-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Captivity?
- Thread starter Charlie
- Start date
gardenmum
Hopelessly Addicted
Well, I think that is fine. Everyone has to have their own views on life, and after-life, and each is certainly entitled to view it their way. The only thing I don't understand is why you would feel it necessary to bash it. I certainly haven't heard anyone here bashing anyone whom doesn't believe, unless I missed something. I would never try to tell anyone what or how he or she should believe in life. But if you really read what you wrote, you are basically "name calling" those that do believe, which is also their right. You may not have meant it that way at all, just comes over that way.
Why does everything have to have "logic" in order to be? Why do we have to "see" everything to know that it does/can exist? We know air exists, we walk through it all our lives (at least I hope we all continue to) but we don't see it. Oh, we can see smoke IN the air but not the air itself. And before you say that we can "see" air by the molecules it is made up of, we don't "see" that. And what about men before these molecules could be seen? They knew air existed and we needed it for our survival. I can't see emotions, I can't see anger or hate or love. I can see the actions produced by these emotions, but I cannot see them. I can feel them inside myself, but I cannot see them in me. I know they exist and I give them a name: Hate, Love, Anger, Sadness. Before man knew that chemical signals were sent to the brain by different mechanisms of the body to create these "feelings" in us, man knew these feelings existed. I know I love because I feel it inside. I know I believe in a God because I feel it inside. We don't NEED to see or know the source or the existence of feelings to know what is there. We don't NEED to know or see that a higher being is there to know that we feel his existence.
And science? What is science other than the continuing study of things that are constantly changing? How many things known as absolute truths by scientists over the years of scientific study were found out to be proved wrong or much more than they had thought? Go back in your history and look at the "scientific fact" that is now scientific hogwash. For how long was the earth positively flat? Gee, the bumblebee by all standards of science shouldn't be able to fly; yet I see them flying all the time. What scientific fact today will be tomorrow’s hogwash? Does science explain a lot to us? Yes. Is science right on a lot of things? Sure. Does science explain everything to us? No.
Here are facts. A tree is made out of wood. The oceans are full of water and salt. Flowers grow and die, fish swim. Birds fly and now so does man. You and I are alive. We live. Why? Because we are made that way. Because our cells tell our bodies what to do and when and how. Why? Because they are "programmed" to, every cell has its own 'job' and if working properly, does it. Why? Because it does. Who knows? Big mystery. So, if some (many) decide that the beauty and complexity of life is more than just a happenstance, then at least it is a belief. Science certainly cannot tell us WHY we are alive, why we came into existence other than theories or hypothesis of why. And, as I said, today's theories and hypothesis are tomorrow’s errors.
No, theology is not the end all of life and neither is science. But the blend of both helps us to understand from where we have come and where we hope to go. We are developing in our knowledge; we will always be developing in it, which will not end till man ends.
You speak of people who believe in Theology as if they are hiding under it as a blanket. No, not hiding. How many people of science were also men of theology? Life is not one or the other, does not have to be. To me it is a wonderful blend. Theology gives me the basis and science unravels and explains many of the mysteries that man is, and forever will be, insatiable over.
This is just my 2 cents so take it as such.
gardenmum said:
I am sorry if I offended you Dianne...or anyone else for that matter. It was definitely not my intention...and I don't believe I was bashing anyone. I was merely stating my personal belief. It is a belief I formed while in high school. I was not raised to be very religious...and went to a Catholic Military high school. It is located at a Catholic abbey and is completely run by the monestary. I took four years of theology while attending this school...which was rooted in Catholicism but explored all the major world religions. Through my first hand experience and the observation of MANY very devout people (not just priests and catholic students, but a couple of Sikh Hindus...and several devout Muslims)...that is the conclusion to which I came. It is an outsiders view of the principles behind current religions in general. One that I alone express...and was not meant as an aside...or attack...but simply my observance. I would never tell someone they are wrong just because their personal beliefs differ from mine.
We can feel air...in the breeze...when in front of a fan...when a big truck drives by...it IS a tangible object, even if it is invisible.gardenmum said:
Emotions are a perception inside the human psyche...not tangible OR rational. Some people don't have emotion...and some have what appears to be too MUCH emotion...but emotion is an idea inside each one of us...can't be defined, because each one of us perceives emotion in a different way. It is intangible and personal...and unique for each one of us...but has nothing to do with arguing the existance of a higher being.gardenmum said:
And this is the best reason I have seen for belief in God. If I felt something that powerful...I would most definitely believe in it as well.gardenmum said:
This fits into the same category AS emotion...it is very personal...and unique in each of us...some may feel it completely...and others not at all.
My original thoughts really weren't to do with the existance of God. I am not arguing that there is or is not...I really don't know. Who am I to say? My argument was that creationism cannot be proven by saying "There is a tree, I believe it is the work of God, therefore He is the Creator and nothing could have evolved". This is illogical and based on personal faith...not rational credibility.
Just my personal observation and analogy. I don't think of them as "hiding" persay...I am saying that religion allows people to face their death with dignity and hopefulness...with a smile on their face. Nothing could be more wonderful.gardenmum said:
I agree...gardenmum said:
As I said before...I am not here to persecute anyone for their personal beliefs or religion...we can all talk about it until we are blue in the face and make no ground...believe me this isn't the first time I have had this coversation. Because of MY beliefs I was allowed to read Plato's Republic instead of participating in one semester of Theology...all the guys who grew up with Catholicism were getting A's without having to study...I was struggling miserably...I voiced my opinion and got an alternative option...(Plato's Republic is interesting...but as close to punishment as one could get)...
We all believe what we will...with no proof to the contrary for either side...and that is fine...as long as people lead a decent life...and are good to(or at the very least, uninvolved with) others...than there is nothing to argue about. You can't prove or disprove religion.
gardenmum
Hopelessly Addicted
I will always believe that "The Created Evolve." And I do mean evolve. Always have. I just have my own thoughts on "evolving" as most of us do. I personally don't think we evolved FROM the ape. But that is just my belief and I don't feel science has "proven" this to me adequately enough to make me change that view. That is all.
And for those who think that Christians only believe in Creationism, then you had better take a closer look at the religious belief. Evolution is part of this belief and not frowned upon in any way by this religious belief. That is entirely up to each individual to decide at what length they believe in what. Some do believe in total 100% Creationism and that the earth is only very young. Others don't. I'm in the don't catagory and it is not frowned on and is in fact part of our religious belief and right.
You may be surprised at the men that study geology and other sciences that are also in the religious realm of life. In fact, I know and am friends with a man who has studied geology and has written books/pamphlets on this as well as doing photography in this field. He is a Director and Professor Emeritus of Weston Observatory, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College. He has a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University. He has been active in research on geological correlations on the North American, European, and African margins of the Atlantic Ocean and on assembly and dispersal of supercontinents. He is a past president of the International Division of the Geological Society of America. He has studied the geological formation and time line of North Eastern US. OH....and did I mention he is a Jesuit Priest with a Bachelor of Sacred Theology, etc. from Weston Jesuit School of Theology? He comes to our little 'ole tiny town of Readsboro, population of 600, and visits with his friends and has covered our weekend Masses at times. And I have gotten to know and be friends with him. He has a book out called "Modern Science and the Book of Genesis" and is Co-Contributor to a National Science Teachers Associations (NSTA) book called "The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom" written in 2000. A very interesting book on evolution and creation. As well as the pamphlets "Thological Basis for a Judeo-Christian Position on Creationism", "Spiritual Foundations for Ethics in the Geosciences" - which was delivered as a Keynot Address to the Geological Society of America's Presidential Penrose Conference, "Ethics in the Geosciences" in Oregon on July 17, 1997 and "Science and Creation" put out by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). I am not saying that he, or anyone else, is 100% right in everything they write/believe, nor do my beliefs corrolate 100% with any of them. I take all the information I gather and formulate what I believe out of it as everyone else here does. But I am saying that theology and science do go hand in hand.
And he is not the only one of religious background to be involved in such things by any means.
Believing in any theology does not preclude believing in or understanding evolution or the origins of any matter or science. Just so you don't lump people of theological beliefs into a totally "scientific exclussion" group.
And I still maintain that what we "know" today can well change tomorrow.
And for those who think that Christians only believe in Creationism, then you had better take a closer look at the religious belief. Evolution is part of this belief and not frowned upon in any way by this religious belief. That is entirely up to each individual to decide at what length they believe in what. Some do believe in total 100% Creationism and that the earth is only very young. Others don't. I'm in the don't catagory and it is not frowned on and is in fact part of our religious belief and right.
You may be surprised at the men that study geology and other sciences that are also in the religious realm of life. In fact, I know and am friends with a man who has studied geology and has written books/pamphlets on this as well as doing photography in this field. He is a Director and Professor Emeritus of Weston Observatory, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College. He has a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University. He has been active in research on geological correlations on the North American, European, and African margins of the Atlantic Ocean and on assembly and dispersal of supercontinents. He is a past president of the International Division of the Geological Society of America. He has studied the geological formation and time line of North Eastern US. OH....and did I mention he is a Jesuit Priest with a Bachelor of Sacred Theology, etc. from Weston Jesuit School of Theology? He comes to our little 'ole tiny town of Readsboro, population of 600, and visits with his friends and has covered our weekend Masses at times. And I have gotten to know and be friends with him. He has a book out called "Modern Science and the Book of Genesis" and is Co-Contributor to a National Science Teachers Associations (NSTA) book called "The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom" written in 2000. A very interesting book on evolution and creation. As well as the pamphlets "Thological Basis for a Judeo-Christian Position on Creationism", "Spiritual Foundations for Ethics in the Geosciences" - which was delivered as a Keynot Address to the Geological Society of America's Presidential Penrose Conference, "Ethics in the Geosciences" in Oregon on July 17, 1997 and "Science and Creation" put out by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). I am not saying that he, or anyone else, is 100% right in everything they write/believe, nor do my beliefs corrolate 100% with any of them. I take all the information I gather and formulate what I believe out of it as everyone else here does. But I am saying that theology and science do go hand in hand.
And he is not the only one of religious background to be involved in such things by any means.
Believing in any theology does not preclude believing in or understanding evolution or the origins of any matter or science. Just so you don't lump people of theological beliefs into a totally "scientific exclussion" group.
And I still maintain that what we "know" today can well change tomorrow.
gardenmum
Hopelessly Addicted
No, you did not offend me. I took it as I said I did, but I did not take abrasive offense from it. I just decided I would write my thoughts, is all. No need to feel you have offended me, but thank you.
Well, this is all subjective since there are various "scientific" looks at the reason for emotions.
On this I will mostly agree. To try to cram a particular view down another's throat goes nowhere and just makes for frustrated people all around. As long as people are good, then I believe they are good. So to this point I am in full agreement with you. But uninvolved equates to uncaring which equates to selfish and lazy which does not equate to "good." Only MY opinion on this.
No. But man has had religion since man had knowledge. You are talking about a belief in a higher being when no one was there to "teach" theological ideas. Belief in this comes from inside and "seems" to be built into man, from cavemen to today. So, shrug? Yes, I know you would say it is man's way of explaining the unexplained. But I can also contend that is man's inner touch with his maker. Either way cannot be proved so we all find our own place in life and beliefs that fit us and in which we can feel comfortable with.
So, yes, I agree to our rights to disagree.
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
This is a very interesting thread to say the least. If you appreciate a good debate, then we certainly have one here. There have been some very intelligent and well thought out post. My main reason to make a post, is so I will get an email notice of new posts so I can follow along.
Evolution has meaning, but in captivity it apparently can not be applied. A Great Dane and Chihuahua may still be able to reproduce, but not without the help of their “Creator”. Obviously, selective breeding can have a lot of influence on captive animals in a very short amount of time or generations
Logic and Faith are not good bed fellows. Most religions are based upon faith in stories alone and logic and facts are ignored.Santa said:
This is a statement based upon FEAR. Fear is not a good basis for making choices and removes logical thinking and common sence. This same type of fear and “logic” is what made people believe the world was flat for so long.Santa said:
Charlie said:
Evolution has meaning, but in captivity it apparently can not be applied. A Great Dane and Chihuahua may still be able to reproduce, but not without the help of their “Creator”. Obviously, selective breeding can have a lot of influence on captive animals in a very short amount of time or generations
ecreipeoj said:
Read it again, that was not a statement - it was a question to ponder. I do not fear my creator.
ecreipeoj said:
Once again you are trying to interchange evolution and selective breeding.
