Comments on: Absolutes http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/ by Andy J. Biery Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:57:23 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Abbie http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5686 Abbie Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:20:28 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5686 "There is plenty of primary source information...readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past." Really? I've never seen anything that came close to proving the possibility of spontaneous generation under any circumstances. What websites are you cruising? “There is plenty of primary source information…readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past.”

Really? I’ve never seen anything that came close to proving the possibility of spontaneous generation under any circumstances. What websites are you cruising?

]]> By: Andy http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5677 Andy Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:47:17 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5677 i'm not going to go into much further argument or detail in the comment section (especially when it comes to arguing the faith aspect of the probability of life spawning from non-life). i plan on making those points in future posts. quickly though, no not all science is philosophy or an "evil endeavor", just its attempts to explain the origins of life (and i dont think this is consciously an evil endeavor either). I personally trust scientific areas like physics, chemistry, and parts of astronomy, biology, and geology that deal with observed, testable, and verifiable information that aren't subject to personal worldview and are completely immutable (like the "laws" of science for example). i'm definitely all for evolutionary atheists and even ID people to give it their best shot. Just think the origin of life will never be proven in the scientific realm. it is kinda funny that almost all explanations (in science) for what we see today conclude with "its certainly possible given enough time". sure the magic bullet theory is certainly possible given the right circumstances too. Isn't it also possible God just created it all? i guess what ill conclude with here is science can give me a call when they think they've got it finally figured out once and for all...I won't be waiting by the phone (and neither will my 5th generation grandson either). For now i'll stick to something that will never change...everyone else can keep reaching for that rainbow! Everybody dance now! i’m not going to go into much further argument or detail in the comment section (especially when it comes to arguing the faith aspect of the probability of life spawning from non-life). i plan on making those points in future posts.

quickly though, no not all science is philosophy or an “evil endeavor”, just its attempts to explain the origins of life (and i dont think this is consciously an evil endeavor either). I personally trust scientific areas like physics, chemistry, and parts of astronomy, biology, and geology that deal with observed, testable, and verifiable information that aren’t subject to personal worldview and are completely immutable (like the “laws” of science for example). i’m definitely all for evolutionary atheists and even ID people to give it their best shot. Just think the origin of life will never be proven in the scientific realm.

it is kinda funny that almost all explanations (in science) for what we see today conclude with “its certainly possible given enough time”. sure the magic bullet theory is certainly possible given the right circumstances too. Isn’t it also possible God just created it all?

i guess what ill conclude with here is science can give me a call when they think they’ve got it finally figured out once and for all…I won’t be waiting by the phone (and neither will my 5th generation grandson either). For now i’ll stick to something that will never change…everyone else can keep reaching for that rainbow! Everybody dance now!

]]> By: Patrick http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5676 Patrick Sun, 31 May 2009 14:38:53 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5676 That's the second time you've agreed and then not agreed "Yes, but..." and proceeded to make basically the same argument. For the third time: Science is not philosophy. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is not wild guesses with no basis in reality. Those things have no place in science. Again for like the fourth time: practical science, by definition, does not require and has no use for faith. You repeatedly profess to agree with this, yet continue the mantra with statements like "take (a) tremendous leap of faith". Besides being a thinly veiled straw man argument, this automatically creates a false binary choice for people of faith; either you have "faith" in god or you have "faith" in science, which insidiously discourages further individual investigation or thought. In response to your specific charge: First the way you choose to state it makes it sounds like life as we know it is an on/off switch or something, which makes it easier to believe your statement. The truth is much more complex than that. Second, it is FAR from a "tremendous leap of faith" as you put it to conclude that life on earth formed on its own. No, it's currently not the most airtight case that science has, but it doesn't matter much as divine intervention is definitely not the ONLY alternative to what we think happened. There is plenty of primary source information (the entirety or which is conveniently ignored by your foregone "tremendous leap of faith" conclusion) readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past. As time goes on and research and experiments improve, it is more and more likely that we will be able to observe the beginnings of "life" or actual spontaneous synthesization of it or something like that in a lab. IMO in the distant future we will observe this happening somewhere other than on earth entirely on its own as it is a natural process that occurs when the conditions are correct. Although that is assuming we last that long which I admit is highly dubious. In the end I guess my points are: -It's not my position to judge something so esoteric as studying or believing in the bible, and I'm quite sure I would be terrible at judging it anyway. My motivations for replying to your posts have nothing to do with discouraging you from believing what you want in that realm. -You can close your eyes ears and mind and ignore science or believe all you want that it is a useless and/or evil endeavor, or whatever you choose to believe about it, I really could care less. However, in every instance I will be quick to point out my strong belief that perpetuating myths, junk science, and misinformation in pursuit of a religious agenda is at the very least a BIG waste of time and on the other end of the spectrum just plain sinister. That’s the second time you’ve agreed and then not agreed “Yes, but…” and proceeded to make basically the same argument. For the third time: Science is not philosophy. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is not wild guesses with no basis in reality. Those things have no place in science. Again for like the fourth time: practical science, by definition, does not require and has no use for faith. You repeatedly profess to agree with this, yet continue the mantra with statements like “take (a) tremendous leap of faith”. Besides being a thinly veiled straw man argument, this automatically creates a false binary choice for people of faith; either you have “faith” in god or you have “faith” in science, which insidiously discourages further individual investigation or thought.
In response to your specific charge: First the way you choose to state it makes it sounds like life as we know it is an on/off switch or something, which makes it easier to believe your statement. The truth is much more complex than that. Second, it is FAR from a “tremendous leap of faith” as you put it to conclude that life on earth formed on its own. No, it’s currently not the most airtight case that science has, but it doesn’t matter much as divine intervention is definitely not the ONLY alternative to what we think happened. There is plenty of primary source information (the entirety or which is conveniently ignored by your foregone “tremendous leap of faith” conclusion) readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past. As time goes on and research and experiments improve, it is more and more likely that we will be able to observe the beginnings of “life” or actual spontaneous synthesization of it or something like that in a lab. IMO in the distant future we will observe this happening somewhere other than on earth entirely on its own as it is a natural process that occurs when the conditions are correct. Although that is assuming we last that long which I admit is highly dubious.
In the end I guess my points are:
-It’s not my position to judge something so esoteric as studying or believing in the bible, and I’m quite sure I would be terrible at judging it anyway. My motivations for replying to your posts have nothing to do with discouraging you from believing what you want in that realm.
-You can close your eyes ears and mind and ignore science or believe all you want that it is a useless and/or evil endeavor, or whatever you choose to believe about it, I really could care less. However, in every instance I will be quick to point out my strong belief that perpetuating myths, junk science, and misinformation in pursuit of a religious agenda is at the very least a BIG waste of time and on the other end of the spectrum just plain sinister.

]]> By: Andy http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5675 Andy Thu, 28 May 2009 21:02:23 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5675 sure if something happened in the past it leaves evidence. but like in history or archeology we verify it through written documents. anything else is pure supposition based on personal worldview. creationism isn't science. though science certainly can't disprove God creating the universe. life spawning from non-life through pure chance isn't science either. both take tremendous leaps of faith to believe in. Though the Bible does say creationism isn't a big leap at all.... Romans 1:20-21 (Amplified version) 20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], 21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. i realize we won't agree on this, but i do enjoy the discussion. P.S. biology-1.the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. (random house dictionary) cosmology-1.The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. (American Heritage scientific dictionary) theres lots of definitions for both words but i'm not out of line putting either of them together. cosmology is probably more of a combination of biology and astronomy (and philosophy imo). sure if something happened in the past it leaves evidence. but like in history or archeology we verify it through written documents. anything else is pure supposition based on personal worldview.

creationism isn’t science. though science certainly can’t disprove God creating the universe. life spawning from non-life through pure chance isn’t science either. both take tremendous leaps of faith to believe in. Though the Bible does say creationism isn’t a big leap at all….

Romans 1:20-21 (Amplified version)

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

i realize we won’t agree on this, but i do enjoy the discussion.

P.S.
biology-1.the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. (random house dictionary)

cosmology-1.The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. (American Heritage scientific dictionary)

theres lots of definitions for both words but i’m not out of line putting either of them together. cosmology is probably more of a combination of biology and astronomy (and philosophy imo).

]]> By: Patrick http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5674 Patrick Wed, 27 May 2009 19:29:09 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5674 And that's not even mentioning the fact that, for instance, the Hubble telescope literally does see things that happened "in the very distant past", as far back as billions of years ago since the electromagnetic radiation has traversed across the universe that long to only just now reach us. Or CMB radiation. Two great examples. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that, for instance, the Hubble telescope literally does see things that happened “in the very distant past”, as far back as billions of years ago since the electromagnetic radiation has traversed across the universe that long to only just now reach us. Or CMB radiation. Two great examples.

]]> By: Patrick http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5673 Patrick Wed, 27 May 2009 19:15:54 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5673 No, that's absolutely not the problem at all. What you're saying is no different than saying why bother prosecuting murders that no one has witnessed because no one can say for sure who did it or what happened. Which is utter BS. You completely ignore the fact that if something has happened it more than likely has left evidence behind. Science has become incredibly good at finding and deciphering evidence of phenomena that unfortunately no one would have been able to personally witness. It makes absolutely no difference whether anyone was around if the evidence remains. That argument (and many many others) was conceived and is propagated by proponents of "creationism" and perniciously takes advantage of, as I have said, the general public's ignorance as to how science actually functions. The real problem here is the pseudo-scientific creationist propaganda you've been exclusively reading. What is biology focused on cosmology? I've never heard of that. Doesn't sound like science to me! No, that’s absolutely not the problem at all. What you’re saying is no different than saying why bother prosecuting murders that no one has witnessed because no one can say for sure who did it or what happened. Which is utter BS. You completely ignore the fact that if something has happened it more than likely has left evidence behind. Science has become incredibly good at finding and deciphering evidence of phenomena that unfortunately no one would have been able to personally witness. It makes absolutely no difference whether anyone was around if the evidence remains. That argument (and many many others) was conceived and is propagated by proponents of “creationism” and perniciously takes advantage of, as I have said, the general public’s ignorance as to how science actually functions. The real problem here is the pseudo-scientific creationist propaganda you’ve been exclusively reading.
What is biology focused on cosmology? I’ve never heard of that. Doesn’t sound like science to me!

]]> By: Andy http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5672 Andy Wed, 27 May 2009 07:43:57 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5672 science and religion should be able to coexist and not negate each other. problem is (which i will try to explain in greater detail in future posts) that science, in what is supposed to be about observed natural phenomenon, tries to explain things that happened in the very distant past...things that cannot be observed/tested/measured/ect because no one was there "millions" of years ago thus science (specifically biology focused on cosmology) oversteps its bounds into purely philosophical realms. which is pretty much the thesis i'm working from/reading about. science and religion should be able to coexist and not negate each other. problem is (which i will try to explain in greater detail in future posts) that science, in what is supposed to be about observed natural phenomenon, tries to explain things that happened in the very distant past…things that cannot be observed/tested/measured/ect because no one was there “millions” of years ago thus science (specifically biology focused on cosmology) oversteps its bounds into purely philosophical realms. which is pretty much the thesis i’m working from/reading about.

