To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So when you go to the zoo, do you run to the ape house and greet your relatives?
[/quote]
Why not? But they’re a distant branch of the family. They never invite me over, and I have trouble remembering their names.
My dog is even less closely related to me, but I know her by name and enthusiastically greet her each morning as a fellow mammal.
I’m a primate, but I’m not stuck up about it like some.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
[/quote]
That’s wrong. You can believe in the Theory of Evolution and have faith in God. You just can’t have faith in the Bible.
Biology need not be a religious matter unless you are a fundy. Your syllogism may be true for you because that is how you define “religious,” but it need not be true for anyone else.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
[/quote]
Ok steveo you are wrong. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support evolution, more than you think. You are in denial. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn’t mean anything. They also say Einsteins’ theory of relativity is a “theory”(right there in the title I guess), but people like you don’t mind when we set our clocks to atomic time or predict ecplipses to a ridiculous degree of accuracy.
Science gives us everything we have, including this website. You better not eat more protein and lift weights cus thats just a theory. You religious types crack me up when you try to trivialize the work of the smartest people that have ever lived.
Question: Where has it been observed that one species has arisen out of another?-Steveo
Answer:In a lab at Michigan State University.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Pookie – c’mon now. Since macroevolution cannot be observed I say that it is faith. Not false (although I believe it to be false since I believe God is right).[/quote]
Macroevolution could be observed in the wild if you could observe over millions and millions of years.
Do you believe in tectonic plate movements? They’re quite imperceptible, and for most people, if you believe the continents move, it’s because you trust the scientists are telling the truth about them. I’m sure that worldmap you had as a kid is still useable today. Except for a few political borders that have changed since; the continents it depicts are still in the same places. Do you claim them to be immobile? Does the Bible say something about them?
What about the Sun? Do you believe it will eventually burn out? It’s a long drawn out process that we can’t directly observe. We have observed brown dwarf stars and supernovaes in other parts of the sky. From those observations, we have a theory about the lifecycle of a star. Do you reject that as well?
What about the magnetic pole? We can’t see it nor feel it. We can see it’s effect when we use a compass and the needle points to the north pole. But it’s just a theory. Maybe each compass is assigned an angel who’s job it is to point the needle to the north. Do you believe science when it claims a magnetic field that you can’t observe directly for the Earth; or does my angel explanation sound equally plausible? Should both theory be presented on an equal footing in physics class?
That’s the thing I find really odd with creationists. They accept and embrace science - or at least the fruits of science - with no problem at all. You use computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc. If you’re sick, do you go to a hospital to get x-rays, MRIs, chemotherapy, etc, or do you pray for God to heal you? If your house is on fire, do you use a telephone to call 911, or do you pray for rain?
As far as I can see, you’re very willing to accept science and all it’s practical applications without protest. You don’t really question the various theories behind the workings of your microwave oven, right? I mean it’s hard to argue when you can take a plate of leftovers cold from the fridge and have them hot and ready to eat three minutes later.
But when it comes to three particular questions, those being the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, and the diversification of life after that beginning, then science become “just some random ideas that require faith.” Why is that? Why would science, which works pretty well for atomic reactors and stealth fighters suddenly be pulling stuff out of it’s proverbial ass when it comes to questions of life or the universe?
Your faith is like blinders. It forces you to reject outright anything that would contradict it; it makes you unable to objectively evaluate the evidence. I remember you commenting about The Blind Watchmaker and from your comments, you couldn’t even get past the first line because Dawkins starts with “We animals…” which apparently trips a faith-alert fail-safe in your head.
I’m sure that none of this will impact you one iota; you’ll keep spouting nonsense about your strawman version of science; you’ll keeping talking about “theories” as if that meant “some random idea a scientist had while drunk” and I’ll keep shaking my head in disbelief at having the modern equivalent of a primitive caveman posting on the internet.
Keep thumping.
If steveo considers himself a religious man, it is very clear that intellectual honesty is not a trait that is valued highly in his faith. He blatantly lies to discredit evolution to the level of it being based on ‘faith’ and trying to equate evolution to being its own ‘religion’.
Sorry to break it to you, steveo, but those of us out here in internetland who can be honest about things can see right through your bullshit.
Every ‘argument’ you’ve shared with us has been rebutted. As pookie said, keep on thumping… there’s no shortage of liars out there who will parrot the same bullshit: evolution is religion, evolution is just a theory, where you there?, evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, macroevolution is fake, there are missing fossil records, blah blah blah… it’s all crap.
You know steveo, you’d make a great right-wing radio show host. If you’ve got the voice for it, maybe you should consider a career change. You’d be great at it. You’d never have to think up an original idea, again!
To summarize:
Stevo is a crazy loon that thinks a handful of people cared for well over a million babies on a wooden boat packed in ice at what is currently 30,000 feet in altitude.
[quote]unearth wrote:
To summarize:
Stevo is a crazy loon that thinks a handful of people cared for well over a million babies on a wooden boat packed in ice at what is currently 30,000 feet in altitude.[/quote]
Seriously. It’s understandable that people believed this story thousands of years ago, but times have changed. We’re not hunting witches anymore, y’know?
I think stevo also indicated that he’s an educator.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
That’s wrong. You can believe in the Theory of Evolution and have faith in God. You just can’t have faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Then, my friend, it is not faith in the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is the God that created everything and gives you life and breath – the One True God. If you have faith in God, but distrust His Word, you have created a god of your own imagination. The God of the Bible clearly requires that His Word is to be held in the highest esteem. Psalm 138:2 tells us that God has “magnified His Word above His Name.” In other words, God’s Word is founded upon His Name. Can’t have one without the other. [quote]
Biology need not be a religious matter unless you are a fundy. Your syllogism may be true for you because that is how you define “religious,” but it need not be true for anyone else.[/quote]
I didn’t use the term ‘religious’ exactly. I said “faith based.”
Biology is not ‘religious’ or faith-based. “Pseudo-biology,” however, is faith based when it cannot be observed, cannot be proven, and just asserted because it sort of fits if you stretch your imagination. That isn’t biology – it is simply faith in a system that cuts God out of the equation. Either God created or He didn’t.
[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
Ok steveo you are wrong. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support evolution, more than you think. You are in denial. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn’t mean anything. They also say Einsteins’ theory of relativity is a “theory”(right there in the title I guess), but people like you don’t mind when we set our clocks to atomic time or predict ecplipses to a ridiculous degree of accuracy.
Science gives us everything we have, including this website. You better not eat more protein and lift weights cus thats just a theory. You religious types crack me up when you try to trivialize the work of the smartest people that have ever lived.[/quote]
Your lack of logical thinking would crack me up if it weren’t so sad. You equate the “theory” that taking protein and lifting weights will build muscle to evolution?
Taking protein and lifting weights is proven to build muscle because [b] it can be observed and tested. You could take a group of 20 guys and break that group up into 4 subgroups. Give them varied amounts of protein but all do the same routines and measure gains, etc. It can be observed.
Evolution, on the other hand, no matter how much you wish it were true, cannot be observed and there is no evidence for it, despite everyone saying there are “tons” out there.
Evolution = Faith
[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Question: Where has it been observed that one species has arisen out of another?-Steveo
Answer:In a lab at Michigan State University. [/quote]
Details? You have any?
[quote]disciplined wrote:
If steveo considers himself a religious man, it is very clear that intellectual honesty is not a trait that is valued highly in his faith. He blatantly lies to discredit evolution to the level of it being based on ‘faith’ and trying to equate evolution to being its own ‘religion’.
Sorry to break it to you, steveo, but those of us out here in internetland who can be honest about things can see right through your bullshit.
Every ‘argument’ you’ve shared with us has been rebutted. As pookie said, keep on thumping… there’s no shortage of liars out there who will parrot the same bullshit: evolution is religion, evolution is just a theory, where you there?, evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, macroevolution is fake, there are missing fossil records, blah blah blah… it’s all crap.
You know steveo, you’d make a great right-wing radio show host. If you’ve got the voice for it, maybe you should consider a career change. You’d be great at it. You’d never have to think up an original idea, again! [/quote]
Actually, I have done some radio in the past. I would love to have a show. Why don’t you guys send in my name to WABC here in New York – you never know.
As to my veracity, what I have shared are the facts of the matter:
(1) Evolution cannot be observed so it has to be believed.
(2) What flows out of #1 is that evolution is faith.
(3) What flows out of #2 is that therefore it is “religious” in nature. Actually, it is the atheistic religion that explains origins without God.
(4) It is not a true theory since it cannot be tested.
etc. etc.
The fact that most people believe in evolution is not surprising, since the public schools (and most private ones) teach only evolution and they teach it as FACT. The funny thing is that Creation is the Truth, and the truth is the truth no matter how many people believe it or not. When something is true, it doesn’t need belief to make it so.
Anyway, I won’t waste anymore of my typing breath. One day we all will know which is true and which is the lie. I hope for your sake you are ready to face it though. It’s gonna be a bit hot.
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Pookie – c’mon now. Since macroevolution cannot be observed I say that it is faith. Not false (although I believe it to be false since I believe God is right).
Macroevolution could be observed in the wild if you could observe over millions and millions of years. [/quote]
Santa Claus could be observed flying around the world on Christmas Day also if you have a strong enough telescope. Doesn’t make Santa true, now does it? [quote]
Do you believe in tectonic plate movements? They’re quite imperceptible, and for most people, if you believe the continents move, it’s because you trust the scientists are telling the truth about them.[/quote]
No actually I think they can measure these movements with sensitive instruments. Therefore they can be observed and it requires no faith to believe it. Also, looking at a world map as a kid, nobody had to tell me that the continents were once joined – i.e. “Pangea.” Again, no faith required. Good try, Pookie.[quote]
I’m sure that worldmap you had as a kid is still useable today. Except for a few political borders that have changed since; the continents it depicts are still in the same places. Do you claim them to be immobile? Does the Bible say something about them?
What about the Sun? Do you believe it will eventually burn out? [/quote]
This is really dumb. The sun is finite and as such has a finite amount of material. Of course it will burn out eventually – if something burns that is finite it will be consumed eventually. Since we can observe the sun burning and consuming its materials, we can be sure that it will burn out. Again, you are citing the observable – which IS science. [quote]
It’s a long drawn out process that we can’t directly observe. We have observed brown dwarf stars and supernovaes in other parts of the sky. From those observations, we have a theory about the lifecycle of a star. Do you reject that as well? [/quote]
Again, you said the word itself – “observed.” We have never and will never observe any aspect to Darwinian evolution. It is not the same and your argument is illogical. [quote]
What about the magnetic pole? We can’t see it nor feel it. [/quote]
No, but we can measure it – just like the wind. Can’t see the wind, but we know it’s there because it it’s effects as well as it’s speed are measurable. Again, totally different situations with evolution. [quote]
We can see it’s effect when we use a compass and the needle points to the north pole. But it’s just a theory. Maybe each compass is assigned an angel who’s job it is to point the needle to the north. Do you believe science when it claims a magnetic field that you can’t observe directly for the Earth; or does my angel explanation sound equally plausible? Should both theory be presented on an equal footing in physics class? [/quote]
See my response above. You really need better examples because, Pookie, you have to know that all of your arguments are entirely different than what we have with evolution as I am pointing out again and again. [quote]
That’s the thing I find really odd with creationists. They accept and embrace science - or at least the fruits of science - with no problem at all. You use computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc. If you’re sick, do you go to a hospital to get x-rays, MRIs, chemotherapy, etc, or do you pray for God to heal you? If your house is on fire, do you use a telephone to call 911, or do you pray for rain? [/quote]
We accept real science and not ‘pseduo-science’ which is what evolution is at best. It is not science and using this ridiculous argument only shows me just how far an intelligent person will go to try to have others accept this crazy theory that man came from apes and life came from a soupy sea after it rained upon the rocks. Just plain nonsense! [quote]
As far as I can see, you’re very willing to accept science and all it’s practical applications without protest. You don’t really question the various theories behind the workings of your microwave oven, right? I mean it’s hard to argue when you can take a plate of leftovers cold from the fridge and have them hot and ready to eat three minutes later.[/quote]
And that is exactly my point. Science deals with what can be observed and tested. The things which cannot be observed, tested, or proven are religious concepts and therefore are faith-based. Evolution is an example of the latter. [quote]
But when it comes to three particular questions, those being the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, and the diversification of life after that beginning, then science become “just some random ideas that require faith.” Why is that? Why would science, which works pretty well for atomic reactors and stealth fighters suddenly be pulling stuff out of it’s proverbial ass when it comes to questions of life or the universe? [/quote]
Because it cannot be observed. It cannot be tested and it cannot be known my human imagination. Science cannot deal with this precicely for these reasons. It is all conjecture – not science. [quote]
Your faith is like blinders. It forces you to reject outright anything that would contradict it; it makes you unable to objectively evaluate the evidence. I remember you commenting about The Blind Watchmaker and from your comments, you couldn’t even get past the first line because Dawkins starts with “We animals…” which apparently trips a faith-alert fail-safe in your head. [/quote]
Yes, you are right, but only partially. My faith acts as a constraint to my immagination, but it is more than that. My faith acts as a moral and intellectual compass so I can discern truth from error. God has nothing against science. I believe He has given us this great capacity that in just several thousands of years, His creation has invented wonderful things that makes are lives more enjoyable and also longer. I thank God for these, while others might thank scientists. I thank God for scientists.
You are also correct that I couldn’t get past the first line. Dawkins, as with all of his ilk, has a very low view of humanity. We are humans, made in the image of the Divine – not animals. Perhaps someday I will read more, but that line summed it up for me fairly well. [quote]
I’m sure that none of this will impact you one iota; you’ll keep spouting nonsense about your strawman version of science; you’ll keeping talking about “theories” as if that meant “some random idea a scientist had while drunk” and I’ll keep shaking my head in disbelief at having the modern equivalent of a primitive caveman posting on the internet.
Keep thumping.
[/quote]
Well, if your arguments were logical and could compare to the argument at hand, perhaps it would impact me. Believe it or not, I want to know truth no matter where it comes from. However, I am not persuaded since I can shoot down all of your points because you cited observable and measurable phenomena and attempted to compare this to the unobservable.
Evolution is a theory, which in science, means something.
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It’s a beliefe.
This is why Evolution is cool for education, while Intelligent Design does not belong in a science classroom.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
To summarize:
Evolution = Faith in no God
Creationism = Faith in God
They are both religious and do not belong in the field of science because they are not science. Neither one of them.
[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
There are plenty of theists who believe in Evolution as the what. They just believe God was the How, that he set the natural law in motion (“Watchmaker God”).
“Evolution, on the other hand, no matter how much you wish it were true, cannot be observed and there is no evidence for it, despite everyone saying there are ‘tons’ out there”.-Steveo
How about Staphylococcus aureus. Penicillin became available in 1943 and was extremely effective in treating it to say the least. The first penecillin resistant strains arose in 1947. Then a newer staph fighting drug methicillin came into use during the 1960’s, but new strains resistent to methicillin arose and dominated until the 1980’s. Then came vancomycin, and in 2002 the newest vancomycin strain of staph arose.
HIV also evolves fast because its method of replication involves a high rate of mutation. After a few years of infection and drug treatment, each HIV patient carries a unique form of the virus.
William R. Rice and George W. Salt studied 35 generations of the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. They started with a small stock of females and eventually produced 2 distinct fly populations adapted to different habitat conditions, which researchers judged “incipient species”.
Richard E. Lenski and his colleagues at MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY have seen something similar in studying 20,000 generation of E. coli.
LOL OWNED.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Then, my friend, it is not faith in the God of the Bible.
[/quote]
Yah, but that limitation wasn’t part of your syllogism, now was it?
It seems to me that God is God, with the Bible or not. Your fundamentalism is a form of idolatry, which God himself has warned against. Sculptures, paintings, books, it’s all the same deal. We were supposed to worship God, but not images of god, for therein lies evil.
Avaunt, unclean spirit.
You guys really shouldn’t rip on SteveO or these museum people just because they believe in something different. Personally I believe in evolution but I don’t judge people who believe in creation as being stupid or ignorant. They have a right to believe what they want and its not like they’re forcing it down other people’s throats. Besides the majority of the world doesn’t share their views so who cares what they believe in?
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
You guys really shouldn’t rip on SteveO or these museum people just because they believe in something different. Personally I believe in evolution but I don’t judge people who believe in creation as being stupid or ignorant. They have a right to believe what they want and its not like they’re forcing it down other people’s throats. Besides the majority of the world doesn’t share their views so who cares what they believe in?[/quote]
What seems most to stimulate comment here are Steveo’s misrepresentations as to facts, his mischaracterizations of the beliefs of others, and his minimization of other faiths. His beliefs per se aren’t an issue, since it is widely realized that Christian fundamentalism is a closed logical system without internal conflicts.
Whenever there’s a scientific advance, the party line against the Theory of Evolution can always be patched up. Beyond correcting his lapses in current science, attacking his faith wouldn’t be worth the energy.