|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/19/2007 8:48:06 AM | And Thank you 17 for not going to scriptures, as that would be off topic.
What we are looking for is Science, Please. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2007 7:58:22 AM | Hey just checking in and seeing how your debate is going...... hmmmmm no more takers since my last post....... nothing...... strange or is it.
Just to throw out a name that might be of interest to the people on the creationists side. Very interesting readings on this isssue I might say.
Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology, has emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and accessible apostles for the melding of science and religion. He first reconciled science and faith as different perspectives on a single whole in The Science of God. Now, in The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder takes a bold step forward, to show that science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for faith. Recent research in biology, chemistry, physics, and neuroscience contains unmistakable hints about the ultimate nature of reality. Simply put, we now know not only that behind matter lies energy, but also that behind energy lies wisdom. Scientists have touched on this wisdom in the laboratory, and its implications are awesome. From the wisdom encoded in DNA and analyzed by information science, to the wisdom unveiled in the fantastic complexity of cellular life, to the wisdom inherent in human consciousness, The Hidden Face of God offers a tour of the best of modern science. Schroeder makes no attempt to "prove" the existence of God. Yet his interpretations of the work of his fellow scientists touch on life's ultimate mysteries. His wise observations on the organization of organic life, on the power of humans to make sense of their sensory inputs, and on the complexities of the code of DNA all show that life has a direction and purpose that cannot be explained in purely physical terms. Throughout, he addresses three great themes: the question of first causes (i.e., where do the laws of nature come from?); the inseparability of mind and matter; and the philosophical problem of design. To believe that a designer must have been involved, he reminds us, we need not insist on perfection or on our view of perfection in the design. The Hidden Face of God will open a world of science to religious believers, and it will cause skeptics to rethink some of their deepest beliefs. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2007 8:11:34 AM | Just wanted to add:
Has Science
Discovered God?
A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his “Theology and Falsification”, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last 50 years. Over the decades, he published more than 30 books attacking belief in God and debated a wide range of religious believers.
Then, in a 2004 Summit at New York University, Professor Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have led him to the conclusion that the universe is indeed the creation of infinite Intelligence.
Has Science Discovered God? includes a 50 minute popular program and a 180 minute reference documentary exploring the interface between science and religion. In the shorter program, Flew is joined by two world authorities on the study of science and religion, Dr. Gerald Schroeder from Israel (formerly of MIT and the Weizmann Institute), author of the best-selling book The Science of God and Dr. John Haldane of St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, co-author of Atheism and Theism, a debate on God’s existence published by Oxford’s Blackwell publishing house. The participants address the origins of the universe, life, reproduction, consciousness, language and the mind and the existence of God. The program includes recordings of Flew’s presentations as an atheist. The longer documentary on the existence of God, the message of modern science and the roots of atheism features Haldane, Schroeder, and Professor Paul C. Vitz of NYU.
The narrator for the “Has Science Discovered God?” program is world-renowned journalist David Aikman, a senior and foreign correspondent for Time magazine for more than 23 years who has reported from five continents and 60 nations.
Program segments:
The Great Origin Questions
The Great Origin Events
The Discovery of God
*************I am sure this information will all be gone soon.*************** | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2007 8:21:43 AM |
17 again: ...show that life has a direction and purpose that cannot be explained in purely physical terms
...aside from the term 'evolution' which explains all those things.
17 again, instead of going on about some books or program segments or videos or movies or professors or magazines or publishers or universities or blah blah blah, perhaps you could tell us a little about the compelling evidence for creationism so we can get some discussion going. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2007 8:25:59 AM | I have found this very interesting video I think many will enjoy to see and hear what was said on whats going on today. Has "Science finds God" check it out! All Creationists and all who may want to see it and disprove it.
Heres some beef | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/23/2007 1:10:46 AM | Aparently this fourm is one sided. Okay, this'll be my second attempt at pointing this out (my last was deleted as off-topic, I guess). It's a one-sided issue: Creationism. It's not actually the thread title, it's the OP.
When views of someone of faith or called a creationist has a there views removed. Mine got dropped, too, so don't worry about it.
Its ok in this fourm for my beliefs to be called a myth. From the American Heritage Dictionary (sorry, the cover and pages with edition are all worn away): myth (mith) n. 1. A traditional story presenting supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world. 2. Any fictitious or imaginary story, person, or thing. 3. A notion based more on tradition or convenience than on fact.
Now, I don't know if I'll need to post the definition I have on hand for "mythology", but we'll see. And, I'm aware that this may get deleted, since I'm sure the Mods trust us to understand what we're talking about, but I'm going to give this a try. With regards to definition 1, while it's revered and believed more than many, the Bible, and the stories in it, to a degree fit this definition. As for 2, the creation story is regarded this way, particularly with regard to this thread. If someone has any information (read: facts) that places the narrative conclusively in the realms of reality and history, please share. Finally, and possibly most importantly, definition 3 is what we're all about, here. "Creation" needs to be presented as factual. That's the point of the OP, yes? Otherwise, it's only being referenced as a traditional account explaining (somewhat) what we see around us.
hmmmmm no more takers since my last post....... Takers of what? I didn't see a challenge, just a sense of persecution.
Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology, has emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and accessible apostles for the melding of science and religion. Hmm, there's one hasn't been brought up, yet. Haven't read either Science of God or Hidden Face of God, but they're both in the New Age section of my store. I'll have to check 'em out. Francis Collins' Language of God was a good one, too.
Simply put, we now know not only that behind matter lies energy, but also that behind energy lies wisdom. Before I read them, though, could you share some of the wisdom shown in DNA, the cell, etc.?
The Hidden Face of God will open a world of science to religious believers, and it will cause skeptics to rethink some of their deepest beliefs. One last question: why does this post read like, in fact exactly like a cut-and-pasted reprint of the publisher's introduction to the book? Oh, right, it is. Don't worry, I'll still read it, even if you didn't.
Then, in a 2004 Summit at New York University, Professor Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have led him to the conclusion that the universe is indeed the creation of infinite Intelligence. I'm under the impression I pointed out how inaccurate all this is. Should I do so again?
perhaps you could tell us a little about the compelling evidence for creationism so we can get some discussion going. Yes, please. I've tried to find some myself, and I just don't seem to be looking in any of the right places. All I keep coming up with is misinterpretations and gross misrepresentations of the implications of what little evidence exists.
I have found this very interesting video I think many will enjoy to see and hear what was said on whats going on today. Has "Science finds God" check it out! All Creationists and all who may want to see it and disprove it. Could you provide a link or a summary? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 8/4/2007 6:37:54 AM | The problem here is that we are talking about apples and peanuts. Evolution happens. Scientifically you can see it from the fossil record forward. Sometimes, evolution can occur in as little as one generation.
Science is science. It's not perfect and many "scientific" notions over the centuries have been proven to be incorrect.
On the other hand, religious belief resides in the realm of faith. And faith is the belief in things not seen or proven.
It makes no sense to teach creation, not because there may be or may not be a God or Creator, but because there are simply too many avenues of Faith. One could spend ones lifetime learning all the various notions of religion. Science on the other hand is much more focused. Much more teachable in the sense of fact. Perfect religion and perfect science should not be in conflict, truth is truth. But until we know all things it's just not practical to teach all the notions of religion.
People should let their hearts dictate what they want to learn about "faith", if anything. Let schools be for the teaching of the current appreciation of science. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/17/2007 7:12:29 PM | to the wise there is space for both.
Only average thinking people would go an extreme or the other.
You cannot ask a fish how it is to leave on the land.
You cannot ask a turtle how it is to leave in the ocean.
You have to have been both to really answer the question.
This, of course, is a philosophical answer. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/18/2007 5:30:55 PM | if you want to see what logic is being use to prove or dis prove evolution ...... cut and paste this into your web page ,and watch this
http://glumbert.com/media/peanutbutter
evolution being discredited by peanut butter | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/18/2007 6:02:14 PM | Utter crap. A perfect example of the "logic" behind creationism.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam - they know nothing, assume YOU will know nothing, and use that lack of knowledge to play on your gullability.
Also Straw Man fallacy.
As has been said many times in many threads: the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution deals only with how life changes, not how it originates. Not only do they prey on ignorance, while abundantly displaying their own, but they create a completely false argument. They never ONCE in that video actually deal with any facet of evolution.