]]> By: Patrick http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5667 Patrick Tue, 26 May 2009 18:03:54 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5667 I must agree that there unfortunately exists a few people who bastardize science for dubious reasons, and possibly even fewer willingly or unwillingly try to turn it into some sort of "religion" but these people are no longer practicing what everyone else considers real science. If something is considered an "absolute" then the scientific process has stopped and thus that thing is no longer in the realm of science. Absolutes are the concern of metaphysics, philosophy, faith, whatever, but not science! Science seeks only to explain observed natural phenomenon and that is NOT and can not be a religion! Religion is based solely on faith, science based solely on the observation of natural phenomenon. It's hard to think of things more completely opposite. And yet they CAN coexist. Neither negates the other, by definition they can't. As far as I can tell many people are for whatever reason very poorly educated when it comes to science, and that is not an insult to anyone's intelligence in my opinion it is just an unfortunate fact. I must agree that there unfortunately exists a few people who bastardize science for dubious reasons, and possibly even fewer willingly or unwillingly try to turn it into some sort of “religion” but these people are no longer practicing what everyone else considers real science.
If something is considered an “absolute” then the scientific process has stopped and thus that thing is no longer in the realm of science. Absolutes are the concern of metaphysics, philosophy, faith, whatever, but not science! Science seeks only to explain observed natural phenomenon and that is NOT and can not be a religion! Religion is based solely on faith, science based solely on the observation of natural phenomenon. It’s hard to think of things more completely opposite. And yet they CAN coexist. Neither negates the other, by definition they can’t.
As far as I can tell many people are for whatever reason very poorly educated when it comes to science, and that is not an insult to anyone’s intelligence in my opinion it is just an unfortunate fact.

]]> By: Jeff http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5666 Jeff Mon, 25 May 2009 21:18:43 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5666 Actually, I have been conversing recently online with an atheist that firmly believes evolution is a fact, and that there are many absolutes in science. His world appears to revolve around his belief in science and he believes it explains everything. He claims he has no religion nor god even though he is his own god, and science is his foundation. He talks down to everyone that has a differing viewpoint, and insults their intelligence. IMHO this is typical of someone of this world view. They tell you how you push your religion on people while they are the ones really pushing their religion. They say you must be uneducated or stupid if you don't believe evolution is a fact. Actually, I have been conversing recently online with an atheist that firmly believes evolution is a fact, and that there are many absolutes in science. His world appears to revolve around his belief in science and he believes it explains everything. He claims he has no religion nor god even though he is his own god, and science is his foundation. He talks down to everyone that has a differing viewpoint, and insults their intelligence. IMHO this is typical of someone of this world view. They tell you how you push your religion on people while they are the ones really pushing their religion. They say you must be uneducated or stupid if you don’t believe evolution is a fact.

]]> By: Andy http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/absolutes/#comment-5664 Andy Sun, 24 May 2009 06:08:12 +0000 http://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/?p=577#comment-5664 not ignoring what abbie said since it is included in God's Word like she said. yes, bodily death is technically an absolute for all, but i define death in this respect to include the soul so i don't consider it a total death i completely accept any and all arguments against science as an absolute. i really didn't want to put it on there. more wanted to comment on it being the only real truth system a non-Christian can hope to have these days...like the only potential absolute...though it always falls short because its always changing...its kinda a catch 22. it can't be an absolute, but there are many who think it can be or already is in some respects. i'm kinda drunk as i write this but this is my main point to everything i'm writing. science can't be relied upon as any sort of truth system no matter how much anyone might want it to be. not ignoring what abbie said since it is included in God’s Word like she said.

yes, bodily death is technically an absolute for all, but i define death in this respect to include the soul so i don’t consider it a total death

i completely accept any and all arguments against science as an absolute. i really didn’t want to put it on there. more wanted to comment on it being the only real truth system a non-Christian can hope to have these days…like the only potential absolute…though it always falls short because its always changing…its kinda a catch 22. it can’t be an absolute, but there are many who think it can be or already is in some respects. i’m kinda drunk as i write this but this is my main point to everything i’m writing. science can’t be relied upon as any sort of truth system no matter how much anyone might want it to be.

]]>