Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#402
#402
rjd970 said:
OK, what is the biased agenda of the academic world then?
Click to expand...

Good Lord man. There isn't some vast conspiracy. But if you believe there aren't just as many individual people in the academic world with agendas on this topic as there are in the theological/religious world you are blind.
 
#403
#403
OrangeEmpire said:
If you live a life of peace following the strict code of Islam, why is it a problem to believe in divine authority?
Click to expand...

That's not what I am saying. I am saying what makes one claim of the supernatural more believable than the other?

If you are good, I don't care what you believe. Like I said, again, it's not about the person, it is about the belief. Good people will be good, bad people will be bad...regardless of what they believe. Supernatural belief can get otherwise good people to do bad things, and believe they are doing good.
 
#404
#404
JZVOL said:
Good Lord man. There isn't some vast conspiracy. But if you believe there aren't just as many individual people in the academic world with agendas on this topic as there are in the theological/religious world you are blind.
Click to expand...

It's telling your not answering my question here.

What is this agenda you talk of with the academics?
 
#405
#405
rjd970 said:
Why not believe Muhammed's claim of divine authority as well?

It seems to fit your realm of believing about jibing with a universal creator.
Click to expand...
I can believe in either, absolutely. I can certainly believe a God could put several paths to himself in place, each with a message that resonates with different people. Why couldn't he?
 
#406
#406
rjd970 said:
OK, what is the biased agenda of the academic world then?
Click to expand...

There is plenty of room for bias in academia - I see it everyday. People become enamored with their theories, their world views and develop scientific thought along those lines.

While replication is ultimately required for verification of theories, it doesn't pay the bills. You can't get grants to replicate someone's study. You won't get published by replicating someone else's work. Grants are driven by the scientific mandate du jour. My entire university is gearing up to get a cut of that Stimulus money based on the prescribed areas for research.

These are just a few examples of how bias can creep in. The larger source is the very "how we know" view that you bring to this discussion. Demanding that it's not worth study (or not subjectable to study) if we can't formulate a theory to falsify with empirical data removes the possibility of particular explanations prior to study. I'm not saying academia as a whole adopts this view but it is certainly an underlying current through most scientific research.
 
#407
#407
volinbham said:
There is plenty of room for bias in academia - I see it everyday. People become enamored with their theories, their world views and develop scientific thought along those lines.

While replication is ultimately required for verification of theories, it doesn't pay the bills. You can't get grants to replicate someone's study. You won't get published by replicating someone else's work. Grants are driven by the scientific mandate du jour. My entire university is gearing up to get a cut of that Stimulus money based on the prescribed areas for research.

These are just a few examples of how bias can creep in. The larger source is the very "how we know" view that you bring to this discussion. Demanding that it's not worth study (or not subjectable to study) if we can't formulate a theory to falsify with empirical data removes the possibility of particular explanations prior to study. I'm not saying academia as a whole adopts this view but it is certainly an underlying current through most scientific research.
Click to expand...
it's also absurd to pretend that the hardcore academic evolutionists don't have an atheism axe to grind. Watching any of their roundtable discussions on Discovery or TLC is very telling about motives. They have a disdain for religion that they just can't seem to get over.
 
#408
#408
JZVOL said:
Good Lord man. There isn't some vast conspiracy. But if you believe there aren't just as many individual people in the academic world with agendas on this topic as there are in the theological/religious world you are blind.
Click to expand...

diversitylane_suspicious_for-blog.jpg
 
#409
#409
The biased agenda is based soley on capitalism.

Publishing their theories, generating buzz for their theories and defending their theories gets them grants, tenure, buys houses, and lets them ride around in foriegn cars and act like MDs.

The irony is stunning!
 
#410
#410
rjd970 said:
That's not what I am saying. I am saying what makes one claim of the supernatural more believable than the other?

If you are good, I don't care what you believe. Like I said, again, it's not about the person, it is about the belief. Good people will be good, bad people will be bad...regardless of what they believe. Supernatural belief can get otherwise good people to do bad things, and believe they are doing good.
Click to expand...

This only applies to religion????????

This is impossible with Science????
 
#411
#411
BigPapaVol said:
it's also absurd to pretend that the hardcore academic evolutionists don't have an atheism axe to grind. Watching any of their roundtable discussions on Discovery or TLC is very telling about motives. They have a disdain for religion that they just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there seems to be an intellectual arrogance associated with some of the atheist evolutionists. We see it with terms like "myths, superstitions". The message is we will evolve to a point where we are "smart enough not to believe in a God. Some of us has already have."
 
#412
#412
BigPapaVol said:
I can believe in either, absolutely. I can certainly believe a God could put several paths to himself in place, each with a message that resonates with different people. Why couldn't he?
Click to expand...

I'm being honest here...so you believe, from a fundamental belief standpoint, all religions are on equal footing? Furthermore, given that, all claims are equally reasonable to believe in, just because it resonates with certain people.
 
#413
#413
rjd970 said:
I'm being honest here...so you believe, from a fundamental belief standpoint, all religions are on equal footing? Furthermore, given that, all claims are equally reasonable to believe in, just because it resonates with certain people.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying why can't that be the case? Clearly God could make that happen.

I'm much more of a deist than I am hardcore anything else. I was raised Christian and believe the story of Jesus' resurrection for a couple of reasons, but I don't buy the Bible as the infallible word of God. I view the OT as Jewish mythology and the NT as man's effort to portray the story of Jesus as best they could recall, with considerable embellishment by several councils and kings.
 
#414
#414
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying why can't that be the case? Clearly God could make that happen.

