|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:01:21 AM | "We aren't all speed readers. I also think Feral often plays devil's advocate just to see if he can get you going, Wonka."
I'm not a speed reader. Speed reading is a skimming technique, and I don't read that way. I really meant that more as a good-natured joke, as it is clear to me from his compositional acumen that Feral reads a fair amount. He mentioned he was reading that book over a month ago, so I was just wondering why he's still working on it. I'm sure he's just busy and doesn't have the time to devote to it. And I know he loves to play devil's advocate. He seems to be motivated by a desire to find common ground between all opposing points of view, which is admirable, but not always possible. If a group's motive is to undermine scientific methodology with prevarication and misrepresentation, then I just don't see the possibility of finding common ground. I also don't see the possibility of finding common ground when it has been explained ad nauseum that Evolution is not atheistic, and yet they carry on as if they didn't hear a word from anyone. How do you find common ground with someone who refuses to listen to reason? I think Feral is misguided in his attempt to smooth out the wrinkles with these people. They WANT wrinkles. That is their whole agenda, to simply create an argument where there really isn't one, and they will resort to any tactics to do it. They are relying on the common person's naivete of science to do this, and I find that on a par with conning the elderly out of their retirement funds. Would any of us try to find common ground and smooth out the wrinkles with con men, or would we rather see their heads slammed through a wall? Personally, I'm for the latter. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:05:37 AM | Wonka,
With respect to Conmen I think you will agree with me that you are mistaken.
If you are able to slam their head through the wall the wall is not nearly hard enough to make a difference. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:49:06 AM | I also don't see the possibility of finding common ground when it has been explained ad nauseum that Evolution is not atheistic,
**********************************************************************
I think it`s the whole name calling thing to start with that confuses. And yet it also helps to define different patterns of thought.
Creationist vs Evolutionist I don`t see as being opposing except for the inititial conception, if you will. I believe the world was formed ions before mankind. I`m a creationist yet I believe the world has evolved.
Is evolution a religion? Anything that involves bringing the entire self into it is in my outlook a religion. But what if God was the driving force? Always in mind.? God`s ways, whatever.? God has a huge world to run and He has His people for every job.
Would we say Joseph was a pagen worshipping the croc. god because that`s where God put him.? Or Daniel steeped in astrology?
God`s people are God`s people and as such are easily recognised, by God`s people.
And then like you said there are those who just like wrinkles. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3179 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:03:59 AM | Hi folks,
I'm still catching up back in page 126...
In the meantime I'm leaving you with this commentary from Steve Mirsky in Scientific American (december 2005).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=15&articleID=00039664-6A56-137A-AA2083414B7FFE9F
I had a great laugh out of it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:06:12 AM | keywaydin
Your quote:
"Creationist vs Evolutionist I don`t see as being opposing except for the inititial conception, if you will."
Are you unable to read. Evolution does not concern itself with the birth of the world, or of the first forms of life.
This has been repeated so many times by myself, Wonka, Bright, Ferel, Long, etc...
WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS.
Evolution does not care if the M&M guys created life, it concerns itself with the ongoing changes that have occured throughout time with respect to living organisms. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:15:19 AM | yhavoh un commadant. i shall not be a repetative no more. ongoing changes only. got it . | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:20:51 AM | | I appologize if my post seemed rude, however, it has been mentioned on numerous occassions that evolution would be peachy if God created life, or aliens, or the Muppets. The cause of first life for evolution is not the crux of the theory, the study of how life changes over time (simplified) is the concern. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:34:49 AM | The study of how life over time changes, would be particularily interesting. I realise there are books to get an elementary view of it , but for some reason I have a mind block on it. I suppose it`s the jargon, once that`s known it`s not so difficult. I do read the posts. the
Information is there, and sooner or later I`m sure it will click. In the meantime it`s great for a laugh.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:37:34 AM |
First of all, why aren't you done with that book yet? That book should take a day or two to read. Second, finish that tripe and read a real text on Evolution. ...You can't learn anything substantive about Evolution from the tripe you are reading any more than you can learn something substantive about Astronomy by reading Linda Goodman's "Love Signs."
We aren't all speed readers. I also think Feral often plays devil's advocate just to see if he can get you going, Wonka.
 First off, guys, I read it as light reading on my breaks at work. That right there ought to tell you something. Second, and more important, I learn from everything. Let me clarify, I don't learn about everything in this manner, but I do learn from everything. I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything (although I do appreciate the recognition for having done so  ). I just enjoy discussing insights and observations regarding the debate.
One thing I would caution against is assumption, and I believe two others (besides the "riling Wonka" one, which I honestly don't intend to do) were made: 1) that I read "anti-evolutionist" texts to learn about evolution (which, as was pointed out, is pretty freakin' ridiculous), and 2) that I don't have a fairly good grasp on the concept of evolution.
To the first, like I said, I learn from everything. What I'm aiming at, reading what I do, is to understand the psychology of the conflict and the camps involved. Kind of along the lines of, if the one doesn't preclude the other, what's the point behind the insane (and, yes, a lot of this conforms to clinical diagnoses - interesting, yes?) and almost uncontrollable reflexive attacks back and forth.
On the second point, I've not read nearly as extensively as everyone else here, but, as I may have managed to point out once or twice before, I've already a fairly massive pile of reading material through which to go. I do always appreciate suggestions, but I can guarantee you probably won't know me long enough for me to have achieved the literacy level to be able to debate with the adeptness that some on here do. For this reason, while I do investigate and try to research things on which I do have questions, I will also ask of others, and my comparative level of education/information on the various subjects will probably always be somewhat "deficient" for lack of a better term. That said, I am fairly well educated (regardless the fact that most is self-study and hardly formal education), and, again, I believe I do have a fairly good idea of the subject matter. Perhaps not the modern synthesis or the specific wordings and terminology, but I will risk patting myself on the back for seeking out and assimilating information on something that isn't entirely satisfying on its own.
With all of this in mind, I believe it's fairly discernible my position on what I believe and whether or not evolution, creation, intelligent design, etc. are appropriate material for educators to share with public school classes. My focus, like Lizard says, is mostly to play devil's advocate for both sides to help along the discussion, point out apparent flaws in arguments, and above all to learn about the subjects of evolution and creation, the arguments involved, and the people involved in the debate.
Sorry to take so long, but I hoped this might give you a better idea of why I tend to appear to sit on the fence at times, or poke at either hypothesis when I see an apparent gap. I also hope it gives folks an opportunity to consider other angles of perspective for viewing the subjects and discussion themselves. *shrugs* Time will tell.
I think Feral is misguided in his attempt to smooth out the wrinkles with these people. They WANT wrinkles.
Of course, I could also just enjoy pointing out that some of us can see the wrinkles folks make. And, make some of my own, if I want.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/20/2006 11:49:59 PM | Due to the late hour I'm posting I'm just making two points for now.
r
First I have never in any of my posts contended that evolution is a random process. The argument I made in my last post is that evolution INVOLVES random processess such as random genetic and climate changes. Further that I don't see how those random processess could produce a nonrandom outcome without the involvement of dominent nonrandom forces.
Second there are several posts that contain the argument that I.D. is an untestable theory becuase it involves an intelligence and the involvement of an intelligence dosn't make sense without also involving a source of that intelligence and the source of that intelligence can not be tested for. These are what I am referring to when I make the argument that if evolutionist are going to insist that involving an intelligence requires involving the source of that intelligence then I.D. supporters should be able to argue that involving nature requires involving the source of nature. I'll quote examples of those posts on my next post.
By the way the comparison of me to a kid in school who dosn't want to learn brought to mind readings of people who are famous for their contribution to science but who did poorly in thier science class in school. No logical reason for the connection. Just what came to mind. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 12:51:10 AM | I just noticed a couple of things that were bugging me, and that finally seem to make some sense.
Further that I don't see how those random processess could produce a nonrandom outcome without the involvement of dominent nonrandom forces.
The deal behind random processes occuring and having apparently nonrandom results, I believe, stems from the fact that there really are nonrandom factors in play. The universe does have its constants, and the effects they have on apparently chaotic systems may have a stabilising effect. In addition, the entire point behind the study of chaos is the observation that apparently random systems do tend toward an eventual apparent order.
...becuase it involves an intelligence and the involvement of an intelligence dosn't make sense without also involving a source of that intelligence and the source of that intelligence can not be tested for.
This seems logical. The question that I have hinges on this:
...argument that if evolutionist are going to insist that involving an intelligence requires involving the source of that intelligence then I.D. supporters should be able to argue that involving nature requires involving the source of nature.
What would you suggest as a valid, scientifically testable "source of nature?" To my mind, the answer would be the universe itself, and in effect, the constants of the universe. Is there an alternative that I'm missing? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 1:10:35 AM | What would you suggest as a valid, scientifically testable "source of nature?" To my mind, the answer would be the universe itself, and in effect, the constants of the universe. Is there an alternative that I'm missing?
The universe is not the SOURCE it's the present result of whatever the source was.
It's already been concluded that humanity can never know or come to the most
vague understanding of where the source of the so-called 'big bang' originated from.
You guy's are trying to figure that out? LOL
Read Steven Hawking's book's on the origins of the universe; what you'll
realize is that those that study evolution can not study this discipline
without understanding creationism. I totally understand that.
Anyway, if I interupted this fascinating dialogue I'm sorry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 9:02:02 AM | "Second there are several posts that contain the argument that I.D. is an untestable theory becuase it involves an intelligence and the involvement of an intelligence dosn't make sense without also involving a source of that intelligence and the source of that intelligence can not be tested for. These are what I am referring to when I make the argument that if evolutionist are going to insist that involving an intelligence requires involving the source of that intelligence then I.D. supporters should be able to argue that involving nature requires involving the source of nature. I'll quote examples of those posts on my next post."
I don't know how else to make you understand that this is nonsense. The study of nature in no way requires the study of where nature originated. That's not to say you can't study that as well. You can; it's called cosmology, and it has nothing to do with Evolution. To repeat an analogy for the upteenth time, you can study the logistics of the internal combustion engine without addressing who invented the internal combustion engine. One would be a class in mechanics while the other would be pertinent to a history class. Where this analogy fails is that we actually know who invented the internal combustion engine, where as it is unknowable, (at least at this stage in history) in scientific terms, whether or not the universe was created by an intelligence. Therefore, since it can not be tested, quantified and verified, it IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC QEURRY! In fact even cosmology is no more than running the process backwards. We know the universe is expanding, so, with relative precision, we can run the process backwards, knowing what we do know of astronomy, relativity, and quantum physics, and understand how the universe got to its present state, but when we reach the point of singularity, when the laws of physics no longer provide us answers, science stops and philosophy takes over. Science does not proffer answers that are not verifiable or falsifiable. Science is not interested in such unanswerable speculation. That's not to say science will not continue to try to find ways to test further speculation, but so long as such testing is beyond our technological or theoretical means, it remains outside the purview of science. Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it another way? Since I.D.'s primary claim is that an intelligent hand is directing or has directed the emergence of life, it follows that verification of the theory requires verification of this intelligent hand. No such test exists. Arguments of irreducible complexity don't wash. The eye, the bombardier beetle and all the other spurious examples that creationists love to bring up, are all very well explained by the process of Evolution. There is simply no way to test to see if the universe, or life in the universe, was intelligently created. I just don't understand why you can't be satisfied believing what you believe as a philosophical position, which is what it is. Why do you feel the need to pretend to play science? Other than it's claim that an intelligent being created life, what does I.D. offer as a theory? Not one person has satisfactorily answered this yet. All that people rejoin with are weak, misinformed attacks on Evolution. Again, attacking one theory does not provide an alternate theory. WHAT DOES I.D., ITSELF, OFFER AS A THEORY? What mechanisms that are testable and observable does it proffer?
"By the way the comparison of me to a kid in school who dosn't want to learn brought to mind readings of people who are famous for their contribution to science but who did poorly in thier science class in school."
Big difference. The people you are refering to were autodidacts. They still were hungry to learn, they simply didn't flourish in an academic setting. That is very different from plugging your ears when the debate unsettles you. The former represents great intellectual acumen, curiosity and courage. The latter is an example of intellectual cowardice. Science (as a discipline. Of course, I am not refering to the motives of any one individual) is not concerned with the implications of a theory. Like Friday from Dragnet said- "just the facts, ma'am." If science should someday discover that the universe was intelligently created, or that it wasn't, (although I am skeptical this will ever be testable) it is irrelevant either way to science. Science has no business in proving or disproving philosophical preconceptions. It only wants the facts. Science discards theories that don't pan out. There are many instances in history when theories that buttressed an entire paradigm needed to be discarded. Some individual scientists may have been resistant, as they found it uncomfortable to have all their preconceptions turned upside down, but science as a methodology is uninterested in the preconceptions of those individuals. Science marches on. Just the facts, ma'am. Many scientists were unwilling to give up spontaneous generation or preformation theory, or phlogistan, or the ether, or uniformitarian geology, or any number of discarded theories, but science marched on without them. But understand this very important point- science never chooses one theory over another because that theory is more emotionally comfortable. It chooses one theory over another because it more closely resonates with empirical observation, because it is more predictive and therefore verifiable, because it is more explanatory, providing causal mechanisms for a larger frame of reference, but NEVER because it is more warm and fuzzy. JUST THE FACTS MA'AM.
"what you'll realize is that those that study evolution can not study this discipline
without understanding creationism. I totally understand that."
Lazy, you clearly don't understand. Again, creationism is irrelevant to science.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 1:45:36 PM | Lazy, you clearly don't understand. Again, creationism is irrelevant to science.
Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.
Well, someone should have told Newton or Steven that because they seem
to believe religion pay's a huge role. But then again, I'm no Einstien either to
truly appreciate how these people discovered break-throughs in science - which
happens to be; WOW, - RELIGION!!
Oh, speaking of Einstein & religion...er....nevermind, I let u guy's figure that one out. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 1:53:43 PM | Lazyboy....
You need to read more carefully, and I almost pity you for the response that Wonka will be posting.
The Hawking's quote emphasizes absolutely everything that Wonka argued. You should re-read Wonka's quote.
Hawking's does not address evolution. Evolution and the beginning of the universe are two entirely seperate topics.
Furthermore, as has been stressed, evolution would be just fine if God was responsible, the theory does not concern itself with the 'beginning'.
How many times does this simple distinction have to be noted? | |
|
Bond63
|
Joined: 9/25/2005
Msg: 3191 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:14:26 PM | | Here is the simple truth. With science Man can CREATE new life. This is a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that we were not CREATED. Surely if there is a God he would be at least as smart as us. What else can we Create? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:32:09 PM | Are you thick?
Evolution does not concern itself about where life came from. What is so hard to understand about this.
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
Abiogenisis is a theory about that, for example.
Life being created by god, is a religion about that.
Evolution does not concern itself with origins.
Did you read anything posted here? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:32:53 PM | @Vat: unless Wonka is gonna introduce an alien and it's skinny white ass on
the pond today, I'm not sweating it.
Not trying to put your friend Wonka down, but I'm predicting that his
argument has holes enough for a oil-tanker to fly through. Not being
a smart ass just sharing an observation based on my readings from
various egg heads like Einstein and Hawkings and the like.
And VAT: Evolution is and always has been a theory and nothing more.
The premise of this thread is Creation vs Evolution but you can't argue
the validity of evolution without ID otherwise what are we
talking about here?
Evolution does not concern itself about where life came from. What is so hard to understand about this
Rushing to conclusion here a bit. Without appreciating the very origin of space
and time, you can not argue the validity of evolution properly by pushing
fast-forward. Evolution, by way of YOUR arguement, does not have to
answer many unanswered questions - like, what spurs evolution...what power
stops it or suspends it. What power can resume it. What's the nature of this power.
....you can't honestly think you can walk away from such a glaring unanswerable
question can you? | |
|
Bond63
|
Joined: 9/25/2005
Msg: 3194 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:41:40 PM | All Evolution is Is something that happens after life Is Created, It is change. LIFE IS CHANGE.
The topic does say Creation vs Evolution. I do agree It is like apples and oranges. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:48:29 PM | Both are one and the same. ID created what we see today (some would argue). It's the fallacy
of man that has to interpret it.
Some without evidence of the origin of space & time would argue that it
MUST HAVE BEEN a scientific causation yet without even a rough idea what, they'd
ask us to have FAITH that it was scientific. Sounds religious to me if you
ask me. Instead, let's not get to far back in time...let's fast forward ignoring
some disconnects/inconsistencies of evolution along the way (that'll only confuse you more).
Instead, just take my word for it.
If we're gonna play it that way, how are we gonna ever argue when you've
rigged the table? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3196 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:55:35 PM | Evolution is and always has been a theory and nothing more.
Addressed Page one msg. two
Evolution is an established scientific fact, "Natural Selection" is a "scientific theory" explaining it.
The premise of this thread is Creation vs Evolution but you can't argue
the validity of evolution without ID otherwise what are we
talking about here?
Wrong, see page one, msg. one. You have missed the premise.
Rushing to conclusion here a bit. Without appreciating the very origin of space
and time, you can not argue the validity of evolution properly by pushing
fast-forward. Evolution
Different branches of science.
, by way of YOUR arguement, does not have to
answer many unanswered questions - like, what spurs evolution...what power
stops it or suspends it. What power can resume it. What's the nature of this power.
Define "power" in the terms of reference of science. Actually, you'd have a better understanding of the premise if you just swapped a few words around in that last sentence.
....you can't honestly think you can walk away from such a glaring unanswerable
question can you?
If it's a question of being immaterial to the premise, or the line of inquiry is based on misapplied terms? Some questions don't deserve anything else. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:58:34 PM | Your quote Lazy
"you can't argue the validity of evolution without ID otherwise what are we
talking about here?"
Okay, you are right about one thing, that is evolution is a theory. It is constantly changing to account for new evidence, and new facts. If part of the theory cannot account for the new fact or evidence, it will be discarded and a more consistent account will be used.
Now, with respect to the validity of evolution depending on Indepedant Design. Did you read everybodies posts that have addressed this statement.
We do not need to discuss the creator of Basketball (he is Canadian) to have a conversation about how basketball works, what the rules of basketball are etc...Just like evolution does not need to discuss the 'where did life come from question' to address the changes and variations that we have seen with life throughout history.
This is not hard to understand. Evolution does not require and explanation of origin.
I would say that evolution may 'beg the question' of where life originated, but it certainly does not require an explanation to that question to be a valid theory.
And these questions alone illustrate that you may not have thorough understanding of the theory:
"like, what spurs evolution...what power stops it or suspends it. What power can resume it. What's the nature of this power"
The 'what spurs evolution' has been covered ad noseum in this thread>
Evolution does not stop, or become suspended. These questions are not even valid to begin with. The theory of evolution makes no such claims, and their is no such evidence to indicate that it has stopped or been suspeded.
What power can resume it - you have already assumed it has stopped...you are making a huge assumption with your question, and the assumption has no basis.
What's the nature of this power - see above - your question is assuming something that has no merit. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 3:02:03 PM | My apologies, I gotta spend a few day's reading from the very beginning.
As you were, guy's. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:19:32 PM | Lazybrain- holy mother of spam! Did you even read that quote that you pasted????? Apparently not. Here, let me re-paste it for you:
It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.
Okay now son, read that carefully. Do I need to parse it for you? Seriously, I find it amusing when someone rejoins my post with a quote that RESTATES MY POST! I'm going to venture a guess that the bus you took to school was a little shorter than the one the other kids rode. Okay, now on to your poorly expressed gobbledygook.
"But then again, I'm no Einstien either to
truly appreciate how these people discovered break-throughs in science - which
happens to be; WOW, - RELIGION!!"
Okay, part of this is right. You are definitely no Einstein. Lenny from "Of Mice And Men" would be a more accurate comparison. They did NOT make scientific discoveries from religion. They may have held spiritual beliefs, but those were... well, let me allow Hawking to say it again "but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border," and, "but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." As a scientist he understands the importance of demarcation between scientific methodology and personal philosophical beliefs. I am seriously amused that you think he is making your argument. Your reading comprehension skills are in grave need of improvement.
"Oh, speaking of Einstein & religion..."
Einstein was a pantheist. He essentially believed that nature and her laws were God. He called himself a Jew more for political reasons than anything due to the events of Nazi Germany. What's your point?
"Not trying to put your friend Wonka down, but I'm predicting that his
argument has holes enough for a oil-tanker to fly through."
Tell me what holes any of my posts have. This should be amusing, because if you think you have an argument, I'm going to enjoy trouncing you.
"Not being a smart ass just sharing an observation based on my readings from
various egg heads like Einstein and Hawkings and the like."
This is very amusing. This is a good opportunity to quote one of my favorite movie lines. In "A Fish Called Wanda" one of the antagonists, who is a moron, vociferously exclaims to Wanda, after she calls him an ape, that "apes don't read philosophy!" To which Wanda responds, "yes they do. They just don't understand it." Get my point?
"Evolution is and always has been a theory and nothing more."
Another point that has been addressed ad nauseum. Yes, Evolution is a theory. Do you know what a scientific theory is? Clearly not. Relativity is also a theory. So is Quantum Physics. Go back and read my posts. I've gone into detail on this before. Theories are intersubjective constructs (I'm sure that word is too many syllables for you, so I'll tell you that it essentially means collaborative) that are built from observable data. The essential logic of Darwin's theory remains sound, but many details in which he erred have been expanded upon or adjusted. Modern Evolutionary theory is every bit as sound and empirically verifiable as Relativity or Quantum Physics.
"Rushing to conclusion here a bit. Without appreciating the very origin of space
and time, you can not argue the validity of evolution properly by pushing
fast-forward."
What? This is nonsensical gobbledygook. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. It's hard to imagine a more nonsensical.... wait....
"Evolution, by way of YOUR arguement, does not have to
answer many unanswered questions - like, what spurs evolution...what power
stops it or suspends it. What power can resume it. What's the nature of this power."
Hey, you did it! Even more nonsensical! What stops or suspends Evolution???? Uh.... a massive meteor impact, maybe, but life has even survived that. The sun expanding to a red giant and engulfing the earth- that would do it. Again, what in the name of holy hash are you talking about? You don't do a lot of thinking do you?
"Some without evidence of the origin of space & time would argue that it
MUST HAVE BEEN a scientific causation yet without even a rough idea what, they'd
ask us to have FAITH that it was scientific. Sounds religious to me if you
ask me. Instead, let's not get to far back in time...let's fast forward ignoring
some disconnects/inconsistencies of evolution along the way (that'll only confuse you more).
Instead, just take my word for it.
If we're gonna play it that way, how are we gonna ever argue when you've
rigged the table?"
Uh, sorry sport, but you obviously, like many others here, are arguing against something that you don't even understand. What disconnects or inconsistencies? Who is asking you to take their word on any scientific theory? THE WHOLE POINT OF SCIENCE IS THAT WE DON'T JUST TAKE ANYONE'S WORD ON SOMETHING. Do you even have the most rudimentary understanding of scientific methodology? Your lack of knowledge in this area is appalling. Please tell me what holes you think my posts have, because this should be fun.
I don't suffer fools well. If you are going to spout off denigrating opinions of something, then you had better damn well know what you are talking about. You clearly do not possess the requisite knowledge of science or Evolution to criticize the theory. It's no different, as I've said before, then denigrating a novel you have not read, or criticising the structural integrity of a building from the blueprints when you don't know how to read plans. If you don't want to be insulted, then ask questions. I respect those who want to learn. I have absolutely no use for those who have strong negative opinions about something they don't even understand and no interest in actually furthuring their knowledge. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:39:14 PM | | This is really good stuff .Please post again lazy. Please. | |
|
|
| Page 128 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 