)? Why can't it? Why can small changes not accumulate? What force of nature prevents the accumulation of changes?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
time and death seem to be the gods
of evolution

...and I suppose that gravity is the god of Newtonian physics, light is the god of relativity, electricity is the god of computers, etc..

Repeating endlessly that evolution is a religion simply because it contrasts your literalist interpretation of the Bible does not make it true. This constant mantra creationists preach only fools fellow creationists. It marginalizes you in the greater public eye. Few outside Christian fundamentalism buy your spin. If you want to defeat evolutionary theory, you're going to have to falsify the base theories one at a time.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
no ill stick to my belief that God made everything 6,000 years ago and that when I die, I will be judged by his word along with everyone else.

I would expect nothing less. No amount of evidence could disuade you from a position arrived at through wishful thinking. The 6000 year business is particularly amusing since it isn't even in the Bible, but rather is derived from assumptions young earthers add to the Bible (doesn't Revelation warn against doing that? hmmm).

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by junglejake
riley, with that mentality, you take out any chance of God "proving" himself to you.

I beg your pardon? With that mentality- we'd still be treating mental illness is demon possesion and we'd never have built planes [flying is the devils work]. I'm sorry I didn't 'find god' at the end of my journey.. to me it would be like trying to force myself to believe in Santa clause. The way people have been speaking to me it is like they are assuming I'm deliberately not believing just to be rebelious.. I cannot help the way I percieve the world.. and I cannot suddenly change and attribute all the mysteries in life to some guy in the sky. That just seems overly simplistic and fanciful to me.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by riley]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I'm not saying dismiss any idea of research into the field. There's plenty of research taking place now on remote healings and the neurological effects on a patient being prayed for. I'm just saying that, when confronted with an unknown, you've already knocked God out as a possible cause before even looking into it. It would be like looking at fire 1000 years ago and dismissing any idea that it could be vapors coming from the wood causing the fire because the fire appears on the logs and the logs are charred when it goes out. That's what I meant by you removing God as being any possibility in your life.

Spam: Well, from your request on what constitutes a provable miracle, I can't comply. No one can because of the number of variables taking place here on this tiny little marble floating in the massive black void we live in. It's like UFO sightings. You have tons and tons of these sightings. Many can be dismissed as hoaxes, many others can be dismissed because they could be some other phenomena, while others, though they can't be explained, are dismissed just as easily. There's coincidence, but eventually most have to admit there's a pattern. This person was cured of an incurable disease while at the hospital who had many people praying for them. Eh, could have been the doctors. This person miraculously grew a third set of teeth, they were lost in a tragic accident, people prayed, and he grew new teeth. Ahh, but that could just be a genetic anomaly. This person's 95% terminal cancer just disappeared; people were praying. Freak accident, nothing to worry about. This person's ovarian cancer just disappeared. That happens, couldn't be prayer, too many other factors. This person survived an accident no human being should have survived, and their family has been praying for them from the getgo. Doctor induced miracles happen; has nothing to do with faith. This child was born in such a way he should have been dead 10 days after birth, but here, 15 years later, he's living a normal, healthy life. Never did a day go past that his family and friends didn't pray for him. Praise be unto the doctor! etc.

Individual accounts can all be dismissed on an individual basis. You take all of them at once, though, and you have a much harder time explaining it away.

Evolution may not be a religion (it's actually just an exaggerated, inflated hypothesis), but science has, unfortunately, become one. There is no longer any impartial objectivity among it's leading members. It has become, disturbingly, all about power, influence, reputation & money. Whoops! Sounds alot like organised religion doesn't it?

You are so wrong about science. There is plenty of objectivity, and research continues on a variey of subjects.

I will agree with you about "programming". Any program written comes from the view of the writer of such. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think I feel what Evolution Cruncher is saying and understand what madman is meaning. From my experience science is for the most part objective, but when you get to evolution the feelings in the room from professors and students suddenly changes. I had a distinct advantage to be objective, since I had not been taught evolution in High School (yes, it was a public school). I was then fresh and new to the ideas they were presenting. Sitting in the circle of the discussion on the topic (elective credit), it did not at all feel like an open-minded discussion. No "hm, I see, that's an interesting thought, but how do you explain..." rather a red faced insistence that the model works and need to trust it despite the lack of data and testing. That's where I have the problem. Do one of two things and I am convinced evolution belongs in science. A.) Present verifying tests with supporting data or B.) State that this is a possibility, not a working scientific model. I'm not talking about adaptation, Mendel's experiments proved that before Darwin set pen to paper. As a taxonomist, Darwin should have stuck with what he knew, not write a book based on one he read about geological changes over time, then template it onto a life science.

Ready for the irony? I'll probably be going back in the spring to pick up my last few credits for the degree, concentration in Genetics. Then, on to grad school. Hey, it's not my decision else I wouldn't do it. I think I can suffer through 2 classes and 2 labs though. Love the science, but the community has got to change there to hold any interest for me.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by junglejake
This person miraculously grew a third set of teeth, they were lost in a tragic accident, people prayed, and he grew new teeth.

Do you have a reference for this one?

Originally posted by junglejake
Individual accounts can all be dismissed on an individual basis. You take all of them at once, though, and you have a much harder time explaining it away.

Hold on. If each individual case that is investigated is dismissable, then the pattern is not that there is too much evidence to dismiss, but rather a pattern of assigning the miraculous to the mundane. This tells us something about human psychology rather than something about the divine.

It's the same as for the alien arguments. Few, if any, of the claims withstand scrutiny. Why then is it reasonable to conclude that there must be something to it all? Based on the cases that have been investigated and turned out to be fraud/error/uncritical thinking, wouldn't the better conclusion be that there is a systematic tendency of people to assign fantastic causes to events?

In the case of miracles, you are aware that such miraculous claims are made by people of all religions and cultures aren't you? Even atheists have 'miraculous healings'. Studies have been been done that show no correlation between prayer and healing. On the other hand, there is a strong correlation between a positive attitude and healing, so religion may still have medical applications to the extent it lifts the spirits of the suffering.

What's happening is selective observation. People notice that they prayed and someone was healed, but they ignore all the other people who were prayed for but not healed, or not prayed for but healed nonetheless.

Do you have a reference for this one?

Not off hand, I'll have to do a bit of digging. I read about it in a book and confirmed it on the web, but that was a long while ago. There's a missionary in South America whose ministry is a dental one. He's out I believe in Brazil with some of the tribal missionary programs. I don't even have a name at this point, though, and a lot of books to look through to find it. I'll keep ya updated.

Studies have been been done that show no correlation between prayer and healing.

Studies have also been done that show the exact opposite. That's the typical trend in a new arena of observation. We're only now starting to be able to really monitor the brain and understand what it is we're looking at, and studies have shown that people's brains tend to behave differently on a chemical level when someone, known or unknown, is praying for them from another location.

It's an unknown science today. Personally, I'm biased because I think prayer works, so I'm going to bring to light the studies that show exactly that, while you're biased because you think everything has a mundane explanation, and will bring those studies to light. Like you said, human psychology.

Originally posted by junglejake
Studies have also been done that show the exact opposite.

The original studies done linking prayer with recovery had serious control flaws. The updated studies which account for those those flaws show no correlation.

However, even if improved studies do show a correlation between prayer and healing, that isn't enough to conclude divine intervention, since we already know psychology plays a significant role in healing. If you wanted to prove that YHWH really performs miracle healings when he is asked to, you would have to compare the rates of healing in those who pray to YHWH vs those who pray to other gods vs those who meditate, etc.. This is not an easy thing to do since there are so many factors involved other than prayer.

God would accidently leave evidence of a miracle for us to discover and explain away by natural means? What a small god that would be.

Originally posted by saint4God
God would accidently leave evidence of a miracle for us to discover and explain away by natural means? What a small god that would be.

An even smaller god would leave no credible evidence of himself or his demands whatsoever, yet simultaneously require allegience.

Originally posted by spamandham
An even smaller god would leave no credible evidence of himself or his demands whatsoever, yet simultaneously require allegience.

Why? The fact that He wants you to trust in Him, take our own steps to find proof, and wants us to grow and develop through such a relationship is small?

You want an entity to show itself, give you proof and therefore demand you bow down and serve? Such does exist, but I wouldn't recommend it speaking from experience.