I'm much more of a deist than I am hardcore anything else. I was raised Christian and believe the story of Jesus' resurrection for a couple of reasons, but I don't buy the Bible as the infallible word of God. I view the OT as Jewish mythology and the NT as man's effort to portray the story of Jesus as best they could recall, with considerable embellishment by several councils and kings.
Click to expand...

Wow, someone who gets it!

:eek:k:
 
#415
#415
The word infallible in relationship to anything on this earth should send warning signs to any reasonable human being.
 
#416
#416
rjd970 said:
It's telling your not answering my question here.

What is this agenda you talk of with the academics?
Click to expand...

What don't you understand? There isn't one. I said personal agenda or biases. If you can wait a minute I'll poll every single person in the academic world.

And what is telling is you asking me a question about something I never said.
 
Last edited:
#418
#418
JZVOL said:
What don't you understand? There isn't one. I said personal agenda or biases. If you can wait a minute I'll poll every single person in the academic world.
Click to expand...

I can play along!

Poll results..... 80% of scientists who hate religion, hate religion because family member(s) or some looney church attendee hurt their feelings.
 
#420
#420
BigPapaVol said:
This makes no sense at all. Extinction and fossils say nothing at all about creation. The trees and forest example was tough for me. Are you saying there are transitional trees where the lack of transitional fossils is a problem with macro evolution?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am saying if the world was created by a divine power in seven days just a 6 or 7 thousand years ago, why do we have trilobite fossils, dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, and geologic evidence of other eras and continental arrangements?


But aside from this, why is it being said that there are no transitional fossils? Some species of whales have hip bones. The evolution of the horse is fairly well documented, unless a two-foot tall, three toed animal is considered the same as a horse today.


Fossils don't form from every living creature that ever existed. Only a tiny fraction of those animals or plants will happen to die in a location that will offer good conditions for preservation. That is why what we have found is often fragmented.
 
#421
#421
IPorange said:
I am saying if the world was created by a divine power in seven days just a 6 or 7 thousand years ago, why do we have trilobite fossils, dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, and geologic evidence of other eras and continental arrangements?


But aside from this, why is it being said that there are no transitional fossils? Some species of whales have hip bones. The evolution of the horse is fairly well documented, unless a two-foot tall, three toed animal is considered the same as a horse today.


Fossils don't form from every living creature that ever existed. Only a tiny fraction of those animals or plants will happen to die in a location that will offer good conditions for preservation. That is why what we have found is often fragmented.
Click to expand...
the first is really weak evidence of macro evolution / evidence of transitional fossils and the second is simply an example of micro evolution.

The location argument is atrocious in helping explain the assumption that they must have existed but weren't well preserved.
 
#422
#422
BigPapaVol said:
the first is really weak evidence of macro evolution / evidence of transitional fossils and the second is simply an example of micro evolution.

The location argument is atrocious in helping explain the assumption that they must have existed but weren't well preserved.
Click to expand...

Alright. I feel like that is a deflection, but fair enough. Let me try this:

So you didn't defend the short age of the Earth. I'll assume that means you don't necessarily think the Earth is only a few thousand years old. If there is no macro-evolution, but there IS extinction (we wiped out the dodo and Stellar's sea cow in short order, after all) don't all these fossils we have of extinct creatures mean the Earth was awful crowded in the past? After all, we had plesiosaurus and 80 ft liopleurodons cruising around with our cute dolphins. Did humans and dinosaurs coexist? They must have, if everything on Earth was created at the same time and existed until they got knocked off.

Or is that weak too? I am trying to understand how the other side of this discussion envision the origins of life, and how we arrived at our present arrangement of living and extinct animals.

EDIT: And maybe something else that needs to be defined: what kind of fossil would be considered GOOD evidence of macro evolution?
 
Last edited:
#423
#423
JZVOL said:
What don't you understand? There isn't one. I said personal agenda or biases. If you can wait a minute I'll poll every single person in the academic world.

And what is telling is you asking me a question about something I never said.
Click to expand...

You said this:

So if you read from people/reports/books or whatever from people who are pro-evolution and anti-God it's unbiased?

How is it not the exact same?
Click to expand...

And I'm saying the pro-evolution crowd are looking at the total body of evidence and drawing a conclusion. Feel free to go back and scan anyone of those 7000 academic journal articles and tell me which ones linking chimpanzees to the evolutionary chain of humans is coming to their conclusions not based entirely on observable evidence. If they are biased, it is biased to the evidential results of the research, not personal agendas.

Also feel free to show me one piece of evidence put forth by theologians that don't have a personal or religious agendas attached to them.
 
#424
#424
IPorange said:
Alright. I feel like that is a deflection, but fair enough. Let me try this:

So you didn't defend the short age of the Earth. I'll assume that means you don't necessarily think the Earth is only a few thousand years old. If there is no macro-evolution, but there IS extinction (we wiped out the dodo and Stellar's sea cow in short order, after all) don't all these fossils we have of extinct creatures mean the Earth was awful crowded in the past? After all, we had plesiosaurus and 80 ft liopleurodons cruising around with our cute dolphins. Did humans and dinosaurs coexist? They must have, if everything on Earth was created at the same time and existed until they got knocked off.
Click to expand...

I don't want to speak for BPV, but I think it's safe to assume that if a person believes in creation and does not take the Old Testament literally... there is nothing that says they believe all living beings were created at the same time.
 
#425
#425
rjd970 said:
You said this:



And I'm saying the pro-evolution crowd are looking at the total body of evidence and drawing a conclusion. Feel free to go back and scan anyone of those 7000 academic journal articles and tell me which ones linking chimpanzees to the evolutionary chain of humans is coming to their conclusions not based entirely on observable evidence. If they are biased, it is biased to the evidential results of the research, not personal agendas.

Also feel free to show me one piece of evidence put forth by theologians that don't have a personal or religious agendas attached to them.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top