Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod
POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 17:27
VIEWED: 31211
PAGE 3 of 4
can i just say thanks Rue, for getting him started on his naturalistic soap box. out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two.
atleast im straightforward about my lens, my worldview, while some like to hide in the shadows and claim ambiguity. its hard to assess someones beliefs if they wont clearly put them out on the table. now obviously no one but God is omniscient, so lacking infinite knowledge does inhibit our decisions, but the ideological significance and societal consequences of the various views are very (if not more) relevant (that was the purpose of my post in the Ron Paul thread)
Quote:
posted Fredgiblet- Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because...
.. just maybe the observable data isnt their like somany hope it to be? or maybe its not intuitive for human beings to accept that our ancestors were primates millions of ago. it takes a great deal of conditioning and brainwashing to devalue someones soul and humanity like that
Quote:
.. because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject.
religious pressure? i think you have that backwards, public schools have been teaching evolution almost strictly since atleast the scopes trial, but definitely by the 1960s. and my understanding is that it had more to do with a socialist/communist political agenda then scientific strides in understanding. so i would say its equally secular evolutionists doing the pressuring
Quote:
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".
'yeah, check the facts.. over 50 million years ago we diverged from primates! you fools.. dont you know a billion years ago we were amphibious organisms in a primordial soup!?' thats what the textbooks say... so ive heard the theory, and choose to consider other possibilities
Quote:
Accepting evolution doesn't make someone a sheep any more then accepting basic chemistry.
chemistry is a different story(its more repeatable), but the degree of evolution really depends. i personally believe there was a supernatural cause to the universe, that universal laws and complex genetic information dont write themselves, and that things dont appear and change through their own will, by solely natural causes. but a naturalist, atheist evolutionist would disagree.. so the burden of evidence, especially physical, is on them, and currently its far from conclusive
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTI- I thinkwe need some honest dialogue here.
Quote:Everything you suggest so far has rested on a very literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't feel that you're an IDer as much as you would like to... hide behind?... that designation. You're a Creationist. Say it loud and say it proud and stop arguing ID because that's really not your thing.
can i just say thanks Rue, for getting him started on his naturalistic soap box. out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two. At least im straightforward about my lens, my worldview, while some like to hide in the shadows and claim ambiguity. its hard to assess someones beliefs if they wont clearly put them out on the table.
Quote:I'm a scientist, an atheist, and I believe in loving my neighbor. I don't need the specter of hellfire and damnation to care about what happens to others, and IMHO neither do most people.
now obviously no one but God is omniscient, so lacking infinite knowledge does inhibit our decisions, but the ideological significance and societal consequences of the various views are very (if not more) relevant (that was the purpose of my post in the Ron Paul thread)
Quote:I agree. But it's not "science" that undermining our humanity, it's capitalism.
it takes a great deal of conditioning and brainwashing to devalue someones soul and humanity like that
Quote:The evidence is there, but you have to get your nose of of the Bible long enough to go out and look at it. Don't take someone's "word" for it, go look at a stream, chip some rocks, just perform some basic Earth Science.
Fredgiblet: Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because...
Anti: .. just maybe the observable data isnt their like somany hope it to be? or maybe its not intuitive for human beings to accept that our ancestors were primates millions of ago.
Quote:There has been a HUGE leap in scientific understanding since the 1960's, and several refinements and new concepts have been introduced into evolution, espeically with the advance of DNA characterization. For example, most attention was paid to nuclear DNA but mitchondrial DNA (passed exclusively along maternal lines) is now considered in detail. It has been speculated that our mitochondria were at one time an independent life-form that may have reached a symbiotic relationship with other cells. Like I said, you have to get your nose out of the Bible long enough to become aware of what's going on around you.
.. because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject. =FRED
religious pressure? i think you have that backwards, public schools have been teaching evolution almost strictly since atleast the scopes trial, but definitely by the 1960s. and my understanding is that it had more to do with a socialist/communist political agenda then scientific strides in understanding.= ANTI
Quote:With good reason.
so i would say its equally secular evolutionists doing the pressuring
Quote:I think it is more important to teach people how to observe and to reason than it is to teach "facts". For example, your explanation for sediments on top of mountains (the flood) simply cannot explain the depth of layers made by shells and diatoms, which would need thousands of years to accumulate. Simple obervation and reasoning would indicate the Bible-based error.
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".
Quote:
'yeah, check the facts.. over 50 million years ago we diverged from primates! you fools.. dont you know a billion years ago we were amphibious organisms in a primordial soup!?' thats whatNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you. See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.
Actually leadb. The post was between me and fred. Rue stuck her big ass in when I pointed out siggy was trolling me and flame baiting. BDN agreed rue did not , and you misread....I'll forgive you sinse I've already gone on record as liking you.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you.
do you mean it wasnt competently designed? its perfectly suitable for our spiritual and emotional experiences
Quote:
See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling
and i can appreciate that, you atleast consider that a higher intelligence had established the hardware and complexity of the universe prior to its 'evolution'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"can i just say thanks Rue, for getting him started on his naturalistic soap box. out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two.
atleast im straightforward about my lens, my worldview, while some like to hide in the shadows and claim ambiguity. its hard to assess someones beliefs if they wont clearly put them out on the table. now obviously no one but God is omniscient, so lacking infinite knowledge does inhibit our decisions, but the ideological significance and societal consequences of the various views are very (if not more) relevant (that was the purpose of my post in the Ron Paul thread)"
What? Surely you are not talking about me. I must be reading this wrong. If it is about me please explain. Oh, your shift button makes caps.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a guessing you can't hold a job.
Well, it's true ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTI- I added a whole lot to my reply. (above)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
out of one side of his mouth hell say 'evolution does not prove/disprove a Creator', then out the other he'll marginalize and discredit anything proposed by an ID or Creationist, while refusing to acknowledge any distinctions between the two.
*sigh*
Evolution has no bearing on the existence of a creator
There has been only two attempts to give ID any sort of scientific backing, Irreducible Complexity failed because Behe ignored 2 of the 3 mechanisms for the development of systems and because what the argument eventually can down to was an Argument From Ignorance (i.e. "We don't know how it happened so god must have done it"). Specified Complexity failed on many different levels as shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#case We ignore them because they have no value, if an ID proponent came up with something worth considering then it would be considered, it's not our fault that they have failed to do so.