Selective breeding of captive animals CAN and DOES have a lot of influence on the size, color, hair, and usefullness and/or value to humans. But biologically the Great Dane and Chihuahua and the wolves from which they were developed are still the same animal with the same instincts, teeth, and feet.
Once you take the hide off of a head of beef, you can't tell if it was a Hereford, Angus, Gelvieh, or Simmental. And now that most cattle breeders are breeding for black hides, sometimes you can't even tell with the hide on.
On a lighter note, and FYI, my wife's Chihauhau male has bred my son's Lab (not quite a Great Dane) without any help from the "creator". He did it all on his own - while she was laying down! Darnest thing I ever saw! :santa:
Serpwidgets
New member
Even though it's quite obvious to anyone with an eyeball and an ounce of common sense that the moon is a sphere, the Earth was "positively flat" for as long as the churches said it was. This was certainly no product of anything that resembles "science."
The Earth was also the center of the universe, for as long as the churches said it was. They tried to make up "sciencey" explanations of how this worked. (They're doing that today, too. They call it "creation science" even though there's nothing scientific about it, and they pretend like it's not a political movement.) They tortured people to death in order to keep anyone from disagreeing with their dogma.
There is no way for science to disprove any religion. Religion has no place in the study of objective facts. The two are not mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. A few very narrow-minded people on both sides seem to think otherwise.
I believe that the people who were being referred to as lacking logic or making no sense were the people who insist that their version of the story is the only one and excludes all others, which are of course by definition wrong, because if you don't believe it then you will be punished... which will prove to you how wrong you are.
The Earth was also the center of the universe, for as long as the churches said it was. They tried to make up "sciencey" explanations of how this worked. (They're doing that today, too. They call it "creation science" even though there's nothing scientific about it, and they pretend like it's not a political movement.) They tortured people to death in order to keep anyone from disagreeing with their dogma.
There is no way for science to disprove any religion. Religion has no place in the study of objective facts. The two are not mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. A few very narrow-minded people on both sides seem to think otherwise.
I believe that the people who were being referred to as lacking logic or making no sense were the people who insist that their version of the story is the only one and excludes all others, which are of course by definition wrong, because if you don't believe it then you will be punished... which will prove to you how wrong you are.
gardenmum said:
By uninvolved I meant to say indifferent, not necessarily selfish (although could be,depending on the individual) and not lazy...just someone who leaves others alone and doesn't intrude into my (or others) personal life, unwarranted.
Just wanted to clarify, I knew when I wrote it that it wasn't quite conveying my meaning...my head was spinning a little yesterday :spinner:, I've been sick...LOL
Serpwidgets
New member
There's a difference between replication, adaptation, and evolution.
If you have a bucket filled with an equal number of red, green, and blue marbles, you can replicate it by "copying" every marble in that bucket to a new bucket to create a new generation. If each marble is copied into a single marble in the new bucket, the population will never change.
If, instead, you copy larger numbers of green marbles and smaller numbers of red marbles each time you replicate, the population will "adapt" to the selection pressure (toward green and away from red) and each generation will be more and more different from the original starting point. This is adaptation due to selection. With adaptation, you are only selecting from the pool of pre-existing variations.
The difference between adapting and evolving is the factor of new variation being injected into the mix, between generations. The mutation rate for albinism, for example, is about 1 in 30,000. This means that if you breed a population of normal corns, none of which are carrying the amel mutant, that about 1 in 30,000 hatchlings will be het for amel, as a result of spontaneous mutation. Offspring can and do inherit genes that their parents do not possess. Considering that corns have tens of thousands of genes, a significant percentage of hatchlings can be carrying genes that neither of their parents (or any of the existing population) possess.
Other changes can occur, too. For example, Down's syndrome is the result of an entire chromosome being duplicated and occurs in about 1 in 1,000 births. (Two parents who both have two copies of this chromosome can have a child who has three copies, so it was not "inherited" it is a spontaneous change.) This is a very significant change from one generation to another.
So, back to the marble thing... if you start with a bucket of only red, green, and blue marbles, and replicate your bucket through a number of generations, selecting toward green and away from bred, the bucket's population will "adapt." If when you are replicating, one of the marbles (via mutation) gives rise to a yellow marble in the new bucket, you can then select for the yellow marbles and change the population. This is not just adaptation, it is evolution.
If you get "gray" and "orange" mutations, you can start with a bucket full of red, green, and blue marbles that evolves into a bucket full of gray, yellow, and orange marbles. In order to get from point A to point B, it has to have evolved and not just adapted. Is it only when the first yellow marble appears that it is evolving? Is it only when the final red, green, or blue marble is eliminated from the population that it has evolved? At what point is it evolving and what other points is it only adapting?
If you have a bucket filled with an equal number of red, green, and blue marbles, you can replicate it by "copying" every marble in that bucket to a new bucket to create a new generation. If each marble is copied into a single marble in the new bucket, the population will never change.
If, instead, you copy larger numbers of green marbles and smaller numbers of red marbles each time you replicate, the population will "adapt" to the selection pressure (toward green and away from red) and each generation will be more and more different from the original starting point. This is adaptation due to selection. With adaptation, you are only selecting from the pool of pre-existing variations.
The difference between adapting and evolving is the factor of new variation being injected into the mix, between generations. The mutation rate for albinism, for example, is about 1 in 30,000. This means that if you breed a population of normal corns, none of which are carrying the amel mutant, that about 1 in 30,000 hatchlings will be het for amel, as a result of spontaneous mutation. Offspring can and do inherit genes that their parents do not possess. Considering that corns have tens of thousands of genes, a significant percentage of hatchlings can be carrying genes that neither of their parents (or any of the existing population) possess.
Other changes can occur, too. For example, Down's syndrome is the result of an entire chromosome being duplicated and occurs in about 1 in 1,000 births. (Two parents who both have two copies of this chromosome can have a child who has three copies, so it was not "inherited" it is a spontaneous change.) This is a very significant change from one generation to another.
So, back to the marble thing... if you start with a bucket of only red, green, and blue marbles, and replicate your bucket through a number of generations, selecting toward green and away from bred, the bucket's population will "adapt." If when you are replicating, one of the marbles (via mutation) gives rise to a yellow marble in the new bucket, you can then select for the yellow marbles and change the population. This is not just adaptation, it is evolution.
If you get "gray" and "orange" mutations, you can start with a bucket full of red, green, and blue marbles that evolves into a bucket full of gray, yellow, and orange marbles. In order to get from point A to point B, it has to have evolved and not just adapted. Is it only when the first yellow marble appears that it is evolving? Is it only when the final red, green, or blue marble is eliminated from the population that it has evolved? At what point is it evolving and what other points is it only adapting?
Shaky
Ought to know better
A small addition
In regards to absolute "proof"-Its not really possible except in Mathematics.
If there were a shred of pure evidence in Creationism, the world would be a vastly different place. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of creation myths, each believed as truth by its constituents, and many find it difficult to believe in one over the other, due to a lack of evidence. However, just because I believe there is a god, doesn't mean I have to believe in any creation theory.
If there were a way to purely Prove evolution, there would be no discussion.
You can see all the fossil records which show a logical progression between eohippus and the modern horse (and tens of other examples which show "full" progression) and still say it doesn't prove anything because they are all different species.
My point is that there is no definitive proof either way.
In regards to absolute "proof"-Its not really possible except in Mathematics.
If there were a shred of pure evidence in Creationism, the world would be a vastly different place. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of creation myths, each believed as truth by its constituents, and many find it difficult to believe in one over the other, due to a lack of evidence. However, just because I believe there is a god, doesn't mean I have to believe in any creation theory.
If there were a way to purely Prove evolution, there would be no discussion.
You can see all the fossil records which show a logical progression between eohippus and the modern horse (and tens of other examples which show "full" progression) and still say it doesn't prove anything because they are all different species.
My point is that there is no definitive proof either way.