|
|
|
|
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2876 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/31/2005 1:48:43 AM | "Science" magazine released on the 23 December includes the
"Breakthrough of the Year" article, which is about the most important
scientific event of the year 2005. *and free to read.
Evolution in action
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/btoy2005/
At least watch the video and listen to the podcast too.
I think it is a nice summary of the concepts brought here
from the Evolution side and a clear "state of the art", nicely illustrated.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/31/2005 5:13:03 PM |
BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR:
Evolution in Action
Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi
is only an opinion made by those two authors. in their life time or in a matter of a second their theory is an opinion trying to support those before them and us in front of them.
they understand the most dynmatic technique comes from changing ones mind which is true. change your mind on subjects you believe in to prove how dynamic and effective your mind will be to one self. That is what is call creativeness and is a part of ones brain and evolution is only part of ones passion. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2878 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/31/2005 9:35:14 PM |
change your mind on subjects you believe in to prove how...
I am still trying to UNDERSTAND these subjects, forget about believing... and the more I learn, the more I realise I do not know.
Learning is the process of changing your mind!
The Queen: Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/1/2006 1:33:44 AM |
I am still trying to UNDERSTAND these subjects, forget about believing... and the more I learn, the more I realise I do not know.
Learning is the process of changing your mind!
i agree with your throught about "learning is the process of changing your mind". Learning is also the process to enhance confidence and will power for those who already have a well formed belief system. Whether one believes in a science or a self belief to improves ones self worth is still under all circumstances a belief. Therefore if one believes in Darwinism one will accomodate that science. It is the same process of accomodation for those who believe in them selfs and will assimulate to change so they can accomodate and learn to teach themselves to gain new heights and new and improved beliefs.
Darwinism is a science that in theory and practice takes millions if not billions of years to affect. More recently in the past 100 years or so, there has been some value in in the science of new genetics which is human interference with life. One can rationalize that action by man will evolutionalize the change. Therefore the evolution in genitics came from mans creativity.
All this round robinism is beneficial to ones who takes the immediate opportunity in creativism. The evolutions comes from improving the original creative thought which is the new means from a part/end of previous evolution again which began with a creative thought. Examples are Bill Gates and Google.
In imho, for the entire life of man gains are through belief than through the theory, evolution is first in place over creativism.
| |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2880 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/3/2006 8:16:40 AM | ...oh is this going to die or what?
just a quick joke to raise some eyebrows hehe...
"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition" Woody Allen
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/3/2006 12:25:26 PM |
...oh is this going to die or what?
Nah, people are still hung over from New Years. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 2882 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/3/2006 8:26:05 PM |
...oh is this going to die or what? *laughing* I wouldn’t worry about that. This debate’s been going on, since the mid 1800s.
Although I admit to some level of concern that the debates lasted this long... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/3/2006 9:18:47 PM | I've been active on the USENET newsgroup talk.origins from 1991 or so. Creationism isn't going away - there are always people who simply reject science as conflicting with their belief system. That's okay with me, as long as they don't try to destroy science as a result, like Scientific Creationism or it's latest incarnation, Intelligent Design.
If people like Gish or Morris or Ham or Behe have issues with science, either on the grounds of naturalism precluding the invocation of supernatural causes, they have a right to say so. But if they want to claim scientific support for their own models, they have to play by the rules of science - and they don't. They play politics and appeal to ideas of 'fairness' or 'equal time' - science isn't about giving 'equal time' to every theory, it never has been. Science is about explanations that fit the evidence at hand. If SciCre or ID want to play on a level field with evolution, let them come up with positive evidence supporting their positions, a task they have been *woefully* bad at, instead picking at small disagreements among scientists.
And their legions of camp-followers, here and elsewhere, need to do a better job of evaluating evidence. Evolution is complex - I know any number of 'pro-evolution' people who make blunders when trying to explain it (I sure do). But to see the absolute garbage blindly repeated by people attacking evolution that are so idiotic that even *Creationists* say "don't use this argument" (see the repeated times I pointed to AIG's page on the subject)... it makes you realize how bad most people's critical faculties really are when presented with something they don't like.
The statement like 'you can't believe in God and Evolution' is probably both the most ignorant statement and the most insulting to the many scientists who have no problem with their faith. It really says a lot about anyone who's makes the claim, that they have a really primitive idea of religion and science at the same time.
And hooray for the Good Guys:
Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy
Wednesday January 4, 2006 1:17 AM
DOVER, Pa. (AP) - The Dover school board on Tuesday rescinded its policy of presenting ``intelligent design'' as an alternative to evolution in high school biology classes, two weeks after a federal judge found the concept was religious and not scientific.
There was no discussion by members of the Dover Area School Board before the voice vote Tuesday night.
The board's newly elected majority, which had pledged to remove intelligent design from science classes, has said it will not appeal the judge's decision to overturn the policy.
I know at least one person who was going to testify at the trial, but ended up not being called. Good to see the new board has more sense and less desire to blow their fiscal brains out (and lie on the stand) than the old one did.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:57:12 AM |
"Science" magazine released on the 23 December...
Thanks, Enryk. Groovy article.
is only an opinion made by those two authors. in their life time or in a matter of a second their theory is an opinion trying to support those before them and us in front of them.
True that their saying that's the "breakthrough of the year" is their opinion, but I'm not following how the rest of this statement applies. I just don't think I get the rest of the post here.
Kind of oblique, and folks can take this as they please, but I'd like to ask a question: At what point does one make a distinction between researching facts and seeking information to test and clarify a theory, and grasping at straws in a futile attempt to shore up an untenable position? | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2885 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:04:43 AM | In mine? I'll try to clarify: Both sides of the debate acknowledge that the other side looks at the issue, digs around in their respective toolboxes, and compares to the map. They both say, this is what we've come to accept based on the observations we've made. Then, trying to point out where or whether the other side is weak, they argue. Eahc side then does a little dance, researches a little science or religion (whichever is appropriate to them, and to the point being made), and comes back to say, "okay, this is the way we see that it is." Eventually, each side, who, up to a point, have been perfectly civil about accepting that the other is attempting to clarify and support their argument, finally throws up its hands and says, "that last argument is just a load of hooey! All you're doing is scrounging around to try and fortify a position you know is worthless!" Not necessarily in those words, but I'm seeing it on both sides.
ID proponents oppose the conclusion, challenge the science, and eventually come to the conclusion that the "Evolutionists" are just arrogant non-believers that will pull any argument out of their posteriors to rationalise their refutation and denial of God.
Supporters of evolution disagree with the supernatural origin, challenge the interpretations of the science used to support the conclusion, and eventually wind up pitching almost the same fit, saying that the Creationists are just being stubborn in their ignorance and refusal to accept facts that might not jibe with their interpretation of scripture.
It just seems to me that there's a point where, on both sides of the debate, what begins as politely listening to and refutational response to each other's evidences suddenly degenerates into the assumption that the other side is just fabricating arguments to keep from being proven wrong.
My question is, where is that dividing line? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 5:42:27 AM | I think that if we choose to reject any hint of a possible creator of life it's quite easy to do. "Where's the proof"! you demand. Those of us of spiritual mindset know that God exists in another dimension. We have a problem convincing you of this other dimension because we can provide almost nothing in this world to do so. ......almost...
Albert Einstein's research came up with the widely accepted theory E=mc/2. On one side of this equation is only E or energy. We may conclude that everything around us is made from nothing but energy. He also found that at the atomic level behavior of matter was not predictable which led him to ask: "does God play dice with the universe..?"
Does our behavior affect what happens to us, ....around us? Do we notice that what comes around goes around? Near Death Experiencers return with stories from their otherworldly journeys and we discount them as just that; "stories". Yet, why do their accounts often have elements in common. Some claim to travel to the edge of the universe in the half hour or so they were "out of it", defying all our notions of space and time. It doesn't occur to us that they might have been allowed to return to try to explain where we really came from and where we might go.
True, all of creation may simply have evolved on it's own and the concept of our consciousness may be nothing more than a collection of neurons serving as a life support system for our reproductive organs. But this too, takes faith and surrender to accept. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:15:50 AM |
My question is, where is that dividing line?
Somewhere around where our constitutional rights are abolished and a national religion is instituted, thereby making anyone a criminal for being on a certain side of the argument. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:16:29 AM |
It just seems to me that there's a point where, on both sides of the debate, what begins as politely listening to and refutational response to each other's evidences suddenly degenerates into the assumption that the other side is just fabricating arguments to keep from being proven wrong.
My question is, where is that dividing line?
I would say that line is wherever the posters patience and tolerance level is at that moment combined with how much their dearly held belief is being threatened in their own mind. Objectivity is lost and the debate becomes emotionally motivated.
For myself I've been meditating on this debate and a similar one on a different site. I've come to the realization that the proponents of both models will not allow their view points to be falsified and in fact is next to impossible to do so because we were not there to witness the actual event.
When I was debating this issue and doing a lot of research I continually ran across interpretations of data and hypothesis that in my gut didn't feel right but I was unable to express my misgivings as to why I thought it suspect in any that would convince another. I came to realize that Creationism is explained in a book that by its own admission is spiritually discerned. How then could I convince someone who has a materialistic viewpoint with an argument from a spiritual standpoint? It is an impossibility.
As I meditated further I realized that the bible actually predicts that this will happen in the last days. People will have such a strong desire for God to be non-existent that He will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. 2Th2:11. I can't think of anything that fits the description of the delusion as well as the theory of evolution. It says also that the delusion is so strong that it will deceive the elect if that were possible. On the other site where this debate is going on, I have seen that happening in a poll where half of the self-admitted christians believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory.
In the end a christian debating evolution/creationism with someone who doesn't believe the bible is a waste of time if it is only based on interpretations of physical evidence. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 12:20:06 PM | In the end a christian debating evolution/creationism with someone who doesn't believe the bible is a waste of time if it is only based on interpretations of physical evidence.
Most people advocating evolution on here have never once said Christianity, its texts, or any other religion was a waste of time. What most have said is that it has no basis in science, but belongs in the realm of theology and also to an extent to philosophy.
This is how it works:
The majority of the people advocating the theory of evolution say: X is a theory, Y is the evidence to substantiate the theory. There are many things we don't understand about X but our understanding grows with our studies and observations. Those supporting this position admit that this is only a theory, albeit a very strong one. There is always room for refuting a theory if it can be done on a rational, scientific basis.
The majority of the persons supporting Creationism say the theory of Evolution is wrong, (usually demonstrating a very poor understanding of what the theory is) and therefor Creationism is right. Another popular notion I keep hearing is that Evolution is also equally religious and dogmatic. Occasionally an adherent of Creationism very implicitly suggests that people supporting Evolution are inherently immoral, therfore nothing they say is valid. Those supporting this position do not consider this position to be a theory, but an absolute.
This is what happens time and time again. "Those atheist evolutionists are trying to kill God! Get'em!" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 12:53:24 PM |
--R your writings are self judgemental.
Of course everything we write reflects on us. In my case I obviously express deep dislike for people who lie and connive to advance their personal ideological agendas. People who lack the ability to back up their claims, either from lack of information or lack of interest, should admit it and move on. We've had a number of people in this thread who were repeatedly shown to not understand the claims they made, but lacked the honesty or brains to either admit it or understand it. Such is life.
Personally, that's why I make it a point to be able to support my claims, and usually to understand the opposition to the point I know their arguments better than they do. It makes it easy to point out the flaws in your opponents claims when you know them better.
On the other hand, for obscurity I award you the palm of victory. Kudos, sir.
--R. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2893 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 12:54:03 PM | It just seems to me that there's a point where, on both sides of the debate, what begins as politely listening to and refutational response to each other's evidences suddenly degenerates into the assumption that the other side is just fabricating arguments to keep from being proven wrong.
My question is, where is that dividing line?
I think the line moves a lot depending on the people involved in the debate.
If I stand in the middle of a hillybilly town and say that the Bible is not accurate, I could certainly end up with serious physical injuries. Meanwhile, in an academic environment discussing with theologists and philosophers, there is plenty of room to analyse where EACH IDEA is coming from, or at least that is my experience.
your writings are self judgemental
Exactly... someone said "we share the same biology, regardless of ideology"
Our passions and our instincts come up when we try to prove our point... on both sides. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:00:48 PM |
This is what happens time and time again. "Those atheist evolutionists are trying to kill God! Get'em!"
Personally, I prefer it when they spell it 'athiest'.
'Athy, athier, athiest'.
The claim is a common one, though. False, but common.
Of course there are certain religious claims that science has shown false, like a 10,000-year old Earth or the fabled 'global flood'. But if that's enough to make your faith in God waver, you're a pretty weak believer. Biblical Literalism is for cranks.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:01:32 PM | delusion- a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.
theory- a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
As I meditated further I realized that the bible actually predicts that this will happen in the last days. People will have such a strong desire for God to be non-existent that He will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. 2Th2:11. I can't think of anything that fits the description of the delusion as well as the theory of evolution. It says also that the delusion is so strong that it will deceive the elect if that were possible.
So what do you propose to do to these Evolution people? They are obviously trying to delude society and corrupt its moral fabric by your account. If this amounts to heresy, what should be done with them? I just want to see the logical conclusion to this line of thinking spelled out clearly by its author. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2896 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:14:13 PM | Of course there are certain religious claims that science has shown false, like a 10,000-year old Earth or the fabled 'global flood'. But if that's enough to make your faith in God waver, you're a pretty weak believer.
Ah this is another problem with the Evolution vs Creationism debate: the multiple levels of "accepted knowledge" on each side and it is exemplified by the numerous websites on the topic.
I think what I am trying to say is that you can find those who believe that every single thing in the Universe is controlled and predetermined by the Watchmaker *God; meanwhile, there are those who believe that a Creation force acted at the very beginning of the whole life process but not anymore, and those who think that there is no "force" at all.
On the other side, there are those who support the idea that life forms never change, there are those who think that life only changes after dramatic events (natural catastrophes), or those who believe a constant natural selection process *everyday survival of the fittest, or those who think that evolution is mostly a random collection of events.
Putting together all those options and giving room for all kinds of shades, tones and variations, there is no wonder that these discussions sometimes feel like a Tower of Babel scenario. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:15:28 PM |
--r
Of course everything we write reflects on us. In my case I obviously express deep dislike for people who lie and connive to advance their personal ideological agendas. People who lack the ability to back up their claims, either from lack of information or lack of interest, should admit it and move on. We've had a number of people in this thread who were repeatedly shown to not understand the claims they made, but lacked the honesty or brains to either admit it or understand it. Such is life.
Personally, that's why I make it a point to be able to support my claims, and usually to understand the opposition to the point I know their arguments better than they do. It makes it easy to point out the flaws in your opponents claims when you know them better.
On the other hand, for obscurity I award you the palm of victory. Kudos, sir.
imho, you have to many "I" in your writings thereby conviencing but a few and not the majority. as to victories, from you, they are badges of honor. the rest of your statments stand alone as they are written truthfully by you. get it.
| |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2898 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:20:27 PM | ...sorry but I have to acknowledge this...
passportcharlie I never understand ONE paragraph of what you write. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:32:57 PM | from cc about ... " ... if it is only based on interpretations of physical evidence."
i agree, bc your words are an accurate definition of 'science', and that is why evolution is taught in science class and creationism should be taught in cosmology or philosophy class. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:35:19 PM | enryk,
passportcharlie never understand ONE paragraph of what you write. i understand exactly where you are coming from and your position right now from the words you wrote.
| |
|
|
| Page 116 of 156
|
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 |
|
Home
login 
