Old 19th January 2005, 12:12   #121
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
See, you just jumped from a meaningless universe to a meaningful one.

Saying that life "has" to evolve implies direction by some agent--otherwise, you are tying to say that life created itself, since life is the only conscious directive (and if it isn't, then, well, that leaves either aliens or some other external influence.)
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 13:02   #122
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
No, I meant it "has" to evolve the same way a stone "has" to fall down.

"Necessary" in this case means that under the right circumstances it's impossible for life not to evolve.
(Again, this may or may not be the case, maybe there is some uncertainty but even that wouldn't kill the theory because in a universe this big it would have to be extremely improbable in order to not (or not to?*) happen.)


*grammar police to the rescue
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 18:06   #123
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
So you're saying there's some kind of gravitation towards a state of life?
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 18:20   #124
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Sorry if I'm wrong but you still seem to be thinking in terms of an outside force.

What I'm trying to say is that life forms the same way as any complex natural structure, following the same laws* of physics.

*I really don't like this term, it has to be used strictly as a metaphor (or the same way as "the sun is rising").
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 01:21   #125
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Okay then, what are those laws/principles/methods?

I understand what you're saying about considering it without an external force, but good heavens, this protoplasm should have just stayed at rest like all the other matter we have lying around.

Apart from just speculating, how can you say that life is a necessary condition? What [principle of physics or other phenomenon] precipitates this necessity? I mean, that sort of idea is about as provable as the idea of fate and karma, the way you've given it.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 04:52   #126
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Physics and biology are not the same science, I'm afraid.
That's what I was saying by contrasting the two when someone uses the theory of gravity or relativity as an example of a theory similar to the theory of evolution. They aren't similar, and the comparison is a poor one.

food for thought: To believe in evolution is to believe in a miracle.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 05:29   #127
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Sorry but I'm beginning to think that those of you who believe in creationism are those who are in complete denial.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 08:48   #128
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
food for thought: To believe in evolution is to believe in a miracle.
Not completely true - evolution within generations can be observed in a lab, and complete evolution is heavily hinted at by fossils and so on. The "miracle" is that it produced a species capable of asking questions and hypothesising about it, which when you consider the size we think that the universe is, isn't hugely implausible.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 10:29   #129
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
you mean developing features when we need them to survive isnt a miracle?

just because something can be explained through science doesnt mean that god still wasnt behind it

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 11:20   #130
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
But it doesn't mean that he has to be behind it either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Okay then, what are those laws/principles/methods?
Physics, chemistry, there's no single law (I know of) that could be quoted here.
Quote:
I understand what you're saying about considering it without an external force, but good heavens, this protoplasm should have just stayed at rest like all the other matter we have lying around.
It almost did, afaik according to the latest theories it took about 3 billion years to get from protoplasm to organisms.
Quote:
Apart from just speculating, how can you say that life is a necessary condition? What [principle of physics or other phenomenon] precipitates this necessity? I mean, that sort of idea is about as provable as the idea of fate and karma, the way you've given it.
Just ignore quantum physics:
In a classic scientific (=deterministic) theory everything that happens is necessary (or inevitable).

But let me ask you: What would make creationism a better (or at least equal) alternative?

How does creationism explain fossils?
Or the appendix?
Or why snakes and whales have hipbones?

Last edited by gaekwad2; 20th January 2005 at 11:58.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 15:47   #131
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Creationists, many of them, [you can never make absolute statements about any group of people, of course] believe that the system of creation may have in fact followed along the lines of evolution, but was guided by the external force/intelligence we call God.

Judging from the context of the bible, we can see that God probably does not know ALL of the future--but that, given His Experience, he can make experiments of a sort and use gathered data to create greater complexity. This makes sense, because if God always existed, yet in nothingness, there would be nothing to know. Only once He started creating things would there be something to learn, hence His in-depth experimentation with life (what we call evolution.) [I posted on this earlier--remember, God always had to see "and it was good" to tell whether or not it was a good creation.] So He's probably learning, although on a much vaster scale. He knows everything there is to know about whatever exists, but He is not fully prescient. Therefore, evolution is the result of the learning power of existence's greatest Student.

Doesn't that make sense? I'm not making this stuff up at all, you know--I'm just not using the language that scholars usually adopt, which causes more scientifically-minded people to dismiss it outright.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 15:54   #132
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
But, are creationists saying that because they've looked at the evidence and consider that being the only alternative or are they saying that because it reinforces their religious beliefs?

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 16:15   #133
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Well, many people (like some who have just posted) think that evolution just doesn't make much sense without the context of external guidance or an outside force imposing order, wholly outside the context of religion. Religious belief, however, offers a source for that guidance.

Others use both scientific knowledge and the Bible as authority in their lives, and try to find ways that the two traditionally opposed fields of thought actually agree, when studied in similar contexts. Even those who "take the Bible literally" cannot call the current, English terminology the "original" or full meaning. By stripping away assumptions that are often made when looking at ancient documents, by actually reading things carefully without allowing preconceptions of their meaning to influence what you see, it is possible to align the more allegorical storyline of the Bible with the more literal timeline of what we can tell from what is around us.

The third group may very well be just using that ideology because it reinforces their religious beliefs. But then, there are always closed-system thinkers.

So to answer your question, I would say that without question some Creationists say that evolution is Biblical because it reinforces their religious beliefs. But quite a few other groups, both Creationist and non-Creationist, also have problems with evolution as a process that acted without any guidance other than that which a falling rock receives. It is not merely a self-defense mechanism for people who do not like to have their ideas questioned, as your question as posed seems to suggest.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2005, 18:12   #134
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Creationists, many of them, [you can never make absolute statements about any group of people, of course] believe that the system of creation may have in fact followed along the lines of evolution, but was guided by the external force/intelligence we call God.
That's what I thought Intelligent Design was, to be completely honest. It's a more sensible theory than straight "creationism", but I'm led to believe that biological theory can fully explain things without the "hand of God" factor. Not that natural selection of random mutation does not work, statistically - there's much more complex stuff at work here. A lot of people don't "get" evolution because they've had a flawed explanation of it taught to them (because the full version is very difficult to comprehend).

It is a good point you bring up, however.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 09:29   #135
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
The "full version" of evolution is difficult to comprehend because it is "full of it". Evolutionists can't even agree among each other, although when challenged by a creationist, they will always circle the wagons.

Bottom line is, "life" is so complex and obviously designed by an intelligence waaaaaaaaay beyond us (God), anyone who tries to deny it and Him comes up with far-fetched explanations such as, everything created itself and life gave life to itself. I believe in God because the evidence points to Him. I just don't have strong enough faith to believe in far-fetched fantasy, such as the theory of evolution. To believe in evolution is to believe that a tornado moving through a junkyard can assemble a perfectly functioning Boeing 757. Or to put it another way, it's to believe Winamp 5.08 could write itself and create the computer it runs on because it was neccessary for its survival.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 14:23   #136
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Or maybe you are just do not understand probability.

If you insist that life can't just spring into being, then how was your god created?

If you say "in the beginnning, god just was" then how is that any more plausable than me saying "2 billion years ago life just happened" ?

If then you say its because life on earth is so complicated, then how are we made in gods image? Surely god must be more or as complex as us.

Where did gods complexity come from?

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 19:33   #137
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I think this thread has pretty much proven that because something is complicated and misunderstood DOESN"T mean that God created it.

Think the of complexities of any standard computer. We took natural resources, an entire language we created, two types of algrebra, and fused it with so many other inventions at the time. We went from the abbacus to multiprocessor computers that simulate earth to an entire abstract world entity rich with information and communication (the internet duh).

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 19:42   #138
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
you're making a bad analogy between "god just is" and "life just happened" the God just is analogy says that God has always existed, that there was never a time when God did not exist, and that God created time and exists apart from it.

We know scientifically that there was a time when there was no biologocal life, and we also know scientifically that the universe had a beginning. and we can assume that there was a time before there was a universe or that time began at the same instant that the big bang occurred. Either way, there was a beginning to the universe.

the 'God just is' hypothesis claims that there was not a beginning to God. It's a hard concept to grasp. As humans we have always existed inside of time and we have no idea how anything can exist outside of it or what that even means or is like. but then, that's God for you.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 21:42   #139
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
The apostle Paul wrote this in the Bible's Book of Romans (1:20-22) almost 2000 years ago:

"...For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 21:52   #140
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
Where did gods complexity come from?

[My understanding:]
Eternality is the crux of God's existence. He, It, or Whatever is the reason that complexity exists. God was (is) the self-causing. He is the beginning of the positively infinite series of causes that created causality. His existence is what makes everything else possible, because it originated existence. God is the intelligence that in some ways IS the universe, because all matter (in all likelihood) sprang from what would have once been Him.

Therefore the existence of God is intrinsic in that concept of existence. That's where you get all the "God is the definition of IS" stuff from, which kind of gets confusing because you have to use the same word several times in the same sentence.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 22:16   #141
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
wow way to sidestep the question Mattress.

You are incorrect in saying that "there was a time before the universe", because there wasn't according to current thinking (first proposed by Einstein in his theory of general relativity)

Relativity says that the speed of light in a vaccum is the only real constant.

If you are in a rocket going really fast (99% of the speed of light) and clap your hands every second, then to an outside observer who is stationary will see your hands clap much slower than once a second.

Have you ever sledded down a steep hill? You may notice that as the slope becomes flat at the bottom (i.e. your rate of decent slows, as in you accelerate upwards) you feel heavier.
Einstein said that gravity and acceleration are the same thing (they do feel alike) the reason is complicated, you may want to read up on this.

These two effects combine to mean that time goes slower when you are in a large gravitational field.

A black hole has so much mass in so small an area that there is so much gravity that time stops inside of it. A black hole is called a singularity

Just before the big bang, the universe was a singularity. There was nothing outside of it, because all dimentions were curled in an infintly small space.

Therefore, "before" the big bang, there was no space or time.

Read wikipedia for more on this topic.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 23:59   #142
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
^^^ That actually sounds like Creationism, you know.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 02:37   #143
manthabeats
Winamp's Cinematographer
(Major Dude)
 
manthabeats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hollywood (in 3-6 years)
Posts: 655
Send a message via Yahoo to manthabeats
Quote:
Originally posted by will
Or maybe you are just do not understand probability.

If you insist that life can't just spring into being, then how was your god created?

If you say "in the beginnning, god just was" then how is that any more plausable than me saying "2 billion years ago life just happened" ?

If then you say its because life on earth is so complicated, then how are we made in gods image? Surely god must be more or as complex as us.

Where did gods complexity come from?
Thats what I've been trying to find out for some time now. Same exact question, but always different answers from different people.

Currently filming: Youtube stuff
My Website
manthabeats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 03:21   #144
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
Same exact question, but always different answers from different people.
What?

Different answers from different people!?

Aiiii, whatever shall we do, adrift in this sea of conjecture...
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 05:10   #145
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by will
wow way to sidestep the question Mattress.

You are incorrect in saying that "there was a time before the universe", because there wasn't according to current thinking (first proposed by Einstein in his theory of general relativity)
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
and we can assume that there was a time before there was a universe or that time began at the same instant that the big bang occurred. Either way, there was a beginning to the universe.
Way to miss my point, but at the same time reinforce it. The universe/time has a beginning, God does not.

to answer your other question, I don't know where god's complexity came from. Where does life's complexity come from? Why does life evolve and become more complex, instead of just dieing off? why did life come to exist? and why does the universe work this way?

Why is an answer of "it just does" a preferred answer than "God made it that way"?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 05:15   #146
Spazz333
Major Dude
 
Spazz333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,498
This whole discussion reminds me of the book Angels and Demons. Makes the points of this last page on either side into showing the same thing.

Spazz333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 05:26   #147
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Why is an answer of "it just does" a preferred answer than "God made it that way"? [/B]
If we say God made it that way, then why is God that way? Why does God exist, then? Because he just does? because He has existed even before time? Just because He is God?

The point is, saying God did it/made it/whatever really doesn't make any more sense in the end, if you follow the same logic used when trying to refute "it just does." (IMHO)

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 05:33   #148
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
There are many resources available on the web that show the foolishness of the theory of evolution. If you are a seeker of truth, I challenge you to go to the site below and listen to why science itself shows it is foolishness. If you have a RealPlayer installed, you can listen for free in 5 parts on-demand. The speaker is a former CEO of Western Digital. The link is below.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/BP045.html
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 06:11   #149
manthabeats
Winamp's Cinematographer
(Major Dude)
 
manthabeats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hollywood (in 3-6 years)
Posts: 655
Send a message via Yahoo to manthabeats
And the bible has several contradictions too. Get a life, creationism is a theory too. The "theory" of evolution and the "theory" of creationism are just what they say; theories. Theories are used to help understand the un-understandable. They aren't proven. Science bases a lot of stuff on fact, not theory. Can you agree that cars have evolved over the years, has technology evolved? The word evolution simply means "change." I also believe in survival of the fittest. Those who adapt to their surroundings (i.e. the Gallopogus Islands) survive better than those species who do not.

What I believe, and what I was taught in Geology class (omg its a Geology class) is that (in theory) we came from an Ape like species, not actual Apes. This is why Apes are still around today.

Also, humans are relatively young on a geologic time scale. Thats what people have a hard time understanding when they say the Earth was created. They aren't thinking about geologic time, which is much much much longer than regular time. I am almost positive that if you laid human skulls side to side, one from every hundred years, you would see a difference between the first ever human skull fossil found and one from 2005. Its simple, go read an evil geology book.

6 billion years for example is a good size amount as geologic time. 6 million years is much smaller than that but it is still a significant amount of time.

You can't say creationism is the truth because it is labled a theory, and until the highly unlikely even that its proven, then you can prove me wrong. That won't be within our life times so its not worth worrying about.

Point is, this argument is a completely circular argument (not to mention a waste of time). It never stops because one side always will claim something is the truth, and round and round we go.

Currently filming: Youtube stuff
My Website
manthabeats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 06:46   #150
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Round and round we go. You may think it's a waste of time, but some of us just don't want to see YOU go to waste.

Those who insist on denying God, who insist on being their own god, those who labor under the illusion that we are all here by chance and without any purpose, will cling to their views out of neccessity.

Those who have really looked at the evidence and have seen the reality of God, are not going to deny what they know is true.

Hey, I bet you haven't gone to the website I listed above. Right? Figured as much. Some people are just too afraid to think very deeply about this subject. That's why it deserves intense discussion. It's foundational to everything.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:09   #151
manthabeats
Winamp's Cinematographer
(Major Dude)
 
manthabeats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hollywood (in 3-6 years)
Posts: 655
Send a message via Yahoo to manthabeats
How am I going to go to waste? Because I question my beliefs? Because I like thinking outside the box? Because I don't believe everything I read?

About this:
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
Those who insist on denying God, who insist on being their own god, those who labor under the illusion that we are all here by chance and without any purpose, will cling to their views out of neccessity.
Those who have really looked at the evidence and have seen the reality of God, are not going to deny what they know is true.
Thats your personal belief, so be it. I'm not going to conform to your views just because you said so. Dispite what you think, people have differing opinions and most can't be easily persuaded to believe something different than their previous ideals. It is hard to change a belief. I've looked at my own evidence, in museums and so on, I've made my own assumptions and you have no power to change them thank you very much. By the way, where is there evidence of the "reality of god," do tell!

I don't see the point in arguing creationism vs. evolution, because there really is no way to prove either theories, and I have better things to do with my time than worry about where we came from, mostly because I already know.

Church didn't teach me,
An education at a school did.

Currently filming: Youtube stuff
My Website
manthabeats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:21   #152
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
I used to be a life-long agnostic. If I can change, anyone can if they are not too stubborn. I was very stubborn.

You want proof? I've given you several hours of it in audio form in a link above. Have you listened to any of it? No. And I know you won't! My hope is that one person will. You don't want to be accountable to God. You want to be your own god. Bottom line - that's why the theory of evolution lives on.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:31   #153
Spazz333
Major Dude
 
Spazz333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally posted by manthabeats
And the bible has several contradictions too. Get a life, creationism is a theory too. The "theory" of evolution and the "theory" of creationism are just what they say; theories. Theories are used to help understand the un-understandable. They aren't proven. Science bases a lot of stuff on fact, not theory. Can you agree that cars have evolved over the years, has technology evolved? The word evolution simply means "change." I also believe in survival of the fittest. Those who adapt to their surroundings (i.e. the Gallopogus Islands) survive better than those species who do not.

Spazz333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:35   #154
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
I've been through all of this before, and yes it is a waste of time.

Scientific theories can attempt to explain the beginings of the universe, but streach themselves far enough from the mathamatical and scientific truths that they are founded in, that their best efforts are unsatisfying to even the most stictly deductive thinkers (hence the continued scientific reasearch into the subject). However, these scientific theories do lend themselves to be very specific in that they are limited to the laws of deductive reasoning and are attempts to discredit the theory of God, because to them God is not concrete

Likewise, the truth is that the Bible is rather vague and unsatisfying about the scientific details of Creation, especially depending on how you read it, but it is especially specific at the same time (even moreso when you get into the Hebrew) in presenting God's plan of salvation for creation through a Messiah, which I happen to think is JC.

So what we do end up having is two groups of people talking to each other about something that means different things to the respective groups. To the Big-Bangist, the begining of the universe is about logical deduction of things observed. To a Creationist, it is about the begining of the greatest story ever told, which we are all apart of.

However, no one ever seems to understand the motive of the other group, and instead talks about there own "fact base" which is not the topic at hand. In an attempt to find common ground, very often a creationist can be pulled into a geological discussion (or something similar) at which point the scientific crowd marvels at the inability and vagueness displayed. Likewise, very often, a scientist can be moved into the realm of Metaphysical Philosophy (or something similar) and is likewise scoffed. Either way, noone's really talking about anything the otherone is.

In summary: Creationism vs Big Banganism (or whatever you want to call it) two different crowds at two different stadiums watching two different ballgames (each with their own different rules ).

[edit] sp.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme

Last edited by shakey_snake; 2nd February 2005 at 08:09.
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:49   #155
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Originally posted by manthabeats:
"Get a life, creationism is a theory too. The "theory" of evolution and the "theory" of creationism are just what they say; theories."
---------------------------
Which brings us back to the origination of this whole topic. Creationism is excluded from schools. Evolution is taught as dogma. Can you see WHY people like myself are less than thrilled? Our children come home from school brainwashed with someone's theory taught as the ultimate truth.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 07:54   #156
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
You make a good point shakey.

I personally think that philosophy has nothing to do with how we got here. I think philosophy is only concerned with how we think. Which, IMO, doesn't affect anything a whole lot.


Vytas: If you feel that science is futile, i suggest that you throw your computer away.

The amount of science it took to make semi-conductors with feature sizes in the nano-meters is enormous. If science is as bad as you say, stop being hypocrytical and thow your computer away. And stop watching television. And stop driving a car, riding a bus, riding an airplane, eating GM food, eating fertilsed food, going into tall buildings, taking medicine, going to hospital, etc etc etc.

Everyone should appreciate the work of the scientists of the past who make the modern day possible.

Also, if i send a child to school, i expect him/her to learn, in science class, the current scientific thinking. That today is evolution. Creationism isn't science, its religion.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 08:19   #157
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Evolution is a religion masquerading as science.

I never said science is futile. Oh how we read only what we want to see! STILL no evidence presented here for evolution, and still no evolutionists willing to go to the link I recently provided that shows its foolishness. Oh how we human beings can be stubborn.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 08:42   #158
Spazz333
Major Dude
 
Spazz333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,498
To paraphrase my parents, whome I've had discussions like this before with, science is right. it can be proven, unlike religion. However, who do you think created the brains that study and prove these things right?

Yeah, they're quite religious, but when we both agreed that it's believeable we got along just fine with religious subjects. It accomodates both quite well IMO.

Spazz333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 10:18   #159
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
Evolution is a religion masquerading as science.

I never said science is futile. Oh how we read only what we want to see! STILL no evidence presented here for evolution, and still no evolutionists willing to go to the link I recently provided that shows its foolishness. Oh how we human beings can be stubborn.
Oh you've got be shitting me.

I'll be honest with you. I went to that link, and listened to free parts.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but part 1 ended with him saying that Evolution is a fallacy of biology and then compared it psychology and political science. The rest of the clips were completely useless. They gave you absolutely no information whatsoever. Half of them were just an ad for the 66/40. I don't know what you were trying to accomplish out of that... Also, I would obviously feel more comfortable if you were presenting evidence that was more scientific instead of a biblically themed website.

Btw, was this the only thing you've read about evolution?

(who would of thought that a religious person would have a "holier than thou" attitude towards evolution)

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2005, 16:55   #160
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Are we talking about the same programs?
http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/BP045.html

Radio program (1) of the series is "Bishop Paley's famous watch, and the refutation by David Hume." It takes an engineering perspective and gets into how cells are made up of a multitude of interdependent exquisitely-designed machines. There is NO mention of "psychology" or "political science" whatsoever.
Program (2) talks about the digital code of our DNA.
Program (3) is a detailed rebuttal to Darwinism.
Program (4) centers on the overwhelming evidence for design.
Program (5) discusses "Difficulty of transitional forms and Integration of mutually dependant systems."

These are each 25-minute programs.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other sources on the web and elsewhere that argue my case.

Have you read famous evolutionist Steven J. Gould? He is a rabid anti-creationist. Admitting that the fossil evidence reveals NO transitional forms whatsoever, he is famous for originating his theory of "punctuated equilibrium". These are fancy words for FAST evolution instead of SLOW evolution - a convenient way to turn a complete lack of evidence on its head.

Which do you believe in? Slow or fast evolution? Why?
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump