An Inconvenient Truth

[Andy_Alderslade]

Bottom line, if you buy everything everyone tells you, you're just a product of contemporary culture. Creation, the threat posed by global warming, eccetera, who knows what will be proven or disproven in years to come? The Catholic Church had its own scientists who supported the geocentric theory as unassailable truth. Any culture which refuses the possibility that a theory is fallible is comitting exactly the same misstep.

 

These issues are hardly the latest food scare, like Ice-cream causes cancer.

 

The theory of evolution has been around for over a hundred years, and hundreds of fossil findings have secured it as a theory to be taken seriously. Natrually of course every now and a again a fossil doesn't fit, and that confuses people until the answer arises, but as of yet nothing major from a non-agenda driven source has actually blown the whole theory out of the water. So perhaps to desregard evolution is like saying the planets arn't giant masses of matter or gas millions of miles away but are glass paintings in the sky. And the whole issue of evolution versus the bible, is assinine. Darwin actually believed the two complimented each other. I in a more positive moment would say one is theory of our bioligcal begininings, the other for our spiritual. My RE teacher at school, a Church of England Vicar, was like many millions on this planet who believe modern science can sit quite confortably next to the old testement.

 

Now global warming is a theory too, which has been around for several decades, and globaly the overwhelming majority of scientits take it seriously. To simply disregard it is like taking a loaded pistol to your grandaughters head and pulling the triger with the hope that it happened to be unloaded.

 

Would you do that?

[David Sweetman]

My RE teacher at school, a Church of England Vicar, was like many millions on this planet who believe modern science can sit quite confortably next to the old testement.

 

Church of England...the one that broke away from Catholicism because Henry VIII wanted a divorce? His church is founded on compromise...

Note, I'm not saying "science and the bible are irreconcilable." I do believe the old testament is supported by science.

 

Now global warming is a theory too, which has been around for several decades, and globaly the overwhelming majority of scientits take it seriously.

 

I don't deny global warming, I'm sure it's happening. I just don't think it poses a threat.

[Dan Goulder]

Bottom line, if you buy everything everyone tells you, you're just a product of contemporary culture.

That would, of course, also apply to people who state that global warming is either a myth, or not a problem.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Church of England...the one that broke away from Catholicism because Henry VIII wanted a divorce? His church is founded on compromise...

 

The Church of England though founded on compromise (and a fat old randy old git) is one of the founding stones of non-catholic christianity, so Methodists, Quakers... are not that far departed.

 

Perhaps its dirty and violent beginings are what assist it in being an anti-fundamentalist church, its compromise excepts the world as it is... flawed and complicated. Many non-christians find CofE a more peacful and honest relegious path than the Catholic church. Plus its head, the Archbishop of Canterbury resembles Dumbledore ;)

 

I don't deny global warming, I'm sure it's happening. I just don't think it poses a threat.

 

You're questioning the theories of Darwin, which have stood the test of time for over a hundred years, and you come out with a silly theory like this (completly unsubtantiated) that won't last 5 seconds amoungst a group of retarded hippos.

 

Always distrust the route and theory wich gives in to selfish urges, you're more likely to be right and hurt less people in the process.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Matt Pacini]

Wow, how did religion creep into this conversation?

 

Anyway, I'll bet anyone on this board, $100 (each of you) that in 15 years, this "global warming catastrophe" will just fade into the distance, the same way as Acid Rain and the Ozone Hole are not being talked about anymore, because they were found to be natural, (even though it seemed completely plausible that they were human-caused).

 

By then, the enviro-maniacs will have some other grand reason that humans (i.e. Capitalism) are killing the planet off.

Like, maybe the combined weight of all humans ont the planets is causing the continental plates to shift, or that wearing cotton is causing our genes to mutate, or us transmitting all these radio waves, is causing the sun to burn out faster, or something else that's ever-so-scary.

 

Who's willing to pony up for the bet?

 

MP

[Robert Hughes]

...in 15 years, this "global warming catastrophe" will just fade into the distance, the same way as Acid Rain and the Ozone Hole are not being talked about anymore

Actually, each of these issues are not as big issues as they would have been precisely because people took action to lessen the harmful impact. In 1985, IBM pumped 10 million pounds of freon and trichloroethane into the atmosphere from their circuit board cleaners. By 1995 IBM used neither of these compounds and had instituted elaborate chemical reclamation devices to capture the board cleaning solvents they did use. So making a stink about pollution sometimes makes a difference.

[David Sweetman]

You're questioning the theories of Darwin, which have stood the test of time for over a hundred years,

 

Well that proves it. Like the geocentric theory, which was popular from Ptolmey to Copernicus, hundreds of years apart?

 

What does it mean when you say they have "stood the test of time?" That they have not been disproven, and are supported by many historical and scientific facts, and are widely accepted?

 

Darwinism cannot be reconciled with the old testament, the only reason to attempt such a strech is to avoid being percieved as "wierd" by popular culture. You are (perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless you are) questioning the bible, which has not been disproven, is supported by many historical and scientific facts, and is widely accepted - not for the past hundered years, but for thousands. If one of the two has stood the test of time over the other, it is the bible.

 

If you can show me one place where the bible contradicts itself, I'll drop my young-earth creationism argument cold and hop on whatever bandwagon makes the most sense. But as I see it there's just too many things Darwinism doesn't account for.

[Max Jacoby]

You are (perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless you are) questioning the bible, which has not been disproven, is supported by many historical and scientific facts, and is widely accepted - not for the past hundered years, but for thousands. If one of the two has stood the test of time over the other, it is the bible.

It's good to know that the bible is the source of all truth. Someone should tell us Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists et al. because we obviously have been on the wrong path for a long while.

 

I always had a sneaking suspicion that all these thousands and thousands of scientists that use dating methods to determine the age of the earth are in fact just part of a huge conspiracy.

[Daniel Nemchek]

You are (perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless you are) questioning the bible, which has not been disproven, is supported by many historical and scientific facts, and is widely accepted - not for the past hundered years, but for thousands. If one of the two has stood the test of time over the other, it is the bible.

 

I don't know about that, they've yet to find Noah's Ark (or a plausible explanation of why it's nowhere to be found), minus the lack of evidence for a global flood. Not to mention Jesus has yet to come back, but then again I bet he's been very busy the last 2000 years

[David Mullen ASC]

This is an interesting article about two different tracks in the researching on evolution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

 

My point in bringing it up is that it shows the value of the Theory of Evolution, that it can be expanded and modified as more data comes in. That's what makes it a scientific model -- it can be tested and it can predict results. Creationism is not a scientific theory -- we're not allowed to "improve on it" as we learn more, and it doesn't explain diddly-squat about much of anything, like why humans have a wide variety of skin colors, or why we share so much genetic information with chimpanzees, or why we have an appendix or pubic hair (or to quote "Time Bandits" on what was God thinking... "Nipples for Men?") A theory whose answer to every question is "well, that's just the way God did it" is no kind of science at all.

 

It's religion, not science, which is all well and good. I'm a Christian myself but I don't need the Bible to be scientifically accurate to believe in the teachings of Christ therein.

 

You can't have a scientific theory that works backwards from the notion that the Bible is completely accurate, because that's putting the cart before the horse. Evolution was a model developed to explain something based on observation, and so far it has been by far the most useful scientific model. It doesn't explain everything because science hasn't solved every question known to man, just as Einstein's theories are a model that keeps getting tested and modified as more data comes in, more experiments are made, but as a theory goes, the Theory of Relativity has been pretty useful in explaining things. Creationism doesn't stand up to that kind of testing. It's a RELIGION, not a science. If it were a science, then every few years an updated book of the Bible would be published with corrections as more experiments were conducted.

 

It's dangerous to confuse religion and science -- it's detrimental to both. It wouldn't be called faith if it could be proved in a lab.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Molars(wisdom teeth), tonsils, the notorious "butt bone", appendix,etc. Why did god put these unuseful and sometimes detrimental parts in us?

 

Or, maybe they are "leftovers" from a bygone era? No. No way. Nothing evolves.....or can it?

 

 

Quote: (concerning june issue of the "propaganda" mag SCIENCE)

 

I don't know how 'current' is 'current' when you use the term. The process of evolution takes place over countless generations. Thus to ask for 'current' examples in humans and animals, where the life span ranges from a few to 50+ years, is difficult - simlar to asking 'how much has the San Andreas fault moved in the past 5 minutes?' You're not likely to see much of a change in a very short period of time. However, in the world of bacteria where generations can be as short as 20 minutes, evolution has been observed in populations placed under selective pressures for thousands of generations. I would thus point you towards this work as it provides a unique and intriguing look into how evolution works.

 

Punctuated Evolution Caused by Selection of Rare

Beneficial Mutations

 

SCIENCE 21 Jun 1996; 272 (5269):1802 (in Reports)

Santiago F. Elena, Vaughn S. Cooper, Richard E. Lenski

[Dan Goulder]

Molars(wisdom teeth) Why did god put these unuseful and sometimes detrimental parts in us?

They're addressing that in the upcoming movie, "An Inconvenient Tooth".

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

LOL!!! :lol:

 

I should have seen that one coming! Walked right into it...

[Matt Serrins]

In terms of the bible contradicting itself, there are two, almost contradictory creation stories in the first two chapters of genesis. I understand that one could be viewed as general and the other specific i.e. chapter two an extended account of day six, but i think that's a stretch, given the order of creation in each.

 

In Chapter 1 of Genesis G-d creates man and woman at the same time (not to mention the fact that he creates beasts before humankind):

 

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

In Chapter 2, G-d creates woman from man (and humankind before beasts):

 

GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

GEN 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

Also, the issue of whether or not man can see G-d seems to be contradictory. In some verses he can see G-d and some he can't, although maybe this distinction can be fudged if you believe in the trinity. Google it if you're curious.

[Patrick McGowan]

Also, don't you know that all those history books talking about ice ages, and past periods of greenhouse climate (like when the dinosaurs lived) are all a huge Republican conspiracy?

Everyone knows that the temperature of the planet has never wavered.

 

A Republican conspiracy? I thought they didn't believe in dinosaurs.

[Guest Kai.w]

---Not use the word differently, but define it differently.

 

The 'normal people' definition of theory is in scientist talk a 'hypothesis'.

 

Theoreticaly people should have learned this in high school science classes. Yet...?

 

But the people saying: 'It's only a theory.' must be aware of this.

Which implies that those godly people are quite disingenuous.

 

---LV

 

That's what I meant. Thanks for making my bad english more clear.

 

As for hte acid rain... these are still issues, its just that it does not cause too much interest anymore. We germans are rather romantic thats why we maybe made a bigger deal about dying forrests. Acid rain is still a problem in many "developing" countries with heavy industry that do not care about environment standards (eastern europe, china, etc.)

 

-k

[Max Jacoby]

The 'normal people' definition of theory is in scientist talk a 'hypothesis'.

 

Theoreticaly people should have learned this in high school science classes. Yet...?

 

But the people saying: 'It's only a theory.' must be aware of this.

Which implies that those godly people are quite disingenuous.

That is precisely what all these creationists conveniently overlook. Their simplistic arguments always go along the lines: this is what science says, here is a contradiciton in that 'theory', ergo the theory does not make sense, ergo science as a whole cannot provide answers, ergo the bible is right. They do not seem to realize that, unlike the bible, science does not claim to know everything and the whole point of it is that, as more and more knowledge is gathered, old theories are replaced by new ones.

 

In that regard science is forward looking, while creationism is backward looking, i.e. creationism knows the result already (since it's in the bible) and they bend their arguments to fit it. In science replacing an old theory or hypothesis with a new one is a sign of improvement, while in creationism it is an absolute impossibility. Creationists always argue that they would like to be convinced otherwise, when in fact that is a blatant lie. Accepting a scientific theory that contradicts the bible would mean that they would have to question the very basis of their belief and they are just not prepared to do that.

 

Interestingly enough Darwin himself was a devout Christian who was profoundly shaken by his discoveries of evolution. But the arguments were so conclusive that he could not close his eyes to what he saw. But then again he actually looked at reality itself, while all these creationists just get their information from indirect and biased sources.

[Arni Heimir]

I'm amazed that evolution is a controversial issue in America. Then again, little surprises me anymore.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm amazed that evolution is a controversial issue in America. Then again, little surprises me anymore.

 

It surprises me, and I'm IN America...

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I don't know...controversy is where you find it. Or make it...

 

My parents live in mississippi. They are not what you'd call ultra-religious. But there are some very ,very religious people there and over the past years of visiting I've gotten to speak quite openly with more than a few. Surprisingly no one told me I was "wrong" for being atheist.

 

And that carries over to the evolution issue...

I was astounded to find people that are card carrying repulican right wingers could also accept the idea of evolution. MS communities are VERY close. Everyone knows everyone elses business. The consensus I got was that while most believe in the creation theory, they were also very accepting of the evolution theory being taught at school. "Responsibly" taught was a key note, however. In other words these people sueing their local school boards over the evolution theory being taught and that it needed to be balanced with the creationist theory in the classroom is an anomoly. Or at best, a fringe of HARDCORE non-denominational people who believe the end of the world is coming every year. :blink: You know the types... :lol:

 

Just don't bring up abortion or slavery in MS and you're okay. :)

[Dan Goulder]

Or at best, a fringe of HARDCORE non-denominational people who believe the end of the world is coming every year. :blink: You know the types... :lol:

The way things are going I may be joining their ranks. On the plus side, it could lead to good deals on used gear.

[Matt Pacini]

As for creation, I don't really know what the "truth" is.

Keep in mind though, that in my lifetime, the age of the universe has changed by over 4 billion years, so for me, when a scientist says something is a "fact", my thought is; "yeah, until some other scientist comes up with a better theory".

