[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
[/quote]
No, it’s not faith, it’s called expectation. He doesn’t have to take somebody’s word for it, he chooses to. That is an important distinction, and not an academic one. Results get checked by other researchers, experiments get run independently, etc. When I start my car in the morning, I’ve got an expectation it’s going to start, no more. That is not faith.
When a religion tells you god loves you, that you’re going to have to take on faith.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
Scientists have presented convincing evidence that the moon is not made out of cheese, the sun is a large super heated ball of gas, and that evolution has occured (and many other things). Should I now ignore all this evidence because I didn’t do the studies myself?
People weigh evidence presented to them and decide whether they’re going to incorporate that evidence into their belief system.
Intelligent people tentatively accept evidence into their belief system until better evidence is obtained.
People of blind faith reject ANY evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing belief system.
And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!
OK…and so your point is what?
He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.
Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.
So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”
Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”
Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.
Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.
So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?
[/quote]
This post is inexcusable. You state openly that evolution is faith based, then go on to explain precisely the opposite. You say evolution is not proven, which is, more or less, false. Evolution is unscientific? What does that even mean? The only part of this rambling incoherent post I remotely agree with is that you call it a “theory”, in quotation marks. I don’t know what the hell you were possibly trying to convey by doing so, but I agree.
It’s not just a theory. It’s factual. It’s absolutely ridiculous to force something as absurd as intelligent design onto school children, if you aren’t also going to teach about other religions, which is not the responsibility of the public school system in any way. Your understanding of evolution is laughable at best.
You neglect to realize that many, many people in evolution also believe in God, because although the Big Bang theory is infinitely more logical than creationism, anyone “smart” enough to realize this also will inevitably realize that someone/something created that mass that everything came from. Maybe the universe happened by chance, but how did the idea of existence come to exist, if not for another idea commonly referred to as “God”?
You all seem to forget that God created everything in 6 days, but God’s days are over 2 billion years long! There is no conflict between evolution and creationism.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
. Observation does not mean: “There are apes, which look like humans and have similar genetic markup, so therefore we have evolved from apes”. That sport, is conjecture.
Intelligent Design is not an observed fact. It is related in the Bible as having happened, but the Bible says it all happened before god created humans, so no human has ever seen it. It is not an observed fact.
Ok, show me evidence where change from one complex species to another has been observed in a controlled setting?
Otherwise, STFU!
[/quote]
This is a great thread! I personally think that horny space aliens came here, maybe directed by God, and had their way with some horny chimp ladies. So, here we are.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You all seem to forget that God created everything in 6 days, but God’s days are over 2 billion years long! There is no conflict between evolution and creationism.[/quote]
In all seriousness, I wonder why most Christians don’t just feel this way… oh wait! They do!
But there are some creationists who really do believe the 6 day thing. Really believe anthropology is the work of the devil, and really believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
And the Earth is 4.6Byo so Gods days would have a to be a tad bit shorter
[quote]unearth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
Scientists have presented convincing evidence that the moon is not made out of cheese, the sun is a large super heated ball of gas, and that evolution has occured (and many other things). Should I now ignore all this evidence because I didn’t do the studies myself?
People weigh evidence presented to them and decide whether they’re going to incorporate that evidence into their belief system.
Intelligent people tentatively accept evidence into their belief system until better evidence is obtained.
People of blind faith reject ANY evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing belief system.
Which kind of person are you Lorisco?[/quote]
“People of blind faith reject ANY evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing belief system”
People of faith do not accept any info without evidence. The difference is that they look at the evidence differently then you might. For example, to evolutionary science, a similar genetic code means common links on an evolutionary ladder. To a person of faith that means a consistent design. Same evidence, different interpretations.
When evolutionary scientists have theories that test false, have they ever given up the premise of macroevolution? No! So they also “reject ANY evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing belief system”. They never once get the idea that there may be some other mechanism involved for man’s origin. No, they continue with the same fundamental BELIEF and try and find other theories to support their BELIEF.
So you ask me which one am I? I don’t see any difference between the two.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
As for talking about birds evolving into fish, I think you are moving the goalposts rather a lot. It’s generally regarded as sufficient confirmation of a species boundary when we see interbreeding become impossible.[/quote]
Do you think it strange that the definitions for what is and what is not evidence of evolution are designed to fit the existing model of macroevolution instead of letting the facts speak for themselves?
Is designing the evidence to fit the model really science?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
As for talking about birds evolving into fish, I think you are moving the goalposts rather a lot. It’s generally regarded as sufficient confirmation of a species boundary when we see interbreeding become impossible.
Do you think it strange that the definitions for what is and what is not evidence of evolution are designed to fit the existing model of macroevolution instead of letting the facts speak for themselves?
Is designing the evidence to fit the model really science?
[/quote]
You gonna respond to the person who said it’s not taught as fact?
I was taught Evolution last year. It says theory buddy. But, it;s the only theory. Why wouldn’t I assume it’s right until something more likely is proposed? Yes, I question Evolution, but just because it has holes doesn’t make it wrong.
And for those who think God is simply the why, and that things still
“evolved”, this arguement is moot point.
I really don’t understand your arguement. There were obviously many species that existed before we did. Fossil records are proof of this. They obviously went from one to the next. Once again, fossil records make this pretty obvious. Only the mode by which speciation occurs in a long term sense is debatable at all. Evolution helps explain almost all facets of biology. Why shouldn’t it be taught as basic knowledge? It IS basic knowledge.
It’s not like Evolution is a shakey unlikely theory, that we’re using as a placeholder. It explains A LOT of biological concepts. In fact, if it weren’t for the lesson of Evolution, I doubt most of my class would have understood most of the biology course. It simply helps THAT much.
Creation holds no science. It’s ludacris in a scientific stand point.
Intelligent Design is like evolution with a God telling it to happen. Difference please? So what if God caused evolution… it still happened. Not a viable classroom (science classroom anyways) option.
And for the other intelligent design, the one that’s creationism with a new name… well… see above.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
As for talking about birds evolving into fish, I think you are moving the goalposts rather a lot. It’s generally regarded as sufficient confirmation of a species boundary when we see interbreeding become impossible.
Do you think it strange that the definitions for what is and what is not evidence of evolution are designed to fit the existing model of macroevolution instead of letting the facts speak for themselves?
Is designing the evidence to fit the model really science?
[/quote]
Hey, you set up the test yourself (one species turns into another). Then in the face of evidence presented that this had actually happened and been observed, you revised your test (birds into fishes). Since Darwin’s theory is about where new species come from, it seems to me that the first test is adequate.
As for the insinuation that it is all a sham, if you find any evidence or devise some experiment disproving the Theory of Evolution, fame and fortune await you. Go to it. The Creationists and the ID folks will make your life lavish.
there is one problem I have with the theorie of evolution and that I have not fond an answer so far (if somebody knows the answer, please tell me):
evolution implies that one thing evolves from another. but from what did the first thing that evolved evolved from? nothing?
what was before the big bang? when you trace it back there either has to be a something that existed “all the time” (that means a linear time with a beginning and an end is an illusion) or the first evolved from “no thing”. which is not possible.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
there is one problem I have with the theorie of evolution and that I have not fond an answer so far (if somebody knows the answer, please tell me):
evolution implies that one thing evolves from another. but from what did the first thing that evolved evolved from? nothing?
what was before the big bang? when you trace it back there either has to be a something that existed “all the time” (that means a linear time with a beginning and an end is an illusion) or the first evolved from “no thing”. which is not possible.[/quote]
Evolution does not deal with how the universe was created. That is called Abiogenesis and is something completely different.
sorry, I don`t. When you trace any species back to its origins it will end bye particles that somehow came together and formed primitive life - evolved so to speak. But what did this particles evolved from?
Evolution implies a beginning - something to evolve from, but we are not able to define that. yet at least.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
sorry, I don`t. When you trace any species back to its origins it will end bye particles that somehow came together and formed primitive life - evolved so to speak. But what did this particles evolved from?
Evolution implies a beginning - something to evolve from, but we are not able to define that. yet at least.[/quote]
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with any beginning.
and you don`t care that you can not find a “beginning”? If you say man evolved from apes, apes from something else than that species from something else and so on - and at one point you draw a line?
Or do you just use the term “evolution” to descirbe changes inside an allready existing species? Like a bear becoming a more stronger bear? Than I agree.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
and you don`t care that you can not find a “beginning”? If you say man evolved from apes, apes from something else than that species from something else and so on - and at one point you draw a line?
Or do you just use the term “evolution” to descirbe changes inside an allready existing species? Like a bear becoming a more stronger bear? Than I agree. [/quote]
at one point you hit the primordial soup as its called and then you get the big bang, or the point when God decided to put the bag of Cheetohs down and make something out of nothing if that is your thing.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Mishima wrote:
there is one problem I have with the theorie of evolution and that I have not fond an answer so far (if somebody knows the answer, please tell me):
evolution implies that one thing evolves from another. but from what did the first thing that evolved evolved from? nothing?
what was before the big bang? when you trace it back there either has to be a something that existed “all the time” (that means a linear time with a beginning and an end is an illusion) or the first evolved from “no thing”. which is not possible.
Evolution does not deal with how the universe was created. That is called Abiogenesis and is something completely different.
Please don’t confuse the two.[/quote]
It doesn’t because it can’t.
A thing cannot be itself and its opposite at the same time and in the same respect (Aristotle). It therefore follows that LIFE must always exist. Non-life cannot produce life. Non-life cannot become life.
LIFE that always exists and has always existed is the premise of religious faith. I do not know objectively and scientifically that this LIFE is God (I do know subjectively.) However, the possibility does seem perfectly logical.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Is designing the evidence to fit the model really science?
[/quote]
Actually, the models are based on evidence–not the other way around. You just keep splitting hairs. Evolution and The Theory of Evolution are based on observation whether one is fact or not they are still both considered science. What do you not understand about science?
Theories begin as inspiration and empirical data. Scientists do not just decide to theorize concepts just for the pure joy of it–though we certainly derive some sort of joy from it. We know that empirical data is not enough for science. This is why other scientists are trained to design precision experiments that are both falsifiable and repeatable so that the data can be checked and rechecked. They must stand the test of scrutiny many times over.
