Let me just disprove that. the bible IS realiable. the Jewish (which christianity has spawned of) pass down things as if they are sacred, and they are. The bible has A Lot of historical facts. It doesn say, "Oh we wish Jesus died!", It says "Jesus was crucified by the Jews, under Pontius Pilate."And, let me think , youll do that whole "Telephone game Analogy"? That does not work because the purpose of the telephone game is to mess up. And, if you wanted a real analogy of passing down bible records, every person would have to repeat what they leared to the person before them and ask "is it right?", And if it isnt, they would have to correcrt it. the Bible is Strongly backed up historically.oen thing I agree with scientists. I do believe the earth and the cosmos may have been built over billions of years. Because in the bible, until the fourth day of creation, the whole "24 hours" thing was not created. So the 3 days before it, in which the earth and space was created, could have been a very LONG time.Evolution has holes. Creationism has around ninety thousand times those. Believing in God is fine, but personally I think you should learn how to think for yourself in combination. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, it is not an accurate record of events. The Old Testament was passed down from mouth to mouth for generations upon generations. In my country, 80% of the population is considered "Christian". Most of these 80% are non-creationists, because we also study science. The belief in God and the belief in the Bible are two different things. A book is always open to interpretation - nothing is set in stone.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#751
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:38 AM
#752
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 28 March 2008 - 06:30 AM
Oh, so if I told you that my ancestors had told each other stuff for five millennia, this would be regarded as proof?Well, for five millennia, we've told the tale of the magical teacup. It is a small thing, much too small to be seen from space, in orbit around the Sun between Earth and Mars. The teacup was the creator of our world, and the universe. It's proven, I just have to finish writing my book first. I mean, we've told the legends for thousands of years, it HAS to be true!
#753
Guest_masterzen
Guest_masterzen
-
- Guest
Posted 29 March 2008 - 06:42 AM
evo.ution is a theory concocted by darwin who later said it to be wrong i think if he came up with it he knows a bit better than the rest of youPOINTS were deducted for this post by -hookshot!Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#754
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 01:07 AM
First of all Masterzen, even though I do not support evolution, get your facts right. he did not retract the story.hmph.
First of all the bible has records of being historiclaly correct, and from a tribe of peopel who have been knoown to be accurate. But you and your imaginary family does not have any sort of document that is passed down since fivemillenia ago that is reliable. Stick with the FACTS, not some idiotic story (It really is)Oh, so if I told you that my ancestors had told each other stuff for five millennia, this would be regarded as proof?Well, for five millennia, we've told the tale of the magical teacup. It is a small thing, much too small to be seen from space, in orbit around the Sun between Earth and Mars. The teacup was the creator of our world, and the universe. It's proven, I just have to finish writing my book first. I mean, we've told the legends for thousands of years, it HAS to be true!
First of all, how does stoning actually effect the bible historically, except for the fact that it existed? And lastly, you people complain about there not being scientific fact to back up God. think about it, we have scietific evidence of a worldwide flood, Noah's ark, the red sea crossing, etc. Since this is proof of the bible's validity, and the bible is God's word, ..... i think you get the point.Today, we can use carbon-dating (granted, not the most accurate procedure, but still more accurate than a 4000 year old book written by people who considered stoning and removing limbs as suitable punishment to crimes) to find out how old things are (to some extent), and from there see how creatures progressed over the centuries
Edited by AMHV, 30 March 2008 - 01:11 AM.
#755
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 10:57 AM
well, the duration of the conversation is irrelevant. The point was that the captain was in all likelihood unequipped to judge the validity of Darwin's arguments. He would have been convinced not by empirical evidence but essentially by some measure of faith in a couple of sketches and some measure of trust in Darwin as a man. Without the latter, he could have just taken everything he heard to be just a story. =PYes, a conversation that lasted the entirety of the Beagle's (several months) voyage. It's not like they sat down to dinner one day and bam! The Captain become a Darwinist. Also, there was evidence, it's what the logical reasoning was based on. Darwin took samples from the organisms he witnessed on his voyage and also took detailed drawings.
Umm, every one of the examples you gave are scientists.
Aristotle was a scientist.
No. You lie yet again. Mathematicians are not scientists. Philosophers are not scientists. Theoretical physicists are scientists only in as far as the hypotheses they formulate are testable. Thus the criticism of string theory.Aristotle could be considered a scientist only in the broadest definition of the word. But you should know that Francis Bacon, an important proponent of the scientific revolution, held that Aristotle's very system of knowledge was antithesis to the scientific method and even contended that the reverence of Aristotle retarded the development of science. Read the Novum Organum.And again, logic is not an essential property of science.Science is based on logical reasoning.
#756
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:45 PM
Isnt Francis Bacon Also one of the people thought to have written shakespeare's plays?(i read that today)Now on topic:The whole "Teacup" and the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" that the atheists liek to use so much are just completely non-sensical. While the bible has countless facts about history to back it up, This stupid teacup and this "Invisible Pink Unicorn" Have no historical basis.
While you are writing the story NOW, The bible was written over thoses years. yes, Some parts were memorized but most were written down.It's proven, I just have to finish writing my book first. I mean, we've told the legends for thousands of years, it HAS to be true!
#757
Guest_cutedrowess
Guest_cutedrowess
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 09:11 PM
I have no idea why someone would believe in it. If we were evolved from monkeys, there would be half monkeys walking around, or either there would be no monkeys,
#758
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 11:44 PM
By half monkey do you mean like a crossover between a monkey and a person? yeah that makes sense. Why arent there any creatures that look lie monkeys but can talk?(Not us, a little more furry...)yeah if monkeys evolved, then why are they still here? WOuldn't they die out because of "Natural" selection?
#759
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 01 April 2008 - 06:04 AM
Uh, no. If the Captain automatically believed then yes he went out of trust of Darwin and not being made to believe through proof. Needing such a long period of time for things to be explained to him to his satisfaction indicates that he did not just simply go "Hmm, Darwin is smart so he must be right!" He would have been convinced by the evidence Darwin put before him that his theory of Evolution is at the very least plausible. It should also be said that he Captain was no idiot. He was a scientist himself that worked in nautical sciences. As such he knew about weather, astronomy, cartography, and other related areas of knowledge. Now, this does not make him a qualified naturalist (what Darwin was), but it does go to show him as someone intelligent and capable of understanding and making reasoned arguments.well, the duration of the conversation is irrelevant. The point was that the captain was in all likelihood unequipped to judge the validity of Darwin's arguments. He would have been convinced not by empirical evidence but essentially by some measure of faith in a couple of sketches and some measure of trust in Darwin as a man. Without the latter, he could have just taken everything he heard to be just a story. =P
No, I don't lie. You simply refuse to acknowledge anything beyond your view. As I mentioned before it relates to your definition of Science, Math and Philosophy. Some definitions of Science say that experimentation must be a component and usually relate to the Natural Sciences. However, besides Natural Science, Social and Formal Science exist. All of these house under a definition which would tend to describe Science as "a systematic accumulation of knowledge." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines math as "The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus are branches of mathematics." Following your mention of Francis Bacon I though I'd bring up a famous figure myself. Carl Friedrich Gauss (a mathematician and physicist) called math "the Queen of the Sciences."No. You lie yet again. Mathematicians are not scientists. Philosophers are not scientists.
I'm sure theoretical physicists around the world are shaking in their boots at your description of their work. Look, many claims are untestable up to a point. I mean, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was considered untestable for the longest time. None of that made it any less science, it's simply the reason "Theoretical" is attached to the "physics" part. It's something we think should happen, but have as of yet been unable to test. However, when we did get the opportunity to test we did. We have shown that consequences of Einstein's Theory are true (namely the Universe is expanding) which lent credibility to it. Later, with the discovery of Einstein rings we were able to say that the Theory of General Relativity was most certainly proven as true (or at least not wrong since proper science can't ever prove something 100% correct, just "not wrong"), but that didn't happen until the 70's [I believe], with the first complete ring found in 1998. So let's see, Einstein comes up with it between 1907 and 1915, with no real proof for over 50 years, yet it was still considered science! WOW!Theoretical physicists are scientists only in as far as the hypotheses they formulate are testable.
