Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Letter: Darwin’s theory has never been proven as truth

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:06 am

For years now I have attempted to convey to those who read my letters the fact that the scientific community has been keeping certain information from the non-scientific public. I feel it’s imperative for us to know why well-known flaws and inconsistencies exist with Darwin’s theory.

I’m positive that people like myself simply just want scientists to admit that Darwinian evolution is not, and never has been, established as a “reality” or “truth.” That is why I have taken a great deal of time to do some research over the past 30-plus years, discovering that many scientists, including modern biologists, not only doubt evolution but actually do not believe it!

Just read what I found written by honest men of science. W.R. Thompson, past director of the Common Wealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, Canada, stated on this vital issue: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”

Now, I consider admissions like that to be accessible to those of us who simply want to know the truth about our origin.

Phillip Johnson, a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago, wrote his book “Darwin on Trial,” which has been described as “the most respectable academic critique of evolution.”

Johnson stated why he researched Darwinism, and the conclusion he came to was that the theory of evolution is based not on fact but on faith — faith! He found that there simply is no vast body of empirical data supporting the theory at all.

Robert Jastrow, astronomer and past director of NASA’s Space Program, stated, “Scientists have no clear-cut answer because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing the creation of life out of non-living matter. Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation” (“Mind in the Universe” by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19).

Life could have been planned rather than happen by accident!

Tom Baker

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

134 comments:

  • Rick Houdack posted at 7:32 pm on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    Kevin Paglia, you are mistaken again when you say "there is no evidence" should be edited to add "that I will accept". Only a fool denies factual evidence placed before him and I know of no atheists who are that stupid. A sign of intelligence is the ability to learn by experience and to develop judgement based on evidence. Repeating the claim is not evidence.

    Quoting the bible is proof of nothing, Kevin, THE BIBLE IS THE CLAIM. You cannot prove your argument by repeating the claim or by saying it must be true because you want it to be true because it makes you feel good to think it is true. Claims made by religions are scientific claims made about reality. When the bible says God made the light and dark three days before he made the sun and moon, that is a claim about our solar system that is incompatible with reality. The bible is full of errors and discrepancies that are plain to anyone who reads it, making it painfully obvious to everyone it is not the word of an omniscient creature. In the end the bible proves only that it was written by primitive, flawed humans.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 5:27 pm on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Simon: Please please, enough of Darwin, put him and the others fables to bed, since no one knows anything that can be proved. As Elvis would say, Thank you very much. [beam]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:28 pm on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Paglia
    I went at some length to explain theories and how some are based on what happened a long time ago where there were no witnesses and thus no conclusive evidence. So we sift through the dirt looking for clues and the clues create the diversity of possible ideas (theorie). And yes there are a lot of working theories each as valid as the next until more evidence is found.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:08 pm on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Both.
    We have thoughts and feelings which are beyond the sum of our parts which are the "stardust" or chemical elements of our bodies.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:02 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    A very simple question for the "science" side:

    Are we more than the sum of our parts OR Stardust ruled by chemical signals in our brain?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    "There is no evidence..."

    That statement really should be modified to "there is no evidence **I am willing to accept**"

    Even in widely studied fields, when it comes to science, the more we learn, the more we realize that not only is there a lot we DON'T know, but that even the evidence collected is so vague it cannot be said as an absolute.

    Case in point: What killed the Dino's? That has been studied for a very long time with many theories put out. AND there are scientist who will make the statement "there is no evidence..." If science can not agree on what is physical evidence in front of them, then how can it find truth in what is beyond it's measure? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:00 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    I find it interesting that when a person of faith rejects a scientific point we are called "delusional", "blinded by ______", or "reject the evidence".

    BUT when a person of science rejects evidence they are just being critical thinkers.

    Like I said, I like the paranormal shows. There has been some very good EVIDENCE caught. I would say 95% of what those shows claim are "real witness encounters" are exaggerations, hoaxes, or mis-identifications. BUT the 5% is very interesting. Personally I like a lot of the footage TAPS has caught. Especially some of their EVP's and thermal footage.

    A am also always struck by the testimony of die-hard skeptics that have encounters that change their mind.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:05 am on Thu, Aug 7, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Actually the Bible does provide insight on this issue: And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

    I will not go in depth into all my experiences cause I know you will not accept them, but since you specifically called me out on my "beliefs", this passage very well sums up a few of my experiences. The great deceiver, the Devil, the Adversary, And the minions that followed take on a great many shapes, even those of Angels (why do you think we are told to test all?) 1% of an idea, concept, or "myth" is all it takes and human weakness can do much of the rest. (I suspect).

    Anyone who believes that the Devil and the minions all have scales and horns are sorely mistaken. Just as those who believe angels are all soft and cuddly as as wrong.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:31 pm on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    [whistling]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:30 pm on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I'm trying my best. Tonight we read the "Elves and the Shoemaker" story before bed--how ironic is that? [smile] Life is such a trip sometimes!

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 6:05 pm on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Kevin, does the Catholic Church support your belief in Leprechauns and such? How does your belief in gnomes and fairies mesh with your religion? Do you believe God made Leprechauns? Do you think the apostles, Jesus, or my deceased Aunt Mary have conversations with them? How does all this jell?

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 5:55 pm on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    "Continuous sightings."

    No, they are unverified reports of sightings.
    Always unverified, except for those that have been proven to be hoaxes and frauds.
    Always, there are no exceptions.

    There has never at any time in history been a confirmed ghost conversation or demon or Leprechaun sighting.

    There has never been an instance of proof of the existence of a god or deity.
    They are always proven to be hoaxes or frauds.
    Always, there are no exceptions.
    Irrational belief despite no, or contradictory, evidence is a delusion.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:43 am on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Ms Welch
    I think you may be right about the youngster.

    I want to thank you for some great comments, you do quite well here. Speaking of youngsters, take care of that lil' kindergartner of yours.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:36 am on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    "Leprechauns appeared to generations of the Irish, but they didn't appear to Peruvians or Chinese. What is cognitively wrong with those Peruvian and Chinese people who do not see Leprechauns (as you said you don't understand people who do not share your "experiences")."

    Ok, this is funny, cause aside from watching/reading science shows/articles, my other love is the paranormal. And yes, I approach it from the 99% is explainable perspective. Did you know that just about EVERY culture around the world has very similar creature myths/sightings? Bigfoot (http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/09/different-names-for-bigfoot-to-z.html), gnomes (think leprechauns or the Hawaiian Menehun), vampires, shapeshifters and on and on.

    I have my beliefs as to WHY, mostly cultural exchange and mind-games. BUT those do not explain the continuous sightings. Especially by those that DON'T believe in them until they are seen.

    Side note: The "Leprechaun" is NOT Irish. The origins pre-date the Celts to some of the very first inhabitants of that Island.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 7:31 am on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    [beam]

    I think Walter is an "old soul," Thomas. Wise beyond his years.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 7:28 am on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Good point, Mr Kinderman.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 4:47 am on Wed, Aug 6, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    Kevin Paglia, everyone has had moments when they thought they saw or heard something they could not explain. Not everyone has had, or will claim to have had, conversations with spirits and demons as you have. That is a truly remarkable claim to make and, as you should know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claimed to have seen and spoken with your neighbor, it would take very little to have such a claim accepted, because we routinely see and converse with those in close proximity. If you claimed to have, as a youth, met and spoken with Katherine Hepburn, that would be a more remarkable claim, but still well within the realm of possibility because Katherine Hepburn was a recognizable personality who is generally accepted to have lived and no doubt met thousands of people in her lifetime. A photo or autograph from your Hepburn encounter should convince even the most jaded skeptic.

    But you have claimed to have met face to face with spirits and demons not of this world. Not only is there no evidence spiritual and demonic entities exist, there is no evidence "another world" exists and, further, claims of knowledge of another, spirit, world are wildly disparate. Your claims of demonic meetings and conversations with denizens of the spirit world qualify as extraordinary by any normal measure. Your claims are not, however, unique; others, including others in other cultures, have made similar claims... except the claims from individuals in each culture curiously reflect myths in common with that culture.

    Before the concept of Christianity was introduced to civilizations around the world, there were no incidents of Jesus spontaneously appearing to locals a continent away and revealing anything. Likewise spirits and demons. Leprechauns appeared to generations of the Irish, but they didn't appear to Peruvians or Chinese. What is cognitively wrong with those Peruvian and Chinese people who do not see Leprechauns (as you said you don't understand people who do not share your "experiences"). Central Americans routinely claim to fall victim of the Evil Eye from the Santeria. Do you live in quaking fear of the Santeria Evil Eye, Kevin? Unless you speak up and and this to your list, I will assume you do not, because you were not indoctrinated with those particular myths as a child, you claim to have seen things that confirm only the dogma of your faith, not the faith of others.

    Regarding UFO sightings, different classes of witnesses might claim to have seen something they could not recognize and some would resolve what they thought they saw by chalking it up only as "unidentified", while other witnesses, perhaps seeing the same "object", come away claiming to have seen some sort of advanced technology, no doubt military. Others, seeing the same thing, think they saw a Russian (in the past, "Soviet") spy craft or some fearsome attack vehicle. Then there are those who invariably skip past "I don't know what it was", they continue past all earthly possibilities, military or otherwise, and immediately claim to have seen a spaceship from another galaxy, manned by little green men, which is the most extraordinary explanation. As we routinely read here, there are those who habitually and confidently make the wildest attributions (conspiracies, denial of history, etc.) and there are those who rush headlong to ascribe every curiosity in their lives to superhuman beings who monitor their every thought and movement.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:57 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2357

    Actually Ms. Welch, death is what proves the existence of God. If science assists, then that's fine.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 8:54 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    So noted....
    [whistling]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:12 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Carl Sagan was before your time?? Yikes!

    You mean you are not the old sage "Great Wa" but instead
    you're the "Whipper-Snapper Wa"?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 5:19 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Kevin
    I hope you don't feel you have been a target of mockery or ridicule that has never been my intention or anybody else's from what I gather here, if I may speak for others. I have been honored to have had this discussion with an open and able debater and that is strictly what I take from this. But now when your side of the debate hinges on personal experiences, as I stated before I can never dispute that nor will I try. I've had these debates before and many theists base their faith strictly on the bible. The bible is another argument barricade but it at least can be debated.

    It is hoped that you are certain about those experiences and they represent what you believe them to be. Hopefully they are not used as shield to block knowledge you might view as threatening. But thanks again it has been stimulating and my pleasure.

     
  • Simon Birch posted at 5:18 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Simon Birch - Online Manager Posts: 160 Staff

    Walter: Having spoken to John a couple of times on the phone, and reading his many comments, I have a feeling he would have laughed at your comment I didn't allow. Others probably wouldn't have. So if I erred, it was on the side of caution. Your welcome?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:48 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Paglia
    Mr Paglia
    Walter stated "You're not helping your cause"
    You replied "I am not trying to help MY cause, I am trying to help THEIRS..."

    "THEIRS" IS YOUR CAUSE
    is what I believe Walter is meaning to say.

    However your not helping others by words alone because as you said you had a personal experience that validates your belief in the supernatural and that's great (I hope). We should all be so lucky. However to succeed in furthering YOUR/THEIR cause would be to provide us all with our own personal experience. That might put us all on the same page then.
    [wink]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:11 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Good LucK

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:02 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Christina, since Kevin is chumming the pond again.

    I would expect the shark advisory to remain in place for at least 48 hours after the last feeding.

    God fearers please take notice!

    [wink]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:01 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "John"

    John contacted me directly once.

    He asked me to lay off Darrell.

    I told him that I would try but I never really did.

    He never mentioned Jerry though.

    He was as left as left could be but Jesus (divine or not) filled his heart with unconditional love for his fellow man.

    Note: I posted something inappropriate earlier but Simon saved me. Thanks


    [smile]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 12:24 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Let me know when it's safe to come down, will ya, Walter? Quack right back..


    [wink]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 12:24 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "Mr Chang"

    When I saw that I knew that I was in trouble!

    Yeah, I knew I made a typo below as soon as I hit submit. I didn't bother to make a correction because it was lost on Ed.

    I never met Carl Sagan, I bought the book on Ebay. He was kind of before my time but the book did come with a letter of authentication and was reasonably priced. Apparently he did lots of book signings.

    I would expect you to be happy with the discussion results.

    It was a slam dunk. Thanks for the lecture.

    [huh]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 12:09 pm on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2464

    From the folks who brought us climate change denial.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:29 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Chang
    Talk about a meeting of science and religion...

    You mentioned in an earlier post below a title I had forgotten. Its worth repeating here "Boca's Brain" (actually Broca's Brain). Not to be confused with vegetarian Boca Burgers. An autographed copy? Wow.

    From Wikipedia: "The title essay (Broca's Brain) is named in honor of the French physician, anatomist and anthropologist, Paul Broca (1824–1880). He is best known for his discovery that different functions are assigned to different parts of the brain. He believed that by studying the brains of cadavers and correlating the known experiences of the former owner of the organs, human behavior could eventually be discovered and understood. To that end, he saved hundreds of human brains in jars of formalin; among the collection is his own neural organ.

    When Sagan finds it in Musée de l'Homme, he poses questions that challenge some core ideas of human existence such as "How much of that man known as Paul Broca can still be found in this jar?" - a question that evokes both religious and scientific argument."

    Looking at life from both sides now (from a song).

    And I agree with Simon, this has been a great discussion one that our old friend John Lucas always strived for whether it was religion or economics but especially economics. Never mind that he talked to trees in southern California (only old posters will understand).

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:08 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Fine, prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt there is NO God. I await your evidence

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:06 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Rick, do you watch ANY of the ghost hunting shows? Been on a ghost hunt tour?

    How about expand it a little, have you EVER experienced that which you couldn't explain?

    As for Demons not being real, I have had personal interactions which tells me different. Not tangible evidence for you, but had seen the things I have seen, you would believe as well.

    It is very much the "UFO scenario" A lot of people believe there are no such thing as UFO's, but once they see one, they believe. Evidence? Nope, but for those that have seen/experienced it, it is an absolute truth. And no, I have not seen a UFO myself.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:02 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Walter, I am not trying to help MY cause, I am trying to help THEIRS...

    The same reason I always try to open the mind of non-believers. From Ezekiel: Ezekiel as Israel's Watchman
    …4 then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head. 5'He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand."

    I will sound the trumpet whenever I can. If I am heard, great, if not then I have done my job and consequences are theirs.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:58 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    If you believe there is no spirit world you have closed your eyes to a lot of things. I have had many interactions, and not "out of the corner of my eye". I am talking full looking at, talking to and interacting with experiences. Both positive and negative entities.

    To me, it is as ridiculous that you DON'T believe in them, as it is to you that I do.

    And Zombies aren't that bad, a simple head-shot and they are down. Now Vampires, they are the ones you have to look out for

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:54 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    I don't need to prove it in the court of law. In the end the court of law is only temporary. I put myself through the mockery and ridicule and become a target for one simple simple reason: In my life I have experiences that have convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt there is a "God". based on WHAT I have experienced the best expression of the "God-figure" for me is based on Christian teachings. I also know that those teachings probably encompass less than 1% of the truths about God. And in the afterlife, after a life of CHOOSING God I look forward to learning the rest. Can't do that if I deny God now.

    From Matthew: "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven"

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:38 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "Edited by staff"

    Hey Simom...

    Where's Joanne, Brian and Joe??

    [huh]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:36 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Ed, I'm not worried about ghost...

    It's those brain eating zombies that scare me!!

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:33 am on Tue, Aug 5, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125


    "great discussion"

    Let's see...

    The pond water is blood red.

    The sharks are well fed.

    The ducks are roosting in the trees...

    And the good Catholic boy is missing a few limbs.

    Great discussion? Simon, is your bias showing??

    Quack Quack Quack

    [smile]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:38 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Thanks, Walter. You really are a good guy [love]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:31 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    "Religion and science can be compatible if religion, as it is for some, doesn't remain a rigid inflexible base of reason. Science is the engine that will eventually find god if there is a "findable" god. Otherwise we are just taking our chances till we die." Thank you, Thomas! You are truly one of the most reasoned and even-tempered people I have ever "known." I always glean something worthwhile from your thoughts.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:20 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    It isn't "either/or" for me, M (Totally makes me think of James Bond [smile] )

    I do accept evidence-based science, what I know of it. And I do believe in God. Do I have scientific proof that He exists, no. Do I personally need it, no. That's why it's called faith. I can understand where atheists feel as they do because they're only thinking about the science of it. And that's great for them, much more "logical" indeed. I don't dislike them for it and I don't even disagree--there isn't any scientific proof to support the existence of a higher power. But faith isn't science and it shouldn't be, any more than art or literature or love or emotion is science. Faith is humanistic, not scientific, and there is room in one's being for both the human and scientific experience. At least that's how I feel.

    I don't discredit science in my mind at all. I definitely may not understand it, but that actually makes me respect it all the more. (I wish I could answer those tricky science questions on Jeopardy, I tell ya! ) But to say I discredit it? No way. I have several science teacher friends who are also Christians, would you say they discredit the very subject they teach? I can understand what you're saying in terms of your evangelical or extremist type religions, but not in terms of personal faith. Maybe that is where we are misunderstanding each other.
    I truly believe I can and I do have both, M. And I don't think I'm alone.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 7:49 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548


    Kevin, you would never prove you case in a court of law as you need evidence. not just theory. Concerning Simon, you will always get this kind of response when religion is brought up. Glad you like it since it only comes along every now and then,

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 6:55 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Demons, Spirits and others were invented to make little kids go to bed. And Walter, check under your bed tonight, you never can tell. [wink]

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 6:25 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Now that's funny!

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 6:17 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Kevin says, " 20% of people believe that they have seen a ghost, " and implies this is some sort of proof ghosts exist. Reality is not based on a straw poll of public opinion. 20% of Americans believe that the US government masterminded 9/11. 11% believe the government is mandating a switch to florescent lightbulbs because it makes people obedient and easy to control. Somewhere between 5 and 10% deny the Holocaust. Millions of folks believe that Mohammed flew into heaven on a winged horse. Are all of these true? In the past, a majority of Irish peasants believed in Leprechauns and many claimed sitings. Do you think Leprechauns are real because thousands of people claim to have seen them? Well, do you? This is the reason we need science, Kevin, to separate fact from fantasy.

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 5:57 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    A scientist would not make either statement, Kevin. Without evidence, there is no way to tell if the cat is dead or alive, or if in fact there is a cat in the box at all. You chose to believe ideas that make you happy or assuage your fears. And, because you want them to be true, you will die arguing they are true and screen out all evidence to the contrary.

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 5:52 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Christina, you completely misunderstand the argument and my question. Either you accept evidence based science or you believe in magic and myth. When extensive scientific research contradicts your religious beliefs, you can't "have both." In order to maintain beliefs in the face of mountains of evidence, science must be discredited. You don't have to publicly assault science with fallacious statements as Kevin has in order to do that. Just stating that you still believe in the magic of your faith lets the rest of us know that you've discredited science in your mind.

     
  • Simon Birch posted at 5:38 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Simon Birch - Online Manager Posts: 160 Staff

    Thank you all for having a great discussion about this letter. This is exactly what we're looking for in the comments.

    Edited by staff.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 4:24 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    M, Why do you ask us an "honest" question and then proceed to answer it for us yourself? You are making some faulty assumptions, at least on my part. I do not "discredit science" nor do I "disrespect the scientific method" or "cast dispersions on scientists" so I have no reason to "please explain why." Where have I criticized science? Where have I even said faith is better than science? Please don't assume these would be my thoughts and behaviors, especially when my own words clearly do not indicate that would be the case.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:23 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Boo

    [lol]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:19 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "Pastor Noltons..."

    Collateral damage, please don't take it personally.

    David doesn't know you like we know you or he would of been a lot nicer.

    You're just on the wrong side of his debate.


    [wink]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 4:16 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I love that movie, Ed!!! "It's good to be the king..." [smile]

    And I agree, we're probably all taking this really too seriously...

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 4:14 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I agree, Kevin. It seems to me that you and I have responded to this LTE basically saying that not all people who have faith would agree with it; that people of faith can believe in the truths of science in addition to their own religious beliefs. I don't see the problem in that, and I think it's actually how the majority of people feel. Fairly recent polls indicate that 70-90% or so of Americans believe in some sort of higher power, and I'm pretty sure that they all aren't pushing for Creationism to be taught in the classroom. I think most people recognize that you can have both in your life (not that you have to), even if several others in this forum seem to refute that.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:08 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Kevin, it's over.

    With each iteration your argument gets weaker and weaker.

    You're not helping your cause going up against these guys, they're pros.

    I know your heart is in the right place but this is becoming too painful to watch.

    Just agree to disagree and let it go.

    Thanks


     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 3:29 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    No, Kevin, there is not evidence of ghosts, angels, demons, spirits or an afterlife; there are only claims. Claims must be supported by evidence, additional claims are not evidence, they are merely addition unsubstantiated claims. Devastating as it may be to your feelings and wishes, there is absolutely nothing to corroborate your claims. Nothing at all. It is wishful thinking and fantasy. Biblical creation is ancient fables to attempt to explain our origins to primitive minds. Ghost stories are only stories. Demons are inventions to attempt to fix blame for perceived misfortune. Unscrupulous conmen long ago realized the profit potential for capitalizing on the fears of the gullible by scaring them into handing over their cash and subservience. Your superstitions are not rooted in reality or science, you are caught in an infantile mind warp of summer camp ghosts stories.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Just when I thought enough was enough, Paglia comes up with a question that as far as he is concerned stating that science can`t explain anything. OK, one question for all to give some thought to. Concerns time, starting with that fable of Adam and Eve. In what period of time did this fable take place, next the fabled flood, and so on. To go on, start at the so called beginning which was a disable failure. God is an artists rendition since no one knows what a spirit looks like. If he looks like an old guy with a beard, I see him everyday, Billy Gibbons for one, ( ZZ Top ). The best part is, if you don`t believe in anything, you ask questions and never get an answer. Science/Religion, who cares ???

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:58 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519


    Mr Paglia
    You must be turning on the science channel or PBS's Nova but falling asleep in your reclining chair during them. You make blatant rash statements that are so way off.

    You said "A Pew poll shows that 20% of people believe that they have seen a ghost, but science says that is impossible." and you also say "So people who are of the same mind as you (another poster), disbelieving in what cannot be seen or measured, say something that they cannot see or measure does not exist

    Science doesn't say thats impossible or doesn't exist, it's simply saying it is not VERIFIABLE. Like I already said that's a matter of PERSONAL experience. I nor anyone else can dispute a personal experience. However that's where it ends. Nothing can be done with the knowledge. You can't say ghosts exist because someone said they saw one. The original person may have had the experience but it can't be a shared experience. That experience can only exist in the mind of the person who experienced it. If we are to allow our selves to say it exists what then. Does it become a defense in court? No your honor, I didn't kill that peson a ghost came in an killed them.

    Now I'm sure you will say but what about all the people who say they saw a ghost. Each had their own INDIVIDUAL experience or even if two or more had the same ghost experience it remains a one time event that can't be proven. Are they lying? Who's to know. Your experiences which you say confirm your religion are not what I experienced in my time as a christian or buddhist for that matter.

    To your "Why would science (in this case "science" is the collective of those that put all their faith in science) WANT/NEED this to be "just in the mind"?" There is not a FAITH in science.Only facts and inquiry. This is another misleading attempt to equate science with religion. That's also why your use of the word congregation in "congregation of science" baffles me as to whether it means a collective of scientists or "sit in the pews" congregation of science-ism. No need to explain just saying.

    And to your "Because to confirm that Ghosts are real would mean that there is something that science cannot explain/comprehend". First how do you confirm ghosts are real? Because someone had a personal experience that can't be explained? Its like someone long ago accusing someone of witchcraft or being a witch (I hope you don't believe witches actually existed) and that was enough to burn them at the stake. Is that how you wish to administer a justice system? When Jerry Falwell (and Pat Robertson) said the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks were due to gods displeasure with homosexuals and women's lib is that enough to take any actions deemed necessary against these condemned people? I would hope not. That is the fear I have of religion where people make decisions about other people based on intangible religious ideas. Fine as beliefs for the believer but scary beyond that. I mean thats one of the main problems o the middle east.

    Then you add "It would mean there is something MORE than what can be scene or measured. This fills them with fear, but others with hope." Science has alot it can't explain, dark matter, dark energy, full explanation of gravity, I mean it can't even explain fully the Big Bang or what was before the Big Bang. But that is what drives the search and desire for discovery for more facts. There is no fear of the unknown. Where do you get this stuff?

    Yes science is aware there is more to earth than ever dreamt of in any philosophy (one of my favorite quotes altered here to illustrate my point). Only religion makes a claim it knows everything. But it has to remain in the head because it can't verify tangibly anything. Its like the personal experiences of ghosts or UFOs or Big Foot. Again as I said before religion serves a purpose for many people and why it wants to compare itself to science is beyond me.

    Religion is simply a BELIEF system. Science is an EMPIRICAL system.

    You can't say religion is empirical nor can you say science is a belief system. You will be absolutly incorrect. Science doesn't say heaven doesn't exist but says instead there is simply no evidence of a heaven. If you believe in heaven then thats fine. I find it hard to base my life's decisions on it without further evidence to know what that means in my life. I have no idea if I will like heaven. But to say science denys heaven because it isn't measurable then you don't really understand science. Religion and science can be compatible if religion, as it is for some, doesn't remain a rigid inflexible base of reason. Science is the engine that will eventually find god if there is a "findable" god. Otherwise we are just taking our chances till we die.

    To illustrate where you go wrong is your "...BUT to say it (science) is ALL there is to know deprives the seeker of even greater wonders." It's not ALL there is TO KNOW but rather more correctly ALL there is THAT'S KNOWN. Theres plenty to discover and learn and eventually know but science has a wonderful body of knowlege of what is known and questions of what we could know.

    And let me add to your "I remember a while back when you (David Diskin) said your "Free-thinker" society welcomes all. I doubted it then and I still doubt it." I want to assure you that the welcome mat is indeed genuine and you will meet some of the nicest gentile people you can ever meet. They are not selling anything, don't have any requirements for meeting together. It is only expected that you are accepting of others as you are accepted. If you like getting together for brunch or pot luck, getting together for a play or movie, hiking or snow trip, card or board games, they even have bible studies, then you can find your place there. Similar to christians when they say love the sinner not the sin is how a non-theist may feel about religious belief. However they don't condemn people or label them as sinners or gentiles or other belittling and discriminating language. People are people and we all manage to get along quite well, for the most part, unless we let ideas get into our HEAD that tend to separate us.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 1:32 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    I love these conversations where I am challenged to think and reflect on an issue.

    As I was watching Monster Quest while eating lunch the thought occurred to me that this whole conversation, and to a much larger degree all of the science vs religion debate, is very much a schrödinger's cat thought experiment.

    There is a great box where the truth is hidden. On one side, the side we believe the cat is alive and celebrate it's life. The other side believes the cat is dead since it has no evidence the cat is alive. The twisted trick to this experiment is the box will ONLY be lifted when we die.

    I choose to believe "the cat is alive" because my experiences have told me that belief is true. ALL I know is the cat is alive, all the other details I look forward to discovering after my death. And why others would prefer the cat be dead (metaphorically speaking of course) confuses me.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 1:12 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    I always find it humorous how those of us that see science AND faith as being compatible are attacked and mocked for acknowledging that not only is science a very useful tool in understanding the universe, but that there are things in all of creation that science cannot explain. We see the unknown, that which science cannot measure/explain, as wondrous.

    The scale of Science vs religion:

    The religiously devote ---- offended that science challenges their beliefs

    The Faithful who love science--- See science as useful and valid, but also see the truth in all that science can't explain (yet, if ever)

    the scientifically devote ---- Offended that anything of faith that challenges their beliefs.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:34 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    And by your comments, then I take it then that you believe that science SUPPORTS the possibility of an afterlife then? If it is not "Impossible", then it must be possible.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:28 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Interesting that you say there is ZERO evidence when there is actually a LOT of evidence that there is a spirit world science can't explain. I don't need to write the books or contact the media as you mockingly suggest. Mainly cause it is nothing new. The evidence is out there, BUT science can't accept it cause it can't measure it

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:24 pm on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Of course there are ghosts, I saw them many times without any help from science, mostly after drinking to much, you wouldn`t believe what I saw. Then I sobered up and they all went away. My post makes as much sense as those who spent hours trying to convince others that ghosts are real, really who cares. Something like Democrats and Republicans in an attempt to get along, not going to happen. As of today this Darwin thing will go away, good riddens, hopefully never to return. Boooooooo [beam]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:22 am on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    The problem with the scientists spending their whole life studying a discipline is all it takes is ONE discovery and ALL their work is made pointless. One paradigm shifting revelation Like this alternate theory to the Big Bang. I have a counter theory to them both, but mankind is not prepared for such knowledge yet ;-)

    http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:01 am on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    But let's turn the question around on you:

    What about when things occur that science can not explain. I will use the example of Ghosts or precognition. Nothing in science can explain HOW or WHY Ghosts exists. What do you do when your science encounters that which it can not explain?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:59 am on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Without specific examples of a science countering one of my faith beliefs I will have to answer with generalities.

    Generally it is the Elephant and three blind men analogy (If you don;t know it I'll wait while you look it up). The Scientists that spend their life learning about an aspect of the Universe, in the grand scheme of things, and even removing religion from it, are little more than blind men touching an elephant. They are explaining something FAR bigger than they understand, like they know everything about it.

    In other situations, like the Great Flood, I look at the geological understanding and understand that the ancient record keepers explained the world around them the best they could. It is curious that the Flood is recorded around the world though, in many cultures.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 10:16 am on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    Kevin Paglia, despite your disingenuous claim, science does not say ghosts are impossible. After centuries of observation, we are still left with zero evidence there are "ghosts". Absolutely nothing. If you have proof that your stories of ghosts (or angels or demons or spirits or the "afterlife") are true, then why not contact the conservative media or the Christian Broadcasting Network and book publishers to cash in on the fame and the certain millions of dollars they would pay you. Imagine, with the money such proof would bring, you could buy that acreage you have been dreaming of. But without the proof, you are just another hallucinating mammal who thought he saw something out of the corner of his eye and, rather than investigate the real cause, immediately accepted the most wildly improbable of all explanations because it confirms the fables you heard as a child.

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 8:45 am on Mon, Aug 4, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 181

    Ah now I understand source of great knowledge of the Mr Ed about the religion and the science is many tv and movies he able watch like the Cosmos. But seem he now think that the Sagan and the Tyson are only two scientist who discover all wonders of universe. Sad to really know so less.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:11 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I like that, Walter. And, after Googling the name--a Devo reference to boot!!! Two for two [beam]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:02 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Nice one-liner at the end there, Thomas. A good chuckle before going to bed tonight!!! [beam]

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 8:59 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Oh, David, you are not seriously going to take my words out of context to try and belittle me, are you? How many times have I read your comments here on other topics (and agreed with you) where you chided people for taking words out of context, particularly with their use of selective scripture? And now you're cherry-picking my words to serve your own purpose? Wow, indeed.

    For the record, here's the sum total of what I said: "I think people who believe that faith and science are polar opposites and incompatible are forgetting that is the make-up in much of life. Feminine and masculine are opposites, but work together beautifully in this world; we need the yin and the yang. Protons and neutrons, positive and negative, right? I think faith and science are like that, working together to help people understand the world and their place within it." I can't see where that translates into me saying faith and science are yin and yang. But, instead of responding to my comment with a thoughtful discussion, you resort to semantics and redaction. I'm sad to say you don't seem like much of a freethinker with me. Save your contempt and patronizing for the Pastor Nolans of the world, I really don't think I deserve it.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:55 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    [thumbup]

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 3:11 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Everyone has their own idea of how man was made/created or whatever, to learn the real truth, you must see Mel Brooks version, especially when he served wine at the last supper. Originally there were 15 commandments, however when Moses came down from the mountain he dropped 5 of the commandments written in stone, and that is why we ended up with 10. Kinda goes against the grain, but funny as only Mel Books can do. And to really give a **** does it really matter, man is here and will eventually screw everything up. Check out Brooks pic, History of the World Part 1. Even the Pope would get a laugh out of this, and don`t be so serious since we don`t have a clue. [beam]

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 2:59 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    An honest question for Christina, Kevin, Jerome, or any other person of faith who claims to respect science:

    When science contradicts your strongly held beliefs (faith), how do you reconcile the conflict? You trust the scientific method when it creates cures for your illnesses or develops a faster computer. You get on an aircraft that weighs more than a half million pounds and allow yourself to be thrust thousands of feet into the air, totally trusting the science to keep you safe. And yet, when that same science provides mountains of evidence that one of the tenets of your religion is completely untrue, you discredit science, disrespect the scientific method, and cast dispersions on the scientists who have devoted their lives to the work.

    Please explain why.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    "I have hope that future generations will shed what is left of their dogma and religion in favor of equality, inclusiveness, love, and a great well-being than faith can ever give them."

    I remember a while back when you said your "Free-thinker" society welcomes all. I doubted it then and I still doubt it. Especially when you openly profess a desire see a society where peoples faith and belief have been shed away from them claiming that Equality, inclusiveness, love and great well-being are not possible with faith. Nope, doesn't sound like your "free thinker" society would welcome a person of faith like me at all.

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 2:00 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    [thumbup]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 1:12 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    A Pew poll shows that 20% of people believe that they have seen a ghost, but science says that is impossible. Why would science (in this case "science" is the collective of those that put all their faith in science) WANT/NEED this to be "just in the mind"?

    Because to confirm that Ghosts are real would mean that there is something that science cannot explain/comprehend. It would mean there is something MORE than what can be scene or measured. This fills them with fear, but others with hope.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 1:01 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    I used the quote below in a response but it is key enough to the discussion to highlight it here as well.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

    I always get a chuckle at the sheer arrogance of the congregation of Science who believe that ONLY what can be seen and measured exists. THEN they say we, the believers in something more, are closed-minded for not accepting science as truth. The reality is we DO see science as having fact and truths to it, but not ALL the truths in the universe. We comprehend that there can be MORE than what science says.

    Science is little more than an Ocean. A vast and wonderful ocean full of wonders and mysteries to be solved. BUT to say it is ALL there is to know deprives the seeker of even greater wonders.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:55 pm on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    So people who are of the same mind as you, disbelieving in what cannot be seen or measured, say something that they cannot see or measure does not exist is suppose to affect my faith?

    Doesn't affect my faith in the slightest. That would be like asking a bitter divorcee what they thought about you getting married. They will tell you marriage is a waste and not to do it. Do you still get married?

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:34 am on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "God mad man but he used the monkey to do it"

    - Mark Mothersbaugh

    [thumbup]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:31 am on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Jerry, why do the righteous (supposedly) suffer?

    Do you ever feel like Job?

    [huh]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:30 am on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Stan, I don't think that you don't have anything in your safe, huh??

    [lol]

     
  • David Diskin posted at 1:07 am on Sun, Aug 3, 2014.

    David Diskin Posts: 184

    You said, "... we need the yin and the yang. Protons and neutrons, positive and negative, right? I think faith and science are like that."

    Wow.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:31 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I think you did quite well, Kevin. Any mountain scene analogy always works for me. Hope you enjoyed the article.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:27 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    "Many times I've wondered how much there is to know.." [smile]

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ledzeppelin/overthehillsandfaraway.html


     
  • Christina Welch posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    The danger lies in just who is doing the defining of right and wrong, Stan.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:51 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Paglia
    I cannot dispute personal experience and won't even try. However those are exclusively your experiences. There is no guarantee everyone will experience the same or similar experiences as a result of accepting any religious belief. Its like faith healing. I can't dispute it (others have) but I do wonder why they don't simply go to the nearest hospital and heal the patients there. Now that would really make Obamacare obsolete.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:36 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Paglia
    Your claim of being an avid science fan is becoming suspect. When you say "... one thing has become clear: In MANY thing, it takes MORE faith to believe the science theories than anything else. The FACT is much of the sciences of the universe are summed up with "our best guess right now" BUT it is sold as "This is how it is, absolutely."

    This couldn't be further from the truth Mr Paglia.

    I know for many the term "theory" can be misleading. The really big theories usually require us going back in time to gain conclusive proof. However thats what we do in digging up the fossil remains which is essentially going back in time. Looking at distant galaxies is anothere way of looking back in time since the light we see from distant galaxies was produced often over a million years ago. The light we see from our own sun is 8 minutes old. Our nearest galaxy shows light that was produced over 3 to 4 years ago. Figure the distance and you can figure the age.

    Theories embody a number of facts. The fact that the universe is in motion and in specific directions away from an apparent center is an indisputable fact. Fossil records and geologic studies along with genetics present indisputable facts. The theory part is an encapsulation of these different facts into a working premise for future inquiry. The Big Bang theory looked at the evidence we have from years of research and decided, OK, heres what it looks like happened (not a best guess but a calculated one). But thats science, you have absolute facts but you never have absolute theories. Multidemensions or string theories are never presented as absolute fact just theories based on known facts. Facts direct theories and theories never stand alone. The facts lead to explanations of observable phenomenon.

    So it doesn't take a lot of faith to comprehend it, it is a logical conclusion. There is nothing similar in religion. There are no facts. Facts do not direct the theory. If there is a body of a dead man on the ground bleeding at the bottom of a building the evidence suggests he fell from the building. Now other evidence could lead to a different conclusion but there is no other evidence or eyen a witness as yet. You have to make the only logical conclusion. Now the only way to dispute the evidence is to have actually been there or have new technoiogies become available . Science is capable of making new technologies just as genetics changed todays forensics,which can change the outcome of investigations thereby the theory.

    There is not even a starting point for religion other than the fact that we and the universe exist. Any changes to religious thought is a change of ideas in the head either by changing interpretations of religious writings, allowing cultural influences to alter meanings or getting a whole new religion all together (getting rid of Zeus for Yaway). And thats what I can take from your statement "Truth can be twisted by the individual." That is not religious evolution as you imply in your "That has been the case for religion as well. Experiences and beliefs HAVE evolved, like science theories have, as great thinkers put effort into understanding."

    What you try to pass as religious evolution is simply remixing ideas in the head. Nothing new is gained. I mean stoning a woman for adultry is still a passage in the bible but you in your head have decided culturally it is no longer accepted or other passages managed to find escape from the requirement since we have grown intolerant of such "capital" type punishments. This speaks more to a cultural shift rather than a religious shift. Of course I believe people invented religion for their own purposes and can and do change it for their own purposes. Why didn't Mohammad become a jew? Why aren't evangelicals catholics?
    Now when presented with the propositions either the man fell from the building or a god/angel dropped him from there, which are you more likely to accept as some one investigating a crime scene. I mean honestly. So it is the same in cosmology or biology. There always is a chance the theory may change as new evidence becomes available and the evidence may even lead to a supernatural causal agent. However we are not anywhere near there as yet.

    So to say a theory is not proven is both correct and wrong. The theory is actually a frame work for a set of known facts and postulates the relationship between them and then sets out to prove the relationship. To say a supreme being created the universe is not based on any known facts and new facts don't seem to be forth coming to support the idea let alone expand on the idea. There is more going on to disparage scientific knowledge than validate religious belief.

    This is why "intelligent design" can't be considered a working theory. It is not built upon facts. It is simply offered as a statement of belief and that is why it should never be taught in schools. It adds nothing to the body of facts of the known universe. This is where accusations toward scientific theorys as being just another belief system is so fundamentally wrong. I simply don't understand when belief alone has been proven to be acceptable by so many people it has been so aggressive trying to make it more than that or attempt to disguise it as similar to science?