With regard to their actual subject, abiogenesis, they arrive without evidence. Abiogenesis ends with simple, microscopic life, which is where evolution starts. No matter how many jars of pasteurized peanut butter you open, you will not SEE microscopic life. If you found it [you probably would - it's not likely to be completely sterile], the best you could do is show it to be an unknown species. There'd be no way to show if it was simply previously unknown, arose de novo, or was created by God. Ergo, no evidence at all.
If you wish to actually add evolution into the mix, evolutionary theory would not expect or predict the miraculous presence of complex macroscopic life to result so quickly after abiogenesis. That's actually more in line with creationism. So...the implications of that are staggering: If life arose instantaneously at God's hand, then surely ONCE, in all those pasteurized jars of peanut butter [and jam, and jelly, and honey, and canned beans...] SOMEone should have found a tree...or a mouse...or maybe just a little tiny lichen? Apparently not. Given those odds, I guess God didn't do it.
Let's add another wrinkle. The world is full of life, from high in the atmosphere to miles deep in rock. Any NEWLY originating life would be small and utterly defenseless. It would probably be eaten by something already here.
ANOTHER wrinkle: energy + resources is a very vague scenario. Abiogenesis has various hypothesized conditions, none of which exist in peanut butter, and are in fact scarce at all on Earth now. There have, however, been many experiments which have shown that these scenarios are possible. There can be no proof of which, if any, actually produced life here originally, but they do provide explanations which work. Creationism doesn't do this, it simply gives up at some random point and states "I can't explain it, so God [something ELSE I can't explain] did it". Lose the middle man and seek explanations.
God must have loved idiots; he sure was stingy with the gray matter.
edit * I wonder where they got the video. The dubbing screams "made in Japan". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/18/2007 10:34:58 PM | Worst argument ever, if fools weren't so willing to buy into it I'd think it was a joke.
I mean really. It's a whole ****ton of logical fallacies, but how lets start with one. It's a freaking weak analogy.
"The world is like peanut butter, and millions of years is like 10 seconds in this peanut butter jar"
I mean who makes this shit up? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/19/2007 7:08:58 AM | | Fundamentalist brain-washing morons with the IQs of dust bunnies make this stuff up. The scary part is that there are people who are actually even dumber that will believe it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/19/2007 8:00:11 AM | | And then God made bread and behold it was good. Then on the 2nd day He made butter. But man was not satisfied. Man prayer to God for something more. God said there shall be peanut butter. But man sinned wanting even more man created jelly. This displeased God and therefore God created Ants God said unto man thou has sinned. Therefore Ants shall ruin this that man has created. Let the Ant remind man that he has sinned. Woman shall be forever remind man that god punishes those that leve the jar open and the Counter unclean. Sorry is the man who displeases the woman in this manner. He shall never be at peace with his peanutbutter and jelly unto the last generation | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 9/24/2007 5:27:31 PM | | what sense do you make by questioning the reality of creation vs evolution. what is the point you're trying to reach? could it possibly be that you're questioning the existence of god? the only way you're gonna find the answer is to search within yourself. it is imposible to physically know the answer to creation, but evolution is obvious. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 9/24/2007 10:42:45 PM | Who the hell keeps bumping long-dead threads? Honestly, this thread has pretty much reaqched the limits that a discussion can reach... and note how there hasn't been any sort of epiphany or sudden, conclusive closing statement. Let this one go already.
By the way: LMAO @ Artz. That was awesome. :-P | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/25/2007 8:22:51 PM | Well then, for all you evolutionists, i have a question. If life on earth truly is 1.5 billion years old, as you say, there why are there so few dinosaur fossils? And why are there no transitional fossils? If evolution took place, then surely there would be obvious changes in the billions of fossils that should be lying there. Also, you compile your theoretical earth's history into one neatly drawn line. Though, where can i dig and find all your depicted fossils, all drawn in one neat line? The thing is - i cant. In many places in the world there are layers of fossils that completely contradict what you say, sometimes reversed, and sometimes showing layers from "millions" or years ago and quite recent fossils IN THE SAME ROCK STRATA. Can you explain that for me? Dont try and start spouting about tectonic forces, and plate movements because with plate movements, there would be obvious folds. The plates dont just lift up a few rock layers and put a whole new layer in there for the fun of it.
Think about it, you evolutionists arent as clever as you think you are. There are plenty of contradictions to your theory out there. And when correlated, there are more things pointing to creation than to evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/25/2007 9:30:48 PM | Well then, for all you creationist non-scientists:
Go back and read the FIRST 149 pages where ALL of this claptrap unscientific hearsay has already been refuted multiple times. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and creationists are truly blind where science is concerned. The rational voices obviously cannot force you to see what you cannot understand or will not see.
why are there so few dinosaur fossils?
Dealt with repeatedly. Fossils are basically rare, period. That said, there are HUNDREDS of recognized species of dinosaurs, sometimes in bone beds containing hundreds of specimens. All this limited to a period of a couple hundred million years, ending 65 MYBP, over a planetary life span of 4000 MY. You have an odd concept of "few".
then surely there would be obvious changes in the billions of fossils that should be lying there
Dealt with at length.
The changes ARE obvious. I'm sure there ARE billions of fossils...though they will only be found IF they died where they'll be quickly buried, buried for a long time, and subsequently eroded into view. It's amazing how much sediment builds up in a few million years - hundreds of meters in fact. Most of that isn't exposed to view. If you want billions of fossils, start digging.
and find all your depicted fossils, all drawn in one neat line
Why would they be found in one place? Most species are found over very large areas. Many modern species with small distributions would probably not be identifiable separately based only on bones, and many of these might only have a few specimens EVER encounter conditions to be fossilized.
sometimes reversed
Dealt with.
Rock layers get bent, broken, folded, pushed on top of one another. I have multiple photos of examples of this. Haven't had a chance to check, but odds are, I've posted at least one such photo already.
IN THE SAME ROCK STRATA
Dealt with.
This is simply false. Creationist propaganda, not actually supported by scientific evidence.
because with plate movements, there would be obvious folds.
Just a guess; mind you, but you don't live near any mountains, do you? I have photos not only of folds exposed in the sides of mountains, but entire mountains which ARE folds, or uplifted breaks, overthrusts, etc. Because you haven't seen the evidence certainly doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.
there are more things pointing to creation than to evolution.
Nothing containing any actual evidence or using any actual science. That would be apparent if you'd looked at the former and understood the latter. That's obviously not the case. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/25/2007 10:37:53 PM | | Anybody who states that they think the scientific evidence of the earths age is 1.5 billion years hasn't read any of the theories they pretent to be criticize. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2007 11:11:21 AM |
There are plenty of contradictions to your theory out there. And when correlated, there are more things pointing to creation than to evolution.
The first point is not relavent to the Question.
As to the second, Please,Please do tell.
The point of the OP is to find out what it is that Creationist want to teach. So if you have points that point to creation, Please present them. It would be most refreshing as we have not seen any yet. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2007 11:53:49 AM |
if you want to see what logic is being use to prove or dis prove evolution ...... cut and paste this into your web page ,and watch this
http://glumbert.com/media/peanutbutter
evolution being discredited by peanut butter
I found a tiny maggot looking like wormy thing in a peanut butter cup once. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 9/26/2007 2:22:01 PM | Obviously I haven't read the whole thread (150 pages!) but since that's never stopped me before, here goes:
I disagree with the assumption that modern science is somehow contrary to Genesis and disproves it. The quarrel between evolution and creationism seems to be taking place in a world utterly devoid of imagination, in which supposedly learned intellectuals and the most fundamental fundamentalists read Genesis with equal literalness and simplicity of mind.
Genesis can't be disproved by modern science, any more than modern science can be disproved by Genesis. The biblical story of creation and the science of evolution come from two radically different kinds of thought--two different kinds, even, of consciousness. The early chapters of Genesis welled up out of the deepest reaches of human imagination. They tell a story of great sanctity and beauty that has resonated throughout our culture for thousands of years. Evolutionary science, on the contrary, is rational and empirical, excluding by principle the sort of genius that gave us the Genesis story. Like all science, it's an attempt to deal with evidence that is available, and to limit itself to that evidence.
It's apples and oranges. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/27/2007 10:39:05 PM | Let's get this thread going again. I like evolution! Especially human evolution! It's neato! Sooooooooooo cool! Very amazing and interesting that the human species evolved from a lower order of non-sentient beings.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 1:31:34 AM | Just curious.
What was the evolutionary origin of speech? How did it happen?
What was the evolutionary origin of Algebra? How did it happen?
What was the evolutionary origin of music? How did it happen?
Just curious questions for the "scientists" among us in this thread.
Just curious. | |
|
|
| Page 150 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 
