|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/10/2006 7:44:00 PM | As soon as I heard the comment about evolution being false because apes still exist I knew this individual would contribute nothing to this discussion. There is really no way to reason with someone who states that "Evolution = Spontaneous Generation". This is a person who doesn't know what evolution is and doesn't think he has to know in order to refute it. If you don't think you have to know what something is in order to refute it, then you don't need to participate in this thread. You can argue with your make-believe friends in your mother's basement. I'm sure they miss you.
Intersting how Jam301 joined the site on the 10th, has had no involvement in this website other than activity in this thread, and has a completely blank profile. Accuses those simply numerating well reasoned arguments that he cannot understand of "talking sh*t" and then he turns around and says that others are being "harsh". Anybody smelling socks? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 9:48:57 AM |
You could look at the Yanomamo of the amazon, who were pretty much untouched by modern society until the late 20th century. They used hallucinogenic drugs during their religious rituals to communicate with spirit beings. This is pretty similar to some other Native American cultures that used peyote or tobacco for similar purposes, recently enough that its well documented. It's also known from other parts of the world, usually tribal societies.
Okay, point taken...the only thing is that the early Mesopotamians weren't tribal societies, as I understand it. They lived in cities. Which only means that if your theory is correct, they went against the norm...
As for the stuff about monatomic elements and mining in Africa, I don't know enough on the subjects to argue, so I won't.
Well, lemme just help you out there, the Physics of ORME (Orbittally Rearranged Monatomic Elements) is here: http://halexandria.org/dward471.htm
But be warned, it's from that website that has previously been glanced at and dismissed as being "like Scientology" by those who believe in their own absolute wisdom and knowledge...
As for the mining in Africa, I couldn't find anything online that would be considered "irrefutable". So, take that as you will. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 10:23:18 AM | But be warned, it's from that website that has previously been glanced at and dismissed as being "like Scientology" by those who believe in their own absolute wisdom and knowledge... The fact that I dismissed something as being essentially crackpot-based does not mean that I think my knowledge is absolute and perfect. It just means that, if its crazy enough, I can tell when something was written by a crackpot. That site has no scientific credibility. That doesn't mean that it isn't well written and entertaining. Its unfortunate that whoever created it doesn't simply right fiction (as fiction), because the person is obviously a talented writer.
Creativity,
Spoon bending,
Homeopathy and other health practices,
Karate,
Crop circles,
Tornadoes,
Free energy systems,
Advanced inertial propulsion systems,
And the list goes on and on.
Ah yes the "Universal Scientific Theory" which consists of Karate, ESP, and Crop Circles. Oh yah, I believe it. To be honest though, as nutty as it is, it still makes much more sense than the "Answers in Genesis" site. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 11:38:44 AM | The fact that I dismissed something as being essentially crackpot-based does not mean that I think my knowledge is absolute and perfect. It just means that, if its crazy enough, I can tell when something was written by a crackpot. That site has no scientific credibility.
But you make absolutist statements all the time. Note your constant use of the word "refute". That's an absolutist word. You can say a theory or belief is probably true or untrue, but you can't prove with 100% certainty that something is true or false. I think certainty is an idealized concept which doesn't exist in reality. Effective scientists don't work in absolutes. They realize that they work with models, that the map is not the landscape. They use words like "If..." alot.
And considering a lot on that site examines new science, it suggests to me that you didn't bother to look through it much. You saw the frontpage list of some of the subject matter, I'm guessing, and made a snap judgement based on your own personal belief-system.
As an agnostic, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, so, please give me some proof of how that site is not scientifically credible....it's part of the reason I take part in these discussion, to have my views challenged, so I don't accidentally become dogmatic and closed minded...I certainly don't want to fall into the trap of becoming a religious or scientific zealot.
To me, it seems to be a site of investigation, education, speculation and research. Not all of the articles represent Truth, whatever that might be, nor do they claim to. But all of them contain some truths. And you, by dismissing it as the work of crack-pots, are claiming a higher knowledge of reality. As if new discoveries by scientists, which question classic scientific models, are incorrect, and you seem to imply that anyone who considers the possibilty of their validity is a foolish idiot. And that seems overzealous, to me.
And as for your list, are you claiming that free energy systems research and advanced inertial propulsion systems have no validity? Does that mean you think the scientists at NASA are a bunch of crack-pots too?
As for homeopathy, I've seen it in action. It has scientific validity. What the problem with it is that there's no profit to the drug industry and it threatens the allopathic medical establishment.
To be honest though, as nutty as it is, it still makes much more sense than the "Answers in Genesis" site.
Amen to that, brother...at least you give me that much... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 12:28:11 PM | Hey, all:
Well, I too looked at the site and it looks like a lot of stuff that fell through the sieve of reason. It appears that they added some mainstream science to not lose all credibility. I'm sorry, but there is a great deal of ADHD and narcissism and a faraway look in the eyes of this site. And anyone who would attempt to piggyback on the real library at Alexandria is a crackpot, simple as that. He/she/they should go in sackcloth and ashes to any big research university library, fall on their knees, and ask forgiveness for their ignorance.
As an alternative www.talkorigins.org is one I didn't find but must have been among the messages here. I am sorry I can't give proper credit. If you are agnostic and want credible, rational, critical approaches to mythology and science, this is one place to start.
I think it is important to remember a principle called "Occam's Razor". Translated from Latin, it is "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". This basically means that the best explanation for any phenomenon is the simplest, while being consistent with all the observed facts. And the best is usually the correct one. The 'razor' is used to cut away all the nonsense, all the goofy explanations, all the poultergeists, all the outlandish theories, whatever is extraneous. Another, much more contemporary, overused way of stating it is: "keep it simple, stupid!"
Unifying theories are very suspect because they are simply too grand. They to reach too far. The most brilliant physicists in history can handle only 3 or 4 phenomena. That is another reason why science moves as slowly as it does--small bites, digested properly, everyone agrees, move on. Keep the razor handy--it won't cut you, but it will teach humility.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 1:38:18 PM |
And anyone who would attempt to piggyback on the real library at Alexandria is a crackpot, simple as that.
Why? Anything to back that up?
I mean, jeez...A lot of people into science seem to not know the difference between truth and opinion. Your opinions will probably not convince me. Proof might, though.
And that talkorigins site is pretty limited in its scope. It seems to just be targetting the Christian viewpoint, and it's stated aim is to rebute it. They are not agnostic. It's pretty biased, whereas the Halexandia site is an investigation into science, mathematics, physics, history, esoterica, social sciences, etc. and makes no claims of absolute truth, but does claim to seek it. You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by dismissing it with snide remarks. Maybe what your problem with the site is that they're not trying to disprove anything, especially in matters of esoterica, which from what I've seen appears to be the sole motive of those who identify themselves as being proponents of science.
But, aren't scientists supposed to have inquisitive, open minds? When did they change that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2006 4:10:26 PM | Howdie all,
This is a great topic. Must admit I didn't read many of the postings but here's my 2 cents. There is an interesting saying which goes something like this...There is a way that man thinketh right but leadeath to death. Although science gives us so much understanding it gives us way more questions than answers. Evolution, a scientific theory, is full of good rational concepts and theories but it's just not even close to the truth. God is the source of all our discoveries and truth. Truth is revealed little by little and unfortunatly when scientist or mankind get a little truth they just assume the rest or maybe that's unfair they reach in the dark and make conclusions that seem right with their present understanding but will lead to death or spiritual death that is. We are created but not in the way most understand the word created. We didn't come from nothing. The correct word is organized. We have always existed, us and God. We are all intelligences. The universe is made up of only two things which are intelligences and matter. Things that act upon things and things that are acted upon. Scientist are getting closer to knowing this with the studies in quantum mechanics and string theiory. Although we are all intelligences we are among or part of a spectrum of intelligences. The goal of all intelligences is happiness. Having all truth and being able to live with that knowledge brings happiness or fufillment. Thats the purpose of life. God is perfect and well alot more than that but we were orpanized so that we could be perfect like God someday. We must learn or grow in intelligence by using our free will on this world and in the life to come to develop righteous behavior. The purpose of our creation (organization) is to give us the opportunity to develop virtue to grow in wisdom and understanding. Like a weight lifter at the gym needs weights to grow muscle we need trials and temptations to grow our muscles of virtue. Well I'll just end by saying evolution is a pretty neat theory and well I must admit has pretty good convincing story and (too many ands if know) as some truth to it, it just wrong and for those who old on to those misconceptions too tightly it will lead to death. Spiritual death.
This is fun (please forgive the spelling mistakes and bad grammar) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 6:02:19 AM |
LIGHT travelling at great SPEED developing MASS creating ENERGY you GOOD.
Incorect.
The inverse of the equation is, MASS, traveling at SPEED, requires ENERGY. The equation you just ussed would meen that any lightsource would provide infinite amounts of energy, or become infinitely heavy. Be very carefull when reversing equations, it can be tricky if there is more than two components.
As for all the discusion on The mesopotamian society, I would love to correct everyones scewed views of this intresting and introcate society, but that is a discusion for a new thread if anyone wishes too???
Finnaly, I would still like to see some sort of evidence for Creation. We have no need to argue science here, because other than in some ignorant peoples minds, there is no argument, but creation remains unproven.
You know, that 8th presdient of the United states, George Washington got into office on the strength of his belife in "the new science" and how best to use it to serve mankind, and on his belife that all men were equal and free. He also belived that Religion was a private matter for the individual to decide and the state should have no involvment in it.
today in the US of A you have a president who belives that science is bad, religion should be forced upon the people, only americans are free and only christians are equal. Oh how far forwards you have come. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 7:13:29 AM | Fnord:
Refute = an absolute term? That is silly. Scientists do actually have to take clear positions on certain issues in the name of objectivity. Yes, theories are expressed as hypothetical probabilities, but all modern credible scientists dismiss mythology and magic categorically. It doesn't make them arrogant. It makes them honest and professional. You are confusing a person who has enough balls to call a spade a spade with a person who is foolishly arrogant and ignorant, that doesn’t show much maturity on your part, or honesty. You are essentially trying to defend your position by stating that because someone has taken a more clearly defined antithetical position they must inherently be wrong because they don't take your position seriously on account of its lack of merit.
Bright:
I'm guessing you were kidding, but....
The 8th President of the United States of America was Martin Van Buren and he was one of the nation's worst (Martin Van Ruin is how the nation remembers him). Religious freedom was mostly established by the third president, Thomas Jefferson. Though equality among races was specified in the Constitution it wasn't taken seriously until after the American Civil War due to the efforts of Abraham Lincoln (16th President).
I have tried to give the latest president the benefit of the doubt for the longest time. Unfortunately, at this point he has passed laws that contradict the entire Constitution, is laying the groundwork for the destruction of the economy while amassing the greatest debt the nation has ever known, and he has declared war on an abstract term: "terror", rather than an actual objective enemy in order to keep the nation in a state of near martial law so that he can get away breaking the law with a level of impunity not seen before. He says he taps our phones to catch the terrorists, but my guess is he does it to get dirt to black mail his political enemies and collect contributions from wealthy people that would otherwise not assist the Republican party if not for dirt the party might have on them thanks to said unconstitutional wire-tapping.
I'm sure if he could he would declare the Theory of Evolution to be heresy and would implement Creationism or its new name "Intelligent Design" as the replacement in the class room. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 7:21:34 AM | LIGHT travelling at great SPEED developing MASS creating ENERGY you GOOD.
Incorect.
The inverse of the equation is, MASS, traveling at SPEED, requires ENERGY. The equation you just ussed would meen that any lightsource would provide infinite amounts of energy, or become infinitely heavy. Be very carefull when reversing equations, it can be tricky if there is more than two components.
Not too mention light in a vacuum travels at a constant rate, 1,079,252,848.8 kilometres per hour, the cosmic speed limit of mass. The only time this velocity varies is when it travels through a medium such as glass. This however only slows the speed slightly. If light accumulated mass based upon speed; the universe would be one giant mass with no space in between. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 10:07:32 AM | Hey, all:
Though equality among races was specified in the Constitution...
OUCH!!
I certainly know, Lizard, from both the tone and content of all you write, that you really didn't mean this in all its implications, but the Constitution as written made two serious errors--one, not addressing slavery directly by abolishing it to start with, and, two, the enumeration of slaves in the census. Both are among the worst, most tragic mistakes in the Constitution and lead as you point out to the Civil War. You are right in general about racial equality, though--it just didn't apply to slaves.
I do agree with you completely, that if he could Bush would do what you suggest and much more, without getting into what he has already done, which would be even further off-topic.
I still have heard nothing from anyone that remotely offers proof of Creation. Still at the end of it all, there is a throwing up of the hands, and a shouting of "Hallelujah!! It must be JAYSUS!!" Even when discussing the natural selection of specific infinitesmally small physiological pathways, they reach a point where intellect and research just fail them--and they start quoting scripture!
One was the observation that one of the essential amino acids is part of the pathway for that acid. This leads of course to the 'chicken and egg' argument. With blinders on no one can see that there had to be a precursor in both cases. If they would step outside the tight circular argument they have built for themselves, they would see this precursor. Natural selection gave rise to the last non-chicken-like bird, and then the egg. Natural selection also gave rise to a phyisological pathway that produced the essential amino acid, and also gave rise to the pathway that incorporated it to start with. Of all the millions, perhaps 100s of millions of species which have become extinct, due to natural selection, there were pathways that also became extinct. We are of course accelerating extinctions and loss of pathways due to our mythology/religion-based justification of habitat destruction, which is, of course, if you haven't gotten it yet...based on myopic, religion-based arrogance and greed.
Evolution by natural selection: oh, I don't know--eleventy-godzillion; Creationism/Intelligent Design: ZEE-HEE-RO! [in the style of Jim Carrey]
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 10:44:11 AM | Refute = an absolute term? That is silly. Scientists do actually have to take clear positions on certain issues in the name of objectivity. Yes, theories are expressed as hypothetical probabilities, but all modern credible scientists dismiss mythology and magic categorically. It doesn't make them arrogant. It makes them honest and professional. You are confusing a person who has enough balls to call a spade a spade with a person who is foolishly arrogant and ignorant, that doesn’t show much maturity on your part, or honesty. You are essentially trying to defend your position by stating that because someone has taken a more clearly defined antithetical position they must inherently be wrong because they don't take your position seriously on account of its lack of merit.
First, I wanna say I agree fully with everything you said about Bush...but...
No, I'm saying that using terms like "foolish", "uncredible" and the like without providing any proof as to why my evidence is wrong, when much of it comes from scientists and archaeologists (unless you don't think archaeology is a credible science), is arrogant. I mean, I've asked you to answer various direct questions which you've completely sidestepped and ignored. And that really hurts my feelings, guy...
Look, that halexandria site I linked to had the best scientific explanation of monatomic elements that I could find on the internet (most of what I found was from sites who were selling the stuff online and so had an interest in protecting their process), but you dismissed it without looking at it, just because they had articles also about things like spoon bending. Which is something I'm guessing is bunkum but also, I'll leave some possibility open that science will discover some explanation for it. Haven't looked into it, not really interested. If I had linked to individual articles about NASA's research into warp drive, or Boeing's research into anti-gravity technology, would they have been credible enough for you? I didn't because those articles had no historical perspective.
And that's thrown me way off topic from what the intent of my first posting on here was...which I remembered while reading another thread...when I first brought up the Sumerian gods. The orginal point I was trying to make, in this Creation v. Evolution debate, is that the very concept of God has evolved over time. Or maybe that wasn't the point I was trying to make originally, I think I may have been trying to put forward the possibility of both positions being correct in a way, but, it is in part the reason I got into researching all this crap in the first place...but anyway, the point I'm making now is that the concept of god itself evolved through various cultures to finally stagnate in its current form when the Church came into being and a council of about 300 bishops voted on what went into the Bible and even whether or not Christ was the son of god. And, that council happened so that Emperor Constantine could consolidate his hold on power. Isn't it interesting that so many events in the Bible were the result of politics, including Christ's crucifixion (the only type of crime that resulted in that form of death under Roman law was sedition...religious unorthidoxy was punished by stoning), but the political realities of the day are glossed over.
See, this is what happens, I go off on tangents...
Interesting note: The word "heresy" came from the same root (forget which culture, possibly Greek) as the word "Choice" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/12/2006 11:48:33 AM | Sorry to have to tell you this MJR, but Washington was only the firstpresident of a FREE america, the american government was set up some time before America broke out of the Empire. The first president was John Hanson... (Or if you want to get realy technical you could stretch to say it was Peyton Randolph.) Washngton was the 8th president after John Hanson, who was the first person to officaly bear the title, "President of the United States". As for the equality bit, i'm not going by ratified acts here, just his personal belifes, obtained from private recourse with the Marquis de Lafayette. His religious belifies I was getting from his widely publicised but somewhat controvertial belife in Deism. I'm only going whith what i've read there, but no one has shown me evidence to the contrary so I will succede to the wisom of those more nowlegebal in his life than I.
Now. I always say, that if you wish to understand a subject, you should views it from the other side of the fence, so I think I shall try.
I will try to use the Inteligent Design view, as I truely can not put myself in the head of someone who belives in Creation.
(Parraphrased from an ID website.)
Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompletenes theorem for theories about the origin of life.
Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system.
Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature.
“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source other that physics and chemistry.
Ok, you who wish to dispute ID, kindly dispute that, so that I may mock your absurdly small brains! hehehe
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/13/2006 1:49:39 PM | Freedom of religion....
Evolution as a theory.....
Sorry to have to tell you this MJR, but Washington was only the firstpresident of a FREE america Sorry to have to tell you this Bright, but Washington was the first president of the United States of America and whatever associations existed before what you refer to as the "free America" are completely irrelevant in this context. Arguing against George Washington being the first president of the United States of America is simply obtuse and silly.
I certainly know, Lizard, from both the tone and content of all you write, that you really didn't mean this in all its implications, but the Constitution as written made two serious errors--one, not addressing slavery directly by abolishing it to start with, and, two, the enumeration of slaves in the census. Both are among the worst, most tragic mistakes in the Constitution and lead as you point out to the Civil War. You are right in general about racial equality, though--it just didn't apply to slaves. This is true, but the Constitution and Declaration of Independence did make a general statement about equality. It just contradicted itself (article IV, section 2). Sort of like in "Animal Farm" when it was stated that "all animals are equal" and later qualified with "but some animals are more equal than others." This was not corrected until the 13th ammendment.
The Bill of Rights of the United States is germane to this discussion, as it clearly illustrates a position of non-interference between personal religion and the Federal Government. Theological positions should not be endorsed one way or the other by the government. Creationism is a theological position. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/23/2006 5:18:20 AM |
Arguing against George Washington being the first president of the United States of America is simply obtuse and silly.
But I like Obtuse and Silly!
I mearly wished to, in a roundabout way, point out that perspective is the most iportant thng when arguing a point of view (such as I,D,). I could prove that washington was the 8th person to be called "the pressident of the united states of america in congress assembled" because the ducumented evidence proves that he was. But from the point of view of the almost everyone alive, he was the first pressident of the united states as it was under his predency that the united states became an independent country and not just another part of the colonies. He was indead the first president of the country of the united states of america.
Its all about perspective, trying to look at it from the point of view of I,D, I realised that if I forgot what I knew about science, as most people don't know such things, It all became fuzzy, there in lies the rub. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/23/2006 3:28:03 PM | Hey, all:
Yes, Raziel, I see your point. It also illustrates how details can get lost in what we call "conventional wisdom" which though it may be true, misses or obscures details. It also illustrates how historians can be biased even to the point of being propagandists or revisionists, ignoring that it took a lot of effort to find a formula for government that worked. Much easier and heroic to say, "Right the first time! A miracle! Truly blessed by GAWD!" It even illustrates how, when someone wants or needs to, they can argue minutiae and technicalities ad nauseum, obscuring the real argument and preventing its resolution.
I personally think the Creationism/Intelligent Design proponents do this habitually, maybe without realizing it. It is done in cases where a position one supports is weak, tenuous, or without merit at all. But doubt created is clarity and resolution denied, while they seek other avenues to do their damage. The current stem cell research issue is a perfect example: create doubt, while manipulating the softheaded, egotistical, and narcissistic, i.e., Bush, plus those who haven't the information or background to tell when they are being lied to and manipulated, i.e., the every day people who think being a Christian is their best choice in life. The damage is tragic in both cases, only in Bush's case it is highly dangerous.
So it is important to recognize when this happens and repudiate it, whether it is us or them. Don't practice it, and don't indulge those who do.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2006 10:43:00 AM | That is way off topic.
Creationism and Evolution, not obscure string theory and quantum mechanics and their absolute hypothetical conclusions.
Evolution does not deal with what the phenomena you are claiming it does. It does not concern absolute origin of all matter in the universe. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/20/2006 8:21:20 PM | You can't prove either.
I happen to believe in God but creation/intelligent design has no place in the schools.
Spiritual matters are for the church or the contemplation of the individual in private.
We have intelligence and we need empirical knowledge to live our lives and solve the problems in our world. We can only hope that everyone on the planet, creationists and evolutionists, will strive to make the world a better place. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2006 8:18:53 PM |
I think it has also been stated many times that Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Therefore since Creationism deals with the origin of all matter and the abiogenesis event, there is no real Creationism vs Evolution controversy. Creationism deals with those things that evolution doesn't so why do Evolutionists keep debating aspects which their discipline has no opinion on?
Theoretical biology also addresses the question of evolution and abiogenesis, but I agree that the argument is better taken up by a physical or an organic chemist.
However, Creationsim doesn't always limit itself to the origin of life. The discipline spans from believers in a young Earth (6000 years old) to believers in a literal and physical creation of animals and man as they exist on Earth today.
The problem is not that there is no way to reconcile science and religion - the problem is when a religious explaination for a physical phenomenon is put forward to displace scientific theory. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2006 8:43:19 PM |
The problem is not that there is no way to reconcile science and religion - the problem is when a religious explaination for a physical phenomenon is put forward to displace scientific theory.
Scientific theories of our origins were not invented when Darwin came on the scene. It was the Evolutionary theory that attempted to displace the biblically based Origins model and being that the "religious explanation" is still accepted by a significant percentage of the population it isn't being put forward to displace since in fact, it preceded the Evolutionary model. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2006 8:58:13 PM |
Scientific theories of our origins were not invented when Darwin came on the scene. It was the Evolutionary theory that attempted to displace the biblically based Origins model and being that the "religious explanation" is still accepted by a significant percentage of the population it isn't being put forward to displace since in fact, it preceded the Evolutionary model.
Temporal precedence is irrelevant in the discussion of thought or technology. Models of natural phenomena have to change to incorporate new information, so they are by definition fluid (or, if you'll forgive the term, evolutionary).
When two thoughts exist in conflict and competition, each tries to displace the other. There's no morality to the process of displacement itself - "I was here first" is not a sufficient argument.
The foundation of Christianity itself displaced the Jewish theology of a Chosen people by extending the New Covenant to all mankind. Mosaic law likewise displaced Abrahamic with the foundation of the Covenant. The heliocentric model of the solar system displaced the geocentric model.
The scientific method is favored because it not only allows for this sort of displacement, it is built upon it. Like the democratic system of government, it incorporates the view that human knowledge is fallible.
Creationism and evolutionary models are trying to displace one another. Yes, the creationist models came first (and it is models, plural, since most cultures and belief systems have an explaination for the origin of life and matter that are internally consistant with the rest of the belief system), but the evolutionary paradigm is ascendent.
Call it "Philosophy, red in tooth and nail" if you'd like... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/22/2006 9:06:18 PM | I think it has also been stated many times that Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Therefore since Creationism deals with the origin of all matter and the abiogenesis event, there is no real Creationism vs Evolution controversy. Creationism deals with those things that evolution doesn't so why do Evolutionists keep debating aspects which their discipline has no opinion on? Creationism taken literally contradicts most scientific disciplines, and all of them in principle (belief before and without proof). There aren't too many scientists that dedicate their time to "displacing Creationism". They don't care about it. Yet there are an awful lot of religious fundamentalists who would burn every book that logically, scientifically, or historically contradicts the ol' King James.
Its not the scientists that attack the fundamentalists, but the other way around. Just look at history. People who acknowledge the substance of evolution simply don't appreciate thier views being attacked. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2006 1:42:00 PM | | There is NO.....That's Zero......nada.....Zip....."proof" of Evolution! A silly theory that remained a theory! ridiculous in fact! | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3674 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/23/2006 2:56:07 PM | There is NO.....That's Zero......nada.....Zip....."proof" of Evolution! A silly theory that remained a theory! ridiculous in fact!
A. This is not the topic of the thread. See: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts5081167.aspx
B. Evolution isn't a theory, it is a scientific fact.
C. The theory of natural selection is the scientific theory (the specific meaning of "Theory" is of the idiom definition of science), that explains the scientific fact of evolution.
D. No peer review science journal considers creationism/ID anything other than theology, it is not a science.
E. US courts consider creationism/ID theology, not science, in fact they recognize it as a ploy to get religious views into school cirricula, via deceit.
F. The question posed by this thread is not "Is evolution correct", ....it is "Does Creationism belong in a science cirriculum".
If you have any doubts as to the topic of this thread, I suggest you at least read the first page (OP). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/24/2006 8:27:55 AM | Okay, the following post is NOT off topic if a person actually reads it before jumping to a conclusion. The point I am trying to make is that many aspects of religious doctrine are valid in their own right, but not as scientific fact and therefor should not be taught in public schools as science.
i agree with evolution but until the missing link is discovered it reamins theory and not fact its that simple Evolution is not a chain with links. Punctuated equilibrium and the branching nature of biological descent have already been explained in this thread in depth (about twenties times). The existence of biological evolution is a scientific fact, the exact mechanisms of the process are where there are different theories. So you are wrong.
Evolution is taught in public schools because it has a scientific basis. It does not involve theology and teaching it to children does not threaten their religious beliefs. In elementary school they also don't teach that people can walk on water, exist in the bowels of whales, rise from the dead, nor magically transform one fish into one thousand. That doesn't mean the educational system is assaulting Christianity. Religious parables are not addressed by science.
You need to be intelligent enough to understand that the majority of all religious stories are abstract parables with moral lessons and are not meant to be taken as literal historical fact. You can appreciate the gist of fables like: “Noah’s Ark” without having to believe that the entire Earth was submerged in water. It’s a story about a civilization that does not respect nature (an expression of God) or morality. Since these arrogant people believe they don’t need to respect the laws that pertain to both they succumb to disaster (remind you of Global Warming?). This is a very good story and its point is quite valid: the folly of believing nature is subordinate to man’s will. Does that make it science? No. Is its historical accuracy relevant one way or the other? No. Should fables like this be taught as science in public school? No. Does that make them invalid? ABSOLUTELY NOT. | |
|
|
| Page 147 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 