That doesn't mean it's not science, but you can't EVER say a scientific theory or conclusion is "fact", or "truth" because there is a good chance it will be changed, altered, or discarded someday.

(Funny this term "truth" is being tossed around when discussing Global Warming, because it is not a scientific term, it's a religious term.)

 

However, I do see much lapse in basic logic regarding whether or not the Bible can be scientifically accurate about something..

Just because it's not a scientific document (and it was never meant to be), that doesn't mean that something it says is false.

That's the logical fallacy going on with many people.

For instance, there is a scripture that references the earth being round, not flat.

So, since the bible is not a scientific document, does that mean the earth is flat?

Get my point?

It can still be correct about something, even though it was never intended to be scientific.

 

Keep in mind Jesus spent exactly zero time talking about "science", although to be fair, that's not what people were arguing about at the time.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Matt Pacini

[Arni Heimir]

I think it is about time we debunk the word science. Science is not the new religion.

[David Mullen ASC]

As for creation, I don't really know what the "truth" is.

Keep in mind though, that in my lifetime, the age of the universe has changed by over 4 billion years, so for me, when a scientist says something is a "fact", my thought is; "yeah, until some other scientist comes up with a better theory".

 

That's EXACTLY what makes it science and not religion; it can be updated, corrected and even discarded completely as new evidence comes in, new experiments are created, better theories are dreamed up. That's the beauty of it -- you make it sound like a flaw.

 

"Science" isn't wrong because it's not flawless -- it EVOLVES over time. ;) Rutherford (I believe) originally thought that the electrons around the atom were like raisens in a porridge but testing eventually proved that they occupied stable orbits; later Bohr came up with the theory of the "energy shells" that electrons exist in. These are models that predict behavior and when testing proves otherwise, the model is updated or improved or discarded for one that predicts behavior better, and the process goes on and on. Evolution is also a theory that is being expanded and modified over time -- that doesn't mean it's wrong, if anything, it proves its usefulness.

 

The Bible isn't "wrong" to me because I don't use it for scientific information or even historical fact. I use it for more universal truths about our relation to God and to each other.

 

Scientists aren't going out of their way to find new ways to prove the Bible "wrong" because they don't see the Bible as something that needs to be validated or contradicted through testing -- it's mainly a non-issue because only some fringe elements think that the Bible contains some sort of scientific data as to the age of the universe. And it's these fringe elements that get all upset when scientific data and theories don't conform to their interpretation of the Bible. When some anthropologist today finds some jawbone of a hominid, they aren't thinking "how does this fit into Biblical lore?" It would be a waste of time.

 

It would all be a harmless disagreement if these fringe elements of society weren't determined to undermine science education in publically-funded schools. That would have disasterous long-term effects for our society in terms of its ability to compete globally with other countries in scientific research and development because essentially you'd be debunking the entire scientific process that leads to theories like Evolution.

 

If the Bible really did explain things as well as science, it would have an explanation for the remains of 400 Neanderthals discovered to date...

[Alex Wuijts]

(Funny this term "truth" is being tossed around when discussing Global Warming, because it is not a scientific term, it's a religious term.)

 

However, I do see much lapse in basic logic regarding whether or not the Bible can be scientifically accurate about something..

Just because it's not a scientific document (and it was never meant to be), that doesn't mean that something it says is false.

That's the logical fallacy going on with many people.

For instance, there is a scripture that references the earth being round, not flat.

So, since the bible is not a scientific document, does that mean the earth is flat?

Get my point?

It can still be correct about something, even though it was never intended to be scientific.

 

Keep in mind Jesus spent exactly zero time talking about "science", although to be fair, that's not what people were arguing about at the time.

 

'truth' is also a scientific term, what else would scientists be after? One little truth after another, sometimes a few steps back, and then on again. Whether there's some greater truth to be found in the end doesn't really matter. Truth is what we -as in scientific consensus/media/the people- consider fact until then. And while we know that there may come a day when Newton's third law of physics somehow isn't right anymore, we just accept it as part of the best explanation of the world around us.

And ofcourse the Bible can contain true statements. It's no doubt full of it. But it's impossible to falsify any of the more important statements in that book, like 'God created Man in his own image'. You can be completely convinced of the truth of this statement, but you can never change your opinion on this without destroying the whole basis of your religious thought.

A scientific statement should be falsifiable at all times, and in every healthy scientific process they are. Ofcourse there's a lot of unhealthy science out there, a lot of bias and such, and the falsification of Newtons third law of physics will probably make all of us have sleepless nights and panic attacks, but a newer, improved law will be divised, and most importantly: our believe in science will be stronger than ever.