Yes, it's true that String Theory has been criticized for a lack of testable claims, but that doesn't really mean anything. I alredy provided an example of a popular and widely held theory (Einstein's General Relativity) which was untestable for the longest time but still held. As of now String Theory is still being worked on. The lack of predictive qualities is disconcerting, but as far as testing it goes, we might just be getting somewhere with the development of the Large Hadron Collider. An experiment to tossing it out is related to W Boson interactions. If the LHC shows that they are above a certain limit provided by Jacques Distler (and his team) will show whether or not several core assumptions of the theory are valid or not. So even that is approaching the point where we can test some aspects of String Theory.Thus the criticism of string theory.
Yeah, I'm not going to read all of that right now, and to be frank, probably ever. Anyway, Francis Bacon was a philosopher and essayist. As I said before (regarding philosophy) he could at most be considered a scientist with depending on the definition of philosophy you are working with. So, it doesn't really matter what he says in that regard. He can be a proponent for the Scientific Method as much as he wants, but as no more than a glorified writer he is hardly the be all end all source on the matter. Aristotle on the other hand contributed to philosophy, physics, mathematics, biology, etc. Now was he correct on all counts, dear god no. Does it really matter? Nope. He did the best he could with what he had available. He applied the Scientific Method as best he could with the tools he had. If you read my example about the child and Santa then you would understand what I mean here. Also, I would like to add that his contributions to Biology have more or less been accurate.Aristotle could be considered a scientist only in the broadest definition of the word. But you should know that Francis Bacon, an important proponent of the scientific revolution, held that Aristotle's very system of knowledge was antithesis to the scientific method and even contended that the reverence of Aristotle retarded the development of science. Read the Novum Organum.
Yes it is, so long as science is to remain ordered and systematic it requires logic. The only way logic is not part of the equation is if there really is some all powerful diety that is sufficiently powerful as to not be bound by the rules of logic.And again, logic is not an essential property of science.
Jeez, how many times does it need to be said, WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS. We evolved from a common ancestor between monkeys and humans. All current living primates are just as evolved as each other, one did not come from another. We all came from a primate ancestor that was alive before all of us. This is why there are no "half-monkeys" because a monkey does not exist until it is a monkey. Until it is a monkey it is something else entirely, a different organism, a different species.I have no idea why someone would believe in it. If we were evolved from monkeys, there would be half monkeys walking around, or either there would be no monkeys,
Monkeys are a concurrent species, we did not evolve from them nor they from us. We evolved together down separate evolutionary lines. Anything that could be considered a half-monkey half-human would be an ancestor that has since died out.By half monkey do you mean like a crossover between a monkey and a person? yeah that makes sense. Why arent there any creatures that look lie monkeys but can talk?(Not us, a little more furry...)yeah if monkeys evolved, then why are they still here? WOuldn't they die out because of "Natural" selection?
#760
Guest_pill17
Guest_pill17
-
- Guest
Posted 01 April 2008 - 06:14 AM
To answer the original question... There may only be a few examples of evolution, but how many examples are there for god? Well gee........... I can see those examples of evolution with my own two eyes (though they may be scarce) but I have yet to lay my eyes on god.. Check mate my friend.
#761
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 01 April 2008 - 09:22 AM
Again you're just arguing my point. :oIt still stands the captain of the Beagle must have had judged Darwin's explanation not by an empirical account of the evidence but by some claim to reason. As do all non-experts! And my only contention is to the non-expert evolutionist who would claim the superiority of their explanation to be due to an empirical account of the evidence, but as you successfully argued, to be due only to their own personal judgement of its "reasonableness."Now, this does not make him a qualified naturalist (what Darwin was), but it does go to show him as someone intelligent and capable of understanding and making reasoned arguments.
OK. I see that we are offering two different definitions of science. What I don't see is how adopting your definition of science as "a systematic accumulation of knowledge" could advance your arguments against creationism. This definition actually lends credence to Bible Science. You're shooting your foot here.Science as "a systematic accumulation of knowledge."
*Noting your propensity to lie.* Just kidding ^_^It's a well known fact that when Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Science in 1915, he also showed how it explained the anomalous precession of mercury. As a scientist, he must have understood what his work entailed, and presenting a theory that had absolutely no correlation to physical phenomena is not and never will be science. Thus again mathematics is not science, philosophy is not science etc. He was a scientist by the relevant definition after all.Einstein comes up with it between 1907 and 1915, with no real proof for over 50 years, yet it was still considered science! WOW!
The lack of testable claims means a lot for scientists actually. That's the root of the controversy on string theory. The conception of the LHC experiments would at least admit string theory to the fold of what is science (the pertinent definition.)String Theory has been criticized for a lack of testable claims, but that doesn't really mean anything. I
If you don't like reading Bacon on the meaning of science, you should try looking for the answers yourself. It's not impossible seeing that you are someone intelligent and capable of understanding and making reasoned arguments. Just collect your thoughts about the matter for a moment. Then ask yourself the simple and fundamental question of what is science? Do try to make an effort to answer this time. =PAnd try to look for the definition of "essential property." I assumed you knew. Seeing how you proudly defend Aristotle, I take it you have read his work it's all in there.Yeah, I'm not going to read all of that right now, and to be frank, probably ever.
#762
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 02 April 2008 - 08:31 AM
No I'm not. Your initial point was thatAgain you're just arguing my point. ^_^It still stands the captain of the Beagle must have had judged Darwin's explanation not by an empirical account of the evidence but by some claim to reason. As do all non-experts! And my only contention is to the non-expert evolutionist who would claim the superiority of their explanation to be due to an empirical account of the evidence, but as you successfully argued, to be due only to their own personal judgement of its "reasonableness."
My illustration of the Darwin and the Captain of the Beagle example was that of a layman (he was not a naturalist) who was an intelligent person that was presented with empirical evidence and allowed to form his own conclusions. He was then able to discuss his ideas with that of an expert regarding the same material. In the end the expert did win out over the non-expert, but this was not some random assumption based on faith but rather a lengthy discussion over the merits of a theory. With Creationism no alternate view is possible and no evidence is presented, it is simply "God did it." The story was also meant to refute a later point you gave under further clarification thatThere is no evidence for evolution as far as the layman is concerned. For him, it's just a matter of which sources to trust and place his faith on.
This is clearly not the case as having a discussion in Evolutionary Theory with Darwin did not suddenly make the Captain a naturalist and expert on Evolution. He did possess a better and clearer understanding of it, but was by no way less of a "layman" in terms of being a qualified expert in a given subject.the layman could "potentially" experience this empirical evidence, wouldn't he after then become non-layman by virtue of experiencing the evidence and understanding it in a scientific context
No it doesn't. Creationism has no evidence upon which it can be considered a systematic accumulation of knowledge. Math provides concrete rules as to how things work and their properties, as I have quoted previously it is defined as "The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols," or more simply "a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement." Religion (the source of any Bible Science or Creationism Theory) is defined as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." It provides nothing as to the condition of the real-world. As I've said before, all Bible Science or Creationism gives you is "God did it," while offering no proof/evidence beyond that of the suppposed "word of God," which itself can be brought into question.OK. I see that we are offering two different definitions of science. What I don't see is how adopting your definition of science as "a systematic accumulation of knowledge" could advance your arguments against creationism. This definition actually lends credence to Bible Science. You're shooting your foot here.
Indirect proof ≠ direct proof. You claimed that unless something is directly testable it is not science. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity remained untestable until such time that Einstein Rings were discovered. That was the first genuine proof regarding the authenticity of his theory. It had mountains of indirect proof sure, but all that does is say "it's probably right," and in the end cannot be used as a true testament to its accuracy and veractiy.It's a well known fact that when Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Science in 1915, he also showed how it explained the anomalous precession of mercury.
This has no bearing on anything. Pseudo-scientists love using the trappings of science to show their wares and many hold degrees and can be considered scientists. This is not a valid point in any way shape or form.As a scientist, he must have understood what his work entailed
Seeing as theories and hypotheses are normally based on some kind of observation you are correct in most cases, but the phenomena need not be physical. Yet again, I point to theoretical physics which deals with hypothetical objects, in some cases even imaginary (imaginary in the scientific sense) or virtual (yet again in the scientific sense) matter or energy which can hardly be considered a physical phenomena, but exist as the only way we can understand what we do see. Math can produce similar results where the object under study is not physical, but does have physical consequences. I found an example using large cardinal axioms. The physical component of a theory regarding them would come from a computer program that is set to calculate a set and it does not stop (in effect proceeding to infinite although in the case of LCA's, transfinite). Such a result in turn informs other theories that rely on the assumptions based on the validity of LCA's, granting you a non-physical element providing physical evidence which in turn informs more non-physical elements.Here's another one. Measure the diameter of a perfect circle (a real and physical item) and it's circumference (a real and physical item), then divide the circumference by diameter. If you get something that isn't pi (rounding errors don't count) let me know. It'd be quite earth-shattering if you got something different as much of science in general relies on pi so do let me know the results of your experiment.presenting a theory that had absolutely no correlation to physical phenomena is not and never will be science.
Wrong, String Theory was already science, Theorectical Physics to be exact. The true oddity was it's lack of predictive power. It was testable and has been for some time, it's just that the aspects we were capable of testing would not actually prove the theory itself right or wrong as a whole, simply components. Useful to further refine the theory in its current form, it is rather nebulous (really I don't think it's ready to be "unveiled" as a theory yet, simply a hypothesis), any such experiment would do little to speak of the authenticity of the theory. The LHC experiments now offer a way to test the entirety of the theory in one fell swoop to see whether a key assumption is valid or not. Something that will give a more definitive answer regarding its merit.The lack of testable claims means a lot for scientists actually. That's the root of the controversy on string theory. The conception of the LHC experiments would at least admit string theory to the fold of what is science (the pertinent definition.)
The entirety of my arguments thus far have been regarding my view of what science is. I don't need to read Bacon or anyone else to come to such an understanding. Also, as I've already pointed out, Bacon is a glorified writer and not a scientist, so he is hardly an expert on the subject of what is or is not science. I'd appreciate it if you stopped going back to that. Also, continued citing of him in such a way is simply an appeal to authority fallacy where said authority has already been brought into question for lack of appropriate credentials. More so onto the nature of such a definition, seeing as I can look at a handful of dictionaries and see multiple definitions of science, math and well, just about any of the terms you are trying to bring into debate shows that obviously there is no universal consensus as of yet. If you feel that your favored definition should be heralded as such a definitive answer, please provide your evidence for such a claim. I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it.If you don't like reading Bacon on the meaning of science, you should try looking for the answers yourself. It's not impossible seeing that you are someone intelligent and capable of understanding and making reasoned arguments. Just collect your thoughts about the matter for a moment. Then ask yourself the simple and fundamental question of what is science? Do try to make an effort to answer this time. =P
Oy vey, you just don't get it do you? You want to focus on famous scientists who got things wrong based on limitations that were not there own. Let's go!J.J. Thompson: Oh that idiot, look at what he thought an atom looked like. I know, he's a Nobel Prize winner and all, but still, what a buffoon, he got something wrong.Einstein: Make up your mind already, is there or isn't there a universal constant? What a fool, I mean who cares about the rest of his work now.Far too many biologists than I care to name: You guys all thought PROTEINS!!!!!!!! were the genetic material in all organisms. Hahaahaha don't make me laugh, any idiot know's it DNA. I don't care what else you guys did, you're all so dumb.Newton: Dear god man, we used to think you were smart what with inventing Calculus and all. But seriously Einstein blew you out of the water with his version of physics. Don't you feel stupid now.I could go on but hopefully you get the point.And try to look for the definition of "essential property." I assumed you knew. Seeing how you proudly defend Aristotle, I take it you have read his work it's all in there.
#763
Guest_kiras sekai
Guest_kiras sekai
-
- Guest
Posted 02 April 2008 - 11:38 PM
1i think that evolution is absurd, how can 2 molecules would happen to get together to form a organic molecule that later would join another organic molecule and another and another until they form something that all of a sudden would give birth to a bacteria....
#764
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 03 April 2008 - 02:10 PM
But still you're just arguing my "relevant" point. Lest i assume you're committing ignoratio elenchi, please be careful not to lose sight of the one and only issue at hand. The only issue I wish to raise: whether the layman evolutionist is inherently the same as the layman creationist by virtue of the fact that they do not experience (in many cases, do not have an expert understanding of) the evidence presented to them directly. By experiencing the evidence and by an empirical account I mean seeing, touching, hearing the actual specimens (articles, fossils, fetuses etc.) It's a shame that you should get confused and miss the most critical point of my argument: that the layman evolutionist made his judgment not by an empirical account, as defined, but by something else. Something else. Not empirical account. Something else other than empirical account. I may have suggested "initially" that it may be due to the captain's judgment of Darwin's credibility and you successfully argued it to be due to "reasonableness" of Darwin's explanation. Eitherway, it still stands that faith and reasonableness do not qualify as experiential account of the evidence. In other words: Something else. Not empirical account. Something else other than empirical account. In fact, it can be argued that it is also faith and "reasonableness of explanation" that persuade creationists. Ergo, as the layman evolutionist has no claim to empirical knowledge, he has no claim to superiority over (and possibly, difference with) the creationist.
#765
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 03 April 2008 - 03:48 PM
In principle, you are correct - but the thing is, creationism is still based on nothing, while evolution is based on empirical evidence. Sure, it's not right for people who don't know to take sides - but if someone gave you the choice between "something that doesn't really make sense, and has no proof at all according to 99% of the people I know" or "something that is supported by evidence and scientists", you would likely choose the way most "layman evolutionists" do.
#766
···
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 928 posts
·
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 03 April 2008 - 10:20 PM
Let me put it this way. When Homo sapien developed, it stayed that species. It evolved, but not into another species. Speciation takes a long time since the creature that is a different species needs a mate, and species can only mate with the same species. It's not like species are speciating every second, and especially not surviving.Also, there are, or at least have been, intermediate species between humans and their ancestors. Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Habilis? Erectus? Take a look at the history of the evolution of man.I have no idea why someone would believe in it. If we were evolved from monkeys, there would be half monkeys walking around, or either there would be no monkeys,
The bible mentions the word "God." Who's to say that it wasn't an invisible pink unicorn that called itself "God"? If what the bible says is true, then no one has seen God (Beatific Vision, you know, and all that). Perhaps it looks like some kind of unicorn?The whole "Teacup" and the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" that the atheists liek to use so much are just completely non-sensical. While the bible has countless facts about history to back it up, This stupid teacup and this "Invisible Pink Unicorn" Have no historical basis.
Oh no, they've got plenty of theories, but since no one was there, none can be "proven" so to speak.Now from there you might ask "Well how did life start in the first place?" Guess what, no one really knows. That's right, science is unsure of how life started
Someone, make something better.
#767
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:41 AM
*Sigh. If it ever was about taking sides, everything would be simple. *It's funny how you are repeating the same suspicions I had raised on the layman evolutionist who (not unlike the creationist) would make a choice based on what he had had heard, by some faith in a perceived consensus on truth--by some faith on a tempting figure as 99%. It's an obvious lie that creationism has no basis. But you are right that I would choose evolution. I would, however, not make false claims to empirical evidence and I would fully acknowledge that it is due to my faith in modern science.
Edited by lordoftheflies, 04 April 2008 - 04:47 AM.
#768
Guest_AMHV
Guest_AMHV
-
- Guest
Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:49 AM
Sure ill give you that. God may look like a unicorn. We dont know his Physical apperance. but We know his traits and His word to be true.The bible mentions the word "God." Who's to say that it wasn't an invisible pink unicorn that called itself "God"? If what the bible says is true, then no one has seen God (Beatific Vision, you know, and all that). Perhaps it looks like some kind of unicorn?
#769
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 04 April 2008 - 07:36 AM
If it was about taking sides, it would be simple, I agree. Most people do not know enough about evolution to make a decision based upon it, but it is still a more educated choice than picking creationism, quite frankly because science is what has advanced us so much the past few hundred years (thousand?). Science does not read from an ancient book and attempts to prove everything in it right - science finds information, performs experiments, and researches phenomena in an attempt to find the absolute lies. Things that cannot be correct. If you can disprove something, you are one step closer to finding something relatively true.Back in the day, Darwin did not really have enough empirical evidence to make it a fact. Today, many scientists have tried finding alternate possibilities to creationism and evolution, and have come to the conclusion that evolution makes more sense than anything else. We know about genetics today, so we know genes change. Survival of the fittest is basically the one thing the layman needs to know about to pick evolution - because it makes perfect sense. If you're fit to survive, you will most likely survive. If you survive, you can pass on your genes to the next generation (leaving that generation with stronger genes than those of your species that died).*Sigh. If it ever was about taking sides, everything would be simple. *It's funny how you are repeating the same suspicions I had raised on the layman evolutionist who (not unlike the creationist) would make a choice based on what he had had heard, by some faith in a perceived consensus on truth--by some faith on a tempting figure as 99%. It's an obvious lie that creationism has no basis. But you are right that I would choose evolution. I would, however, not make false claims to empirical evidence and I would fully acknowledge that it is due to my faith in modern science.
#770
Guest_SolidiousDragon
Guest_SolidiousDragon
-
- Guest
Posted 04 April 2008 - 02:45 PM
First off do most people get that evolution doesn't force a change, insects could be the greatest for showing evolution because of there diversity. Evolution is not the selection of superior genetics, it is all determined by which species reproduces enough, so if two very similar examples of a creature are reproducing then no change will occur. But as any dog breeder will tell u, two different dogs will breed and create a different breed than the two parents. If you continued doing this in any species u will see a new species arise, with or without the imperfections of the previous generations.I just chose this part of your argument to challenge, but couldn't the reason that these creatures have not evolved be that they have had no reason? The honeybee fits perfectly in its enviroment, dragonflies are well suited to the places they inhabit, and most other creatures that haven't evolved are doing well where they are. The concept of evolution is based on change to suit your enviroment, so if the animals don't have a reason to change, why should they?
#771
Guest_swankman
Guest_swankman
-
- Guest
Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:40 PM
i belive in evolution ..... we evolved from monkeys but it took billions of years.Some monkeys got left behind and sum evolved into chimpanzees then some of them got left behind and they evolved into gorillas and from gorillas we stated forming loosing hair, growing a thumb, straightening ... until the point we we are today. Thats what i think and im catholic and my religion teacher tought me this
#772
M1551n9n0
-
- Member
-
- 875 posts
Elite Dragon
Reputation: 1
Neutral
Posted 04 April 2008 - 10:18 PM
^Don't monkeys already have thumbs?
Molecules aren't living so joining two molecules together will not create living things. Now over millions of years, some forms of bacteria MAY form and develop into larger life forms through some form of natural selection.1i think that evolution is absurd, how can 2 molecules would happen to get together to form a organic molecule that later would join another organic molecule and another and another until they form something that all of a sudden would give birth to a bacteria....
Artwork: Check it out Facebook fan page. -- deviantART profile
"If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change"
#773
Guest_avatarxprime
Guest_avatarxprime
-
- Guest
Posted 05 April 2008 - 05:22 AM
Empirical evidence is empirical evidence, it doesn't matter who you are, it remains the same. You are now creating two different measures, the first was empirical evidence and now you're saying an empirical account? You can't keep moving the goal post to try and salvage your position. Empirical evidence is defined as evidence that is "Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment." If I read a book about an experiment that many people have done that is empirical evidence, I don't need to do it myself for this to remain true so long as it is possible to either observe it or prove it via experiment. You don't need to be an expert to be able to look at a report or read a paper and understand it. Evidence for Evolution Theory is handled the same way. It exists and by its very nature is empirical evidence. Layman or not so long as you can understand the paper, text book or whatever it is you are using as a source of information you get to say you are using empirical evidence.If an empirical account is the measure by which you want all things to be judged, that you should not talk about something unless you yourself have done the necessary background work yourself, then I have to ask, have you talked to layman Evolutionists and Creationists? Have you tested them to see their level of understand and to see if they simply go with faith or have some understanding of what they are talking about beyond a glancing look at the relevant material? Have you looked at fossils, read papers, done experiments, etc?But still you're just arguing my "relevant" point. Lest i assume you're committing ignoratio elenchi, please be careful not to lose sight of the one and only issue at hand. The only issue I wish to raise: whether the layman evolutionist is inherently the same as the layman creationist by virtue of the fact that they do not experience (in many cases, do not have an expert understanding of) the evidence presented to them directly. By experiencing the evidence and by an empirical account I mean seeing, touching, hearing the actual specimens (articles, fossils, fetuses etc.) It's a shame that you should get confused and miss the most critical point of my argument: that the layman evolutionist made his judgment not by an empirical account, as defined, but by something else. Something else. Not empirical account. Something else other than empirical account.
No, you are taking what you want from my example. I showed that the Captain did have access to the evidence. He was free to see any of Darwin's specimens and could see anything from any of the islands they stopped at. He was free to spend the entire voyage going through it and discuss it with Darwin. Based on your definition he had his own "empirical account" and managed to remain a layman.Also you can't compare "faith" to "reasonableness." One is based on zero evidence and asks for none, while the other is based on prexisting evidence and can and usually does ask for more information on it. Since you like definitions so much here are both terms defined:Faith "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."Reasonableness "Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking"One follows the bounds of logic, the other is not so tightly constrained. They are not remotely the same thing, so even going with your picking from my examples they are obviously not remotely the same thing. So yes, the layman Evolutionist does get superiority over the layman Creationist by at the very least having something that is logical. If going with illogical arguments is acceptable for any kind of debate or comparison then there is really no point. I can say that the Great Blue Bunny began the world when he sneezed too hard and have it be taken as seriously as any other Creationist belief. This is why Evolutionists (good ones at least) would first say to a Creationist, "if you have some proof please provide it so I can look at it" rather than immediately dismissing them. If no proof can be offered then they can get dismissive because the other side simply goes "God did it," with nothing to back that up.I may have suggested "initially" that it may be due to the captain's judgment of Darwin's credibility and you successfully argued it to be due to "reasonableness" of Darwin's explanation. Eitherway, it still stands that faith and reasonableness do not qualify as experiential account of the evidence. In other words: Something else. Not empirical account. Something else other than empirical account. In fact, it can be argued that it is also faith and "reasonableness of explanation" that persuade creationists. Ergo, as the layman evolutionist has no claim to empirical knowledge, he has no claim to superiority over (and possibly, difference with) the creationist.
I'm not sure I get your objection. How does "lots of theories with no distinct proof for any of them" differ from "they are unsure?" The result is the same, they have no singular idea (or just a leading idea) of how we went from random collection of molecules to living organism. Multiple experiments have been conducted to generate organic molecules from inorganic, but we have no idea which is the right model.Oh no, they've got plenty of theories, but since no one was there, none can be "proven" so to speak.Now from there you might ask "Well how did life start in the first place?" Guess what, no one really knows. That's right, science is unsure of how life started
#774
Guest_lordoftheflies
Guest_lordoftheflies
-
- Guest
Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:39 AM
Do you mind reading my post again... I'll write in shorter sentences.The point again, rephrased: the lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionists supreme confidence is unwarranted.And secondly, I already said that you had argued successfully on "reasonableness". I'm not making a comparison of faith and reasonableness only faith and reasonableness against an empirical account.
Edited by lordoftheflies, 05 April 2008 - 09:02 AM.
#775
Guest_kou113
Guest_kou113
-
- Guest
Posted 05 April 2008 - 09:02 AM
Theoretically there are many ways to thinkPOINTS were deducted for this post by Night Terror SPPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
