Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Reproducing scientific results

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Craig Payne, Aug 24, 2012.

Tags:
  1. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Hi Dave,

    In this debate on evolution/creation what are the two different axioms?

    Bill
     
  2. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Well at one level they are contained in your question, i.e. evolution and creation.
    But the wider argument is 1) order from ultimate contingency, or 2) order from Ultimate Order.

    If you argue the former then one is also compelled to ask - what are the odds? And to explain those odds many concepts have been imagined. Hawkings infinite multi verse is one and earlier I addressed the problem with that is infinite means infinite possibilities and if one ultimate truth is possible in one then it will be possible in all..

    One must then ask the skeptic if they believe that there is an ultimate truth i.e. one axiom that is always true. It is a logical impossibility to disagree since disagreement means that tha statement that disagrees is ultimately untrue.

    Therefore we have to and throughout history have, come to the conclusion of one truth one unifying theory. There can only be one but more can be proposed and this is a decision for the individual to make up their mind, which one they will put their faith in.

    Which is why, as I have said previously, no amount of scientific or logical argument can lead you to faith it's just a matter of choice. However there are those who have personal experience of the ultimate truth (seen what is at the top of the ladder as it were) and so their choice is firmly directed but even so still has to be made one way or the other.

    Regards Dave Smith
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  3. You've mentioned this several times Dave so I'll ask the obvious questions. What did you see? What was your revelation? Was it physical, if so describe. Did you communicate? In English - or was the whole experienced infused into a subconscious state? What was your state of mind at the time? Have you ever had mental health issues? Were you or have you been on drugs? Do you suffer from obsessive or habitual behaviour? Did you have any head trauma prior to your revelation? Have you had subsequent revelations or do you now have an open communication? What is the great message, Dave? What was so impactful that it created a new personality?
     
  4. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Dear Dave,


     
  5. True story: Jesus used to come into my local every day; at least it looked like him. He'd order WKD blue, two by two. Drink about six in half an hour and then go to the toilet to be sick. Every day. We used to call him "Wicked Jesus". Having had the "pleasure" of using the toilet after he had been in there on several occasions, I only wish now that I had spent more time to decipher the Rorschach test's that he had left there for his "followers" to solve, perhaps I have missed out on enlightenment?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CRkpBGQzU

    Me?

    "Don't believe the devil
    I don't believe his book
    But the truth is not the same
    Without the lies he made up

    Don't believe in excess
    Success is to give
    Don't believe in riches
    But you should see where I live
    I...I believe in love

    Don't believe in forced entry
    Don't believe in rape
    But every time she passes by
    Wild thoughts escape
    I don't believe in death row
    Skid row or the gangs
    Don't believe in the Uzi
    It just went off in my hand
    I...I believe in love

    Don't believe in cocaine
    Got a speed-ball in my head
    I could cut and crack you open
    Do you hear what I said
    Don't believe them when they tell me
    There ain't no cure
    The rich stay healthy
    The sick stay poor
    I...I believe in love

    Don't believe in Goldman
    His type like a curse
    Instant karma's going to get him
    If I don't get him first
    Don't believe in rock 'n' roll
    Can really change the world
    As it spins in revolution
    It spirals and turns
    I...I believe in love

    Don't believe in the 60's
    The golden age of pop
    You glorify the past
    When the future dries up
    Heard a singer on the radio late last night
    He says he's gonna kick the darkness
    'til it bleeds daylight
    I...I believe in love

    I feel like I'm falling
    Like I'm spinning on a wheel
    It always stops beside of me
    With a presence I can feel
    I...I believe in love..."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCOn132jNQ

    And you?
     
  6. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Mark

    I have tried to make an argument using logical reasoning investigating what we currently know about 'life the universe and everything' and what conclusions can logically be drawn from that. I have tried to avoid speaking of God directly and present a case where the reader can come to their own conclusion once realising that there is a logically reasonable choice to be made. I did use that hymn quote tho, DoH!:eek: which did let you in with the above questions but which I am quite happy to answer directly.

    I would just say that I have written about these things before and it does seem to get some people steaming :mad: The other thing is the possibility of the implementation of a straw man argument whereby the admittance to communicating with God sets a presumption of nuttiness :dizzy: and so invalidates any argument put forward regardless of how logically sound it is.
    There are two logical fallacies in the conclusions drawn there but I'll progress with the reply, give hostage to fortune and see if anyone makes that mistake.

    Just packing up to go home so I'll get back the answering Mark later.

    Regards Dave
     
  7. What if God doesn't care two hoots for logic, which after all is a man-made construct? What if Mark is in-fact God? Next question- how do you know he is not?
     
  8. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Maybe this is a little too honest but honest it is and make of it what you will, thanks for your interest and willingness to ask.

    Regards Dave Smith
     
  9. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

     
  10. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Simon

    Don't know how to answer that Simon, what if anything?
    Logic runs our universe, all physical laws are logical and so reasoned arguments, otherwise they couldn't be laws. Nature uses logic, which is the conundrum I was talking about earlier.
    You do care about logic so what good would it do for me to argue that God is illogical and so any argument I make is valid even if illogical?
    If Mark is God then all this questioning makes perfect sense;)

    Regards Dave
     
  11. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Ian, Dave, and any others interested. While I not buying onto any debate re: Evolution vs Creation, I did mention in an earlier post on this thread about a Baptist Minister friend of mine who wrote this essay for my students that were having problems with reconciling my teachings with their faith; it post it here as it may help your thoughts. PLEASE note, I am not entering any debate re: faith - I simply do not want to know. To me you faith is like your sexuality: it is no one elses business but yours. Rob
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Hi Rob
    Thank you and I will have a read. Having spent many years travelling the "spirituality" road I do, these days, tend not to become involved in the discussions. I will read with interest though.

    Ironically, there is one book on certain spirituality matters I have never managed to finish. I think it is about 50 pages long, small pages at that. Seemed to say so much in such a small space yet I haven't managed to finish it. Maybe save it for my nursing home:)
     
  13. Ian Reilly

    Ian Reilly Active Member

    I appreciate the honesty of your posts David. I have the diametrically opposite opinion when it comes to God, religion, evolution, etc .... but that's allowed in a civilized society, right?!:D

    For me, too many unanswered questions that logical (mine, and the vast majority of scientists) would point away from there being a God, etc. My bigger beef not a persons faith but the harm that organized religion does.

    I think we are on the wrong forum now, though!!

    ATB

    Ian
     
  14. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    I can agree with that in part but here, on Pod arena these things arise from a natural progression of conversation. People here have views that range from the polarised position to the balanced/undecided view to the unconcerned but willing to contribute.
    The 'Right forum' ends up with people who all agree, all in the same boat, but have their own position within that boat.

    I welcome, enjoy and am grateful to those who participate in this discussion because actually making a cohesive argument defending or explaining what I believe is very useful. It leads to further rationalisation and focus and insight into ones own position and thoughts.

    Rob thanks for the Baptist Minister's presentation, I think it is very close to what I am saying within the context of him being the on site minister and attempting to steady the troops and encourage them in their studies.

    Regards Dave
     
  15. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    You're welcome; just don't ask me to debate evolution and creation - there is no debate. Rob
     
  16. Matt:

    You may find the following interesting given your previous views.
     
  17. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Mark. Interesting isn’t it (i.e. Rockefeller incident). It does go deeper & there is more... hence be aware of such activities (in past & yet to come).

    Yes David, this is true. BTW, appreciate your openness in post# 88. All the best.

    But David there are big underlying problems with that so deemed Baptist Minister's reasoning & apparent whiteanting of the text (i.e. Genesis account) he has been apparently ordained to uphold/represent (let alone study in I would assume a Theological school/seminary of some sort). This whiteanting & subsequent compromise towards an ever increasing bankrupt ‘theory’ (in an attempt to appease the masses & academia) can potentially have debasing consequences to these young student's spiritual standing/grounding whilst attempting to struggle with the logic in marrying two opposing positions (in an already potential confusing/stressful period in their lives). Like I said in post # 32 (with accompanied video)... I agree with Dr Dawkin’s view on those who wish to reconcile the Genesis account with evolution – “there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution & Christianity” & subsequently... “they are deluded” if they believe it can be done. I don’t care how they wish to swing it – it can’t be done... only those with a superficial understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 are more likely to believe it (& be deceived by it).


    Thus I would ask those Christians (students) who do wish to still read the PDF doc in question (& by all means do), to be alert of the implications/issues of the above (& to follow further in this post)... critique the bigger picture & not allow another to dictate your thoughts from what is consistent logical reasoning (with regards to the text of Christianity – the Bible). Sadly exposure to the alternative perspective on the Genesis account is limited, as so many of the Theological colleges/seminaries have been whiteanted with compromise – thus research for yourself on the deeper significance of the text. Remember, it won’t (shouldn’t) affect your academic achievements (what you believe)... unless there is discrimination of some sort (which has occurred - but I would hope very unlikely at UWS).


    Yes Ian, organised religion has caused much harm (& that’s putting it mildly). I touched on this issue in post# 22. However, let’s make sure we put the concerning entities (with underlying agendas) in their rightful place... & not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. After all, most tend to shy away from jumping to generalised assumptions on other topics i.e. race, nationalities, professions (i.e. Podiatry) etc... thus we should also exercise discernment on metaphysical topics (albeit confusing as it can be).


    Yes Rob, I too am not interested in entering further discussion (you see “debate”) re: evolution vs. Creation. I entered this thread/discussion at post # 10 on the 26th September with references to the key article of this thread & subsequently highlighted some issues pertaining to evolution in association with that article... one thing leads to another where inquiries are made, questions are asked, questions are answered (well, some are) to the point where we find ourselves in this position at post # 97. I have asked for the evidence; I’ve asked to be converted... answers to this apparent established “fact” or “theory” (Darwinian evolution) have not been forthcoming hence I have to settle with being a Creationist (for reasons outlined in previous posts). There has been more than enough time for answers (to justify faith in evolution) & subsequent pondering on the changing of teams.


    I wasn’t going to respond regarding the above “Christianity and the theory of Evolution.pdf” but as already mentioned above to David, there are some big problems with it. However, I also have no intentions on annoying/frustrating you further Rob (or anyone else for that matter) so I’ll keep it brief (well I try). It would appear this Pastor Simeon Payne [BA., BTh., Dip Min. ex-Chaplain, University of Western Sydney] is a theistic evolutionist. I suppose he then comes under the title of “sophisticated theologians” in regard to Dr Dawkin’s remark in this cited video (I quote)... “... well as the more, well what should we say; sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution... I think they are deluded”. Why?... well let’s just look at one reason...

    I’m not going to delve into the scientific merits of either position (there has been plenty of opportunity for that thus far – with the results found in previous posts). Yet let’s look at this from a rationalistic perspective. Pr. Payne would likely believe that Genesis 1 & 2 (Biblical Creation account i.e. man/woman Created by God [the Trinity] as opposed to evolving via primate lineage) are allegorical; he no doubt would then think that Genesis 7 (Global catastrophe i.e. Flood) is also allegorical (which is also at deep conflict with evolution). After all we can’t have a global catastrophe of the watery kind (despite the geological evidence for it) because that would wipe out this evidently delicate/unique process of evolution which has amassed an already large amount of time to be faintly plausible to the gullible – thus rendering the “by chance” process back to the beginning... to then start all over again (“by chance” that is). Thus Genesis 1, 2 & 7 are virtually “mythical/legend stories” by his reasoning. Then how about the exodus out of Egypt, The Ten Commandments – hey, why not the five books of Moses (the Torah/ Pentateuch); Jesus referenced many passages from the books of Moses – was He then deceived or part of this deception? (how does Pr. Payne reconcile this?) How about the Book of Daniel (& the prophecies within); could the birth of Christ (the Christian [re: World] Saviour) be allegorical... or how about His death & rise from death (a central issue for Salvation)... could these be seen as allegorical following the above line of reasoning. Where does the allegory start & end? What bits are allegorical & what bits aren’t (who determines what... or should the Bible be allowed to interpret itself – now there’s a hint). Could it potentially be then the bits one sees fit (in harmony with one’s views) as non-allegorical... & the bits that don’t mould best to be deemed allegorical (no wonder there are so many denominations). Hey, it would seem many (in Christianity alone) don’t like the idea of Exodus 20: 8... the longest of the Ten Commandments, the only one that starts with the word “remember” (oddly enough – being that it is largely now forgotten/ignored)... I suppose then there is only one allegorical Commandment of the Ten... after all we (well most/many) seem to accept “Thou shalt not steal” & “Thou shalt not kill” to be reasonable Commandments to abide by. Can you see what has happened? (Could there be a reason for it?... an underlying agenda possibly).


    Do you see where this is going now?... & you have every right to take it down this path of inquiry with an evolution persuaded "Christian". I am actually giving you some handy advice here Rob (& anyone else) for when discussing the relevance of a Christian faith who has its grounding/amalgamation with your chosen faith (evolution - naturalism/materialism). You see, you, Mark, Bill, Ian or any other non-theist or agnostic can then question a theistic evolutionist’s stand/reasoning/logic on the book/entity (Bible/God) they state to believe in, attempt to serve & uphold. You will always win such a “debate” with such a person as this person is not consistent within their stated belief/faith (Christianity); has no grounding to their belief/faith when the text they supposedly receive enlightenment on is whiteanted to the extent where the foundations crumble away & subsequent rationality goes along with it. As Karl Popper said... “No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”


    This is the reason why the likes of Dr Dawkins will not debate a person of a certain metaphysical persuasion (you guess which)... & no doubt why (in part) Christians are encouraged to marry evolution to their faith.


    The only sense of value I got from the above PDF is in the opening paragraph where it appears that Pr Payne is no longer in that ministerial position. I hope he has gone back to a reputable Theological seminary (or vested time in his own research) to study the finer details of Hebrew & the deeper meaning behind the outlay, arrangement & subsequent scientific implications of Genesis 1 & 2 i.e. why celestial (sun, moon & stars) objects on day 4; reference to “seasons” (i.e. summer, autumn, winter & spring) in day 4 indicating an earth tilt/axis. What was the light before day 4 etc...? Hopefully he then may gain a new perspective on a book that was written around 3500 years ago – well before knowledge of the above issues was discovered. Ironically (based on Pr Payne’s PDF) it is his stated views which create a (& I quote) “wedge between science & faith” & subsequently loses (& I quote) “something far more profound & deeper!” with his line of reasoning/interpretation. I’ll leave it there.


    Yes Rob, there apparently is no debate on “evolution and Creation”... for many reasons. Hence I’ll finish on a point we agree on ;).
     
  18. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I belief that I have made my position quite clear on this; I am not prepared to debate the undebatable. But I will say this: in my opinion, you have have been unjustifably rude to a dear friend of mine. Sim and his wife Rosie have been friends of ours for years; I posted the essay for the edificaction of others, who seemed to be grateful for the effort. Yes, he is the ex-chaplain of UWS - he left to devote his time to his youth charities, I believe. And as the Christian bit, every class I teach has more ethnic groups than those we would would loosely be described as Christian - and not just the "three theists".
     
  19. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Ben Hur wrote
    Yes Matt (AKA Ben Hur) I understand what you're saying and until recently I would have entirely agreed with you. (Mind you I believe that Dawkins points this out as a device to drive a wedge between Christian factions, a clever divide and conquer tactic:rolleyes:) BTW what is whiteanting? I guess from the context it means, overlooking, convenient rewriting or alternative interpretation.

    So you will notice that I did say "within the context of him being the on site minister" As a Minister he is entering into his Pastoral gifting and so is more concerned with the spiritual, relational, mental and physical health of his flock than being an apologist or evangelist.

    I would guess that he is thinking - should these young students be troubled and torn apart by apparent contradiction, He will be keen that they should not step out of their studies in conventional science and miss out on an education that will be very useful for their life and the lives of many in this world. As I have said before it was the study of science that led me to the threshold of God and I would say that your study of science has served you well as it has me both in secular terms and in the service of Gods purposes.


    I think I said this earlier in this thread but to reiterate: Whilst I enjoy from time to time arguing the case for creationism I have always been aware that there is no end to this argument and even a convincing case cannot bring Faith in God (even tho it may take a person to the threshold of the possibility of God) Without faith in God there seems little point in arguing the case at all, excepting for some academic sense of satisfaction. What has been revealed to me from all this discussion and reasoning is this:

    The Secular scientist is on the same ladder as I am and that ladder only leads to God. Science is a finger that points to God but many chose to fix their gaze on the finger. As a Christian I can embrace science and understand the logic and reasonableness of the scientific progression while at the same time having complete confidence of knowing Who is at the top of the ladder, who made the ladder and, most important of all,the reason why He wants us to climb it.

    Science usefully chooses to study the ladder and it is very convenient and even beneficial on many levels (pun intended) to understand the ladder than is our physical world. Because I cannot explain of have a coherent physical explanation of how God made the ladder or How long it took is no reason to abandon God.
    Science cannot explain gravity, it can only explain it and measure it in terms of it's effect and yet by its effect they know for sure that it exists.

    So when the question is asked how can God exist if you cannot reconcile the Truth of the Bible with the truth of the known physical world there is no need to be concerned because one does not cancel out the other, we can't explain gravity but that doesn't say that we should abandon Newtons laws or that Newton didn't exist. Scientists are confident that science will explain gravity in the fullness of time. In the same way Christians are/should be confident that science will (and does for those that have eyes to see already) point to the existence of God because the ladder only goes one way and has only one destination, and Christians have had a view, a foretaste of that destination, they've seen the effect in their lives and others, they see the wonder of God in all things, there is no other conclusion to come to.

    All human truths are truth for now, convenient for now, useful for now but that cannot go on forever eventually there must be an ultimate truth that underpins all others. Christians know this is God and this plus how to discover it for yourself is the bible's over arching message that gives support to the Christians confidence.

    Therefore these inconsistencies are inconvenient for now, if you want them to be, but ultimately they are part of the Truth that God want us to understand and take hold of forever.

    Having said all that I do believe that there is a useful side to supporting and championing creationism. That useful thing is that the secular and the Christian can come to understand that it need not be a case of or but rather a case of and Science doesn't exclude you from God, He is happy for you to find Him anyway you wish even though He has given us an express route if we wish to take it. And for the Christian, Science used for God's purposes is amazing stuff just like all His gifts are. There will always be that little devil stirring up your human doubt, making you question what you know to be true but that is what Faith is all about. Fact is the rung of the ladder your standing on (and maybe the one above you have your hand on, Faith is confidently holding onto an ultimate truth and anticipating what is at the top of the ladder even though you don't yet stand on it.
    But you can still do this while standing and holding onto the fact of the rungs you are actually on. ..

    Regards Dave
     
  20. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes Rob, sorry - Dr Kidd (I remember you found offence when I cited Prof. Oxnard as Dr Oxnard)... your position is crystal. I neither want a “debate”(I don’t have time now); as said, I have provided my reasoning (with evidence) for my views (which were asked of me) & in return I have asked very reasonable questions regarding what should entail basic (yet fundamental) answers substantiating the driving mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution – they have not been presented. This has been the nature of progression from highlighting a few points in relation to the “reproducibility of scientific results” at the beginning of this thread.


    In my opinion I can’t see why you would now see the critiquing of relevant material as “rude”. I could have interpreted previous material of yours in a similar light but understand that this can be a controversial topic with this medium not being the best in displaying true intentions. I understand that Simeon is a close friend (which may be affecting your opinion/judgement) but my critique was directed at his views (of which scientists I know may find his opinion disrespectful &/or rude i.e. reference to "pseudoscience"). The “ex-chaplain of UWS” reference was stating a fact (as you have also outlined) as well as expressing my concerns of his erroneous views (scientifically & theologically) influencing students. Probably if I had slept on it I may have rephrased that aspect (hence I have slept on this post). Maybe critiquing the likes of the material in question is best done in person & not on a public (written) forum (???).


    Anyway, I have real problems with the contradictory methodology with Pr Simeon Payne's assessment of Biblical texts & science texts. Being I have an interest in Origins I have been interested in the book of Genesis & this has subsequently given rise to understanding writing styles of the Bible (but I am by no means a theologian). However, let’s clarify on one of the theological points (which is after all Pr Payne’s claimed area of expertise – being a theologian) which was a central point of his contention... the “wooden literalist view to the early Chapters of Genesis”. Pr Payne should understand that the Bible is written in various styles/contexts depending on the intention of the author & the nature of the topic. These may be in the form of parables (i.e. used by Jesus), prophecy (i.e. book of Daniel & Isaiah), poetry (i.e. Psalms), testimony (i.e. Luke), biography & letters (i.e. Paul). If we allow the Bible to interpret itself (& not subject ulterior or secular influence) then we will receive what the true intentions/style a book is to be received. It also certainly comes in handy to know the nature of the language in which the book is written i.e. Hebrew, being that Genesis is the book of contention here. Hence it would make sense gaining the opinion of those who should know the Hebrew language as well as the Genesis account i.e. Jewish scholars & historians. As far as I know, all notable Jewish scholars or historians (i.e. Josephus) states that Genesis is written in a literal sense (i.e. not metaphorically/allegorically). Here is one reference I have from a Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

    “Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

    It should also be noted that as far as I know Professor James Barr is not a Creationist hence there shouldn’t be bias to this position.


    Hence, if one doesn’t want to accept the Genesis account as it reads then that’s their choice but don’t try & mould/interpret the text into something it is not intended to be (particularly for the sake of appeasing evolution)... & if you are a Christian (particularly a Theologian) then you will have to come to terms that Jesus referred to Genesis... & in a historical context (which then has all sorts of implications either way when you think about it – i.e. was He propagating lies/myths?). I know it’s convenient (on a superficial level) – but I really can’t see how one can logically have it both ways... & this just opens up a whole new can of worms (for a theist & non-theist to unnecessarily debate on, as well as potentially reinforcing the "wedge between science & faith").


    Thanks David, I understand your reasoning (with reference to Pr Payne’s views); I just felt compelled to highlight some concerns/implications which results from such views (maybe this isn’t the most appropriate place or medium for it).


    With regard to Dr Dawkins, what you say has been correct with regard to past issues (i.e. “divide & conquer tactic”) but I do think his assessment regarding theistic evolution is correct (hey, he may still have similar “divide & conquer” intentions) based on reasons highlighted previously, which brings me to the use of the term “whiteanting”...

    “Whiteanting” is reference to “white ants”. In Australia we sometimes refer to termites as “white ants” (Wiki ref.). As you know termites have the ability to cause destructive damage (in a concealed manner) to buildings (particularly the foundations) which subsequently causes the building to potentially weaken & collapse. Hence an appropriate analogy to views which will potentially erode into the foundations of the Genesis account, the scriptural Origins which can then potentially lead to a slippery slope of compromise for other Biblical foundations for the Christian. Hence if one professes to be Christian (with the Bible as their source of reference) then cherry picking passages to be allegorical in quest to suit a world view will ultimately lead to a superficial grounding & leave one to be open for question/critique by non-theists as to inconsistencies of interpretation/views/logic & faith. One may not agree with the above (i.e. theistic evolutionist) but this a logical progression & subsequent conclusion.


    You make some valid/good points David. However, as I have also said earlier in this thread; I engage & sometimes invoke a Creation/evolution discussion (keeping in line with thread discussion) because I really want to know what really is out there... on a topic which really should be one of the (if not the) most important to humanity (i.e. where we came from, where are we going). I would really like the facts in substantiating views from either side... & at times wanting to be converted to the other side (i.e. when things appear overbearing). I also find interesting the unusual circumstances & events surrounding this topic of Origins which intrigues me as to why... & subsequently leaves me to think there are other factors at play/influence here which are absent from other topics of “debate”. I also see superficial views & consideration on this topic of Origins from the general public, as well as alternative views not freely expressed (hence much confusion & misrepresentation) & being open for consideration which then reduces the public’s awareness of them (i.e. potential more logical & reasoned perspectives)... on contrary, the general public (as well as students) are only subjected to the one & only academically ordained viewpoint – that of (mere) naturalism/materialism -> Darwinian evolution. I just feel we need to open the scope more & be open to other possibilities regarding this evident mysterious universe we are a part of... hence my interest & involvement on such topics.
     
  21. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Came across the following article... & this thread seemed the more appropriate one to put it:

    - Japan Finds Fraudulent Steps in 'Breakthrough' Stem Cell Paper:
    (You may need to login to Medscape to read the full article)

     
  22. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    If the researcher is guilty of research misconduct involving fabrication the governing body should come down hard on them.

    However more important and the central issue is - can the results be replicated?

    It would be interesting to examine the pressures that increase the likelyhood of someone pushing the boundaries of exactitude and why, when they do, they seem to invite discovery of their misdemeanor?

    Bill
     
Loading...

Share This Page