|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1189
Location: Nice, France
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
I am sure that it seems very important to some in the US to be shrieking with fear at the idea of Darwin's theory, but seen from outside the US, it looks ridiculous.
I only know of one reason (from many years ago) for such obsessive anti-evolution attitudes, and that used to be the fear of poor whites not wanting to feel that they were related to Black Americans.
however, what the reason for such attitudes is today, I do not know.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | I am sure that it seems very important to some in the US to be shrieking with fear at the idea of Darwin's theory, but seen from outside the US, it looks ridiculous.
I only know of one reason (from many years ago) for such obsessive anti-evolution attitudes, and that used to be the fear of poor whites not wanting to feel that they were related to Black Americans.
however, what the reason for such attitudes is today, I do not know. |
In my opinion, there is no fear of Darwinism. It is more like Darwinomania has hijacked the constitution, particularly in public schools, but also in every realm of society.
and now more evidence:
THE BIBLE STORY OF CREATION AGREES PERFECTLY WITH SCIENCE
The story of creation survives the scrutiny of science:
http://www.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.org/apologetics/creation.html#youngearth
and
http://home.att.net/~- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -/ttocsamples.html
a sample link here -->>
http://home.att.net/~- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -/ttocchap06.html
A WATERY WORLD
| Quote: | Before four billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere maintained a temperature well above the boiling point of water. Consequently, the water on our world was trapped as super-heated steam. As the Earth cooled, water vapor began to condense into rain.3 Soon the rain turned into a torrential downpour. For millions of years, the primordial atmosphere relentlessly yielded water to the surface of the Earth.
Tectonic plate movement, which is the process that formed the great mountain ranges of the world, had not yet begun, and the Earth's surface was relatively smooth. Water steadily poured from the sky, filling the shallow valleys, and eroding areas of higher elevation. Volcanoes continued to release more gasses and steam into the atmosphere. Comets, which are primarily composed of ice, added even more water upon impact with our planet.4
Soon, the Earth was virtually covered by one large body of water.5 The continents that we take for granted today did not exist four billion years ago. Volcanoes would occasionally rise above the ocean surface to spew forth their molten materials. But the Earth was essentially in the very condition that the Bible declares - the land was submerged under a global ocean. |
and -->>
http://home.att.net/~- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -/ttocchap08.html
| Quote: | CHAPTER EIGHT
[b]LIGHT!
THE EVENTS OF THE FIRST CREATION DAY
The stages in the formation of our planet are now considered "natural processes." We are told in our science textbooks that this is the natural way that solar systems and planets are formed in our universe. This is probably true. The formation of the sun and the planets as I have described them may be a common model found throughout the universe. But it is also likely that God formulated the grand design.
Consider the odds involved, that the author of the Creation Story could describe in general terms, the nature of the events in the creation of the universe and our world. The author lived thousands of years ago when scientific knowledge was minuscule and in its infancy. Yet, consider what he declared:
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Time had a beginning.
3. The young Earth was desolate and void of life.
4. The surface of the Earth was blanketed in darkness.
5. The Earth was covered by water.
6. Light finally illuminated the Earth, but only after all of the above had occurred.
All of these statements are known to be scientifically accurate. Yet the author should not have known any of these scientific facts. If we were to disregard divine inspiration, we could not begin to explain how an author that lived so long ago could have acquired such knowledge. However such accuracy was achieved, the First Day of Creation has survived the scrutiny of science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1189
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
any teaching relating to the evolution of species forms a very small part of the curriculum in schools.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not only that but 8-9/10 Americans believe in God and so clearly those ideas are not being suppressed. We have always tried to separate church and state to some degree or another.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. The universe had a beginning.
But you said God has no beginning or end. If God exists then he has to exist in some place.
2. Time had a beginning.
Where is any proof of this?
3. The young Earth was desolate and void of life.
This is a natural consequence of a creationist theory
4. The surface of the Earth was blanketed in darkness.
This never happened
5. The Earth was covered by water.
Where is the proof of this?
6. Light finally illuminated the Earth, but only after all of the above had occurred.
This is not true
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | 1. The universe had a beginning.
But you said God has no beginning or end. If God exists then he has to exist in some place.
Who said this, how can you prove that if God exists, he must exist in some place which corresponds to our physical dimensions, as known?
2. Time had a beginning.
Where is any proof of this?
Oh now come on, you expect a mortal to provide you a piece of cake and say here it is - eat a piece of time.
3. The young Earth was desolate and void of life.
This is a natural consequence of a creationist theory.
Another catch phrase.
4. The surface of the Earth was blanketed in darkness.
This never happened.
This is only a blanket of darkness of thinking to say such a thing.
5. The Earth was covered by water.
Where is the proof of this?
Even science will tell you water was necessary for life.
6. Light finally illuminated the Earth, but only after all of the above had occurred.
This is not true.
Exactly, when you have a universe full of debris, ashes, scattered particles flying everywhere, what else could you expect but darkness? Have you ever seen an eclipse?
|
So then you were there when the universe was formed to tell us all this?
Is that so. Huuumm. So tell us Mr. Godzilla, how was the universe them formed according to your little world.
Not to sound like anything, it just occurred to me - can't help it - I think you and Jim Carrey ought to get together and make a new movie  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
It sounds like in this discourse, there is a lot of speculation.
I find this amusing :0)
Apart from the little deviations of thinking, it seems some of the discussions are analyzing the ideas more from a point of view based on some type of circular reasoning such as - If this= then, rather then looking into this further with supported data.
This brings to mind the differences in educational systems, as was curious about the educational system in Britain and what is taught there in terms of creation and evolution. In the US it may seem to be a small amount of the curriculum but of course children only need a few suggestions and they are on their way to know what to think. And, over the course of an entire education, coupled with high school, college, media, peers and so forth, it adds up quickly to alot of information pre-disposed to a particular point of view.
This brings to mind how much thinking is not based on science in fact, but on what a larger group of people are pre-disposed to believe. People tend to follow the status quo or group behavior. Creatures in nature follow each other as well and there are patterns that can be seen as determined by a dominant genetic disposition or as determined by an element in the group who is able to assume a position of leadership. The same in human society. The masses will ultimately follow what sounds good to them, sounds most appealing and also according to the way they are being taught. So individuals may respond not out of their human faculty of thinking, but rather out of emotion, group thinking, according to what they were taught. So then it is not surprising varied responses, but frequently have learned in life to "take it with a grain of salt". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is what I am trying to get to - most people will stick pretty much to what was being taught to children in schools, by family, peers. And then there is the child in every man... that stays with him.
When first confronted with new ways to view science, it may seem baffling at the start, as we are brought to re-orient ourselves with relation to the world around us, and look at our view of the world from a new perspective. This can be very useful. Even in the Architecture Forum, we have been looking at new ways to view the relationship Form Follows Function, and by studying science, I have proposed and demonstrated how at times Function can Follow Form. After much initial resistance on the part of a few members, it is now being accepted and recognized that in fact function can follow form even in nature, and in Architecture as well.
By the way, don't take my humor to seriously now Funny reasoning leads to funny thoughts.
So no offense, please, just joking.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
ArchiMotion, make no mistake: there is nothing scientific in your approach to science - all your tedious assertions and circular word games to the contrary.
Such fruitless dilution of human knowledge provides an example of why evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins refers to religion as a kind of cultural virus.
Still, I'm curious what your faith-based analysis leads you to believe about global climate change?
Since global climate change is beyond the direct perception of unaided individuals - like evolution - do you consider it to be imaginary as well? Or perhaps, the moralistic potential of the idea that we've all been doing something wrong appeals to your preachy side, so climate change falls into the realms of science you happen to accept?
Here's an excellent focused commentary on the current situation in Nature, the world's premiere scientific journal, for collective consideration:
Squaring up to reality
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/full/climate.2008.50.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Such an intellectualized approach as this, as proposed by Richard Dawkins reminds me of the glory days of communists beliefs "at their best", when the capitalism of the West was seen as an evil that must be "exterminated" and purged, along with the accompanying "pollution of the mind" that it entailed. There are many who believe religious opponents must be exterminated so as to purify society of the filth of religion. Such extreme ideas are not new.
Now, if there is nothing scientific about my approach to science what would be "more scientific" that one is referring to? It is easy to make catch all phrases, while avoiding specificity. To the contrary, there is nothing that can prove many hypothesis of science. Many of them are recorded in history as plausible theories that warrant more proof before they can generally accepted, even though particular groups of scientists may accept them as valid theory.
So I am being completely objective in my thinking, as any scientist will do and should do. To look at the information from an objective point of view and draw conclusions. When one is too closed minded, one does not analyze the facts.
Now there is a tendency among many scientists to dismiss the claims of Scientific Creationism as unscientific, this is a conclusion based more on bias then on an empirical analysis of the evidence being presented, as I have previously demonstrated in a few quotes in the Architectural Forum.
And about climate change, who is to say my personal views on this, or even my views on mtDNA, for that matter, represent the entire group of Creationist thinking? This would be preposterous to assume.
If I were to state an opinion on climate, it would not be representative of the larger group called Creationism.
Certainly I cannot blame it in a moral sense to the decay of society, as you seem to be suggesting. From a purely objective point of view, and a neo-evolution-creationist-scientific-open-minded point of view, I would say that progress inevitably will bring environmental problems, but we cannot blame it all on the moral side of man. Technology in it's hunger for oil and industrialization and other factors certainly have contributed to the decay of the environment on a global scale, and we need global action to fight this problem. The US is certainly not doing it's part as frequently it has not cooperated with global agreements on the environment.
For me to consider climate change imaginary would be silly thinking.
In fact, from a scientific point of view, climate change has been a part of history. If it were not, what would explain the Ice Age, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the various leaps and bounds we have seen in species, and in their adaptations to the environment over the course of a long period of time? I am not against particular limited edition definitions of evolution. It is it's broad reaching incoherent applications that have got us into this nasty mess of confusion.
So in effect, I am not afraid of being mis-understood or challenged by others with a scientific mind, provided they can supply evidence to demonstrate I am wrong, in a scientific way. If he can prove me I am wrong I will accept it. I am here for the intellectual challenge. I hope others are as well. I think it is a process of growing in one's thinking, and it is high time for many people in society in general to start to do some serious thinking on their own, without needing someone to tell them what to think. Many tend to look to leaders, to those they feel are superior, who have more knowledge to tell them what to think. See, this is the problem. If someone above us says it is so because I am a specialist and say it is so, many people tend to swallow it without question. So then would it be wrong to conduct one's own research to find out who is telling the truth or lies? Of course not. As far as I can tell, Architects are among the most objective and informed among society, so I could expect nothing less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
logic dictates that if some thing exists it has to exist some place -in this case space, which is just another name for the universe.
Oh now come on, you expect a mortal to provide you a piece of cake and say here it is - eat a piece of time.
huh? What does this mean?
Again we can only use logical reasoning. No matter whether God was here or matter as we know it, in both cases something was here. If something existed than time also existed. Time depends on movement. If nothing moves than there is no time. Once in motion an object stays in motion unless something acts on it. Therefore since the universe is obviously in motion we can deduct that it always has been in motion.
This is only a blanket of darkness of thinking to say such a thing.
So you think the Earth was created before the rest of the universe and particularly before the sun?
Even science will tell you water was necessary for life.
What does this have to do with whether or not the Earth was covered by water?
Yes I have seen an eclipse it is much like night you can see the stars.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: More confusion in your understanding |
|
|
| Quote: | | logic dictates that if some thing exists it has to exist some place -in this case space, which is just another name for the universe. |
See, this thinking is earthly thinking, based only on what we experience in the physical realm, but is not taking into account the possibility of anything beyond the physical realm we can see, taste and touch. This is not the case. There is much science cannot explain that goes beyond it's capacity to measure and test. Then, many will subscribe this to superstition, but it is just as much a part of the reality around us as the physical world.
| Quote: | | since the universe is obviously in motion we can deduct that it always has been in motion. |
This is a fallacy of thinking. Again, the IF - THEN reasoning that may be established upon false criteria.
| Quote: | | So you think the Earth was created before the rest of the universe and particularly before the sun? |
I don't think anything in this regard. I can only analyze the data from an objective point of view, as any should be expected to do. It is not by simple assumptions that one can draw conclusions. It is by detailed analysis of what is being proposed. Have a look at the links and articles I am referring to.
| Quote: | Even science will tell you water was necessary for life.
What does this have to do with whether or not the Earth was covered by water? |
It has everything to do with it, as water is the first ingredient that must be there before life can take place. And even science has much evidence that the earth at one time was covered with water - a type of far reaching global flood. And thus, beyond the global flood, the original conditions were a blanket of water covering the earth from end to end, until there was a separation of the expanses, as explained in Genesis. There is nothing un-scientific about this. If one really looks into it, it makes perfect sense and in fact is a perfect model to explain the creation events.
| Quote: | | Yes I have seen an eclipse it is much like night you can see the stars. |
You can see the stars because there is no blanket of darkness over the earth. What do you think would be a "blanket of darkness"? I have already explained this and still you did not understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
See, this thinking is earthly thinking, based only on what we experience in the physical realm, but is not taking into account the possibility of anything beyond the physical realm we can see, taste and touch.
That is why the reasoning you have been providing is not science it is religion. It is not based on logic or the study of the physical universe but on your religious beliefs.
This is a fallacy of thinking.
Where is the fallacy?
Have a look at the links and articles I am referring to.
I looked at enough of them to see they are full of the same religious dogma you are trying to push as science. If you are so interested in intellectual discourse than don't depend on them to make your case for you.
No I missed your explanation of the "blanket of darkness" which post was it in. They are so long I usually don't read them all.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That is why the reasoning you have been providing is not science it is religion. It is not based on logic or the study of the physical universe but on your religious beliefs. |
This is another assumption you are making. I know I have proof for what I believe, don't know about you.
| Quote: | | I looked at enough of them to see they are full of the same religious dogma you are trying to push as science. If you are so interested in intellectual discourse than don't depend on them to make your case for you. |
In other words, you looked at them long enough to realize they were "full of shi...", so you looked no longer. This reminds me of the links posted by Djswan and SDR recently in the Architectural Forum of that famous American comedian Carlin. This is no objective analysis, but rather an emotional response, that refuses to analyze the evidence as soon as it spots what it considers to be the ultimate reflection of Mr. Carlin. Again, pre-conceived ideas and reactionary thinking.
| Quote: | | No I missed your explanation of the "blanket of darkness" which post was it in. They are so long I usually don't read them all. |
See, you are not reading before responding. Have a look at the evidence, take a few weeks if necessary doing your own research as to what is true or not true, then come back after you have analyzed it all from an objective point of view, rather then as an emotional reaction of the type many have, like this comedian referred to - the response such as "this guy is full of sh...". (I am referring to what the comedian Carlin said now, again, don't take me wrong). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter -that is the whole point.
The creationist will always fall back on "See, this thinking is earthly thinking, based only on what we experience in the physical realm, but is not taking into account the possibility of anything beyond the physical realm we can see, taste and touch."
You can't have a logical discussion with someone who uses magic. You don't have a creation theory because your theory does not need to account for the creation of God or anything physical.
At best you can only have a post God theory.
Where we created by God? -Maybe
Where did God come from? -I don't know.
Is evolution theory a fact? -certainly not.
Is there a more logical explanation? -no
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