As for ID and creationism, well, here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html I don't think there's much to add to that.
Quote:Quote:
posted Fredgiblet- Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because...
.. just maybe the observable data isnt their like somany hope it to be? or maybe its not intuitive for human beings to accept that our ancestors were primates millions of ago.
Just because you choose to ignore the data doesn't mean it's not there.
As for being intuitive, if that was the measure by what we chose to teach then most math classes and language classes would shut down.
Quote:Quote:
.. because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject.
religious pressure? i think you have that backwards, public schools have been teaching evolution almost strictly since atleast the scopes trial, but definitely by the 1960s. and my understanding is that it had more to do with a socialist/communist political agenda then scientific strides in understanding. so i would say its equally secular evolutionists doing the pressuring
Yes evolution has been taught exclusively, but religious pressure keeps it from being taught well. I've seen letters from college Biology teachers who've said that Biology 101 sometimes starts to look like Remedial Evolution class because of the lack of knowledge from the incoming students.
Quote:Quote:
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".
'yeah, check the facts.. over 50 million years ago we diverged from primates! you fools.. dont you know a billion years ago we were amphibious organisms in a primordial soup!?' thats what the textbooks say... so ive heard the theory, and choose to consider other possibilities
*sigh*
I'm talking more along the line of the "The Second Law Of Thermodynamics says that evolution can't happen" or "Evolution is a religion" crap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:I think it is more important to teach people how to observe and to reason than it is to teach "facts". For example, your explanation for sediments on top of mountains (the flood) simply cannot explain the depth of layers made by shells and diatoms, which would need thousands of years to accumulate. Simple obervation and reasoning would indicate the Bible-based error.
Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts".
Uh...Sig? This was me not anti, but you still make a good point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
what can i say Fred? im just an ignorant bible thumber. how can we possibly find common ground? ill always be a scientific heretic for being skeptical, and youll always be right because secular society endorses atheistic evolution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm a guessing you can't hold a job.
Well, it's true ...
You are correct. I don't HOLD a job..I create them. What say you? I own my business and I employ 9 people who feed and support their families. You..you dildo using fat-cunt-slut surely can't say the same. So get off my ass..
......Well, it's true..........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...atheistic evolution
Cool! We get evolution! Can we have gravity and relativity as well? (two of my favorites). Just so it's fair you can have the flat earth and crop circles, ok?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmmm...perhaps I should have quoted to be clearer....
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Re: Antimason's post above
Yes, but a theist who believed their God had competently designed the universe would also disagree with you.
do you mean it wasnt competently designed? its perfectly suitable for our spiritual and emotional experiencesQuote:
See, I think God set things up so life -could- develop 'naturally' with no further twiddling
and i can appreciate that, you atleast consider that a higher intelligence had established the hardware and complexity of the universe prior to its 'evolution'
" but a naturalist, atheist evolutionist would disagree.. so the burden of evidence, especially physical, is on them, and currently its far from conclusive" The view I'm 'presenting' is consistent with the view you are atributing to the 'naturalist, atheist'; I guess what confuses me you consistently attribute the need to provide 'evidence' to be on the part of 'naturalists' and 'atheists'; but why not the various theists; and for that matter, I have many 'good Christian' friends who find the theory of evolution quite acceptable; why do you not 'burden' them with the need to provide evidence? It's not like they have a separate evolutionary theory.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhh huh. And I'm a Nobel Prize winner and CEO of a Fortune 500 company. "You..you" ... Words fail you again ??? That happens a lot when people have your condition. Too bad it's the resistant kind. 
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
You are correct. I don't HOLD a job..I create them. What say you? I own my business and I employ 9 people who feed and support their families. You..you dildo using fat-cunt-slut surely can't say the same. So get off my ass..
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote::-) Ok, re-checked and I concede I got confused with some of the extra name calling; but I will stick with ... my thought/agreement/whatever ;-)... that we could see some -improvement- in how evolution is taught in schools (at least those in my area).
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:Actually leadb. The post was between me and fred. Rue stuck her big ass in when I pointed out siggy was trolling me and flame baiting. BDN agreed rue did not , and you misread....I'll forgive you sinse I've already gone on record as liking you.....
Originally posted by leadb:
Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, Anti- you're not ignorant. Nor are you a "heretic" of any sort. And the word 'skeptical" doesn't apply. Why do you play these silly games and misrepresent yourself so thoroughly? Does it make you feel better to see yourself as a free-thinking rebel?
what can i say Fred? im just an ignorant bible thumber. ill always be a scientific heretic for being skeptical, and youll always be right because secular society endorses atheistic evolution
I hate to tell you this, but that's just another part of your delusion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is no such word. There is no such thing. You cannot prove something to some extent. You either prove it or you don’t. And we don’t know what extent science allows. In a hundred years of laboratory experiments, we may find that a species of insect diverse from a fruit fly is produced by successive breeding, or we may discover that our interpretation of the evidence was wrong and in fact species don’t actually evolve.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Perhaps you can come up with a word that means proven to the extent that science allows things to be proven.
Quote:Exactly my point, but I shouldn’t have to be in your club in order to agree with the Theory of Evolution. I shouldn’t have to state my devotion to the religion of evolution. If I think, as is widely accepted, that science cannot prove anything, then I shouldn’t be required to state or imply that Evolution is proven, just to prolong some ridiculous rivalry. If I’m not convinced that Evolution is a fact, then I shouldn’t be required to state that it is, when no such evidence exists, just to satisfy the devoted. That is not science. That is devotion to an infallible doctrine. It may be religion or it may be politics, but it is not science.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I don't know how many evolution threads you've participated in but the way it usually works is when someone jumps in saying "It's not proven" it's usually followed by a bunch of repetitious crap arguments that have all been disproven long ago. Like many things evolution has become very much an "us vs. them" issue so by coming in and saying "it's not proven" you immediately place yourself in the "them" category when all you're trying to do is point out that "proof" doesn't really exist in science.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which is why it is important we use language consistently and precisely; unfortunately, that's a hard requirement in a forum thread where many 'lay' folks are likely to participate. Also keep in mind that different disciplines use the language a bit differently, as Causal and I bantered terms back and forth above demonstrates.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"when no such evidence exists" Bullshitte. Again. And there, Finn, is your problem. You can't keep the BS out of your posts.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the problem that people like Anti, and to some extent Finn, slide a little too easily between the concepts of "no "proof", "no conclusive evidence", and "no evidence".
"No proof" does not equal "no evidence" no matter how people may try to muddy the issue.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Usually Finn, you are more precise with your wording.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
when no such evidence exists
Evidence exists- it is proof that may not.
Cunning linguist Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Cunning linguist" Ahem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So anyway, Chris, is all ... this is an old joke, right ? And you posted it on purpose ? Or is my little mind just running free today ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was thinking of Moneypenny from Tomorrow Never Dies...and her line- though not necessarily in a dirty way like she meant it.
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, Chris, is all ... this is an old joke, right ? And you posted it on purpose ? Or is my little mind just running free today ?
Heh heh Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I shouldn’t have to state my devotion to the religion of evolution.
That's not the objection I had to your post, Finn. It's that you said there was just as much evidence for religion as there was for evolution. That's clearly not true. Religion has no evidence, and evolution - quite a bit.
This seems to be a misperception you've carried though the entire thread, despite what's been posted. I don't believe it's about word-smithing, I think it's a misunderstanding on your part. I hope you now have a better idea of what I've been trying to get across.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like I said... it takes a very special person to deny the evidence of their senses. But if Anti were to be perfectly consistent about the whole thing, s/he would also distrust the very words printed on the pages of the Bible as being just one more illusion, equivalent to the obviously illusory fossil record, the obviously illusory earth sciences, and the obviously illusory similarities between creatures. Because it's all an illusion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You should try reading what I actually said instead of a few words taken out of context. I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact, and there is no such evidence.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Usually Finn, you are more precise with your wording.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
when no such evidence exists
Evidence exists- it is proof that may not.
Cunning linguist Chrisisall
But you’re actually arguing my point for me. By criticizing me for these five words, what you are actually doing is punishing me for my lack of faith. It’s not the precision of my words that bother you, but rather that I don’t imply the infallibility of Evolution in them.
If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"
*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*
" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"
OR
An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........
Love always kaneman
why does this keep getting funnier?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Why oh why do you BS so much? Here are some quotes (below), at length and not taken out of context. You keep saying there's NO evidence for macroevolution. And that's just not true. So how about this - you held a stupid position. You got called on it. Get over it and move on.
And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require, according to evolution theory, prohibitively long time periods.
People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position. Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough, and very likely may never be. Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly.
There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. As I said, some parts of it are well-founded, but others are not. But too often, what I see are people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah Finn, there's no Evidence that it's Proved.
That's what you've been saying all along.
Sure.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"
*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*
" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"
OR
An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........
Love always kaneman
why does this keep getting funnier?
keeping it lite......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who left the door open ? There's a fly buzzing around everywhere.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re right. It is not true that I’ve said that. I've never said there was no evidence for macroevolution. I'm quite sure I've never thought that. I was reading books on evolution before I even know that such a thing as Creationism existed.
Originally posted by rue:
Why oh why do you BS so much? Here are some quotes (below), at length and not taken out of context. You keep saying there's NO evidence for macroevolution. And that's just not true.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn 1: there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires
Finn 2: I've never said there was no evidence for macroevolution.
Will the real Finn please stand up ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked, but ill never win a debate, because 'religion has no proof', to quote someone above. maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation. although, i could be wrong... i mighta missed the stories about how long long ago, we swung from trees and walked on our knuckles
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm curious what your ideas of history are. There are cave paintings in Lascaux (look it up). Do you believe they were done by people or animals? If people. were they from before or after the flood? Where do they fit in your version of history? Do you think they could have been our ancestors? Do you think they believed in divine creation?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, our ancestors believed in divine creation, the literal sacrifice of our children to God, that the sun went round the earth, and several other notions now considered repulsive or quaint. Not really sure where you want to go with this one.
Originally posted by antimason:
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked, but ill never win a debate, because 'religion has no proof', to quote someone above. maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation. although, i could be wrong... i mighta missed the stories about how long long ago, we swung from trees and walked on our knuckles
Edit: I realize I'm going to sound like I'm contridicting my earlier posts on the original content of this post, as I do believe the universe was designed and created; I'm referring above to the concept that God has been 'tinkering' with either evolution or the start of life or the creation of Earth beyond, shall we say, the initiation of the 'big bang'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cherry picked??? There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred. The evidence is all around you, man. Everyhwere you look. At the Tar Pits. In the deserts of Mongolia and Utah. On the tops of mountains and under the seas. In the DNA of cells and mitochondria and plants, and the bodies of chimps and whales and every other species you care to look at. In labs, where new species are created, and in our own pre-history. It's a Flood of Evidence, a Deluge of Data.
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked
AFA what our ancestors believed... are you going to sacrifice a child to the rain gods when things get a little parched? Blow holy smoke on a sick person? Partake of the magic mushroom?
It doesn't take religion to be in awe of the universe. Just looking at a starry sky is enough to put things in persepctive. It doesn't take religion to care about what happens to us.
-----------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact
Quote:Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells
But you’re actually arguing my point for me. By criticizing me for these five words, what you are actually doing is punishing me for my lack of faith. It’s not the precision of my words that bother you, but rather that I don’t imply the infallibility of Evolution in them.
Again, evolution is a theory, just like the big bang, and all theories carry with them the possibility of fallibility.
Quote:Uh...well I for one would have asked for the reasoning behind such a statement (I'm always behind on the newest discoveries....).
If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.
Purple and clairvoyant Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To be fair, there has never been any evidence that Saddam did NOT have tactical nukes, with ICBM's to carry them
Originally posted by SignyM:
There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred.
Skewed Devil's Adv Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Chris, haven’t you heard. I’m a Republican. Only the Power of Three can vanquish me.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But very little evidence in support of, either.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What if I do the same spell three times....?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Chris, haven’t you heard. I’m a Republican. Only the Power of Three can vanquish me.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yes, I'm punishing you, Finn. Expect to turn into a Chaos demon any time now- I know some spells
Silly silly British Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No good. It has to be done by three hot ladies in skimpy outfits. I’ve been watching Charmed. I’m well versed in the laws of Witchcraft.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if I do the same spell three times....?
Silly silly British Chrisisall
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The evidence is all around you, man. Everyhwere you look. At the Tar Pits. In the deserts of Mongolia and Utah."
I don't think that tar pits, that show some animals have gone extinct, can be classified as evidence of evolution. Well, not in the real world anyway........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred."
How about the lack of any transitional stages...Oops! I forgot about the deluge of data, pardon me.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I belive Finn's point is the use of the word 'proves' rather than 'supports'; the semantics thing. And, since I'm commenting...
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Uh...well I for one would have asked for the reasoning behind such a statement (I'm always behind on the newest discoveries....).
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If I had said that there was evidence that Evolution is proven. No one on the Evolution side of the debate would have said anything to me, despite that such a statement would have been absurd.
Finn... I've commented a few times on various folks twiddling the two; I may or may not comment on a specific instance depending on if I think the semantics is causing a problem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Generally, anything found will only cut the 'transitional' stage from a wider span to a lesser span; so, unless we can produce a fossil of every creature which ever lived, there will be some folk who are not satisfied.
Originally posted by kaneman:
"There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred."
How about the lack of any transitional stages...Oops! I forgot about the deluge of data, pardon me.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Dopey Kaneman, you KNOW that transitional creatures belong to neither whence they came, nor the future they enabled, and inevitably got destroyed by both sides for not fitting in. Being few in number, and hated by all, it's no wonder fossil records don't exist.
Originally posted by kaneman:
"There has never been any evidence to show that evolution has NOT occurred."
How about the lack of any transitional stages...
You never studied my on-line anthropology courses, did you?
Funny how that never paid off for me Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I want to know is, where is the transitional fossil between humanity and Kaneman?
But, in all seriousness, creationists keep pointing to whales as an example of the lack of transtional fossils. And at one time the data record DID have a large gap. But no more.
Quote:Note that they say honest skeptic. For those of you who are honest skeptics, please feel free to read all about it here: www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.
Otherwhise, just stuff your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and sing "I can't hear you".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the 1st part of 13. Each run about 9min. It is a documentary that kills religion, it is really good. If you watch the 1st clip you'll be hooked.........It is hilarious.
part2
part3
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I say God was an alien that played with and accellerated genetic realities s/he found in progress on Earth, is that Creationist, or Evolutionist....?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.
Curious Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:If I say God was an alien that played with and accellerated genetic realities s/he found in progress on Earth, is that Creationist, or Evolutionist....?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.
Curious Chrisisall
Now your talking my language.......
Originally posted by kaneman:
God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"
*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*
" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"
OR
An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact
Actually, it's both.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked
The idea of evidence being cherry picked would imply that there is a significant amount of evidence that goes against evolution. Given the amount of people who have been against evolution and the amount of time (and funding) they've had, shouldn't there be a large amount of evidence that has been gathered by anti-evolutionists that disproves it? Or is it more likely that biologists don't cherry pick?
Quote:
maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation.
And almost every culture had it's own system, almost none of which are compatible. Also as you pointed out earlier, most of our ancestors believed that bloodletting worked, that didn't mean it was true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:If I say God was an alien that played with and accellerated genetic realities s/he found in progress on Earth, is that Creationist, or Evolutionist....?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.
Curious Chrisisall
I'm apartial to this one for explaining theistic evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
If that doesn't settle what you are trying to define, let me know and see if we can dig up a closer match.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact
Actually, it's both.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree it is a 'fact' that man descended from a common 'ape like' ancestor; I do subscribe to the theory it is so. I feel the above URL overstates the 'fact' of this matter.
For example, I would say it is a 'fact' that mitrochonal DNA is 'statistically significantly more similar' between apes and humans than horses and humans, and this fact strongly supports the notion that humans and apes are more closely related. I see they define 'fact' as ... "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." hmm. Perverse. Well. I'll have to ponder that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Technically, one can't prove that that big truck will smash you flat if you get in the way. I don't think any one can prove any of this is real, either. So if you restrict yourself to saying that facts are what's proven, then there are no facts.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....
According to an older version of the biography of G.W.A.R. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwar they created humans by raping prehistoric apes before they were frozen in the Antarctic. They seem to have removed that from their official website now though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
: SergeantX-
Cool! We get evolution! Can we have gravity and relativity as well? (two of my favorites).
i said "atheistic" evolution. some around here agree that evolution is just a process, which doesnt and cant explain its own origins- like gravity and relativity. do laws write themselves? thats my question
Quote:
Just so it's fair you can have the flat earth and crop circles, ok?
the bible never mentions a flat earth, but i am open to speculation about crop circles
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, if we change it to 'atheistic' gravity, does that mean only non-believers will fall? Hmmm
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, if we change it to 'atheistic' gravity, does that mean only non-believers will fall? Hmmm
well no.. gravity doesnt attempt to explain the origins of life
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Neither does evolution.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
but evolutionists do
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"well no.. gravity doesnt attempt to explain the origins of life"
Why is this different from any other scientific question?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the main reason I don't quite 'get' where Antimason is coming from is he attempts to distinguish between...
a) 'Atheistic evolution'
b) Evolution as subscribed to by many theists, including many Christians, including a few Fundamentalist Christians, I know.
And I can't find any way to distinguish the two.
While I recognize there is 'theistic evolution', just because one is a theist one does not necessarily subscribe to 'theistic evolution'. It is a question on whether God is somehow 'sticking his hand' in the evolutionary process (after all, all he'd have to do is 'play cupid'). Personally, I think not.
Most folks I know accept 'evolution.' My thoughts on the term 'atheistic evolution' are nicely summarized here (went looking for a writeup that articulately expressed what I was thinking):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world3.htm
And when I talk to folks about their position on evolution, what is expressed at this site, seems consistent with what they mean by accepting evolution (this thread has spurred me to discuss the topic with a few folks over the past few weeks).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Anti, they don't.
They attempt to explain how life CHANGES with time. As has been made abdundantly clear to me in previous discussions about evolution, there is a distinction between the genesis of life and the changes it may have subsequently undergone. 
Anti, I've been very clear about my position. But your position is kinda murky. Sometimes you claim to be an IDer, but most of your references require- as I said before- a pretty full-blown literal intepretation of the Bible. So for the sake of discussion, would you please elucidate your opinion on the following:
How old is the universe?
How old is the world?
How did life come about?
How many species did we start out with? All of the species represented by fossil records plus our current list?
How did humans come to know about "The Creation", if that is your belief?
How do you account for the fossil record? (I know we touched on this already)
Does mountain-building occur? Does erosion occur? Does sedimentation occur?
Do you think that evolution is occurring today?
What- in your opinion- is the scientific process?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s true. You have. I shouldn’t have said “no one,” because it’s not true.
Originally posted by leadb:
Finn... I've commented a few times on various folks twiddling the two; I may or may not comment on a specific instance depending on if I think the semantics is causing a problem.
Quote:Gould defines a fact as something that is not an absolute certainty and deserves temporary approval. But actually, that is probably not how most people define it. Most people look at a fact as being something that is absolutely true. Now if you did define a fact as Gould does then I would say that Evolution qualifies, but I don’t get the impression that is what people in informal debates mean when they say that Evolution is a fact.
Originally posted by leadb:
Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree it is a 'fact' that man descended from a common 'ape like' ancestor; I do subscribe to the theory it is so. I feel the above URL overstates the 'fact' of this matter.
For example, I would say it is a 'fact' that mitrochonal DNA is 'statistically significantly more similar' between apes and humans than horses and humans, and this fact strongly supports the notion that humans and apes are more closely related. I see they define 'fact' as ... "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." hmm. Perverse. Well. I'll have to ponder that.
And I don’t care much for the word “perverse” either. It implies that there is something wicked about not accepting a “fact,” which I think is the wrong image to display.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Haha. Check this out:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, if we change it to 'atheistic' gravity, does that mean only non-believers will fall? Hmmm
Intelligent Falling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I'm still waiting for an explication from Anti about his/her beliefs concerning earth and the universe as we know it today. As I've said before, his/her position seems murky at best. However, certain statements such as the Earth "allegedly" being millions of year old, myths of "the Creation" and "the Flood" harkening back to an actual Biblical creation and flood, and total resistance to the notion of evolution lead me to think that Anti is pretty much a full-on Creationist obfuscating his/her viewpoint with an attempted blurring between ID, Creation, and science.
I imagine, altho I could be wrong, that Anti belives that by getting some people to accept some parts of his/her viewpoint, s/he will eventually get some people to follow a trail of breadcrumbs all the way to a (previously hidden) Creationist stance. Alternatively, Anti is unwilling to debate his/her viewpoint openly for fear of being ridiculed and being unable to substantiate his/he tenets without resorting to the Bible, which most of us already agree is a myth. (And not science.)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
lead me to think that Anti is pretty much a full-on Creationist obfuscating his/her viewpoint with an attempted blurring between ID, Creation, and science.
Well...the whole point of ID is to obfuscate Creationism by hiding it behind science, so you've just given a fairly good representation of ID there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd like to see his response as well; however, I'd instead qualify it with 'without resorting to the Bible, which most of us already agree is religion and not science.' You'll get 'more folk' agreeing (I suspect), and be somewhat less likely to tick off Antimason.
Originally posted by SignyM:
[...] being unable to substantiate his/he tenets without resorting to the Bible, which most of us already agree is a myth. (And not science.)
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, religion then. The Bible is religious tradition and not science. Better?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Much. Thanks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym- Anti, I've been very clear about my position. But your position is kinda murky. Sometimes you claim to be an IDer, but most of your references require- as I said before- a pretty full-blown literal intepretation of the Bible.
im a Creationist... because i 'believe' in a literal interpretation of the bible. but there are people out their, who arent christians, who do believe in ID, and they have their own arguments that i use. if youre saying ID and Creationism are the same, then you must know their was no supernatural cause to the universe, and can show it
Quote:
So for the sake of discussion, would you please elucidate your opinion on the following:
How old is the universe?
i cant say, especially without understanding where the matter came from prior to the 'big bang'
Quote:
How old is the world?
once again i cant say for sure... but most fossils are found beginning in the cambrian layer, which makes me doubt there were any preceding eras of 'evolution'. i have not come up with a date on the 'cambrian' layer, but i cant prove its millions of years old
Quote:
How did life come about?
i dont think it created itself. i believe an intelligence crafted the hardware and laws of the universe
Quote:
How many species did we start out with? All of the species represented by fossil records plus our current list?
one of each archetype
Quote:
How did humans come to know about "The Creation", if that is your belief?
i believe the god 'myths' had a basis in reality, and that man was told this by these fallen angels, or 'gods'
Quote:
How do you account for the fossil record? (I know we touched on this already)
i believe they were preserved by settling sediment during the worldwide floods
Quote:
Does mountain-building occur? Does erosion occur? Does sedimentation occur?
i dont doubt the basic science.. but why, does matter spontaneously occur?
Quote:
Do you think that evolution is occurring today?
i do, but here is the difference: only to the extent that it stays within the species programmed archetype; i dont believe their are infinite variations of evolution possible within any given species. i believe they have 'codes' to follow. i know its happening today, but my prediction is that a cat will never evolve into something beyond its current, known archetype.
Quote:
What- in your opinion- is the scientific process?
the same as it is to you. i have the right, just as an atheist, to apply my worldview, or lens, to the study of science, and it provides me with a different explanation. an atheist, to whom everything is mathmatically random and unguided, would explain the visible world a lot differently then i would, and would produce a different theory or outcome to their hypothesis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Well...the whole point of ID is to obfuscate Creationism by hiding it behind science, so you've just given a fairly good representation of ID there.
fred, what evidence to you have that disproves a Creator? since you know there is no 'science' behind ID, you must also know that their is no Creator intelligence, and that everything happened naturally.. so what are you basing that on?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:While there's a number of points above I don't necessarily agree with, I 'follow' most of them. This item loses me. Where does the 'traditional' proposition of 'mountain building' come up with 'matter spontaneously occur'ing? The standard scientific theory is that one of earth's 'plates' collides with another; one is 'pushed down', the other 'pushes up'; the one pushing up is the 'mountain' side. There is conservation of matter throughout the process.
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Does mountain-building occur? Does erosion occur? Does sedimentation occur?
i dont doubt the basic science.. but why, does matter spontaneously occur?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I think the main reason I don't quite 'get' where Antimason is coming from is he attempts to distinguish between...
a) 'Atheistic evolution'
b) Evolution as subscribed to by many theists,
and there is a difference. either their was a creator force, a supernatural presence that guided the universe and its foundations into being, or their wasnt. Creationists do believe in evolution, to an extent... but atheists have to rely on it for everything in the absence of a transcendent origination of life. is my view really that complicated? if this were a scale, with Creation on one end, and athiestic evolution on another, a 'believer' would settle in the middle, knowing that their was a Creator envolved at some point. an atheist would never consider the possibility, and that is the distinction i make. if there was no Creator force at all, and we could "prove" it, then you will have invalidated ID as a theory, but until then its still a possibility
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
While there's a number of points above I don't necessarily agree with, I 'follow' most of them. This item loses me. Where does the 'traditional' proposition of 'mountain building' come up with 'matter spontaneously occur'ing? The standard scientific theory is that one of earth's 'plates' collides with another; one is 'pushed down', the other 'pushes up'; the one pushing up is the 'mountain' side. There is conservation of matter throughout the process.
i was being rhetorical. i find it insulting that because im a Creationist, im percieved as lacking an understanding of natural processes; im apparently retarded to consider 'intelligence' a possibility
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmm. Ok. I will say your rhetoric really confused me.
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
While there's a number of points above I don't necessarily agree with, I 'follow' most of them. This item loses me. Where does the 'traditional' proposition of 'mountain building' come up with 'matter spontaneously occur'ing? The standard scientific theory is that one of earth's 'plates' collides with another; one is 'pushed down', the other 'pushes up'; the one pushing up is the 'mountain' side. There is conservation of matter throughout the process.
i was being rhetorical. i find it insulting that because im a Creationist, im percieved as lacking an understanding of natural processes; im apparently retarded to consider 'intelligence' a possibility
Edit: re-reading your post with your comment in mind, I better understand your point. I thought you were saying the 'moutain building' was an example of matter spontaneously occurring; and instead, you were referencing back up to the 'big bang.' Yes... the great chicken and egg debate... if the matter was always here, how is that so? Or if a creator started this thing with a big bang, fine, but then where did the creator come from? I've yet to hear either 'side' really give a convincing one for that; and, as you might guess based on previous comments, I'm quite inclined to say our universe, as we know it, was created with good design.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ok, I now understand where you are coming from; though I don't agree. The thing is, I believe you can invalidate ID and that does not -disprove- the existence of the Creator force; though it does somewhat 'require' that the Creator to have kicked things off at the 'big bang' and not interfered much with the mechanics of world/life/evolution excessively from that point.
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I think the main reason I don't quite 'get' where Antimason is coming from is he attempts to distinguish between...
a) 'Atheistic evolution'
b) Evolution as subscribed to by many theists,
and there is a difference. either their was a creator force, a supernatural presence that guided the universe and its foundations into being, or their wasnt. Creationists do believe in evolution, to an extent... but atheists have to rely on it for everything in the absence of a transcendent origination of life. is my view really that complicated? if this were a scale, with Creation on one end, and athiestic evolution on another, a 'believer' would settle in the middle, knowing that their was a Creator envolved at some point. an atheist would never consider the possibility, and that is the distinction i make. if there was no Creator force at all, and we could "prove" it, then you will have invalidated ID as a theory, but until then its still a possibility
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by- LEADB
" Yes... the great chicken and egg debate... if the matter was always here, how is that so?
is there a third option? otherwise the odds are 50/50, which makes ID seem kinda appealin', right?
Quote:
Or if a creator started this thing with a big bang, fine, but then where did the creator come from?
either way you have to wonder why any of its here at all. with the 'chicken' argument, God just had to precede what we understand to be the big bang, since right now nothing did- which seems harder to explain(or is that just MO?). do we have a (divine)purpose, or do we exist by chance, and are we just creatures of our environment? the ideological implications are the most significant though
Quote:
I've yet to hear either 'side' really give a convincing one for that; and, as you might guess based on previous comments, I'm quite inclined to say our universe, as we know it, was created with good design.
i agree. not to stray off topic too much, but i had an interesting discussion with a Mason the other day regarding God; apparently, that is the only requirement to become initiated, that you believe in a 'Great Architect' of the universe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ID? Depends on what you mean by ID. ID Vs Evolution, for me, is no contest; the evidence supporting evolution tosses the odds way to the favor of evolution. ID (if you mean, was the universe designed by the creator's hand in triggering the big bang) Vs 'just' Big bang... then perhaps.
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
posted by- LEADB
Yes... the great chicken and egg debate... if the matter was always here, how is that so?
is there a third option? otherwise the odds are 50/50, which makes ID seem kinda appealin', right?
"the ideological implications are the most significant though" True; but what those implications are can be significantly different depending on what assumptions you make regarding the Creator, and likely we'd find ourselves with very significantly different implications if we compared notes.
That's interesting about the Masons. Never dreamed I might qualify. Then again, fair chance if we compared notes there might be other reasons they wouldn't have me/I'd not join.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im a Creationist... because i 'believe' in a literal interpretation of the bible.
I think this is the core of your position that makes it so hard to take seriously. I've never understood this urge to defend the bible as a literal explanation of all truth. Isn't it possible for a Christian to consider truth that isn't contained in the bible?
Even if we accept the premise that the bible is the 'word of god', why would a god bother to explain his creation in explicit scientific detail, especially when he's telling the story to people who have no understanding of things like genetics and evolution? Why is it inconceivable to you that god might have used evolution and genetics to create the wide array of species on the planet?
You're right to point out that you don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to believe in ID, neither do you have to be an atheist to accept evolution. But if you're looking for ID to be taken seriously as science, you need something more substantial than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if youre saying ID and Creationism are the same, then you must know their was no supernatural cause to the universe, and can show it
Can you explain your reasoning? It seems like a non-sequitur to me. Stating that ID and Creationism are the same doesn't need to prove that they are wrong, just that they are very similar.
As for whether or not ID is creationism, I refer you again to: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html . ID is not identical to YEC, but it's pretty damn close.
Quote:Quote:
How do you account for the fossil record? (I know we touched on this already)
i believe they were preserved by settling sediment during the worldwide floods
The amount of sediment needed for even a small portion of the strata we observe would be extreme, plus that doesn't account for the stratification at all, if the sediment was deposited in the space of less than a year then fossils should be mixed up instead of perfectly stratified.
Quote:
i do, but here is the difference: only to the extent that it stays within the species programmed archetype; i dont believe their are infinite variations of evolution possible within any given species. i believe they have 'codes' to follow. i know its happening today, but my prediction is that a cat will never evolve into something beyond its current, known archetype.
And what evidence do you base this on? What mechanism has been found that would prevent an "archetype" shift from occuring? Would the transition from land animals to whales be an "archetype" shift? We have a very good fossil record of that occuring.
Quote:
fred, what evidence to you have that disproves a Creator? since you know there is no 'science' behind ID, you must also know that their is no Creator intelligence, and that everything happened naturally.. so what are you basing that on?
I have no evidence that disproves a Creator (though there are many things that make little sense in the light of a Creation), there is no proof of the existence of a Creator either, once again I don't need to disprove a Creator in order to say there's no science behind ID. The ID movement made two attempts to give themselves a scientific backing and both of them failed miserably, so there is no scientific basis for ID, this is a matter of record for anyone interested in (what was your term?) "objective research".
Additionally as I've shown before with the Wedge Strategy wiki article the ID movement is not about science anyway. In their own words from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I tried to reply earlier but just couldn't get on, so here goes...
Anti- thank you for your answer. But parts of it leave me really confused. You said
Quote:but then you said
i dont doubt the basic science {geology, earth science, chemistry}
Quote:Well, so much of dating the earth depends on basic science and simple observation. You've seen erosion, deposition, and mountain-building, and you have an idea how quickly (or slowly) it occurs. So would it not be possible to count layers backwards, a little like rings on a tree, and at least estimate the age between layers? Or look at the Himalayas- or any other growing mountain chain- and estimate how long it would have been growing to reach that height? Or possibly look at the amount of uranium (which is an unstable element) versus lead (which is uranium's end-product) to see how long the uranium has been decaying? (The decay rate of uranium is stable.) There are many possible ways to estimate the age of the earth that don't depend on evolution or even hard-to-follow science.
... i have not come up with a date on the 'cambrian' layer, but i cant prove its millions of years old
You also say that life was created
Quote:If all of the species' archetypes were present to begin with and there was a massive flood, what you would expect to find is a large layer, rather uniform, with fossils of all types jumbled together. And yet clearly, there are a lot of "archetypes" missing from the earlier sediment layers followed by other layers which contain other kinds of fossils. You would have to somehow account for the fact that many archetypes are separated from each other by sediment layers that would have taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to lay down.
most fossils are found beginning in the cambrian layer, which makes me doubt there were any preceding eras of 'evolution'... one of each archetype.... i believe they (fossils) were preserved by settling sediment during the worldwide floods
Quote:Don't ask me to explain the "big bang" theory bc I don't understand it.
.. but why, does matter spontaneously occur?
When you said
Quote:As you use the term "science" it seems to mean more like "information" or "teaching", which is why I asked you to describe your understanding of SCIENCE and the scientific process. It's possible that much of the misunderstanding between us is our different definitions of "science".
i have the right, just as an atheist, to apply my worldview, or lens, to the study of science, and it provides me with a different explanation.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Helloooo? Anti, are you home?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by LEADB-
ID? Depends on what you mean by ID. ID Vs Evolution, for me, is no contest; the evidence supporting evolution tosses the odds way to the favor of evolution. ID (if you mean, was the universe designed by the creator's hand in triggering the big bang) Vs 'just' Big bang... then perhaps.
"perhaps".. but theres no evidence of this? why do you consider it then?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can't speak for leadb, but I’m a big advocate of the Creator initiated Big Bang. You’re right there is no evidence that a Creator initiated the Big Bang, but at far as science is concerned, nothing (literally) initiated the Big Bang from nothing (literally). If there is a perfect point at which religion intersects science it is this. The Big Bang just seems to scream to me “In the beginning, God created the heavens...” It just works for me.
Originally posted by antimason:
"perhaps".. but theres no evidence of this? why do you consider it then?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think this is the core of your position that makes it so hard to take seriously.
im sorry, but thats your opinion. we can talk about science and 'evidence' all day.. but maybe we should take into account known history. i dont believe people became martyrs for Jesus' based on something they new was a lie(like Paul for example).
Quote:
I've never understood this urge to defend the bible as a literal explanation of all truth. Isn't it possible for a Christian to consider truth that isn't contained in the bible?
yes.. but like what?
Quote:
Even if we accept the premise that the bible is the 'word of god', why would a god bother to explain his creation in explicit scientific detail, especially when he's telling the story to people who have no understanding of things like genetics and evolution?
well it doesnt try to explain explicity; but i think it had less to do with "genetics and evolution", and more to do with comprehension and necessity; what was important was that 'he' exists, and we should acknowledge it
Quote:
Why is it inconceivable to you that god might have used evolution and genetics to create the wide array of species on the planet?
why? is God restrained by time and space? thats a very naturalist, material view of the universe.. if God exists, he would have to be beyond the visible universe, so why do we expect 'him' to be subject to its parameters? the 'design' aspect of ID infers some kind of interaction
Quote:
You're right to point out that you don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to believe in ID, neither do you have to be an atheist to accept evolution. But if you're looking for ID to be taken seriously as science, you need something more substantial than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
so then check out some arguments from IDs who arent christians.. they have plenty of instances where the data is not compatible with traditional theories of naturalistic evolution. this subject is not my primary focus, and i dont pretend to be some nobel laureate, i approach this issue from an ideological perspective(which is more relevant to me personally)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Can you explain your reasoning? It seems like a non-sequitur to me. Stating that ID and Creationism are the same doesn't need to prove that they are wrong, just that they are very similar.
yes.. but all along youve said that theres no evidence for ID. ID and Creationism both have a 'creator'.. so if theres no evidence for one, then theres no evidence for another
Quote:
As for whether or not ID is creationism, I refer you again to: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html . ID is not identical to YEC, but it's pretty damn close.
yes.. the site for atheists who abhor theists
Quote:
The amount of sediment needed for even a small portion of the strata we observe would be extreme, plus that doesn't account for the stratification at all, if the sediment was deposited in the space of less than a year then fossils should be mixed up instead of perfectly stratified.
first of all, many fossils are mixed up.. as the article i posted indicated. secondly, i think a flood could cause the stratifications and erosion we've seen
Quote:
And what evidence do you base this on?
what we see today. im not seeing the cross breeds and failed species evolution predicts. i see the same animals we've always had, minus a few that havent made it this long
Quote:
What mechanism has been found that would prevent an "archetype" shift from occuring?
what mechanism have you found that allows a complete archetype change? there are similarities in the DNA of humans and primates, but no amount of 'decoding' is going to turn a human into something too far beyond our current state, and thats my prediction. i guess evolutionists predict that a few million years from now we too may be something else entirely.. but i dont believe so
Quote:
Would the transition from land animals to whales be an "archetype" shift? We have a very good fossil record of that occuring.
yes.. but if your basing that off a useless organ, then i would require more evidence. i know people try to connect dinosaurs and birds, because of similar features.. but i think thats a stretch
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well put Finn; my exception is that I think the Creator was busy doing things before creating the heavens, etc.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I can't speak for leadb, but I’m a big advocate of the Creator initiated Big Bang. You’re right there is no evidence that a Creator initiated the Big Bang, but at far as science is concerned, nothing (literally) initiated the Big Bang from nothing (literally). If there is a perfect point at which religion intersects science it is this. The Big Bang just seems to scream to me “In the beginning, God created the heavens...” It just works for me.
Originally posted by antimason:"perhaps".. but theres no evidence of this? why do you consider it then?
However, what I'd point out here is that this is where I maintain science ends and religion starts, I have -no evidence at all- for this; it is my speculation. As a consequence, I would, being a strong believer in separation of church and state, not wish my faith here taught in a public school.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know what god was doing before the Big Bang. I’m not even sure that such a statement makes sense, since time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there could never have been a “before the Big Bang.” You can go crazy trying to think about that kind of stuff. When I imagine how God might exist, I like to think of God as being something like a fourth spatial dimension. We can accept it’s existence, but it’s impossible to visualize it and therefore impossible to measure it, because our minds just can't wrap around it.
Originally posted by leadb:
Well put Finn; my exception is that I think the Creator was busy doing things before creating the heavens, etc.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti, instead of pointedly ignoring me, you could have asked me a question yourself, such as: Well, how do you define science? The answer is very complex, and I'm not sure I can answer it.
Here's another question you could have asked, which I have no frigging clue how to answer: If uranium decay is one possible "clock" by which we can measure time, and uranium is widely considered to have been formed in a supernova explosion, doesn't the amount of uranium date back to the time of the explosion, NOT the the formation of the earth? If you'd asked that, I would have had to spend all kinds of time googling up the answer. I might have even concluded that the age of the earth is wildly overestimated.
-------------------------
It's disappointin' as hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, you would have thrown in the towel after that question? How old the Uranium-238 was before the Earth got created is irrelevant. Once on Earth (or anywhere else), what matters is the abundance of daughter isotopes compared to parent isotopes. The more daughter isotopes, the older the sample.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's another question you could have asked, which I have no frigging clue how to answer: If uranium decay is one possible "clock" by which we can measure time, and uranium is widely considered to have been formed in a supernova explosion, doesn't the amount of uranium date back to the time of the explosion, NOT the the formation of the earth? If you'd asked that, I would have had to spend all kinds of time googling up the answer. I might have even concluded that the age of the earth is wildly overestimated.
EDIT: Pre-emptive strike on the follow-up question: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Khyron, you miss my point. Or perhaps I miss yours.
Let's say that there is nothing but decaying uranium in space. Presumably it forms the same ratios of daughter elements in space as it does on-planet. Then that uranium coalesces to form a planet. If all of the uranium daughters are equally volatile as uranium, there would be no way of distinguishing between when the urnanium was formed and when the planet coalesced because the daughter elements would accumulate at the same rate whether in space or in planet. If you mix in other elements, like carbon, silicon, hydroven, iron, and oxygen, the picture with regard to uranium still stays the same.
Not having googled it up (something I would have been forced to do has Anti asked the question) I'm assuming that there are some daughters that are more volatile than others, and that what they are looking at is the differential between formation and escape from earth's gravity among the various decay products. I assume that scientists have already accounted for that factor, and simply neglect to go into detail when they give the quick and dirty explanation. But that would have been a natural question to ask, given the simplicity of the explanation.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How could it cause stratification? I can see one big layer, with a difference between the top and bottom: the heavy, coarse stuff like rocks and pebbles settle out first, then sand, then silt. But what I CAN'T see is the multiple layers that we observe today, where sand is followed by pebbles followed by silt. If you could propose a reasonable mechanism how a single flood could cause multiple layers, feel free.
secondly, i think a flood could cause the stratifications and erosion we've seen
Also, yes, many fossils are mixed up but most are not, especially not to the degree where you find fossils from one era mixed with fossils from another. And while it is easy to explain how some fossils can get mixed together, it is much harder to explain how most fossils could have gotten sorted in a massive flood.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If all of the uranium daughters are equally volatile as uranium, there would be no way of distinguishing between when the urnanium was formed and when the planet coalesced because the daughter elements would accumulate at the same rate whether in space or in planet. If you mix in other elements, like carbon, silicon, hydroven, iron, and oxygen, the picture with regard to uranium still stays the same.
Uranium goes through several volatile daughters until it reaches lead, lead is stable and is used as the end point to measure uranium decay from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which is what I assumed, but didn't bother to look up.
ETA: No wait Fred, that doesn't make sense. Let me propose this problem for the sake of illustration:
Let's assume that you have pure uranium-238 vapor flaoting in space as a result of a supernova explosion. The uranium decays at a rather convenient rate of about 10% every billion years. So there it is, decaying in space for a billion years, at which point you have a vapor of 90% uranium and 10% lead.
Then the vapor coalesces into a plant, which hums along nicely for another billion years (assuming that it doesn't explode) at which point you would have lost another 10% of the remaining uranium and reached relative U/Pb concentrations of 81%/19%. By looking at that ratio, you could correctly conclude that the uranium had been decaying for 2 billion years, but you would be mistaken in saying that the planet was 2 billion years old.
Where am I going wrong?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME