User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 147 FirstFirst 123456781454104 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 1176

Thread: Where does everyone stand in regards to...

  1. #25
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Comment:someday pretty soon (ok, not really, but lots of people wish it was)next to the Smithsonian Museum of natural history there will be a bigger building titled Creationist Fact Center
    that makes no logic

  2. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]but really im thinking of avoiding further conflicts (elsewhere) by just staying out out of the discussion because "No one cares what you think" is coming up far too frequently in them.
    Hop in finch, waters fine
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Comment:someday pretty soon (ok, not really, but lots of people wish it was)next to the Smithsonian Museum of natural history there will be a bigger building titled Creationist Fact Center
    lol
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  3. #27
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 27 2004,6:32)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]they feel like Creationism threatens the existance of evolution
    umm... it does. both creationism and evolution cannot be true.
    Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?
    Before you can make evolution and creationism mutually exclusive, you have to add extra details to one or the other. I really don't see any way that you could dress evolution up as the refutation of creationism, because most interpretations of creationism don't have any verifiable axioms; creationism happened because God said so, not because of any testable phenomenon. Likewise, creationism is a description of what happened in the past, what created the first life forms, and it says nothing about what happened after Genesis. Things could have kept evolving - after all, we have no evidence to assure us that fossils are the remains of living things and not just geological oddities. So, who's to say that God didn't plop down every species that was around at 3000 B.C. and they've spent a little time changing since then? After all, as you agree, evolution describes the changes that different classes of living things undergo, and not their origin.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Darwin's theories on evolution describe the process as continuous. However, the fossil record and observed phenomenon show 'real-world' evolution to be something happening in fits and starts, punctuated by long periods of stablity, which calls the mechanics of evolution - as described by Darwin -
    I don't know exactly how darwin put it... but it doesn't really matter. If you think about it, if there are more oportunities (ie... when plants first began growing on land... and when animals first began living on land too...) evolution will occur faster because any given mutation has a greater chance of being good.
    No, not quite - when there's a longer period of time in which mutation can occur, there are more opportunities for beneficial change, but this does not effect the probability of a beneficial change. It doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin; you've always got the same chances (unless you change the coin.) Nor will things occur faster, because giving more opportunity means giving more time. The only bearing that time could have on beneficial mutations would be if the earliest mutations made future beneficial mutations more likely. In such a case, it would be those catalyzing mutations - and not the elapsed time - which led to a higher ratio of beneficial mutation.
    Anyways, that's not what I was really getting at... my point is that evolution, as we know it, is not a very useful tool for making decisions about history and what did or didn't happen, because we don't even understand it well enough to know why it happens when it happens in real-life situations (actually, the important question is why it isn't always happening.) We're getting ahead of ourselves to believe that the fossil record is explained by our present understanding of evolution. We know there is such a thing as evolution, but our theories on it are neither sound for nor covering our observations of it.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  4. #28
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Dec. 27 2004,6:53)]In laymans terms - theres proof for evolution, unlike creationism.
    To this I would say, "Proof is required for evolution, and not for creationism." An important detail to appreciate is that the only proof we could ask of Creationism is here; the planet Earth exists. There's no reset button that we can press, wait ten seconds, and then say, "Hey, there's God arranging flowers in Eden," or, "Hey, it's just a bunch of plasma and undifferentiated particles." Take a look at Hume's Enquiry Regarding Human Understanding for a good treatment of this. Evolution requires conventional causality (being able to rely on past experience to predict the future) which has been known to be illusory at best for the past 300 years. I'm a scientist at heart and I'd love to have some proof to sweep religion out of the mix, but the fact is that religion is outside science. There's nothing in the definition of religion or faith which neccessitates truth or proof or anything of the sort. To believe in science, one must have faith in consistency, and to believe in religion, one must have faith in God or higher powers or whatever it is that particular religion entails. But still, no one seems to be able to explain to me why they're mutually exclusive.
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  5. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,10:15)]Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?
    you're making me go dig up my bible...

    Genesis 1:24-25 says exactly:
    "-24- and god went on to say "let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the eart accoring to its kind. and it came to be so -25- and god proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth accoring to its kind and the domestic animal according to ts kinda and EVERY moving animal of the ground according to its kind."

    Now.. every is a VERY strong word here. Every would mean.. well.. every animal would of been created by god, which totally contradicts evolution. In saying every animal was "created" is severing all the ties between animals evolution has defined.
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  6. #30
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That doesn't contradict evolution in the least. Evolution says nothing about what created the first living things. So, instead of the typical scientific view of assuming some cell-like thing was the first thing to live and evolve, why can't we start with the animals that God created? To make an allegory, say I'm carving a sculpture with a chisel. It would be fair enough to say that when I'm done, I created the sculpture, yes? But wouldn't it also be fair to say that I chiseled that sculpture? If these things are acceptable, then couldn't we say that God created each animal and beast, and that God evolved each animal and beast? After all, literal interpretations of the Bible put forth that God wills everything. The problem you describe is related to your interpretation of the word create, and not anything put forth by the theories of Creationism or evolution. Tell me about the part after that passage that says, "and the animals that God made never changed or looked different and never, ever will (because there is no such thing as evolution.)"
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  7. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?
    no because (the branch we're talking about... we're not talking about the big bang or anything... we're talking about the branch concerning evolution) creationism says all species were created as they are now. Evolution says other species became these species. Both cannot be true.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]after all, we have no evidence to assure us that fossils are the remains of living things and not just geological oddities
    well... since there's no natural way we know of that could have produced fossils. We don't see any evidence of anything besides organisms that could have made anything like fossils.... and what a coincidence they have the same bones as present organisms, (tibia, radius, skulls, teeth -which are not bones-, carpals, metacarpals, etc) and look ridiculously alike to organisms.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]No, not quite - when there's a longer period of time in which mutation can occur, there are more opportunities for beneficial change, but this does not effect the probability of a beneficial change. It doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin; you've always got the same chances (unless you change the coin.)
    I wasn't talking about giving them more time. I was talking about giving them more habitats to which they can adapt to. Mutations occur. It depends on the environment if they're good mutations or bad mutations. Let's say you're the first animal to live on land. If you have a mutation that makes you slower but allows you to eat a certain plant it's going to be very good because nothing is going to eat you and yet you have a whole other food source and no competition for it. If you WEREN'T the very first animal on land and you had that mutation, since you were slower you would get eaten, AND you would still have competition from the other animals that were already eating that food source...
    so if you have more opportunities, you evolve faster. (so there is a reason why sometimes things evolve faster than other times)
    I'm I clear now?
    "actually, the important question is why it isn't always happening.) " It's always happening... though sometimes it's just very slow.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]We're getting ahead of ourselves to believe that the fossil record is explained by our present understanding of evolution.
    as for that... it is the fossil record that supports evolution... not evolution explaining the fossil record.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  8. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,10:24)]I'm a scientist at heart and I'd love to have some proof to sweep religion out of the mix, but the fact is that religion is outside science.
    Exactly, which is why both definitions cannot be accepted

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]There's nothing in the definition of religion or faith which neccessitates truth or proof or anything of the sort.
    So i'm just going to "belive" something... with no proof? If that was a valid way of thinking, we'd all be dead by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]To believe in science, one must have faith in consistency, and to believe in religion, one must have faith in God or higher powers or whatever it is that particular religion entails.
    You don't have to have "faith" in consistency. Actually you don't have to have "faith" in anything. Science isn't about faith (thats a new one..) it's about proof - evidence, logical, factual evidence. "consistency" isn't random.
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •