|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:50:50 PM | Well, I guess you and I just disagree.
I don't see Creationism (or any variant of it) as a challenge to the theory of Evolution on the simple ground that Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious belief. The basis of one is irrelevant to the other and vice versa.
You cannot use scientific observations to make religious beliefs valid and you cannot use religious beliefs to make scientific observations valid. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 12:12:07 AM | mlr,
I don't see Creationism (or any variant of it) as a challenge to the theory of Evolution on the simple ground that Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious belief. The basis of one is irrelevant to the other and vice versa.
You cannot use scientific observations to make religious beliefs valid and you cannot use religious beliefs to make scientific observations valid.
in true reality the theory of evolution was created to challenge religion not vice versa. The theory of evolution was not around 2006 years ago nor 6000 years either.
the simplicity of religion is one to have hopes and beliefs which will materialize. one who hope and believe one will be money wealthy will occur if one has faith and a belief. Jesus has provided laws for us to earn as much money as we desire as one of His laws are to give as charity to the church so the church can continually do the work and deeds of Jesus Christ.
Wouldn't you agree that it is worth to give $10,000,000 for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Many who reach these levels give a lot more than the 10%. Believe in what you wish to disagree, I wish to believe in those who can build a hospital and research center to move medical progress ahead than dreaming out the window back to the beginning of time billions of years ago gaining nothing for humanitian causes.
I love to read all those bronze plaques which name those who gave generously so we all, our family and friends can be wheeled into such a building to put back life into our dying bodies. Tell how humbly I must be to allow you to believe in yourself than foolishly believe in Darwin and his theory on evolution? What part of the $10,000,000 is worth you to join a cause worth while as Darwin thought it was only worth 500 pounds or $2500 to continue his investment into his cause.after his death.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 7:14:46 AM | Posted By: Bright1Raziel
However the nice kind of ID you propose, is not the same one that is being put forwards as a contender for Evolution. It is just Creationism renamed, which is where the confusion comes from. I have no problem with ID as you propsed it, but that is not what is being pusshed for our school systems.
Sorry Bright1, but could you tell what post of mine you were referring to? I can't seem to find it.
 | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2954 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:00:43 AM | I wish to believe in those who can build a hospital and research center to move medical progress ahead than dreaming out the window back to the beginning of time billions of years ago gaining nothing for humanitian causes.
passport charlie, I certainly appreaciate that your posts have become more legible.
I agree with concepts such as charity and philantropy but... please do not take this thread to feable arguments. Let me explain.
What you are saying is that as Evolution studies give nothing to society, other than discussions and argumentations, then we'd not waste money on its study. Am I right here?
Therefore neither in Astrophysics or quantum physics... Kick all historians and art people, they are a waste of space then!
Taking further your argument quoted above, why do we even "spend" time writting in these forums or even bothering looking for a "fish" or watching movies. Let's stand up and use our spare time and resources in community work. Someone else will provide us with ideas. Someone else will do the thinking or maybe everything is probably written in a book already.
Human societies are much more complicated than that. Culture is enriched by the input given by every field of academic knowledge. We certainly have social responsabilities. True and in times of emergency, more today than ever before, the big public is willing to help (OK with a "remote control" help, not even moving their a** off the sofa, but still they donate money; sure more education needed on that front).
And apologies for the rant, but I'll finish with a common place in this subject...
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
T Dobzhansky
How can we understand the complex functions of our brain or our immune system, which have developed for millions of years, if not by comparing our species with those closely and distantly related? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:19:34 AM | "in true reality the theory of evolution was created to challenge religion not vice versa."
WRONG! Evolution was not developed to challenge religion. It was developed as a scientific theory in opposition to the steady state theories of life that predominated natural philosophy and as a refutation of other incorrect theories of Evolution such as Lamark's. It holds a perfectly consistent provenance in the history of natural philosophy. These inflammatory remarks of Evolution as being an attack on religion are blatantly wrong, and they irk me to no end. It is an opinion based on nothing but ignorance of the theory and the progress of science in general.
"The theory of evolution was not around 2006 years ago nor 6000 years either."
Neither was the theory of a heliocentric universe. What possible relevancy does that have? Are you suggesting that to hold merit a theory must be 6000 years old? I take it that you worship some form of sun god then?
"I wish to believe in those who can build a hospital and research center to move medical progress ahead than dreaming out the window back to the beginning of time billions of years ago gaining nothing for humanitian causes."
This has to take the brass ring as the most misguided statement you've made yet, and your posts are peppered with them. Fact is that advancing scientific information on all fronts contributes to medical science. In fact cancer may be better understood now with attention to evolutionary theory, and our knowledge of the proliferation and evolution of bacteria and viruses has been improved as well due to our advances in understanding evolution and genetics. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:53:24 AM |
"in true reality the theory of evolution was created to challenge religion not vice versa."
Now that I can believe. Isn't that why Darwin started it in the first place? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:58:28 AM | "Now that I can believe. Isn't that why Darwin started it in the first place?"
NO! I take it you didn't read my post above whereby I just addressed this egregious fallacy. NO! NO! NO! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 9:48:02 AM | Actually, Wonka you are more right then your post states.
Darwin, prior to his history altering voyage was to become a man of the cloth. He was deeply relegious.
His theory blew apart his own relegious beliefs...that my friends I doubt was an easy pill to swallow. But such is the nature of scientific inquiry. When you are presented with evidence that points to a logical conclusion, it is difficult to ignore that conclusion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:02:40 AM | No wonka I didn't read your post through all the way. Got sidetracked.
When you are presented with evidence that points to a logical conclusion, it is difficult to ignore that conclusion.
What if to some people it isn't logical at all but makes things more confusing? I'm not saying I'm confused about it. Far from it! The more I learn about evolution, the more I don't trust it. But I do understand what they are saying and coming from. But I also know people who get more confused when learning new things about it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:11:35 AM | | Amanda, I doubt you truly know much about the theory to be honest. It is a highly complex and involved theory in its modern form. It has been significantly refined and expanded, and elements of modern evolution foray into complex population genetics and probability mathematics as well as very involved study of an immense wealth of paleontological evidence just to name a few avenues amongst many that make up the modern theory. Seriously, I've read volumes on the subject and even my knowledge of it is spotty compared to experts in the field. What little you are learning about it from popular culture is largely misinformation and outright negative propaganda. The theory is exceedingly logical. The thing about logic is that it's one of the few disciplines in our complex world that is wholly objective. To say it's logical to some and not to you is.... well... illogical. Logic is logic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:19:12 AM | Wow thanks again for calling me stupid. HAHA I won't be back in here. Thanks Jason. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 10:59:20 AM | | People, stopp calling each other names! It is not nice (you should know better). Respect other people's oppinions. I see here people worship Darwin (his oppinion). Darwin was just a regular human being. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:07:35 AM | "Wow thanks again for calling me stupid. HAHA I won't be back in here. Thanks Jason"
Just for the record- this is slanderous. I NEVER called her stupid. I simply pointed out she was uniformed on the issue. That is not the same as stupid. We are all uninformed on some issues. Read my response to her; it was actually fairly cordial. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:30:09 AM | Wow thanks again for calling me stupid. HAHA I won't be back in here. Thanks Jason.
ASB, not only did WONKA NOT CALL YOU STUPID OR even REMOTELY IMPLY THAT, but he took the time to explain something to you, which in itself, implies that he assumed that you were intelligent enough to engage in a civil discussion about a very complex issue. And what did he get for giving you the benefit of the doubt? You accuse him of deliberately insulting you which he clearly didn't do. I hope that you actually did misunderstand him and that it isn't the cowardly and spiteful tactic that it appears to be.
People, if you come into a forum on a topic like Evolution and readily admit or demonstrate that you aren't crystal clear on a central idea pertaining to it you have to be prepared that someone might try to enlighten you.
People, stopp calling each other names! It is not nice (you should know better). Respect other people's oppinions. I see here people worship Darwin (his oppinion). Darwin was just a regular human being.
D007, what are you talking about? No one in this entire thread has said anything to even remotely indicate they worship Charles Darwin, not the Creationists or those advocating Evolution. My evaluation of the theory of Evolution is that it is sound based on a landslide of scientific observations and research. I don't know how you can honestly pull the notion of a religious belief out of that.
And again, no one even REMOTELY insulted ASB. If you actually READ the posts she is referring to it will be very obvious. Don't contribute to a false accusation with ignorant support. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:50:28 AM | Thanks for the support Lizard. I like ASB, but her comment was slanderous, as is obvious by the subsequent post that operated under the assumption that I had said something I didn't.
"Darwin was just a regular human being."
Depends how you define regular. He possessed a higher caliber of intellect than the average person, but he wasn't divine if that's what you mean. And I don't make that observation based on the merit of the theory either, but on the caliber of his logic, intuition and expansion or refutation of existing ideas. Truth is that Paley (where the whole I.D. watchmaker analogy come from) Lamark and others, who were largely incorrect, also possessed higher calibers of intellect, and their theories, although later proved false, certainly greatly contributed to the progress of knowledge. The issue is not so much whether an argument is true, but that it is presented rationally and free of logical fallacy, so it can either be expanded upon or soundly refuted. That is the difference between contributions of value, whether accurate or not, and empty sophistry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 11:51:45 AM | "in true reality the theory of evolution was created to challenge religion not vice versa."
If you actually knew what a scientific theory was you wouldn't make such a ludicrous statement. As the word "theory" has been defined in this thread at least a dozen times I am really not at all amused with the ignorance of this statment.
A theory is a set of statements devised to explain a natural phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested on a scientific basis to the extent that it can be used to make predictions about said natural phenomena.
As you can see by the definition, no true scientific theory has anything to do with religion. Now, if you want to argue that evolution is not a scientific theory then feel free to do so. Just don't get upset when someone demonstrates that you are wrong and then go and say they have called you a poo-poo head in an attempt to vilify them to avoid having to defend your own untenable position. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 12:00:09 PM | MLR
I am always amused by your photo though...
The theory / fact difference is pretty simple. It is shocking that people misunderstand this difference constantly.
Another one that bothers me is the misinformed opinions about scientific method...argh...such as when people ask "Why can't science prove / disprove God".
I am venting now, I will stop. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 2:24:58 PM | | Hey lizard buddy, I read what people wrote on this thread from the beginning to this point (didn't you?) and I saw plenty of insults people were hurling on one another. I just pointed out that people should respect other people's oppinions (practice the art of gracious disagreement so to say). And please don't criticise people who believe in God/Creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 2:25:46 PM | "Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. ...It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process...
After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ...If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.
...Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science."
-I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:11:14 PM | "Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts."
Absolutely untrue. The modern incarnation of Evolution is STRONGLY supported by microbiology, palaeontology and probability. Cohen is a hack. I suggest you reference legitimate resources where legitimate debates over the details of Evolutionary theory are carried out by professionals in the field. I could quote the raving lunatic by the bus stop, but that's hardly evidence of anything. In fact, instead of pasting quotes by fringe hacks as you who are hostile to the theory of Evolution love to do, how about you tell me in your words what methodological, evidential, or logical issues you have with the theory, so those on this thread who actually understand the theory can then explain to you how you are mistaken, because I tire of this sophistry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:36:38 PM | Hey lizard buddy, I read what people wrote on this thread from the beginning to this point (didn't you?) and I saw plenty of insults people were hurling on one another.
The so-called insults you are referring to in recent posts were merely people civily and articulately advocating their own ideas and pointing out fallacies of logic and errors of fact in the opponents position. As your position is not tenable, you stoop to saying that I and others are calling people names and mocking their religious beliefs. You become less amusing and more transparent with each post.
I just pointed out that people should respect other people's oppinions (practice the art of gracious disagreement so to say). Actually, what you did was back up someone's false claim that that they were called "stupid", when apparently you knew otherwise.
And please don't criticise people who believe in God/Creation.
1) At no point have I ever, in this entire thread, mocked or criticized someone for their religious beliefs.
2) Your implication that I have is not a mistake on your part (as you have admitted to reading the thread). It is a lie and a deliberate attempt to slander me.
3) Advocating my own position concerning Evolution or Creationism is not mocking your religious beliefs or anyone else's simply because you do not agree with me.
You talk about gracious disagreement and then imply that no one has the right to disagree with a certain position, otherwise they are mocking your religious faith. All I can say about your accusations is to keep it up. If you feel the need please report these accusations to the moderators, make sure to be as persistant and demanding about it as possible. Squeaky wheel always gets the grease. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:48:03 PM | "You become less amusing and more transparent with each post."
Practically see through. I would also reiterate what Lizard said. I have never mocked someone for their religious belief. Any sarcasm I have exhibited has expressly been aimed towards those who expound on and denigrate a theory they don't even understand or have a substantive level of familiarity with. There is a world of difference between legitimate critique and sophistry. Legitimate critique advances science and philosophy in the general and learning for the individual. Sophistry is mental masturbation. There is plenty of valid debate in the field, hardly any of which I've seen broached in 120 pages of this thread. If a structural engineer were critiqued by someone with no knowledge of structural engineering he would rightly tell the person to go educate himself on the subject and return with valid critique. If he were to take the advice of someone who knew nothing of engineering his building would likely fall on someones head. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:51:15 PM |
Just for the record- this is slanderous. I NEVER called her stupid. I simply pointed out she was uniformed on the issue. That is not the same as stupid. We are all uninformed on some issues. Read my response to her; it was actually fairly cordial.
Hardly. you belittled what she said in her post , because she didn't agree with you.
Sometimes it is not what we say , but how it is percieved by others . You belittled here post repeatedly to the point where it was the equivelent to you calling her stupid. A little tactfulness can go along way, instead of over emotional blasts such as:
NO! I take it you didn't read my post above whereby I just addressed this egregious fallacy. NO! NO! NO!
I know this is a re occuring issue , but really people shouldn't be adressed in this manner just because they don't believe a certain way.
Also , her post is perfecetly logical, if one will goto wikapedia and read about Darwin, it clearly says , that he was a religous man and it wasn't until his daughter died, that he fully pursued his theories. It is possible to theorize that he did have a resentment towards God over that, and this influenced his actions.
A person shouldn't be as some people put it "lambasted " for having a differing viewpoint. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:51:56 PM | More quotes from Nobel-prize winning fringe hacks on the lack of support for the theory of evolution:
1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
I think only an idiot can be an atheist.
2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–
The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large,
almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe
3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenicmyth of the 20th century. The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of
evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research–
paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology–has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
[Evolution] is a fairy tale myth.
Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy.
Evolutionists claim their theory is scientific. Where is the science? I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present.
5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–
I believe that one day the Darwinian [gradualist] myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this ever happen?
7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–
…the theory of evolution is impossible.
8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists–
We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry “the emperor has no clothes!!
9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –
…the progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be, does not bring
science closer to religion but it leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at
producing a rational explanation of the universe.
10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
Creation is supported by all the data so far
12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of Medical Protozoology, University of London–
…by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.
13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–
…the theory totally lacks experimental or theoretical scientific basis!
…this type of [evolutionary establishment] credulousness far surpasses all the religious
credulousness and superstition on this entire planet Earth.
14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France–
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/7/2006 3:57:10 PM | Hardly. you belittled what she said in her post , because she didn't agree with you.
Sometimes it is not what we say , but how it is percieved by others . You belittled here post repeatedly to the point where it was the equivelent to you calling her stupid. A little tactfulness can go along way, instead of over emotional blasts such as:
"NO! I take it you didn't read my post above whereby I just addressed this egregious fallacy. NO! NO! NO! "
1) He didn't insult her, which is what two have precisely accused him of doing, or belittle her which is what you are now accusing him of doing. He disagreed with her and said that he did not believe she had adequate knowledge of the subject matter. Then he tried to explain his position and the fallacy inherent in the one she was supporting.
2) Using an exclamation point is not an emotional blast! Its emphasis!
3) What he said and what he obviously meant IS more important than what you decide to twist it into. | |
|
|
| Page 119 of 156
|
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, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