    Theories are always presented as works in progress and likey to be proven or redirected by evidence. They can't be disproven because the underlying facts will always remain. Evidence may lead to a different theory, like for instance, a gargantuan black hole actually spit up the universe and it so turns out it wasn't a big bang after all. However the fact of the expanding universe remains. The theory changed but the underlying facts remain. The theory may be transitory but the facts are immortal.

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 3:36 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 181

    So you also like to enjoy the making of a joke about people that do not speak the English well as yet. Perhaps you mr Ed necesary to read you posts also for many misspells and the grammar that you as English speaker from birth should know better. Much sorry but I have once a boss as you say here who say he like women too much - but on backs or knees. I do not understand then and now I do. Not very nice you are to the woman of the planet.

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 3:31 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Scientists with a keen interest in this type of phenomena say there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims. Extensive research with subjects from many different faith traditions says it's all in your brain, and/or what the rest of us would call a coincidence. Does that confirm your faith?

     
  • stan taves posted at 1:06 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Maybe it's the shades of grey that lead us all astray. The conservative instinctively separates the black from the white -- the right from the wrong, the purpose from the meaning. The secret is in creating a clear separation, in defining right from wrong; thus allowing the light of day to give us living color. What the left does is to soften the definition between right and wrong -- to squeeze black and white together; thus giving us "shades of grey". It's all wrong: shades of grey, like an overcast day, will get you through, but it's only ok. Yeah, sunshine and color... now, that's the way.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:45 pm on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    This is mr. Ed reporting from the planet Ork, since your post reads like that is were it is from, and always re-read you post before sending them. Time for you to catch up on how Adam and Eve were derived. Your last paragraph leaves me in the dirt. Concerning woman on the planet, I love women, especially the one I have been been married to for the last 52 years. This is Mork signing off. [beam]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:22 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    That was a great way of expressing it. Much better than I did. Thank you.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:21 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Mr Heuer:

    I HAVE experience divine intervention, a few times in my life. Once in the form of a prophecy. One that for two years I had talked to people near to me about. When it came true, it was proof of "something" supernatural, supreme and beyond science.

    I have had a few interactions with what is best described as "beyond science". All the science I learn only CONFIRMS my faith in the same "supreme being" that my experiences stemmed from

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 11:20 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    David, I did not say science and faith are yin and yang, I merely used them as an example of opposites, as I did with protons and neutrons. I do not think my viewpoints are black and white, as I feel faith and science do not have to be at odds with each other. Are there those in the religious community who do indeed feel they are at odds and make claims that are contrary to science, yes. I am not one of them. Please do not assume to know what my own faith tells me. I can assure you that I have room for both faith and science in my heart and mind, as I'm sure many, many people do. With all respect, maybe you should try to look for more of those shades of grey...

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:49 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    http://tinyurl.com/ofb9vfy
    [unsure]

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 8:14 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Well, that's the most interesting logic twisting game I've read in some time. God created science??? The Great Bearded One in the Sky who forbade mankind from eating from the tree of knowledge created a method for man to prove beyond all reason that his Holy Word in The Bible is untrue????

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:59 am on Sat, Aug 2, 2014.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2357

    Where I find science to be comforting is when I realize that God created it as well.

    For me it is absolutely impossible to fathom that all of who we are, what we are and where we are is nothing more than some happenstance from a very large explosion millions of years ago. Where science fails is in the determination of precisely what it was that existed prior to the Big Bang.

    Like others here I love science almost as much as its wonderful Creator. Yet I know that even as I draw my last breath, whenever that happens, I'll be wondering just where I might find myself. Doubts? Oh you bet I've got doubts. That's precisely what makes life so exciting!

     
  • David Diskin posted at 10:02 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    David Diskin Posts: 184

    I think it's perfectly fine if people like Tom Baker want to ignore the mounds of evidence and undisputed scientific theory behind evolution. I really do.

    What bothers me is that there are still teachers who insist on teaching Creationism, or allude that evolution is not accurate. It bothers me for two reasons: 1) it's inaccurate, and 2) some of these children could grow up to become doctors, biologists, or any of a hundred other fields which now recognize evolution to be the foundation of their knowledge.

    One of these children has the potential to unlocking the cure to cancer, but by forsaking proven, undisputed science in favor of dogma and the advancement of religion, they might not.

    Just look at how much scientific knowledge the world had before Alexandria was destroyed, or certain scientists were sentenced to death for heresy. Thankfully with the internet and today's educational system, this can never happen again.

    Christina Welch, you claim that science and faith are a "yin and yang" and both can coexist and in the same breath you berate all "black and white" viewpoints. I claim that your viewpoint is black and white, as you're unwilling to understand that faith and science are indeed at odds when faith makes claims that science has disproven. If you want to reshape "faith" into something outside the scope of science, then fine, but in the context of biology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics, I'm afraid there is no room for faith. Not everything has a deserving opposite, unless you want to say we desire both equality and inequality, inclusiveness and exclusiveness, etc.

    Kevin Paglia, I appreciate that you get hope from your faith, but please don't claim that faith has the monopoly on hope. I derive plenty of hope from science and those who practice it. As an atheist, I and others like me have hope that one day the scientific method will lead us to cure the world's remaining diseases (and it is making more progress than faith ever will). I hope that reason and rational discourse will lead us to world peace, because we know the track record faith has about that. And in the same vein, I have hope that future generations will shed what is left of their dogma and religion in favor of equality, inclusiveness, love, and a great well-being than faith can ever give them.

    The atheists that I know are some of the happiest, most hopeful people I've ever met. Once you understand that we are all made of star stuff, all that bickering inspired by petty differences in race or color or faith or country goes away. I have the deepest, most sincere feeling of connectedness to my fellow humans, the planet, and the entire universe than anyone of faith ever could.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:35 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Well said, M Doyle... "you only need to look to those who love and care about you." That really is it in a nutshell.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:33 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    Very true, there are many ways people can have hope and meaning without having religion in their lives. You can have faith in your fellow human beings just as much as you can have faith in a higher power. I would never suggest that someone who doesn't believe in God doesn't have hope. We all just feel it in different ways, and no particular way is any better than the other. At least we have it, right? That's what matters.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:19 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    A very interesting question...facts versus truth. In my mind, I see this like an impressionist (I think that's the school I'm thinking of here) painting ... the dots are all the facts we see, but when we step back and view the whole picture, then we are able to know the truth. Ok, kinda lame analogy, I know [huh]
    So, I decided to Google it and see what pops up. I found an article that says it much better than I...

    "Facts are notes and lyrics on sheet music. Truth is what the singer gives to the listener when she’s brave enough to open up and sing from her heart."

    And for you guys who just rolled your eyes (c'mon, admit it!) here's a more straight-forward approach: "Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts."

    I like both quotes. And the article is really good. It even directly addresses the issue of truth in terms of belief or disbelief in God. Very pertinent to the conversation at hand. I think this is what Kevin was referring to in his original comment. Science gives us the dots, faith gives some of us the masterpiece.

    http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:18 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1399

    This letter totally mimics the writings/teachings of some mainstream religions. As Mr. Houdack perfectly points out, "quote-mining", or a series of quotes from individuals with impressive sounding titles (who may or may not actually exist), tries to prove legitimacy, or truthfulness to the topic at hand. You all may have seen some writings, particularly on evolution, where an entire article is almost all quotes. Unfortunately, this rarely proves their point as many of the quotes are taken out of context or the individuals being quoted don't possess requisite credentials necessary for the discussion.

    Science is not a series of opinions from interested parties. It's purpose is to determine the truth, nothing else.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:09 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Doyle I like it
    [thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:07 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Werner
    You haven't figured out mother nature (evolution) has a sense of humor too.
    And the herd has a way of protecting is own; even the least among it.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 7:36 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Mr Paglia
    A couple of things,
    1 I'm with you on your science enthusiasm. I watch news, science and my other favorite, ancient history when it is available which is not as often as I like.

    2 I get no comfort in religion so I gave it up long ago. Anything that is talked about in terms of afterlife, hope, divine intervention, love from a supernatural being is all words that have to reside in the head and in the head only. There is no evidence of divine intervention. It has to remain in the head and is never experienced in the real world. Prayers are never answered and that's why it seems such a silly exercise in civil meetings or laughably in congress. Prayer is never answered except by coincidence. When prayer doesn't work we wind up making excuses for any supernatural entity, such as, 'well it wasn't meant to be', 'works in mysterious ways', etc.

    Now as to whether science and the supernatural are mutually exclusive I can't say because there is no evidence of the supernatural to say it is compatible with science or antagonistic to science. If there was evidence of the supernatural then it would undoubtedly not only be compatible but an essential understanding of science. However the only "evidence" for the supernatural comes from religions implying what the supernatural might be. And religion can only demonstrate that implication by how their people react to the idea. The extremes go from peace (escapism) or zealotry (forced submission). A lot of grey in between.

    The evidence is that many religious individuals are antagonistic to science and many scientific discoveries which are seen as contrary to one or more various interpretations of relligious literature. They want to denounce discovered facts for the the intangible ideas in their heads. Some science minded individuals are able to accept their religion as well as their scientific discoveries. However many other science minded, like non-theists, get antagonistic to religion when it wants to restrict scientific knowledge or personal freedoms. But the supernatural will only remain in the head until science can find the tangible evidence to make it part of the natural world.

    I know people like to say its in the heart but really its in the head. So when you go through life and see suffering, war, famines, floods you realize the only difference between those that suffer from natural disasters and those who don't is human planning and good building codes. To find the divine love or divine protections or divine plans you have to go back into your head to find it. You have to read religious writings to get it into your head because it can't come from your environment or everyday life experience. There is nothing in this world to give credence to any of it.

    Religious people like to proclaim their religion gives them comfort. To me thats escapism and a retreat from reality into their heads. Other people have different means of escape whether in books of fiction, movies or fascinations with UFOs, etc. But that to me is intellectual freedom and I would never deny anyone that freedom. However when it starts to infringe on others rights I draw a line. There is not enough substance to any religious ideas to justify the restrictions of anyone's rights or freedoms.

    3 I thought your proverb was good and I understood the metaphor however I disagree with it on this thread and in my own case. I often keep an open cup however I will fill it full or purposely let it run over when an unsavory flavored tea is poured. Not that I don't want something new or different but because I've had that flavor before and it doesn't agree with me.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:08 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "Rest assured that Carl Sagan was not referring to supernatural spirits"

    Bada Bing Bada Boom

    [beam]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:08 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    I like your style too!

    [wink]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:07 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Ed, I'll bring the beer.

    On a hot monsoon day nothing refreshes like a cool "Chang" brand beer (Thai Elephant beer) while sitting comfortably in the shade. Nothing!

    Darrell Baumbach turned me on to it.

    You can buy in Stockton too.

    I'm all out now but I can get some more...

    [smile]

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 5:55 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 181

    Any people not know Sikh religion here how we believe according to the great Guru Nanak - a quote in easy words to learn.

    'Sikhism teaches that only the creator knows the origin of the universe. Guru Nanak wrote that God’s creation consists of a multitude of universes, and that no one knows for certain how, or when, creation took place.'

    May for the mr Ed that he like not man came from dirt in the christian beliefs? He sentences very show he not the very like for the woman in our planet.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:55 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    A fact is that the river runs down the mountain side. A TRUTH is the beauty of it that inspires you. Fact is cold and devoid of good or evil. TRUTH is the meaning behind the universe. Truth can be twisted by the individual.

    As for science and faith and spirituality, as I said before I watch a LOT of science shows and one thing has become clear: In MANY thing, it takes MORE faith to believe the science theories than anything else. The FACT is much of the sciences of the universe are summed up with "our best guess right now" BUT it is sold as "This is how it is, absolutely." Dark matter, dark energy, Quantum entanglement, 11 dimensions, String theory. Those are all supported ONLY by assumptions and faith. Scientists see "something" and name it, and explain it, but have NO real idea HOW it is.

    That has been the case for religion as well. Experiences and beliefs HAVE evolved, like science theories have, as great thinkers put effort into understanding. Any spiritual man who says they know all there is about "God" is JUST as wrong as any scientist who says they have solved the mysteries of the universe. The FACT is we, as a species, probably understand about as much about the universe as we do about whatever supreme being is out there.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 5:30 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    "MANY scientists"? Really, Paglia? How many? The same three Baker cites? You are better than that.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 5:23 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    Facts and truth are not the same thing to you, Kevin Paglia?
    Your deceptive quote-mining does a disservice to Sagan; the spirituality of which he spoke has nothing to do with religious flim-flam or supernatural hokum. But you probably knew that already, right?

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 4:47 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Science tries to give you knowledge, Kevin. Nothing more. You have to find meaning for yourself. You don't need science or religion to tell you that you are significant. You only need to look to those who love and care about you.

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 3:48 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Kevin, we need to clarify definitions and be honest about facts. Science is not a religion or a "belief system." To say that is an ideological attack on scientific research when it contradict core beliefs of the religious community. Science is a methodology for seeking objective reality. In fact, science is the exact opposite of "belief" and religion. Science is a search for objective reality; whereas "beliefs" are untethered to any objective truth and are completely unsupported by evidence. If you were talking about truth or facts, you would call it knowledge, not "belief."

    Many scientists do hold religious beliefs, but they are less than half as likely to believe in God as the general public. Among members of the National Academy of Scientists, only 7% believe in God.

    As for Carl Sagan, he described himself as agnostic and said many times that if there was a God, it consisted of the accumulated physical laws of the universe, rather than a being. Spirituality to a religious person means something entirely different than it does to an atheist/agnostic/freethinker. Indeed, even Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, both strident atheists find value in the term spirituality, defined as beauty or significance producing awe. Rest assured that Carl Sagan was not referring to supernatural spirits.

    I don't understand your last sentence. You stated that science gives us facts and knowledge, but faith gives us truth. Truth is fact and knowledge, so that belongs in the scientific realm. As for hope, those of us who eschew magic and mythology have no shortage of hope. We find meaning and hope in our connection with fellow human beings and find satisfaction in striving to make the world a better place. Entire countries are primarily atheistic and the populations have no lack of hope or happiness because of it.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 3:41 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    While I am more of a humanities gal myself, I do hear what you are saying, even if I'm not as enthusiastic. (I still have nightmares from high school dissection activities LOL) I think people who believe that faith and science are polar opposites and incompatible are forgetting that is the make-up in much of life. Feminine and masculine are opposites, but work together beautifully in this world; we need the yin and the yang. Protons and neutrons, positive and negative, right? I think faith and science are like that, working together to help people understand the world and their place within it. Too many people, I think, view life in such black and white terms, and they are missing all the wonderful shades of grey. I know, I know, very cliche, but still, I think it's true.

    And, yes, Kevin, my faith does indeed give me hope. I think that's important, especially in today's often troubling world. Keep the faith, baby!!! [smile]

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 2:55 pm on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Werner: Until I got to the part where you invite everyone to look at the videos of redneck oakies doing stupid stunts on youtube, which is always correct, I thought you might be speaking of the US Government, close enough. Concerning Darwin or religion, I don`t know or care. To think Adam was made from dirt and Eve from a rib, they had it made since there was nothing to do, had two sons, one killed the other, after that a talking snake convinced Adam, thanks Eve to take a bite of the apple, or something like that. Evidently the three were shown the door and out of Eden, and never heard from again. Not anymore of a fable than that of Darwin. Really though after Adam and Eve, Darwin sounds more believable.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Christina, I LOVE science. 90% of what I watch on tv are the science shows, they were my favorite classes in school and most of my news feeds are from the world of science. Science is awesome.

    But with everything science TRIES to give us, the one thing it can NOT give is hope. Science will never be able to say "you are more than star dust." It will never be able to say "welcome home, the one that created all and loves you celebrates you." Science will ONLY be able to say "you are nothing but a cosmic accident, not special in any way, with no more significance than a worm"... I find that people place their hearts in a science that tells them that, very sad.

     
  • Ron Werner posted at 11:45 am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Ron Werner Posts: 93

    Don't know about evolution but Darwin's theory of natural selection is not true. Want proof? just go to youtube and look at all the videos of redneck oakies doing stupid stunts. If Darwin was correct they should have been thinned from the herd generations ago.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:45 am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Thank you for proving the metaphor of the cup of tea.

    Your "cup" is so full with the religion of "science" that you have no room for anything else. MANY scientists have said them more they discover about the universe, the more they believe in God. As Carl Sagan said "The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”.

    Science gives us facts and knowledge, faith gives us truths and hope.

     
  • Jien Kaur posted at 11:31 am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    Jien Kaur Posts: 181

    As a south east Asian I can apreciate the humor I think of the east that the mr. Chang has so very good here regard the mr. E.D. I must have to ask the word in English I think is the 'subtle' but more often the wit of the fox.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:36 am on Fri, Aug 1, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    Ed and Ted
    Something has gone terribly wrong here and I can't for the life of me understand from your comments where it has derailed. "...public school on Saturdays...", "...wait until the weekend to talk about the various options you have that WINE has to offer...", "Heuer: With all your somewhat wisdom...", Somewhat Wisdom? SOMEWHAT WISDOM??. "...perhaps you will let the less informed know how the universe was born, along with life and get a move on...". The universe and life took bilions and billions of years and now there's a rush? I'm really without a response.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:20 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Christina Welch Posts: 395

    I agree, Kevin. I've said it before, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. You can have both! [thumbup]

     
  • M. Doyle posted at 8:35 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    M Doyle Posts: 146

    Kevin, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Science and religion will never work together. They are incompatible and come to entirely different conclusions. Faith tells us that Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse, that 2000 years ago a man was born of a virgin and was resurrected three days after dying, Moses parted the Red Sea, if you sprinkle a newborn with water in just the right way you'll save him from eternal suffering, human beings contain alien spirits that were trapped in volcanoes by hydrogen bombs, etc. Science tells us that none of these things are true. Science is always open to new ideas and new evidence to increase our body of knowledge. Faith disregards evidence, denies knowledge, and is closed to new ideas.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 7:10 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Walter, Walter, Walter, what am I going to do with you. You advise me to focus on the topic at hand, I believe Darwin was the topic. I`m just adding my old white ( your word ) guys two cents worth. As smart as you are, even you can check your posts. Lets play a round of golf and have a beer, seems to work for Barry. Have a nice night, [thumbup]

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 5:05 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 255

    The kids are not going to like it. According to your definitions they will now have to go to public school on Saturdays so they can study about Evolution in the religious section of the LNS. Wait - Sunday school the next day - I've got it !

    What I want to know is do I need to wait until the weekend to talk about the various options you have that WINE has to offer and to what clientele I will be able to sell it to. Y'all know what I'm talkin' about - dry reds, sweet whites , communion samples, Kosher wines (and cheese) or even the drunks drinkin' slosh on Saturday nights. Religious section - or not ? Don't forget about other science related wine studies such as organic or other influenced processes . What's yer preference ?

    Evolution ? - a religious subject? - Heaven Forbid - oops.

    Fossils have their story interpreted many different ways all including " The Flood " that can explain many things.

    Do you actually want Mr. Baker to join in this conversation or not? - This isn't a way of doing it.

    "Or" are you guys just piping off ?

    If the latter - then there are some really great pipe organs at Church you know. Harmony Whynelands (spelling?) has one too.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:48 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "So try to stay focused on the topic at hand and NOT lash out so much!!

    [thumbup]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:45 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125


    "star stuff"

    E.D. you totally missed the mark. Again.

    Your supposed to lecture the author of this pointless letter - not me!!

    I own a copy of every book the man wrote, including a much cherished autographed copy of Boca's Brain.

    You couldn't tell me thing about any of Carl's subjects that I haven't already studied. Nothing.

    So try to stay focused on the topic at hand and lash out so much!!

    Ok???

    [lol]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:15 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    To quote a great Proverb:

    Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

    Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

    Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?

    Carl Sagan had a VERY large cup and was a great thinker who made a lot of amazing discoveries. But what he didn't want to understand overflowed from his cup and was wasted on the ground. I will take Faith AND science working together long before I accept either separate.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 1:07 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Heuer: With all your somewhat wisdom, perhaps you will let the less informed know how the universe was born, along with life and get a move on, I might only have 10-20 years of life left. When a crowd gatherers around a Kegger, I doubt anything but BS is derived, and might need a 911 call to the police. As a rule that`s what happens when a bunch of drunks get together and disagree about religion or politics.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:55 pm on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Why yes Chaig it is, Carl Sagan was an Astronomer, Astrophysicist, and along with Neil DeGrasse Tyson helped unravel the mysteries of the Comos and how it was developed. Carl Sagan went back billions of years, where as your hero goes all the way back to 1981. Sagan proved the way planets were formed and are still being formed, as you take a breath. Now Chaig, prove me wrong, you don`t have what it takes since you would be up against Carl Sagan, you might say that I just forward his teachings. Carl Sagan, who you couldn`t carry his jock strap proved his theory. Concerning life on earth, where did that start, millions or billions of years ago, and skip Adam and Eve who were totally fables, it has been proven that all life was derived from the ocean. Don`t be so easy to complain, it takes proof, and you don`t have any. I`ll expect round two this afternoon, try to do a better job in debunking Mr. Sagan, which I doubt you can. [wink]

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 10:50 am on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    If all you have succeeded in finding after "researching" for 30 years are a few cranks you can count on the fingers of one hand, it is time for a reality check, Tom. Yes, there are a few crazies who self-identify as "scientists", but they are nothing more than religious apologists who will say anything to protect their brand of dogma.

    The fossil record is clear and unambiguous, if any of the kooks you quote were correct, the news of their discoveries would be world famous, rather than being relegated to obscure websites dedicated to desperate creation fetishists.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:33 am on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1519

    What on earth is the purpose of this letter and why is it not in the religious section on Saturday? Why would someone wake up, have a cup of coffee or stay up at night and say I'm going to write a letter about evolution and share it with the local community? Apparently it includes evidence that some research had been done for this since it included a few quotes of like minded folks albeit a very minuscule sampling outside of the majority of opinion. This follows a number of previous letters (mainly in the religious section) saying the same thing so there's nothing new here. The last ones didn't produce a chorus of 'really, could it be so?'

    Perhaps it's remedial in nature and wants to remind a straying flock that has consumed too much "Cosmos" or other such scientific programs and news that have been telling us life, water and the atmosphere took millions of years to develop. I do understand the heresy and the blasphemy such talk can lead to.

    But enough, Lo the word is out now, everyone will tow the line by this edification. No more silly thinking about evolution or the Big Bang or quarks. Three experts have made their declaration, Mr Baker has shared it with the local readership who will undoubtedly spread the word to their friends and neighbors and show up all bright and cheery-eyed to Sunday services. And now I have done my part. However Saturday promises to be a "kegger" night so I might not see anybody on Sunday.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:47 am on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    "1981"

    Wow!

    Tom had to go all the way back to 1981...

    To find a confessional statement from a NASA scientist.

    At least he didn't mention Piltdown, the Scope's monkey trial or the Nebraska Man.

    Maybe this letter should be in the Religion section?????

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:46 am on Thu, Jul 31, 2014.

    Walt Posts: 1125

    Ed, isn't it about time for your Carl Sagan lecture??

    [lol]

     

Recent Comments

Posted 14 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

As I thought Brian has nothing but words. Hit and run. Typical conservative of the fox sort who are presented with words all day with out s…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Hmmm.... noticed a typo. The second to last sentence of my post from 7:33 pm on Sun, Oct 19, 2014 should read "This year Dr Powell…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Holly Stuetze.

article: Daryl Talken, Jennifer Wise vie for emp…

Thanks Ann. That was negative. Not sure about the title stuff but I worked with her at Lincoln Tech when we opened that school and she cert…

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Angie McDaniel.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Jimmy P. said, "I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 20…

More...

Posted 18 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Feisty Tony Amador taking on moderate J…

Wow. Thanks for sharing your story, Mr. Ojeda, and I am truly sorry for what you have gone through. As such a vocal advocate for veteran…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists