What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #301
[b said:
Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Dec. 31 2004,6:11)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Dec. 31 2004,5:35)]I'm hearing a lot of this "you don't understand evolution, youre WRONG!!!!" Here is another point. You don't really understand creationism very well, so don't even think about getting mad if we don't understand evolution when you don't understand creation. I'm not pointing at anyone spacific, cause we're all guilty of it.
I would love to hear a solid creation theory. I can't find any so far.
Evolution isn't creation, but it is solid.
 
  • #302
There's a pattern throughout history that's pretty easy to spot.

The church says the world is one way. People using reason determine that it's a different way. The church vehemently denies it until decades or centuries later it becomes so blatantly obvious that it's true that they have to accept it to retain any amount of credibility with the public. However at that point there are these new things scientists are discovering that absolutely aren't true. Those last things ended up being true, but there's no way these new things can be true. Fast forward a century and the church is accepting their validity all over again. However there are these new things...

And the cycle repeats. Over and over. For centuries science has been dragging the church kicking and screaming behind it.

This creation thing must be an exception I guess?

I don't mean this to sound accusatory... it's just too typical of the pattern to ignore. Granted there were scientific theories the church denied that didn't pan out... but how many of them held up so extensively for so long? And a theory holding up for so long today is much more impressive than past theories holding up. Scientists then didn't have an easily referenced global catalog of existing research and instantaneous global communication between each other.

We don't have absolute definitive proof (absolute definitive proof of your own existence doesn't even exist), but it's a bit more solid than a lot of the things people are choosing to base their worldviews on.

EDIT: Rereading this I feel I have to add this part. The work of scientists more than 700(?) years ago or so (can't think back to a good number right now) probably can't be compared to modern science, which is what I'm talking about. The philosophical protocal hadn't been worked out yet. It took "scientists" a long time to figure out the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Why? Religion and ego prevented them from accepting the possibility. This wouldn't be such a problem today.
 
  • #303
They even killed people because they disagreed.  Good thing they don't do it now or I'd have been killed YEARS ago! LOL
big YAY for separation of church and state!
 
  • #304
On the last page (29), people were talking about prophecies in the bible that were accurate. What were they? Or where could they be found in the bible. I'm also getting the idea from skimming through the postings that there are different versions of the bible - are they similar or are there big differences? No , I've never opened a bible so I'm not commenting on its content- just curiosity questions from reading the threads.
And what do you mean the sun is not a chariot of fire! Next thing you'll be telling me is the Easter Bunny is not a monotreme and can't really lay eggs.
 
  • #305
[b said:
Quote[/b] (buster1 @ Dec. 31 2004,6:44)]And what do you mean the sun is not a chariot of fire! Next thing you'll be telling me is the Easter Bunny is not a monotreme and can't really lay eggs.
Don't worry... the Easter Bunny is real. Eggs don't just hide themselves.
 
  • #306
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] people were talking about prophecies in the bible that were accurate. What were they?
Don't forget to write the passage you find the prophecy on and what it says.
 
  • #307
Hey, I just got back from vacation. I missed 31 pages! LOL!

Anyway, evolution is obviously fact. The exact paths and the driving mechanisms are subject to theory, but evolution, including speciation, has been observed in the wild and in the lab. That evolution occurs is not even a theory, but established fact. Exactly HOW, and what paths it's taken is theory.

Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't even rise to the level of theory in the scientific sense. It's a story, one that some take literally and some take allegorically, and some simply discard. It has no testable hypotheses, and is not technically falsifiable, and thus is not even a scientific theory.

Capslock
 
  • #308
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mike King @ Dec. 28 2004,5:44)]Hey Dino,
   I think you are very much mistaken to say the Salvation army don't do much. Most of mankind's problems like Bosnia, our country etc are pretty much self inflicted.
   How do you expect God to help you when all you can do is stick your finger up at him?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I have lived there, and my grandmother lives there full time, I think I do know how it works.
All they do is peacekeep, we carry on the struggle ourselves.
If they really want to help, they should give us food and jobs.
They should lift the law that children have to pay to go to hospital.
And whats god done for us? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Thats why I odnt believe he exists. If he did exist, he would have helped us.




Hi Starman,
    There is also the 'problem of good', not just evil. Why do you think there are so many people working for justice ( or you could say social injustice) in this world? Thats how God works. I would take Bono from U2 as a good example Christians work against injustice in this world
 
  • #309
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Capslock @ Dec. 31 2004,8:09)]Hey, I just got back from vacation. I missed 31 pages! LOL!

Anyway, evolution is obviously fact. The exact paths and the driving mechanisms are subject to theory, but evolution, including speciation, has been observed in the wild and in the lab. That evolution occurs is not even a theory, but established fact. Exactly HOW, and what paths it's taken is theory.

Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't even rise to the level of theory in the scientific sense. It's a story, one that some take literally and some take allegorically, and some simply discard. It has no testable hypotheses, and is not technically falsifiable, and thus is not even a scientific theory.

Capslock
ironically, i'd like to say amen
 
  • #310
I have to be a fair scientist....
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]but evolution, including speciation, has been observed in the wild and in the lab
speciation has been observed in the wild/lab? when? how? what? who? why?
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
  • #311
I have been looking at the whole argument between you guys about 'Creation V Evolution' and its pretty heated!

I became a Christian 27 years ago. My experience of God and what Jesus has done for me is real. I have seen God at work and have seen an amazing healing of my own mother of a chronic illness. It completely baffled my aunt (my mother's sister) who is a doctor how this happened and had no explanation for it.
That aside, Christianity IS about relationship to God through Jesus Christ and you know when you either talking to a brick wall or not!
I have done a theology course and biblical interpretation was covered; the first chapter in Genesis to cut to the chase is a poem. A poem that relates to the Sabbath. Its a not a scientific document or anything like that, but the reality is that God did 'create out of nothing' (the big bang theory verifies that), most scientists now believe there was a first Homo sapiens. Whether he or she was called 'Adam' or 'Eve' noone will know. The flood was real enough, the last Ice age caused world wide (but obviously not total coverage of a 300 foot rise in sea levels. The flood story originated from Babylonian mythology and excavations there around the city of Ur revealed flood sediment 1 metre thick ABOVE the old city. Massive flooding events due to melt water easily explains this.
Its not about believing in Science instead of God, but working it together. As Albert Einstein remarked:
"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
 
  • #312
I guess I'm lame then. LOL
If god wants me to believe in him/her/it/them (whoever/whatever god is/are) then he/she/it/they 'll show me what I want.
I am how I am (skeptic... scientist... need proof...etc) because of how god made me (right?) or where he put me (environment), so he really can't blame ME.
 
  • #313
Here is one of the many pages of already fulfilled biblical prophecies I found doing a simple google search. There are many many more, some of which have already been fulfilled, some of which are still to come. However, not one prophecy has been false. Storytelling? I think not. This is a completely different level from the future-tellers who with varying accuracy use Satan's power to predict the future.

Also, The bible contains family liniages from Adam and Eve to Jesus, whom we know existed. I do not know of anybody who would lie about their lineage. Especially back then, when your family mattered a lot more.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But there is nothing substancial that has evolved from these things.

oh of course not... unless you count algae, plants, fungi, and animals.

You just dropped out the rest of what I had been saying. If anything evolved from these organisms that have both the properties of plants and of animals, they must have dropped some of these characteristics (I guess that makes them more hardy, eh?)

Peter
 
  • #314
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]they must have dropped some of these characteristics (I guess that makes them more hardy, eh?)
well sure... a single cell moving can't make a whole plant move.... nor can a single cell being able to EAT (not photosynthesize) doesn't make the whole plant be able to eat.
but You're not understanding evolution. There aren't steps through which all organisms go. It's not a ladder. It's a tree.
... wait... ok I guess ... yep... it's my fault.
Sorry. I didn't mean to say that... Nothing substancial evolved from those things because right now they just evolved.

umm... about the prophecies... is it just me or is the bible forshadowing what is about to come IN THE BIBLE?
confused.gif
?
Does it say anything about the tsunami or something that occured AFTER the bible was written?
Or I'm I just blind and can't find them?
 
  • #315
hmm... I was reading the talkorigins page I gave you earlier and it says
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, we know empirically that different characters evolve at different rates (e.g. some genes have higher background mutation rates than others). Thus, if common descent is true, we should observe nested hierarchies over a broad range of time at various biological levels.
so besides the environment, some genes mutate faster than others so I guess the organism evolves faster or slower depending on the genes. (it's sort of tough to read all that but I'm determined to read ALL of it :p)
boy. There sure is a LOT more that I thought there was.
 
  • #316
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mike King @ Dec. 31 2004,8:33)]but the reality is that God did 'create out of nothing' (the big bang theory verifies that)
I feel the need to nitpick on this one. I don't know of any scientist that thinks the big bang created anything. What was contained in the singularity existed "beforehand" (time is a component of space-time, so applying concepts of time to the universe when space didn't really even exist yet doesn't really work). In fact there was a theory that the universe would bang and crunch in cycles, but I think that one has been ruled out at this point (I actually really liked that theory, but I can't believe things because I want them to be true). New theories on the beginnings of this universe are also emerging that are somewhat different from the old ideas on the Big Bang. These are coming around thanks to new ideas on string theory, and I really don't think the origins of the universe can have a really solid theory applied to them until we come up with a unified field theory first (and string theory is looking promising).

The church seems to be ok with the Big Bang. What happens if it turns out something more complex is going on as suggested in the link above?

I like the Einstein quote, but I like it for different reasons I think. What people are starting to figure out about quantum mechanics (which is so bizarre that they would use the term "figure out" pretty loosely) is that consciousness seems to play an important part in the shaping of reality, which is something many eastern religions have believed for a very very long time (which in my opinion is where Jesus acquired many of his ideas). If this is true, then it could possibly come to explain a great deal... the healing from an illness you mentioned, miracles, creative manifestation, "supernatural" events, etc. Faith healing when tested has been shown to often have an influence... but of course like the tsunami (something I posted a while ago) people are eager to jump to conclusions as to why. It's just speculation (we're quickly entering belief territory rather than knowledge territory), but imagine what a trained mind could do in such a reality.

I can't remember the quote now... "This, you too, can do"... or something similar. Somewhere in the bible I believe Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to stand beside him as peers rather than grovel at his feet. What if people actually allowed themselves to do what he asked?

Things will unfold at their pace as usual. I'm looking forward to seeing what quantum mechanics will teach us.
 
  • #317
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If god wants me to believe in him/her/it/them (whoever/whatever god is/are) then he/she/it/they 'll show me what I want.

It might not(probably not) be a matter of Him showing you what you want to see, it is more of a problem of Him showing you what you DON'T want to see. That's how it is in my life. He's didn't create us so that we could tell Him what we want, He created us for a relationship. Many of you think Christianity is like evolution, in the fact that it is about the Bible and facts and proof. It is not that, it is a relationship with Him, our Creator.

But on another note, this topic is just see-sawing back and forth. We know where we stand, so lets call a truce for one month, and then we can start it back up if we want. I had a great convo with AE, and even though we don't agree we shared our beliefs and have accepted each other's belief(We even learned a little about each other's belief). Let's just try for month, but if you don't like the idea, that's fine too, I just won't participate in this topic anymore.

Later and keep it real,
~Wes~
 
  • #318
ok but you know what we should do?
those of you who don't believe in evolution should read about the proof of evolution. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html this site or others)
and those who believe in evolution and not creationism should read (give us a site)
then after a couple of weeks (not a full month!!!
smile_k_ani_32.gif
I can't handle it) we can debate scientifically.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] He's didn't create us so that we could tell Him what we want, He created us for a relationship
First I got to know he EXISTS (I'm not having any relationship with something I don't know exists!!!) and which religion is right.
He "created" me and gave me my personality and my logic (or put me in an environment that did that... or gave me the genes...etc) So he knows what I NEED to believe in him and to choose the right religion. I have obviously not gotten it.
The bible itself isn't good enough to convince me, people telling me the bible is true isn't good enough, I need proof.
 
  • #319
I don't know how I'm coming off here... words get interpreted various ways... but I've been very calm and haven't intended to attack anyone in this discussion. Just ideas that I don't think hold up. In the end it's all in the interest of growth.
 
  • #320
And yes it would be nice to be pointed to a solid creationist site. I've seen sites written by pseudoscientists (creationist tries to play the science game but is out of his/her league), and I've seen sites written by pseudotheologians (creationist tries to play the philosophy game but is out of his/her league). There must be people out there somewhere who believe this and can argue it exceptionally. Maybe a book is where we should be pointed rather than a website?

I'm an amateur on both counts, so if I can find the holes in something it really won't stand up to expert scrutiny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top